The proper operation of democratic government requires that public officials and employees be independent and impartial when establishing policy and that their positions never be used for personal gain.

In Woodinville the mayor is a just a councilmember who runs the meetings - nothing more.  However that ego-boost of a "mayor" title laws mattered to Millman.

He arranged a sham mayoral election with his conspirators.  Despite Washington state law requiring elected officials only discuss business in open-public meetings they engaged in a text message discussion to pre-determine their first vote on City Council:  

Millman pushed for a $35k settlement to a man removed from Planning Commission after threatening a minority land-owner. 

James Randolph, Sarah Arndt, and Michelle Evans were elected with that man's help.  He paused the lawsuit during their  campaigns and only threatened to resume it once he had four friends on council.  

Government funds provided the payment for his campaign assistance.  

Brazen ask shows Millman's casual corruption, expecting everyone to trade on his title.  

Note his attempt to pretend this was a misunderstanding - a classic shakedown cover play to court reasonable doubt. 

Meanwhile he still took the special-privilege of face value tickets to a sold out concert.

All public servants know that gifts are illegal.  Millman frequently brags of his firefighter career, removing any claim of "I didn't know".

November 2022 through January 2023 OneWoodinville requested all Millman's emails and meetings with several developers/land-owners.  The goal was to look for a pattern of meetings and council agenda items.  

Mixed into the release for Chateau Ste Michelle were the shakedown emails.  These were initially passed over as not development/zoning related. 

While reviewing prior public records responses the "access for tickets" shakedown was noticed.   It was clearly a violation of Washington State law RCW 42.23.070 parts 1 and 2, however that law does not include an investigative process.  

A video was posted asking City Council to take action and address the corruption in their midst. 

No action was taken by Council.

When City Council failed to act.  OneWoodinville continued reviewing the relevant laws, eventually finding the Woodinville Municipal Code of Ethics WMC 2.36.020, item 16 which references the state law.

The WMC provides for an investigation process using the City's Hearing Examiner.  This role is an contracted legal expert, usually ruling on planning and zoning disputes between the city and others.  

Washington's Public Disclosure Commission reviewed the same evidence and concluded Mike Millman had received a gift which he  failed to properly disclose.  

They gave him a formal warning and required him to re-file his 2022 financial disclosure document.  In that document he reported that his wife received $150 of gift from Chateau Ste Michelle.  

PDC did not evaluate the cost-difference of face value pricing for sold-out tickets.  

After months of delay the complaint was finally assessed by the city of Woodinville's Hearing Examiner.  The determination was that the evidence did rise to the level of Probably Cause -  meaning any reasonable person would conclude a crime may have occurred.  

Based on this an investigation was required. 

The date would be set once Millman decided if the hearing would be open or closed.   Mike Millman's legal representation must communicate his preference by June 3rd at 4pm.

As was his right in Woodinville city code, Millman decided he wanted a closed hearing without the public present.  

This does not mean a.secret event, merely closed to public attendance. A recording will be taken per city code.

After the determination of Probably Cause was shared, total silence occurred.  Two months later OneWoodinville requested an update from the City Clerk regarding if the hearing had occurred and if so when a report would be available.  

Surprisingly the City Attorney responded and took great pains to argue that a closed-door hearing shielded any and all details of the hearing schedule.  

Note the request was only for a date, not location or attendance.  

Following the delays and City Attorney claim, OneWoodinville submitted a formal Public Records request (PRR) using Washington State's very strong "sunshine laws".  These include that information release requests must be "liberally construed".  

Still release of the document was delay by weeks (multiple acts each taking a week or more):

• Clarify the request
• Hearing Examiner was on vacation
• Searching for a single email on the city server
• Two weeks for the City Attorney to review the document

The much delayed PRR indicated the Hearing was originally planning for October 2nd then delayed further by Millman's lawyer.  

Following the hearing WMC 2.36.060 sets the timeline:

"Within 30 days after the conclusion of the hearing, the Hearing Examiner  shall, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, make and fully  record in his or her permanent records, findings of fact, conclusions of  law, and his or her determination of a recommended disposition."

Woodinville code requires the hearing to be recorded.  All other hearing examiner recordings are posted within a week of the event.  This did not occur for the Ethics Hearing.

After two weeks OneWoodinville requested a copy using the Public Records Act (PRR-2024-190).  The city stated that the recording could not be available until November 21st, almost two months later. 

For comparison, in the recording the City commits to giving the Defense Attorney this recording just a week after the hearing.

At the the last possible day, notice of the Hearing Examiner's ruling was provided on Election night - seemingly to take advantage of distraction.  

The report was not posted publicly as would be normal for Hearing Examiner materials. 

The delayed recording, shows the 2.5 hour session was dominated by the Defense Attorney asking arranged questions of the very people that committed the gifting/receiving.  

No independent documentation was requested by the Hearing Examiner.  The Examiner's few questions were not substantive (often duplicating the defense attorney).  

7 minutes into the hearing, the defense attorney admits:

• Ticket access was a special-privilege "others interested in buying Chicago tickets at that same time may not have been afforded the same opportunity."
• The winery "donated" access to a reception

Nothing refutes this for the rest of the hearing.  Equivocations and justifications (ex: "attended only briefly", "At least one other elected office holder attended that same reception ") fill the rest of the recording. 

The report shows no actual investigative activity.

The Examiner only reviewed materials provided by Millman's lawyer who interviewed individuals involved in the scheme (co-conspirators as witnesses).

Missed entirely:

• PDC records tell a difference story, Millman claims $150 gift for his wife
• No documentation of a new lower-cost reception tier
• Millman claims to have paid for all wine (no receipts asked for or provided)
• No valuation analysis on face-value pricing for sold out tickets

Over a year after the question was first asked Woodinville will soon know:  "What will Council do?" 

Per the city's Code of Ethics procedures the Hearing Examiner must present their report to City Council in a Public Hearing.

Public Hearings allow anyone to give up to five minutes of testimony.  The charges could carry penalties of up to 1 year in jail and $5000 per count.

Sentencing will be voted on by Council.

Millman to be barred from taking part in the debate or vote on his own punishment.