Dispute erupts over City Manager’s warning to Councilmembers that ‘No’ votes, abstentions were ‘violation of their oath of office’

Burien City Manager Adolfo Bailon issued a warning by email to city councilmembers who voted against or abstained during a May 19, 2025 vote on Ordinance 861, arguing that their actions may constitute “a violation of their oath of office.”

In a May 21, 2025 email to the council (full text below), Bailon argued that Ordinance 861 had been properly vetted through the planning commission and aligned with state law. He claimed that abstaining or voting against it could constitute a violation of councilmembers’ oath of office, a stance some interpret as administrative overreach that intrudes on the council’s legislative independence.

Bailon’s claim has sparked debate over council authority and procedures, and drew swift responses from two councilmembers – Sarah Moore (who abstained) and Stephanie Mora (who voted “No”) – whose statements we have included in this article.

“I am appalled by your comment and suggestion that my decision not to vote in favor of Ordinance 861 constitutes a violation to uphold my oath of office,” Mora wrote in a May 23 email response to Bailon. “While I welcome differing perspectives and healthy debate, I find your assertion inaccurate, inappropriate, outrageous, out of line and frankly, disgusting.”

Mora went on to outline Bailon’s role and authority in relation to the elected council, underscoring the accountability structure within Burien’s government.

“Please keep in mind that YOU serve the community at the discretion of seven councilmembers, and the council serves the community at the discretion of the community that elected us,” she added. “It is my duty to remind you, YOU are accountable to the council NOT the other way around.”

Background on Ordinance 861 Vote

As we previously reported, at its May 19, 2025 meeting, the Burien City Council failed to pass Ordinance 861, a measure intended to align city regulations with state law regarding temporary homeless shelters hosted by religious organizations.

The ordinance required a majority of four votes to pass but received just three in favor, with two abstentions and two opposed. The vote followed extensive public comment and council deliberation, with concerns raised about whether the proposed ordinance added unnecessary restrictions or simply clarified compliance with RCW 35A.21.360.

At that meeting, immediately following the 3-2-2 vote, City Manager Bailon stated that the ordinance had been “approved,” despite it falling short of the four-vote majority required for passage. His assertion was later contradicted by city staff, who confirmed that at least four affirmative votes are legally required for passage.

As a result of the failed approval, city staff confirmed that Burien would instead default back to existing state law on the matter.

Full Text of Bailon’s Email

Below is the full text of Bailon’s May 21, 2025 email to council (boldface emphasis added by The B-Town Blog):

From: Adolfo Bailon <AdolfoB@burienwa.gov>
Subject: Oath of Office, Uphold State Law
Date: May 21, 2025 at 1:14:41 PM PDT

To: DL – Council Members <DL-Councilmembers@burienwa.gov>

“Council,

“Ordinance 861 was proposed by staff to council – after having gone through the appropriate process within the planning commission – so that the city would be in conformance with an established state law. It is my duty to inform you that votes cast in abstention and opposition to Ordinance 861 (on May 19) are a violation of your oath of office, specifically to the section where you have sworn to uphold the laws of the State of Washington. 

“Please keep in mind your oath of office and duty to Burien and Washington when casting votes in the future.

“Sincerely,
“Adolfo Bailon”

The direct rebuke follows rising tensions over Burien’s zoning decisions, particularly around state-mandated housing code updates.

The issue is likely to next be discussed at the City Council’s June 16 meeting, where final decisions on zoning and housing code compliance with state law are expected.

Councilmembers Challenge Interpretation of Oath of Office

Bailon’s warning has prompted scrutiny from some officials and governance experts, who argue that casting a “No” vote or abstaining on a policy matter is not, in itself, a violation of a councilmember’s oath of office.

While elected officials do swear to uphold state law, that oath does not obligate them to approve every ordinance.

On the contrary, councilmembers are expected to exercise independent judgment, particularly when a law’s intent or local application may be subject to interpretation. The Mayor and Councilmember Handbook published by the nonprofit Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) underscores this principle, advising local lawmakers to weigh long-term community interests over short-term political pressure.

Critics of Bailon’s message say it could be perceived as an attempt to influence or constrain how councilmembers vote, potentially undermining the council’s legislative autonomy.

As of publication, Bailon has not elaborated on whether his statement was informed by legal counsel, and no supporting legal opinion has been made public.

EDITOR’S NOTE: City Manager Bailon declined to provide an official comment or clarification for this article, instead suggesting that the matter may fall under the scope of human resources, as it involved communication “between a subordinate and his immediate supervisors.” The email in question was sent to all seven elected councilmembers regarding official city policy and is considered a public record under the Washington Public Records Act (RCW 42.56), which defines public records as any writing related to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental function prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency. The public statement made by a councilmember at the June 2 meeting is also part of the public record.

Burien Council Rules of Order Guidance

The Burien City Council Rules of Order provide the following guidance on voting and abstention, as per Section 13 – Voting (page 15):

“Each councilmember shall vote unless they have been excused for a particular vote due to a conflict of interest, or unless their vote would violate the appearance of fairness doctrine. The vote on any motion shall be taken by voice, show of hands, or roll call vote if requested by the Mayor or any councilmember. The passage of motions and resolutions shall be by the majority of the membership present unless otherwise required by law.”

This means:

• Councilmembers are generally expected to vote.
• Abstention is permitted if there’s a conflict of interest or appearance of fairness issue. In practice, a councilmember may choose to explain their abstention for transparency, but the rules do not mandate it.
• There is no language stating that voting “No” or abstaining is a violation of the councilmember’s oath – opposition votes are permitted as part of democratic governance.

So, per the city’s own rules, a councilmember may abstain under specific conditions and may vote “No” without violating their oath of office.

Councilmembers Sarah Moore and Stephanie Mora Respond

Two Burien City councilmembers, Sarah Moore and Stephanie Mora, responded strongly to Bailon’s email.

In separate messages, both Moore and Mora defended their actions and criticized Bailon’s assertion, calling it inappropriate and an overreach of his role. Their full responses are included below.

Sarah Moore’s Statement From June 2 meeting:

Here’s video of councilmember Moore’s June 2 statement:

“Last week the City Manager emailed council as a body, suggesting that the council members who voted against or abstained on this ordinance were violating their oath of office to uphold state law. I am speaking today to defend my honor and integrity as a council member on this topic, and to express my belief that each of the four council members who cast no and abstention votes arrived at the decision with integrity, thought, and examination of the law and that each of us – myself very much included – cast our votes with the firm assurance that we were upholding state law and that if the ordinance failed, Burien’s law  would revert to state law. I take very seriously another part of our council rules – to assume good intentions. I assume and believe that each of us brought good intention and thorough study to that vote.

“A vote in council chambers is the one privilege I earned when the public entrusted me with this job. For the city manager to claim that I do not have the right to vote as I choose and as I believe best serves my constituents is to question the purpose of this council, and the ability of any of us to fulfill our duties. Each council member – whether or not their own vote was questioned – must be aware that actions such as this curtail the decision making powers of this body and that they diminish your authority as well as mine. 

“I was an abstention on that vote. I had been more undecided about ord 861 than anything else in my time on council because I believe that having a policy on the topic of temporary shelter on religious property would benefit the city and vastly simplify the decision making process for future applications from those organizations.

“But when I read through the proposed ordinance and discussed it with people who have both studied the state law as well as those who have established various types of shelter, I came to believe that this ordinance  added restrictions that would likely limit the actual ability of churches to help the city address this crisis. Near the beginning of my term, a council member asked why churches weren’t doing more to shelter unhoused people – quick shout out to LBPC, HUMC, Catholic Community Services, etc who do. This ordinance would have further reduced future action.

Stephanie Mora’s Email Response to Bailon from May 23, 2025:

From: Stephanie Mora <StephanieM@burienwa.gov>
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2025 12:05 AM
To: Adolfo Bailon <AdolfoB@burienwa.gov>
Cc: Kevin Schilling <KevinS@burienwa.gov>; Sarah Moore <SarahM@burienwa.gov>
Subject: Re: Oath of Office, Uphold State Law

“I am appalled by your comment and suggestion that my decision not to vote in favor of Ordinance 861 constitutes a violation to uphold my oath of office.

“While I welcome differing perspectives and healthy debate, I find your assertion inaccurate, inappropriate, outrageous, out of line and frankly, disgusting. My oath is a commitment to serve with integrity, uphold the law, and act in the best interests of the public who elected me. I will not tolerate behavior or language that I perceive as pushing, forcing, manipulating, or bullying me into voting for or against any specific proposal. I take serious issue with your claim that I am not upholding the law.

“I also object to your continued pressure for us to vote again on 861 despite us already  tabling it, especially when it was not requested to be placed back on the agenda after it was tabled, and certainly not three times in a row.

“Please keep in mind that YOU serve the community at the discretion of seven councilmembers, and the council serves the community at the discretion of the community that elected us. It is my duty to remind you, YOU are accountable to the council NOT the other way around.

“I take my responsibilities seriously and base my decisions on careful review, thoughtful consideration, and what I believe will best serve the community in both the short and long term. I respect that others may see things differently, but I will not be swayed by accusations that question my principles, nor will I tolerate such accusations simply because I reached a different conclusion after reading RCW 35A.21.360. Specifically subsection (7)(a) subsection (2). 

“It reads as follows. 

“(7)(a) Subsection (2) of this section does not affect a code city policy, ordinance, memorandum of understanding, or applicable consent decree that regulates religious organizations’ hosting of the homeless if such policies, ordinances, memoranda of understanding, or consent decrees:

“(i) Exist prior to June 11, 2020;

“(ii) Do not categorically prohibit the hosting of the homeless by religious organizations; and

“(iii) Have not been previously ruled by a court to violate the religious land use and institutionalized persons act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000cc.

“(b) If such policies, ordinances, memoranda of understanding, and consent decrees are amended after June 11, 2020, those amendments are not affected by subsection (2) of this section if those amendments satisfy (a)(ii) and (iii) of this subsection.

“Thank you ,
“Stephanie Mora 
Burien Councilmember”