Endorsements and editorials are made solely by the ownership of this newspaper. As is the case at most newspapers across the nation, The Spokesman-Review newsroom and its editors are not a part of this endorsement process. (Learn more.)

Editorial: City must approach citizen complaints humanely

Wed., March 28, 2012

What must Spokane City Hall think of the citizens it serves? When viewed through the lens of risk management, it must see a medieval rabble and tremble in fear. It seems as if each legal claim – even legitimate ones – is treated as a fireball from across the moat, and the only remedy is to return the volley.

We’ve been over the city’s aggressive legal posture as it relates to complaints against the Police Department and found it unacceptable. Countersuits, intimidation and blaming the victim have been the guiding strategies. New leaders have said this would change.

Now we’re reading about a case in which the city has once again pulled up the drawbridge in reaction to an approaching citizen. This time, a police officer would appear to be the good guy.

On Oct. 25, 2010, 70-year-old Patricia Searl, aided by a cane, attempted to cross the intersection at Buckeye Avenue and Northwest Boulevard. Three cars stopped and one did not, witnesses said. She was struck by a city employee driving a city vehicle. Among other injuries, the impact severed Pearl’s spine, leaving her paralyzed below the waist.

The investigating officer, Spokane police Cpl. David Adams, determined Searl had the right of way and the driver, Daniel Hirst, should be cited for failing to yield. What Adams didn’t know at the time was that a subcontractor for the risk management firm hired by the city had interviewed witnesses before the police had.

One day after the collision, a risk manager urged Adams to spread the word to the Police Department to clamp down on information because the media was not yet aware that Hirst was driving a city vehicle. Furthermore, the risk team encouraged city spokeswoman Marlene Feist to issue an ambiguous news release. As a result, the city said Searl was struck “near the intersection,” not in it.

A risk manager reportedly told Adams he ought to be cooperative “if you guys want a raise.” To his credit, Adams didn’t bend. Unfortunately for the city, Searl hired competent legal counsel, and the behind-the-scenes maneuvering was exposed.

As it stands now, the city is taking the legal position that the accident was Searl’s fault, despite a police report that says the opposite. This sounds distressingly familiar because it is the same defense attempted in the Otto Zehm case, despite damning video.

However, this episode can still produce some positive outcomes. Mayor David Condon made the Zehm case a campaign issue and promised changes. He has replaced the city attorney. The new city administrator, Theresa Sanders, has suggested the behavior of the risk team was inappropriate. She has called for a review of the firm’s contract, with an eye toward a more professional and humane approach.

The city rejected an out-of-court settlement in this case. If that avenue is still available, it ought to take it. The prospect of city-sponsored attorneys pummeling a paralysis victim in court is disturbing.

Whatever the outcome, city leaders need to ensure this is the final episode of its medieval legal approach.