The Association of Washington Cities - Part I

"We Represent All Cities.” A Claim Worth Examining.

Every organization has a tagline. The Association of Washington Cities has one it repeats constantly, in testimony, in press releases, and in conversations with local officials.

“We represent all 281 cities and towns in Washington State.”

On its face, that statement sounds reasonable. Cooperative, even. It implies balance, fairness, and a shared voice across a geographically and politically diverse state. For many years, most city officials simply accepted it. Membership was automatic. Dues were paid. The machinery ran quietly in the background.

But for elected officials east of the Cascades, especially those governing conservative or rural communities, something has felt off for a long time.

You attend the meetings.

You participate in the calls.

You read the legislative updates.

And yet, when policy positions are taken, when advocacy priorities are set, and when Olympia acts, the outcomes consistently reflect west-side priorities.

This series exists because that disconnect is no longer theoretical.

It is structural.

---

From Yakima’s Practical Roots to Olympia’s Political Gravity

The Association of Washington Cities was founded in 1933 in Yakima, during one of the most difficult economic periods in American history. Cities were struggling to survive. Prohibition had just ended. Local governments needed coordination on liquor control, tax distribution, and basic governance in an era when state authority was expanding rapidly.

AWC was not born out of ideology. It was born out of necessity.

It was local.

It was practical.

It was rooted in eastern Washington realities.

That origin story matters because it reveals what the organization was meant to be. A forum for cities to protect themselves, not a vehicle for imposing policy preferences.

Over the decades, Washington State changed. Population growth concentrated west of the Cascades. Political power followed. Olympia increasingly legislated through statewide mandates rather than local discretion.

And slowly, almost imperceptibly, AWC changed with it.

The shift did not require malice. It required incentives. More people meant more cities. More cities meant more dues. More dues meant more influence. Governance followed population, and advocacy followed governance.

By the time many eastern Washington cities noticed, the balance was already gone.

---

The Board Math That Explains the Outcomes

If you want to understand any organization, stop listening to its mission statements and start looking at its board.

AWC’s Board of Directors consists of 25 members. These individuals approve legislative agendas, adopt policy positions, and set the tone for what the organization will fight for or against in Olympia.

Using the actual current board roster and the cities each member represents, the east-west breakdown is exact and unambiguous.

Seven board members come from cities east of the Cascades.

Eighteen board members come from cities west of the Cascades.

That is not a narrow margin. That is control.

Seventy-two percent of the board reflects west-side cities. Twenty-eight percent reflects eastern Washington.

This is not about personalities or intent. It is about voting power. When urban and rural priorities diverge, the outcome is predetermined before debate begins.

You can have the conversation.

You can raise concerns.

You can offer amendments.

But when the vote is taken, the math decides.

---

Representation Without Influence Is Not Representation

AWC often responds to criticism by pointing out that eastern Washington cities have seats at the table.

That is true, in the narrowest sense.

What they do not acknowledge is that a seat without leverage is symbolic. It provides the appearance of inclusion while preserving control.

In theory, AWC is a statewide coalition. In practice, it operates as a west-side consensus organization with statewide funding.

This is not unusual in Washington politics. But it is rarely stated out loud.

The question is not whether AWC allows eastern Washington cities to participate. It does.

The question is whether participation translates into outcomes.

The answer, increasingly, is no.

And that brings us to the next issue. If eastern Washington is structurally outvoted, what policies are being advanced in its name?

That is the subject of Part II.