On Monday, July 23, Pageler passed a resolution "establishing a process for review and analysis of Seattle Initiatives." Pageler's resolution passed 9-0. Her idea, conveniently timed to scrutinize I-63, seems reasonable at first: Pageler simply wants a citizen panel to review initiatives and then make recommendations to the council.
But what if the panel--which, according to Pageler's resolution, shall be convened by the president of the city council--is stacked against the initiative?
"The most important component is who comprises the citizen review panel," enviro City Council Member Heidi Wills warned before the July 23 vote.
"Quite honestly," smart Council Member Nick Licata added, "I'm a bit leery. There are a number of initiatives that may not receive a positive review from a select group of citizens."
Nice speeches, but both Licata and Wills voted for Pageler's resolution. And guess what? The deck is stacked. An overwhelming 50 percent of the panelists represent corporate or commercial water users. Meanwhile, three members of this "Seattle" citizen review panel don't even come from Seattle, but from its suburbs. Only one panelist of the 14, Sarah Jaynes, represents Seattle's environmental community, I-63 advocates believe. "By spending taxpayer money on this biased process," says I-63 steering-committee member Tom Geiger, "Margaret is taking advantage of her office to undermine the citizen initiative process."
Indeed, it doesn't take a psychic to figure out that Pageler's panel is going to offer a harsh assessment of I-63, recommend that the council take the surprising move of offering an alternative initiative to voters, and ultimately give the opposition campaign political fodder to shoot down I-63 come November.
Speaking of the opposition campaign, the city recently gave I-63's adversaries the results of a city study on public opinions about water conservation. Handing over this study, which gives I-63 opponents a heads-up on the voters' pulse, is perfectly legal, but it's curious that the anti-I-63 group knew the study existed at all and got it without a formal public-records request. A Pageler staffer guesses about five members of the panel come from groups that have endorsed I-63. However, at press time, I-63 advocates filed an ethics complaint against Pageler.
