The Seattle City Council's "2010 Priorities" document released Feb. 22 was developed contrary to open government, and its priorities are out of balance. Here’s what was wrong with the process and what is missing from the Council’s priorities

The "2010 Priorities" document that the Seattle City Council released at its Monday, Feb. 22 meeting was developed without public notice or input, and in violation of the spirit and letter of Washington's Open Public Meetings Act. While it’s difficult to fault some of these priorities, they certainly would have been better and different it the City Council had not left the public entirely out of the process.

The "2010 Priorities" document was not released until 2 p.m. when the Feb. 22 City Council meeting began. See http://www.seattle.gov/council/newsdetail.asp?ID=10538&Dept=28. As a consequence, most Seattle citizens had no access and were entirely unaware of it until after it had been drafted, revised, and released. Even those who were present at today's public comment period had barely an hour to review it before their comments, which came too late to have any influence on the document's drafting. Apparently no one outside City government had timely notice of what the City Council was doing, nor the opportunity to comment on the Council's 2010 priorities before they were finalized.

The priorities were first discussed at a January retreat that the Council held away from City Hall where the meeting could not be broadcast live and where no public comment was solicited or allowed. Then contrary to the Open Public Meetings Act, the priorities document was developed through serial meetings (with attendance carefully kept less than the quorum of five), and quasi-meetings conducted via e-mail or staff; in other cities, the courts have found both methods an illegal evasion of the Open Public Meetings Act.

Because of the total lack of public notice or input, the City Council's "2010 Priorities" are out of balance. Following are some examples (presented alphabetically). Many more would have emerged if the Council had sought public input. The following categories are those listed in the "2010 Priorities" document, but the comments are my own.

Access and Transparency. The mention here is only of technology for a “public engagement portal and constituent relations management system.” The broader need for open government is ignored. In fact, the City Council began 2010 badly by abolishing its Special Committee on Open Government. Also, after unanimously (in Res. 31049, adopted in April 2008) committing to develop a citywide “Open and Participatory Government Plan and Policy,” the City Council now, nearly two years later, has not even begun to develop this plan, and has no schedule or work plan for doing so.

Carbon Neutrality. The Council’s priority to “adopt a carbon neutral goal for Seattle with specific milestones and implementation steps” fails to address the vast expansion of vehicle miles traveled—Seattle’s greatest, and growing, source of greenhouse gases. In particular, Seattle is promoting additional traffic lanes on I-90 and SR-520, which will further increase the city’s contribution to global climate change, and will move it further away from carbon neutrality (see Viaduct/520 discussion below).

Development. The “2010 Priorities” document’s emphasis on development is not balanced with protection of the environment or of our city’s livability. The Council’s land use committee is now renamed the “Committee on the Built Environment,” symbolically abandoning its equal responsibility to keeping Seattle green and on a human scale

Public Safety. In seeking “innovative and effective’” programs, the Council’s “2010 Priorities” document gives no priority to correcting wasteful, inefficient spending that detracts from real public safety delivery. In recent years, the City has disinvested in volunteer crime prevention programs, whose help would get more out of uniformed policy patrols. Also, the Police Department’s crime prevention program is not well coordinated with its emergency preparedness program; both seek to train and empower citizens and businesses, yet synergy and efficiencies are lacking. The “2010 Priorities” document also fails to recognize that City purchase of more aid cars would save a lot of money in the long run, as many emergency medical runs are by large fire trucks that are expensive to operate (both for fuel, and for the required four officers). These trucks do serious road damage, as a state exemption allows them be the heaviest trucks on the road.

Race and Social Justice. The City Council should restore the rebroadcast of its meetings in prime evening and weekend hours, which would make government accessible to all, but especially to people of color and those on low incomes, whom the City’s own surveys show made highest use of these rebroadcasts before the City Council ended them a few years ago.

Schools and Education. The City Council gives priority to renewal of the Families and Education Levy in 2011, despite the fact that the Council has not systematically weighed the various levy and bond measures--and has criticized the Mayor for not doing so!

Transportation Choices. This section of “2010 Priorities” fails to address the millions of dollars a year in unnecessary road and bridge damage being done by extra-heavy vehicles. A federal exemption allows transit buses to have unlimited weight, and state exemptions allow solid waste trucks and fire trucks to be heavier than any other truck. The City needs to encourage Metro to purchase lighter buses, as Metro cannot afford to reimburse it for the damage its extra-heavy buses are doing to Seattle roads and bridges. (The City of Austin, Texas estimates that 70 to 90 percent of its arterial road damage is done by extra heavy buses alone!) Also, a great deal of damage to Seattle roads and bridges is done by the City’s own fire trucks and by City-chartered solid waste trucks (WSDOT does not even allow the latter on its freeways if they are making use of the state exemption). The City is completely within its rights to reduce the weight of its own fire and solid waste trucks to reduce damage to its roads and bridges. It is completely out of its mind if it does not look this damage, which is undoing expensive repairs that the City can barely afford already.

Viaduct/520. Despite disagreement over the “bored tunnel,” all City Councilmembers and the Mayor agree on the need to reduce from six to four the number of Viaduct lanes. Although again, there is some disagreement about the format, they all also agree on an SR-520 expansion from the current four lanes to a bridge that would allow eight lanes but would initially be striped for six lanes. As mentioned in the section above on Carbon Neutrality, the addition of two highway lanes (and their eventual restriping to four highway lanes) would be our region’s worst blow to the global climate. The Council’s vast expansion of SR-520 cannot be afforded, and would damage the Arboretum, fisheries, and neighborhoods, and overload I-5 and I-405. The Council should press the state to study a transit-optimized four-lane alternative that is best for the State treasury, traffic, transit, and the environment.

Conclusion. Some of the priorities in today’s City Council “2010 Priorities” document are ones I share. However, the lack of public notice and involvement has been a travesty. The City Council should set a better example of open government. Had it done so, the priorities resolution would not have been so out of balance.

Chris Leman (Ph.D. in Government, Harvard University) is a social scientist who has followed Seattle politics and policy for many years. He can be reached at (206) 322-5463 or cleman@oo.net.