HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-06-16 NCBC Agenda PktYakima City Council Committee
Neighborhood & Community Building Committee
Council Chambers, City Hall – 129 N 2nd St, Yakima, WA
Thursday June 16, 2016
2:00 p.m.
City Council City Staff
Councilmember Dulce Gutiérrez (Chair) Interim City Manager Jeff Cutter
Councilmember Avina Gutiérrez Community Development Director Joan Davenport
Councilmember Carmen Méndez
Agenda
1. Exploratory Committee Discussion
- Bike/Pedestrian Committee
- Ethics
- Community Integration
2. Update on Parks Report
3. Equity Assessment Status – Six-Month Timeline
4. Board Appointed Reports – Standing Item
- Comprehensive Plan Update
- Homeless Network
- Parks & Recreation Commission
- South East Community Center
- Historic Preservation
5. Other Business
- New Items Referred to NCBC
o Tree City USA
o Outdoor Displays/Mannequins
- Request to Authorize HOME Funds for Rehab of Multi-Family Housing
- Recap of Deliverables for Next NCBC Meeting
o Interpreter for Next Meeting
6. Audience Participation
Next Meeting: July 21, 2016 (2:00 p.m.)
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
FOR
Yakima Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, 2016
1. Purpose & Responsibilities of Committee: To provide a community-based advisory
committee for the review, comment and idea generation related to the development, maintenance
and planning of the network of facilities for bicycles and pedestrians including public streets, sidewalks,
bike paths, pathways and related improvements; and to work with staff, committees, schools, affected
residents, and neighborhoods or other interested groups on bicycle/pedestrian projects and
implementation.
2. Membership:
a. Qualifications. Members of the advisory committee shall be residents of the City of Yakima,
each with an interest in the promotion and development of a safe and well-designed system
for transportation facilities. The members of the committee should reflect the diverse
backgrounds of residents within the City, including, but not limited to, ethnic and socio-
economic backgrounds.
b. Number of members. There shall be seven (7) members appointed by the City Council to
the committee. Members shall apply for appointment using the application provided by the
City, and appointment shall be made by a majority vote of the City Council. One of the
residents shall represent the Yakima Greenway. In addition to the residents appointed by
the City Council, two professional City employees shall be appointed by the City Manager
and shall include a representative from the Planning Division and Engineering Division. The
staff liaisons shall be non-voting members of the committee.
c. City Council Representative. One member of the Yakima City Council shall be assigned as the
representative to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. On matters of the
Advisory Committee tasks, the Council member shall be a non-voting representative.
d. Length of appointment. The initial appointments to the Committee shall be staggered.
Three (3) members shall be appointed for two (2) years, and four (4) members shall be
appointed for three (3) years. Membership on the Commission shall be limited to two (2) full
consecutive three (3) year terms. Reappointment after two (2) full consecutive terms may
be made after at least a one (1) year absence. A “full term” is a three year term or the initial
two year term for three of the members. Membership on the Commission shall be selected
without respect to political affiliation.
e. Removal. Committee members may be removed from the committee for any reason upon a
majority vote of the City Council. Committee members shall be removed if they fail to
attend three (3) consecutive meetings, or five (5) meetings in any twelve (12) month period.
f. Vacancies. Vacancies will be reported to the City Council by the Secretary, after which the
City Council will appoint members to fill the remaining portion of the vacant term.
3. Internal organization.
a. At the committee’s first meeting, which should be held within thirty (30) days of the
effective date of creation of the committee and appointment of the minimum number of
members, the committee members shall choose a Chair and a Secretary by majority vote.
b. The Chair’s role is to effectively and efficiently run the meetings of the committee, using
Robert’s Rules of Order, or any other meeting rules or procedures agreed upon by the
committee.
c. The Chair shall also provide a proposed agenda before each meeting, which will be
distributed to the committee members, the public, and any person making special request
for meeting notice.
d. The Chair shall be the official spokesperson of the committee and shall make and sign all
necessary reports to the City Council.
e. The Secretary shall be responsible for taking attendance, creating minutes, correspondence
and distributing agendas.
f. City staff will arrange for the location of the advisory committee meetings, as well as all
requirements of adhering to the Open Public Meetings Act, record retention, public notice
and other requirements.
4. Meetings.
a. Meeting conduct. Committee members shall conduct themselves in a respectful manner
towards other committee members and the public during meetings. The Chair should
maintain order and ensure that respect is provided to all those in attendance.
b. At the first committee meeting, the committee members shall determine their meeting
schedule. The committee should meet monthly, at a minimum, during the term of the
committee. Committee members should attend all committee meetings and may be
removed, pursuant to section 1(e) in the event they fail to attend meetings of the
Committee.
c. Robert’s Rules of Order should be used during meetings. It is understood that in some
circumstances these rules will not be advantageous to facilitating discussion among
community members and committee members. In those cases, the committee can move to
suspend the rules for purposes of discussion, or move into study session to facilitate more
open discussion. Respect should still be shown during these more informal situations.
d. A committee member at any time can move to create additional rules of procedure.
e. Meetings shall be open to the public and occur in the City Council chambers or other room
open to the public at City Hall.
f. If any resident needs the services of an interpreter, a request shall be made to the City
Clerk’s Office a minimum of 24 hours before the start time of the meeting.
5. Staff Assistance. A City Staff member will serve as a liaison between the committee and the
City. Copies of all documents, including, but not limited to email related to the business of the
committee, shall be provided to the staff liaison for Public Records Act and retention purposes. The City
Council representative will be the direct contact with the City Council as a whole.
6. Actions to be taken by the committee.
a. The committee is tasked with fulfilling the purpose and responsibilities outlined in Part 1 of
this document.
b. Minutes. The committee is required to submit written minutes of the Advisory Committee
meetings to the written report to the City Council on a timely basis.
c. Reporting and Recommendations. The Advisory Committee shall submit written
recommendations to the City Council on a quarterly basis, at the minimum. Reports or
recommendations from the Advisory Committee may be issued at any time, by a majority of
the Committee. The Committee may also make recommendations directly to City
Departments on projects, plans or programs. The Quarterly reports to the Council shall
contain a summary of the action items taken to date, a list of action items that are pending,
and a summary of the findings made as of the date of the report. The report will be
disseminated to the City Council in their council materials. The Chair of the committee is
responsible for writing the report and forwarding it to the staff liaison.
7. All meetings of the committee shall be open to the public.
8. All documents formulated by the committee or committee members are considered public
records. Committee members shall follow the Public Records Act rules and regulations of the City of
Yakima.
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
FOR
EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE
TO
EVALUATE THE TERMS, GOALS, VISION, AND STRUCTURE OF AN EQUAL RIGHTS COMMITTEE
1. Purpose. The purpose of this exploratory committee to evaluate the terms, goals, vision and
structure of an Equal Rights Committee (the name of which may change as part of the evaluation), is to
review and evaluate other jurisdictions’ (both within and outside of Washington) committees which
address equal rights, human rights, discrimination and other similar social justice issues and report to
the City Council as to whether such a committee should be permanently formed within the City of
Yakima, and the parameters of such committee, as further outlined herein.
2. Membership.
a. Qualifications. Members of the exploratory committee shall be residents of the City of
Yakima. The members of the committee should reflect the diverse backgrounds of residents
within the City, including, but not limited to, ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds.
b. Number of members. There shall be no fewer than five (5) members on the committee, and
no greater than nine (9) members. Members shall apply for appointment using the
application provided by the City, and appointment shall be made by a majority vote of the
City Council. At least one member should have a background in the law. No city employees,
elected or appointed officials may serve on the committee.
c. Length of appointment. Due to the limited role of the exploratory committee, committee
members will be appointed for a two year term, or until the committee has made its Final
Report and the City Council has terminated the committee, whichever comes first, as
outlined further herein in Section 7.
d. Removal. Committee members may be removed from the committee for any reason upon a
majority vote of the City Council.
e. Vacancies. The Chair shall report any vacancy to the City Council, who will then appoint a
new member to the Committee.
3. Internal organization.
a. At the committee’s first meeting, which should be held within thirty (30) days of the
effective date of creation of the committee and appointment of the minimum number of
members, the committee members shall choose a Chair by majority vote.
b. The Chair’s role is to effectively and efficiently run the meetings of the committee, using
Robert’s Rules of Order, or any other meeting rules or procedures agreed upon by the
committee.
c. The Chair shall also provide a proposed agenda before each meeting, which will be
distributed to the committee members, the public, and any person making special request
for meeting notice.
d. The Chair shall be the official spokesperson of the committee and shall make and sign all
necessary reports to the City Council.
4. Meetings.
a. Meeting conduct. Committee members shall conduct themselves in a respectful manner
towards other committee members and the public during meetings. The Chair should
maintain order and ensure that respect is provided to all those in attendance.
b. At the first committee meeting, the committee members shall determine their meeting
schedule. The committee should meet monthly, at a minimum, during the term of the
committee.
c. Robert’s Rules of Order should be used during meetings. It is understood that in some
circumstances these rules will not be advantageous to facilitating discussion among
community members and committee members. In those cases, the committee can move to
suspend the rules for purposes of discussion, or move into study session to facilitate more
open discussion. Respect should still be shown during these more informal situations.
d. A committee member at any time can move to create additional rules of procedure, which
must be approved by a majority of the committee members.
e. Meetings shall be open to the public and occur in the City Council chambers or other room
open to the public at City Hall.
f. If any resident needs the services of an interpreter, a request shall be made to the City
Clerk’s Office a minimum of 24 hours before the start time of the meeting.
5. Staff Assistance. A City Staff member will serve as a liaison between the committee and the
City, and also serve as Secretary to the committee. Copies of all documents, including, but not limited to
email related to the business of the committee, shall be provided to the staff liaison for Public Records
Act and retention purposes. Other than serving as secretary, records custodian and taking notes at
meetings, the staff liaison will have no other role in the committee.
6. Actions to be taken by the committee.
a. The committee is tasked with providing a final report to the City Council with its
recommendation on whether or not a permanent committee should be created to address
equality, discrimination and other similar matters in the City of Yakima.
b. Background Information. The committee is tasked with exploring and evaluating what
issues are occurring in Yakima that would fall under such a committee, as well as what other
jurisdictions, cities and counties in Washington State and elsewhere are doing to address
these issues. Some issues for consideration include: wage theft, tenant rights, and
discrimination in the City of Yakima. This list is not exclusive and is intended to give the
committee some ideas and starting points to evaluate. The committee is encouraged to
speak with community members to determine what other issues may be affecting residents
that would fall under the purposes of this committee.
c. Reporting. The committee is required to provide a written report to the City Council on a
quarterly basis, the first of which will be due three (3) months after the committee’s first
meeting. The report shall contain a summary of the action items taken to date, a list of
action items that are pending, and a summary of the findings made as of the date of the
report. The report will be disseminated to the City Council in their council materials. The
Chair of the committee is responsible for writing the report and forwarding it to the staff
liaison.
d. Final Advisory Report. Upon completion of research, evaluation and discussion, and when a
decision has been made as to what the exploratory committee will recommend to the City
Council as to a permanent committee, the Chair shall draft a Final Advisory Report. This
Report should provide Findings of Fact, with details of how those findings were made,
examples of code sections or procedures from other jurisdictions that the committee found
most useful or should be used as a model, a summary of the public comments made during
the process, and the committee’s conclusions regarding the permanent committee. There
should also be a section with the committee’s recommendations as to the permanent
committee, as well as a recommendation for the name of the permanent committee.
e. The Chair shall present the final advisory report to the City Council during a regularly
scheduled City Council meeting. The City Council may accept it for consideration, or may
send it back to the exploratory committee with additional questions to be answered or
issues to be addressed.
7. Termination of the exploratory committee. This exploratory committee shall terminate at the
end of two years after the first meeting of the committee, or upon acceptance of the Final
Advisory Report by the City Council, whichever occurs first.
8. All meetings of the exploratory committee shall be open to the public.
9. All documents formulated by the committee or committee members are considered public
records. Committee members shall follow the Public Records Act rules and regulations of the City of
Yakima.
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
FOR
EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE
TO
EVALUATE THE TERMS, GOALS, VISION, AND STRUCTURE OF A COMMUNITY INTEGRATION COMMITTEE
1. Purpose. The purpose of this exploratory committee to evaluate the terms, goals, vision and
structure of a Community Integration Committee (the name of which may change as part of the
evaluation), is to review and evaluate other jurisdictions’ (both within and outside of Washington)
committees which address increased neighborhood programming and involvement, increased resident
involvement with government, immigrant and refugee rights and services, organizing community events
and other similar issues and to report to the City Council as to whether such a committee should be
permanently formed within the City of Yakima, and the parameters of such committee, as further
outlined herein.
2. Membership.
a. Qualifications. Members of the exploratory committee shall be residents of the City of
Yakima. The members of the committee should reflect the diverse backgrounds of residents
within the City, including, but not limited to, ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds.
b. Number of members. There shall be no fewer than five (5) members on the committee, and
no greater than nine (9) members. Members shall apply for appointment using the
application provided by the City, and appointment shall be made by a majority vote of the
City Council. No city employees, elected or appointed officials may serve on the committee.
c. Length of appointment. Due to the limited role of the exploratory committee, committee
members will be appointed for a two year term, or until the committee has made its Final
Report and the City Council has terminated the committee, whichever comes first, as
outlined further herein in Section 7.
d. Removal. Committee members may be removed from the committee for any reason upon a
majority vote of the City Council.
e. Vacancies. The Chair shall report any vacancy to the City Council, who will then appoint a
new member to the Committee.
3. Internal organization.
a. At the committee’s first meeting, which should be held within thirty (30) days of the
effective date of creation of the committee and appointment of the minimum number of
members, the committee members shall choose a Chair by majority vote.
b. The Chair’s role is to effectively and efficiently run the meetings of the committee, using
Robert’s Rules of Order, or any other meeting rules or procedures agreed upon by the
committee.
c. The Chair shall also provide a proposed agenda before each meeting, which will be
distributed to the committee members, the public, and any person making special request
for meeting notice.
d. The Chair shall be the official spokesperson of the committee and shall make and sign all
necessary reports to the City Council.
4. Meetings.
a. Meeting conduct. Committee members shall conduct themselves in a respectful manner
towards other committee members and the public during meetings. The Chair should
maintain order and ensure that respect is provided to all those in attendance.
b. At the first committee meeting, the committee members shall determine their meeting
schedule. The committee should meet monthly, at a minimum, during the term of the
committee.
c. Robert’s Rules of Order should be used during meetings. It is understood that in some
circumstances these rules will not be advantageous to facilitating discussion among
community members and committee members. In those cases, the committee can move to
suspend the rules for purposes of discussion, or move into study session to facilitate more
open discussion. Respect should still be shown during these more informal situations.
d. A committee member at any time can move to create additional rules of procedure, which
must be approved by a majority of the committee members.
e. Meetings shall be open to the public and occur in the City Council chambers or other room
open to the public at City Hall.
f. If any resident needs the services of an interpreter, a request shall be made to the City
Clerk’s Office a minimum of 24 hours before the start time of the meeting.
5. Staff Assistance. A City Staff member will serve as a liaison between the committee and the
City, and also serve as Secretary to the committee. Copies of all documents, including, but not limited to
email related to the business of the committee, shall be provided to the staff liaison for Public Records
Act and retention purposes. Other than serving as secretary, records custodian and taking notes at
meetings, the staff liaison will have no other role in the committee.
6. Actions to be taken by the committee.
a. The committee is tasked with providing a final report to the City Council with its
recommendation on whether or not a permanent committee should be created to address
improving community integration and other similar matters in the City of Yakima.
b. Background Information. The committee is tasked with exploring and evaluating what
issues are occurring in Yakima that would fall under such a committee, as well as what other
jurisdictions, cities and counties in Washington State and elsewhere are doing to address
these issues. Some issues for consideration include: helping immigrants with the citizenship
process, increasing the interest and diversity in government and government committees,
and increasing neighborhood programming and involvement. This list is not exclusive and is
intended to give the committee some ideas and starting points to evaluate. The committee
is encouraged to speak with community members to determine what other issues may be
affecting residents that would fall under the purposes of this committee.
c. Reporting. The committee is required to provide a written report to the City Council on a
quarterly basis, the first of which will be due three (3) months after the committee’s first
meeting. The report shall contain a summary of the action items taken to date, a list of
action items that are pending, and a summary of the findings made as of the date of the
report. The report will be disseminated to the City Council in their council materials. The
Chair of the committee is responsible for writing the report and forwarding it to the staff
liaison.
d. Final Advisory Report. Upon completion of research, evaluation and discussion, and when a
decision has been made as to what the exploratory committee will recommend to the City
Council as to a permanent committee, the Chair shall draft a Final Advisory Report. This
Report should provide Findings of Fact, with details of how those findings were made,
examples of code sections or procedures from other jurisdictions that the committee found
most useful or should be used as a model, a summary of the public comments made during
the process, and the committee’s conclusions regarding the permanent committee. There
should also be a section with the committee’s recommendations as to the permanent
committee, as well as a recommendation for the name of the permanent committee.
e. The Chair shall present the final advisory report to the City Council during a regularly
scheduled City Council meeting. The City Council may accept it for consideration, or may
send it back to the exploratory committee with additional questions to be answered or
issues to be addressed.
7. Termination of the exploratory committee. This exploratory committee shall terminate at the
end of two years after the first meeting of the committee, or upon acceptance of the Final
Advisory Report by the City Council, whichever occurs first.
8. All meetings of the exploratory committee shall be open to the public.
9. All documents formulated by the committee or committee members are considered public
records. Committee members shall follow the Public Records Act rules and regulations of the City of
Yakima.
2015 – 2016 Capital Project & Purchases
Project or Purchase Est. Cost Year
1 Milroy Park Restroom – CXT building, utilities, site
prep
The current restroom at Milroy Park is in poor shape. It
is quite old and has many mechanical issues. It does
currently work, however it is becoming a more
unpleasant environment.
$150,000 2015
2 Kiwanis/Gateway Sports Complex Storage Building
The Kiwanis Park and Gateway Sports Complex
currently uses the historic incinerator for storage of ball
field maintenance equipment and supplies. The
incinerator building is not conducive to storing
equipment and supplies.
$60,000 2015
3 Southeast Yakima Community Center Park Playground
The Southeast Yakima Community Center Park
playground is 25 years old and is safe, but in poor
shape. It has been vandalized over the years and
repairs to the structure and finding replacement parts
has become increasingly difficult. During the summer,
the Southeast Yakima Community Center, operated by
OIC of Washington, conducts a weekday summer day
camp for children and during the hours that the kids
are at the camp the playground is used extensively.
The playground is also used regularly by the families
that live in the surrounding area.
$125,000 2015
4. Elks Park Parking Lot – asphalt only – 22, 000 sq. feet
Currently the parking area along Hathaway is gravel. It
has become a dust issue for the neighbors and needs to
be asphalted. Yakima National Little League utilizes
Elks Park for their baseball Games and tournaments.
$30,000
2016
5. Lions Pool Filter & Sanitation System
The Lions Pool is over 40 years old and the filtration
system needs to be replaced. Currently the filtration
system is Diatomaceous Earth or DE. DE filters are very
labor intensive to replace. We propose to replace the
DE system with a High Rate Sand Filter System. In April
of 2015, a consulting firm was hired to assess the Lions
Pool facility. One of the recommendations was to
make improvements to the filtration and water
sanitation systems. Engineering design work will need
to be completed and that estimate is included in the
estimated cost.
$150,000 2016
6. Gardner Park Restroom – CXT, utilities, site prep
The restroom at Gardner park is old and in poor shape,
similar to the rest room at Milroy Park. It is still
operational, but is becoming more unpleasant to use.
We propose a replacement with a CXT all concrete pre-
fabricated restroom structure. They are built to
withstand vandalism and are easier to clean and
maintain.
$150,000 2016
7. Randall Park Restroom #2 – CXT, utilities, site prep
The ongoing improvement project at Randall Park that
is funded in part through donations, Parks Capital and
RCO grant dollars include a second restroom, if funds
are made available. A restroom will be replaced on the
Avenue side of the park, but a second smaller
restroom is planned for the Avenue side of the park, if
funds are available. Requests from park users have
been received for the second restroom.
$125,000 2016 or
2017
8. Gardner Park Parking Lot – asphalt only – 23,000 sq. ft.
Currently the parking area along Cornell is gravel. It
has become a dust issue for the neighbors and needs to
be paved. The park has two ball fields, a playground
and a restroom. The park is used for baseball and
softball games and tournaments. The park is also used
by the families in the neighborhood.
$32,000 2016
9. Lions Pool Climbing Wall
The high dive at Lions Pool was removed and additional
activities and amenities are being requested to provide
opportunities for recreation. A climbing wall can be
placed at the edge of the pool and is a safe and exciting
way for people to learn how to rock climb. A climbing
wall can be portable and moved away from the pool as
needed.
$30,000 2016
10. Inflatable Outdoor Movie Screen
Our current inflatable outdoor movie screen is over ten
years old and is beginning to deteriorate. In order to
continue to provide free outdoor movies in the park a
new inflatable screen will need to be purchased.
$20,000 2016
12. Randall Dog Park Parking Lot & Driveway – asphalt
The parking area adjacent to the Randall Park Dog Park
is gravel and needs to be paved. The driveway into the
park is also gravel and could benefit from asphalt also.
$30,000 2016
13. Gardner Park Playground
The playground at Gardner Park is small and old. It is
currently safe, but is over 20 years old and needs to be
replaced with new and more exciting equipment for
children to enjoy.
$85,000 2016 or
2017
Park Future Needs Taken from the 2012-2017 Comprehensive Plan
Miller
New sign
Renovate old pool building - Removed 2016
Mcguinness
Replace playground equipment
New sign
New lights – Security Lights 2011
Redo planters around trees
Resurface basketball court
Replace fence
Exercise equipment
Tree removal / pruning
Cherry Park
Replace playground equipment
Prune /replace trees
New sign
Milroy
Restripe parking lot
New sign
New lights – Security Lights 2011
Replace drinking fountain
Replace restroom structure - New Restroom 2016
Replace swings
Naches Parkway
Replace broken sidewalk sections/ramps
Cut down dead/problem trees
Tie in with future Boise Cascade Mill Development
Walter Ortman Parkway
Continue trail to the east along Willow St. - 2012
Powerhouse
Permanent benches along pathway
Landscape pathway from 16th to 20th Ave.
Add workout station
Kiwanis / Gateway
Finish softball field project - completed 2013
Xeriscape hillside and planter areas around parking lot
Draft 6/10/2016
Improve pond – aerating fountain
Replace parking lot lights
Restripe parking lot
Look for opportunities for future property acquisition
New towable bleachers – purchased portable bleachers in 2015
Netting over bleacher areas - 2015
Storage unit for ballfield maintenance
Temp fences
Trees around field 4
Batting cages
MLK Jr.
New sign - 2016
Demo building - 2016
Convert tennis courts to mini soccer
New picnic tables
SE Community Park
Replace parking lot lights
Restripe parking lots
New playground - 2015
Tree pruning/removal
Fair Island 1 & 2
S. St.
Arboretum
Kissel
Another picnic shelter
Expand basketball court
Upgrade portion of the irrigation system
Screened area for trash bins
Add permanent benches around pathway
Shade structures between tennis courts
Fisher
Taller fence
Redo roof and concrete pad for maintenance bldg
Increase parking - 2015
Reroof starter house
Create entrance off parking lot - 2015
Golf carts - 2015
Remodel/relocate starter house
Draft 6/10/2016
Gardner
Pave gravel parking
Fence entire east side of park
Replace restroom building
Replace playground
New sign
Drinking fountain
Perry Soccer complex
Lions
New bulkhead for pool
New sign
Remove old spray ground
Remove or renovate old restroom
Tree removal/pruning
Franklin
New sign
Redo snack shack, update restrooms in pool area
Paint exterior of pool building
Replace playground that was removed due to safety issues - 2013
Replace/ enlarge picnic shelter - 2013
Increase parking - 2013
New water slide
Repair tennis courts
Landscape along Stanley Blvd.
New trees
Raymond
Replace the removed playground
New sign
Larson
New sign
Grind/overlay walkway sections as needed
New small playground
Paint restroom building
Replace picnic shelter
Replace sand under play equipment with wood chips
Tree pruning
Tieton Terrace
Replace swing set
Possibly locate a small playground
Sign
Draft 6/10/2016
Picnic shelter
Rosalma
Portia
Tree removal /pruning
S. Ave. Parkway
Replace broken sideway sections as needed
Chesterley
New sign
Expand skate park
Remove bleacher pads on fields 1-3
Remove trees on fields 1-3
Add permanent tables and benches
Elks
Upgrade power to storage/concession building
Run power to scoring buildings
Demo yellow field
Upgrade fence sections as needed / replace outfield fence on green field
New sign
Upgrade parking lot
Remove old restroom building
Summitview
Gailleon Park / Harman Center
Paint interior and exterior of Harman Center
Restripe parking lot - 2016
New security system
Gilbert Park
Replace picnic table as needed
New sign
Restripe parking lot
Replace parking lot lights - 2013
Tree pruning and replacement
N. Ave. Parkway
Grind/Overlay asphalt path - 2015
Replace trees as needed – Planted trees 2016
West Valley Community Park
New sign on east side
Draft 6/10/2016
Additional picnic shelters
Grind/overlay walking trails
Parking lot lights
New filtration system for irrigations - 2014
New spray park
New paved pathways for walkers
Randall
Grind/overlay pathway
New restroom on east and west sides – 2016 Restroom replaced on east side
New sign/planters
Replace bridges
Clean up nature area
Redo access points at parking lots
New lights in parking lots
Terrace hillside for concerts in the parks
Replace tables by creek
Permanent benches along pathway
Replace fence south side
Viewing platform next to pond - 2015
Install irrigation, parking area and hydroseed undeveloped Randall park south of creek – Dog
Park constructed in 2014-2015
Fairbrook islands
Xeriscape one of the islands
Draft 6/10/2016
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Members of the City Council Neighborhood and Community Building Committee
Jeff Cutter, Interim City Manager
FROM: Joan Davenport, Director of Community Development
DATE: June 9, 2016,
SUBJECT: Preliminary Timeline and Tasks for Preparation of Equity Assessment Project
Background
At the May 3, 2016 City Council meeting, the City Council requested that the City begin work on an
Equity Assessment for the City of Yakima. It was noted that this should include items such as parks,
sidewalks, streetlights and other basic improvements. The Council requested that information be
gathered and a plan be developed for how to create a report within 6 months. In addition, the Council
suggested the City of Yakima use the professional assistance from a University with Urban experience
for analysis and recommendations of the Equity Assessment. The target for completing this
assessment would be November 2016.
The Neighborhood and Community Building Committee met on May 19, 2016 to provide additional
dialogue and direction on this item. Considerable input was also offered by members of the OneAmerica
group supporting this concept. It was noted that information should be reported by City Council districts.
Actions to Date
The City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Plan Update is underway. Our horizon
year is planning for 2040. A core requirement of the planning process is to document existing
inventories of city facilities. The Parks Division has already started the collecting and reporting
information about park facilities by City Council districts. The Council has asked for park data to be
collected from the year 2000 to present and should include expenditures and major maintenance items.
All other City Divisions have been informed of this project and are ready to help.
Schedule of Tasks
Identify all physical assets to be included in inventory for report June 2016
Send Letter of Interest to Universities for Assessment Report July 2016
Complete the inventory of assets by Council Districts August 2016
Select University, create agreement, send data for project September 2016
University visit Yakima and interview Council, others October 2016
Draft Equity Report presented to NCBC mid-November 2016
Page 1 of 1
Expert Report Submitted on Behalf of Plaintiffs in Montes v. City of Yakima
No.: 12-cv-3108 (E.D. Wash)
Ethnicity and Race in Yakima, WA
Luis Ricardo Fraga, University of Washington
February 22, 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
-i-
I. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................1
II. RELATIONS BETWEEN WHITES AND HISPANICS IN THE CITY OF
YAKIMA AND THE YAKIMA VALLEY ARE CONTENTIOUS AND
COMBATIVE....................................................................................................................5
A. History of Race Relations Between Whites and Latinos in the City of
Yakima and the Yakima Valley.............................................................................5
1. The Bracero Program Begins an Increase in the Latino Population
in Yakima City and County.......................................................................6
2. Farmworker Organizing Activities Were Harshly Retaliated
Against by White Growers.........................................................................8
3. Organizing Efforts Among Minorities at Yakima Valley
Community College Resulted in Extreme Backlash from YVCC
and the White Community.......................................................................10
4. Racial Animus Towards People of Color Has Deep and Broad
Roots in the City of Yakima ....................................................................11
B. Recent and Contemporary Relations Between Whites and Latinos Are
Also Combative and Contentious........................................................................13
1. A Review of Race Relations in the City of Yakima in 2000...................14
2. Contemporary Public Commentary Shows a Rift Between White
and Latino Populations ............................................................................19
III. SYSTEM BY WHICH YAKIMA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE ELECTED......22
A. The Origin of the At-Large Election System.......................................................22
B. History of the City of Yakima’s Electoral Process..............................................24
IV. NO LATINO REPRESENTATION ON THE YAKIMA CITY COUNCIL IN ITS
ENTIRE HISTORY.........................................................................................................27
A. Latina/o Candidates for Yakima City Council and Their Campaigns.................27
1. Sonia Rodriguez, 2009.............................................................................28
2. Ben Soria, 2009........................................................................................34
3. Rogelio Montes, 2011..............................................................................37
4. Yakima City Council Members Tend Not to Live in the Parts of
Town that Have the Largest Latino Populations......................................40
B. Elections Since 1976 Were Held in a Manner That Violated Section 203..........41
C. Continuing Socio-Demographic Disparities Between Latinos and Whites
in Yakima.............................................................................................................43
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
-ii-
D. The City of Yakima’s Lack of Responsiveness to Needs and Interests of
Latinos..................................................................................................................46
1. Patterns of Municipal Employment.........................................................46
2. Appointments to Boards and Commissions.............................................52
3. Public Parks .............................................................................................54
4. Claims Brought Against the City.............................................................57
a. Wilfred and Karen Murphy, et al. v. City of Yakima..................57
b. Tony Ramos v. The City of Yakima Police Department.............58
V. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................60
I. Introduction
I am Associate Vice Provost for Faculty Advancement, Russell F. Stark University
Professor, Director of the Diversity Research Institute, and Professor of Political Science at the
University of Washington. Among my areas of expertise are the politics of race and ethnicity,
urban politics, immigration politics and policy, voting rights, and educational politics. I have
authored or co-authored five books; seventeen articles in peer-reviewed journals including the
three top journals in political science: the American Political Science Review, the American
Journal of Political Science, and The Journal of Politics; twenty-two book chapters in academic
volumes, and two reports. My research has been referenced in the cases of Thornburg v. Gingles
(1986),1 and most recently in Shelby County, AL v. Eric Holder, Jr. (2011).2 My research on
more information requests (MIRs) was included in the evidence examined by the Senate
Judiciary Committee in its hearings on the renewal of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in
2006. I have worked on several voting rights cases as a research assistant or expert witness
including Mobile v. Bolden (1980),3 Maria Velasquez et al. v. City of Abilene, TX (1984),4
Harper v. City of Chicago Heights, IL (1993),5 and Esperanza Ruiz et al. v. City of Santa Maria,
1 Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); Chandler Davidson and Luis Ricardo Fraga,
“Nonpartisan Slating Groups in an At-Large Setting,” in Chandler Davidson, ed., Minority Vote
Dilution, Howard University Press (1984), pp. 119-143. 2 Shelby County, AL v. Eric J. Holder 811 F. Supp. 2d 424 (D.D.C. 2011); Report Submitted to
Senate Judiciary Committee and subsequently published in more extensive form as Luis Ricardo
Fraga and Lizet Ocampo, “More Information Requests and the Deterrent Effect of Section 5 of
the Voting Rights Act,” in Ana Henderson, ed., Voting Rights Act Reauthorization of 2006:
Perspectives on Democracy, Participation, and Power, Berkeley Public Policy Press (2007), pp.
47-82. 3 Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980). 4 Maria Velasquez et al. v. The City of Abilene, TX, et al., 725 F. 2d. 1017 (5th Cir. 1984). 5 Harper v. City of Chicago Heights, 824 F. Supp. 786 (N.D. Ill. 1993).
2
CA, et al. (1998).6 I am compensated at the rate of $250 per hour for my analysis and
preparation of this report and $300 per hour for my deposition and trial testimony.
I have conducted research and published in several areas of race relations and American
politics that deal directly with issues relevant to Montes v. City of Yakima, WA. I have conducted
research and published on the history of at-large elections, exclusive candidate slating, and the
capacity of Latinos to elect candidates of first choice in at-large election systems;7 representation
and policy responsiveness by state and local government officials;8 Latino voting;9 immigration
6 Esperanza Ruiz et al. v. City of Santa Maria, CA, et al., 160 F. 3d 543 (9th Cir. 1998). 7 Luis Ricardo Fraga, “Domination Through Democratic Means: Nonpartisan Slating Groups in
City Electoral Politics,” Urban Affairs Quarterly, V. 23, No. 4, 1988, pp. 528-555; Chandler
Davidson and Luis Ricardo Fraga, “Slating Groups as Parties in a ‘Nonpartisan’ Setting,”
Western Political Quarterly, V. 41, No. 2, 1988, pp. 373-390; Luis Ricardo Fraga, Kenneth J.
Meier, and Robert E. England, “Hispanic Americans and Educational Policy: Limits to Equal
Access,” The Journal of Politics, V. 48, No. 4 (1986), pp. 850-876; Luis Ricardo Fraga and Roy
Elis, “Interests and Representation: Ethnic Advocacy on California School Boards,” Teachers
College Record, V. 111, No. 3 (March 2009), pp. 659-682. 8 Luis Ricardo Fraga, Kenneth J. Meier, and Robert E. England, “Hispanic Americans and
Educational Policy: Limits to Equal Access,” The Journal of Politics, V. 48, No. 4 (1986), pp.
850-876; Luis Ricardo Fraga and Roy Elis, “Interests and Representation: Ethnic Advocacy on
California School Boards,” Teachers College Record, V. 111, No. 3 (March 2009), pp. 659-682;
Luis Ricardo Fraga, Linda Lopez, Valerie Martinez-Ebers, and Ricardo Ramirez, “Gender and
Ethnicity: Patterns of Electoral Success and Legislative Advocacy Among Latino and Latina
State Officials in Four States,” Journal of Women, Politics, and Policy, V. 28, Nos. 3-4 (2006),
pp. 121-145; Luis Ricardo Fraga, Linda Lopez, Valerie Martinez-Ebers, and Ricardo Ramirez,
“Representing Gender and Ethnicity: Strategic Intersectionality,” in Beth Reingold, ed.,
Legislative Women: Getting Elected, Getting Ahead, Lynne Reiner Publishers (2008), pp. 154-
174. 9 Matt A. Barreto, Luis R. Fraga, Sylvia Manzano, Valerie Martinez-Ebers, and Gary M. Segura,
“Should They Dance With the One Who Brung ‘Em? Latinos and the 2008 Presidential
Election,” PS: Political Science and Politics, V. 41, No. 4, (October 2008), pp. 753-760; Gary
M. Segura and Luis Ricardo Fraga, “Race and the Recall: Racial and Ethnic Polarization in the
California Recall Election,” American Journal of Political Science, V. 52, No. 2 (April 2008),
pp. 421-435; Luis Ricardo Fraga and David Leal, “Playing the ‘Latino Card’: Race, Ethnicity,
and National Party Politics,” Du Bois Review, V. 1, No. 2 (September 2004), pp. 297-317; “Luis
Ricardo Fraga and Ricardo Ramírez, “Demography and Political Influence: Disentangling the
Latino Vote,” Harvard Journal of Hispanic Policy, V. 16 (2003-04), pp. 69-96.
3
policy and politics;10 the Latino experience in the United States;11 and the role of race and
ethnicity in the future of American politics.12
The plaintiffs in Montes v. City of Yakima retained me to examine (1) the historical and
contemporary racial climate between Latinos and Whites in the City of Yakima and whether
relations between the groups had contributed to limited opportunities to which the Latino
population has access; (2) the lack of political representation of Latinos in the City of Yakima
and how this has affected the City of Yakima’s responsiveness to the needs and concerns of the
Latino community; and (3) racially polarized voting and how racial issues have been injected
into politics in the City of Yakima.
In this report I provide analysis of several of the Senate factors that are identified as
supporting a claim under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The factors I examine are:
Factor 3. “the extent to which the state or political subdivision has used voting practices
or procedures that tend to enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority
10 “Building Through Exclusion: Anti-Immigrant Politics in the United States,” in Jennifer
Hochschild and John Mollenkopf, eds., Bringing Outsiders In: TransAtlantic Perspectives on
Immigrant Political Incorporation, Cornell University Press (2009), pp. 176-192; Luis Ricardo
Fraga and Gary M. Segura, “The Immigration Aftermath: Latinos, Latino Immigrants, and
American National Identity,” in David Coates and Peter Siavelis, eds., Getting Immigration
Right: What Every American Needs to Know, Potomac Books, Inc. (2009), pp. 63-79; Luis
Ricardo Fraga and Gary M. Segura, “Culture Clash? Contesting Notions of American Identity
and the Effects of Latin American Immigration,” Perspectives on Politics, V. 4, No. 2, pp. 279-
287. 11 Luis Ricardo Fraga, John A. Garcia, Rodney E. Hero, Michael Jones-Correa, Valerie Martinez
Ebers, and Gary M. Segura, Latinos in the New Millennium: An Almanac of Opinion, Behavior,
and Policy Preferences, Cambridge University Press (2012); Luis Ricardo Fraga, John A.
Garcia, Rodney E. Hero, Michael Jones-Correa, Valerie Martinez-Ebers, and Garty M. Segura,
Latino Lives in America: Making It Home, Temple University Press (2010). 12 “Racial and Ethnic Politics in a Multicultural Society,” in Gary M. Segura and Shaun Bowler,
eds., Diversity in Democracy: Minority Representation in the United States, University of
Virginia Press (2005), pp. 278-301; Luis Ricardo Fraga and Jorge Ruiz-de-Velasco, “Civil
Rights in a Multicultural Society,” in Bernard Grofman, ed., Legacies of the 1964 Civil Rights
Act, University of Virginia Press (2000), pp. 190-209.
4
group, such as unusually large election districts, majority-vote requirements, and
prohibitions against bullet voting;”13
Factor 5. “the extent to which minority group members bear the effects of discrimination
in areas such as education, employment, and health, which hinder their ability to
participate effectively in the political process;”14
Factor 6: “the use of overt or subtle racial appeals in political campaigns:”15
Factor 7: “the extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to public
office in the jurisdiction,”16 and
Additional factors: “such as whether there is a lack of responsiveness on the part of
elected officials to the particularized needs of minority group members.”17
I find overwhelming evidence that the use of at-large elections, driven by vote
polarization between White and Latino voters as reported by Dr. Richard Engstrom in his report
on recent elections for City Council, has led to no Latino ever being elected to the Council,
consistent with Senate Factors 3 and 7. Additionally, I find evidence that Latino ethnicity was an
important part of electoral campaigns when Latino candidates were running for the Council,
consistent with Senate Factor 6. I also find that there is clear evidence of the lack of
responsiveness of City officials to the needs and interests of Latinos, consistent with additional
information that is noted among the Senate factors. Lastly, I find that Latinos in Yakima City
continue to have significant socio-demographic disparities relative to Whites that result in their
having more difficulty in participating in the political process, consistent with Senate Factor 5.
In sum, my analysis reveals that the totality of circumstances in the City of Yakima, driven
by a long and continuing pattern of contentious and combative race relations between Latinos
13 “Section 2 of the Voting Right Act,” U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Voting
Rights Section,” http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/sec_2/about_sec2.php. Accessed 2.16.13. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid.
5
and Whites, works to the systematic and persistent disadvantage of Latinos in a system of at-
large election to the City Council.
II. Relations Between Whites and Hispanics in the City of Yakima and the Yakima
Valley are Contentious and Combative.
Relations between Whites and Hispanics Latinos in the City of Yakima and the Yakima
Valley have a long history of being contentious and combative, and continue to be so today.
These relations set the context for elements of politics and policy making in the City of Yakima.
A. History of Race Relations Between Whites and Latinos in the City of Yakima and
the Yakima Valley.
The origins of combative and contentious relations in the City of Yakima between Whites
and Latinos lie in the growth of agricultural production in the Yakima Valley. Yakima City was
incorporated in 1883, and the town of North Yakima was incorporated in 1883.18 “The
Washington State Legislature [joined the two towns and] officially renamed the city ‘Yakima’ in
1918.”19 Agriculture has long been the foundation of the economy of the Yakima Valley. As
stated on the City of Yakima website, “Yakima County is Washington State’s leader in terms of
the value of the fruits, vegetables, grains, and other ag products produced by the county’s
farmers.”20
1. The Bracero Begins an Increase in the Latino Population in Yakima City and
County.
Starting in late 1942 with the establishment of the Bracero Program, which legally
imported Mexican laborers to work in agriculture and other areas of the American economy
during WWII, more and more people of Mexican origin, both U.S. citizens and non-citizens,
18 “About Yakima, City of Yakima,” http://www.yakimawa.gov/visit/about/. Accessed 2.16.13. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid.
6
moved to and ultimately settled in the Yakima Valley. Although many of these “Latinos”21 were
originally migrant laborers, over time, substantial numbers of them decided to become
permanent residents in the City of Yakima. Table 1 displays the ethnic-racial distribution of the
residents of the City of Yakima from 1970-2010. The substantial growth of the Latino
population is very clear.
According to the 2010 Census, 52.2% of the 91,067 residents of the City of Yakima
52.2% are Caucasian/White,22 41.3% are Hispanic, 2.1% are two or more races, 1.4% are
Black/African American, 1.4% are Asian, 0.1% are Pacific Islander, and 0.1% are Other. It is
now the case that the largest two racial/ethnic groups in the City of Yakima are Caucasians and
Hispanics.23 The growth in the Hispanic population has been steady across the past four
decades. The most rapid period of growth of the Latino population was between 1990 and 2000
when Hispanics more than doubled from 8,937 to 24,212. Also of note is that in 2010 just over
half of the residents of Yakima identified as Caucasian or White.
Table 1. Ethnicity and Race in the City of Yakima, WA, 1970-2010
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Total
Population
45,588 49,826 54,827 71,845 91,067
White 92.9 88.1 78.4 59.8 52.2
Hispanic 3.0 7.0 16.3 33.7 41.3
21 “Latinos” is a contemporary term used to refer to people with origins in Spanish-speaking,
Latin American countries. Latinos is often interchanged with the term Hispanics to refer to the
same set of people. Most Latinos in the state of Washington have their origins in the country of
Mexico. 22 All groups that are not Hispanic excludes any Hispanics who also identified themselves with
one of these groups. 23 http://www.cubitplanning.com/city/15371-yakima-city-census-2010-population. Accessed
2.16.13.
7
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Black/African
American
2.4 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.4
American
Indian/Alaska
Native
* 1.6 1.7 2.0 1.4
Asian/Pacific
Islander
* 0.8 1.2 1.2 1.4
Two or More
Races
* * * 1.2 2.1
Other 1.7 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2
Source: All data are from relevant Census years.
* Denotes that data are not available.
It has been well documented that braceros who worked in many areas of the United
States, including the Pacific Northwest, were especially prone to discrimination in wages,
dehumanizing working conditions, and racial animosity. Indeed, Professor Erasmo Gamboa, an
historian in the Department of American Ethnic Studies at the University of Washington, made
this argument in his seminal book Mexican Labor & WWII: Braceros in the Pacific Northwest.24
In this study Professor Gamboa chronicles the experiences of workers who participated in strikes
to protest against the harsh treatment and work conditions under which they labored. The
Yakima Valley was one place where such braceros worked.
Relations between Whites and Mexican workers during the Bracero period set the tone
for contentious and combative ethnic and racial relations in the region. Although the City of
Yakima itself was not a rural community as no farms and no sizeable crops are grown within the
city boundaries, the way in which Mexicans, and later Latinos, were viewed by many Whites
was grounded in this earlier interaction where White growers saw Mexicans as peasant laborers,
24 Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1999. Originally published in 1990.
8
uneducated, and inferior to Whites. These often tense relations between Mexican agricultural
laborers and their White bosses existed in many agricultural areas throughout the United States
and are well documented by a number of scholars. 25
2. Farmworker Organizing Activities Were Harshly Retaliated Against by
White Growers.
The racial-ethnic hierarchy--with Whites on top and Mexicans below--was apparent in
the Yakima Valley in the 1970s when Latino agricultural laborers tried to organize to advocate
for better and safer working environments, higher wages, and generally better treatment . These
organizing efforts were marked by contentious and combative conflict between union organizers
and growers. Indeed, the effort to organize Latino farm laborers in the Yakima Valley was met
with active resistance, lawsuits, and oppositional organizing strategies by some White growers.
When the United Farmworkers Organizing Committee (UFWOC) began organizing
agricultural laborers in the Yakima Valley they encountered opposition from a number of
quarters, especially from growers.26 27 In 1970, “[t]he UFW won the right to bargain for the
workers with Yakima Chief [a major grower of hops] management in a secret ballot election…
by a 105-3 margin. But no contract was ever negotiated. Talks between [George] Gannon,
[owner of Yakima Chief] and Cesar Chavez [President of the United Farm Workers Union] were
25 Ernesto Galarza, Spiders in the House and Workers in the Field, University of Notre Dame
Press, 1970; Merchants of Labor: The Mexican Bracero Story, McNally and Loftin Publishers,
1972; Farm Workers and Agri-business in California, 1947-60, University of Notre Dame Press,
1977. 26 “What are organizers for UFWOC up to?” Yakima Herald-Republic (YHR), May 24, 1971. 27 As would be expected, not 100% of all agricultural workers were in their support of unionizing
efforts by the UFWOC. As stated in the YHR, “[s]ome workers who thought the union was not
needed at the ranch, thought it might be good at other ranches where conditions were thought to
be not as good.” “Laborers’ views on UFWOC ‘differ’,” YHR, May 24, 1971. Other workers
stated, “A union…would offer ‘more protection’” and referenced a case where a woman had
worked one place for 25 years and was fired ‘without cause.’” Id.
9
broken off in June 1971. Within a matter of weeks Ganon had begun his campaign against the
UFW and the forerunner of the AWPC [a worker group], the Committee of 22, was formed.”28
In 1972, an injunction was leveled against UFWOC for alleged harassment of workers.
An article in the YHR about the trial states that some agricultural workers testified that the
UFWOC’s organizing activities violated their privacy. The union countered that the “claim that
the invasion of privacy case is a blind for the anti-UFW campaign of ranch owner George
Gannon and ranch manager Dan Alexander[,]”29 and “argu[ed] that the suit [was] a ‘union-
busting sham’ fostered by ranch owner George Gannon and ranch operator Dan Alexander, who
has acknowledged he is paying all legal costs of the worker-tenants.”30
Although the court initially sided with the growers and enjoined the union from its
organizing work, after further litigation the court lifted the injunction on March 9, 1973. In
making his ruling Judge Follman stated that “[t]he plaintiffs testimony ‘showed a lack of
damage, of injury,’ substantial enough to justify issuing a permanent injunction.”31
3. Organizing Efforts Among Minorities at Yakima Valley Community College
Resulted in Extreme Backlash from YVCC and the White Community.
Conflict between Whites in positions of authority and power and those trying to organize
minority communities in the early 1970s erupted in the City’s flagship higher education
institution, Yakima Valley Community College (YVCC). On January 23, 1973, nine minority
students occupied a college office to demand “the resignation of two top college officials …
expansion of ethnic studies courses and hiring minority teachers and counselors.”32 College
officials had told leaders of the Black Student Union and MEChA [Movimiento Estudiantil
28 Ibid. 29 “UFW trial to open on Thursday,” November 15, 1972. 30 “UFW trial delay is apparent,” November 16, 1972. 31 “Judge lifts injunction against UFW,” YHR, March 10, 1973. 32 “Arrests of 9 ends YVC occupation,” YHR, January 24, 1973.
10
Chicano de Aztlán], “the Chicano student organization,” that they “would meet most of the
demands,” but the students would have to vacate the offices they were occupying.33 When the
students refused, they were arrested, and the confrontation was so “explosive” that 12 uniformed
Yakima city police were called to the campus.34 Two days later, President Thomas Deem stated
that YVCC would not give in to all of the demands made by the students,35 and blamed “the
critical attitudes of minorities toward the college” in part on the Herald-Republic “for its news
accounts and editorials about YVCC’s growing troubles with blacks, Chicanos and Indians.”36
Student protesters responded that, “it is exactly their naïve unwillingness to admit ‘that a
problem exits’ that shows the magnitude of the problem. They are living in a fantasy of the
nineteenth century and it’s time they face the reality of this community’s human needs today.”37
On January 27, 1973, Chicano and African American students picketed an alleged misuse of
funds by college officials, stating that YVCC administrators refused to prioritize the needs of
students of color in the face of changing demographics, which was evidenced by expenditures
like “more than $1,500 [being spent] on fishing trips, alcoholic beverages and other items in
connection with educational conferences”38 while “’the administration [claimed] ‘that they don’t
have the money’ to fund programs for minorities.”39 On March 13, 1973, “[a]fter much protest
and unrest between White students and administrators and students of color YVCC agreed to hire
33 Ibid. 34 Ibid. 35 “College officials hold firm,” YHR, January 25, 1973. 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid. 38 “Pickets march at YVC,” YHR, January 27, 1973. 39 Ibid.
11
an ‘affirmative action counselor’ “to deal half-time with minority issues in hiring and
programs.”40
It was clear in the 1970s that issues regarding access to socioeconomic opportunities and
empowerment of Latino and African American communities at YVCC, like the earlier conflicts
regarding farmworker organizing, reflected deep disagreements on how minority communities
were treated, and highlighted the resistance of traditional White leaders to calls for greater
responsiveness to Latino and other minority communities in the Yakima Valley.
4. Racial Animus Towards People of Color Has Deep and Broad Roots in the
City of Yakima.
The contentious and combative attitudes toward Latinos in the 1970s are further reflected
in letters to the editor during this time period. For instance, on February 28, 1971, the YHR
published a letter stating that:
“[Immigrants]…tend to form into troublesome minority groups.
Most do not believe in birth control or couldn’t care less…Even
the Yakima Valley has problems with aliens who demand the
rights and privileges without even taking the trouble to learn the
English language. If they do not like it here, why don’t they go
back home? They are particularly vulnerable to agitators and
racketeers who communicate in their own language. Does the U.S.
need all this immigration? The ‘melting pot’ has produced a
strange mixture with impurities which threaten to corrode away the
melting pot itself. Perhaps it is appropriate that the Statue of
Liberty has her back turned toward the United States.”41
Language that is openly hostile against “Chicanos” appeared in another letter to the editor:
“…This letter is directed at the so-called ‘Chicanos’ and not the
majority of productive Mexicans. It also applies to any other
group or individual who ‘wants,’ but won’t produce. It seems to
me that these people want to siesta all day and be spoon-fed, so
they came up here to the land of milk and honey (and suckers),
where they expect to be treated as kings, while continuing to act as
the most uncouth of peasants. They scream about needing to study
40 “YVC, minorities announce accord,” YHR, March 14, 1973. 41 “Immigration,” YHR, February 28, 1971.
12
their cultural heritage…They want special teachers, free tuition,
free lunches, free baby-sitters. If they had one-hundredth of the
intelligence they claim, they would write and speak English. Why
should a person vote who can’t speak English, or receive welfare
when not a citizen? How long would this action last in Mexico?
About as long as a snowball on a hot stove! No matter how you
sugar it or phrase it, one who lives off another’s productivity and
doesn’t produce anything (except trouble), is known as a
parasite.”42
Combative language used to characterize the consequences of affirmative action programs
appears in a letter to the editor on March 4, 1973. The author of this letter states, “Mr. Broad,
how long has a Caucasian who did not discriminate 150 years ago against a black have to pay the
price for what some other generation did? In today’s society with all the aids the minorities have
received from the federal government in the form of grants, free education, free lunch programs,
free health care, food stamps and headstart programs, I feel they cannot be called the
disadvantaged and that they have opportunities that are far better than the middle class child’s
parents can afford.”43
The Yakima Valley has a long history of racial animus and hostile responses by Whites
to minority groups seeking to gain more power or better position. Similar to many other parts of
the country, Yakima also has a history of restrictive covenants that were used against African
Americans and Asians. A 1946 deed restriction on a lot to be sold in west Yakima stated, “None
of said lots shall ever be leased, conveyed to or used by any member of the African or Negro,
Malay, Asiatic, Polynesian, or Melansian race, save and except that this restriction shall not be
construed to prevent a domestic servant or servants of such race residing with other persons in
42 “Minorities,” YHR, November 12, 1972. 43 “Minority hiring proposal scored,” YHR, March 4, 1973.
13
said property.”44 In that same article it is reported that most African Americans live in the
“southeast corner of the city.”45 Although some African Americans were able to live outside of
this area, one black Yakima resident who lived in a predominantly white area stated, “’We
fought to get in there. The kids often called us nigger.’”46 Another African American resident of
Yakima stated that when he was looking for a house to rent in 1976, “’[m]y first experience here
was I thought—Yakima—was very racist.’ He recalls showing up at many a house and being
told the place has already been rented – even though he was assured over the telephone minutes
before that the place was available.”47
B. Recent and Contemporary Relations Between Whites and Latinos Are Also
Combative and Contentious
These historical contentious and combative relations did not dissipate with time. In fact,
they are fully apparent in 2000, at a time when the Yakima Valley, as demonstrated by the data
in Table 1, was experiencing a substantial increase in the number of Latinos moving to the
region.
1. A Review of Race Relations in the City of Yakima in 2000.
In 2000, the Yakima Herald Republic published an investigative report on the state of
race relations in Yakima. From that report it is evident that the contentious and combative
relations between Whites and Latinos were still very much alive during this period of time. The
findings from this survey led to a powerful series of articles in the YHR published under the
general title of “Race in the Yakima Valley.”48 The telephone survey included 400 non-Hispanic
44 “Housing: Bias has forced blacks to cluster in southeast Yakima, but many who can don’t
want to leave their community,” YHR, April 9, 1979. 45 Ibid. 46 Ibid. 47 Ibid. 48 “Race in the Yakima Valley,” YHR, December 2000.
14
respondents of whom 93% self-identified as Caucasian or White and an additional 400
respondents who self-identified as Hispanic.49 50 51
In summarizing some of the general trends that appear in the data, the Herald-Republic
stated that “opinions voiced … show that many believe that they have been discriminated against
or are unhappy with changes in their communities associated with the increasing Hispanic
population.”52
Several questions specifically probed how respondents viewed race relations in Yakima
County regarding discrimination.
a. Questions Regarding Personal Experiences of Discrimination
YHR Survey Question: “How would you rate the degree to which racial discrimination
is a problem in Yakima County?”53
“Hispanics: Not much of a problem, 32 percent; it’s a problem, 38 percent; neutral or no
response, 31 percent.
Non-Hispanics: Not much of a problem, 29 percent; it’s a problem, 33 percent; neutral
or no response, 38 percent.”54 At least one-third of both Hispanics and non-Hispanics
reported that racial discrimination was a problem.
49 “We Asked the Questions: You Answered,” YHR, December 2000, p. 2. 50 Within this group of Hispanic respondents, 50 surveys were conducted face to face and 16% of
the surveys were conducted in Spanish.50 The survey results are estimated to have a margin of
error of ± 5%.50 The sampling design allows responses to be grouped by Hispanics and non-
Hispanics. 51 Survey research is often used by social scientists to understand attitudes, behavior, and beliefs.
Although the validity of survey research is never perfect, individual respondents may not have
full information about a question that may be asked of them and there is no easy way to
determine if someone is misrepresenting his or her “true” opinion, it is unquestionably useful in
gauging a group’s views when questions are clear and topics examined are well known to
respondents. Not surprisingly, there is no question in this survey where Hispanic and Non-
Hispanic as distinct groups all agree 100%, however, it is apparent that ethnicity and race are
very significant dimensions used by many people in the Yakima Valley to understand intergroup
relations and social conditions that are very likely to affect how distinct ethnic and racial groups
view important elements of politics. 52 Ibid. 53 Ibid. 54 Ibid.
15
YHR Survey Question: “Have you experienced racial discrimination?” To this question
the responses were
Hispanics: Yes, 48 percent; no, 51 percent; no answer, 1 percent.
Non-Hispanics: Yes, 40 percent; no, 59 percent; no answer, 1 percent.”55 Just under half
of all Hispanics surveyed indicated that they had been discriminated against, as did a
sizeable percentage of non-Hispanics.
Interestingly, unlike the previous question, almost all respondents had an answer; very few
respondents did not answer.
YHR Survey Question: “If you felt discrimination, what did it involve?”56
“Hispanics: Employment, 21 percent; heard racial slurs, 21 percent; discrimination in
general, 18 percent; while shopping (non-grocery), 16 percent; the criminal justice
system, 10 percent.
Non-Hispanics: Employment 28 percent; discrimination in general, 18 percent; heard
racial slurs, 14 percent; because my spouse or children are of another race, 11 percent; in
school, 9 percent; being threatened or assaulted, 9 percent.”57
These data indicate that many people in the Yakima Valley report having been discriminated
against.
b. Questions Soliciting Opinions on Race Relations Generally
YHR Survey Question: “If someone who was completely unfamiliar with the area asked
you to describe race relations in Yakima County, what would you tell them?”58 The top
five responses were:
Hispanics: Race relations are good, 39 percent; race relations are not good, 21 percent;
it’s an ethnically diverse area, 9 percent; there is prejudice against Hispanics, immigrants,
7 percent; there is a large Hispanic population, 6 percent; race relations are good, with a
few exceptions, 6 percent.
Non-Hispanics: Race relations are good, 29 percent; race relations are not good, 29
percent; there is a large Hispanic population, 19 percent; it’s an ethnically diverse area,
55 Ibid. 56 Ibid. 57 Ibid. 58 “Race Relations in General,” YHR, December 2000, p. 2.
16
17 percent; there is a lot of Hispanic gang-related activity, drugs, and crime, 13
percent.”59
YHR Survey Question: “How would you rate the condition of race relations since you
have lived in Yakima County?” the responses were:
Hispanics: Worsened, 18 percent; improved, 45 percent; no change, 31 percent; no
response, 6 percent.
Non-Hispanics: Worsened, 31 percent; improved, 22 percent; no change, 43 percent; no
response, 5 percent.”60 (p. 2). These responses indicate that there has been improvement
according to both Hispanics and non-Hispanics, but, just under one-third of all non-
Hispanics, and just under one-fifth of all Hispanics indicate that race relations have
worsened.
YHR Survey Question: “How do you anticipate race relations will change in Yakima
County in the next 10 years?” the responses were:
Hispanics: Get worse, 20 percent; get better, 56 percent; no change, 21 percent; no
response, 4 percent.
Non-Hispanics: Get worse, 31 percent; get better, 31 percent; no change 33 percent; no
response, 6 percent.”61 Again, one-fifth of the Hispanic respondents expect race relations
to get worse and just under one-third of non-Hispanics expect them to also get worse.
YHR Survey Question: “What impact have immigrants who’ve come here since 1986
had on Yakima County?”62
Hispanics: Improved the county, 50 percent; caused problems, 26 percent; neutral or no
response, 24 percent.
Non-Hispanics: Improved the county, 14 percent; caused problems, 63 percent; neutral
or no response, 23 percent.”63
The difference between Hispanics and non-Hispanics as to whether the growing number
of Latino immigrants has improved the county is 36 percentage points, and the difference as to
whether their presence has caused problems is an almost identical 37 percentage points.
Demographic change in the Yakima Valley, driven by growth in its Latino population, is not
59 Ibid. 60 “Race Relations in General,” YHR, December 2000, p. 2. 61 Ibid. 62 “Immigration,” YHR, December 2000, p. 6. 63 Ibid.
17
well received by a substantial number of Whites. These responses indicate that race relations are
far from cordial in the Yakima Valley. There are still many challenges regarding race relations
that exist in the region.
Other responses in the survey help clarify why the continued tension in race relations
between White and Latinos persists. The use of the Spanish language is a major focus of this
tension.
c. Questions Regarding Speaking Spanish
YHR Survey Question: “I am uncomfortable with people speaking Spanish in public,”
the responses were
Hispanics: Agree 17 percent; disagree, 78 percent; neutral or no response, 6 percent,”
and among
Non-Hispanics: Agree, 35 percent; disagree 48 percent; neutral or no response, 16
percent.”64
Hispanics and non-Hispanics differ significantly in their views of the use of Spanish in the
Yakima Valley. Just over twice the number of non-Hispanics are uncomfortable with the
speaking of Spanish. One respondent stated, “’Spanish wasn’t allowed in public when we were
growing up,’ points out Steve, adding that it’s shameful for schools to be teaching anything but
English.”65
YHR Survey Question: “Many public schools offer instruction in Spanish for Spanish-
speaking students. The amount of this instruction should:
Hispanics: Increase, 46 percent; stay at same level, 34 percent; decrease, 9 percent; be
eliminated, 7 percent; no answer, 4 percent.
Non-Hispanics: Increase 10 percent; stay at same level, 30 percent; decrease, 25 percent;
be eliminated, 31 percent, no answer, 4 percent.”66
64 “Social Issues,” YHR, December 2000, p. 3. 65 “People Know How They Feel About the Race Thing,” YHR, December 2000, p. 4. 66 “Education,” YHR, December 2000, p. 13.
18
A clear majority of non-Hispanics, 56%, believe that instruction in Spanish should be decreased
or eliminated; only 16% of Hispanic respondents had the same view.
d. Detailed Comments from the Survey
A number of open-ended comments made by respondents highlight concerns that non-
Hispanics have with the growing Hispanic population. One respondent stated, “From what I’ve
heard and seen, the Mexicans are very pushy. It’s the ones who don’t speak English. The
government has let them take over.”67 Another stated, “All the jobs in Yakima are bilingual.
They don’t say you have to speak Spanish, but that’s what they prefer.”68 One respondent stated
that “[w]e have a lot of killings since the influx of Mexicans from Mexico. There’s a lot of
stealing. Keeping things locked up. Don’t trust people. This used to be a nice country to live in.
Doesn’t sound very uplifting, does it?”69 Two other open ended comments made were: “I have
no problem with migrant workers who come to work and support their families, but the illegal
ones are bringing drugs,”70 and “[t]he minority speaks louder than the majority.”71
What these survey responses and individual comments demonstrate is that ethnic and
racial relations in Yakima County continued to be contentious and combative in 2000. A
significant portion of Non-Hispanics, 93% of whom identified as White, question the benefit to
the larger community of the significant growth in the Latino population. Ethnic and racial
divisions, especially between Hispanics and Whites, are not uncommon in the Yakima Valley.
This discussion of these more contemporary ethnic and racial divisions in the area sets a clear
and consistent context for the later discussion of politics in the City of Yakima.
67 “Who We Are: Different things in different eyes, still we are the same,” YHR, December
2000, p. 2. 68 “We Asked the Questions: you Answered,” YHR, December 2000, p. 1. 69 Ibid. 70 “People Know How They Feel About the Race Thing,” YHR, December 2000, p. 4. 71 Ibid.
19
2. Contemporary Public Commentary Shows a Rift Between White and Latino
Populations.
Public commentary captured in the Yakima Herald-Republic in more recent times
continues to demonstrate that racial tensions between Whites and Hispanics persist in the
Yakima Valley.
The issue of immigration continues to elicit very strong responses from Whites and leads
to the use of language that exacerbates racial tension between Whites and Latinos. In 2010, one
letter the editor was entitled “It’s illegal: end of story.”72 The writer stated,
“Do the illegal immigrants and their advocates not realize that
entering this country illegally is a felony? Living here after
entering illegally is also a felony. What part of illegal do they not
get? In the article [that appeared in the YHR] it states that all an
illegal immigrant has to do to receive legal status is to admit they
broke the law. So with that in mind if a bank robber admits he did
wrong, will he get amnesty? I have an idea for illegal immigrants:
Go back to your country and enter this one legally, become a legal
citizen of this country and learn the language. That would be
English.”73
On October 28, 2010, a letter to the editor of the YHR was entitled “One language, please”74 in
which the writer severely questions making ballots available in languages other than English.
“I have a wonderful idea how this country can save billions of
dollars. Quit printing everything in both English and Spanish.
This is America; learn the language or you should not have the
privilege of voting. If you cannot read and understand English,
learn. All other cultures have done it. We pay extra money for
interpreters for them, when we don’t do it for anyone else. It is
just beyond me why we cater to them as if we owe them
something. Come on, America, take care of your own first.”75
An immigration rally was held on May 1, 2010, in Yakima. Then Yakima Chief of
Police, Sam Granato, addressed the marchers who were there to support comprehensive
72 “It’s illegal: end of story,” YHR, April 9, 2010. 73 Ibid. 74 “One language please,” YHR, October 28, 2010. 75 Ibid.
20
immigration reform. The YHR reported that this led to very strong responses by advocates who
oppose the legalization of unauthorized immigrants.76 The leader of an anti-immigrant group
known as Grass Roots of Yakima Valley “complained to the City Council about Granato’s
supportive remarks during the May 1 immigration rights march. Noting Yakima’s problem with
gang violence, Byrne [a member of Grass Roots of Yakima Valley]77 complained that Granato,
who is Mexican-American, might be too cozy with gang bangers. ‘Are they his friends, his
buddies, or what?’ she asked the council.”78 Another person “said she agreed with Byrne and
felt ‘disrespected’ that Granato spoke to the protesters but not to her and other counter-
demonstrators.”79 The linkage of the Latino police chief to gang bangers because he spoke in
favor of immigration reform is yet another indication of the racial tension that exists in Yakima
between Whites and Latinos.
In 2011, the City of Yakima was given a statue of Fr. José María Morelos, a hero of
Mexico’s war for independence from Spain, from its sister city, Morelia, in the state of
Michoacán, México.80 The City Arts Commission agreed that it be placed in a business area in
the center of Yakima. This led to a number of comments that again reflect the deep racial
animus that some Whites have against Latinos. The YHR reported that “comments [in] online
stories about the donated bust have been largely against accepting the artwork. Kent Lundgren,
who wrote a letter to the editor on the matter, said Wednesday he doesn’t see why Yakima
76 “Political Column,” YHR, May 10, 2010. 77 Grass Roots of Yakima Valley is a group that strongly opposes illegal immigration and is
against any plan to provide a path to legalization for people in unauthorized status.
http://www.grassrootsofyakimavalley.com. 78 Ibid. 79 Ibid. 80 “Yakima City Council to weigh in on Mexican hero’s bust,” YHR, April 14, 2011.
21
should have a statue of a Mexican hero when it doesn’t have any of American heroes. ‘What
struck me wrong about it is that we don’t celebrate our own heritage,’ he said.”81
The words used by writers of letters to the editor demonstrate a hostility to the placement
of the statue that was linked directly to racial tensions with Latinos. One writer stated,
“I cannot imagine this having any redeeming value that will
improve the Mexican/American relationship in Yakima. With the
legal/illegal immigrant issues in Yakima County and the rest of
America, I can see only more dissension. Will the Mexican flag be
flown over an American flag flown upside down, as in a Los
Angeles high school a year or so ago? What’s happening in
America? I’m tired of seeing America knuckle under to pressure.
How about bust statues of our fallen military soldiers who died for
our country, instead of a bust of a Mexican general?”82
Another writer criticizing the statue wrote:
“Where is George Washington’s statue located in Morelia,
Michoacan, Mexico? Remember George Washington, our first
president, our state is named after? Do they still teach that in
school?”83 Yet another writer stated, “we’re so busy supporting
politically driven crap like this that our own country’s values,
heroes and rights in general continue to take a back seat to
everyone and everything else. I’m glad people are voicing
opinions and standing up for the USA!”84
Combative and contentious race relations between Whites and Hispanics
continues in the Yakima Valley and the City of Yakima and has direct
implications for politics in the City of Yakima.
III. System by Which Yakima City Council Members Are Elected
A. The Origin of the At-Large Election System.
The origin of at-large elections in city politics across the United States lies in efforts by
municipal structural reformers to reduce the power that ethnic leaders of urban political
81 Ibid. 82 “Bust as political ploy,” YHR, May 3, 2011. 83 “No statue of George,” YHR, May 3, 2011. 84 “Wrong kind of statue,” YHR, May 5, 2011.
22
machines had in large and medium sized cities in Northeast and Midwest. These regions of the
country had experienced substantial increases in the number of immigrants within their
boundaries. Political machines often utilized patterns of class and immigrant segregation in
neighborhoods as a way to organize their party geographically across the entire city. Each
single-member councilmanic district would be drawn to include specific neighborhoods and the
elected official from that district would likely come from the majority ethnic group in the area.
Structural reformers argued that such a system of representation often led to councilmembers
being primarily interested in serving their own districts to the detriment of what they often
contended were the interests of the city as a whole. 85
However, urban scholars have long argued that the primary organizers of the move to at-
large elections were major leaders of business and industry who used the logic of the interests of
the city as a whole to misrepresent their desire to usurp power away from ethnic politicians.86
This became possible because, depending on the size of the city, running a councilmanic election
citywide required more money and gave advantages to those candidates who might have more
citywide name recognition, such as a major business leader.
Interestingly, at-large elections were adopted most often in regions of the country that did
not have a strong presence of urban political machines. If a machine was strong in a city, it
could easily defeat an initiative to change the structure of city government from single-member
districts to at-large elections. It was in cities without machines where the adoption of at-large
85 Dennis R. Judd and Todd Swanstrom, City Politics: The Political Economy of Urban America,
Eighth Edition. NY: Pearson/Longman, 2012. 86 Samuel P. Hays, “The Politics of Municipal Reform in Municipal Government in the
Progressive Era,” Pacific Northwest Quarterly, V. 55 (1964), pp. 157-169.
23
elections was most prominent and where businessmen were often successful at gaining local
office.87
As I argued in an article published in 1988, among the consequences of the use of at-
large elections in cities in the Southwest was to limit the capacity of Latinos and African
Americans to elect their first-choice candidates to city office.88 Under conditions of vote
polarization by a White majority of the electorate, it is not uncommon for minority segments of
the electorate to consistently lose citywide elections, leading to low or no minority
representation.89
My analysis of recent Yakima City Council elections reveals that the primary reason that
no Latina/o candidate has ever been successful is because of the presence of at-large elections
that are largely driven by the contentious and combative relationship between substantial
numbers of Whites and Latinos that leads to vote polarization.
B. History of the City of Yakima’s Electoral Process.
In 1931, the City of Yakima adopted the Commission form of government. Three
commissioners are identified in Article 2 of the City Charter:90 1) Mayor, 2) Commissioner of
finance and accounting, and 3) Commissioner of public works. Whether these commissioners
were to be elected at large was not specifically mentioned in the City Charter.91 Additionally, it
87 Luis Ricardo Fraga, “Domination Through Democratic Means: Nonpartisan Slating Groups in
City Electoral Politics,” Urban Affairs Quarterly, V. 23, No. 4 (June 1988), pp. 528-555. 88 Ibid. 89 Chandler Davidson and George Korbel, "At-large Elections and Minority Group
Representation: A Reexamination of Historical and Contemporary Evidence," The Journal of
Politics, V. 23, No. 4 (November 1981), pp. 982-1005. 90 “Charter of the City of Yakima, Washington,” mimeograph, no date, p. 3. 91 However, it was normally the case that commissioners, having citywide authority over
important functions of local government, were elected at-large. The at-large election of
commissioners was one of the essential components of the articulated benefits of a commission
form of government. Bradley Robert Rice, Progressive Cities: The Commission Government
Movement in America, 1901-1920. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1977.
24
was stated in the City Charter that “[e]ach member of the city commission shall before
qualifying give a good and sufficient bond to the city in a sum equal to three times the amount of
his annual salary.”92
In 1957, the City of Yakima adopted the council-manager form of government.93 There
were to be seven members of the City Council, and a Chair, who was to hold the title of Mayor,
was to be chosen from among them. 94 Amendment No. 3 to Article II of the City Charter states
that “[t]hey [i.e., the members of the City Council] shall be elected at large.”95
On November 2, 1976, the City Charter was amended by popular vote to change some
components of the method of election of councilmembers. Under Amendment No. 7, Section 1
was changed to read as follows:
“The elective officers of the City of Yakima shall consist of seven
Council members, who shall be residents of the City, who shall
constitute the Council, and one of whom shall be the Mayor chosen
as provided by Section 3 of this Article ii. One Council member
shall be elected from each of four separate districts of the City, and
three Council members shall be elected from the City at large
without regard to residence in any particular area of the City, by
the qualified electors of the City, all at the times and in the manner
hereinafter provided.”96
The Charter continues:
“At the primary election, each qualified voter of each district may
cast only one vote for a candidate. The names of the two
candidates from each district for whom the largest number of votes
are cast at the primary election shall appear on the citywide general
92 City Charter, no date, p. 3. 93 City Charter, p. 25. 94 Ibid. 95 Unlike the full time pay provided to commissioners under the previous commission plan,
“[e]ach member of the Council shall receive the sum of $5.00 for each regular and special
meeting of the Council attended by him not to exceed in all the sum of $250.00 per annum, the
same to be paid quarterly; provided, that the mayor shall receive in addition thereto $100.00 per
year, payable quarterly.” City Charter, no date, p. 26. 96 City Charter, p. 52.
25
election ballot, and the one candidate from each district who
receives the highest number of votes, as cast by the citywide
electorate97 at the general election, shall thereby be declared as
duly elected to each respective ‘district position’ as a member of
the City Council.”98
This is the current form of government used in the City of Yakima.
In 2011, the concern that the continued use of at-large elections to choose Yakima City
councilmembers would always lead to the lack of representation of Latinos and the eastside
generally led a group called Central Washington Progress to pursue a petition drive to require a
popular vote through initiative to change that way that council members were elected. Their
proposal, known as Proposition 1, proposed changing the method of election to one in which
each of seven council members would be chosen from separate geographical districts. Each
voter would vote only for one councilmanic candidate from the district where the voter resided.
Proposition 1 also called for the establishment of a temporary “districting commission”99 and
that council members serve under a term limit of ten consecutive years. Lastly, it was proposed
that councilmembers from even numbered districts initially be elected for two-year terms and
subsequently would be elected for four-year terms. Councilmembers to be elected from odd
numbered districts were to be initially elected for full four-year terms.100
The petition was discussed at a meeting of the Yakima Council on January 4, 2011.101 It
was determined by Yakima City Attorney Jeff Cutter that the petition met the legal requirements
of having been signed by at least 500 qualified voters in the city.102
97 Emphasis added. 98 City Charter, p. 53. 99 “Certification of Special Election Canvass,” City of Yakima, Yakima County, Washington,
August 31, 2011. 100 Ibid. 101 Minutes and video, Meeting of the Yakima City Council, January 4, 2011. 102 Ibid.
26
Two weeks later on January 18, 2011, the City Council held a discussion “to consider
amendments to the City Charter to update the Charter to be consistent with current state law and
to more accurately reflect current needs of the City of Yakima.”103 This timing suggests that this
call was a direct reaction to Proposition 1.
After further discussion and consideration, on April 19, 2011, the City Council approved
Resolution R-2011-51 to amend multiple sections of the City Charter.104 One very significant
change to the charter contained in this resolution increased the minimum number of signatures
required for a valid petition to be presented the Council to amend the Charter. The proposed
amendment reads:
“Section 1. This charter may be amended in the manner provided by the laws of the State
of Washington. Special elections for amending this charter may be called by the City
Council or shall be called upon petition of qualified votes of the City of a number not
less than fifteen percent of the total number of votes cast at the last preceding
general state election, and otherwise as set forth in State law.”105
The new standard of 15% of the total votes cast during the prior general state election set a much
higher bar for Yakima Citizens to meet when they wanted to present proposed changes to the
City Charter on the basis of voter signatures. This would make it much more difficult for voters
to formally recommend changes to the City Charter.
As noted in Professor Engstrom’s report, 98.2% of Latinos voted in favor of Proposition
1 while only 38.4% of non-Latino voters did. This is evidence of how racially polarized voting
works to the disadvantage of Latino voters.
103 “Business of the City Council, Yakima, Washington, Agenda Statement,” February 15, 2011. 104 Council Minutes, City of Yakima, WA, April 19, 2011. 105 Yakima City Charter.
27
IV. No Latino Representation on the Yakima City Council in Its Entire History
A. Latina/o Candidates for Yakima City Council and Their Campaigns.
In 2009 a Latina candidate, Sonia Rodriguez ran to hold the at-large seat to which she
was appointed earlier that year. She lost her citywide race. In the same election Ben Soria, a
former Yakima School Superintendent, also ran for, and lost, an at-large Yakima City Council
position. Most recently, Rogelio Montes ran for a city-council position in 2011. He also lost his
bid for a seat on the City Council. Elements of each of these campaigns reflect the use of subtle
racial appeals where the Latino origin of these candidates was openly discussed and is likely to
have affected how voters evaluated these Hispanic candidates. I will discuss each of these races
in detail.
1. Sonia Rodriguez, 2009.
In November of 2008, sitting city council member Norm Johnson won election to the
Washington State House of Representatives.106 The City Council asked potential candidates to
apply. Among the twenty-nine Yakima residents who applied were five Latina/os.107 After the
City Council’s initial vetting, the final Latina/o applicant remaining was Sonia Rodriguez. She
was an attorney and a member of the Board of Directors of the YMCA. She had her own private
law firm and has served on the boards of the Young Lawyers Division of the Washington State
Bar Association and the Commission for Domestic Violence for the American Bar Association.
106 “City Council applicant list swells to 29,” YHR, November 27, 2008. 107 They included Juven Garcia, the owner of a small business, president of the Yakima-Morelia
Sister City Association and member of the Yakima Performance Audit Task Force as well as the
Aquatic Center Task Force. He was a nine-year veteran of the Army. Cesar Dominguez also
applied. He was a pastor of the Franklin Hill Foursquare Church, a former high school English
teacher and a graduate of Leadership Yakima. Isidro Reynaga was another applicant. He was
the owner of Royals Lounge and also a veteran of the Army. Mateo Arteaga was yet another
applicant. He was the director of Educational Outreach Services at Central Washington
University and also was president of the Hispanic Academic Achievers Program and the Mount
Adams Foundation.
28
She was also a former member of the Washington State Hispanic Bar Association. Of note
among the non-Hispanic applicants was Dave Ettl, a radio talk show host and program manager
for KIT-AM radio as well as a member of the Aquatic Center Task Force.108
At the Council meeting held on Monday, December 29, 2008, the Yakima City Council
voted four to two to appoint Sonia Rodriguez to the vacant position.109 As reported by the
Yakima Herald-Republic, “Rodriguez…is believed to be the first Latino to serve on the City
Council in Yakima’s 122-year history.”110 Mayor Dave Edler stated “’[w]e did something that
was really important today…only time will tell.’”111 The Herald Republic stated that
“Edler…had openly campaigned for a Latino on the all-white council.”112 The paper continues
that “[c]ouncil members said being Latino was one of several factors they like about Rodriguez,
as much as the fact that she’s young and female on a council that is mostly older and mostly
male.”113 Councilmember McClure stated Rodriguez’s Mexican American background “’was a
factor…but there was no way I was going to let that be the only factor.’”114 Councilmember
Cawley stated that the most important aspect of her background that he took into account was
that she was the owner of a small business. He did say, however, that “’[s]he’ll be able to reach
out to that demographic of the population [Latinos], but that wasn’t a factor with my vote.’”115
For her part, Rodriguez is reported to have stated that “she wants to run for office in November
108 Ibid. Ettl would late run and defeat Rodriguez for this seat on the Yakima City Council. 109 “Council Finalist,” YHR, December 30, 2008. 110 Ibid. 111 Ibid. 112 Ibid. 113 Ibid. 114 Ibid. 115 Ibid.
29
and hopes that she can help unite the Latino community in Yakima, which historically has lacked
representation in public office and at City Hall.”116
It was clear from a number of news reports that Rodriguez’s ethnic background was a
focus of attention. The Yakima Herald Republic referred to her as “an ethnic icebreaker.”117 In
that same article the Herald reported that “Mayor Dave Edler…says that he’s received nothing
but kudos for the selection of a Latino, which he championed publicly.” He stated, “’[s]he seems
to understand the weight of being a Latina in this situation…I think she knows she’s not going to
solve that all by herself in this community.’”118
Rodriguez also publicly acknowledged her Hispanic background. She stated that she
understood that one person could not speak for all Latinos because they do not all have the same
views. However, she “is interested in giving voice to a community that has lived largely in the
shadows in Yakima.” She stated, “’[t]here are always going to be people who don’t agree on
certain things…But the one thing we should have as a common goal is political
empowerment.’”119
Rodriguez’s appointment solicited a number of responses in letters to the editor that
focused on her Hispanic background including many that insinuated that she was unqualified and
was simply the beneficiary of a defective effort at affirmative action. For instance, in a letter
entitled “Yakima Discrimination,”120 the writer states:
“The Yakima City Council and the Yakima Herald-Republic
practice discrimination. Sonia Rodriguez says she was surprised
she was selected for the City Council, but I predicted it. She was
the only Hispanic female, and two council members had said the
116 Ibid. 117 “Sonia Rodriguez bring a fresh perspective to Yakima City Council,” YHR, January 4, 2009. 118 Ibid. 119 Ibid. 120 “Yakima Discrimination,” YHR, January 23, 2009.
30
appointee should be Hispanic and female. I know nothing about
her qualifications, but I do know why she was selected. White
males need not have applied.”121
Soon after the announcement of her selection, Rodriguez appeared at a “peace march”
honoring civil rights activist Cesar Chavez.122 The Yakima Herald-Republic stated that, “It was
Chavez’s philosophy of ordinary people making change that inspired Yakima’s first Latino
council member to apply for the job.”123 Councilmember Rodriguez stated at that rally that
“’Cesar Chavez taught me about change. Change needs to happen and we need to instill that
concept in our children…The Latino community suffers from a disconnect from the political
power structure here in Yakima. We are not the ones who are making the decisions about the
community, yet we make up 40 percent of our community.’”124 It is apparent that Sonia
Rodriguez was identified directly by the larger community, and by herself, with the growing
Latino community in the City of Yakima.
On April 9, 2009, Rodriguez officially began her campaign in an attempt to be the first
Latina ever elected to the City Council in Yakima. She identified street gangs and economic
development as two of the most important issues she wanted to continue to address on the
Council.125 Her role as an ethnic representative on the Council was again made very clear as
indicated by the following statement appearing in the Yakima Herald Republic. It states that
“[h]er selection—in a city where 38 percent of the residents are Hispanic—was championed by
121 Ibid. 122 “Cesar Chavez march is Tuesday,” YHR, March 28, 2009. 123 “Rally honors Cesar Chavez,” YHR, April 1, 2009. 124 Ibid. 125 “Rodriguez,” YHR, April 10, 2009.
31
[Mayor] Edler as a victory for ethnic diversity and dismissed by others as a blatant example of
affirmative action.”126
On May 11, 2009, Dave Ettl, the AM radio talk show host, who lost an appointment to
the City Council to Ms. Rodriguez, announced that he would challenge her in the upcoming
election.127
Rodriguez made it clear that she was very interested in making sure that the City Council
addressed issues of gun violence on the east side of the city where most Latinos live because this
potentially affected all of the residents of Yakima. In response to the shooting of a 16 year-old
boy and other gun related incidents, she stated, “’A lot of people might not care about issues
facing the east side of Yakima because they don’t live there…But gangs are spreading their
criminal activity all over Yakima. It’s not isolated here…Neighborhoods on the west side are
being burglarized because gangs need to find a way to fund their criminal enterprises.’”
Rodriguez continued to push the Council to take action to reduce gang-related violence. At a
council meeting she used the term “’state of emergency’” and said that “’[i]t’s out of control.
Somebody’s getting shot every day in this community.’’’
In describing Rodriguez’s candidacy for the Council, the Yakima Herald Republic noted
that “[s]ince her appointment in December, she has been subjected to put-downs – she was a
feel-good affirmative action pick, that she’s too soft-spoken, and that she’s a liberal Democrat
and trial lawyer who supports amnesty for illegal immigrants.”128 The article continues, “The
characterizations seem to overshadow some of her stands on issues.”129 She proposed a code of
ethics for the Council, the need to deal directly with gang violence, and had a clear position on
126 Ibid. 127 “Dave Ettl to challenge Sonia Rodriguez for City Council seat,” YHR, May 12, 2009. 128 “Rodriguez – Yakima council candidate,” YHR, August 5, 2009. 129 Ibid.
32
the Fire Department’s request for a paramedic program. Rodriguez stated that “[t]he digs about
affirmative action ‘takes away from all those other accomplishments. I’m also a mother, a
lawyer, a homeowner, a business owner. I do bring a different perspective – not just because I’m
a member of the Latino community but because of all those things.’”130
In the primary race, Rodriguez reported raising $13,589, including $7,000 in advertising
value with Gap West Broadcasting, where Ettl worked. Ettl decided not to raise more than
$5,000 so as not to have to identify donors.131 Still, in the at-large primary Dave Ettl received 48
percent of the vote and Rodriguez only received 37 percent.132
The extent to which Ettl and Rodriguez differed on the need to pursue policies and
practices that specifically addressed the needs and interests of Yakima’s Latinos was apparent in
a council candidate forum held by the Central Washington Hispanic Chamber of Commerce on
October 12, 2009.133 On the question of what could be done to increase the presence of
Hispanics on the Yakima police force, Ettl stated, “’I don’t think that we have to do any other
thing than we’re doing right now…It’s not an ethnic thing to me. Qualifications are
qualifications.’”134 Sonia Rodriguez, by contrast, “disagreed, saying more could be done to
recruit Latino police officers.”135
In the subsequent head to head contest, Ettl received 52% of the vote to Rodriguez’s
47%. Rodriguez was the only City Council incumbent to lose her race. Rodriguez spent a total
130 Ibid. 131 “Primarily, it’s Lover and Ettl for Yakima City Council,” YHR, August 19, 2009. 132 Ibid. 133 “Public safety dominates council forum,” YHR, October 13, 2009. 134 Ibid. 135 Ibid.
33
of $29,303.25 in her effort to retain her council seat.136 By contrast, Ettl reported spending only
$7,349.85.
An article in the Yakima Herald Republic asked, “Why did Sonia Rodriguez lose her seat
on the Yakima City Council when the other three incumbents won by huge margins? Was it the
L word? Take your pick: liberal, Latino, lawyer.”137 Her opponent Ettl stated that she was seen
as a “liberal do-gooder and that some of those voters were also offended with the way she was
appointed in the first place.”138 He further commented, “’She was put forward as the ethnic
candidate that (Mayor Dave) Edler wanted on the council…There might have been some
backlash.’”139 Rodriguez stated that the liberal label was not accurate and speculated that her
loss in the election was due to her Hispanic heritage. She said, “’[i]s coming down hard on gang
members liberal? Is putting prisoners to work liberal? You really have to wonder what’s going
on here. There has to be some other reason.’”140 Councilmember Lover, described by the
Herald Republic as “the council’s leading conservative, agreed with Ettl that Rodriguez may
have been victimized by a simmering backlash over the way she was appointed.”141 Lover
continued, however, that he doubted that “race played a significant role.”142
The weight of evidence indicates that racial tensions pervaded Rodriguez’s brief tenure
on the city council, and especially her campaign to retain her seat. Although she attempted to
position herself as an elected official who had interests beyond just representing the Latino
community, it was very clear that there was great concern about the way that she initially gained
136 Washington State Public Disclosure Commission, www.pdc.wa.gov. 137 “Conservatives say election was not race-based,” YHR, November 6, 2009. 138 Ibid. 139 Ibid. 140 Ibid. 141 Ibid. 142 Ibid.
34
her appointment on the Council, and especially the extent to which her appointment was driven
by a desire to provide representation to the City of Yakima’s Latino community. A majority of
the voters of the City of Yakima, in the end, did not support her remaining on the City Council.
Dr. Richard Engstrom’s analysis of patterns of voting in this election reveal that there was
substantial vote polarization between Whites/Caucasians and Latinos in this race.
2. Ben Soria, 2009.
On June 5, 2009, Ben Soria filed to oppose incumbent Councilman Bill Lover who was
finishing his first term on the Council. Soria, a Latino, was soon to retire as the Superintendent
of the Yakima Public Schools. 143 He received the endorsement of a number of prominent
community leaders, including former City Councilman Neil McClure, Memorial Hospital
Administrator Rick Linneweh, local real estate agent Bill Almon, and, most notably, Yakima
Mayor Dave Edler. He also had support from the Teamsters local and the Yakima Firefighters
Association.144 Soria reported total campaign contributions in the primary of $8,778.145 Lover,
who was officially endorsed by the Republican Party as well as by State Representatives Charles
Ross and Norm Johnson, former State Senator Alex Deccio, and County Commissioner Mike
Leita,146 reported total contributions of $9,310 in the at-large primary.147
Among the advantages Soria had in the race were name recognition, accomplishments as
superintendent including improved test scores and reduced drop out rates, and a successful vote
on renewing a $114M bond for school renovations. He also was a finalist for recognition in
2005 as National Superintendent of the Year. With two additional candidates in the primary race,
143 “Political Column,” YHR, June 15, 2009. 144 “Primarily, it’s Lover and Ettl for Yakima City Council,” YHR, August 29, 2009. 145 Ibid. 146 “Council Race Offers Clear Choice Between Qualified Men,” Yakima Valley Business Times
(YVBT), July 31-August 14, 2009. 147 “Primarily, it’s Lover and Ettl for Yakima City Council,” YHR, August 29, 2009.
35
Lover received 54 percent of the vote and Soria placed second with 32 percent, and thus they
would face each other in the general election.148
In characterizing the race between Lover and Soria, the Yakima Herald-Republic stated
that Councilman Lover was “accessible and accountable” to his supporters, “[b]ut to his critics,
he’s become a partisan ideologue on a council immobilized by divisiveness.”149 Lover is
reported to have said, “’If you like my conservative methods, I’m here for you again.’”150 Lover
was also very open about his endorsement and affiliation with the Republican Party, even though
the Council race is nonpartisan. “His response has been to say, What’s all the fuss? ‘I’ve been a
known Republican for a long time.’”151
Soria positioned himself as someone who wanted to address “challenges in Yakima’s
future.” He stated, “’[w]hat I see in some council members is a lack of conviction that they
know where we’re going. I don’t see passion about what we want this community to be…What I
see is dealing with the flavor of the month.’” “Soria said improving Yakima’s quality of life
would be at the top of his to-do list. To him that means better and higher paying jobs, safer
streets and more cultural, social and recreational amenities.” His accomplishments as school
superintendent were noted including encouraging more school administrators to get involved in
community affairs.
Despite Soria’s professional experience, range of endorsements, and competitive
campaign funding, he was unsuccessful in his bid to unseat incumbent Councilman Lover. Soria
only received 35% of the citywide vote to Lover’s 65%.152 In the end, Soria would spend
148 “Primarily, it’s Lover and Ettl for Yakima City Council,” YHR, August 19, 2009. 149 “There’s more to Love than meets the political eye,” YHR, October 20, 2009. 150 Ibid. 151 Ibid. 152 “Yakima City Council election results,” YHR, November 4, 2009.
36
$17,423.48 in his attempt to win election.153 Lover reported spending a total of $18,866.65 on
his campaign. 154 According to the Yakima Herald- Republic, “Soria, who is Latino, hinted
Tuesday night that he believed ethnicity played a part in his defeat but he declined when directly
asked to come out and say so. ‘I wouldn’t want to say that tonight because I wouldn’t want
people to think that I’m bitter,’ he said. Soria conceded it was notable that Yakima’s first Latino
council member [Sonia Rodriguez] – in a city that is 37 percent Latino according to the most
recent U.S. Census numbers – was appointed and then promptly ousted by the electorate. ‘What
does that say?’ Soria said. ‘It’s certainly troublesome, I would say.’”155 Again, Dr. Richard
Engstrom’s analysis of voting patterns reveals that this race was also characterized by substantial
vote polarization between Whites and Hispanics.
What is clear in the assessments and characterizations of both the Rodriguez and the
Soria races for city council is that despite one being a proven incumbent, another being a highly
qualified former school superintendent, and each one raising a competitive war chest to support
their respective campaigns, neither Latina/o candidate was successful in receiving a majority of
the votes in the City of Yakima.
3. Rogelio Montes, 2011.
On June 6, 2011, Rogelio Montes was the first candidate to file for the council seat being
vacated by Mayor David Edler, who decided not to run for reelection. Montes filed for the
District 4 position.156 In reporting on his candidacy, the Yakima Herald Republic noted that
“Montes has been active in working for immigration reform and helped organize several of the
153 Washington State Public Disclosure Commission, www.pdc.wa.gov. 154 Ibid. 155 “A good night for conservatives in Yakima County,” YHR, November 4, 2009. 156 “Mostly incumbents file on first day,” YHR, June 7, 2011.
37
annual May Day immigration marches.”157 A number of those marches had occurred in 2006 in
protest of House Resolution 4437, known as the Sensenbrenner Bill, that proposed making
unauthorized status in the United States a criminal felony.158 Montes worked for the Farm
Worker Pesticide Project. He “has lived in Yakima since 1994 [and] said he wants to bring a
stronger voice to the council on behalf of the district.”159 He stated, “’[w]e need better
representation, which we don’t have now.’”160 “He added he would try to bring all segments of
the community to work together and avoid creating divisions.”161 His opponents for this district
position were Sara Bristol, a small business owner, and Richard Marcley, who worked at the
Department of Ecology for the State of Washington.
Among the issues discussed during the campaign was a proposal to change the way that
councilmembers were elected to single-member districts that was referred to earlier in this report.
Candidate Marcley supported this proposal “as a way to bring more ethnic diversity on the
council.”162 Montes also supported the redistricting proposal, stating that “it’s important to have
a Latino voice on the all-Anglo council.”163 He continued, “’I’m a regular worker,’”
“contrasting himself to the higher-profile Latino candidates of past years.”164 Bristol, by
contrast, was not sure about the proposal. “She said she [wa]s skeptical whether it would lead to
more candidates, and that while better Latino representation is needed on the council, it’s not
157 Ibid. 158 “Marchers appeal for fairness,” YHR, April 3, 2006; “Demonstrate, don’t disrupt at rally,”
YHR, April 25, 2006; “I-966 supporters irked by petitions that disappeared,” YHR, May 18,
2007. 159 “Four-way race develops for Edler’s vacating seat,” YHR, June 11, 2011. 160 Ibid. 161 Ibid. 162 “Three political newcomers seek Yakima City Council seat,” YHR, July 31, 2011. 163 Ibid. 164 Ibid.
38
clear to her whether districting is the best way to get there. Retaining the current three at-large
seats seems better than a full switch to district-based council members.”165
At the end of the primary election, Bristol received 56% of the votes cast to Marcley’s
26%. Montes was third, having received 221 votes, or 16%. As the Yakima Herald-Republic
wrote, “Montes becomes the third Latino in recent years to lose an election bid for the
council.”166 Montes, however, was not bitter about his defeat. He indicated that “he would keep
working to encourage other Latinos to participate in the electoral process and will consider
seeking appointment to a city committee to further his involvement in local government.
Regarding the selection of a Latino candidate, ‘I think it will happen soon,’ he said.”167 Marcley
admitted that Montes had “out campaigned him.”168 Marcley did not receive any campaign
donations and Montes received $725. Marcley said, “’If things were fair in the world, Rogelio
would be the candidate.’”169 Dr. Richard Engstrom’s analysis again revealed that polarization
between White and Hispanic voters occurred in this race.
The defeats of Sonia Rodriguez and Ben Soria in 2009, and the defeat of Rogelio Montes
in 2011, reflect that even the most viable Latino candidates have been unable to win election to
the Yakima City Council. It is also the case that during each of their campaigns, the issue of
their Hispanic origin was openly and publicly discussed. This was especially the case in the
campaign of Sonia Rodriguez, where her initial appointment was linked to the Yakima City
Council practicing affirmative action to increase Latino presence on the Council.170 These three
165 Ibid. 166 “Bristol, Marcley will face off in November for council seat,” YHR, August 17, 2011. 167 Ibid. 168 Ibid. 169 Ibid. 170 Further evidence of the lack of support received by Latino candidates in the City of Yakima
from White voters was evident in a recent race for the Washington State Supreme Court between
39
campaigns serve as evidence to support the conclusion that Senate Factors 6 and 7 have appeared
in recent elections to the Yakima City Council.
4. Yakima City Council Members Tend Not to Live in the Parts of Town that
Have the Largest Latino Populations.
The lack of representation of Latinos on the Yakima City Council is further exacerbated
by the lack of election of councilmembers, regardless of racial background, who live in a
predominantly Latino neighborhood.
sitting Supreme Court Justice Steven Gonzalez, a Latino, and his opponent Bruce Danielson.
Gonzalez had the endorsement of the leading newspaper in the Yakima Valley including the
Yakima Herald Republic (August 1, 2012), the Wenatchee World (July 7, 2012), and the Tri-
City Herald (July 20, 2012). His opponent did not have the endorsement of a single newspaper.
Moreover, Gonzalez was endorsed by all of his fellow Supreme Court Justices, 250 other judges
across the state, and was the only candidate endorsed by both Rob McKenna, Democratic
candidate for Governor Jay Inslee, as well as his Republican challenger Rob McKenna. He
received a rating of “exceptionally well qualified” by eight law groups and “well qualified” by
three others. His opponent was not ranked by these groups. Gonzalez campaigned actively for
the position and his opponent did not campaign at all. Nonetheless, Danielson received 63.9% of
the vote in Yakima County when Gonzalez only received 35.5%. In fact, Danielson received a
higher percent of the vote in Yakima County than did Republican gubernatorial candidate Rob
McKenna who received 50.1% of the vote. Yakima County Elections Division,
http://www.yakimacounty.us/vote/English/Returns/2012primary.pdf. Engstrom’s analysis
reveals that there was significant vote polarization between Whites and Latinos in the Gonzalez-
Danielson election.
40
Figure 1. Residence of City Council Members, 1977- 2013
As Figure 1 reveals, the vast majority of councilmembers live on the westside of the City
of Yakima where very few Latinos live. This results in the interests of the westside having more
representation that the interests of the eastside. As Figure 1 illustrates, that of the 32 members
of the Yakima City Council who served between 1977 and 2013, 84.4% lived west of S. 16th
Ave., an area of the city that is predominantly non-Latino. Only five councilmembers, 15.6%,
have lived east of S. 16th Ave., where most Latinos live. The overwhelming majority of people
who have served on the Yakima Council over the last thirty-six years, at the time that they served
on the Council, lived in sections of the City that were predominantly White.
B. Elections Since 1976 Were Held in a Manner That Violated Section 203.
In 2004, the Attorney General of the United States filed a complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, Yakima Division, alleging that Yakima
41
County was in violation of Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.171 The complaint
alleged that Yakima County had failed to provide “effective election-related materials,
information, and/or assistance in Spanish to limited English proficient Latino citizens as required
by Section 203.” Specifically, the Complaint alleged that the County had:
a. “Failed to provide complete and accurate Spanish translations of all materials
produced in English and provided to the public…
b. Failed to provide effective Spanish-language assistance at county offices and
polling places regarding election related issues;
c. Failed to publish Spanish-language materials in a timely fashion; and
d. Failed to publish Spanish language materials and information about Spanish-
language assistance in a manner accessible to limited English proficient Spanish-
speaking voters.”172
On September 3, 2004, a Consent Decree173 was issued in the case to resolve the alleged
violations. The Decree noted that Yakima County was designated a jurisdiction subject to the
requirements of Section 203 for persons of Spanish heritage in 1976, and that it was again so
designated by the Director of the Census in 2002.174 According to the Decree, “The named
defendant parties (hereinafter ‘Yakima County’) do not admit to the allegations of the complaint.
Yakima County, however, does share with the United States a mutual interest to implement
procedures that will protect the rights of Spanish-speaking voters to participate fully in the
electoral process in compliance with the Voting Rights Act and the United States Constitution,
171 United States of America v. Yakima County; Corky Mattingly, Yakima County Auditor, Jim
Lewis, Ronald Gamache, and Jesse Palacios, County Commissioners, CV-04-3072-LRS, July 6,
2004. 172 Complaint CV-04-3072-LRS, July 6, 2004, pp. 3-4. 173 Consent Decree, United States of America v. Yakima County; Corky Mattingly, Yakima
County Auditor, Jim Lewis, Ronald Gamache, and Jesse Palacios, County Commissioners, CV-
04-3072-LRS, September 3, 2004. 174 Ibid.
42
and therefore, Yakima County agrees to implement fully the terms of this consent decree for
enforcement of all applicable laws.”175
This determination suggests that it is possible, if not likely, that all city council elections
held in the City of Yakima over a 28-year period were not in compliance with the Voting Rights
Act. This failure to comply with an essential provision of the Voting Rights Act worked to the
disadvantage of Latino voters in these elections who would have benefitted from registration,
election assistance, information, and other election-related materials being made available in
Spanish over that entire period of time. They would have specifically benefitted from having
bilingual assistance during processes of registration and voting.
The Consent Decree required that all subsequent elections in Yakima County, which
would include all city elections, provide “[t]ranslation of election-related
materials…[d]issemination of Spanish language information…Spanish [l]anguage
[a]ssistance…[a] [p]rogram coordinator…[an] [a]dvisory [g]roup…[and an] [e]valuation of the
plan.”176 The Consent Decree also required the appointment of federal examiners and
observers.177 The Consent Decree was to remain in effect until December 31, 2006.
While Yakima County was responsible for implementing Yakima City elections, to the
failure to comply with Section 203 requirements is further evidence of voting practices and
procedures related to Senate Factor 3, in that the lack of implementation of provisions of Section
203 “tend to enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group,” in this case
Spanish-speaking Hispanic citizens.
175 Ibid, p. 4. 176 Ibid, pp. 5-14. 177 Ibid, p. 15.
43
C. Continuing Socio-Demographic Disparities Between Latinos and Whites in Yakima.
Examination of the Census data reveals that there exist significant socio-demographic
disparities between Whites and Hispanics along a number of specific dimensions that affect each
groups’ ability to participate effectively in politics. In all instances of the data examined,
Hispanics are at a disadvantage relative to Whites. The reason these disparities are cited among
the Senate Factors is because of the way lower levels of education, income, wealth, and
employment are reflective of a history of discrimination and serve to hinder the capacity of the
members of a group to participate fully in the electoral process.178 As is apparent in the data
revealed in Table 2, Hispanics have significant and persistent low levels of educational
attainment, income, health insurance, and employment.
Table 2. White and Hispanic Socio-demographic Disparities, City of Yakima, WA, 1990-2010
1990 2000 2010
White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic
High
School
Graduate
28.6 13.0 29.4 18.5 27.4 17.0
Bachelors
Degree
Or More
18.2 4.6 19.9 4.6 26.3 5.3
Median
Household
Income
$23,292 $16,803 $31,584 $24,229 $43,248 $26,991
Unemployment
Rate
7.1 25.3 4.3 13.6 7.3 8.9
Home
Ownership
* * 58.6 38.0 63.1 45.6
178 The relationship between lower socio-economic status and education and lower rates of
participation in voting is a well-accepted conclusion in political science research. See, for
example, Sidney Verba, Kay Schlozman, and Henry E. Brady, Voice and Equality: Civic
Voluntarism in American Politics, Harvard University Press (1995); and Larry M. Bartels,
Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age, Princeton University Press
(2008).
44
1990 2000 2010
No health
Insurance
* * * * 13.1 34.9
Source: All data are derived from relevant Census years.
* Denotes that data are not available.
Differences in educational attainment are significant across the twenty-year time period
examined. In 1990, 28.6% of whites had at least attained high school graduation in their formal
education whereas only 13% of Hispanics had, a difference of 15.6 percentage points. That
difference is maintained in 2000 when the difference is 10.9 percentage points and even remains
in 2010 with a difference of 10.4 percentage points. These differences in educational attainment
are even more dramatic when one examines the percentage of each group that has attained a
bachelor’s degree or higher. In 1990, 18.2% of Whites had completed university education,
whereas it was only 4.6% for Hispanics. There was a 13.6 percentage point difference between
the two groups. Stated differently, in 1990 just under four times as many Whites had attained a
college education as compared to Hispanics. Further examination of Table 2 reveals that this
difference increases to 14.8 percentage points in 2000 and grows even further to 21.0 percentage
points in 2010. In 2010 just under five times more Whites have a college education than
Hispanics in the City of Yakima.
Given these differences in educational attainment, it is not surprising that there are also
dramatic disparities between Whites and Hispanics in median household income. In 1990,
Whites had a median household income of $23,292 whereas Hispanics had a median household
income of only $16,803. This results in a disparity of $6,489. That disparity grew in 2000 to a
difference of $7,355. It grew even further in 2010 to a difference of $16,257. On the average, in
2010, Hispanic median household income was only 62.4% of White median household income.
45
Socio-demographic disparities also exist regarding rates of unemployment, home
ownership, and health insurance coverage. In 1990 the Census reported a dramatic difference in
the civilian unemployment rate between Whites and Hispanics of 18.2 percentage points.
Probably due to seasonal unemployment, it was reported that 25.3% of Hispanics were
unemployed, whereas the figure was only 7.1% for Whites. The difference in unemployment
rates shrunk considerably in 2000, but was still substantial at 9.3 percentage points and was
reduced further to 1.2 percentage points in 2010. There are considerable disparities in
homeownership rates. Whereas 58.6% of Whites reported owning their homes in 2000, the
ownership rate for Hispanics is much lower at only 38%, a disparity of 20.6 percentage points.
This disparity remains substantial in 2010 at 17.5 percentage points, with 63.1% of Whites
owning their homes and only 45.6% of Hispanics doing so.
In 2010, the Census asked a question about whether or not individuals had health
insurance. There is a dramatic disparity between Whites and Hispanics in this regard. Only
13.1% of Whites report not having health insurance whereas over one-third, 34.9%, of Hispanics
indicate that they do not have health insurance. There is a disparity between the two groups of
21.8 percentage points.
These socio-demographic disparities in education, household income, home ownership,
and health insurance are consistent with Senate Factor 5 and, at present, serve to hinder the
ability of Hispanics to participate effectively in the political process.
D. The City of Yakima’s Lack of Responsiveness to Needs and Interests of Latinos.
In this section I discuss clear instances where policies and practices pursued by the City
of Yakima demonstrate a lack of responsiveness to the needs of Yakima’s Latino community.
This lack of responsiveness is fully consistent with the lack of representation of those who would
be likely to advocate for Latino interests on the Yakima City Council.
46
1. Patterns of Municipal Employment.
Among the clearest patterns of the responsiveness of a local government to its citizenry is
the extent to which the ethnic and racial distribution of its workforce is consistent with the ethnic
racial distribution of its population. Employment in local government has long been an
important first step to upward mobility for working class populations. Moreover, because much
of the work of local government involves direct interactions with the public, a workforce that
approximates the cultural and linguistic diversity of its residents is more likely to be able to meet
the diverse needs of its population. Additionally, a municipal workforce that reflects the
diversity of its residents at its highest levels of authority also sends a clear signal to the citizenry
that it provides leadership opportunities to individuals of all ethnic and racial backgrounds.
I examined data reported by the City of Yakima to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission in its biannual EEO-4 Reports.179 These data are displayed in Table 3. What is
most evident in these data is that for the period 2005-2011, there is a clear and persistent
disparity in the municipal workforce between Whites and Hispanics. There are far more Whites
at all levels of city employment, but especially at the highest levels of authority. Substantial
presence of Hispanics in the City’s workforce never approaches their percent of the population,
estimated at 33.7% in 2000 and 41.3% in 2010. Moreover, the data also reveal that there is
relatively little gain in the presence of Hispanics in the city’s workforce over the last 7 years.
179 It is stated on the website of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that
“Under Public Law 88-352, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Equal
Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, all State and local governments that have 15 or more
employees are required to keep records and to make such reports to the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission as are specified in the regulations of the Commission… As stated
above, the filing of Report EEO-4 is required by law; it is not voluntary. Under Section 709 (c)
of Title VII, the Attorney General of the United Stated may compel a jurisdiction to file this
report by obtaining an order from a United States District Court.”
http://www.eeoc.gov/employers/eeo4survey/e4instruct.cfm.
47
The greatest presence of Hispanics is at the levels of paraprofessionals, administrative
support, and service maintenance. There is the least presence of Hispanics at the three highest
levels of officials and administrators, professionals, and technicians. In none of these categories
do Hispanics have a presence that is beyond single digits.
Table 3. Patterns of Municipal Employment, City of Yakima, 2005-2011
2005 2007 2009 2011
Whites Hispanics Whites Hispanics Whites Hispanics Whites Hispanics
Officials &
Administrators
36 3 34 4 25 2 29 2
Professionals 56 2 53 0 25 0 25 0
Technicians 112 10 89 7 63 3 60 2
Protective
Service Workers
112 27 120 32 10 (?) 1 (?) 9 (?) 0 (?)
Paraprofessionals 18 3 17 4 18 7 21 7
Administrative
Support
62 15 65 17 28 7 25 6
Skilled & Craft
Workers
56 4 51 4 30 2 34 2
Service
Maintenance
73 17 89 18 46 8 38 7
TOTAL 525 81 518 86 245 30 241 26
Source: City of Yakima EEO-4 Reports for relevant years.
Data for protective service workers in 2009 and 2011 seems incorrect as reported by the City.
The substantial underrepresentation of Hispanics in municipal employment in the City of
Yakima is further displayed in Figures 2-9. Despite the substantial growth in the Latino
population, the workforce of the City of Yakima remains overwhelmingly White. The
employment disparities in administrators, professionals, and technicians are stark; 80-90% of all
city employees in these high level categories are White, while the presence of Latinos across
these three job classifications ranges from 0 to a maximum of only 10%. For the years 2005 and
2007 when data on protective service workers seems valid, just over 70% of all officers were
48
White and only 20% at most were Latino. Interestingly, the greatest disparities in municipal
employment are in the category of skilled craft workers; Latinos are always under 10% of those
in this group. Once again, Hispanics have their greatest presence among paraprofessionals,
administrative supporter workers, and service and maintenance workers. Disparities between
Whites and Hispanics are, however, still substantial, always reaching at least 40%.
Latinos have not had substantial access to city employment across all job categories and
especially among the City of Yakima’s highest levels. This shows a lack of responsiveness on
the part of the City and also is evidence of Senate Factor 5 by showing the likely existence of
discrimination in employment.
Figure 2. Officials and Administrators by Race, 2005-2011
49
Figure 3. Professionals by Race, 2005-2011
Figure 4. Technicians by Race, 2005-2011
50
Figure 5. Protective Service Workers by Race,2005-2011
Data for 2009 and 2011, as reported by the City of Yakima, seems incorrect.
Figure 6. Paraprofessionals by Race, 2005-2011
51
Figure 7. Administrative Support by Race, 2005-2011
Figure 8. Skilled Craft Workers by Race, 2005-2011
52
Figure 9. Service and Maintenance Workers by Race, 2005-2011
2. Appointments to Boards and Commissions.
Yet another measure of the responsiveness of a city government to its residents is the
extent to which appointment to city boards and commissions reflect the ethnic and racial
diversity of its residents. Boards and commissions largely serve in advisory roles to the City
Council and City administration, although some can have significant decision-making authority.
They are designed to broaden the range of information available to city leaders to help them
make more informed decisions regarding many different aspects of policy making. By contrast,
when appointments to boards and commissions are not reflective of the diversity of residents and
related interests in the city, it can be a clear signal that city leaders are not interested in the
perspectives of subsets of the city’s population.
The City produced a listing of all persons who had served on city boards and
commissions from 1976 to the 2013. We used the Department of Justice’s index of Spanish
surnames to identify the presence of Hispanics on these boards and commissions. The results of
our analysis are presented in Figure 10.
53
Figure 10. Annual Summary of Appointments to Boards and Commissions, 1976-2013
What is most evident in Figure 10 is that very few Hispanics have been chosen to serve
on boards and commissions in the City of Yakima across the thirty-seven year period examined.
There were no Latinos serving on any of the City’s boards or commissions between 1976-1982.
The percentage of Latinos serving was minimal from 1983-2001, ranging from 1.2% (1 of 57) of
all those appointed to 3.3% (3 of 90). Hispanics have a minimal presence until 2002 when their
presence increased to 6.5% (7 of 107), and 2008 when their presence increased significantly to
18.3% (15 of 82). However, by 2011, Hispanics serving on boards and commissions had
declined to 13.7%, and if one separates out all those serving on a gang related committee it drops
to 8.8% (9 of 102). In 2012, 22.9% of those serving were Hispanics, but if one again just
examines those who were not serving on a gang related committee, it drops to 6.4% (7 of 109).
In the current year 2013, only 10.1% of all persons serving on boards and commissions were
Latino, and if one removes persons serving a gang-related committee it drops to 5.5% (6 of 109).
54
Latinos have not been chosen to serve on the City’s boards and commissions in
substantial numbers. However, Latinos have been chosen to serve on gang-related committees,
suggesting that the City views Latino participation as limited to those committees that very
directly deal with what many consider to be problems the Latino population brings to the
community. They are, therefore, limited in their opportunities to provide advice to City leaders.
This helps us further understand the limited policy responsiveness of the City of Yakima to
Latinos and their interests.
3. Public Parks.
Among the most important services that can be provided by a city to all of its residents is
its public parks. These are places where children can play, families can celebrate special
occasions, and neighbors can get to know one another. I examined the quality, maintenance,
amenities, and programming available at the City of Yakima’s public parks. It is evident that
parks on the Westside of town are larger than those on the Eastside, amenities on Westside parks
are better than those on Eastside parks, and programming by the City’s Department of Parks and
Recreation is noticeably greater at parks on the Westside than those on the Eastside. Most
Hispanics live on the eastside of Yakima and are therefore more likely to use the parks closer to
their homes.
Figure 11 provides a graphical characterization of the difference in acreage moving from
parks located in the far west of the City, where most Whites live, to parks located on the far east,
where most Hispanics live.180 What is apparent is that westside parks have noticeably more
acreage than do parks on the eastside. There is, of course some variation, however, there is no
doubt that more public park space has been made available in the westside of the City as
180 City of Yakima, 2012-2017 Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan, Ch. 3, Park Inventory,
pp. 15-23.
55
compared to the eastside of the city. Figure 12 provides a summary of the difference in acreage
of parks between the westside and the eastside.
Figure 11. Yakima City Parks, West to East by Acreage
56
Figure 12. Summary of Yakima City Parks by Acreage
I also examined the equipment, other amenities, and programming that were available at
Yakima parks.181 The quality of equipment and facilities are better in the parks on the westside
as compared to those on the eastside. The availability of benches, tables, tennis court nets, and
other amenities was also noticeably better on the westside as compared to the eastside. It is
especially apparent that programming for both families and children at many of the parks on the
westside is much more substantial than what was available on the eastside.
Kiwanis Park is a joint public-private facility owned in part by the City of Yakima. It is
located on the eastside and has among the most beautiful softball fields in the entire city. It is the
case, however, that most of the park is not open to the general public. Most of the fields at
Kiwanis are available only by reservation, and groups must pay a fee to use them. Various
leagues and groups, some from outside Yakima, use this facility more than do residents of the
eastside.
181 Winter/Spring 2013 Program Guide, Yakima Parks and Recreation.
57
4. Claims Brought Against the City.
a. Wilfred and Karen Murphy, et al. v. City of Yakima.182
In April 1999, residents in an area on the eastside of Yakima filed a class action lawsuit
against the City of Yakima for the “[n]oxious and persistent odors, gases, fumes and other
contaminants [that] have been released from the City of Yakima’s Regional Wastewater
Treatment Facility (‘Wastewater Facility’) and the adjacent Industrial Sprayfields, which is
located at 2220 East Viola Street, in Yakima, Washington.” The Complaint alleged that “[t]he
odors, gases, and fumes or other contaminants are interfering with the use and enjoyment of
plaintiffs’ and class members’ property, have substantially impaired the value of their property,
and are causing adverse effects upon the environment in which the plaintiffs and class members
reside or have resided.”183
The City of Yakima was aware of the complaints least since 1995, when a petition signed
by 278 persons who lived close to the Wastewater Facility presented a petition to the City
Council in September of that year.184 The cover letter to the petition stated that “[t]he practice of
sludge dumping by the Waste Treatment Plant, creates an unbearable stench that permeates an
area of about fifty-six square blocks, extending north past the fairgrounds and south into Union
Gap, contaminating parts of the Greenway [an area that runs along the Yakima River] as well.
As a result, many people in the area have suffered not only mere displeasure or even discomfort,
but acute physical illness. A significant percentage of the local population is elderly, disabled
and or on a low or fixed income, and their options are limited.”185 The letter continues, “[t]hey
cannot afford the luxury of air conditioning, and depend on open windows and screen doors for
182 Murphy, et al. vs. City of Yakima, Yakima Superior Court Cause No. 99 2 00611 8. 183 Ibid, p. 2. 184 Ibid, p. 3. 185 Ibid.
58
adequate ventilation. When fresh sludge is dumped, the elderly often suffer with vomiting.
Those with respiratory problems are confined indoors, with the door and windows closed against
the rank odor.”186
The City of Yakima settled this case on November 21, 2003, for the sum of $13,000,000,
with $7,000,000 to be distributed among the class members.187 The two representative plaintiffs
whose signatures were on the settlement agreement were Martin and Karen Cuevas. The
Settlement also required that full notice to all class members be issued in Spanish, that a special
meeting to announce the settlement and inform all affected parties who might be members of the
class be held at St. Joseph Catholic Church, and that translators be available at the meeting.188
The size of the settlement is indicative of the harm done to the residents of the Eastside,
including many Hispanics. Although in settling the case the City did not admit any wrongdoing,
the history of the case demonstrates very limited responsiveness by the City to the residents in
the Eastside over a substantial period of time.
b. Tony Ramos v. The City of Yakima Police Department.189
Former Yakima City police officer Tony Ramos sued the City of Yakima in 2001 for
racial discrimination. He alleged that “Hispanics and other racial minority officers of the
Defendant Yakima Police Department hierarchy are investigated more thoroughly and
disciplined more severely than non-racial minority officers when allegations of misconduct of
any shape or form are levied;…that on many specific occasions Caucasian officers and
supervisors have received little or no negative attention or discipline when meritorious
186 Ibid. 187 Ibid, Appendix C, Settlement Agreement, p. 39. 188 Wilfred y Karen Murphy, esposo y esposa, et al., v. Ciudad de Yakima v. Ciudad de Union
Gap, Corte Superior del Estado de Washington para el Condado de Yakima, No. 99 2 00611 8,
“Aviso Publicado del Acuerdo Propuesto Final y el Plan de Distribución.” 189 Tony Ramos v. The City of Yakima Police Department No. CY-01-3040-FVS.
59
accusations are leveled at them, while Hispanics and other racial minority officers are thoroughly
investigated and disciplined following even trivial and unfounded allegations;…when Caucasian
officers are disciplined, it is at a reduced level than the discipline meted out to Hispanic officers
for the same or similar type of violations;…[the City of Yakima Police Department] created and
helped to foster an extremely hostile work environment against Hispanic police officers and
personnel.” He further alleged that he was advised that “Spanish speaking police officers should
not speak Spanish to one another in the workplace and if caught doing so would be reprimanded;
[and the City of Yakima Police Department] allowed Plaintiff’s physical well-being to be
threatened without taking Plaintiff’s concerns seriously.” The complaint continued: “Defendants
failed and refused to investigate a threatening letter left in Plaintiff’s workplace mailbox and told
Plaintiff that an unidentifiable fingerprint would not be compared to those found on the
offensive/threatening correspondence;…Defendants’ conduct evidences a patterns of racial
discrimination, which has been used to deny him and other racial minorities of the Yakima
Police Department promotional opportunities or career enhancement positions within the Yakima
Police Department;…[and] that discriminatory and racially derogatory comments were made
directly to or in presence of Plaintiff without repercussions to the offender.”190 Prior to filing the
lawsuit he EEOC investigated the allegations and found that the Yakima Police Department had
discriminated against Mr. Ramos.191 The City of Yakima settled the claim for $350,000.192
These two cases serve as further evidence of the limited responsiveness of the City of
Yakima to the needs and interests of its Latino residents.
190 Ibid. 191 “EEOC backs fired Yakima officer,” YHR, November 28, 2000. 192 “$350,000 sought for Fired Officer,” YHR, December 20, 2000.
60
V. Conclusion
My analysis of racial and ethnic relations in the City of Yakima allows me to reach five
conclusions. One, I find clear and consistent evidence that contentious and combative race
relations exist between Whites and Latinos in Yakima. These race relations are grounded in
labor relations in Yakima’s agricultural production. Moreover, these contentious and combative
race relations have remained over time and continue to be present in the City of Yakima with
direct implications for voting and policy making in the City of Yakima. Two, the use of at-large
elections to choose all members of the Yakima City Council has directly contributed to the
Latino population’s difficulty in electing a representative of their choice to the Council,
consistent with Senate Factors 3 and 7. Three, I find evidence that Latino ethnicity was an
important part of electoral campaigns when Latino candidates were running for the Council,
consistent with Senate Factor 6. This was especially the case in the race of Sonia Rodriguez, but
also appeared in the races of Ben Soria and Rogelio Montes. Four, I found clear and consistent
evidence that Latinos in Yakima City continue to have significant socio-demographic disparities
relative to Whites that result in their having more difficulty in participating in the political
process, consistent with Senate Factor 5. Five, I found clear and consistent evidence of the lack
of policy responsiveness by the City of Yakima to the needs and interests of Latinos in the areas
of municipal employment, appointments to boards and commissions, and public parks. Evidence
of lack of policy responsiveness also appears in the operation of its wastewater treatment facility
and the conduct of city elections that were not in compliance with Section 203 of the Voting
Rights Act. All of this evidence is consistent with additional information that is noted among
the Senate factors.
/s Luis Fraga
University of Washington
Tree City USA Standards
To qualify as a Tree City USA community, you must meet four standards established by the
Arbor Day Foundation and the National Association of State Foresters. These standards were
established to ensure that every qualifying community* would have a viable tree management
program and that no community would be excluded because of size.
Four Standards for Tree City USA Recognition
Standard 1| Standard 2| Standard 3| Standard 4
Standard 1
A Tree Board or Department
Someone must be legally responsible for the care of all trees on city- or town-owned property.
By delegating tree care decisions to a professional forester, arborist, city department, citizen-led
tree board or some combination, city leaders determine who will perform necessary tree work.
The public will also know who is accountable for decisions that impact community trees. Often,
both professional staff and an advisory tree board are established, which is a good goal for most
communities.
The formation of a tree board often stems from a group of citizens. In some cases a mayor or city
officials have started the process. Either way, the benefits are immense. Involving residents and
business owners creates wide awareness of what trees do for the community and provides broad
support for better tree care.
Standard 2
A Tree Care Ordinance
A basic public tree care ordinance forms the foundation of a city’s tree care program. It provides
an opportunity to set good policy and back it with the force of law when necessary.
A key section of a qualifying ordinance is one that establishes the tree board or forestry
department—or both—and gives one of them the responsibility for public tree care (as reflected
in Standard 1). It should also assign the task of crafting and implementing a plan of work or for
documenting annual tree care activities.
Ideally, the ordinance will also provide clear guidance for planting, maintaining and removing
trees from streets, parks and other public spaces as well as activities that are required or
prohibited. Beyond that, the ordinance should be flexible enough to fit the needs and
circumstances of the particular community.
https://www.arborday.org/programs/treecityusa/standards.cfm
Page 1 of 2
For tips and a checklist of important items to consider in writing or improving a tree ordinance,
see Tree City USA Bulletin #9.
Standard 3
A Community Forestry Program With an Annual Budget of at Least $2 Per Capita
City trees provide many benefits—clean air, clean water, shade and beauty to name a few—but
they also require an investment to remain healthy and sustainable. By providing support at or
above the $2 per capita minimum, a community demonstrates its commitment to grow and tend
these valuable public assets. Budgets and expenditures require planning and accountability,
which are fundamental to the long-term health of the tree canopy and the Tree City USA
program.
To meet this standard each year, the community must document at least $2 per capita toward the
planting, care and removal of city trees—and the planning efforts to make those things happen.
At first this may seem like an impossible barrier to some communities. However, a little
investigation usually reveals that more than this amount is already being spent on tree care. If
not, this may signal serious neglect that will cost far more in the long run. In such a case,
working toward Tree City USA recognition can be used to reexamine the community's budget
priorities and redirect funds to properly care for its tree resources before it is too late.
Standard 4
An Arbor Day Observance and Proclamation
An effective program for community trees would not be complete without an annual Arbor Day
ceremony. Citizens join together to celebrate the benefits of community trees and the work
accomplished to plant and maintain them. By passing and reciting an official Arbor Day
proclamation, public officials demonstrate their support for the community tree program and
complete the requirements for becoming a Tree City USA!
This is the least challenging—and probably most enjoyable—standard to meet. An Arbor Day
celebration can be simple and brief or an all-day or all-week observation. It can include a tree
planting event, tree care activities or an award ceremony that honors leading tree planters. For
children, Arbor Day may be their only exposure to the green world or a springboard to
discussions about the complex issue of environmental quality.
The benefits of Arbor Day go far beyond the shade and beauty of new trees for the next
generation. Arbor Day is a golden opportunity for publicity and to educate homeowners about
proper tree care. Utility companies can join in to promote planting small trees beneath power
lines or being careful when digging. Fire prevention messaging can also be worked into the
event, as can conservation education about soil erosion or the need to protect wildlife habitat.
Tree City USA is an Arbor Day Foundation program in cooperation with:
https://www.arborday.org/programs/treecityusa/standards.cfm
Page 2 of 2