Moses Lake mayor responds to attorney

GUEST EDITORIAL

MOSES LAKE — After having read the guest editorial by Ms. Ries Ashley in the Aug. 13 issue of this newspaper, I felt it incumbent upon myself to set the record straight with some factual information.

There are two issues here:

1. What is city property and what is city right-of-way, and

2. Amending a long standing sign ordinance.

Several moths ago city council members began discussing the possibility of having staff approve or deny sign requests in house. In giving them that responsibility, staff asked that we clarify the ordinance so they completely understood the intent of the ordinance. We asked the city manager and our legal counsel to draft an ordinance to present to council. In doing their research, they came to realize that the city had been operating under a misconception or a misinterpretation of property (specifically deeded and/or leased). Some parcels had been categorized as city right-of-way when, in fact, they should have been categorized as public property such as city parks, ball fields, etc. A good analogy would be as follows: you have two boxes of fruit, one full of apples and another full of oranges. Upon inspection you find that a few oranges have been mixed in with the apples. What do you do? You put them in their proper place. Staff recognized their error and recommended that it be corrected. The council agreed. This is where the misinterpretation issue arose.

As for the ordinance, a draft was prepared whereby signs would not be allowed in parks, around city hall, or on our recreational playing fields, etc. Nothing was ever drafted to include public gatherings, rallies, leafleting, picketing, public meeting places or forums, or soap box speeches. As always, permission would be required for those events but historically that permission has always been granted. The amendment to the ordinance does not prohibit signs, banners, placards, or leafleting during the rally either.

The city admits that an error had been make in years past by allowing signs at what is commonly known as Kwiky Corner, Five Corners, and along Neppel Landing because these were thought to be right-of-way and not city property. Again, the apple and orange issue. The proposed amendment to the ordinance would still allow for political and/or any other sign to be placed on private property or right-of-way adjacent to private property with the owners permission. It does prevent signs on city-owned property, parks, playgrounds, city hall campus and the adjacent right-of-ways.

Ms. Ries Ashley stated in her letter, “on August 11 the city council changed the municipal ordinance, without vote, without reading, and without a new ordinance being adopted. Although no new ordinance has been adopted, the city unilaterally decided to change the interpretation of an existing ordinance to prohibit the posting of political signs on public property despite the fact that each member of the current city council posted campaign signs in years past on public property.” Not so! The current ordinance as now written remains in place.

We were advised by the city manager and legal counsel that perhaps an opinion from the state Attorney General’s Office might be in order. It was explained how we could obtain one and that perhaps any further discussion at this time would be redundant. A consensus of the council was taken and they unanimously supported requesting and attorney general’s opinion. The sign ordinance remained on the table and, therefore, no council or public comment was taken.

Ms. Ries Ashley had brought with her a large volume of information which was presumed to be her research materials. I asked her if she wished to leave that information with the council. She declined! Councilman Jon Lane explained he would appreciate having the information ahead of time, thus allowing Ccouncil members the opportunity to read through it before any action was taken. She again declined!

Ms. Ries Ashley stated that we had tabled the matter indefinitely. Not so! Again by consensus, 6 to 0, it was agreed that we would ask for the attorney general’s opinion and continue operating under the old ordinance. When Councilman Jim Liebrecht realized that this did not include rolling back that apple and orange issue, he motioned to remove the item from the table. That motion failed by a two to four vote.

Ms. Ries Ashley stated that former councilman and mayor Darryl Jackson was denied due process because he was unable to speak before the council and that the ACLU letter was not made a matter of record. I must remind you that until the issue is removed from the table, there is no public comment taken nor do we make any communication a matter of record. Mr. Jackson may have wished to share some legislative history or perhaps intent with regard to the ordinance. He served on this council between 1994 and 1997. However, Deputy Mayor Richard Pearce also served during that period on this council and I, as the chairman of the planning commission, was involved in drafting this ordinance, so we, fortunately, had a good bit of legislative history at our hands.

For the record, I would like it made clear that I have personally never had a campaign sign place on city property, private property, or right-of-way of any type. I have never used political signs in all my time on this council.

In conclusion, every sitting council member took an oath of office to protect and support the Constitution of the United States and the constitution and laws of the State of Washington. RCW 42.17.130 provides that public facilities may not be used directly or indirectly for the purpose of assisting a campaign for election of any person to any office or for the promotion of or opposition to any ballot position.

Washington State law also states that signs must be considered (content neutral) and treated the same. To me this seems very clear but others have interpreted it differently.

That is why we are asking for an opinion from the state Attorney General’s Office and will wait for that answer before bringing this item before the council again.

Finally, we will continue to operate under the current ordinance which allows citizens to place political signs, or any other sign for that matter, on city property or right-of-way adjacent to city property with council approval.