Resolution No. M-1585

FEBRUARY 1, 2005

Resolution No. M-1729

APRIL 14, 2009

Resolution No. M-1963

AUGUST 7, 2018

City Council Meeting on Resolution No. M-1963

AUGUST 7, 2018

Public Meeting Summary

(4:50) Bob Ziegler noted that Monday marked the anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing, while Thursday would be the anniversary of Nagasaki. He referenced the late Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen, whose life was deeply impacted by these events. As a young seminarian in Seattle at the time, Hunthausen became a vocal critic of nuclear weapons, denouncing their use and possession as immoral. Hunthausen, who passed away and was buried last Wednesday, strongly opposed Trident submarines, seen as first-strike weapons. He was known as a man of peace and compassion, advocating for various social causes throughout his life. He worked with interfaith communities to issue an apology for the church’s mistreatment of Native Americans, supported Central American refugees in the 1980s, and championed the protection of the poor. He promoted women to leadership roles in the Catholic Church and ministry and took a stand against gender inequality by closing a program for male deacons when women could not be ordained. As a bishop, he moved from a mansion to a small apartment, opened the cathedral to gay and lesbian individuals, and volunteered in homeless shelters. Ziegler emphasized the connection between Hunthausen’s legacy and the anniversaries of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, urging the council to honor his call for a world free of nuclear weapons by supporting the resolution.

(7:55) Lon Freeman Reading from a previously submitted testimony, Freeman discussed the ongoing global effort to modernize nuclear weapons, which encompasses a complex system involving engineering approaches, space communication networks, military technologies, missile proposals, AI signal processing, decision theory, and flexible design. They emphasized the concept of “usefulness,” which refers to nuclear weapons’ perceived strategic value in signaling intent and achieving specific goals. However, Freeman challenged this notion, arguing that framing nuclear weapons as “useful” shifts the psychological framework needed to prevent their use. He expressed concern about humanity’s continued progress toward technologies capable of wholesale planetary destruction. Freeman called for a reevaluation of this trajectory, emphasizing the irreversible consequences of nuclear escalation, including nuclear winter and global climate shifts. He asks, once nuclear weapons are used, “Will we be able to turn back?”

Freeman referenced Ernest Moniz from the Department of Energy and highlighted the potential for more creative approaches to diplomacy, citing Moniz’s Today’s Global Nuclear Threats from a January 12, 2018 CSIS speech. He concluded by urging open, respectful dialogue on these issues and thanking the council for the opportunity to speak.

Tim Russell (11:11) identified himself as a sociology teacher and expressed his support for the nuclear weapons resolution. He urged its passage, questioning whether anyone seriously believes a nuclear war is survivable. While the number of nuclear weapons has decreased since the 1980s, Russell emphasized that nuclear winter and global famine remain real threats. He noted the shift in public and political discourse since the 1980s and how it has lessened since, and highlighted that survival is only possible through a multilateral, verifiable agreement to abolish nuclear weapons.

Russell, who coordinates the Olympia Coalition to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, referenced Olympia’s rich history of activism against nuclear weapons and expressed a desire to continue this legacy. He pointed out that the U.S. is currently pursuing a major nuclear modernization program, involving new bombs, cruise missiles, submarines, and delivery systems. The naval base in Bangor, just north of the area, holds the largest concentration of nuclear weapons in the world, making Western Washington a potential target.

He describes the modernization effort, spanning 30 years at an estimated cost of $1.7 trillion, as a spending spree benefitting the defense industry, and as something that may likely spark a new arms race. Russell called this approach folly, echoing the analysis of many experts and analysts. He emphasized the Olympia Coalition to Abolish Nuclear Weapons’s collaboration with groups like the Fellowship of Reconciliation and Physicians for Social Responsibility to amplify their efforts. He also referenced national movements like Beyond the Bomb, the Mayors for Peace campaign, and organizations recognized with the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize for nuclear disarmament (ICAN), reaffirming his commitment to ongoing activism.

(27:50) Bernie Meyer spoke to advocate for the resolution to abolish nuclear weapons, a cause he has worked on since 1974 in Colorado, and later in Washington State, starting in 1978. He emphasized the urgency of the issue, citing the perspectives of prominent figures in nuclear policy, including former U.S. Secretary of Defense William J. Perry’s My Journey at the Nuclear Brink and Daniel Ellsberg’s The Doomsday Machine. 

Meyer mentioned receiving an email from nuclear policy expert John Burroughs, who highlighted two major concerns: the increasing risk of nuclear conflict and the significant erosion of international law, particularly the rules-based international order. Burroughs’ work, Nuclear Crossroads, provides a legal perspective against nuclear weapons, which Meyer noted aligns with key aspects of the resolution.

In May, Meyer was invited to India as “the American Gandhi” to make recommendations for Gandhi’s 2019 birth anniversary celebration. During his remarks, he stressed the necessity of initiating an urgent “truth force” (satyagraha) to eliminate nuclear weapons while simultaneously addressing climate change by reversing CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Meyer concluded by urging action to address these interconnected global threats.

(31:10) Bob Delastrada thanked the council for considering the resolution and gave special acknowledgment to Nathanial Jones for his efforts in crafting it. Delastrada emphasized that the resolution aligns with the UN’s Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which declares nuclear weapons illegal under international law.

(35:06) Bill Newman emphasized the importance of the nuclear disarmament resolution, characterizing it as a straightforward, non-controversial matter for the council to pass — a “slam dunk.” A retired physician, Newman pointed out that nuclear technology itself poses significant health and safety risks, citing examples like Hanford, nuclear spills, and accidents worldwide. He stressed the unresolved issue of nuclear waste disposal and the broader health and environmental impacts. Newman concluded by highlighting the urgency of nuclear disarmament, stating that even addressing climate change will be irrelevant if nuclear threats are not addressed.

(37:50) The resolution was passed as part of the consent agenda.

City Council Meeting: Repeal of the 2005 Nuclear Free Act

SEPTEMBER 9, 2008

Public Meeting Summary

(00:14:57) Alice Zillah testified in favor of maintaining the nuclear-free zone, aiming to make the threat of nuclear weapons more tangible. She began by holding a small ribbon representing the firepower of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, which was equivalent to 15 kilotons of TNT, enough to flatten buildings within a two-mile radius and which cause 200,000 deaths. As her colleague Jaime unspooled a much larger ribbon to represent the U.S. nuclear arsenal, she emphasized that nuclear weapons in Washington are far from an abstract concept.

Zillah pointed out that the Trident submarines, located less than 60 miles away at Kitsap base at Bangor, house 24 missiles with 8 nuclear warheads each—equivalent to up to 30 Hiroshimas. She also highlighted the nearby Hanford Nuclear Reservation and the ongoing environmental and health threats posed by the region. Zillah described her own personal experience learning of the “Hanford Necklace” — a common occurrence in the area where individuals have scars of their neck from thyroid removal due to radiation exposure. 

She quoted the Dalai Lama, stating, “By far the greatest danger facing humankind, in fact, all living beings on our planet, is the threat of nuclear destruction.” She also referenced a statement by Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, William Perry, and Sam Nunn: “Reassertion of the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons and practical measures toward achieving that goal would be, and would be perceived as, a bold initiative consistent with America’s moral heritage. The effort could have a profoundly positive impact on the security of future generations. Without the bold vision, the actions will not be perceived as fair or urgent. Without the actions, the vision will not be perceived as realistic or possible.”

Zillah concluded by urging the city of Olympia to be part of the vision and action for a nuclear-free world, simply by allowing the nuclear-free zone to stand, with the ribbon being unspooled as a powerful visual reminder throughout her testimony.

(00:18:31) Bert Whitlock expressed his appreciation for the work of the city council and voiced his strong support for the 2005 Nuclear Free Zone Ordinance. He shared his concern and shock upon hearing about the potential repeal of the act. Whitlock emphasized that his support for the act is rooted in the belief that it seeks to create a better world by preventing local and municipal approval of the nuclear weapons establishment. He posed the question, “What message would it send to repeal the [ordinance] at this time in history?” — particularly given the ordinance’s emphasis on the aggressive posture of nuclear weapons and their inability to distinguish between civilian and military targets. Whitlock argued that repealing the act would go against the strong moral and ethical principles that society should uphold, such as truth, love, respect, cooperation, and sustainability. He lamented the rise of harmful ethics in government and business, particularly those driven by fear, division, and the pursuit of power at any cost.

Whitlock concluded by stressing that the government is failing to honor its promises of non-proliferation and urged that the responsibility to act falls to local communities. He expressed pride in the ordinance, seeing it as a concrete step toward making the world a better place to live.

(00:22:14) TJ Johnson, a former council member and the original sponsor of the nuclear-free ordinance, began by acknowledging the points made by previous speakers, particularly emphasizing the significance of the visual metaphor, such as the ribbon, to illustrate the magnitude of the nuclear issue. He argued that ignoring this problem would not make it disappear, and that cities have the potential to lead the way in addressing it.

Johnson refuted the notion that cities should not engage in national and international issues, stating that it is naive to think local actions are meaningless in the face of global challenges. He emphasized that local governments must step in due to the failure of national and international institutions to address nuclear concerns. He listed several reasons why local governments, particularly cities like Olympia, must act:

1. Failure of larger institutions: Johnson highlighted that local governments must take action because national and international bodies have not adequately addressed the nuclear issue. He called for local leaders to step forward and lead the way in the absence of effective higher-level leadership.

2. Vulnerability of cities: Cities, as cultural, commercial, and population centers, are the most likely targets in a nuclear attack. Olympia, being a capital and port city, is especially vulnerable, and Johnson emphasized the importance of not putting first responders in a position to respond to nuclear devastation.

3. Misallocation of resources: The U.S. currently spends $60 billion annually on nuclear weapons, diverting funds from local needs. Johnson connected this massive spending to the financial strain on cities, pointing out budget shortfalls, potential staff layoffs, and diminishing federal funding for local infrastructure.

4. Commitment to sustainability: Johnson reminded the council of Olympia’s commitment to sustainability, noting that nothing threatens long-term sustainability more than the existence of nuclear weapons. He pointed out that local efforts toward sustainability are undermined by the global threat of nuclear destruction.

5. Responsiveness to the community: As representatives of the people, local governments must respond to the concerns of the community. Johnson referenced Olympia’s historical support for the nuclear freeze zone ordinance, asserting that this is a legitimate issue for the city council to act on, as it reflects the will of the people.

Johnson stressed that the ordinance, while an important symbol, has not achieved the vision of a nuclear-free world. But, he says: “To agree to the vision of the future without taking action to achieve that vision is the worst form of political trickery.”

Johnson suggested that the city should create a task force to continue the conversation, answer questions, and collaborate with others. He urged the council not to discard the ordinance and “throw the baby out with the bathwater,” but to instead use their leadership positions to bring the community together to discuss the next steps in making the world nuclear-free.

(00:26:52) Jody Mackey expressed her gratitude for the opportunity to speak and shared her long-standing support for the nuclear-free ordinance as a member of Veterans for Peace. She began by recounting a personal experience from three years ago, when her friend, Paulette, went into labor, and despite being exhausted from sleeplessness over the course of three days, she still attended a public session on the nuclear-free ordinance, underscoring her commitment to the cause. She emphasized the dedication of those involved in advocating for the ordinance and all those present.

Mackey acknowledged that some people may not support the ordinance, often feeling safer with the nuclear deterrent strategy. She suggested that opponents may perceive the push for a nuclear-free zone as unrealistic or even as “dreaming.” She recounted a historical incident in 1955, when a research missile launched from Norway was mistaken for a nuclear attack by Russian officials. Former President of Russia Boris Yeltsin, known to drink vodka daily, almost launched a nuclear weapon in response, but ultimately avoided disaster when he realized that the missile was not a threat. Mackey highlighted how close the world has come to nuclear annihilation, underscoring the urgency of taking action to prevent such an event.

Mackey argued that the city can take a stand against nuclear weapons and help make a difference. She brought out a poster from a June protest, where hundreds gathered at Heritage Park to celebrate the passing of the nuclear-free ordinance. She pointed out that the effort required is minimal and comes with no significant costs or legal risks for the city, and compared it to other ordinances that encourage businesses to align with the community’s values.

In response to critics who view the ordinance as symbolic, Mackey acknowledged that symbolism plays an important role, as symbols can inspire great acts of service and help foster dreams of a better future, using the American Flag as an example. She concluded by affirming the beauty of the city taking a stand on this issue, framing it as a powerful and meaningful gesture.

(00:31:08) Laura Ware introduced herself as a former councilwoman. She shared that when she left she knew she wouldn’t always agree with the council’s decisions, but never expected to have to remind them what “doing things the Olympia way” meant..

Ware emphasized what made Olympia special, particularly its commitment to access and listening to citizens. She highlighted how they created processes to ensure transparency and citizen involvement, and that the council never acted decisively on contentious matters without a public process.

Ware then reviewed the history of the nuclear-free zone ordinance, outlining the changes, the creation of recommendations, and the series of small meetings and public hearings that led to the council’s vote to pass the ordinance by a 5-2 margin. She challenged the current council by asking, “So what are you the council going to do now?”

Ware shared that, in just four days, nearly 400 signatures were collected in support of maintaining the current ordinance, indicating strong public backing for it. She demonstrated this support by showing the petition, which was unrolled on the ground, as evidence of the community’s continued commitment to the ordinance.

(01:12:29) Gabi Clayton expressed her strong support for the stand against nuclear weapons, describing them as “weapons of fear.” She warned that if the council votes to repeal the nuclear-free zone ordinance, it would make the community complicit in the existence of nuclear weapons. She emphasized the importance of standing firm on this issue, stating that even as a small community, it makes a significant difference.

(01:13:55) Ed Laclergue noted his history of testifying on nuclear weapons issues before various councils over several decades, starting as a member of Physicians for Social Responsibility. Laclergue reflected on how the fears surrounding nuclear weapons, such as the “Doomsday Clock” and the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), have diminished since the Cold War. However, he argued that these issues persist, pointing to figures like Putin and Cheney as perpetuating Cold War-era mindsets. He mentioned that President Bush recently canceled arms reduction talks with Russia, signaling a failure to move past these dynamics.

Laclergue emphasized the importance of thinking globally but acting locally, urging the council to retain the nuclear-free zone ordinance. Though it may be symbolic, he argued it is a vital and meaningful symbol. Laclergue concluded by appealing to the council to hold onto this ordinance as one of the few tangible ways to address the issue.

(01:17:52) Terry Zander identified himself as a member of Veterans for Peace Chapter 109. He shared that just two days earlier, on Sunday morning, the group set up a memorial honoring 41,155 deceased veterans, including 87 from Washington state alone. This effort required 40 people and took five hours to complete. Zander pointed out that there would not be enough people or time to set up a similar number of markers and crosses to represent the casualties from a nuclear blast, underscoring the devastating potential of such weapons. He concluded by offering two “Abolish Nuclear Weapons” stickers to the city council members, walking over and handing them out.

(01:20:16) Cheryl Crist shared her gratitude for the city council’s service and noted her long residency in Olympia since 1987. She offered a suggestion to not only maintain and strengthen the nuclear-free ordinance but also to promote its positive message visibly. Crist proposed placing a sign at the city’s limits declaring Olympia as a nuclear-free zone, inspired by a similar display she observed in British Columbia, Canada. She emphasized how this would highlight Olympia’s distinctiveness and its willingness to take meaningful action on the global stage, concluding with thanks to the council for their efforts.

(01:22:26) Steven Segall expressed his strong opposition to repealing the nuclear-free ordinance, advocating instead for its preservation and potential strengthening. He noted that the ordinance reflected the clear will of both the people and the city government at that time, receiving overwhelming support. Segall criticized the notion of repealing such an important measure on an expedited basis after only two years, calling it “extraordinarily arrogant.” He emphasized the need for continuity and predictability in city governance, warning that overturning something so significant could undermine public trust. Segall concluded by urging the council to take the ordinance and the community’s commitment to it seriously.

(01:24:24) Patty Imani expressed strong support for retaining the nuclear-free ordinance, a stance she has consistently advocated since its adoption in 2005 and during the 2007 attempt to weaken it. She emphasized that repealing the ordinance would defy the will of the approximately 90% of community members who supported it three years ago and the majority who still do. Imani described the ordinance as one of the most effective local measures against nuclear war, dismissing claims that it is merely symbolic. She highlighted its substantive language in halting business with businesses related to nuclear weapons, which shows Olympia’s commitment to the total elimination of nuclear weapons, dismissing the idea that it is a mere token gesture.

Imani argued that local communities, through contracts with industries, can take concrete steps toward nuclear disarmament and criticized the push for repeal as an effort by a small group to dismantle what the community has worked hard to achieve. She called on the council to educate themselves and the public on the ordinance’s significance and to strengthen it instead of repealing it. Imani warned that repealing the ordinance would go against the values of peace and democracy that the Olympia community holds dear, urging the council to honor the will of its residents.

(01:28:27) Ruth Lipow emphasized the importance of the nuclear-free ordinance as a meaningful step in opposing the nuclear weapons industry and imposing costs on those who profit from endangering global safety. She referenced bipartisan figures such as Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Robert McNamara, and Sam Nunn, who have collectively agreed that nuclear war poses the greatest threat to human existence. She cited near-catastrophic incidents, including false alarms triggered by dense cloud formations or doves, where only human intervention prevented disaster. She urged Olympia to take moral responsibility by setting an example, even if it means limiting business with companies involved in nuclear arms as through the ordinance. She dismissed administrative costs and paperwork concerns as inadequate reasons to repeal the ordinance, stressing that inaction is not an excuse when facing the existential threat of nuclear war.“The fact that we can’t do everything is not an excuse to do nothing,” she said.

(01:31:37) Pat Rasmussen, a resident of Olympia, expressed her deep appreciation for the city, its community,  and the unique character of the city. Rasmussen emphasized the importance of recognizing and preserving what makes Olympia exceptional.

Rasmussen voiced her concern over the council’s consideration of overriding a resolution that she believed had been carefully crafted and strongly supported by public testimony. She criticized the council’s potential action as lacking appropriate procedure and stated that she was “frankly baffled” by the decision. Rasmussen concluded by urging the council to maintain Olympia’s values and identity, stating, “You are a wonderful city and need to keep being that wonderful city.”

(01:34:37) Russ Meixner, a third-generation Olympian, emphasized the importance of considering the economic impact of city council decisions, particularly in light of ongoing downtown redevelopment efforts. He stressed that many local businesses are struggling to survive until market-rate housing is established downtown, making it critical for the council to prioritize the survival of current businesses.

Meixner argued that the nuclear-free ordinance is detrimental to downtown Olympia’s business climate and should be repealed. He shared that he has spoken with many residents in Thurston County who avoid Olympia-based businesses because they feel offended by the nuclear-free ordinance. These individuals, he noted, have alternatives in Lacey and Tumwater, where they choose to spend their money instead of downtown Olympia. Highlighting the challenges faced by downtown merchants, including restaurant owners, Meixner underscored the need for council decisions to benefit local businesses rather than creating additional obstacles. He stated that there was no benefit with the nuclear-free zone in place and urged the council to direct this issue to federal representatives and senators in Washington, D.C. Meixner concluded by appealing to the council to remove the ordinance and give local merchants every opportunity to be successful.

(01:37:33) Bruce Laing echoed and expanded on the views of previous speakers, expressing disagreement with the opposition to the ordinance. He questioned why Olympia would send such a contradictory message to the world, emphasizing that the ordinance reflects the city’s progressive identity and attracts residents, while benefiting from the property values and local businesses. He warned that repealing it would undermine the city’s distinct character, and dismissed financial concerns, asserting the obsolescence of nuclear weapons. 

(01:38:51) Maggie Reardon, a recent transplant to Olympia, expressed her enthusiasm for the city, and urged the council not to make downtown uninteresting, emphasizing her support for the continuation of the nuclear-free ordinance.

Reardon shared an observation about the sign-in process at the meeting, noting that while she signed under the section marked to retain the ordinance, she noticed that others who wrote comments in support of the ordinance were listed under the section marked against it. She cautioned the council to carefully count and interpret public input, as the sign-in process was confusing.

(01:41:28) Carolyn Trefts

Trefts echoed earlier sentiments in strong support of retaining and even strengthening the ordinance. She expressed pride in the city’s stance, symbolized by the badge she brought, which reads, “Proud to be Nuclear Free in Olympia, Washington.”

Trefts shared that she often highlights Olympia’s nuclear-free status to others, receiving overwhelmingly positive reactions, including admiration and hope. She emphasized that Olympia’s position inspires others by showing how cities can oppose government efforts to modernize nuclear weapons.

(01:43:41) Jack Zeiger expressed that he was troubled by this process. He described the effort made a few years ago to implement the ordinance and characterized the current move to repeal it so quickly as a “slap in the face to the citizens of Olympia” and to the council members involved in creating it, some of whom he noted were still present in the room.

(01:45:30) Rick Fellows voiced his support for retaining the nuclear-free ordinance, highlighting the widespread contamination caused by the transportation and processing of materials involved in nuclear weapons production. This contamination, he explained, infiltrates water, air, and soil through activities such as mining, milling, machining, transportation, processing, and enrichment.

Fellows urged the council and community to consider the unseen dangers posed by radioactive isotopes, painting a stark picture of their pervasiveness, noting that they exist “in our salad, in our soup” and in people’s  prostate and thyroid glands. He linked these isotopes to the rising incidences of cancer in family members, attributing it to humanity having “let the nuclear genie out of the bottle.”

Referencing Amory B. Lovins’ book Energy/War: Breaking the Nuclear Link, Fellows argued that nuclear power has always been used as a cover for the immense costs and infrastructure required to develop nuclear weapons. He stated that from the beginning, energy production has been intertwined with the creation of nuclear weapons.

(01:48:34) Megan Sullivan questioned the council’s consideration of repealing the ordinance, speculating it might relate to restricting nuclear materials’ transit through Olympia, and urged the council to provide clarity on their reasoning.

(01:49:31) Richard Wolf began by stating his opposition to the ordinance, clarifying that the issue was not about opposition to nuclear disarmament but about the lack of effectiveness of the current ordinance. He argued that the ordinance, as it stands, has “no teeth,” since the federal government, neighboring cities like Lacey and Tumwater, and federal highways are exempt, allowing nuclear waste to still be transported through Olympia.

He gave an example of the ordinance’s absurdity, explaining that as president of a neighborhood association, he was required to sign a waiver and certification stating that his neighborhood was nuclear-free in order to receive sustainability grants. However, he expressed concern, saying, “I have no idea if my neighborhood is nuclear free,” and questioned how he could be sure that no one in the area was involved in illegal activities related to nuclear materials.

Wolf emphasized that while he supported a city resolution opposing nuclear proliferation, he felt the ordinance itself was ineffective and should be rescinded. He also reminded the council that three current members had campaigned on platforms advocating for the repeal of the ordinance. Wolf expressed skepticism about claims that 90% or 75% of the public supports the ordinance, suggesting that if those numbers were accurate, the council members would not have been elected in the first place.

(01:52:02) Jami Heinricher challenged the council’s perception that support for the nuclear-free ordinance is a minority view, urging a data-driven approach to gauge public opinion rather than relying on anecdotal evidence from the councilmembers. 

(01:53:44) Tim Russell, a business owner in downtown Olympia, emphasized the importance of supporting local businesses. He made it clear that he would prioritize the abolition of nuclear weapons above all else.

Russell stated that if the choice came down to sacrificing his business for nuclear disarmament, he would make that sacrifice without hesitation, though he hoped such a decision would not be necessary. He concluded by reinforcing that, despite the challenges businesses face, the issue of nuclear disarmament was far more important than any business concerns.

(01:55:02) Charles Adler expressed his support for retaining the nuclear-free ordinance, questioning the motivation behind its potential repeal. He reflected on his work as a spoken word artist, where a recurring theme he explored was whether humanity can exist without resorting to war or relying on weapons. He asked, “Is there room for light, is there room for peace?” and pondered if society must accept war and military conflict as inevitable or if it is possible to find alternative ways to resolve differences.

Adler acknowledged the discouragement many feel, particularly with the belief that those in power have commercial interests that drive decisions, and he emphasized that it’s easy to feel controlled by these powers. Despite this, he highlighted Olympia as a community that strives to be inclusive, where people can work together without conflict. He concluded by urging everyone to unite and ”make the life force a working force,” advocating for cooperation and peace instead of violence and war.

(01:57:12) David Griffiths shared that although he had lived in Olympia for over 11 years, he had spent much of his life living near major nuclear targets in cities like Washington D.C., Denver, and Los Angeles, always in the shadow of the possibility of nuclear annihilation. He also mentioned having lived in Los Alamos, New Mexico, the birthplace of nuclear weapons, where he worked for the Los Alamos Historical Society and Museum.

During his time in Los Alamos, Griffiths learned a great deal about the origins of nuclear weapons and saw disturbing images from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He referred to the haunting images of people disintegrated in the flash of the bombs, leaving only their shadows burned onto walls or sidewalks. He urged the council: “Please don’t leave the shadow of this ordinance blasted onto the walls of buildings downtown.”

Referencing J. Robert Oppenheimer, the first director of Los Alamos National Laboratory, who deeply regretted his involvement in the Manhattan Project,  Griffiths implored the council not to repeat past mistakes. He concluded by urging: “Don’t compound the mistakes of the past with the mistakes of your own. Don’t make a bad situation worse. Keep Olympia a nuclear-free zone, don’t make it a democracy-free zone.”

(02:00:19) Kim Dobson, who lives just outside the city limits but still in the blast zone, introduced himself as a downwinder, born in Utah in 1952 during U.S. government nuclear testing in the desert. He shared that he likely has significant exposure to radioactive isotopes due to this. Having lived in Olympia for 50 years, he expressed strong support for the nuclear-free ordinance, which he appreciates and hopes will remain in place.

Addressing concerns that the ordinance might negatively impact the business climate, Dobson disagreed. He argued that the economic downturn is largely due to banking deregulation, which allowed banks and mortgage lenders to operate without oversight, contributing to the downfall of institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He suggested that people should look at the broader picture and hold those responsible for banking failures accountable, rather than blaming the ordinance. Dobson added that many of the politicians who allowed for this were republican and concluded by expressing his opposition to the repeal and his support for strengthening the ordinance.

2:04:24) End of  public communication.

(2:14:05)  Councilmember Karen Messmer made a motion to adopt a proposed ordinance on first reading to repeal the Nuclear Free Zone Ordinance Nos. 6368 and 6411. She proposed delaying the repeal for six weeks and directing the Committee of the Chairs to return with a proposed Nuclear Free Resolution for adoption during that same six-week period. This would allow the resolution to be adopted on the same night as the repeal of the Nuclear Free Zone Ordinance.

Messmer explained that she had abstained from voting on the repeal during the last meeting because the repeal had been brought forward without public notice, proper consideration, or a process in place. She emphasized that, regardless of her feelings about the ordinance, the process itself was flawed, and she could not participate in that vote. She also expressed her belief that nuclear weapons pose a grave threat to humanity and that the federal government has not done enough to address this threat, which she finds frustrating. However, she argued that this ordinance did not have the power to stop nuclear weapons from entering the city, as it was a local law and could not override federal authority.

Messmer suggested that while the city could not stop nuclear weapons through this ordinance, it could continue to focus on the symbolism of being a nuclear-free city through a resolution. She also believed that the city’s purchasing policies, which were part of the ordinance, could be implemented more effectively through a resolution rather than an ordinance. She compared this approach to the city’s “Clean Clothes” resolution and felt that a resolution would be a more appropriate mechanism for expressing the city’s values on this issue.

(2:17:24) Councilmember Joe Hyer (2:17:24) shared that he was initially slow in seconding the motion because he wanted to hear Councilmember Messmer’s reasoning behind her proposal. He acknowledged the points made by Mr. Wolf and Mr. Johnson, expressing his openness to finding more effective ways to achieve the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons.

Hyer noted that he believed the process of considering the repeal should have involved more discussion and actions before moving forward. However, he stated that he was unable to support the motion as it stood because it involved a vote to repeal the ordinance before the necessary steps, such as a public discussion and resolution, were properly completed. He suggested that the repeal should take place after those processes had occurred.

Although Hyer expressed that he understood the direction Messmer was trying to move toward and appreciated the goal of the proposal, he seemed to feel that the timing and procedure were out of sync with what he viewed as the necessary steps.

(2:18:32) Motion failed 6-1, with Councilmember Messmer voting for.

Mayor Pro Tem Jeff Kingsbury made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Strub, to repeal Nuclear Free Zone Ordinance Nos. 6368 and 6411 on first reading, as recommended by the General Government Committee, and move it to a second reading.

(2:19:11) Kingsbury speaking on the motion:

Kingsbury explained that he believed the ordinance was not the right mechanism to accomplish the intended goals. He referenced feedback from hundreds of citizens who had voiced opposition to the ordinance, emphasizing that it was not something supported by the entire community, nor had it ever been. Kingsbury expressed that while he understood and respected the testimonies heard that day in support of the ordinance, he believed the original ordinance had limitations and had been made less effective over time, with key components being edited out.

He argued that there was no enforcement measure in the ordinance and called it “bad public policy.” He clarified that repealing the ordinance did not equate to supporting the manufacturing of nuclear weapons, and he emphasized the importance of finding a mechanism that more accurately reflected the community’s values.

Kingsbury stated that, after reviewing the Mayor’s Mayors for Peace resolution, he felt that a statement of community values would be valuable. He expressed his commitment to developing a new resolution, one that would focus on purchasing practices, an area where he believed the city could make the most significant impact. He was confident that this could be done without requiring additional staff time or resources. He affirmed that the repeal motion aligned with state law, and he was committed to developing a resolution in the next 30 days that would be more appropriate for the city’s needs.

(2:21:40) Councilmember Iris Strub explained why she did not support Councilmember Messmer’s motion. She emphasized that while she did not oppose the resolution, she disagreed with deferring the matter to the Committee of Chairs.

Strub then clarified the distinction between ordinances and resolutions. Noting that she saw a sign in the room mentioning 128 U.S. cities having nuclear-free ordinances, she explained that these cities have nuclear-free resolutions as part of the Mayors for Peace program, not all ordinances. She clarified that an ordinance is a law, while a resolution is a statement of values. According to Strub, this distinction was causing confusion among the public.

Strub reaffirmed her long-standing opposition to nuclear weapons, citing her personal history as an Air Force wife. Her husband, a B-52 bombardier, was stationed on nuclear alert for nearly two decades. Strub shared how her political activism, including her role in Jesse Jackson’s 1988 presidential campaign, was at odds with her military connections. Despite her ties to the military, Strub was steadfast in her commitment to peace and opposition to nuclear weapons, emphasizing the importance of civilian control over military power.

Strub also spoke on the public process, noting that she had clearly communicated during her election campaign that she would vote to repeal the ordinance. She insisted that she had been transparent about her position. She emphasized the importance of communication with elected officials, expressing frustration that no one had contacted and called her directly about the issue. Strub concluded by reaffirming her decision to vote to repeal the ordinance, stating it was consistent with her campaign promises.

(2:29:42) Councilmember Joan Machlis expressed her decision to vote to keep the nuclear-free ordinance, acknowledging that it is a flawed ordinance but emphasizing its symbolic value. She respected the concerns raised by her colleagues about improving the ordinance and appreciated the legitimate public process that led to its enactment. Machlis highlighted that five of the seven members involved in passing the ordinance had the opportunity to hear from the community before making their decision.

Although she recognized the ordinance’s flaws and some difficulties in its implementation, Machlis noted that it had largely been carried out smoothly. She stressed that for many people, the ordinance represents a crucial symbolic statement, and reading the emails from the public reinforced the strong emotions people felt about it. For her, the continuity of the ordinance and the importance of not reversing decisions without compelling reasons contributed to her decision to vote to keep it in place.

(2:31:29) Councilmember Joe Hyer addressed why he chose to support the Nuclear Free Zone Ordinance despite being careful about which issues to take up. He highlighted the emotional and historical weight of the issue, referencing the public hearing in 2005 where citizens came forward to testify about nuclear weapons. Hyer recalled how moving it was to see people like Ed Laclergue speak passionately about the importance of standing against nuclear proliferation after viewing the city council meeting on TV. He connected this to the broader societal responsibility of physicians, psychologists, and others in the medical and social fields who advocate for a more humane world.

He positioned his support for the ordinance as rooted in his humanist values. He explained that his stance was more than just political alignment or ideology—it was a deeper, moral conviction. He identified as a Democrat and a liberal, but emphasized that, foremost, he is a humanist, a value that he feels is increasingly forgotten in today’s world. For Hyer, humanism means putting humanity first—above business, politics, and economics. He stated that very few issues allow someone to act purely as a humanist, but nuclear weapons are one of those issues. He acknowledged that in many city matters, such as sewage and garbage, pragmatism must take precedence, but nuclear weapons are a moral issue that requires idealism.

Hyer, with a degree in literature, tied his perspective on nuclear weapons to art and literature. He noted that few inventions have had as profound an effect on the world as nuclear weapons. He recalled reading “Ceremony,” a novel by Leslie Marmon Silko, where the indigenous protagonist’s grandmother speaks of the world changing after two sunrises, a metaphor for the nuclear tests in which the second sun was the detonation of the Trinity test bomb. He drew on the familiar adage from Spider-Man: “With great power comes great responsibility,” expressing that nuclear weapons carry a moral imperative like no other invention.

Hyer acknowledged the argument for repealing the ordinance, stating that if it were put to a public vote, the results would likely be closer than some people think. As a humanist, he felt that repealing the ordinance would send the wrong message—one that could ignore the serious moral responsibility associated with nuclear weapons.

He expressed gratitude to individuals like Russ Meixner and Richard Wolf for their involvement and testimony. Hyer also reflected on the flaws in the 2005 process, suggesting that there wasn’t enough dialogue with the community at the time. He wished the ordinance had been approached differently, with more input, and hoped the ordinance could be improved instead of simply repealed. He indicated that while the ordinance might not be perfect, it still sends an important message about Olympia’s values and priorities.

He expressed hope that Olympia could work together on a new resolution or better approach, but for now, he felt compelled to keep the nuclear-free Olympia ordinance in place. He argued that nuclear weapons remain one of the most important issues facing the world today, noting that even political figures like Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, and others recognize the need to eliminate nuclear weapons. He argued that while climate change may take decades to significantly affect the world, nuclear weapons could impact humanity tomorrow. He emphasized that the issue of nuclear weapons was as local as any issue could be for Olympia, and for that reason, it deserved the council’s attention.

(2:38:50) Mayor Doug Mah expressed his intention to approve the motion to repeal the ordinance. He acknowledged the well-intentioned nature of the ordinance but argued that it was ultimately misguided and flawed. Mah pointed out that the ordinance was unenforceable, out of scope, and exempted the federal government, military, and highways, which were critical elements in addressing the issue. He emphasized that it did not remove Olympia as a potential target and that the nuclear weapons policy should be debated at the national level.

Mah also noted the passion of those speaking out in favor of keeping the ordinance, suggesting that if they channeled that passion toward influencing the federal government, they might achieve more meaningful change. He urged the public to continue advocating for nuclear disarmament at the national and international levels where such policy could be more effectively addressed.

(2:41:00) Motion passed 5-2, with Councilmembers Machlis and Hyer voting against. This ultimately repealed the ordinance.

A full list of people who spoke or signed up in support of the ordinance not being repealed can be viewed here.