Mukilteo City Council: Now you know how voters feel
Last night, I went to Mukilteo City Hall to address the Council and Mayor during the 3 minute citizen comment period concerning last week’s 4-3 city council vote to ignore the people’s vote on our red-light camera initiative. A motion was introduced to allow me to speak. It failed 5-2. If you do the math, that was a 71% vote of the Council to prevent me from speaking. I ignored their vote, stood up and calmly but firmly spoke to the Council for the next 3 minutes.
During my presentation, one council member said I was out of order. I continued. After that, another said “let’s go into executive session” to which I replied “rather than listen to the citizens who voted 71% for our initiative, you’re really going to run and hide in another room?” I continued. Three council members got up and walked out. I said to them “walking out is a perfect metaphor for how you’re refusing to listen to 71% of the people.” I continued. After my 3 minutes were up (I was simply highlighting that the initiative is the law and that they are bound to abide by it, reading passages from the voters pamphlet, I opened the door to the hallway and told the 3 councilmembers who walked out that “it’s safe to come back in now, the citizens are leaving”, to which one replied “I don’t need your permission to go back in.” (Here is KING 5’s news story. Complete audio of the hearing is available from the city).
Clearly, the Council was very upset with having their 71% vote ignored. Now they know how voters feel.
Mukilteo Initiative #2 passed with 71% of the vote. Yet last week, 4 of the 7 city councilmembers — Tony Tinsley, Emily Vanderwielen, Randy Lord, and Linda Grafer — voted to ignore the initiative (City council member Tony Tinsley said it is not the council’s job to do what the residents say they want, but to do what they really need – and they may need traffic-safety cameras. “I don’t care if 70 percent said they don’t want these cameras,” he said. “I think they will be providing a service they need.”)
http://www.mukilteobeacon.com/city-government/article.exm/2011-03-23_city_waits_on_passing_red_light_camera_law
3 of the city council members — Jennifer Gregerson, Kevin Stoltz, and Richard Emery — voted to abide by the voters decision (from today’s Everett Herald http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110329/NEWS01/703299915&SectionCat=NEWS01: “I will vote for the ordinance to respect the voters’ decision,” Gregerson said.)
The law says (RCW 35.17.340) that once a local initiative is approved by voters, it is can only be changed by the voters and cannot be changed by the Council (An ordinance that has been adopted by means of the initiative process after an election of the people may only be repealed or amended by a vote of the people. This means that the city council may not merely amend or repeal such an ordinance as is usually the case. However, the city council may initiate the amendment or repeal of the ordinance and then submit the proposition to a vote of the people. — bottom of page 14: http://www.mrsc.org/Publications/irg06.pdf). Unlike state initiatives that are subject to change after two years, local initiatives are immune to legislative interference.
Last year, a unanimous Mukilteo City Council voted to put Mukilteo Initiative #2 on the ballot. But the Everett Herald reports today:
Now, city officials are treating that vote purely as advisory. That’s because city lawyers say the measure shouldn’t have been on the ballot in the first place.
But it was the Council that put it there. How can they ignore an initiative they themselves put to a public vote? And how can they now claim that it was advisory, when they didn’t say that before the election? No where in the ballot title, explanatory statement, voters pamphlet arguments (http://www.heraldnet.com/assets/pdf/DH84317329.pdf), resolution (see attached), council paperwork (see attached), or their filing before the Snohomish County court (see attached) did they ever say it was advisory.
Having lost the vote, they now argue our vote doesn’t count. But our vote did count, it is the law, and the city council should get over their arrogance and follow the law.
In their court filings, the red-light camera company argued that Mukilteo Initiative #2 is illegal. The City of Mukilteo and the sponsors of Mukilteo Initiative #2 defended it. To date, no court has ruled one way or the other. Until one does, it is the law and must be followed. We’re confident our initiative will be upheld, especially in light of the supreme court’s 2010 ruling in City of Port Angeles v. Our Water-Our Choice!
(“Statutory delegation of authority to the Port Angeles City Council cannot preempt citizens’ initiative rights when the same chapter also expressly authorizes those rights” and “Given that the same chapter of the RCW specifically authorizes noncharter code cities to “provide for the exercise … of the powers of initiative and referendum upon electing to do so,” RCW 35A.11.080, reading RCW 35A.11.020 expansively strains the statutory fabric. … Otherwise, RCW 35A.11.080 (the power of initiative) is largely a nullity. See 1000 Friends, 159 Wash.2d at 182, 149 P.3d 616 (we look to the entireety of the statutory scheme to determine whether local initiatives and referendums are consistent).”
Let me repeat: Mukilteo Initiative #2 is the law until a court rules otherwise and the city has an obligation to follow the law, especially when it’s been approved by 71% of the people.