As the former Chairperson and member of the Kirkland Civil Service Commission (Commission), I would like to provide some context and background to the issue of lateral hires within the Kirkland Police Department (KPD) and, just as importantly, the role of the Commission, as it was and as it may become after the July 19, 2016 ordinance change adopted by the City Council at the urging of the City Manager.
The Washington State Supreme Court has stated the reason for civil service systems governing police and fire department employees “is to protect those employees from the arbitrary or discriminatory actions of their employers in hiring, promotions, discipline and discharge and to ensure that the public is protected by qualified police and fire personnel.” City of Yakima v. International Ass’n of Fire Fighters, 818 P. 2d 1076 (1991). The Court then noted that RCW 41.08 and RCW 41.12, give civil service commissions the power: (1) To make suitable rules and regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter. Such rules and regulations shall provide in detail the manner in which examinations may be held, and appointments, promotions, transfers, reinstatements, demotions, suspensions and discharges shall be made, and may also provide for any other matters connected with the general subject of personnel administration, and which may be considered desirable to further carry out the general purposes of this chapter, or which may be found to be in the interest of good personnel administration. Such rules and regulations may be changed from time to time.”
In May of 2005, the Commission amended its Rules & Regulations, implementing a requirement of 60 semester or 90 quarter credits of college education for lateral police officer applicants [Rules, Art X, Sec. 3]. In May of 2015, the Commission completed a comprehensive review of its Rules & Regulations, amending and updating various provisions, particularly with regard to procedural matters. The educational requirement for lateral hire requirement was not amended, nor was concern or complaint raised by the KPD or City Manager about the requirement.
Earlier this year the KPD placed the lateral hire requirement on the Commission monthly meeting agenda, requesting that it be removed. Because the matter came on such short notice the Commission requested additional time, information and input, possibly including that from other interested parties, departments or agencies. The KPD was invited to note the matter on a future Commission agenda.
The next time the Commission heard about the issue was several months later when the City Attorney presented the Commission, again on short notice, with a Memorandum prepared at the earlier request (unbeknownst to the Commission) of the KPD and the City Manager. The City Attorney concluded that the Commission had no authority to implement the lateral hire requirement, now 11 years in existence. The Commission sought the advice of independent counsel to determine if the conclusion of the City Attorney was correct. The independent counsel determined that the City Attorney was not correct and that the Commission did, in fact, have proper authority absent a change to the Kirkland Municipal Code.
In response, the City Attorney drafted a proposed ordinance amendment and presented it to Commission on July 12, 2016, not for approval but rather for the Commission’s information. The ordinance contained sweeping and confusing language: Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter actually or seemingly to the contrary, all other qualifications for applicants for a position of any kind under civil service will be determined by the appointing authority or power.” The scope of this provision was and is very concerning, particularly as it appears to divest the Commission of long recognized authority well beyond issue of KPD lateral hire requirements. The Commission was presented with letters from the Kirkland Police Officer’s Guild and the Kirkland Professional Firefighters Local 2545 both endorsing the lateral-hire regulation and opposing its removal.
As the Commission Chairperson I requested the City Attorney and City Manager, through their attending representatives, to allow time for the Commission to convene a special meeting to discuss the proposed ordinance amendment and offer drafting suggestions. Instead, the City Attorney and City Manager hastened to place the matter on the City Council’s July 19 agenda. When the Commission learned the matter was being accelerated by the City attempts were made to convene a special meeting of the Commission to draft a formal response for the City Council’s consideration. Those attempts failed for lack of sufficient time to post public notice of the meeting.
At the July 19 City Council meeting the City Attorney proposed the ordinance with a PowerPoint presentation. KPD Officer Nathan Rich spoke on behalf of the Police Guild, noting his concerns regarding removing the later-hire provision. I also spoke as the Chairman of the Commission, requesting an opportunity for the Commission to prepare a formal response to the ordinance amendment that, in my view, significantly impacted the role and independence of the Commission. The City Council declined the request and adopted the amended ordinance with one dissenting vote.
Why is this a matter of concern? First, the discussion regarding the KPD lateral-hire issue should occur in a public context with input solicited by all parties concerned. This includes, of course, the citizens who are directly affected. That public discussion would have occurred during the open meeting of the Commission. It should not be just an internal decision with public input relegated to intermittent social media posts. Equally important is the fact that the City, in my view, has adversely and improperly impacted the important independent authority of the Commission.
I encourage: (1) the City Council to revoke its July 19 ordinance amendment, (2) the City Manager, City Attorney and KPD to work in conjunction with the Commission to substantively and openly review the pros and cons of the lateral-hire issue, and (3) the citizens of Kirkland to voice their views in whatever forum exists, including the public meetings of the Commission.
Chris Fox, Kirkland
