Jim McDevitt: Prop 1 a costly power grab by the City Council

By Jim McDevitt

In the Nov. 8 election the voters of the city of Spokane will have the opportunity to tell the City Council that we do not approve of its attempt to change the City Charter on a piecemeal basis and without ample public input, or even input from our mayor.

More than 20 years ago, the citizens of Spokane ratified a City Charter that called for a strong mayor form of city government (not so-called strong mayor as some have misleadingly stated). Proposition No. 1 attempts to make a major change in the City Charter and further weaken the authority of the mayor as currently granted in the charter.

There are a number of reasons that Prop 1 should be rejected.

First, it would erode the mayor’s authority to select the city attorney and give primary power to the City Council. Currently, the mayor appoints the city attorney with council approval. Prop 1 would reverse this procedure and allow a majority of the City Council to select the city attorney with the mayor’s agreement.

But an even greater change would be the procedure for removing the city attorney. Now the mayor has that authority. But under Prop 1, the mayor and the council would have to agree. Moreover, the city attorney could only be removed for “just cause,” which is a very high standard to meet for an employer. Currently, the city attorney can be removed by the mayor if she or he demonstrates only marginal legal skills and is not able or willing to meet the high expectations of the position. With Prop 1, such deficiencies would undoubtedly not be sufficient to qualify as “just cause” or grounds for removal from this key position in city government.

The proponents also argue that this charter change would “create a safer Spokane” without providing any evidence to support this assertion. Furthermore, they imply that the charter change would lead to fewer conflicts between the mayor and council. But given conflicts that have already occurred in our city government, this change in hiring and/or terminating a city attorney would most likely be just be one more area for disagreement.

Another problem with Prop 1 is that the ordinance placing it on the ballot was passed as an “emergency ordinance,” even though the council president acknowledges he has been considering this for over a year. By using (or, more appropriately, abusing) the emergency ordinance procedure (supposedly only authorized when “necessary for the protection of public health, public safety, public property, or the public peace as provided in Section 19(A)(1)), the council was able to put Prop 1 on the ballot with minimum public discussion and scrutiny; not very open and transparent.

If Prop 1 passes, it will increase costs. The city attorney would get a seven-year contract unless removed for just cause. Currently, the salary of the city attorney tops out at about $180,000 per year plus benefits, which can cost the city an additional 30%-35% of the individual’s salary. Moreover, while currently the council can hire its own attorney for specific issues, if desired, under the change the mayor and council could each hire one. In addition, after seven years in office, the city attorney would then qualify for retirement pay for life. No other member of the city’s cabinet has this kind of guaranteed employment. The sponsors of Prop 1 want you to believe that a seven-year contract is necessary to attract a qualified and competent city attorney. This is not true. The current city attorney salary is above the average income of attorneys in this area. As well, whether an attorney spends a year or several years as the city attorney for the second-largest city in Washington, having such an appointment on one’s resumé is a big plus for any future employment or appointment. By the council president’s own admission, the past several city attorneys, who have not had a guaranteed seven-year contract, have been highly qualified.

The City Council proponents of Prop 1 are concerned that they cannot receive accurate, unbiased advice from the city attorney on issues where they may disagree with the mayor. They say they want an “independent” city attorney. However, the council is already able to hire its own independent attorney if needed. Under the Rules of Professional Conduct Section 1.0 A (k) (admissions.wsba.org/rules), a current assistant city attorney could be assigned to represent the City Council and effectively “screened,” thus, independent, and prevented from disclosing to others including the mayor, any information deemed privileged between the council and its attorney.

Prop 1 is an expensive and unnecessary measure, designed to increase the authority of the City Council. If the majority on our City Council believes our City Charter needs revising, a group should be formed to thoroughly study the issue, gather extensive community input, write a draft of the suggested changes, and then get more community input before putting a proposal on the ballot. Charter changes should not be proposed by a piecemeal procedure without considerable community discussion.

Vote NO on Proposition No. 1.

Jim McDevitt was U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Washington, 2001-2010. He was also Spokane’s law enforcement director in 2016.