Rather than funding every member facing #recall without question, the city council should assess the actions behind the recall.

It is very common for municipalities to cover the legal costs of defending their officials agains recall efforts and other legal expenses stemming from the job of public service. However, in some situations, such as the recall of Kshama Sawant, the council should make the decision only after considering the actions behind the recall. 

While precedent may demonstrate that elected officials have been supported before in this manner, there MUST be an examination of the charges to determine if it is related to performing the duty of the council. If they are found to be in dereliction of duty, this would put it outside the scope of city council support.

This should be the way to keep going forward. There is a need to treat each recall case separately and come up with concrete reasons as to whether a case deserves funding from the council or not. 

In the history of municipal recalls, there are many examples of cases that have failed to secure legal coverage. Sometimes it involves cases related to indecent liberties. In other instances, officials have not asked for the funding- like in the recall case of Mayor (at the time) Jenny Durkan, who was accused of failing to institute new policies after police used tear gas on protesters.

It is perfectly sensible for members to opt for other sources of funds for their legal defense. This will see the funds that would have otherwise been used to fund legal matters pumped to other sectors of the economy.    

Let's be clear: It is a breach of the Constitution whenever taxpayer money is used to fund officials who have acted contrary to that very same Constitution. 

Considering the charges that were laid against council member Sawant, and were approved eventually by the WA Supreme Court, it is only fair that the taxpayer's money should be saved. The City Council should raise (or rather, create for the first time) standards for funding legal cases for members facing recall. 

If the #tax payers are prompting the recall, how crazy is it that they are also the ones paying for the defense of the individual that they are recalling?