Municipal League deserves response on City Light

So what happens when a group of citizens pays sustained attention to how a city department is performing and actually makes well-considered recommendations?

What happens is city leaders can hardly figure out what to do.

At least, that's how the city's response to the Municipal League of King County appears.

The Municipal League has taken an exemplary interest in Seattle City Light's rate increases and performance. The non-partisan group issued a generally critical study earlier this year. Its study helped set the stage for an independent audit of the utility that found, among other things, that Gary Zarker is overdue for reconfirmation as City Light superintendent. Somehow, the reconfirmation was overlooked several years ago.

So, the Municipal League took the trouble last month to write a letter to Mayor Greg Nickels and the council calling for a reconfirmation process.

The mayor's office has left the call on reconfirmation up to the council. That seems a remarkably passive approach, even by Seattle's laid-back standards. If Nickels supports Zarker as much as he repeatedly says he does, this is an opportunity to put some force into that endorsement.

So far, the council seems equally unable to respond properly. As of Tuesday afternoon, the League had received a letter from one council member, Margaret Pageler, saying that colleagues were working on drafts of a possible contract with Zarker to ensure that the utility's performance meets council expectations. But the council as a whole apparently has not decided what to do.

This should be easy. If the mayor is content to drop the ball on a formality regarding the reappointment of a key department head, the council must step in.

Clearly, the League will offer extensive criticism of Zarker's performance if a reconfirmation hearing is held. But the League has not taken a position calling for his removal. And League leaders insist that removing him is not their point. They want good management and proper governmental oversight of the public utility.

In fact, a decision to retain Zarker, whose knowledge of national utility issues is widely respected, could well be best for the utility, as long as it is reached openly and publicly. But it serves no one to ignore the city code's reconfirmation provision and go on as if nothing were amiss.

It's uncomfortable for elected officials to have to face the issue of reconfirmation at a time when City Light's performance has been called into question. The situation is complicated by the high regard for Zarker -- both personal and professional -- held even by many concerned about the utility's rate hikes and increased debt load in recent years. Customers have seen rate increases of 58 percent in the past year, with no early prospect of reductions.

Unless City Light begins making bill payments optional for customers, however, performing their oversight duties should remain mandatory for the mayor and City Council. With or without a letter from the mayor, the council should schedule reconfirmation hearings for sometime early next year.

The League has asked for early January hearings. If council members think that a January decision is too soon, they can create a staggered schedule -- opening hearings then but making a decision in the spring -- or they can plan the process for later, perhaps February or March. There may be other options that occur to the council or mayor.

Some formal response, however, is due the Municipal League. And the response should respect both the city code's expectation of a reconfirmation and the effort put into public affairs by the League's membership.

On the Net:

www.munileague.org

Add P-I Opinion headlines to