Posts Tagged ‘City of Colville’

In Washington, the City of Colville debated whether to remove the police chief position out from under the civil service commission.   Under Washington law, a police chief that is  civil service is no longer an “at will” employee, and can only be removed from his or her position “for cause” and only after a written accusation.   The police chief is then entitled to a hearing in front of the civil service commission to determine if her or she should be removed.   Without this protection, a police chief is at the mercy of the mayor and city council.  One obvious reason why a police chief would want to be protected by civil service rules is that he does not want to be retaliated against for arresting someone who is friends with the mayor or city council.  According to the Statesman-Examiner (see article),  local resident William Emily spoke up at the city council meeting and shared his experience.  He explained that he once worked as the town marshal for Northport, Washington, and explained that during that time he was approached by individual council members and told that there were certain citizens that were not to be bothered and that there were certain laws that were not to be enforced.   I guess the implication is that if a cop’s employment is at the mercy of elected officials, then politics will creep in and taint the principle of equal application of the law.    I think that this is a fair point.  When I worked as a prosecutor, I sometimes worried about police favoritism.  Probably everyone does in smaller towns.

In Colville, the city council voted to keep the position under civil service.   The Statesman Examiner reports council members Eric Ohrtman, Doug Kyle, and Ed Gray voted to remove the position from civil service, but that they were out-voted by Lou Janke, Betty White, Marilyn Haney and Nancy Foll.

Although William Emily made a good point, there are also a lot of city officials who want to make it easier to get rid of police chiefs they have problems with.  In Ferry County,  City of Republic Mayor Elbert Koontz attempted to fire his police chief, and the decision was overturned by the civil service commission.  See story.  In that case, the civil service commission ruled that the Mayor should have taken steps of progressive discipline rather than an abrupt firing.  Any lawyer who represents municipalities will tell the local government to try to build a record of having tried to correct the employee deficiency with written reprimands or short suspensions.   However, it is only human nature to try to avoid these steps and to simply hope that an informal “talking to” will suffice.  Often government employers feel awkward about disciplining an employee then continuing to work with him or her the next day.  These personnel issues in small town government is always hard.

Another part of the civil service rules is that the commission makes recommendations for hiring.  The rules can be complex.  Earlier this year, Ferry County Sheriff Pete Warner was sued along with Ferry County for allegedly violating the hiring rules in a suit filed in Federal Court.  See story. The jury found the county liable for about $350,000.00.  The suit alleged that Pete Warner engaged in discrimination too.

     The Colville City Council recently voted unanimously to go forward with a feasibility study for a new airport that would be constructed in the area of Aladdin Road in Colville.  Many members of the public in Stevens County are up in arms over this due to environmental concerns.  Judging by the letters to the editor and discussions with a few locals, the city may have a fight on their hands. 

     The Statesmen-Examiner reported that people living near the planned airport expressed concerns at the public meeting about the noise of a new airport.  In addition the public expressed concerns about air pollution and the threat to the city aquifer.  Although I have dealt with issues of ground water contamination before, I have never dealt with the subject of contamination from an airport.   A lot of the letters to the editor in the Statesmen-Examiner raised some pretty serious environmental fears.  One letter wrote:  

The airport would be built directly over the Colville aquifer, the source of Colville’s water.  Concerns were expressed that the building on this land will compromise the integrity of the aquifer.  Former pilots gave personal accounts of fuel leakage and ground contamination at other airports, stating, “over time, jet fuels will even seep through concrete.”   

This seemed a little farfetched to me.  It seemed to me that the leakage of jet fuels would be pretty minimal, and it seemed that such fuel would be quite light, and would not permeate concrete.  So I called an independent source that I know on the East coast who works as an expert witness on the subject of ground water contamination.  He is pretty sensible in his assessments of environmental threats.  He told me that airports are in fact significant sources of groundwater contamination from jet fuels and solvents, and that all airports have some level of contamination associated with them.  He explained that contamination comes from broken fuel lines, fueling accidents, painting stations, repair shops etc.   He explained that concrete is in fact permeable.  He said that the permeability of concrete is low, but even if just a small bit of contaminant permeates into the water it will violate standards.    

     I learned not to take drinking water for granted earlier this year.  In my town, city residents were forced to boil our water for three weeks when it was determined that E. coli was found in the water.  This was a little bit of an eye opener for me.  Boiling water contaminated with fuels or solvents won’t help.  When our water was contaminated, I wondered what small cities do to fix the problem when they are financially unable to do so.

     So as to the proposed new airport in Colville, when is the proper time to consider the impact on the aquifer?  Right now, the city is just doing a feasibility study.  Stevens County residents complained about the cost of that study.   Should a threshold determination be made to determine whether the airport location would be even environmentally possible?  Or would the subject wait years later until an environmental impact statement is done?  One question that I would be curious in knowing is whether the area is an aquifer recharge area.  If so, it is customary for a lot of airport functions and activities to be out right banned.

     The other subject that came up in the letters to the editor was the subject of air pollution.  It would be interesting to hear what an expert would say about this.  Some comments by members of the public were about the severe winds in the area of the airport.  Other members of the public mentioned that the area was prone to stagnant air that would allow air pollution to accumulate.  Maybe the weather varies.  In the last two weeks, all the letters to the editor in the Statesman Examiner have been opposed to the new airport and the feasibility study.  The Statesman Examiner typically has a policy of limiting letters to the editor to 300 words, but allowed one letter that was close to 2000 words and took about nearly ½ a page.  It will be interesting if any supporters of the airport or of the feasibility study will submit any letters to the editor this week.

     Aside from any environmental concerns, some members of the public did not want the airport because it would involve the condemning of private lands.  Although people tend to forget this sometimes, cities are much like the state and federal governments and can condemn private land for a public purpose and pay the land owner just compensation.  It is one thing when you are a farmer and you lose part of you land because of Interstate 90.  It is another thing when your and is taken by a local city council on a project that you do not think is worthwhile in the first place.  In the past, city governments could vote to authorize land to be taken without any special notice to the landowner in advance.  But under a new law enacted in 2007 (RCW 8.25.290) a city must send a certified letter to each landowner who might face the condemnation of his land.  The notice must contain a description of the property to be taken, and must notify the land owner of the date and time of the public hearing at which time the condemnor (the city) will decide whether or not to authorize the condemnation of the private land.  In cases that I have defended in the past, it seems as if sometimes governments go out of their way to find an appraiser that is particularly conservative.  As an attorney, I have found that hard feelings are common in these small-town condemnations because oftentimes the city council members are the friends and neighbors of the landowners.  If a condemnation is fought in court, a judge decides whether the condemnation is for a public purpose, and a jury decides the amount the landowner should receive.  The lawyer for the landowner commonly seeks his or her own expert to testify as to the value.

            It will be interesting to see what the feasibility study comes up with.  If the study encourages the City of Colville to go forward with the airport as planned, it will be interesting to see what comes of this issue.