The Olympia [Not So] Nuclear Free Zone

author : Carrie Lybecker topic : Nuclear Free Zone | Olympia City Council

by Carrie Lybecker

On August 23rd, the Olympia City Council passed "An ordinance declaring the City of Olympia, Washington a nuclear free zone." This was the culmination of intensive efforts by local citizens, councilmembers and city staff over many months. Immediately prior to the final vote, the ordinance was significantly amended behind closed doors, based on information withheld from the public. While the final ordinance provides mechanisms through which the city may limit its contribution to nuclear proliferation via contracts and investments, it does not create a nuclear free zone in Olympia.

What began as an outrageous suggestion by Larry Mosqueda, that Olympia declare itself a nuclear free zone, was about to become a reality through the work of many people and groups since May 2004. Concerned citizens wrote articles, letters, speeches and newsletters; organized a petition drive; produced, promoted and filmed forums; secured endorsements from many organizations; spent countless hours in meetings, speaking at city council hearings, and participating in community forums. Councilman TJ Johnson traveled to New York; connected with international advocates of non-proliferation; researched extensively; wrote reports, speeches, a resolution and the original draft ordinance, which he then steered through the city council process. . . despite being personally threatened and publicly vilified during the USS Olympia situation last year. City staff worked diligently to improve and clarify the ordinance, and debate on the council actually strengthened what was to have been its final form.

The expressed purpose of the ordinance (Section 2) was "to establish the City of Olympia, Washington as a nuclear free zone in that the development, production, transportation, storage, processing, disposal and/or use of nuclear weapons is prohibited within the city limits," and to direct city resources away from supporting these activities by prohibiting contracts with or investments in businesses and entities engaged in them, whenever feasible. The ordinance therefore contained three key elements, the creation of a physical nuclear free zone (NFZ), and limitations on city contracting and investing. City staff noted that the ordinance was aligned with City Council Goal #2, "Put sustainability into action so that we do our part to make our community more livable." Clearly, from the beginning the ordinance's most compelling feature was that it prohibited nuclear weapons and their components within our city limits.

TJ Johnson submitted the proposed ordinance to the city council in June of 2005.

It was referred to the General Government Committee which offered revisions and recommendations on June 27 and July 25.

A public hearing was held on August 09. Forty residents testified, all in favor of the ordinance. City councilmembers debated, suggested revisions, and ultimately voted to move the ordinance along to the consent calendar the following week.

On August 16, the council again debated and offered still more revisions. TJ noted that in all, the council had received 118 public comments. Of those, 111 (95%) favored the ordinance, 7 objected, and half of those live outside Thurston County. In addition, the ordinance received support from the Olympia Friends Meeting, 150 signers of a petition sponsored by the Olympia Movement for Justice & Peace, nine organizational endorsements (including Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility, whose parent organization was awarded the 1985 Nobel peace prize), and the endorsement of one neighborhood association.

Throughout this lengthy process of debate and revision, some councilmembers, notably Mayor Foutch and Councilman Doug Mah, repeatedly raised the following issues or objections:

The ordinance is beyond the scope of city government. As a city we should not devote resources to addressing international affairs.

It distracts us from "the city's real work."

It does not reflect broader community opinion.

It was supported by "a group that was very well organized."

The nuclear arms race is not accelerating: it is decelerating.

The nuclear bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were necessary to spare further loss of American lives and to end WWII.

Nuclear arms are a necessary deterrent.

The ordinance is divisive.

And, many councilmembers questioned the city's vulnerability to litigation, particularly by federal government agencies.

Mayor Foutch (August 16) said that Lakefair has invited the USS Olympia to its 2006 festival, and that "I don't think the community can afford another divisive debate over the USS Olympia." What he didn't say is that he wrote a letter to the Navy the month before, on official city letterhead and without consulting the city council, inviting the vessel to our port. Apparently Mayor Foutch was not concerned that his invitation might be divisive, despite the well-known opposition by a significant portion of the community to a nuclear submarine in our port. He further remarked that the debate of 2004 embarrassed state officials and interfered with the city's relationships with state leaders.

Over weeks, councilmembers repeatedly asked the city attorney for information and a legal analysis of the city's potential vulnerability to litigation. The concern rested on a 1989 case in which the US government sued the City of Oakland regarding its nuclear free zone ordinance. The judge ruled in favor of the government, and the city subsequently revised its ordinance. Yet every time the city attorney was asked for information, he didn't have specific answers and had not read the original court opinion.

According to TJ Johnson, more than 4,500 other communities in 23 countries have established nuclear free zones, including Bainbridge Island and Bothell, Washington; Oakland and Berkeley, California; Baltimore and Takoma Park, Maryland; Boulder, Colorado; and Las Vegas, Nevada. I am unaware of federal lawsuits targeting NFZ ordinances in any city other than Oakland.

So on August 16, the council voted 5:2 to move the ordinance ahead for a second and final reading (i.e. approval) the following week. At this point, it was expected that debate and revisions had concluded, and that "City staff will make some minor editorial and grammatical changes before next week, but I do not believe there will be any substantive debate at the next meeting. Bottom line: One week from today residents of Olympia should wake up in a nuclear free zone" (TJ Johnson).

That's not what happened.

The first ominous sign was that at 7 p.m., the mayor opened the August 23rd city council meeting by saying they'd already been in two executive sessions, one conferring with the city attorney on the nuclear free zone ordinance.

Hours went by. Finally, after 10 p.m. the council turned to the ordinance. City Manager Steve Hall said, "You have in front of you the ordinance that has been revised due to legal questions we brought up last week." He reported that there had been questions of legal vulnerability, i.e. the city's vulnerability to law suits, especially brought by the federal government. As a consequence, the city attorney obtained more information from other cities, especially Oakland.

So, it was determined -- no one said by whom or when, but presumably in the earlier executive session that was closed to the public -- that new language would be added to the ordinance exempting the federal government from the requirements of Section 4 prohibiting the transport, production, storage etc of nuclear weapons and their components in or through the City of Olympia.

Further, the transportation of nuclear weapons and their components along the national highway system was exempted. Specifically mentioned were I-5, the 101, and possibly Plum St. I heard that all transportation to and from the port, and the port itself, would be exempt, as they are considered an extension of the federal highway system. TJ disagrees. His understanding is that the Port is not exempt and that there is "some question as to whether it applies to Plum St."

This new language that significantly altered the ordinance was added at the 11th hour and was not read at the council meeting. The ordinance was passed 5:2, Foutch and Mah dissenting.

So ultimately, this city council enacted a law, the text of which had not been made available to the public, based on information discussed behind closed doors. This raises a number of questions about city council process, the degree to which the citizens of Olympia can actually participate in democratic civic governance, and about the ordinance itself.

As Doug Mah pointed out, this ordinance exempts the only entity likely to transport nuclear materials through Olympia. What were councilmembers thinking? Who is the greatest purveyor of nuclear weaponry in the world today? Did they think there is any such thing as a real nuclear free zone that doesn't challenge this government? Did they not understand that we know full well that establishing a nuclear free zone explicitly challenges the government and other proliferators of nuclear weapons, and that we sought an ordinance anyway, understanding and accepting the consequences? What did they think we meant?

I want to know why the city council met in executive session. The information discussed in that session ostensibly included an analysis of city vulnerability to litigation by the federal government. TJ wrote after the fact that he had "reason to believe that we would have been sued by the feds relatively quickly." I want to know who threatened the city, and upon what grounds. Why is this information being withheld from the public? And why now? Mayor Foutch and councilmembers asked many times, publicly, over the past several weeks about potential liability. Why all of a sudden does discussion of this issue require secrecy? How is it possible that the city council could enact an ordinance whose text has not been made available to the public?

In the end, we have an ordinance that does not establish a nuclear free zone in Olympia. It does require the city manager to submit within one year a proposal regarding city investments. It also provides citizens with the opportunity to submit highly credible evidence that contractors are engaged in the development etc of nuclear weapons and their components. The city has made clear that its staff does not have time to devote to this research, and so it will be left to community watchdog groups.

As the ordinance now stands, if Osama bin Laden drives a flatbed down 4th Ave with nuclear warheads piled in the back, he'll get fined $25 for the first infraction, provided 4th Ave isn't considered an extension of the national highway system.

[See http://www.omjp.org/NuclearFree.html for primary documents, articles and other information. The Olympia Movement for Justice & Peace promotes economic and social justice and peace through dialogue, education, democratic participation and non-violent direct action.]