At the July 24th City Council meeting, Councilman Shawn Boles' proposal that the City request Hyundai to sign an enforceable covenant with the city drew a tie vote, broken by Mayor Bascom with a "no" vote. The covenant, originally drawn up by Citizens for Public Accountability (CPA), would have required Hyundai to:

        Inform the community of toxics it releases.

Use the most worker- and community-protective technologies in the semi-conductor industry.

Fund an independent community monitoring process of the company's toxics releases.

Provide secure family wages, benefits, and whistleblower protections for workers.

Repay the value of the property tax abatements it has received if the company leaves within six years.

The Council then voted 5-3 to accept a similar motion by Councilwoman Nancy Nathanson, asking Hyundai for disclosure of toxics, assurance of air and water quality protection, and family wage jobs with benefits. It also establishes a citizen advisory board and requires designated routes for the transportation of toxics.

The major difference between the two proposals is enforceability. Councilor Hornbuckle observed that Nathanson's motion was about "words and sentiments, not reality or teeth." Councilwoman Keller was amenable to the motion until she realized that the authority for working out the details would be in the hands of City Manager Mike Gleason. Stating emphatically that she did not trust Mr. Gleason, Keller announced that she would vote against the motion, as did Councilman Boles.

However, the question of enforceability may be merely academic. When City Attorney Glenn Klein was asked if the covenant were enforceable, the answer was "no" -- because the Memo of Mutual Understanding -- the document that supposedly makes the Hyundai project a "done deal" -- is not a legal document! Curiouser and curiouser.

However, such covenants do exist and are enforceable. The covenant stipulates basic protections for citizens and the environment, presumably primary concerns for the Council, and they reinforce Hyundai's professed desire to be a "good corporate citizen." Opposing councilors believe existing laws are sufficient protection, and that it is unfair to Hyundai for them to impose new requirements.

But industry veterans in Silicon Valley and Boise have stressed the importance of ground rules before a project begins, in fairness to both company and community. Existence of regulations has not prevented problems in other cities, and Congress, where it has failed to get rid of existing environmental protections, is slashing the EPA's budget -- its power to enforce -- to achieve the same end.

Mike Gleason informed members of CPA that "covenants don't work," but could name neither trials nor failures. Agreements that they do work are described in a document called "Precedents for Corporate-Community Compacts and Good Neighbor Agreements," which was provided to the City Council.

The recent Unocal agreement in California far exceeds the scope of any other community agreement and came into being due to lack of either ground rules and corporate responsibility. In September, 1994, a chemical leak from the Unocal Refinery in Rodeo, CA, spread the potentially deadly substance throughout nearby Crockett. The company first denied, then downplayed the event. When a second spill was also ignored, residents took action and forced Unocal to sign a Good Neighbor Agreement requiring corporate action for the public good in a wide variety of issues. Here are just a few of the terms:

As comprehensive as the Unocal agreement appears to be, the plant has had another accident, and the community is considering closing the plant until it is proved safe, and renegotiating the agreement.

The demand for corporate responsibility to the public good is a forgotten part of our history. When the country was founded, citizens, stung by the likes of the East India Company, wanted no more of such entities. They feared that "once incorporators amassed wealth, they would control jobs and production, buy the newspapers, dominate elections and the courts."

Our forefathers weren't dummies. Corporate charters were granted sparingly, limited in their duration, and monitored for their contribution to the public good. But corporations did amass wealth and influence, and they did use them to lean on the courts to reinterpret the laws. Corporations now have more rights than people do, and we live in the era of corporate welfare.

The pendulum is swinging back as the negative impacts of corporate behavior on communities has been realized. Following the Exxon spill in Prince William Sound, a 10-point code of corporate responsibility, the Valdez Principles, was developed by a group of investors, environmental and religious organizations. Now called the CERES Principles (Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies), it requires signatories to "reduce, and where possible, eliminate the use, manufacture, or sale of products and services that cause environmental damage or health or safety hazards." They also agree to annual self-evaluations and to publish an annual report of their implementation progress.

"Precedents for Corporate-Community Compacts and Good Neighbor Agreements," describes a wide variety of citizen actions on labor, safety, health, and environmental issues, as well as demands for protection and compensation when companies have pulled up stakes.

Citizens do have rights.