For the city of Spokane, “you can’t fight City Hall” is more than a cliché, it’s a mission statement. For years, the city – via its staff attorneys – has aggressively fought back against citizens with legitimate claims or requests for public information. Last Sunday, The Spokesman-Review examined this practice with a series of articles that detailed the rough treatment doled out to citizens with legitimate beefs over the past two decades.

City leaders have allowed this aggressive strategy to be pursued with little regard to how it has diminished the capacity for accountability. Because the council-manager form of government spread power among elected and unelected officials, it was easier to duck responsibility for this contempt for the public.

But now that we have a strong-mayor form of government, the responsibility can be accurately and appropriately assigned to a single person. Through various controversies, Mayor Dennis Hession has shown he is comfortable with a loose rein on the city attorney’s office, which has played a key role in shielding information related to potential and actual employee misconduct.

As we head into a municipal election, which includes the mayor’s job, voters have a right to know whether candidates would be comfortable leading a city that is quite possibly the most aggressive in the state in fighting back against claims of misconduct, particularly when it involves the Police Department.

Candidates need to be asked their opinion on the strategy of countersuing citizens with legal claims or public-records requests. These questions need not be limited to mayoral candidates. It’s a pertinent query for school board candidates and council members, too.

It’s not a matter of whether these intimidating countersuits are legal. They are. But how can average citizens be expected to pursue legitimate legal claims or public-records requests if they must hire attorneys to fend off the city’s counterclaims, which are often without merit?

The intent of the 1984 state law that allows public entities to file countersuits was to ward off an increasing number of frivolous claims. The law has merit if used judiciously, but in Spokane it has become the standard practice, regardless of the legitimacy of the claims against the city. The chilling effect is obvious. The irony is that it’s the city that is filing frivolous lawsuits to fend off legitimate ones.

The city’s counterstrike strategy carries consequences – intentional or otherwise. It fosters cynicism, because citizens feel they can’t get a fair shake. It raises questions about what the city is protecting. It inhibits soul-searching, because officials are focused on winning or losing, rather than right or wrong. It forestalls discussions on what the city can do to avoid future mistakes because the current ones aren’t acknowledged.

Spokane County government doesn’t use intimidation. Sam Pailca, a Seattle lawyer and former head of Seattle’s police oversight agency, says she’s unaware of such a pattern in other Washington cities. So why is it so ingrained at City Hall?

The easy answer is Assistant City Attorney Rocky Treppiedi, who is the foremost practitioner of aggressive counterclaims. But it’s too easy to blame him. He could’ve been stopped long ago. Instead, the city’s leaders have either encouraged his actions or looked the other way.

No more. The focus from here on is at the top. This should be a major campaign issue in this year’s elections.