Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commission Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ombudsman commission asks city to fix unclear ordinance language before adding members
Summary
The Spokane Office of Police Ombudsman Commission voted unanimously to authorize its chair to draft a resolution asking City Council to fix ambiguous language in Spokane Municipal Code 4.32.150(D) that affects how the commission could expand beyond five members.
The Spokane Office of Police Ombudsman Commission voted unanimously Feb. 18 to ask the City Council to correct ambiguous language in the municipal code that governs how the commission can add members.
The commission authorized Chair Jenny Rose to draft and transmit a resolution to City Council requesting clarification and correction of Spokane Municipal Code 4.32.150(D). Commissioners said the code’s current text is unclear about who would nominate or appoint additional members and includes an apparent drafting typo.
Legal counsel Brennan Schreiberman told the commission he had traced the language back to the ordinance enactment in 2013 and called the subsection “an absolute mess,” noting the text as written does not clearly identify the source of nominations for additional seats. Schreiberman and commissioners recommended City Council revise the provision before any formal expansion is implemented so that nomination and appointment procedures are explicit.
Commissioners said they want the code fixed because a larger commission would ease workload and staffing of subcommittees and reduce the number of canceled meetings when members are absent. Commissioners noted that many peer oversight bodies use seven or more members and that a five-member body makes forming working subcommittees difficult.
Under the existing code language, the commission may determine—by unanimous vote—that more members are necessary, but the transcript of Schreiberman’s review shows the text then requires unspecified further action by City Council. Schreiberman recommended the commission vote to memorialize its unanimous determination and transmit a request to City Council to amend the code.
Chair Rose moved to authorize a resolution; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote. Commissioners present (Jenny Rose, Amy McCollum, Philip Dutch Wetzel and Ladd Smith) voted in favor; Commissioner Jasmine Luke was absent and did not participate in the vote. The resolution language will be drafted by the chair and transmitted to City Council for its consideration and any required amendment process.
Commissioners and legal counsel discussed procedural constraints: even if the commission votes to expand, City Council would still need to approve any code change. Schreiberman recommended the commission both record its unanimous determination and ask council to correct the subsection so the nomination and appointment process is clear going forward.
The commission’s action begins a formal request; commissioners said they expect follow-up work with city legal staff and the City Council to finalize the code change. The commission did not set a timeline for City Council action.
Votes at a glance: The motion to authorize the chair to draft and transmit a resolution to City Council passed by voice vote, with four ayes and no nays or abstentions.
