BILL OF RIGHTS PART 3

It is unfortunate that the debate over this issue is being framed by announcements in the media as  a battle between big corporations and regular citizens.   There are thousands of small business people, wage earners, retirees, and others who oppose this amendment because they find it against their interests.   So be careful not to be caught up in a fake bandwagon effect.

Moving on to another point, I am aware that many say the U.S. Constitution was designed at its conception largely as a support and protection for the privileged.  But it is a living document and the past is not the present.  Over time our country has become more enlightened,  and through positive Supreme Court decisions, tragic sacrifice by citizens, and instances of progressive legislation we have  advanced from those long ago times.  Our society as it exists today is malleable, and through reason and hard work a positive future is in sight.  I can not go along with burning the house down every time  a fuse is blown or a drain plugged.  I find this Bill both too much and too little.

My continuing commentary is now at the third whereas:   "Whereas the people of the City of Spokane recognize their responsibility to be well-informed and involved citizens of the City of Spokane, to be stewards of the natural environment, and to assume the responsibility for enforcing their rights and the rights of others."  This is a somewhat laughable formality that barely deserves comment.  I will only say that I shudder a little when I read about someone being "responsible" for enforcing rights I may not even know I have.

"Whereas the people of the City of Spokane have adopted a Comprehensive Plan for the City of Spokane, which envisions the building of a healthy, sustainable, and democratic community, but the people recognize the Comprehensive Plan is not legally enforceable in many important respects; and whereas, the people of the City of Spokane  wish to create a Community Bill of Rights, which would among other goals, establish  legally enforceable rights and duties to implement the vision laid out in the Comprehensive Plan"  Now we seem to be  getting somewhere.  Or are we?  Is it all about making the Comprehensive Plan enforceable?  Well, not quite.  It is the vision we want to make enforceable.  How does one enforce a vision?  And why is the Comprehensive Plan itself not enforceable in some respects?  I hear people claim it is enforceable.  How can we make sense of this thing without really looking at the Plan and court cases regarding it?  Is the average voter inclined to do this.  I see a pattern here.  We are again asked by the Bill's authors to agree with something without having all the facts.

 BILL OF RIGHTS PART 2

A couple of preliminaries:  First, I am especially interested in this Bill of Rights (BOR) because for a number of years I have seen a  need for a redo of local government  I presented ideas to the last elected Board of Freeholders as it considered a wholesale change to the city and county governments.  I also introduced members of that body to the book The Vermont Papers which I believe proved useful to some on the board.  And I submitted numerous ideas at their public hearings.  I have interviewed several council members, mayors and activists as to their ideas on democracy in Spokane.  In all, I have read, thought and been concerned about issues of governance in Spokane for quite awhile.  But I have found no place for my input to be effective on drafting the BOR.  So, if some might look on my opposition to the BOR law as sour  grapes on my par, so be it. And finally, the extended critique I am putting forth is only my opinion , an opinion I feel I have  a duty to put forth,  even if only on this blog.  And I am open to any and all showings that I am wrong or that more needs to be said.

Okay, on to the initiative.  It seems to me that it is  essential that this type of legislation be clear.  But as  I move on from the title to the "whereases" section, I see that nothing could be foggier than  this listing of allegations which attempt to lay  a foundation for what follows.  The confusing language cuts the legal legs out from under the BOR without even getting to the much discussed legal problem of multiple topics.  And this brings up an issue:  The statements in support of this Bill are invariably  mom and apple pie simple such as, it supports democracy..  This just doesn't jibe with the garbled actual text which leaves much room for mischief in the carrying out of the eventual law.

"Whereas the City of Spokane wish to build a healthy, sustainable, and democratic community:"  Is this saying that we do not now have a healthy, sustainable, and democratic community?   I guess so since it is proposed to pass a law that "ensures" that we "build" one.  Isn't this the kind of language one would use in chartering a new city?  Yes it is, and so a note of revolution creeps in.

One more whereas and then we'll wait  for part 3.  "Whereas the people of the City of Spokane wish to build that community  by securing the rights, freedoms, and well-being of residents, workers, neighborhoods, and the natural environment;"   Normally we think of rights as certain negative rights because that is what we are granted in our federal and state Bill of Rights. There, we are protected from government infringement.   Government can not force us to shut up, testify against ourselves, allow it in our houses without a warrant, and so forth.  But positive rights are a little different.  They are more like what a baby demands.  You say you want something, you say you have a right to it.  You want a $20 an hour job, you have a right to it.  Now, there are clearly some natural positive rights such as the right to life; but most of these are universal and do not need to be in writing.   Note the use of the plural freedoms.  This tips me off we are going to looking at a claim of positive rights on down the page.  And next, I see any right granted to a resident as granted to that resident whether he or she is a worker or a non-worker; and every resident is a member of a neighborhood.  Why the specificity?  This brings us to the rights of the natural environment.

 I say you can only grant rights to those who can appear to claim those rights, or in the case of the incapacitated, have designated representatives appear for them.  Now how should the representative, however selected, figure out just what these rights and freedoms of the natural environment are?  Shall one go way back to some past truly natural environment and seek to restore it.  How else to say what is natural?  Must  the downtown dam be removed?.  Should all cars be removed from the city? Where is this band of experts to be found that will determine the number of fish of each species to be maintained in the Spokane River?  And once found to whom are they to answer?

A Community Bill of Rights as an amendment to the Spokane charter sounds darned impressive. But let's start a dissection of this amendment, dealing first with the title. Bill of Rights? Hey, isn't there a United States Bill of Rights? Oh yeah, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Now, why didn't James Madison call those ten amendments a Community Bill of Rights. Are the Spokane authors saying something like that earlier Bill does not serve the "community." And what community might that be? Think about it.

June 8, 1789, Madison said the following: "For while we feel all these inducements to go into a revisal of the constitution, we must feel for the constitution itself, and make that revisal a moderate one. I should be unwilling to see a door opened for a re-consideration of the whole structure of the government, for a re-consideration of the principles and the substance of the powers given; because I doubt, if such a door was opened, if we should be very likely to stop at that point which would be safe to the government itself: But I do wish to see a door opened to consider, so far as to incorporate those provisions for the security of rights, against which I believe no serious objection has been made by any class of our constituents."

Madison states well how I feel about the issue now before the voters of Spokane. I feel for the charter. In passing this thing we are opening the door so wide as to jeopardize the city's structure. It certainly does not limit itself to those provisions "against which I believe no serious objection has been made by any class of our constituents."

Anyway, coming up will be my thoughts on each specific of the Bill.

PROPOSAL FOR LOCAL PRIMARY ELECTION CHANGE

I make the following proposal as to how Spokane might change for the better its election system for council positions. I propose that, subject to fine tuning, the top three finishers in the primary advance to the general election and that the top finisher in that election be declared the winner.

In general, it seems that an election would best fit the democracy bill if the winner were that citizen who was preferred by the greatest number of eligible voters. Now, this could be determined if any filing and official list of candidates were eliminated and we just let each voter write in his or her choice on the ballot. The winner would be the one with the most votes.

In principle, we have a version of this now since write-in votes are allowed, but with an an official list of candidates and all the campaigning associated with that fact the write-in is meaningless as a practical matter.

Getting to the nub of the major evil I'm trying to correct, note that once elected the candidate is considered by himself and others as somehow a majority choice. Of course, this is a result of the current primary system where a heads up race is forced upon the voters and then combined with talk of a duty to vote regardless as to whether you care for one candidate or the other. But it is clearly nonsense.

I am happy to move in stages. That is, go ahead with filing and all - though this probably screens out the optimal choice for the position - but pick the top three for the general election. I believe that most of the time but not always the winner will win with less than 50% and so will have a more realistic view of just where he or she stands with the electorate and so just how much legitimate authority he or she really has.

I am very pleased that Jon Snyder will be in the November run-off for a seat as one of my district's City Council positions. And I hope he wins. I believe he will present views not seen before on the Council and this will be for the good.

Some overall thoughts on the Council: The district system should be tossed. The districts are just too big. In general, the difference of interests (that which is in their interest not what they are interested in) are just as great within the districts as they are among the districts. When we look at the City Council, ideally , we should see a cross section of the city. This is because Spokane is not a community in the sense of a collection of people with shared ideals and certain other mutual behaviors. It is a hodgepodge of competing interests. And we need representatives of these interests on the Council negotiating and bartering out their needs. And by a representative I mean a sample of that group, not simply an agent for the group. To get to this point, a first step might be to enlarge the Council. Also, the recent increase in salaries will be helpful in broadening the spectrum of interests.