In the face of hostile testimony, Envision Spokane’s “Bill of Rights” initiative gets forwarded to County Auditor to validate signatures.
If Monday night’s council meeting is any indication, Spokane is in for one whale of a debate this fall as a coalition of Spokane progressives, neighborhood activists and environmentalists works for passage of a city-wide ballot measure.
The ballot measure, entitled “Envisioning a Sustainable Spokane: A Community Bill of Rights,” is a sweeping document that would change the city charter to guarantee city residents new economic, health care, energy use, land use and employment rights. It would also guarantee rights to ecosystems–including groundwater and surface water which would be given the rights to flow and retain water quality sufficient to sustain wild plants and animals “and to provide clean drinking water.”
Procedurally, the 5-2 vote of the council Monday night directs the Spokane City Clerk to have Spokane County validate the more than 5,000 signatures gathered by Envision Spokane for the purpose of putting the measure on the Fall 2009 general election ballot. Of those signatures, at least 2,795 will need to be validated for the measure to qualify.
But the council’s 5-2 procedural vote masked a telling fact–not one member of the Spokane Council actually supports the measure. Even Steve Corker, the council member who expressed the most sympathy for the motives and ideals of those working to pass it, squarely announced his intention to campaign against its passage both because of the costs involved in enforcing the measures and because he believes city government lacks the legal and constitutional authority to do what the measure would require the city to do.
Councilman Richard Rush also commended Envision Spokane “for the tremendous amount of community organizing and work they’ve done,” and said that, in his view, the “genesis” of the movement that gave rise to the document was the city’s “failure” to implement its own comprehensive plan.
Still, Rush said, he “struggled” with the practice of “governing through initiative” and cited several instances where statewide measures, “particularly Tim Eyman’s initiatives” had seriously weakened the ability of local governments to deliver transportation, public health, and other services to their citizens.
The initiative process, Rush said, “makes for incoherent public policy,” and even though he didn’t expressly oppose the Envision Spokane proposal he did say “what I fear most if this petition succeeds is that this is what we’ll see, an increase in governance by petition and we won’t have, like I mentioned, the coherent public policy that can only be considered by an elective body who looks at all sides, of cost and benefit to the public, when we make decisions.”
Despite the procedural nature of the council’s options Monday, most of the testimony was on the substance of the plan, and much of the debate was polarized along political and ideological lines. Opponents, most of whom wore red shirts and some of whom picketed outside the chamber, included former County Commissioner Kate McCaslin and former state Rep. John Ahern. Ahern sported a red t-shirt with the profile of a Vodka bottle on the back that read “Absolut Republican.” Some of the most vehement critics referred to the Envision Spokane organizers as “carpetbaggers” and others made stem-winding comparisons to Nikita Krushchev and even Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler.
“I sense a lot of fear over this whole issue. A lot of fear over whether it’s going to pass, a lot of fear over whether it’s not going to pass. God help us if we’re all ruled by fear. We’re a democracy.” –Council President Joe Shogan, speaking Monday night.
But not all of the criticism was ideological or political. Former Spokane Council member (and current council candidate) Steve Eugster offered vigorous legal criticism of the proposal arguing, among other things, that it sought to create legal authority that is simply unavailable to citizens (or to natural resources) through municipal legislation. Eugster was also one of several critics who said the measure should be either withheld or deemed invalid by the council because the ballot title did not come close to reflecting all of what was in the initiative.
This was the issue that Councilman Al French said he felt strongest about. French said the measure clearly violates Section 13 of the city charter limiting pieces of legislation to one subject. But his resolution to have the council rule that the measure was invalid failed by a 5-2 vote as only Nancy McLaughlin voted with him.
The more the council discussed the issue, the more it became clear that they’d been advised by city lawyers to not invalidate the measure and thereby force an immediate legal challenge. Early on in the hearing, Envision Spokane Board President Brad Read confirmed, under questioning from Councilman Bob Apple, that the organization was prepared to file suit if the city council moved to invalidate the measure that evening. After public testimony was concluded, Apple said the council had been told by its legal advisers that the courts would likely “defer” a decision on the legality of the measure until the voters had actually had a chance to vote on it.
“I don’t know the end result of this initiative,” said Apple. “I know I don’t like it. But that doesn’t mean I have the right to protect you by telling you [that] you don’t have the right to vote on it.”
Council President Joe Shogan was the last to speak on how he saw the council’s choices.
“I sense a lot of fear over this whole issue,” he said. “A lot of fear over whether it’s going to pass, a lot of fear over whether it’s not going to pass. God help us if we’re all ruled by fear. We’re a democracy. Every four years we elect a change, or a potential change, in each administration to run this country. If you’re one party and your candidate doesn’t get elected, you probably have fear, but that’s just the way we operate. There’s a lot of talk about whether this should be decided by litigation. There’s a lot of talk tonight about the substance of this bill of rights, but we’re not here tonight to rule on the substance. We’re here tonight to decide whether it’s invalid or whether it should go forward in the process to have signatures validated.”
Despite French’s analysis, Shogan said it was not clear that it was a “slam dunk” that the Envision Spokane ballot measure could be ruled invalid on its face as too broad, and he then read from an initiative–the Crime Victims Bill of Rights–which also has several provisions to it that are not obviously connected to one another as a single subject matter. He noted that the courts had not found it to be invalid.
“My point is this,” he continued, “if there’s a question, it’s not clear in my mind that you’re going to get a court to rule on this thing before it goes to an election. You talk about litigation, sure fire, one hundred percent, there will be litigation if this doesn’t go forward. But if it goes forward, there’s a fifty percent chance you won’t have litigation because the voters will have voted it down. If we are all afraid of majority rule in a democracy, then somebody better come up with a different system. Because the system we have says that in a democracy people vote and a majority wins. So I see nothing here to prevent me from allowing this to go forward for validation. Do I hope it passes? No. I have a lot of problems with it. But just because I have a problem with it doesn’t mean that I should decide that the voters of this city don’t have the intelligence to make a wise decision.”
The Center for Justice provides legal services to Envision Spokane and CFJ Chief Catalyst Breean Beggs provided testimony Monday night, urging the council to allow the measure to go forward to voters. The Center’s founder, Jim Sheehan, also testified in favor of the Envision Spokane measure. According to press accounts, Sheehan has donated $10,000 to Envision Spokane making him, by far, the organization’s largest funder.
Among the Spokane area business groups testifying against the measure Monday night were the Spokane Homebuilders and the Associated General Contractors.
–CFJ
No comments yet.