[Free speech is] an act of privilege, it ranks with the privilege of committing murder: we may exercise it if we are willing to take the consequences. Murder is forbidden in both in form and in fact; free speech is granted in form but forbidden in fact. By the common estimate both are crimes, and are held in deep odium by all civilized peoples. Murder is sometimes punished, free speech always — when committed. Which is seldom. There are now fewer than five thousand murders to one (unpopular) free utterance.

Mark Twain, The Privilege of Grave, The New Yorker, December 27, 2008.

In Spokane, where I live, the President of the Spokane City Council, Joe Shogan, a lawyer (Gonzaga Law, circa 1978), is going to make sure none of the citizens of Spokane commit the act of free speech.  See the Inlander - No More Mud.   He’s grandstanding of course.   Actually, he is not.  He is just what he says he is, he does just what he says is going to do.  I know from first-hand experience.  I tried to commit an act of free speech and was pretty much prevented from doing so. 

Our good City Council President must think there is such a threat of free speech that someone might actually exercise the franchise and that therefore it has to be baned. 

Lawyers are an interesting bunch.  I hope the current president of the Spokane City Council is not stereotypical of lawyers today.  As I think of this, this hope, I am somewhat deflated by the remembrance of reading that lawyers in Germany in the 30’s and 40’s were essential to the regime of Adolph Hitler and National Socialism.

A lawyer who should understand at least some of the fundamentals of freedom speech and the right to petition one’s government, says he is going gavel down and expel from the the rostrum “any person who engages in a personal verbal attack on any other citizen, City staff, the Mayor or any member of the City Council” who “will be told by [him] as Council President to cease such behavior and to leave the podium.”

 He is to be arbiter of what speech is permitted and not permitted. I wonder where he may have acquired such abilities. Law school, perhaps?

As a person, he should know better. As a lawyer sworn to uphold the law (which includes the right of freedom of speech), he should really know better.

At least, he should consult the Spokane City Code before he becomes the city strong man. Sections 02.01.030 and 02.01.050, he might find to be relevant. 

As Council President he presides over council meetings. Such meetings are governed by Robert’s Rules of Order and city statute. Mr. Shogan’s “no tolerance policy” is not a part of the Rules of Procedure (Section 02.01.050) by which City Council meetings are to be governed.

One hopes Mr. Shogan will take the opportunity to reflect and, hopefully, repent. One wonders how much more trouble and civic dullness the City of Spokane can withstand.

Steve Eugster

As we move into to leaner times it may make some sense to discuss whether these centers should be continued or whether they should be told they have to be self-supporting if they are to survive. For a time they will have to be self supporting.  That seems a certainty.

Another concern is whether their ownership and management should be within the authority of the Spokane Park Department.  The Park Department is a separate “adjuvant” municipal entity.  It is controlled by an appointed Park Board.  See Section 48 of the City of Spokane Charter.

These facilities, I think, should fall under the auspices of the Park Department.  Their function seems to fall more approprietly under the authority and purposes of the Park Department.

A few weeks ago, the President of the Spokane City Council, praised the increased city spending for its employees.  A few days ago, he said that the 2009 budget was good because it did not require the layoffs of any city employees (and I would presume was good because it actually increased employee compensation and benefits). 

The underlying notion here, I think, is that it is the duty of government to employ people.  That it is good to employ as many as possible especially those who have been employed.  With this in mind it is, I suppose to the advocates of this government employment objective, the duty of the tax payer (the ratepayers of city utility services) to pay more taxes for services which they must buy from the city.  You cannot have residence in the city without paying for city sewer, water, garbage collection and incineration, storm water services and (now) rate stabilization payments.  You just can’t, it is that simple.  You cannot get out of paying and the city council and mayor know of no restraint.

The Irish Prime Minister was right.  And, I think it would be right for the city council and the mayor not to take money from the ratepayers to pay for their viewpoint that government should employ and spend.  You simply cannot do it without taxing and borrowing from your citizens.

The citizens deserve and should demand a new approach to city budgeting.  One that comes with limits, one that requires a vote of the people before there is an agreement that tax payers should pay for more government than reasonable revenues available to the city.

What are city essentials?  There are some basic things government should continue to provide even in hard times.  Here is my list.

1. Police protection.
2. Fire protection and emergency services.
3. Roads.
4. Building and land use.
5. Government Information.
6. Sewer collection and disposal.
7. Water.
8. Garbage collection and disposal.
9. Parks.
10. Libraries.

I cannot think of any other item which rises to the sale level of necessity as the items on this list.  Some items are provided by public entities separate from the city — the arena, the convention center, for example.

I think we should learn to limit understand and limit our city expenditures to these essential items.  Only then should we consider adding to them and adding to the revenue the city seeks.

Thus,  I propose we limit our utilty taxes to 6% on all utilities and then come up with a budget for the essentials with the money the city can generate from this tax and other taxes normally coming to the cit such as a share of the property taxes, a share of sales taxes and perhaps a share of the real estate excise taxes.  We should then look to cut back on the essentials to arrive a a preliminary balanced budget.

Next, we should determine what additional items we want — first what enhancements to the basic budget items we want to make.  Next what other items we want to add to the budget.

Then with these clearly in mind and framed we go to the electorate for approval of tax revenues in excess of the basic tax revenues.

She says she is going to develop more “sister cities.”  That she is going overseas to Korea and environs to add in Spokane’ international trade.  That the trade will be “green” trade.  That Spokane will pursue environmentally good trade and will not do things like “exporting coal.”  (Spokane has no commercially viable coal deposits to mine and export.)

What the mayor is talking about is not one of the functions of a city.  The function of the city is to provide for the city that exists and is becoming.  The function of the city is to be the servant of the provision of things which are vitally necessary for the people of the city.  Its resources should be gathered with essential needs and services in mind.  The city does not have the power, expertise, or resources to pursue local “industrial policy.”

City politics seems to move back and forth between left and right and that which is politically correct depending on which political thrust is in favor.

I do not seem to have much interest in such flavors of the day.  My concern has to do with things which do not inspire — the city budget is certainly not inspiring.  But knowing about the budget and the necessities of the budget seem more necessary, more vital, than topics which inspire boosterism and local propaganda.

I think city mayors should skip the politics and devote themselves to the practical necessities of the city.

The economic events unfolding nationally and internationally will have an impact on the budget of the City of Spokane.  Circumstances will provide the City of Spokane with an opportunity to improve its budgeting process and improve the quality of its expenditures.