I n 1999, Spokane voters took a leap of courage and faith to change city government. One change was to elect council members by district, supposedly giving citizens better representation and the opportunity for greater choice on the ballot by making the costs of a candidacy less prohibitive.

Since it was seven years ago, you might think it’s a bit late to review, but the truth is that until the last election we haven’t had a “pure” City Council elected by district and only by district. Until then we’ve always had someone on the council who was, at one point or another, elected citywide.

Changes in government can take time.

So how are we doing?

In a comparison with the elections of 1999, when all council members were elected citywide, there’s an amazing difference.

In the 1999 final tally of candidate expenses, two candidates spent more than $100,000 each to win their seats and another candidate spent more than $70,000. Less than that and they all lost. For a city the size of Spokane, that was red flag about representation.

In the latest council races, the highest spender was just over $40,000, and some candidates ran to the finish with expenses under $20,000. Though running for a seat on our City Council isn’t cheap, the lower costs allow more good candidates to attempt it.

The second and most important reason for changing to district elections was to provide for better representation. Smaller districts, with only those voters in that district deciding who their representative is, gave us a champion, a voice for where we live, in a city where every neighborhood competes for attention, service and progress. It’s a simple theory, makes good sense and has a proven track record. But did it work?

I’d have to say “no.” Not in Spokane.

That said, the next question is, “Why not?”

First let me make it clear that this isn’t a “City Council bashing.” Most of our elected council members work long hours doing the best they can under less than satisfactory conditions.

That is exactly the problem.

Though our City Charter loosely describes the position of a City Council officeholder as being “part time,” the reality is far from it. If those we elect to that office perform to the expectations we have for them, they must work at least 40 hours a week and usually more. With an annual gross compensation of $18,000, in a few more years City Council members won’t even be on a par with minimum wage in this state.

Since almost all council members have to work another job to enjoy a satisfactory lifestyle, their schedules are often challenged by conflicting commitments.

As for better representation, so far most council members have done little or nothing to distinguish their representation of the district they serve and were elected in from the city as a whole. Contact that generates a response from your elected councilperson is more rare than common.

These are the people who write city policy, establish laws, raise rates, increase taxes and are the political leaders for almost 200,000 people, making decisions that affect many more than that. As it stands, it couldn’t be a more counterproductive system.

I believe it’s past time to correct this situation.

Spokane has reached a point in its growth where a full-time City Council is demanded, with a paycheck that draws those who are better qualified. No outside work should be permitted and council members must be accountable to their electorate. The people of Spokane deserve no less.

Until then, we get what we pay for.