Since the Spokane City Council is making the effort of reviewing the Spokane City Charter, it should be open to more than just “harmonizing charter sections to achieve greater clarity and direction for City government functions.”

That’s the description that went out this week when City Hall issued a call for citizens who want to join the expanded 11-member charter review committee. The City Council approved the expansion last week after wrangling over the size of the committee, who should pick it and what expertise the members should bring. Otherwise, the conversation had a mostly reassuring tone for anyone who feared the exercise could produce more substantive change.

Give Councilwoman Nancy McLaughlin credit for the boldness to say she saw no reason not to go over the charter “with a fine-tooth comb,” reminding her colleagues that city voters will have the final say on any amendments, minor or major.

McLaughlin also stated her support for reviewing the charter on a regular basis, a concept that had been discussed but not proposed.

That’s a sensible idea. Conditions change, and the framework of municipal government should be re-examined every so often to make sure it’s still suited to its environment. And, as McLaughlin noted, the need for voter approval is an effective safeguard if a renegade council gets reckless.

The main rationale given for this review is a list of ambiguities and inconsistencies that have been discovered since 1999, when voters approved a new charter with a strong-mayor form of government. Those problems, as veteran council members Al French and Steve Corker have pointed out, have been neglected for years. It’s time to tackle them.

But French predicts it could take two years to work through this process, meaning that by the time it’s finished it will have been a decade since the strong-mayor charter was adopted. Ten years would be a reasonable interval at which to take periodic looks at the basic framework of city government and decide if it needs a tune-up. Or doesn’t.

There are two ways to put charter amendments on the ballot: by citizen petition or by council action. No matter how the city has described the scope of this process, if the council wants to put ambitious amendments before the voters, the only thing stopping it would be a lack of political will.

So why be jittery about doing too much corrective work? If improvements are in order, make them – even if they strike some as substantial.

Most important, the process must be open and well publicized. In 1980, the City Council put 18 proposed charter amendments on the ballot; most were minor and technical, but only one passed. That’s what can happen if public participation isn’t encouraged every step of the way.