Suit Filed To Stop Gordon Police Plan and Oust Mayor Under Charter

PHOENIX (By Gary Peter Klahr) December 21, 2007 — Former City Councilman Gary Peter Klahr today filed a Superior Court suit seeking an injunction against Mayor Phil Gordon's plan to revise City Police immigration policies and/or to oust the Mayor from office for violating the City Charter.
    
Klahr, who practiced law for 34 years and won several appellate decisions against the City, said the suit was designed for two separate purposes — 1) to torpedo the Mayor's proposal to allow police to question persons about their immigration status; and 2) to expose the hypocrisy of elected officials refusing to help citizens with their problems with city bureaucrats based on the Charter, but defying the same Charter provisions "when it is politically profitable to do so."
    
Klahr, 65, who made his first appearance before the Council as a teenager to protest a water-rate increase, served a record 9 years as a member of the Police Review Board and had close contact with former chiefs Ruben Ortega, Dennis Garrett and Harold Hurtt. He also served as Chairman both of the City Criminal Justice Commission and of the License Appeals Board which deals with massage-parlors and metal dealers. He received city appointments from former Mayors John Driggs, Terry Goddard and Paul Johnson.
    
Citing 2048 amendments to the Charter designed to prevent elected officials from influencing city administrative decisions; the suit says that the Charter allows only Police Chief Jack Harris or City Manager Frank Fairbanks to make decisions on administrative operational matters like the contested Operations Order 1.4. Last month, Gordon announced that he was mandating a change in the controversial so-called "sanctuary" policy and appointed a committee of 4 former prosecutors to decide on the details.
    
The suit cites a December 17 statement by Chief Harris opposing the policy change as endangering public safety. It notes that Klahr himself has been the victim of 20 felonies and claims "irreparable injury" if police officers are diverted into "catching cooks instead of crooks."
    
According to the complaint filed in court, Section 4 of Chapter III of the Charter bars the Mayor and Councilmen from giving "orders to any subordinates of the City Manager, either publicly or privately."  The Section further provides that elected officials doing so "shall be removed from office."
    
Klahr's suit contends that even if the "policy" in question is subject to Council decision — which he denies because it is an administrative matter — the Council "can only act by formal recorded resolution or ordinance in open public session and not by 'orders' of the Mayor or even a majority of the Council acting otherwise." The suit notes that one reason for that rule is to allow city policies to be stopped by citizen referendum petitions.
    
Klahr asks that the Court enjoin the Mayor from trying to change the internal policy and/or remove him from office for violating the Charter. It does not seek monetary damages.  But the suit asks that the City pay attorney fees if Klahr retains an outside attorney, which he hopes to do.
    
Explaining the dual purpose of the suit, Klahr stated: "Although I support Chief Harris and not the Mayor on the immigration-policy issue, the main reason for the suit is to expose the hypocrisy of city officials under the Charter Government system enacted 60 years ago here. Supposedly, unlike almost every other big city, elected officials are supposed to stay out of city operation matters which are solely controlled by the Manager. But the reality is that whenever an issue is "hot" politically, the elected officials do step in and give the orders.
    
"Although the present Charter forbids what the Mayor is doing, I do not support that kind of system. In big cities, at least, there does need to be a way that elected officials can protect citizens from incorrect or unfair bureaucratic decisions. So I hope to inspire an amendment to the Charter to set up a Mayor-Administrator system whereby the elected Mayor would have the final say over the Executive branch like we do at the county, state and federal levels. On the Phoenix Union school board on whom I served for 8 years, although we delegated most decisions to the Superintendent, we elected board members DID have the final say on all matters under state law. But until the Phoenix Charter is changed, the Mayor needs to obey it," Klahr explained.
    
Klahr added: "One of the reasons for this suit is my recent bad experience with city bureaucrats who violated my rights under the Americans with Disabilities law. The Mayor's office and my Councilman refused to be of much help — mainly, they said, because the City Manager — not them — has the authority over such matters under the present Charter. So I figure that what is good for the goose is good for the gander, as the old saying goes."
    
"Either way this goes, I win," Klahr concluded. "Because if the Court lets the Mayor gets away with this, the citizens will certainly demand that the Charter be changed so that ALL citizens can get their elected officials to intervene with the city administration as the Mayor has done in this case."