Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Today The Stranger Suggests... | Meet Judith Giuliani »

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Nickels Is the Problem

posted by on July 31 at 11:15 AM

When Mayor Nickels first announced he was convening a big name task force to mull over police accountability, my skeptical reaction was: Been here, done that. In other words, Mayor Paul Schell, former city council member Jim Compton, and current city council member Nick Licata, have all dug deep into this turf before (butting up against things like police union rules) and they came up with the current system—the Office of Professional Accountability, the OPA auditor, and the OPA Review Board.

That system is in play. And that system works.

If only the mayor would enforce it by holding the chief accountable to it. In other words, Nickels is the problem. That can be dealt with in one of two ways: The council can take up Licata on his proposal to have the SPD chief come before them for approval and reconfirmation and/or the public (the NAACP, the Minority Executive Directors Coalition) can continue to pressure Nickels to hold the chief accountable.

As Jonah’s report on last night’s first meeting of the panel shows, indeed: the panel was butting up against the same old issues that have already been hashed out.

This panel is a diversion and a PR stunt, and it seems to me—again, as Jonah found last night when the panel was bitching about the SPD Union, they’re going to discover that for themselves.

From Jonah’s post (and from panel member Hubert Locke):

City lawyers spent most of the meeting giving the panel background on the Seattle Police Guild’s (SPOG) contract, which would have to be changed in order for any of the panel’s recommendations to take effect. Hubert Locke voiced his frustration with the red tape: “we risk having the integrity of our entire process muted [because] anything we do won’t happen until 2009. I don’t know if I’d have agreed to sit on this panel [If I’d known that].”

A year from now, or whenever the panel makes its recommendations—those recommendations will face the exact same obstacles that Schell, Compton, and Licata already faced.

This panel is a stalling tactic. Forget about it: And deal with the real issue: The chief needs to be accountable to the mayor. And if Mayor Nickels isn’t willing to do his job, the council should do it for him.

RSS icon Comments

1

of course it's a stalling tactic.

but the real question is why the City Council won't take action to make it effective.

Posted by Will in Seattle | July 31, 2007 11:18 AM
2

Where can I get a copy of the city charter? Can we impeach or recall Nickels?

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | July 31, 2007 11:33 AM
3

I will be voting against him at the next possible opportunity.

Posted by monkey | July 31, 2007 11:35 AM
4


Greg Nickels is a tool. The OPA fiasco is the symptom of a sick municipal governance system, and Nickels is heading it up.

Nickels can’t get it right on the SPD oversight issue just like he can’t get it right when it comes to transportation. And THAT is the much bigger story.

Nickels was Finance Chair of ST when the decisions were made about how to finance the capital improvements (c. 1995 through 2000). What did we get? Costs that ballooned out of proportion to benefits, only a tiny amount of bus and commuter train service, a reduced light rail project that ST now can not get up and running, and piles of long term debt. Oh, and the ST light rail line will provide only negligible economic benefits (except if you are a commercial property developer: it’ll pay off for you big time if that’s your situation).

Nickels was largely responsible for shoving Seattle Monorail Project down our throats. He got on his pedestal and shouted about how great it would be and how it was financially prudent for his constituents to vote yes. He made sure the city gave SMP tens of millions in loans to keep it going in the early days. He made sure the City gave SMP the transitway agreement it wanted. After two years of lies about how well the DBOM negotiating was going, SMP released the true, completely unreasonable costs to taxpayers (two and a half years AFTER the vote). Nickels still backed it publicly – for about three months. It is fair to say Nickels is directly responsible for reaming the citizens of this city to the tune of $180 MILLION in completely wasted taxes.

Why weren’t we told of the financial impacts of the 30%-too-low revenue estimates? Nickels and his friends on that board knew damn well right away that the tax would have to continue for decades longer than promised, but they said nothing. He lies because he fails to tell what is important.

Nickels has not been able to manage the city’s transportation finances well. He somehow couldn’t find money in the general fund to pay for pothole filling and bridge repair, so he had to get the voters to buy off on a property tax increase for those maintenance costs (Bridging the Gap, last November).

Nickels, pandering to his developer base and oblivious to tax impacts on his constituents, pigheadedly stuck to his SR 99 “viaduct” tunnel idea way too long. That tax-grab plan was reviled by citizens in this City. Chopp and Gregoire didn’t want it (nobody in Olympia did). Despite all that he forced the worse-than-useless advisory vote a couple of months ago.

Nickels doesn’t care – he doesn’t have to.

The transit benefits of monorail won’t come to the city. So what does Nickels do, in his role on ST’s board? He should have added something for the westside in ST2 to make up for monorail’s failings. Instead, Nickels does absolutely nothing for the people who had the misfortune to elect him. No changes were even attempted by Nickels to the terms of ST2 to provide transit to West Seattle, Ballard, or points north and west.

What protections did Nickels insist on in ST2 to make sure his constituents don’t get ripped off like they did with Monorail? NONE.

What has Nickels done for his constituents to make sure RTID is a good deal? NOTHING. He sold out the citizens of Seattle with RTID. The cost/benefit ratio of taxes to projects for Seattle residents is atrocious: Seattle taxpayers literally ship billions of dollars out to Bellevue/Renton/Factoria road projects under RTID. But Paul Allen and Kemper Freeman Jr. will get even richer off of RTID.

How did Nickels do for Seattle in negotiating ST2 light rail work? He got completely out-negotiated by the Snohomish County contingent. They would get light rail much further north than originally planned, and Seattle’s expansion of light rail to Northgate wouldn’t take place until 2025 (much later than planned).

Nickels’ tenure is a monument to incompetence in transportation governance.

That he’s unable to even set up a police advisory system is nothing if not consistent. He may be good at getting elected, but he’s a pile of crap at governing.

On a related note, vote no in November. RTID/ST2 is the wrong way to go, on myriad levels (even if you like trains). Nickels is the primary architect of the financing plans. ‘Nuff said.

Posted by plebian | July 31, 2007 11:50 AM
5

Josh your evidence that the "system works", that the OPA doesn't in any way need to be reformed, and that the only problem is the Mayor not holding the Chief to a higher standard of conduct, is a report in which the OPA Director, at the request of the Mayor, exonerated the Chief of any wrongdoing.

Posted by Trevor | July 31, 2007 11:52 AM
6

But the system does work. The OPA ad naseum was set up as a relief valve to forestall real reform of the SPD. Any system that relies on the support of one person--the executive--to fail or succeed is a design flaw if reform is what you are looking for, but a workable system if one's political career relies on forestalling reform. Schell didn't want it, Nickels doesn't want it, and the guy next in line for the job won't want it either if he wants to keep his gravy feed.

Posted by t.p.n. | July 31, 2007 12:23 PM
7

"....the council should do it for him."

Way to go, short guy.

Setting the bar really low for the council. Haven't you written adoringly of how the council "stands up" to the mayor?

So why do they need to wait?

Man, don't you even read your own writing?

Posted by Just asking | July 31, 2007 12:47 PM
8
Posted by blah | July 31, 2007 1:02 PM
9

@2 - yes, you can recall. It's fairly easy. You just need to be of standing - which means at least a voter in Seattle who voted during the last Mayoral election (either side) - or you might have to be an elected (not appointed) PCO.

But it's not that hard to do.

Posted by Will in Seattle | July 31, 2007 2:21 PM
10

Two things about the notion of the system "working": First, this whole thing was set off not by anything the SPD or OPA did in their review of the Patterson case (which set all this stuff in motion); it was Mr. Patterson's successful efforts -- with the support of the Defender Association, NAACP, and others -- in getting the Walgreen's video which showed several discrepancies between the officers' report of his arrest and what actually happened. We need to stop acting like that came about as a result of OPA or SPD investigative work. It didn't. Also, in a general sense, the Olson report is precisely an example of why the OPA system does NOT work, at least not as an accountability system. It seems to me that the term "accountability" in this office's name is a rather intentional misnomer.The OPA is empowered to review complaints, and make recommendations concerning potential discipline in cases of officer misconduct. But the Chief is the one with the disciplinary power, and can choose to reject/change/ reverse the OPA's findings and recommendations, as it appears he has in this and several other cases. The questions is, can the OPA's oversight activities, divorced from any disciplinary authority, actually produce accountability -- i.e., actual consequences in sustained cases of misconduct? The question of the OPA system's "working" or "not working" can only be addressed if you examine what its actual powers are (simple review and recommendation), vs. what its asserted by the Mayor, Chief, SPOG, etc. are (accountability). And while I support labor rights, I don't believe any labor contract should ever trump the potential rights of the community, and no labor union should have the authority to block those working to protect the community from abuses by its members. We need to stop treating police officers like every other public employee, and recognize that the powers and authority they are given in our communities are unique, requiring unique oversight and accountability mechanisms.

Posted by bookworm | August 1, 2007 10:40 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).