Resident Challenges Woodinville City Councilmember's Residency Status

"I respectfully request that Woodinville officials suspend Scott Hageman’s councilmember compensation until he is in compliance with residency requirements," said Dale Knapinski in a letter delivered to city staff Thursday.

A Woodinville resident delivered a letter to Woodinville City Hall Thursday questioning whether Woodinville City Councilmember Scott Hageman is qualified to remain in office, according to Dale Knapinski, who provided Patch with a copy of the letter he delivered.

Last week at a regular council meeting, Hageman was questioned by Woodinville Mayor Bernie Talmas about Hageman's primary place of residency after learning Hageman had purchased a home in Kirkland. Councilmembers must live in the city they serve.

Knapinski said he is requesting the city to take reasonable measures to protect the validity of council action since there is a serious question as to the qualification of a councilmember.

"It’s a request to verify that tax funds are being spent for legitimate purposes since Scott Hageman may not be qualified to receive compensation," he wrote in an email to Patch.

Woodinville City Attorney Greg Rubestello said last week it's not a matter the council can decide, but that a residency challenge can be made by city resident or county prosecuting attorney. Click here to read the story posted after last week's meeting.


The letter follows:

Dear Woodinville City Attorney, Woodinville councilmembers, and Woodinville taxpayers:

During the 02/12/2013 Woodinville council meeting, councilmember Scott Hageman stated that he moved from his principle residence off Woodinville/Duvall Road and that he had leased another principle place of residence not far from where he used to live. By his own words, Scott Hageman no longer lives at the address where his current voter registration states he does. Scott Hageman is therefore not in compliance with State law regarding residency requirements, and is no longer qualified to receive compensation for councilmember duties. Woodinville City Attorney, Greg Rubstello, stressed the importance of addressing councilmember qualifications in a timely manner, and the Woodinville council should take his advice. http://woodinville.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=746

I respectfully request that Woodinville officials suspend Scott Hageman’s councilmember compensation until he is in compliance with residency requirements, is deemed qualified to retain a position on the Woodinville council, and is entitled to compensation. I further request that the Woodinville council, by resolution, demand that the City Attorney investigate Scott Hageman’s residency from August 1st, 2012, to date, and advise the council as to the options available for assuring that Scott Hageman is in compliance with residency requirements. (See RCW 35.23.111 City Attorney Duties) http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=35.23.111

Although it may not be up to the Woodinville council to rule on residency issues per se, it is the job of the council to be a good steward of tax funds and to determine if there is a risk of wasting city resources reviewing the status of past votes by a councilmember who might later be deemed unqualified to hold office.

Attached is a record of Scott Hageman’s Kirkland mailing address, which is a residence in Kirkland that is owned by Scott (Stanley S.) and his wife. Also attached is Scott’s current voter registration, which lists his residence as the home “Off Woodinville/Duvall Road” where Scott stated he no longer resides. As of today, Scott Hageman’s voter registration shows him "residing" at his house on Woodinville/Duvall Road but his mailing address is a Kirkland house. Scott updated his mailing address but the fact that he didn't update his residence address suggests INTENT to misinform the Washington Secretary of State and King County Elections about his actual abode.

The laws:

RCW 42.12.010(4) -- "Elective office shall become vacant" . . . when . . . "his or her ceasing to be a legally registered voter of the . . . city"


RCW 29A.04.151 -- "'Residence' for the purpose of registering and voting means a person's permanent address where he or she physically resides and maintains his or her abode."


RCW 29.08.810(1)(c) -- "Registration of a person as a voter is presumptive evidence of his or her right to vote. A challenge to the person's right to vote must be based on personal knowledge of one of the following . . .

(c) The challenged voter does not live at the residential address provided . . . "

Thank you,

Dale Knapinski

Like Woodinville Patch on Facebook Follow us on Twitter | Sign up for our daily newsletter

Gail February 24, 2013 at 10:29 PM
Who said the major is acting as judge and jury? He just stated FACTS that Scott did not deny. So far, hasn't supplied his LEGALLY required address has he Don? Avoidance is a giveaway. Attempting to divert this as if it's complicated is another giveaway. I must be a genius to figure this out .. NOT. Why make us waste all this tax payer money when Honesty and Ethics would quickly answer the question Scott? Produce the documentation. The RCWs clearly states that his position is automatically VACATED if he's not a registered voter in Woodinville. Just like when you see a speed limit sign that says 25 and you are going 50, you are violating the law. Where does it say that we can't opine here? It doesn't - you are expressing an opinion Don-ut that is incorrect, much as you might think that you are a genius. Mr Hageman has refused to follow the law up to this day. Anyone can see this.
Gail February 24, 2013 at 10:36 PM
Nancy, I'm a practical woman. I can READ plain English. Scott is not eligible to be a city councilman. Why don't you quote me the RCW that shows I'm wrong? Because you can't. Who's talking about Rubstello? And now you are claiming to know more than the City Attorney? Without a single RCW to quote. Yet here you make claims without a single factual reference. That's very telling. You need to talk to Don-ut. He says you can't even express your opinion here. USENET rules I guess. What's Scott's address and WHEN did he move there? Does anyone know? Timing is everything here.
Nancy Cunningham February 24, 2013 at 10:58 PM
Scott stated that the Kirkland house was purchased basically for his wife and that his wife and son live there, can you prove otherwise? Scott stated that he does not consider himself a resident of Kirkland; can you prove he is not telling the truth? Scott said he moved to another location not far from his Woodinville home, can you prove he is being untruthful? Scott was accused of not being a registered voter. But Scott is registered at a Woodinville address, and all he did was fail to update his address, just like thousands of other people do when they move. Scott did not vote illegally in any election due to his neglecting to update his address. All this stuff about Scott not being a Woodinville resident was brought up by the mayor without any evidence at all. Scott does not have to defend himself against rumors. Being accused of loan fraud in public is a horrible way to treat a public official. Where is the proof that Scott did anything illegal? I think Scott should sue the mayor for slander.
Ron Olson February 24, 2013 at 11:23 PM
If you sue somebody for slander, and it turns out that the accusation was actually factual, you are going to lose in court. The best thing that could happen is for Scott to sue somebody in civil court, where witnesses are compelled to testify about all relevant issues, such as statements made on loans. Go ahead and sue the mayor. I want to be there when Scott’s laundry is hung out to dry along with Scott.
Gail February 24, 2013 at 11:34 PM
Yup, we can believe anything Scott Hageman says, right? That's a funny argument. Reminds me of someone that I heard was drunk at council meetings. Can you prove he doesn't live there? That is just as valid a question as yours Nancy. Mine is actually more factual. We KNOW he bought a house in Kirkland with him on the title. That says a lot. We KNOW he goes there. You have what evidence exactly? Where are the legal facts you claimed that back you up? Where's the LEASE? Where's the registration? I'm going to love it when he lies where and when he actually lives. Lucy did that before, but not this time. Do you think Scott has the round thing to do this? Let me lay it out in simple terms: It's utter simple for Scott to prove where he lives. Why didn't he? WHEN did he do the lease? Why did he state that this was his primary residence on the loan app? He's on the legal deed at King County. Isn't it wonderful how all this information is public now. Facts, not imaginary tales. He changed his P.O. box and yet failed to update his most important address for his voter registration. Yeah, such a busy guy. I'm sorry officer, I was busy texting and didn't notice the speed limit. Did you know Woodinville is selling bridges on the cheap? Great investment.
Gail February 24, 2013 at 11:37 PM
FYI: Look up 'slander'. Typical layman statements - check with Don-ut before more posts.Did the Major state anything that was not true as 'fact'? What harm did that do to Scott? Basic knowledge. If that house isn't his primary residence and the loan app asks if it is and he publicly stated that it isn't his primary residence, then that would be loan fraud wouldn't it? (Although major never said anything about loan fraud -you did because it's THAT obvious - even to you.) OOPS. He's sort of stuck on this one. I'd take the cheaper alternative and resign.
Nancy Cunningham February 25, 2013 at 12:32 AM
A couple weeks from now this whole thing will be forgotten. Nobody cares if Scott failed to update his voter registration. Nobody has the time or money to investigate some poor guys marital problems on behalf of a couple nut bags making politically based complaints. Sorry to inform you that even if you were entitled to a copy of the loan documents for Scott's properties, they wouldn't prove a thing as far as his legal residence goes. His loan is a matter between him and his lender, not you, not Woodinville officials, and it's not an election issue. Noboody cares, nobody will investigate this, nothing will come of it, nobody did anything wrong, his votes will not be invalidated, and Scott will remain a council member.
Ron Olson February 25, 2013 at 02:51 AM
I do not consider myself a resident of Kirkland...at this time. Maybe when I signed loan documents, and possibly when I changed my mailing address, and there was a slight chance when I spent a few weeks there..naaaa, I don't consider myself a resident of Kirkland. I kinda sorta live in somebody's office closet someplace in Woodinville, possibly. I will prove it to you, that's the lease I can do for you...
Gail February 25, 2013 at 02:53 AM
So now it doesn't matter that a councilman is NOT legally registered to be a councilman? WOW. Desperate times call for desperate statements. The question is if he actually had a primary residence in the City limits since August 12, 2012. The PUBLIC paper trail shows he lived in Kirkland. That he may not now is not the issue. Just get the easily available KC public records - if that's within your skill set. Next READ the RCWs that you've yet to show are incorrect. It's very clear that the minute he ceased "to be a legally registered voter" his office was VACATED. No ifs ands or buts Nancy. No excuses. Don't care if he had 'marital problems'. He MOVED into Kirkland. Lease date please! More interestingly, this is reflecting on your own low standards. Guess that's from association with Don-uts. You want to gloss over a clear ETHICAL, LEGAL and MORAL issue here. You know, the kind that Reardon resigned over. Scott either LIED stating on the loan that is his primary residence or he lied in the council meeting statement. He can't have it both ways. Neither can you. Pick one door Nancy. By your reckoning, anybody can stay or run for City council, regardless of valid registration. Wait that did happen with Lucy DeYoung. The days of the broom closet are long gone though.
Ron Olson February 25, 2013 at 03:51 PM
Scroll up to the picture of Scott in this article. Click on the PDFS and take a look at the evidence. Any questions?
Gail February 25, 2013 at 07:36 PM
In the meeting video @ 3:30- Scott says : "however we define primary residence". Now who would have thought that was a hard thing to figure out.? Easy Mr Hageman, it's where you lived after August 12, 2012.
NRA & HOG guy February 25, 2013 at 10:55 PM
September 13, 1998 another famous politician made the famous quote during the M. Lewinsky hearing. " We'll " "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is (our beloved commander-in-chief, at that time )
Al Taylor February 27, 2013 at 01:01 AM
Did you all notice that Lucy DeYoung's puppets (AKA former council candidates funded by DeYoung endorsements) all came to the defense of Scott Hageman in a string of Woodinville Weakly Letters to the Editor/Owner by taking the topic of Scott's residency away from Scott and onto the Mayor for bringing it up? I hope the residents of Woodinville pay attention to the smear and personal attacks that these folks use whenever they find the facts and law against them. When the election comes around I will cast my vote for the honesty and integrity of the candidate not the shameful astroturfing and sensationalism that we have seen from those who Lucy DeYoung has foisted on the community. In my opinion the issue is the fact of Scott's relocation to Kirkland and failure to notify the council/city until he gets called on it 6 months after the move. How can we shoot the messenger who brings a lawful challenge to a public meeting? Thankfully, Mayor Talmas has put an end to the Woodinville tradition of private, executive sessions to discuss city business--we the people and RESIDENTS of Woodinville need to know the truth. Thanks Mayor Talmas for lawfully, conducting the city business in an open forum.
Al Taylor February 27, 2013 at 01:16 AM
The facts are overwhelmingly apparent that Scott has not been candid with the city as required by state laws to report his legal residence to hold public office and to receive a paycheck from the city's tax paying residents. Why do so many want us to take our attention away from Scott? Could it be that Scott supports the annexation of valley agricultural property and subsequent rezones that his campaign endorsers seek to profit? Could it be that Scott's disqualification as council member could tip the council toward preserving agricultural lands and reinvigorate city visions of the wine village where it has been planned over the last 10 years? It's time for Scott to respect the laws of this state and step down before this situation really gets out of hand and distracts the city business.
Gail February 27, 2013 at 01:19 AM
Jaffe has the gall to say this is a "rather trivial issue ". Really Jaffe, the issue of whether a person is legally occupying an elected office is trivial? Not a very smart thing to say. More curious, why is Jaffe bothering to write when he's declared he's not a registered voter in Woodinville? Did Lucy ask him? That's all they can do Al - attack the messenger. What they all share is a total lack of ethics. If you do not have a legal residence in Woodinville, you can't be on the City Council. PERIOD. Next thing you know they'll be attacking the person who notices an armed robbery and start complaining about that person's right to privacy. When you Break The Law, you just lost that right. First thing that gets tossed.
Dale Knapinski February 27, 2013 at 02:23 AM
I normally wouldn’t criticize another person for stating their opinion in a letter to the editor of the Woodinville Weekly. This week I have to make an exception. There was one posted letter that addressed the issue of Scott Hageman and his residency requirements. It was supported with documented evidence, recited state law, and used the words of Scott Hageman himself to support every statement that was presented. Dale Knapinski provided information that could be relied on and could be easily researched to verify factual content. There were 3 other letters to the editor printed in the same edition. All 3 attacked the messenger, Mayor Talmas, and avoided the crux of the discussion, which was Scott’s failure to be a registered voter residing within the city limits. No evidence or supporting documentation was provided in support of Scott. I appreciate the author’s right to become “Uncomfortable”, “Dumbfounded”, or even be “Creeped out”. But this is an issue of law, accountability, and honesty, not emotion, so we need to stick to the facts.
R Jaffe February 27, 2013 at 02:43 PM
Ms. Gail, I have answered most of the questions you raise in previous posts here. Perhaps you just need to calm down, take a deep breath, and try reading them without any buildup of emotion. So here is a brief summary. I put in my two cents worth because I am what the city refers to as a "stakeholder". This issue is trivial to me in the sense that there is a clear legal path to resolution and, in the end, there is little change for me whether Hageman stays or is replaced. Apologies that you did not get my reference to another Lucy, I have never met Ms. DeYoung. This issue does not involve ethics but technicalities; there is no mention of malfeasance nor misfeasance. Thus amongst all your laughable comparisons, comparing Hageman to Reardon is the most ridiculous. I do not attack Talmas, I criticize only the manner in which he brought this issue up at the meeting. I do not trust developers as they always attempt, through political means, to externalize costs to taxpayers. And I do appreciate that you have ceased your puerile plays on my name.
Ron Olson February 27, 2013 at 04:47 PM
All taxpayers are stakeholders in the city. Taxpayers can't allow one rogue council-member to sidestep the law. Residency is not a trivial matter, and violating state law really is an ethical violation, Jaffe. This isn't a politically based issue. Scott's supporters and his foes alike are demanding that he complies with the law. Scott Hageman is costing the city a lot of money now and people are getting angry about it. Paulette Bauman should be as worried about wasting taxpayer money as she is about protecting Scott Hageman's privacy. After all, if Scott had been honest about where he lives, this issue would never have come to the attention of the mayor.
Gail February 27, 2013 at 05:25 PM
Jaffe. How come I can't see you answer my questions that address the facts as I've stated them? Opinion doesn't count. All you come up with is an EMOTIONAL argument - methinks you need to calm down and look at the FACTS. That's all that's been discussed. Yet you try to drag it down - shame on you. So all things that have a 'legal path' are trivial? WOW, some crazy thinking going on there. Yes, Lucy DeYoung has 'kaleidoscope" yes. We're talking about the same thing. Your arguments lack common sense. It involves both ethic and morals and technicalities. It's clear you can't understand, please talk to someone that understand these qualities. That's why you can't see the similarity to Reardon, you just don't get it. Not unusual for a man that thinks a gun range in town fits right in. Yeah - just the thing for Woodinville. Now you claim this not attacking, merely criticizing? Is this like "however we define primary residence"? No wonder you relate to Scott, that actually is a valid excuse to you. Your gaffe shows more with every remark. That would be blunder in this discussion. If you want to shoot yourself in the foot with these statements (and I mean in the business sense), that's up to you.? It's how you view the world. Nothing is your fault, everyone else is wrong. Don't show me facts, just let me opine. Scott Hageman is deliberately trying to hide his new address - BREAKING THE LAW. I'm just a taxpayer in the city vs one with a vested business interest.
Edwin February 27, 2013 at 05:36 PM
This is a simple matter to me. Scott's voter registration card has not been updated since his old address and he DID sign papers to buy a house in Kirkland. So he needs to provide legally binding evidence of his true residency. He could also show change of address for his driver's license and utilities/phone/cable bills indicated. I also wonder if he now gets some sort of lease but showed a lapse from his former residence to the new lease if he still can be a Council Member. Regardless Scott has served a long time on the Council and I think a change would be for the better.
R Jaffe February 27, 2013 at 05:43 PM
Mr. Olson, I respectfully beg to differ on a describing violation of state civil code as an ethical issue. I suggest you start reading the past 2,500 years of western philosophy on the concept of ethics before you casually fling such terms about. It most definitely is a legal issue and proper legal procedures, due process, should be followed. At the very least Mr. Talmas should be required to take an undergraduate introductory law course. Mr. Hageman has no obligation to resign at the behest of the mini-mob, but should indeed resign if requested by the City Attorney or the County prosecutor, although he does have every right to contest such a request and insist that both sides present their evidence before a judge. And as you note, Mr. Hageman has both supporters and foes and thus, almost by definition, this is very much a political issue. I am the outlier as I don't care that much whether Hageman remains on the council or not as I would like to see, for the sake of the downtown business community, the whole lot of them removed from office.
Gail February 27, 2013 at 06:21 PM
Repeating your true lack understanding the ethical issue is not helping you Jaffe. According to you, anyone can violate any state civil code and that's just fine. No ethical or moral issues involved. Funny, but sad. Let's just say you are so far in outer space that there's now way this topic will ever make sense to you. I suggest you talk to real people and LISTEN to common sense. FYI Mr Talmas is a LAWYER - shocking isn't it. At a minimum you need some basic education on CURRENT stuff, not vague unfounded 2500 year opinions, obsolete terms and a false sense of knowing what's going on. If you do not care, why do you post here? Makes no sense. And if it doesn't make sense, it's not true.
R Jaffe February 27, 2013 at 07:04 PM
Ms. Gail, I shall indeed take heed of your advice and cease to respond to your strident posts and only seek out those who do speak with some common sense. And yes, I am gobsmacked if indeed Talmas is a lawyer. His CV on the City's website does not make note of that, quite understandable given that he is an elected official and given that the general public has a low regard for the legal profession.
Gail February 27, 2013 at 07:33 PM
Another NO content post for Gaffe. No valid counter arguments. Doesn't even know that Mr Talmas is a lawyer (how embarrassing) and recommended he take "undergraduate introductory law course". That was a BIG gaffe Jaffe. Rule #1 in law and argument: Never ASSume what you don't really know. You don't know much about the law or ethics or morals. Or what's going on in Woodinville! In this case, they are intricately intertwined, much like the Reardon thing you do not understand. Jaffe doesn't think that blatantly violating civil codes is a case of Ethics or Morals and on it goes. Whether the general public has a low regard for the legal profession is a non sequitur in this argument, but does reflect another desperate attempt to gain traction. Go ahead and seek out those with the same lack of common sense you have. There's always someone else. For one, all of those that think an elected official that is bound by law to give their CURRENT legal address is not in default on their ethics and the law, especially when they have been informed that their voter registration is not correct. How long has it been since Scott Hageman has been informed that his address is not correct? Oh yeah, it's been 15 days. Boy that must really be difficult to figure out. Where does Scott Hageman really live? Where in the World?
Saira V. February 27, 2013 at 10:02 PM
sharing correspondence contacts that I have used the past couple of days doing my own investigation. FBI Field Office, Mortgage Fraud White Collar Crime Supervisor http://richmond.fbi.gov/ 1110 Third Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101-2904 Phone: (206) 622-0460 Office of the Attorney General http://www.atg.wa.gov/ 1125 Washington Street, SE PO Box 40100 Olympia, WA 98504-0100 Washington State Department of Financial Institutions Division of Consumer Services http://www.atg.wa.gov/consumer/cp_contact.shtml http://www.dfi.wa.gov/cs/complaint.htm P.O. Box 41200 Olympia, WA 98504 Statewide Toll-Free: (800) 551-4636 Phone: (360) 902-8784 Fax: (360) 664-2258
Saira V. February 27, 2013 at 10:09 PM
1. Links to Patch stories reporting on suspected residency issues involving Scott Hageman, Woodinville Council Member. a. http://woodinville.patch.com/articles/scott-hageman-questions-arise-over-woodinville-city-councilmember-s-residency-status b. http://woodinville.patch.com/articles/scott-hageman-woodinville-resident-submits-complaint-regarding-council-member-s-residency#comments
Saira V. February 27, 2013 at 10:09 PM
2. Link to local newspaper report for suspected residency issues involving Scott Hageman, Woodinville Council Member. a. http://www.nwnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7656:mayor-calls-out-colleague-on-residency&catid=34:news&Itemid=72
Saira V. February 27, 2013 at 10:10 PM
3. Link to Scott Hageman’s comments at at the February 12, 2013 Woodinville City Council meeting when allowed to comment on allegations of non-residency (discussion topic is first on video) http://woodinville.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=746
Saira V. February 27, 2013 at 10:10 PM
4. Additional links a. http://seattle.blockshopper.com/property/1725059327/11103_ne_60th_street/ b. http://info.kingcounty.gov/Assessor/eRealProperty/Dashboard.aspx?ParcelNbr=1725059327 c.
Saira V. February 27, 2013 at 10:13 PM
When you contact these groups, be sure to provide them links to the information resources.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something