Curbed

Council President Shogan parks his ordinance to repeal police ombudsman’s powers, at least for now.

With dozens of energized citizens sporting “Appeal” stickers and lining up to speak against his proposed ordinance, City Council President Joe Shogan made his announcement Monday night.

“It is clear that there are two strains that are going on here,” he began. “Funny word, ‘strain.’”

Spokane Council President Joe Shogan

He then explained that after “particularly intense discussions with [councilmembers] Amber Waldref, Richard Rush, and the rest of the council” he was recommending something of a compromise.

Shogan said would agree to defer further action on his proposed ordinance in exchange for Rush agreeing to withdraw a competing resolution, and with the recommendation that the council direct its attorney to send a letter to the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC).

The purpose of the letter would be to essentially force PERC to weigh in on whether or not an arbitrator was acting properly when he ruled, last month, that Spokane’s police ombudsman ordinance violates state law. As we’ve reported previously, the arbitrator, Michael Beck, prefaced his July 11th opinion with the caveat that the decision really wasn’t his to make.

“The problem with PERC’s deferral in this case,” Beck wrote, “is that whether or not the Employer’s conduct is protected or prohibited by the Collective Bargaining Agreement depends upon whether or not the changes here can be considered mandatory subjects of bargaining or permissive subjects of bargaining. This determination is appropriately one that should be made by PERC pursuant to resolution of the complaint filed in this matter charging an unfair labor practice [against] the City of Spokane.”

And yet, Beck not only went ahead to offer his opinion but he concluded that Spokane had committed an unfair labor practice with its 2010 ombudsman ordinance. He thusly directed the city to repeal the ordinance, something that the Center for Justice and other citizens groups believe would destroy the independence and credibility of the office.

The Council President’s response was to offer an ordinance to repeal the 2010 Ombudsman ordinance. Rush’s response, clearly opposed by Shogan during a testy August 1st council session, was to sponsor a resolution to appeal or otherwise seek to reverse the arbitrator.

If PERC replies that “the arbitrator didn’t have jurisdiction,” Shogan explained Monday night, “then that answers the question of appeal”—meaning there would be no need to appeal, because the arbitrator’s ruling would be invalid.

Pending a fairly quick answer from PERC, Shogan said, his ordinance would be deferred until September 26th.

If those in the crowded council chamber were a bit confused by this oddly presented compromise, so were some of the council members.

“It makes sense to me that we need to seek clarification from PERC before we decide to take further action one way or the other,” said Councilman Jon Snyder. “But I would love to see if we could get somebody with better knowledge to help set a legal path for this whole enterprise, to perhaps answer some questions about what constitutes an actual appeal, once we get that clarification from PERC.”

If PERC were to uphold the arbitrator’s opinion, Snyder said his understanding is that “an actual appeal,” would have to be narrowly constructed and lodged in Superior Court.

The City Council’s assigned attorney, Mike Piccolo, then confirmed that.

Minutes later the council voted unanimously to accept Shogan’s recommendation which, among other things, meant that there was nothing left on the floor of Monday night’s meeting that concerned the issue of the police ombudsman. In what seemed a useful civic gesture at the time, Shogan then grudgingly invited public testimony, anyway, given that so many people had come down and signed up to speak.

This part of the evening did not go so well. As is his nature, Shogan frequently interrupted speakers to challenge, discourage or outright demand that they stop talking about subjects he deemed offensive or off the subject. One speaker was evicted, another basically threw himself out after unloading on the Council President, and much of the testimony—with extended responses from Shogan defending his conduct—was about the alleged rudeness and incivility of the Council President.

When all was said and done, with a final defense by the Council President of his moderating style, each council member took a turn to speak. Most spoke at some length and thanked members of the public for their testimony.

“I just want to remark that the community has been wrapped around police oversight for decades now. And its time some council saw it through and brought it to a logical conclusion, rather than back and forth and up and down, one step forward and two steps back,” Councilman Richard Rush said. “I think this council has taken very important steps to do that.”

Although Rush didn’t cite Mayor Mary Verner’s expressed intent and optimism that the Spokane Police Guild could be talked into agreeing to having the office retain its powers, he was forceful in explaining his problem with that approach.

“It should be a fundamental right of a city to have transparency, accountability in its police force,” he said. “On the other hand, we have a labor law which was put there for good reason but the way it’s used has evolved to the point of an impropriety, or not being applied properly. So to say that we should have the mayor go negotiate a contract that puts in the transparency and accountability we want is a work around, [WHAT] we need for our own benefit and for the benefit of all the communities in the state of Washington, to have this defined, to have it settled, to have it worked out, where communities do have an unequivocal prerogative, a management prerogative to have transparency and oversight.”

—CFJ