A short few days ago the city council of Maple Valley considered the necessity of changing the procedure for granting funding to community services agencies. The City’s legal counsel presented a recommendation to amend the funding policy to the city council members. This concern regarding religious freedom has not been a concern to the city in the last 12 years. The issues and suggested changes were found to be very interesting and many good questions arose from the council members. We have listed the sections of the code that is pertinent to the discussion and potential policy.   

First, article 1 section 11 Religious Freedom states that “Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state. No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That this article shall not be so construed as to forbid the employment by the state of a chaplain for such of the state custodial, correctional, and mental institutions, or by a county’s or public hospital district’s hospital, health care facility, or hospice, as in the discretion of the legislature may seem justified. No religious qualification shall be required for any public office or employment, nor shall any person be incompetent as a witness or juror, in consequence of his opinion on matters of religion, nor be questioned in any court of justice touching his religious belief to affect the weight of his testimony. 

Should there be a separation between church and state? Personally, I believe that there should be the appropriate separation. The problem comes when we start to interpret the provisions in the article that states that an organization run by someone who professes to be a member of a particular religious group prevents that organization from being granted money. Vine Maple Place is just such a group. The leaders of this outreach organization are a wonderful married couple who are known to be Christians. Is this perhaps the people this change is attempting to target or is there more to it?

The second article is the suggested change in Article VIII section 7 CREDIT NOT TO BE LOANED.  “No county, city, or town or her municipal corporation shall hereafter give any money, or property, or loan its money, or credit to or in aid of any individual, association, company or corporation, except for the necessary support of the poor and infirm, or become directly or indirectly the owner of any stock in or bonds of any association, company or corporation.”

The Maple Valley City Council many times makes hard decisions as to policy and the interpretation of rules and regulations. This is one of those times that the city had to look hard at what was being asked of them. After an extended healthy discussion they decided to keep the current policy. The decision also requires a review of the policy in 2010.  If we had instituted the suggested changes, there are a number of groups that received grant funding in the 2009 budget including: Maple Valley historical society, Maple Valley Community Center, Vine Maple Place, Maple Valley Days Committee and even the Greater Maple Valley Chamber of Commerce.

We must be careful in following our legal experts leading us in the “interpretations” of the rules and regulations. The council must strike a healthy balance between community needs vs. rules or regulations, both now and in the future. As your elected council, we must support these Maple Valley organizations.

I want to commend the council for its wisdom in accepting the current 12 year old policy as well as recommending a review with the new council members in 2010.

Sincerely,

Glenn Smith