|
Dear Group, If you are confused over the legal authority Trump claims for his emergency declaration, you are in good company. The media have done a poor job of explaining. It’s messy. Below I’ve copied a portion of Doug Muder’s article “A Fishy Emergency Threatens the Republic.” It offers the clearest explanation I’ve seen of the whole complicated delegation of authority issue. (Muder’s whole article is worth reading if you have the time. Just click on the title.) Congress still has a chance to weigh in, but there’s a catch. As originally passed in 1976, the National Emergencies Act allowed what is known as a legislative veto: Congress could override the President’s declaration if both houses agreed to do so. This is, in fact, likely to happen. The Democratic House will pass a resolution against the emergency fairly easily, and the Republican Senate will probably follow suit. (In order to do so, all 47 Democrats and 4 Republicans will have to agree. Mitch McConnell can’t prevent the resolution from coming to the floor, and it can’t be filibustered.) However, in 1983 the Supreme Court (in regard to a different law entirely) found legislative vetoes to be unconstitutional. As laid out in the Constitution, Congress passes laws and the President has an option to veto them. Congress can delegate its power to the President (as it did in the National Emergencies Act), but it can’t switch places with the President and give itself veto power over his decisions. As a result, Congress can still undo the President’s declaration, but it requires a joint resolution, which is then subject to a presidential veto. A two-thirds majority of each house would then be necessary to override the President’s veto. This is currently considered unlikely, because not enough Republicans are willing to go against Trump. So the most likely scenario goes like this: Congress passes a joint resolution against the emergency, the President vetoes it, and Congress fails to override the veto. The gist is this: In 1976 Congress passed and President Ford signed the National Emergencies Act. The intent of Congress at the time was to offer the president a way to act expeditiously, but with Congressional oversight. Congress essentially said: “If you, Mr. President, use this act in a manner the Congress deems out of bounds, then we have a means of quickly withdrawing our approval. We can take back the authority under this act with a simple majority vote of both houses of Congress, a vote of that, once called for, cannot be blocked by leadership, filibustered, or even vetoed by you. In 1983 the Supreme Court under Warren Burger (a conservative…for the time…nominated by Richard Nixon) in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, an unrelated case, made it much harder for Congress to rein in an autocratic President the way Congress had intended. By nixing the “legislative veto,” the Supreme Court handed the President far more power than Congress intended in 1976. Does McMorris Rodgers even understand the separation of powers laid out in the Constitution? Republicans, are usually anxious to shout “Executive Overreach!” Does that extend to McMorris Rodgers’ “positive disruptor?” Does she understand how Trump’s declaration of a national emergency to thwart the Constitutionally mandated Congressional “power of the purse” produces a constitutional crisis over the powers of the Legislative and Executive branches of government? If Trump vetoes a majority vote to stop his usurpation of Congressional power, will she vote to override? You could ask her: “Conversation with Cathy” Town Hall — Wednesday, February 20 When: 9:45 a.m.- 10:45 a.m. Where: McIntosh Grange, 319 S 1st St. Rockford, WA 99030 “Conversation with Cathy” Town Hall — Wednesday, February 20 When: 12:15 p.m.- 1:15 p.m. Where: Fairfield Community Center, 304 E Main St., Fairfield, WA 99012 “Conversation with Cathy” Town Hall — Thursday, February 21 When: 2:30 p.m.- 3:30 p.m. Where: Medical Lake City Hall, 124 S Lefevre St., Medical Lake, WA 99022 Space is limited at all three events. Town halls are first come, first serve. Details can be found on McMorris’ website. Again, I encourage you to read Doug Muder’s whole article. Keep to the high ground, Jerry |
Cathy’s Comfort Zone
Dear Group,
McMorris Rodgers is back at it this week with “Conversations with Cathy.” As always, her “Conversations” appear on short notice (KXLY Sundayfor “town halls” on Wednesday and Thursday this same week). As always, they are scheduled during the workday, 9:45A, 12;15P, and 2:30P, and they are scheduled in towns that are clearly in her comfort zone: Rockford (pop. 477), Fairfield (pop. 616), and Medical Lake (pop 4957). (She spent her teen yearsoutside of Kettle Falls [pop. around 1600 currently].)
The “Conversations” all come with the caveat, “Space is limited at all three events. Town halls are first come, first serve,” as if throngs of people were going to appear, something that never, ever happens in these places. She draws a crowd only when she offers to meet with constituents in the evening, in a hall in a population center, and with some advance notice so folks who are neither self-employed nor retired have a chance to attend.
What does she gain at these gatherings? The adoration of her most dedicated rural fans and a chance to pretend she engages in broad outreach to her constituents. Of course, that is only if one measures outreach by numbers of small gatherings rather than numbers of attendees…
Anyone within reach of these tiny events ought to go, record the proceedings for the rest of us and ask some questions. For the times and places of these gatherings on Wednesday and Thursday, see below.
A question for McMorris Rodgers: Will you vote in favor of Trump’s authority, under the guise of an emergency, to expropriate funds he was denied by Congress or will you vote to defend the Constitution and the Congressional power of the purse?
From Doug Muder’s Weekly Sift:
Once again, conservatives in Congress and in the courts will face a challenge: Will they support Trump, even at the expense of what was once considered a core conservative principle? Over the last several decades, much hot air has been blown about defending “the Constitution” and “the vision of the Founding Fathers”. It goes virtually without saying that neither the Constitution nor the Founders ever envisioned or endorsed a process like this: Congress refuses to fund a presidential project, the president seizes the money, both houses vote to condemn that seizure, but it goes through anyway.
Any congressional Republican who refuses to override Trump’s emergency declaration or his subsequent veto can never again claim to be a defender of the Constitution, and should never again be allowed to invoke the Founding Fathers without hearing about this betrayal of their vision. Any judge who allows this travesty to play out can likewise never in good conscience claim to be an “originalist” or “strict constructionist” rather than a partisan judicial activist.
Keep to the high ground,
Jerry
From the KXLY Website:
“Conversation with Cathy” Town Hall — Wednesday, February 20
When: 9:45 a.m.- 10:45 a.m.
Where: McIntosh Grange, 319 S 1st St. Rockford, WA 99030
“Conversation with Cathy” Town Hall — Wednesday, February 20
When: 12:15 p.m.- 1:15 p.m.
Where: Fairfield Community Center, 304 E Main St., Fairfield, WA 99012
“Conversation with Cathy” Town Hall — Thursday, February 21
When: 2:30 p.m.- 3:30 p.m.
Where: Medical Lake City Hall, 124 S Lefevre St., Medical Lake, WA 99022
Space is limited at all three events. Town halls are first come, first serve.
Details can be found on McMorris’ website.
History and Civics, A Plea
Dear Group,
Last week at breakfast a friend, a man with principled Republican leanings, said it distressed him to realize his daughter (a woman likely in her 40s or 50s) has no idea how we govern ourselves. He was quite sure the only part of U.S. Constitution she could speak off was the Second Amendment, that she could offer no further enlightenment on any governing body or its function.
Later that day I read a piece entitled “The Two Codes Your Kids Need to Know” from the February 12 New York Times, written by New York Times opinion columnist Thomas L. Friedman, winner of three Pulitzer Prizes, author of seven books, and one of my favorite thought-shapers. I do not agree with everything he writes, but I appreciate the depth of his research. I resonate with this article, but I would expand the call for literacy in government to all of us, not just those preparing for the S.A.T.. Understanding how we have organized ourselves, and how, within that organization, the rules are made and enforced is essential to our function as citizens. Without understanding the nuts and bolts of the system we are left to fall prey to conspiracy theories and demagogues.
I have copied Friedman’s article below. I believe it is well worth your time to read.
A few years ago, the leaders of the College Board, the folks who administer the SAT college entrance exam, asked themselves a radical question: Of all the skills and knowledge that we test young people for that we know are correlated with success in college and in life, which is the most important? Their answer: the ability to master “two codes” — computer science and the U.S. Constitution.
Since then they’ve been adapting the SATs and the College Board’s Advanced Placement program to inspire and measure knowledge of both. Since the two people who led this move — David Coleman, president of the College Board, and Stefanie Sanford, its chief of global policy — happen to be people I’ve long enjoyed batting around ideas with, and since I thought a lot of students, parents and employers would be interested in their answer, I asked them to please show their work: “Why these two codes?”
Their short answer was that if you want to be an empowered citizen in our democracy — able to not only navigate society and its institutions but also to improve and shape them, and not just be shaped by them — you need to know how the code of the U.S. Constitution works. And if you want to be an empowered and adaptive worker or artist or writer or scientist or teacher — and be able to shape the world around you, and not just be shaped by it — you need to know how computers work and how to shape them.
With computing, the internet, big data and artificial intelligence now the essential building blocks of almost every industry, any young person who can master the principles and basic coding techniques that drive computers and other devices “will be more prepared for nearly every job,” Coleman and Sanford said in a joint statement explaining their initiative. “At the same time, the Constitution forms the foundational code that gives shape to America and defines our essential liberties — it is the indispensable guide to our lives as productive citizens.”
So rather than have SAT exams and Advanced Placement courses based on things that you cram for and forget, they are shifting them, where they can, to promote the “two codes.”
In 2016, the College Board completely revamped its approach to A.P. computer science courses and exams. In the original Computer Science course, which focused heavily on programming in Java, nearly 80 percent of students were men. And a large majority were white and Asian, said Coleman. What that said to women and underrepresented minorities was, “How would you like to learn the advanced grammar of a language that you aren’t interested in?”
Turned out that was not very welcoming. So, explained Coleman, they decided to “change the invitation” to their new Computer Science Principles course by starting with the question: What is it that you’d like to do in the world? Music? Art? Science? Business? Great! Then come build an app in the furtherance of that interest and learn the principles of computer science, not just coding, Coleman said. “Learn to be a shaper of your environment, not just a victim of it.”
The new course debuted in 2016. Enrollment was the largest for a new course in the history of Advanced Placement, with just over 44,000 students nationwide.
Two years later The Christian Science Monitor reported, “More high school students than ever are taking the College Board’s Advanced Placement (A.P.) computer science exams, and those taking them are increasingly female and people of color.”
Indeed, the story added, “the College Board reports that from 2017 to 2018 female, African-American and Hispanic students were among the fastest growing demographics of A.P. computer science test-takers, with increases in exam participation of 39 percent, 44 percent and 41 percent, respectively. … For context, in 2007, fewer than 3,000 high school girls took the A.P. Computer Science A exam; in 2018, more than 15,000 completed it.”
The A.P. U.S. Government and Politics course also was reworked. At a time when we have a president who doesn’t act as if he’s read the Constitution — and we have a growing perception and reality that college campuses are no longer venues for the free exchange of ideas and real debate of consequential issues — Coleman and Sanford concluded that it was essential that every student entering college actually have command of the First Amendment, which enshrines five freedoms, not just freedom of speech.
Every student needs to understand that, as Coleman put it, “our country was argued into existence — and that is the first thing that binds us — but also has some of the tensions that divide us. So we thought, ‘What can we do to help replace the jeering with productive conversation?’”
It had to start in high school, said Sanford, who is leading the “two codes” initiative. “Think of how much more ready you are to participate in college and society with an understanding of the five freedoms that the First Amendment protects — of speech, assembly, petition, press and religion. The First Amendment lays the foundation for a mature community of conversation and ideas — built on the right and even obligation to speak up and, when needed, to protest, but not to interrupt and prevent others from speaking.”
This becomes particularly important, she noted, “when technology and democracy are thought of as in conflict, but are actually both essential” and need to work in tandem.
One must observe only how Facebook was abused in the 2016 election to see that two of the greatest strengths of America — innovation and free speech — have been weaponized. If they are not harmonized, well, Houston, we have a problem.
So the new A.P. government course is built on an in-depth look at 15 Supreme Court cases as well as nine foundational documents that every young American should know. It shows how the words of the Constitution give rise to the structures of our government.
Besides revamping the government course and the exam on that subject, Coleman and Sanford in 2014 made a staple of the regular SAT a long reading comprehension passage from one of the founding documents, such as the Constitution, or another important piece of democracy, like a great presidential speech. That said to students and teachers something the SAT had never dared say before: Some content is disproportionately more powerful and important, and if you prepare for it you will be rewarded on the SAT.
Sanford grew up in Texas and was deeply affected as a kid watching video of the African-American congresswoman Barbara Jordan arguing the case against Richard Nixon in Watergate. What she remembered most, said Sanford, was how Jordan’s power “emanated from her command of the Constitution.
“Understanding how government works is the essence of power. To be a strong citizen, you need to know how the structures of our government work and how to operate within them.”
Kids are getting it: An A.P. U.S. Government and Politics class at Hightstown High School in New Jersey was credited in a Senate committee report with contributing content to a bill, the Civil Rights Cold Case Records Collection Act, which was signed into law last month.
Sanford cites it as a great example of her mantra: “‘Knowledge, skills and agency’ — kids learn things, learn how to do things and then discover that they can use all that to make a difference in the world.”
Keep to the high ground,
Jerry
Representation and Demographics
Dear Group,
Government: the action or manner of controlling or regulating a nation, organization, or people.
Governments in the United States are sometimes described as a representative democracy. In representative democracy Individuals are elected by a defined group to represent the interests of that group in a governing body. (I use the plural “governments” here because there are many interlocked governing structures to which we, the populace, send representatives, federal, state, county, town, city, and fire and school districts.)
We tend to think of electing individuals to represent us in government bodies as simply natural, just, and proper, but the idea that government represents the individual humans to be governed (as opposed to estates, corporations and various vested interests) only began to blossom in the 17th Century (according to Encyclopedia Brittanica’s interesting article “History of Elections”):
Once governments were believed to derive their powers from the consent of the governed and expected to seek that consent regularly, it remained to decide precisely who was to be included among the governed whose consent was necessary.
When the men who wrote the U.S. Constitution got together in Philadelphia this idea of the “consent of the governed” was still pretty new. The U.S. Constitution specifies that the number of Representatives to be sent to the federal government by each State shall be determined by an “Enumeration” (census) to be conducted every ten years. It does not specify how the States will determine who will be sent as Representatives from the various States…except to say, “by the People of the several States.” (Article I, Section 2). (We’ve been arguing and passing laws and amendments ever since about who those “People” are who get to vote: non-land holders? former slaves? women?)
Let’s put this “People” in perspective. These were all white male colonists, certainly an “elite” of the time, trying to come together and establish rules to assemble, control, and regulate the population under a Constitution and a rule of law. In so doing they felt the need to incorporate the relatively new idea, this ideal, that governmental authority must stem from the “will of the People.”
The population of the United Stated in 1790 was a mere 3,929,214 according to the 1790 United States Census. (For reference the population of the entire world in 1800 is estimated at around 940,000,000.) Today the U.S. is third in population [among modern countries] with nearly 330,000,000 people. In 1790 those rebellious colonists trying to form up a union of states under a new constitution represented a tiny fragment of world population (0.4%), so few the population of the assembled States was scarcely larger than half the population of the single State of Washington in 2018 (7,500,000)
So what has happened to representation since the Constitution was written? Here I draw from “United States congressional apportionment.” In the 1790s there were around 65 U.S. Representatives, one for every 34,436 people. Today, although Representative numbers have increased to 435 (limited by law passed in 1929), each Representative represents around 720,000 people. (Note this is population. This number does not reflect who gets to chose these Representatives. That’s the rule as set by the Constitution in 1789.) There is tension between the need to have a number of Representatives who can actually succeed at legislating and the desire for the populace to be better represented. (Read more on that in the “United States congressional apportionment” article in wikipedia.)
Take-homes from all this:
1) We have an over-glorified view of our origins as these United States, a view that sometimes borders on deification of “The Founders” and of the Constitution they put together. Our Constitution is a impressive document that has worked spectacularly well to advance the ideal of “government by The People” for 230 years. But it has required constant vigilance, amendment, and re-interpretation to further approach that goal. It behooves us to learn more about it…and participate.
2) Representative democracy requires understanding, vigilance, and nurturing. It has not been by accident that we have achieved the end of slavery and women and black suffrage in this country. It was by diligence and hard work of dedicated, informed citizens.
3) I have much more to learn. It is the Trump presidency that has awakened me to the need to pay much more attention. We are only as good as a country as how we, the citizens, function within it.
Keep to the high ground,
Jerry
P.S. The argument over who “the People” are has extended to whether or not folks who have lived in the United States since they were children (the DACA people) are ever to be offered a chance to vote (i.e. become citizens). Historically, you were a citizen if you were born in the United States or if you were born elsewhere and “naturalized.” Naturalized was not defined in the original Constitution, but by later statutes (starting in 1790) specifying a varying number of years one had to reside in the U.S., your race (“white”), and your “good moral character” to be considered “naturalized.” Happily, we nixed the “white” statutory requirement by subsequent Constitutional Amendment. All of the question of citizenship is statute-based and has been the subject of sometimes bitter argument since the late 1800s. The word “citizen” appears many times in the Constitution but it is never defined. My presumption is if you were living here for a while at the time of the founding you were a citizen. It was that simple.
CMR on the Funding Bill
Dear Group,
On the front page of the Spokesman yesterday (Feb. 13) was an article entitled “Region’s Lawmakers Weigh in on Border.” First, understand the bill is about funding the government through September 30, not just the border, but Trump apparently has the attention of both the media and the populace to where funding the wall is treated as the only thing worth discussing.
If you have the patience to dig through the article you find:
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Spokane, said she will review the proposal once it’s released before she makes a decision how to vote.
“It sounds like a missed opportunity to secure our border and provide long-term certainty for DACA recipients,” she said. Lawmakers negotiating for adeal tentatively agreed Monday night to provide nearly $1.4 billion for border barriers and keep the government funded for the rest of the fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30.
Perhaps by the time you read this she will actually have cast her vote. At this writing I cannot locate a copy of the written bill. It is possible the Representatives and Senators who will need to vote yea or nay before midnight Friday to avoid another shutdown do not have the text yet either.
McMorris Rodgers lament is worth dissecting. “A missed opportunity to secure our border” is code directed to the base, Trump’s and her base, the folks who believe Trump’s narrative of crisis and fear. CMR cannot afford to get out of step with these people. The other part, the “missed opportunity to…provide long-term certainty for DACA recipients” is slippery. By “long term certainty” she does NOT mean citizenship or a path thereto, a glaring point she admitted at her Green Bluff town hall on May 29, 2018. As I wrote in that post, “She wants credit for being sympathetic to the Dreamers, but her sympathy only extends to a select few…and keeps citizenship out of reach even for them.” The idea that DACA recipients should be offered a path to citizenship is anathema to Republicans. Some Republicans can bear letting DACA people have some form of legal status, a mechanism allowing them to stay and work in the U.S., but citizenship and voting rights? Never.
Remember when George W. Bush and others were wringing their hands, suggesting they needed to court hispanic voters? Demographers predict a white minority in the United States. The answer was either to attract a part of this new brown majority to the Republican Party or to buck the demographic trend. Trump chose the latter…and now Republicans really cannot afford to offer voting rights to the people they have demeaned and shunned.
I predict there will be no citizenship path for DACA recipients before there is a Democratic majority in the House and Senate and a Democratic president. (And then watch the Republicans claim the Democrats are “playing politics.”)
Let’s watch how McMorris Rodgers finally votes. Will she cast a symbolic vote against the compromise funding bill? That would show her base how committed she is to funding the wall and telegraph her willingness to shut down the government again. Or will she vote for the compromise? We’ll see. Either way, always remember what she means when she speaks of ” long-term certainty for DACA recipients.”
Keep to the high ground,
Jerry
P.S. I predict a shutdown will be avoided, but McMorris Rodgers will vote against the compromise as a show for her base….
The Weekly Sift, Snow Day
Dear Group,
I really am taking a day off this time. I encourage you to click and read this Monday’s blog post by Doug Muder from his blog, The Weekly Sift. This week’s entry is entitled “Fictions.”
I look forward every Monday to reading Mr. Muder’s column. I find he does exemplary service in summarizing the week’s nationally noted events and offering a calm, factual perspective. If you are not already signed up to receive his Monday email, I encourage you to do. [You can sign up in the left hand column of the webpage you see at that link above.]
Back tomorrow.
Keep to the high ground,
Jerry
Local Governmental Geography
Census data from American FactFinder of the U.S. Census Bureau
Dear Group,
Government: the action or manner of controlling or regulating a nation, organization, or people.
Ever wonder how the small population centers in Spokane County (or anywhere) are organized and governed? The answer is pretty interesting, and, it turns out, accessible to anyone with the time, the interest, and an internet connection. I’m going to present selected information I’ve researched for Spokane County. I recommend this as a useful exercise for anyone anywhere who is interested in how we as humans organize ourselves. All politics is local (as is governance) and fear many of us (including me) have been sadly un-informed, distracted a we are by the national news.
A good place to start is Wikipedia. I looked up Spokane County, WA. There I found the list of Cities and Towns in Spokane County displayed above. So what about Four Lakes, Chattaroy, Tyler, or even Fairchild Air Force Base? They’re all “unincorporated.” The roughly 150,000 folks living in these areas with place names familiar to all of us are represented in local government only by Spokane County, not by any municipal (city or town) government. (I’ll come back to that pointedly in a later post.)
My tendency has always been to think of local government structure as pretty much unchanging. Of course, we elect local officials, the names change, the jostling goes on, but that’s just “politics,” isn’t it? And “politics” is just something other people do, right? People with some sort of axe to grind. We elect them in the hope they’ll do the right thing, but we’re always suspicious of their motivation and actions. That is true only if we allow it. It turns out at a local level government changes in a time frame and under rules we can understand and appreciate if we dig a little.
Within Spokane County there are just thirteen “incorporated” municipal governments, the ones listed above as Cities and Towns. [The rest of this post comes from two sources: List of cities and towns in Washington in Wikipedia and the Municipal Research and Services Center‘s webpage Washington City and Town Profiles. I encourage my readers to visit and bookmark these pages. If you live anywhere in Washington State these are great resources with which to orient yourselves. I expect similar resources are available in other states.]
These thirteen incorporated municipalities in Spokane County come in a number of different governmental flavors, each specified in one way or another by Washington State law. The flavors are First-Class, Town, and Code. (There are a couple other categories found in some other WA State counties, but not here in Spokane County.)
The only one of the thirteen municipalities in Spokane County that is a “First Class” city is the City of Spokane. (There are only ten such “First Class” cities in the Sate of Washington.) A “First Class” cities each had a population over 10,000 at the time of reorganization and each operates under a “home rule charter.” Hence, the City of Spokane is distinguished in part from other municipalities in Spokane County by having its own City Charter, its own “constitution.”
First-class City: “A first-class city is a city with a population of ten thousand or more at the time of its organization or reorganization that has a charter adopted under Article XI, section 10, of the state Constitution.”
On the other end of the classification of municipalities are Towns. In Spokane County they are Fairfield, Latah, Rockford, and Waverly. They do not have charters.They are organized under the Revised Code of Washington Chapter 35.27, specifically, RCW 35.27.070 with a mayor, five council members, and a treasurer, all elected. Considering the current populations of the five towns it might be a bit of a challenge to find seven eligible adults willing to serve…and the presumption must be that everyone knows everyone, a far cry from most of the cities (with the exception of the City of Spangle, estimated population 307), Consider this: In the town of Fairfield, pop. around 610, each council member represents only 122 people (including both adults and children)!
Town: “A town has a population of less than fifteen hundred at the time of its organization and does not operate under Title 35A RCW.” [Title 35A, the “Optional Municipal Code” is the part of the Revised Code of Washington, i.e. the state laws of Washington State, that describes “Code City” municipal governance, see below.]
Here’s where it gets interesting and a bit complicated. “Code Cities” came into being by Washington State law passed in 1967. All the eight “cities” in the table above, including the City of Spokane Valley, (but with exception of the City of Spokane) are “Code Cities.” They may organize under there own charter or they may simply follow “Optional Municipal Code” of Title 45A of the RCW. [I was unable to easily determine if any the eight code cities actually went to the trouble of establishing their own charter.]
Six of the eight Code Cities in Spokane County have a Mayor-Council form of government.(Chapter 35A.12 RCW), with an elected executive mayor and an elected City Council. The two other Spokane County cities, the City of Spokane Valley and the City of Airway Heights, operate until the Council-Manager form of government (Chapter 35A.13 RCW).
Hold on to your seat! Guess what? The Council-Manager form still has a position called “Mayor,” but the Mayor in the Council-Manager form is elected by the City Council from among the Council Members. This “mayor” is part of the legislative branch, unlike the executive mayor in the Mayor-Council form. Hence Rod Higgins, the “Mayor” of the City of Spokane Valley is a member of that city’s City Council. He votes on the City Council (at least as a tie breaker). Council-Manager cities, as the name implies, have a Manager, answerable to the Council, who performs the executive functions that are assigned to the Mayor in the other form of municipal government, Mayor-Council form.
So what are the take-homes from all this?
1) In the State of Washington the rules by which counties and municipalities govern are mostly prescribed by the Revised Code of Washington, the compendium of law enacted by the legislature. Some municipalities have a charter with some rule variations (like the City of Spokane), but most local government forms itself and governs by the RCW.
2) There are only thirteen incorporated municipalities in Spokane County, and two of them, the Cities of Spokane and Spokane Valley, contain 3/5 of the population (around 300K) of the county. 50K reside in much smaller municipalities, and 150K only vote in and are governed by Spokane County.
3) You need to look at the specific rules of governance for the municipality in which you live to determine how it functions, Each has its nuances, Council-Manager, Mayor-Council, Town, First Class City and Code City, and within the latter, charter v. non-charter,
May your eyes not have glazed over. Before they do reflex for a moment on which, if any of the municipalities you live. Visit the sources noted above. If you have any doubt about how to place yourself, go to MyVote.wa.gov.
Keep to the high ground,
Jerry