Ever since Mayor Greg Nickels surreptitiously redirected a chunk of
parks funding to pay for four surveillance cameras in Cal Anderson
Park—in violation of a budget proviso that was supposed to bar
him from spending the money—the city council has been plotting
its revenge.
Last Thursday, the council’s budget committee had an unusually
bellicose, if one-sided, discussion about the mayor’s sneaky end run,
replete with terms like “prosecutable offense,” “misdemeanor,”
and “violation of trust.” Although it doesn’t appear the mayor’s
actions actually rose to the level of a misdemeanor—punishable,
according to an internal council e-mail, by a fine of up to $1,000 and
up to 90 days in jail—the council’s central staff director, Ben
Noble, told council members that budget restrictions have always
operated on the principle of “trust … that the intent of the
council will be followed.”
With that trust violated, the council has some decisions to make.
The options council members are considering range from writing an
angry letter—which council members Jean Godden and Richard
Conlin are working on—to refusing to carry capital spending
forward, so that, for example, a park under construction in 2008 would
have to be approved all over again in 2009.
Council president Conlin—who likened the latter option to a
“nuclear standoff“—seems inclined to take the slightly
less radical step of tacking all future provisos to the entire city
budget, so that if any city department spends money improperly, the
entire city budget would be frozen. Council Member Tom Rasmussen,
meanwhile, says he’d like to require department heads to notify the
council directly when the mayor tells them to spend money contrary to a
proviso. “Most department heads come up for review for continuation of
their jobs in front of the council,” Rasmussen notes. “This would be
a significant mark against them“—so significant, Rasmussen
believes, that department heads wouldn’t risk violating budget provisos
in the future.
Will the council live up to its chest-thumping rhetoric? That’s
unclear. The last time the council made noises about challenging the
mayor’s authority—two years ago, when Nickels refused to hold his
State of the City speech at City Hall, opting instead for an audience
of Rotarians at the downtown Convention Center—the council caved.
Nickels delivered last year’s speech at the Pacific Science
Center.
The council’s budget committee, which will be responsible for any
legislation restricting Nickels’s ability to circumvent provisos, is
holding meetings around the city throughout May. (Full information at
www.seattle.gov/council.)
Perhaps if enough people show up to tell the council members to act
like the co-equal branch of government they are and reclaim their
budget authority, they’ll listen. 