7/27/2019 CforJ.Prop1TAletter

1/3

35 W Main, Ste 300 Spokane, WA 99201 509.835.5211 www.cforjustice.org

October 16, 2013

Mayor David Condon

Spokane City Hall

808 W. Spokane Falls Blvd.

Spokane, WA 99201

Council President Ben Stuckart

Spokane City Hall, 7th Floor

808 W. Spokane Falls Blvd.

Spokane, WA 99201

Sent by electronic mail

Dear Mayor Condon and Council President Stuckart:

With a commitment to keep the document confidential, the Center was recently

provided a copy of Article 27 (Civilian Review) of the "tentative agreement" (TA)

reached earlier this month with the Spokane Police Guild. Although we are barred from

publicly releasing the document, we have carefully reviewed it.

What is deeply disappointing to us, and what should greatly concern both of you, is

that Article 27 not only fails to comply with Proposition 1 (as now encoded in the

Spokane City Charter as Article 16), but evinces an alarming degree of bad faith toward

Spokane voters. These are the voters who overwhelmingly approved Proposition 1 in

the special election last February.

Our analysis of Article 27 relies not only on its literal text, but the broader record of how

this section of the contract evolved and how it has been interpreted by the Guild, the

City Attorney, and by a state arbitrator in 2011. The sum of our analysis is that thetentative agreement is a travesty. It is so plainly contrary to Proposition 1 that the city

council cannot vote to approve it without being in violation of Article 16 of the city

charter which specifically prohibits the City from entering into an agreement that

contravenes the requirements of the article.

7/27/2019 CforJ.Prop1TAletter

2/3

October 16, 2013Page 2

It is not just the public that is being misled, however. As you can see by reading the

second sentence in Article 27, the membership of the Spokane Police Guild is also being

misled to believe that the TA fully complies with the requirements of Proposition 1.

Negotiating a contract with the Guild that actually does comply with Proposition 1 will

be all the more difficult once the Guild votes on a contract that induces them intothinking the contract complies with Proposition 1 when it doesnt. This arguably

amounts to bad faith.

For these reasons, we first recommend the City act swiftly to adopt an emergency

ordinance prior to the Guilds vote to approve the TA. The ordinance should explicitly

empower the OPO with independent investigative authority, as mandated by the city

charter. Such an ordinance would provide much-needed assurance to voters that the

City is serious about implementing Proposition 1. It would also serve to put the Guild

members on notice that their approval of the new contract will not preclude full

enforcement of Proposition 1 as the city charter now requires. We believe that thefull

ordinance proposed by Councilmember Salvatori earlier this month satisfies the legal

duty imposed on the City by Proposition 1.

Secondly, in the event the Guild membership votes to approve the tentative agreement

in its present form, we respectfully request that the public review process focus

squarely on the threshold legal question. That question is: "Does the tentative

agreement secure the Proposition 1 mandate that the OPO be invested with the

authority to conduct independent investigations into citizen complaints against police

officers and to publish his/her findings?"

Our undiluted opinion is that it does not. But we also believe the City Attorney and

Police Guild leaders and/or their attorneys should be given the opportunity, in the light

of day, to explain to the voters how Article 27 of the TA complies with Proposition 1,

and specifically that part of Proposition 1 that requires the Ombudsman to conduct

independent investigations and issue public reports on those investigations.

Based on its performance to date, we believe the best venue and process to resolve this

question is by involving the Mayor's Use of Force Commission. As you know, the

Commission has already earned considerable public credibility with its work on this

issue. Upon the Mayor's request, the Commission can convene to hear invited

presentations from the City Attorney, the Police Guild, and the Center for Justice on the

threshold question, and also allot ample time for public comment. The Commission can

also determine whether and how the TA complies with its February 2013

recommendations on civilian oversight of SPD.

7/27/2019 CforJ.Prop1TAletter

3/3

October 16, 2013Page 3

We believe there are several advantages to this approach. Council President Stuckart on

October 7th proposed an extensive public comment process after the TA is approved by

the Guild. The benefit of having the Commission go first to focus on these issues is that

it front-loads the public review period with the best forum for a thorough and balancedairing of this controversy.

Short of this approach, we believe that the TA needs to go back to the drawing board

and be revised through negotiations with the Guild to specifically include provisions

allowing for full implementation of the independent oversight requirements of

Proposition 1.

Finally, we believe the Citys signing of the TA and the ensuing pressure on the city

council to defer a vote on a blueprint ordinance for implementing Proposition 1 was a

major setback in the Citys efforts to rebuild public confidence in the Spokane Police

Department and in the Citys management of the police department. We think clear

decisive steps are now needed to stop and reverse the damage to the Citys credibility.

We think you should begin taking these steps now.

We look forward to your action and leadership on this matter.

Sincerely,

Rick Eichstaedt

Executive Director

Cc: Members of the Spokane City CouncilCity Attorney Nancy IsserlisPolice Chief Frank Straub