Politics in a Small Town

---

Following itemized list contain the results of the query asked in Gemini 2.0 Flash, Google’s newly released AI updated platform “What kinds of corruption do small city governments experience?”

I have simply cut and pasted Gemini’s answer here:

“Small city governments often face unique corruption risks due to their limited staff, lack of oversight, and the close-knit nature of the community. Because "everyone knows everyone," the lines between professional duty and personal friendship can easily blur.  

Here are the most common types of corruption found in small municipal governments:

1. Financial Crimes (Theft of Public Funds)

In many small towns, one person may handle multiple financial duties (like the Treasurer and Clerk), which removes the "segregation of duties" necessary to catch fraud.  

• Embezzlement: Directly stealing or misdirecting public funds for personal use. A famous example is the $53 million embezzlement by the comptroller of Dixon, Illinois.  
• Skimming: Taking small amounts of cash before it is recorded—often from parking meters, utility payments, or permit fees.  
• Payroll Fraud: Creating "ghost employees" or inflating overtime hours for friends and family.

2. Nepotism and Cronyism

In smaller populations, the pool of candidates for jobs or contracts is small, leading to favoritism.

• Patronage Appointments: Giving city jobs to political supporters or friends rather than the most qualified candidates.  
• Nepotism: Hiring relatives for city positions, which often leads to poor performance and a lack of accountability.  
• Cronyism: Awarding lucrative city contracts for construction, landscaping, or legal services to "buddies" without a fair bidding process.  

3. Regulatory and Land Use Abuse

Local officials hold significant power over property values and business operations through zoning and licensing.  

• Zoning "Pay-to-Play": Accepting bribes or campaign contributions in exchange for changing zoning laws (e.g., turning a residential lot into a commercial one for a developer).
• Permit Expediting: Taking small "grease payments" to move a building permit to the top of the pile or to ignore code violations.
• Selective Enforcement: Using city inspectors or police to harass a political rival’s business while ignoring violations at a friend’s business.

4. Conflicts of Interest

This is arguably the most common issue in small towns.

•. Voting on Personal Interests: A city council member

voting to approve a road project that happens to run right

by a piece of land they own.  

• Inside Information: Using "insider" knowledge of future city plans to buy property before its value spikes.”

What does this mean for Snohomish?

Research on actual small city corruption examples, which I also did but will leave to you to pursue on your own, yielded some truly astonishing, almost unbelievable, perpetrator-enriching frauds; like the $53 million, decades long embezzlement mentioned above. While these examples are the poster-children of small city fraud, I assume there is a spectrum of small city frauds of descending egregiousness not reported, until you get to low levels that go unreported or undiscovered.

Fraud is ubiquitous these days in both the private and public arenas. Prevention through vigilance is really the only protection. Fraud is almost impossible to undo or recover damages. In reality, this will be almost impossible for city residents to monitor, and extremely compromising for city employees to be responsible for ensuring.

If I were to highlight areas of concern for Snohomish over the coming four years they would be:

Watch for payback for real estate developers who helped our newly elected mayor win election with their privately paid for mailers to all Snohomish voters in the last 10 days of the campaign. Favors being honored, so to speak. In the bulleted list above you can see a number of potential areas where their interests could be prioritized over that of the voters or their competitors.

Hoffman’s proposal to buy an unsuitable property off Bickford Avenue as the better alternative civic campus was an odd event during the election campaign. It hints at a willingness to do financial favors for friends and supporters to the detriment of the voters, while betraying a weakness or laziness in critical thinking.

Hoffman’s statement that ALL the incumbent Council Members needed to be replaced with his chosen candidates, otherwise he would be hampered in achieving his agenda, remains a worry. His agenda has never been defined. But it is easy to see how having a clear majority of council members would allow a mayor to propose zoning changes, make property purchases, and be able predict, with some likelihood, property value appreciation.

We are seeing the mayor make very generously open handed salary offers, which are superfluous. Paying at or slightly above competitive rates is the target smart money managers aim for. Both Ken Klein and Teamsters represented workers have been gifted with pay guarantees far in excess of competitive pay rates. In addition to poor financial management, this hints at buying loyalty, at the expense of taxpayers.

While not fraud, but discrimination: we are losing talented professional women in leadership from our city government…again. John Kartak’s administration saw the departure of four long term management level women.  With this new administration, the two pushed out to date, City Administrator and Public Works Director, will likely not be the last. Losses could extend to the city’s contracted legal services. Watch to see if women pushed out of city government are replaced by men, or leave only men in place.

Fraud is difficult to prove and prosecute, unless it is flagrantly obvious and undeniable. But there is a way to monitor the effectiveness of the incoming administration. Watch the bottom line: the city publishes quarterly financial statements.  

At the end of September, 2025, there was a general fund balance of $6.64M. The total of all fund balances was $43.5M, anticipated to exit 2026 at $26.9M, due to scheduled expenditures on projects, primarily the Public Safety and Civic Services Campus. In other words the fund balances, and anticipated revenues, are earmarked for city improvements which have been planned, reviewed, approved by council and scheduled. Let’s see if they get done.

The planned projects for 2026 and into 2027:

• Start of construction of the Public Safety and Civic Services Campus, following completion of the Fire District building.
• SR 9- Marsh Road to Second Street widening, to begin in Spring 2026 with construction of the new southbound Snohomish River bridge, from summer 2026 through 2027.
• First Street Pedestrian Safety and Enhancements in 2026.
• Bickford Avenue Transportation Improvements in 2026.
• Intersection and Roadway Upgrades for Seventh Street and Avenue D; and Avenue A between Second Street and Thirteenth Street.
• Final First Street Master Plan to be presented in late 2025 or early 2026 guiding subsequent design and construction phases.
• Utility infrastructure Improvements in 2026 and 2027. Ongoing work for the North Sewer Trunk Line and the Champagne Lift Station improvements.

In addition there are a number of county projects that are scheduled in and around the city of Snohomish that will require city involvement and coordination.

The Redmon administration left the city in fabulous shape.

Let me gently remind you that the money the city spends on salaries, on projects, and on services is taxpayer money. You have paid to the city, through fees and taxes, the funds the city uses for the work they do. You have a responsibility to make sure your city government uses those funds prudently.  There should be something that improves this city, your experience of it, and that of others, to show for in the end.

Finally, all Council Members are at-large; that means you can contact any one, combination, or all, for an issue you wish to have considered, or a concern you have . Familiarize yourself with their email addresses. The city should be notifying residents of issues of interest and asking for feedback. Be heard. Volunteers are frequently requested for citizen panels. Consider volunteering. Get Involved. Stay informed.

The Daniel J. Evans School of Public Policy & Governance (University of Washington) offers both undergraduate and graduate degrees in Public Administration. Their graduating classes provide highly and competitively sought after municipal and mission driven administrators. Larry Baumann, our former City Manager, fired by John Kartak in his first weeks as mayor about 8 years ago, was a graduate of the Executive Master’s of Public Administration program.  The reason for his firing?  Kartak felt he functioned as unelected mayor who did not live in the Snohomish.  The reality?  He was hired by a consensus of City Council, who represented the residents.

The UW Dan Evans School, while not providing a single, codified list, emphasizes several key attributes of good municipal (local) governance through its mission, values, and program focus.

These attributes center on leadership, public service values, evidence-based decision-making, and an equitable approach to addressing societal problems.

The Evans School's educational and research focus suggests that good municipal governance is characterized by:

* Public Service Values and Integrity:

* Commitment to the public interest with accountability and transparency.

* Acting ethically to uphold the public trust.

* Demonstrating respect, equity, and fairness in dealings with citizens and fellow public servants.

* Evidence-Based Decision Making and Policy Analysis:

* Cultivating a methodological toolkit that integrates diverse evidence into policymaking.

* Using data and scientific methods to make sound public decisions and design effective policies.

* Employing rigorous analysis and program evaluation to assess effectiveness.

* Equitable and Inclusive Policy Implementation:

* Addressing issues like institutional discrimination, racial bias, and economic inequality.

* Engaging marginalized communities in governance and prioritizing equity-centered approaches to move toward inclusivity.

* Designing policies that are responsive to human behavior and social context.

* Effective Leadership and Management in a Complex Context:

* Possessing strong communication, management, and leadership skills to navigate complex, networked environments with competing stakeholder interests.

* The ability to design and manage resilient and diverse partnerships across public, non-profit, and private sectors (collaborative governance).

* Understanding the local context and culture and connecting local issues to national and global developments.

* Resilience and Adaptability:

* Developing the ability to build resilience to overcome challenges unique to local contexts.

* Responding with awareness, equity, effectiveness, and agility in high-stress settings.

In essence, the Evans School prepares leaders for municipal governance who are not only analytically rigorous and financially astute but also deeply committed to equity, public service, and collaborative problem-solving to address 21st-century urban challenges.

I believe our City Council, led by Mayor Redmon, has delivered results that align with these goals. And while we have no graduates of UW’s Dan Evans School now, and can not realistically expect one soon,  we have every right to demand that good governance continue.