November 19, 2009 in City

Spokane’s Initiative process gets look

Council’s proposal based on state rules

• Print
• Email
• Share

Less than a month after the defeat of a citizen initiative opposed by each member of the Spokane City Council, officials are considering rule changes that critics say will make it harder for residents to use the ballot box to seek changes in municipal operations.

Under the proposal, residents still could change city ordinances by gathering signatures to put an issue before voters. However, the question that appears on ballots would have to be written by a city attorney – not the citizens proposing change.

The city’s finance department also would be required to write a fiscal impact statement that would be printed on the city’s Web site and in voter guides. No such requirement is made of City Council members who propose changes to city law.

Supporters of the changes say the proposal is meant to clarify the process and ensure voters are accurately informed.

Councilman Al French said the new rules are based on the state’s initiative process, which has withstood several court challenges.

“This is a vehicle to make sure that the referendum that’s presented to the voters is accurate,” French said.

Earlier this month, 76 percent of voters rejected the proposed Community Bill of Rights. Envision Spokane, the group that led the effort, collected more than enough signatures to place the initiative before voters, but some members of City Council argued that Envision’s ballot question was biased.

Thomas Linzey, Envision Spokane’s legal adviser, accused the council of trying to “ram (the rule changes) through during the holidays.” The council was originally scheduled to consider the changes next Monday, but that vote has been delayed a week.

Linzey said the city attorney would have a conflict of interest in writing a ballot question. “It really takes the power from the supporters and the people who are preparing the initiative to the City Council,” Linzey said.

Envision Spokane members also criticize changes to the signature-gathering schedule. Currently, supporters of an initiative can start collecting signatures as soon as their concept is filed with the city clerk. Under the proposal, however, signature-gathering can’t start until a ballot title is finalized by the city attorney’s office, which could take about two months.

Supporters of the change note that initiative backers still would have 12 months to gather signatures and would keep full control over the language that would become law.

Spokane Mayor Mary Verner said the controversy over placing the bill of rights on the ballot demonstrates a need for change. “The initiative process has lacked clarity in certain respects,” she said.

• Story
• Comments 03

Three comments on this story so far. Add yours!

• 

  dick adams on November 19 at 8:00 a.m.

  Leave it to the ship of fools at city hall to screw the citizens again. The rudderless ship, lead by Mayor Verner, will run aground and sink. French thinks he knows how to bail everybody out but as usual he is using a pail with big holes. I wonder if Rock Treppiedi is the attorney French is listening too??

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  CalJones on November 19 at 8:15 a.m.

  Best move by council in a very long time

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  The_Spovangelist on November 20 at 11:15 a.m.

  I couldn't disagree with you more Cal.

  Our elections process is so heavily distorted with corporate donations our officials aren't as closely accountable to the people who elected them as they should be. This is a fear-driven move to make it even more difficult for grassroots groups and everyday people to bring about meaningful reform at the local level.

  You're a card carrying conservative, right? What if the City of Spokane became so inflated and financially over-extended that you felt the need to propose a local tax payer's bill of rights to cap government growth? Would you want the city attorney to tell you that your measure is untenable and to gut it before it ever reaches the ballot? Is that not unlike allowing Medusa to sprout as many hydra-heads as she pleases - completely unchecked by the people who are paying for all the spending?

  I might disagree with such a proposal, but the point is I would like to vote for or against it directly. I respectfully don't want Monroe Court Limited or other interests in their league making those decisions on my behalf via their council members.

  It is wrong for these sweeping changes to be rushed through as a backlash to the Community Bill of Rights. The voters made their choice to reject the measure and that is where it should stand. In the future we may seriously regret going on this politically expedient “loophole hunt” to cede citizen input and further tighten the governmental machine. When it comes to citizen led initiatives, the people do not need to be saved from themselves. We should preserve our ability to vote in our own best interests and then get whatever we have coming to us as a result. This is the purpose of a marketplace of ideas, lets keep is as free and as flexible as possible.

  http://www.time.com/time/magazine/art…

  Flag as inappropriate