Council says no to partner benefits vote

The Spokane City Council revisited the controversial issue of providing benefits to the domestic partners of city employees, hearing many of the same arguments for and against the decision it made last April.

But it refused to bend the rules and give voters a chance to repeal those benefits in the Nov. 8 election, saying the petition drive for a referendum fell short of the signatures it needed.

“It’s important that we maintain the integrity of the system,” Council President Dennis Hession said before voting with the 5-2 majority against a proposal for a ballot measure.

The ordinance allows benefits such as health insurance to be offered to a city employee’s domestic partner – either of the same sex or opposite sex – just as they are to a spouse. It currently affects only 17 employees, and none has opted to take advantage of it.

Opponents tried to block the ordinance in the month after it passed by gathering signatures on a referendum petition. They fell about 120 signatures short of the number needed to put it on the ballot.

Spokane residents, joined by allies from Spokane Valley, Deer Park and North Idaho, flocked to City Hall to ask the council to put the controversial issue on the ballot by its own authority.

Such a vote would give voters a chance to “stand up for the moral climate of our city, our county and our country,” said Greg Parks.

It would give them a chance to exercise their civic duty, said John Beal.

It would stimulate strong debate on a divisive issue, said state Sen. Brad Benson.

It would allow the citizens, “not the special interest groups,” to decide, said Penny Davis.

Nancy McLaughlin, a candidate for council in the Northwest District, said opponents of the domestic partner benefits ordinance might have collected enough signatures if their last two days hadn’t been a Saturday and a Sunday. “If I were in your position, I would defer to the people and let them decide,” she said.

But supporters of the ordinance, while not as numerous, were equally passionate that the council stick by its decision.

The council should show the courage of its convictions, said Peter Perkins.

It should show its integrity and “balance the bad publicity Spokane has been getting,” said Virginia Foote.

“They did not get enough signatures,” said Brooke Powers. “Done deal. Do the citizens need to vote on every issue?”

Councilman Bob Apple, who proposed putting the measure on the ballot, called it a moral issue. “I do not appreciate it when government decides to legislate morality,” he said.

But arguments against bending the rules seemed to hold sway with most council members. Brad Stark, who voted against the domestic partner benefits ordinance, said he couldn’t support putting the issue on the ballot when the petition drive fell short.

“There’s a prescribed course of action,” he said. “Otherwise, we could put things on the ballot whenever you don’t like one of our decisions.”

But Councilwoman Cherie Rodgers said the council has ignored the rules in the past, and put some other issues, like fluoridation of the city’s water, on the ballot. While she voted against those previous measures, she voted to put the current measure on the ballot, even though she supports domestic partner benefits.

“I’m not afraid of a public vote,” Rodgers said.

Chances are, there will be one. Michael Smith, head of Choice of the People, which circulated the referendum petitions, said the group will try to gain access to the ballot, probably next year, through an initiative.