Hearing set on adding two more to Spokane County Commission

Spokane County is closer than it’s been in years to expanding its governing body.

The public will have a chance Tuesday to tell the three sitting commissioners why voters should be allowed to consider increasing their ranks by two, following a public shift from Commissioner Shelly O’Quinn earlier this year calling for more representation. She had previously said she wanted to see the petition signatures necessary to put the issue on the ballot before weighing in.

The meeting comes as commissioners deal with the fallout from a botched attempt to recruit a new chief executive and allegations from within and without the commission about violations of public meeting laws.

Commissioners will take testimony only on the narrow question of whether the issue should go on the November ballot. Testimony will not be heard on the pros and cons of a five-member commission.

It’s not the first time a call has been made for a larger body to handle the legislative business of a county with nearly 480,000 residents. County voters shot down both a proposal in 1991 to increase the commission to five members and a 1995 charter that would have unified city and county government under a 13-member board. The idea was floated again in 2007 by several members of the commission, including current Commissioner Todd Mielke, but no changes were made.

Mielke has said commissioners already have many time commitments because they’re required to serve on several other boards and commissions throughout the county. Public meeting laws also state that when a quorum of commissioners is present, the public must be notified. That means any time two Spokane County commissioners discuss official business, they must hold a public meeting.

“When all three of us are not attending a meeting, and yet want to be briefed, we have to technically call a public meeting, and advertise in advance, just to say, ‘Hey, what happened at the breakfast meeting this morning?’ ” Mielke said.

O’Quinn said she’d like to see the county follow a process written into state law in 1990, which allows the county to continue to operate under the state’s revised code but expands the commission to five members. Seven other counties around the state, most recently Clark County, elected to create a charter form of government, which requires the naming of more than two dozen freeholders to create a new system in a process that can take months. That process led to the 1995 failed vote.

The question can reach the ballot one of two ways, either with the approval of a majority of sitting commissioners or by petition. Signatures would need to be collected to match 10 percent of the voter turnout in the previous general election, with at least 20 percent of the total coming from each of the county’s three commissioner districts. Karen Kearney, a community activist who brought the issue before commissioners in February, said earlier this year it was unlikely the signatures could be collected in time for this year’s election.

Kearney said Thursday she was pleased the commissioners had scheduled a hearing on the issue and feels confident heading into the meeting.

“I don’t think the commissioners can choose to ignore the support this has,” Kearney said, adding that she’s spoken to many community groups that support the proposal.

In order to make the November ballot, commissioners would have to approve a resolution putting the question to voters by Aug. 4.

The ballot question would then require a simple majority to pass. Commissioners would need to create the two new districts by March 2016, based on requirements in state law. If they do not, the courts would step in and draw the new district lines.