On Feb. 10, the Federal Way City Council held a meeting where members voted on removing the then City Council President, Martin Moore, from his position as president due to concerns regarding misuse of platform and partisanship. This vote occurred in the wake of a FaceBook post Moore made with comments regarding student walkouts in Federal Way. While this vote is painted as being presented with partisanship in mind, the subliminal messaging here is alarming. 

Moore’s removal from his position as president sends a clear message: Even in the city of Federal Way, located in what many refer to as a “sanctuary state,” making statements that align with anti-I.C.E. sentiments can have harsh consequences. 

For context, Moore posted on Feb. 3 to his “Councilmember Martin Moore, Federal Way” Facebook page. His post read, “… I am deeply concerned about I.C.E. activity. While we do not have confirmation that I.C.E. has been present in Federal Way, I fully support our students’ right to peacefully protest and exercise their First Amendment freedoms. Our young people are clearly feeling fear and uncertainty, and that is heartbreaking. I am proud of them for using their voices, and I stand with them. If you’d like to join them, please PM me.”

This post makes a claim that shows support for constituents exercising their constitutional rights, addresses valid emotions of fear that are felt amongst constituents, and expresses support and pride for young people who are using their voices. 

The motion for Moore’s removal was presented by Councilmember Linda Kochmar and seconded by Councilmember Jack Walsh. Councilmembers Melissa Hamilton and Susan Honda were joined by Kochmar and Walsh in voting to rescind the council president vote. After Moore was stripped of his president title, Honda was selected as the new City Council President. 

High school students who participated in the walkout were outraged by such a motion. Students showed up for public comment in support of Moore. “Adults like Moore remind us that even though it’s frightening and unsafe, fighting for my peers and their families every day is our civic duty,” said Gale Miller, a student from Federal Way High School who participated in the I.C.E. walkout and contributed to public comment at the Feb. 10 meeting. In total, 58 people contributed a public comment in favor of keeping Moore as president, while 15 were made about removing Moore. 

According to Kochmar, this motion was “… not to take political stances. We’re talking about administration of this council and who is to represent this nonpartisan council to do the work for you.”

While nonpartisanship is important, Councilmember Les Sessoms brought up an important rebuttal to such a statement. “He did what leaders are expected to do. He amplified the voices of constituents who are expressing fear, frustration and a call for humanity. That’s not misconduct, that is representation.”

Kochmar and the council members who voted with her claim that it wasn’t just the FaceBook post that led to this motion. “Multiple conflicts of interest exist and the line between those rules has become very blurred,” according to Hamilton. While these council members are saying that it wasn’t just the FaceBook post, many community members took it that way, especially considering that the post was made and just a week later, the special meeting was held. 

Even if the post was just the straw that broke the camel’s back, stripping Moore of his title as president seems to be an extreme measure for comments that merely support young constituents in their endeavors as politically active people. Councilmembers should not face consequences for supporting young people who engage in their constitutional rights. Whenever young people get involved in issues of a larger scope that can often feel frightening, that should be applauded, especially by the people who represent us! 

Moore’s removal was uncalled for and it should be seen for exactly what it is: A political stunt that inches Federal Way closer to aligning with the Trump administration’s immigration policies. What’s so “nonpartisan” about that?