And what a circus it was! Council Cliff Notes 7/13
July 17, 2009 
14 Comments
Who has the time or endurance to attend City Council meetings? Probably not you. So to help draw you in to the Community Bill of Rights initiative debate, we’ve created an index of the relevant testimony given last Monday night.
The first step is to go here:
http://www.spokanecity.org/services/citycable5/streamingmedia/
And select the July 13th proceedings. Please note that you have to allow the Council meeting video to load completely in order to access the fast forward/rewind feature.
The following is not meant to be an accurate reflection of the given testimony. All spellings are approximate and subject to correction. These notes are provided free of charge as a convenience to everyone. Enjoy!
PRO 90-106 Brad Reed
Just watch it for yourself.
CON 106-107 Michael Cathcart
talking points: conflates CELDF & Envision Spokane, lawsuits will cost tax payer, logrolling
CON 107-109 Joanne McCann
deceptive means not valid, radically change, unfunded mandates, extraordinary case, “protect all of us”
PRO 109-111 Kai Hushke
has been confirmed to not be legally invalid, a key piece of democracy
PRO 111-125 Breean Beggs
right to ballot access for initiatives, we are a charter city, invalidity can only be charged for formatting, don’t end the public discourse, ballot title must match content, Crime Victims Bill of Rights is a good example, can argue that issue later, consultation or not City Council would ultimately have to make the same decision, more than preponderance of case law on rational unity, helps to enforce the Comp. Plan, law is all about interpretation – there is no black or white, this would set a framework for decision making, saves money because challenges only come up after passage instead of for every proposal, gets issues out on the table
PRO 125-126 Patty Gates
“citizens have right to directly legislate” honor the process
CON 126-128 Kim Garsseau
carpetbaggers, sinister, vague, insults constitution and bill of rights, gives power to unelected people without a financial stake, quote: “give Americans small doses of socialism until they find communism” Khrushchev 1959
CON 128-132 Blair Strom
“deficient on its face” (no explanation given) asked everyone to stand in audience, ideology is cleverly unifying, “menu initiative, nothing like this has come before the courts before”
CON 132-135 John Ahern
“fact: generated out of state” takes power away from city council to neighborhoods, anti-business, will drive people to Idaho, lawsuits are costly, will cost taxpayers, take away from police and fire “prevailing wages are Seattle wages”
CON 136-138 CJ Meyer
businesses can easily move to Oregon and Montana
PRO 138-140 Terri Sloyer
the petition originated entirely within Spokane, over double sigs required wanted to see the public debate
PRO 140-141 Jim Sheehan
democracy is squishy, don’t thwart the will of the people
PRO 141-143 Kathy Miotke
neighborhood rep, merits of legitimizing the comp plan will be debated later, will support neighborhood plans, ensuring people have equal and early representation at the table, democracy in action
PRO 143-145 Brooke Matson
alternative high school teacher, witnesses the impacts of faulty systems, teaches government by the people and for the people, high school kids are skeptical of democracy, please do not stand in the way of democracy
PRO 145-147 Amy McCaffree
use critical thinking skills, definition of fallacy
PRO 147 Sarah Conover
critical public debate
CON 148 Josh Kerns
roads are most important, this will tie money in the courts
CON 149-151 Christopher Bass
Benjamin Franklin: we are a republic not a democracy, State laws are different from City, brilliant idea, 9000 sigs are required, not 5000, would take away corporate rights
CON 151-154-168 Steve Eugster
two memos, three types of pre-election review, WA doesn’t have substantive challenge, WA does have procedural review, initiative gives legal standing to ecosystems, Spokane citizens don’t have authority to do that, title is too general, logrolling, incidental subdivisions have to relate to main topic and each other, Public Disclosure Act, Roberts Rules of Order, the title includes more than one subject, “facially defective” Philadelphia 2: State citizens cannot legislate national policy, amendments have to include what is going out and in, City and State laws are pretty much the same for contesting initiatives before elections
CON/PRO 180-184 Kate McCaslin
“The Lawyers Permanent and Full Employment Act” business will have to face lawsuits, cost thousands of jobs, send to voters to reject, may not qualify
CON 184-187 Gloria Clarke
“veiled threat” Envision Spokane is threatening Forest and Farmland Conservancy will take over counties to prevent urban sprawl, farm VS soil rights? people VS native plants? group went down to Ecuador, has plans to expand “sustainability thing”
CON 187-190 Hal Ellis
not a single issue, charter is not the place to do these things, River Park Square litigation was expensive
PRO 191-192 Bernadette Powers
I’m a Spokane carpetbagger since 1968, Jefferson: “people are ultimate repository of decision making power”
CON/PRO 195 Bill Hislip
Chair, Association of Builders and Contractors, major significant questions, loss of jobs and business, removes city authority, changes state law regarding corporations, send to the auditor if you have to
CON 195 Brenda Corbitt
right is right and wrong is wrong, vote your heart
CON 196-198 Brenda Stamper
“we go by the rule of law” you as people can represent the rest of the people, don’t be bullied
CON 198 Dane McLaughlin?
nebulous nature of bill of rights denies rights of corporations, gives people and neighborhoods the right to defend their rights, what about spraying the lawn? what is an ecosystem, Marxist philosophy, drafted by CELDF, constitutional republic, democracy results in tyranny of majority, equivalent of negotiating with Hitler
PRO 203 Mike Rowles
let the voters make their choice
CON 204 Matthew Wade
neighborhood association would have had ability to intervene in a development project, “highly volatile”
PRO 205-206 Lori Aluna
have not petitioned anywhere outside the city limits, crystal ball comparison
CON 206-209 Gretchen McDevitt
written incorrectly, should have gone to city legal department, “fatally flawed” my husband is a lawyer, request declaratory judgment, or postpone decision
PRO 209 Richard Evans
people will eventually come to understand it after reading instead of going off assumptions, BTW: prevailing wage set county by county
PRO 211-213 Tom Powers
represents JOBS, litigation is costly in many terms
CON 213-215 Matt Monroe
step in career for proponents, “scary documentary” these people need to be stopped
PRO 216 Dave Bilsland
5,000 best friends
PRO 218 Patrick Davidson
Latah Creek – a check on the City Council when they go against the planning commission, would take 51% of registered voters to take action about the quality of the neighborhood, it is a slight shift in power, but people are overblowing the impact
PRO 219-221 Mariah McKay
a documentary is being produced because this is truly novel strategy for grassroots organizing, legitimate unanswered questions, even if fails first time around the approach is valid
PRO 222-223 Jim Green
worked with community groups, town hall meetings all over the city
CON 223 Edie Striecher
1200 members of Homebuilders Assoc. National Legal Staff says in violation of single subject
CON 224 Cindy Zapotocky
these people are saying that CO2 is a pollutant, you’ll have to breach dams
CON/PRO 226-228 Richard Rush
the Comprehensive Plan has not been abided by, opposes government by initiative because it is unwieldy and incoherent, 695 is making City go bankrupt
CON 229- Al French
took oath to obey law, ballot language does not reflect the nature of the initiative, city charter hasn’t been challenged and therefore courts don’t have ruling, it is time to explore initiative law, ensure no frauds are perpetrated, every $ trades off with safety, declaratory judgment, democracy doesn’t mean initiative to violate law, I’m not ready for community rights
CON 235-239 Nancy McLaughlin
don’t agree with this at all, “misconscrew” feeling manipulated, “just can’t go there” the new normal means we can’t take risks
CON/PRO 239-241 Mike Allen
won’t void a law thats not law, this gets away from value of self-reliance, survey says safety is king, tactical move not to work with city attorney
CON/PRO 241-255 Steve Corker
disappointed in opposition demonizing Envision Spokane, asking if right of health care should be equal to education, they found opportunity at local level to test, proponents seem to demonize contractors and developers as not sensitive to environmental rights, this is a more humanistic approach towards government, local level has limited tax authority and therefore should have limited responsibilities, bothered by too many “shalls” and not enough “mays” we’ve done Project Access, created 350 affordable homes, the issue that is being advanced can’t be defined, list of needs exceeds resources, tradeoffs will have to be made, property rights challenges, “what Envision did back east” (???) neighborhoods aren’t sure where they want to go, not afraid of going to vote, has faith in people of Spokane to become involved, not ready locally or nationally for what Envision is talking about
CON/PRO 255-260 Bob Apple
“there is going to be a battle” major flaws, ultimate trust in voters, method doesn’t say “maybe” don’t want to impede with declaratory judgment, “I don’t like it”
CON/PRO 260-264 Joe Shogan
“I sense a lot of fear” democracy is just the way we operate, not considering substance, right of initiative is to be held above all, Crime Victims Bill of Rights example, can’t be afraid of majority rule, voters will say no
About the Author
Thank you for your recap Spovangelist – I had the pleasure of watching all of this unfold on my television – which allowed me to yell and cuss and not have to worry about being kicked out of the chambers
Wow, only one comment so far on your very helpful post. You obviously spent a lot of time putting that together. Thanks for making the effort.
A recurring theme among the proponents was to the effect that Initiative 2009-2 represented “democracy in action,” that the Council ought not “stand in the way of democracy,” the “will of the people” ought not be thwarted, and the like. Some of these comments were aimed only at the specific issue before the Council, i.e., whether the measure was legally and procedurally eligible to place before the voters. But for many there was also the clear implication that the “will of the people” is definitive and decisive, and that “the people” are entitled to the form and role of government they prefer. As Jim Sheehan put it, “Let the people decide what it is THEY want . . . isn’t that what we’re about?”
Well, no, we’re not.
There is, alas, a widespread misunderstanding about what democracy is and what it can justify in the realm of public policy. Democracy is simply a decision procedure; it is a means of reaching a decision when there are multiple decision-makers, *all of whom have an equal right to make the decision*. It provides a means, for example, for the stockholders of a corporation to decide what lines of business the firm shall pursue, or the owners in common of a public roadway to decide what the speed limit shall be. It does not, and cannot, legitimize or justify a decision which none of the decision makers has any right to make in the first place. If those would-be decision-makers lack the required right individually, they cannot gain it via numbers; 1 million times zero is still zero. E.g., if Alfie, Bruno, and Chauncey have no rights as individuals to dictate to a pharmacist which drugs he must carry, who an employer must hire or what wages he must pay, which gods their neighbor must worship or which charities he must support, then they cannot acquire such a right by setting up an election and taking a vote. Numbers may confer might, but never right.
So, no, Mr, Sheehan, giving the people what they want — whatever that may be — is not what “we are about,” it is not the role of government in a just polity. Its role, instead, is to protect the right of each individual to decide for himself what he wants and to pursue it freely, subject only to the limitation that he not violate the like rights of others in the process.
Great cliff notes. It’s like I was there but didn’t have to sit through it! Some well-thought-out comments from the pro side, not so much coherency obvious on the other side.
It’s impressive to see the amount of effort that such a broad group is putting into this very large-scale project.
I’m interested to see where the anti funding will come from, whether it’ll be local groups or local groups funneling national money in the interest of making it look impossible to other communities that may be watching.
Thanks for the circus pics too. Nice.
1. Lots of work went into this Spov. It’s a great service to those who cannot or will not pay attention. Serious Cliff Notes types salute you!!
2. As usual, Contrarian is correct. I watch the proceedings from a few thousand miles away on the net (what a forward thinking gift). Boiled down, those 3.5 hours could be summarized easily by this: is it proper to have more than one issue in this initiative.
It was an easy question to answer. None of the hand wringing and obfuscation were necessary. Not much of the testimony was necessary either.
To me, most of people were saying “I want what I want when I want it”..which is seriously what the Council ended up voting on. The mob kind of got it’s wishes. I’d be seriously surprised if someone doesn’t take the Council to task since they did overstep in my opinion. Flagrant disregard for what’s on the books is no way to win or lose something. Whether it’s Mr Eugster, the Homebuilders or some PAC, the Council’s decision to admit all of those diverse issues should be challenged under procedural questions alone i.e. it doesn’t matter if it’s right or wrong if the rules were violated.
Democracy protects individual rights and guarantees them. How?…by ensuring correct procedures are followed for one. “We didn’t think it was right or we ( the protective “we”….as in “mob”) didn’t like some such thing” shouldn’t apply.
No matter though, it’ll be interesting to watch this play out. As an aside though, as I read all those points, I chuckled. “Do you wanna go to heaven or not?”…all bundled into an initiative. In heaven, all those things are free. Back to earth though…who will pay for those things? The ideas of the 60′s are lose again. Cute.
In a true democracy there is more than one right answer; the key to an open society is for citizens to have a voice and hold those in power accountable. The process works best when our minds are open to change and to new ideas and reasonable arguments. The Community Bill Of Rights best exemplifies that.
And I think it’s great for Spokane: Here we are discussing a radical amendment to our little town that has people scratching their heads, thinking outside the big-box retailers.
It;s incongruous that apolitical labor unions support it while the Spokane Home Builders Associating is vehemently opposing, even dressing in red outside City Hall during the council vote and running a slideshow of their protest on their website. Let’s use that popular, old clichéd adage: Change. If you say that’s broad, fine, we simply believe the old ways aren’t really getting us anywhere, so let’s try something new. This bill more about reform, rather than pushing a liberal agenda.
But everybody is nervous about the bill, even those who support it “in theory.” Richard Rush, the greenest Councilmember, said “what I fear most if this petition succeeds is that this is what we’ll see, an increase in governance by petition and we won’t have, like I mentioned, the coherent public policy that can only be considered by an elective body who looks at all sides, of cost and benefit to the public, when we make decisions.” He sees it as more of a Tim Eyeman-like initiative. However, Eyman, for all of his faults which include wearing a gorilla suit in public, has it right when he said initiatives are our way to get elected officials to deal with issues they would otherwise lack the willpower to undertake. That’s democracy babe.
(And fear not Contrarian: Like you say democracy has the check-and-balances in place to make sure people don’t really get to decide what THEY want… caps courtesy of Mr. Sheehan’s transcript to display emphasis.)
Well, Paul, first, there is nothing “new” in Envision Spokane’s “Bill of Frights.” It is a menu of free lunches served up from the smorgasbord the Left has been dreaming about and salivating over for the last couple of centuries. It is merely the latest articulation of the Left’s perennial vision of the State as Perpetual Parent, responsible for feeding, housing, transporting, educating, and nursing all of its helpless dependents. The “Parent” analogy is abandoned, of course, when it comes to the means by which the State is to fulfill all these gratuitous obligations. Unlike actual parents, who toil away in cornfields, shops, or factories to provide for their offspring, the State will rely on the expedient of seizing the necessary means from others at gunpoint, primarily “the rich,” “corporations and other business entities,” and others defined to be non-persons.
I do agree with you that Initiative 2009-2 in no sense represents a “liberal agenda.” A “liberal” is an advocate of personal freedom (the root of the term is the Latin *liber*, “to be free.”). And personal freedom is certainly the furthest thing from minds of the Initiative’s leftist promoters, even though the Left long ago co-opted the term “liberal” to replace the unflattering “statist” and discredited “socialist.” Since “liberal” is now discredited as well, we can expect other euphemisms to be trotted forth, such as “reformers.”
Er, “apolitical” labor unions? Which unions would those be?
They have a term already. It’s “Progressive”. Please know what people mean when they call themselves “Progressive”. Research it. Start with Teddy Roosevelt, move to the founders of Planned Parenthood and then all those fine folks from Wisconsin of all places and you’ll see what road they want to take us down.
Progressive movement
A movement for reform that occurred roughly between 1900 and 1920. Progressives typically held that irresponsible actions by the rich were corrupting both public and private life. They called for measures such as trust busting, the regulation of railroads, provisions for the people to vote on laws themselves through referendum, the election of the Senate by the people rather than by state legislatures, and a graduated income tax (one in which higher tax rates are applied to higher incomes). The Progressives were able to get much of their program passed into law. Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were associated with the movement.
I suppose the spinoffs are multiple but,the above is the “nutshell” version. I’ve never understood the label . I thought it might be some from of thinking that actually advances a society or culture. As it turns out, it’s just jargon for a movement and the definition changes over time….seemingly depend on what the so-called “Progressives” want to deal with in any given situation. I suppose Obama’s most recent program might define what the term means today. Over the past 90 years, I can’t find what the Progressives have produced.
I’m interested in that movelment and if someone can actually define better, I’d like to know. Would this movement in Spokane call “Envision” be the core of it? Perhaps something else? Maybe one of the spokesmen in this “Progressive” movement might clarify or define better.
Exiled Chairman…I forgot to add that Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican…exiled to the new Progressive wing ….then he rejoined the Republican party. Seems like he became disillusioned with big business but came to understand how vital big business was/is.
I knew Teddy was a Republican. But being a Republican does not make one Conservative or on the flip side a Democrat is not also a Liberal. Progressives where great at taking advantage of something called war socialism. They did it initially post WWI, then during the Great Depression and now it’s a war on climate change that is able to rally the troops. There are casualties in every war and liberals are willing to sacrifice a higher standard of living across the board in an attempt to control the weather.I have to end this now as it is leading to a much longer post then originally planned.
God Bless.
Chairman said: “There are casualties in every war and liberals are willing to sacrifice a higher standard of living across the board in an attempt to control the weather.” Any thoughts on how the weather might be controlled by liberals? or men? And what “casualties” might you be referring to? Is the sentence a batch of jargon? I’m curious….
The weather can’t be controlled by anyone regardless of their politics. However, the G8 summit earlier this year declared that they are not going to let global temperature increase by more then 2 degrees C. Some folks might call this “fighting global warming”. My jargon comes from the education I got for $2.35 in late fees at the public library so I call it “controlling the weather”.
The casualty is the relatively high standard of living we now enjoy in our country, even poor Americans. The house passes cap & trade in an effort to comply with the G8′s declaration. Energy prices go up. This hurts lower income people more then the affluent because the power bill is a larger percentage of their income.
Exiled said..”However, the G8 summit earlier this year declared that they are not going to”LET” global temperature increase by more then 2 degrees C. <——–Did anyone give a scientific plan as to how they might accomplish the “LET” part?
I’d be shocked if these ambitious poiticians could make that happen. Nice talk for a conference though. I really love Obama but sometimes he says the darndest things…..he’s a fine dreamer.