Council hasty in adopting ordinance

So, the Town of Cathlamet has a new ordinance governing the operation of the Cathlamet Fire Department. It takes effect five days after today, the day it is published.

You can find a summary of the ordinance on Page 8 of this week's edition.

If you've been following this issue, the town's fire department has been operating under an ordinance developed in 1932, which put supervision of the department under the now defunct Cathlamet Commercial Club, subject to approval by the town council. Mayor George Wehrfritz and state auditors have said this ordinance should be updated to meet current state law and put governance of the department under the town.

To adopt an ordinance, the council is supposed to hold three public readings at separate meetings. Law allows the second and third readings to be at the same meeting.

The council held the first reading of the ordinance in February and gave it approval. At that time, council members said they would hold two more readings at separate meetings.

Between the February and March meetings, there were substantial changes to the ordinance.

Town officials sought an evaluation from the Municipal Research and Services Center, and the lawyer there panned proposed provisions that concerned the appointment of the fire chief and assistant chief and the right of fire department members to elect other officers. Instead, the lawyer said, the mayor has the authority to hire and fire the chief and officers, not the fire fighters and not the council.

That was a big change.

Retired Assistant Fire Chief Fred Johnson, an attorney who retired as the county's prosecuting attorney, sent council members an 11-page commentary on the proposed ordinance, section by section, paragraph by paragraph.

Among the many points, Johnson says that state law gives mayors of small municipalities limited powers and it gives councils the authority to define the powers of the mayor.

Johnson comments, "Although in some discussions, the proposed repeal of Ordinance No. 170 has been characterized as a shift of power from the fire chief to the Mayor, what the proposed ordinance really does is give the Council's powers to the mayor."

Johnson points out other potential problems and inconsistencies in references and provisions.

Johnson, who spent 30 years in the fire department, thinks that some of the requirements placed on the volunteer fire fighters are unrealistic. One requires attendance at all drills, a heavy requirement for an organization that meets almost weekly throughout the year.

Another provision cites the town's Drug Free Work Place Policy and in effect mandates that the volunteers must submit to random drug tests if requested. Johnson notes that the Drug Free Work Place policy only "prohibits the manufacturing, distribution, dispensation, possession and use of unlawful drugs or alcohol on Town premises or during working hours."

Johnson questions provisions for termination of the chief and comments they may subject the Town to liability for violations of due process.

"I urge you to table the proposed ordinance indefinitely and schedule a series of workshops where all of the issues involved can be fully and fairly examined with input from all the residents of the town," Johnson says in his conclusion.

Council Member Bob Rendler moved to approve the ordinance for the second and third readings, and the motion was seconded. Council Members Ruth Doumit and Wally Wright moved to amend just the second reading, saying the council had said it would hold three separate readings.

That amendment failed in a 3-2 vote, and the council then approved the new ordinance 4-1, with Wright casting the dissenting vote and Rendler, Doumit, Stevan McNicholas and Dick Swart voting in favor.

I think the council acted hastily. Johnson brought up legitimate concerns about allocation of power and consistency in writing.

I didn't get to see the comments until after the meeting, but they seem to me to deserve some attention.

However, I don't have a vote.

Council members had seen his comments in advance of the meeting, and a majority felt they had addressed them adequately enough that they didn't need to have the third hearing they had said they would hold.