The 1893 Plan to Untangle Seattle’s Government

The necessity for a revision of the city charter has long been felt, and the time is approaching when action must be taken if any amendments are to be submitted to the people at the next general election. Unfortunately, the state constitution requires that all amendments must be submitted at a general election; and it is, therefore, the more desirable that the most thorough discussion of the proposed amendments shall take place in advance. If radical measures are desired it is necessary that they be agreed upon in the main before the election, as in order to have symmetrical results they will probably have to stand or fall together.

The discussion has already begun among citizens, and Dr. J. S. Kloeber, president of the House of Delegates, has been asked to give his views upon the extent to which changes should be made. In an interview with a Post-Intelligencer reporter he said, in reply to questions, substantially as follows:

I am glad to be privileged to answer this question, having been keenly interested in the practical working of the city charter since its adoption in October, 1890, and particularly so during the past year when I have been so intimately associated with the administration of the affairs of the city under the conditions imposed therein. While the charter embraces many provisions that are excellent in their character I am in favor of some changes. Of all questions pertaining to reform in the city administration the question of charter amendment is of the most importance—the most important for the reason that the greater portion of the existing charter is entirely incompatible with an economical municipal government, and until amended will defeat all efforts that may be made tending to administrative reform.

The charter originally was framed at an especially unfortunate period of the history of the city for laying the foundation of a plan of city government—a period of unprecedented commercial activity following the great fire, the population rapidly increasing and the people busily engaged in building anew the city and gathering together the severed ends of their business connections. It was not to be wondered that the charter was framed upon the same broad lines, entailing upon us a plan of city government that would suffice for a city many times larger than Seattle, nor is it strange that the charter was adopted by the people. They had not the time to scrutinize or criticise the work of the commission, and blindly ratified that which was not thoroughly understood by them.

After only eighteen months' trial the defects were so glaring that an amendment became a necessity. A charter amendment commission was appointed that made a few admirable changes, only they did not apply the pruning knife with sufficient freedom to eliminate from the instrument the many sections necessitating the appointment of numerous useless officials, commissions, etc., comprising in the aggregate a complex municipal government without a responsible head. For it is a lamentable fact that even the chief executive of this city cannot justly be held responsible for the business methods and actions of the various boards and commissions of the city, over which he has but little if any control, aside from the power of appointment. And we all know how easily promises are made before appointment, but how fickle is memory after being safely ensconced in office.

The amendments to the charter should, in my opinion, be in line with the criticism offered. I think that the charter should be so amended as to make the mayor the actual head of the city government, and so place the responsibility that he will be responsible for the proper administration of affairs. I mean, of course, aside from the powers of the city council, over which he can assume but two functions, one being the power of recommendation, the other the power of approval or disapproval of its measures.

I believe that better and more economical legislation can be obtained from a city council consisting of one house, and should like to see that article of the charter constituting the legislative department amended so as to provide for a city council consisting of one house composed of two members to be elected from each ward. This would at present make a body of eighteen members.

The dual house makes legislation cumbersome and there is such friction between the houses as to tend to delay, if not to defeat, measures which are of the most importance.

One house is more economical, as it will allow committees of the council to perform the duties of the various commissions now existing, which with the dual house is not practicable. I believe that the councilman should be elected for a term of four years, one-half of the first body to be elected for two years. This will insure that at least one-half of the membership of the house will be experienced and conversant with the needs and business of the city upon the organization of every council.

That article of the charter constituting the department of public works is peculiarly susceptible of amendment, effecting a radical change that will make the board of public works far more efficient and greatly reduce the present expense of this department. There can be no question of the importance of a board of public works and to abolish it would be unwise. I think that the board should be constituted as follows: The mayor of the city to be chairman ex officio, the city engineer and secretary of the board the other two members. The mayor to have the appointment of the city engineer, who shall be an accomplished engineer, and the secretary of the board, who shall be a competent business man, subject to the approval of the city council. This will effect a saving in salary now paid to the members of the board by $14,000 per annum, and would give to the city a board of public works thoroughly competent to transact the business required.

The board of public works as now constituted are not much more than figureheads. They are not elected, and are dependent upon their subordinate officers in the transaction of the business of the department, the greatest volume of that work devolving upon the city engineer and the superintendent of water works. The water works should be brought under the engineer's department, and the city engineer allowed an assistant who shall be a practical hydraulic engineer, to be known as superintendent of the water works. This would bring the united experience and competence of the engineer and his assistant to the aid of this department.

I believe that as much of articles 7, 11 and 12 of the charter as respectively relate to the appointment of the police commission, the fire commission and park commission should be repealed, and the duties of the police and fire commission be devolved upon committees of the common council. This will make the council at all times, through its committees, familiar with the affairs of these departments, their needs and their condition, and will, I believe, give us departments of greater efficiency, and at a cost far less than at present.

The park commission is an expensive adjunct to the city government, consisting as it does of five members, each receiving $300 per annum and having in their employ a superintendent of parks at a salary of $1,800 per annum. This work of supervision of our parks can be done by a committee of the council and the necessary engineering work performed by the city department of engineering. The expenses of this department are large and its abolishment would be a long step in the right direction toward reform.

There is just one suggestion more, and that differs from the others materially in not tearing down but with the desire to make more efficient that which is one of the most admirable departments of the city government. I refer to the office of the city comptroller. This should be constituted the bookkeeping department of the city, and there kept a set of commercial books, thus keeping a check upon all other departments and showing at all times the condition of the city's affairs.

I have given you the changes most needful. There are many others that will be necessary, mostly legal in their nature, to make the city charter correspond to the state laws. But if the amendments noted are made the city will save many thousands of dollars per year, and the present intricate system of government will become greatly simplified and there will be far less friction.