Written by First, two quick disclaimers: (1) my preference would be to keep the downtown library over the river (as I explained here ), so I carry a bias; (2) I am not a lawyer, so I read and understand laws the way a typical legislator or citizen reads them– And I can not give legal advice.
Now, on to my understanding of the current library situation.
Fifteen percent of Renton’s registered voters have signed a petition asking for an election to decide the location of the downtown library. The County auditor has verified the signatures, and the petition now is now going to come back to Renton City Council for action. With such a petition, we are ordinarily supposed to send it to the ballot for a vote of the people, or adopt the ordinance the petition calls for.
The Renton City Attorney and an attorney hired by the Petitioners are battling one another over the constitutionality of the ordinance proposed by the petition (see their conflicting memos near the bottom of this entry). The City Administration has suggested that the City Attorney’s doubts about the wording are a reason for the council to not send the petition to the ballot. But it seems clear to me that the constitutionality of the petition is an issue for the courts to decide, not the city council. The RCW (state law) tells me (as councilmember) to do as follows:
____________________________________
RCW 35A.11.100
Initiative and referendum — Exercise of powers.
Except as provided in RCW 35A.11.090, and except that the number of registered voters needed to sign a petition for initiative or referendum shall be fifteen percent of the total number of names of persons listed as registered voters within the city on the day of the last preceding city general election, the powers of initiative and referendum in noncharter code cities shall be exercised in the manner set forth for the commission form of government in RCW 35.17.240 through 35.17.360, as now or hereafter amended.
[1973 1st ex.s. c 81 § 3.]
RCW 35.17.260
Legislative — Ordinances by initiative petition.
Ordinances may be initiated by petition of registered voters of the city filed with the commission. If the petition accompanying the proposed ordinance is signed by the registered voters in the city equal in number to twenty-five percent of the votes cast for all candidates for mayor at the last preceding city election (Randy’s note: this is 15 percent of registered voters in a code-city such as Renton…see above), and if it contains a request that, unless passed by the commission, the ordinance be submitted to a vote of the registered voters of the city, the commission shall either:
(1) Pass the proposed ordinance without alteration within twenty days after the county auditor’s certificate of sufficiency has been received by the commission; or
(2) Immediately after the county auditor’s certificate of sufficiency for the petition is received, cause to be called a special election to be held on the next election date, as provided in *RCW 29.13.020, that occurs not less than forty-five days thereafter, for submission of the proposed ordinance without alteration, to a vote of the people unless a general election will occur within ninety days, in which event submission must be made on the general election ballot.
[1996 c 286 § 4; 1965 c 7 §35.17.260 . Prior: 1911 c 116 § 21, part; RRS § 9110, part.]
_______________________________
I don’t see anything which tells me to make a ruling on the constitutionality of the wording of the ordinance in the petition. As far as I can tell, such judicial-style rulings are neither a state-granted power of the council nor an area of expertise of the council.
If we do not put the petitioner’s requested ordinance on the ballot, or adopt an ordinance as requested by the petitioners, the RCW spells out a remedy for the citizens as follows:
________________________________________
RCW 35.17.290
Legislative — Initiative petition — Appeal to court.
If the clerk finds the petition insufficient or if the commission refuses either to pass an initiative ordinance or order an election thereon, any taxpayer may commence an action in the superior court against the city and procure a decree ordering an election to be held in the city for the purpose of voting upon the proposed ordinance if the court finds the petition to be sufficient.
_______________________________________________________________________
In summary, regardless of how one feels about the library location or the wording of the petition, I don’t see any place in the RCW that instructs council to arbitrarily decide not to either hold the election or adopt an ordinance because we don’t like or agree with the petition wording. Like we’ve frequently seen in state-wide initiatives, the constitutionality of the wording would normally be decided by a court (if there is still a dispute) AFTER the election, and only if the ballot measure prevails. Our only decision as a council is whether to adopt the petitioner’s proposed action, or forward it to the ballot.
Here is the Renton City Attorney’s memo:
Cityattoneymemo
Here is the memo from the Petitioner’s attorney:
cedarriverlibraryattorney
If any of you readers see this differently (including you attorneys out there), please let me know. Thanks, Randy
The reading of case law that the Renton Library council had in their conclusion seems to support that idea that councils either need act, or let the citizens vote – even if the proposal isn’t legal. The reasoning by the court is that the voting process itself is protected political speech.
IF there are legal issues, they would be addressed after a vote.
One thing to consider is that the ballot measure included transfer to KCLS. Part of that was getting a new building. If the new initiative succeeds, is KCLS forced to pay for upgrades to the current library building, or is KCLS out of the picture? I did not read nor sign the current petition — I thought this was done.
In voting whether or not to join KCLS, I did not at the time, (nor did the council, from my understanding) have any knowledge of the fact that voting for KCLS would cause new libraries to be built. This was not included in that election.
With regard to Katie’s comment about not knowing that she was voting for two new libraries to be built, this is because an affirmative vote did NOT mean two all-new libraries would be built. The Mayor and Council were considering updating the downtown library to serve as our “new” library, long after we joined KCLS. In fact, in the scoring done by the city staff, the existing location over the Cedar River had the second highest score, after the Big 5 site. (Some of us thought is scored higher, depending on assumptions and weight given to different scoring factors). Since this scoring and selection was done after the public vote, it could not be accurate to say that voters knew they were voting to abandon the Cedar River site. People and business leaders may be blurry on some of this because the selection process occurred in Executive Sessions not open to the public or most of the city staff. But this is even one more reason it would not be fair to say that voters knew they were voting to leave the Cedar River site.
With regard to ownership of the library if the petition is approved by voters, I’m not sure quite how this would go. There would have to be some negotiation.
I think many people thought this was over. The signature-gatherers had a great deal of perseverance.
I guess Ed Prince couldn’t speak without King Parker’s hand up his *$%@#%*#.