News

Five to Four

by Josh Feit

When we told Seattle City Council staffers what Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske told us last week, jaws dropped: "Holy shit." "We haven't heard anything that direct." "It raised eyebrows around here."

Indeed, as the council--raising post-9/11 civil liberties concerns--was getting set last week to pass a resolution declaring support for a 24-year-old city ordinance that protects citizens from sneaky police surveillance, Kerlikowske dropped this bomb on The Stranger: "[The ordinance] needs to be repealed.... It has significant problems. It was written pre-9/11."

However, council members--who appeared to be sparring over the issue earlier this month ["Council Showdown," Sandeep Kaushik, Feb 13]--are now unified in their desire to keep the ordinance on the books, Kerlikowske's position be damned. They passed their anti-surveillance resolution on Tuesday, February 18, unanimously.

At the heart of Kerlikowske's concern is the independent auditor who reviews police intelligence files. The feds have made it clear--especially with language in a draft USA PATRIOT Act follow-up called the Domestic Security Enhancement Act--that the auditor position could jeopardize Seattle's participation in a new national terrorist database. The U.S. attorney's office is concerned that Seattle's auditor might release sensitive information to the public, even though leaks haven't been a problem in the past.

The standoff between the council and Chief Kerlikowske has thrown the spotlight on Mayor Greg Nickels--who is reluctant to second the council's dramatic civil liberties stand. After several interviews, the best we could get out of Nickels spokeswoman Marianne Bichsel was this: "There's not a timeline at this point; they've [the chief and the mayor] had some discussions, but the mayor has not made a decision at this point whether or not he's going to make any changes."

Well, Marianne, the city council (at the behest of Heidi Wills) has declared a timeline. Now that the resolution has passed, Nickels has 10 days to make up his mind on whether or not he'll sign off on it. Nickels tried to wiggle out of the spotlight by taking the unusual move of asking the council to remove the line on the resolution that calls for the mayor's signature. However, City Council President Peter Steinbrueck and cops committee chair Jim Compton refused to let the mayor off the hook--and wouldn't remove the line.

As the council passed the legislation, Compton seemed to directly address Kerlikowske and the mayor: "[The resolution] does not contemplate changes to the police intelligence ordinance. We've drawn a line in the sand on that."

With Chief Kerlikowske standing up for his beliefs (misguided though they may be) and the council firmly standing up for its belief in strong civil liberties protections, Mayor Nickels can't continue to lie low. The mayor has to make a choice between strong civil liberties protections or strong security measures. The choice seems like a no-brainer: Go with civil liberties, Greg.

josh@thestranger.com