>>> COLLEAGUES.
SEPTEMBER 15, 2020 SPECIAL
MEETING OF THE SEATTLE CITY
COUNCIL WILL COME TO ORDER.
IT IS 1:02 PM.
I AM LORENA GONZCEZ ,
PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL.
WILL THE KLIEG, COLD ROLL.
>> COUNCILMEMBER WARREN IS.
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
COUNCILMEMBER MIRELES.
COUNCILMEMBER MUST GET A.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN .
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS.
>> PRESENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBAL-TRAN14.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT GONZALES.
>> HERE.
>> 8 PRESENT.
>> THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK.
AGAIN, FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD IN
TERMS OF ROLL CALL,
COUNCILMEMBER KSHAMA SAWANT IS
EXCUSED FROM ATTENDING THE
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL
DUE TO HER NEED TO RECUSE
HERSELF FROM CONSIDERATION OF
THIS COUNSEL BILL.
ETHICS, OR ETHICS OFFICER.
WILLIAM BARNETT.
AND-HAS ADVISED US THAT SHE
MUST RECUSE HERSELF.
BECAUSE THIS COUNSEL BILL
INHERENTLY IS, REPRESENTS A
FINANCIAL INTEREST FOR HER,
GIVEN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF
THAT.
SO, WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT
THE RECORD IS CLEAR THAT
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT HAS
RECUSED HERSELF AND IS NOT IN
ATTENDANCE AT TODAY'S SPECIAL
FULL COUNCIL MEETING.
WE WILL MOVE ON THROUGH THE
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.
IF THERE IS NO AGENDA, THE-
OBJECTION THE AGENDA WILL BE
ADOPTED.
HEARING NO OBJECTION, THE
AGENDA IS ABDUCTIVE.
OKAY, COLLEAGUES, WE HAVE ONE
AGENDA ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA,
PUBLISHED AGENDA.
THAT IS AGENDA ITEM 1. WILL THE
CLERK PLEASE READ ITEM 1 INTO
THE RECORD?
>> AGENDA ITEM 1, 119891.
RELATING TO THE-COUNCILMEMBER
KSHAMA SAWANT AND TRADITIONAL
PROCEEDINGS CALLING A RECALL
CHARGE NECESSARY TO DEFEND
KSHAMA SAWANT OF THIS
PROCEEDING -.
>> THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK.
COLLEAGUES, I WILL MOVE TO PASS
COUNSEL BILL 119891.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED TO PASS THE BILL.
COLLEAGUES, THIS LEGISLATION
DOES NOT HAVE, NOR DOES IT
REQUIRE A SPONSOR.
HOWEVER, OUR COUNSEL RULES
REQUIRE THAT A COUNCILMEMBER
SPEAK ABOUT THE LEGISLATION.
AS A RESULT, I WILL ADDRESS
THIS LEGISLATION AS A COUNCIL
PRESIDENT.
COUNSEL BILL 119891 RELATES TO
THE LEGAL REPRESENTATION OF
COUNCILMEMBER KSHAMA SAWANT.
THIS ORDINANCE IS APPROVED, THE
CITY OF SEATTLE WILL COVER THE
COST OF THE LEGAL DEFENSE IN
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS RELATED TO
THE SUFFICIENCY OF A RECALL
CHARGE FILED AGAINST
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT ARE SOON
TO RCW 29.82.023. I WANT TO BE
CLEAR THAT OUR CONSIDERATION OF
THIS COUNSEL BILL IS NOT A
STATEMENT ON OR VOTE UPON THE
MERITS OF THE RECALL PETITION.
ISSUES RELATED TO THE
SUFFICIENCY OF THE RECALL
CHARGE OF THE MERITS OF THAT
EFFORT IS FOR THE COURTS TO DO
CHARGE, NOT FOR THE CITY
COUNCIL.
ADDITIONALLY, CONSIDERATION OF
THIS COUNSEL BILL IS NOT AN
ENDORSEMENT OR REJECTION OF ANY
INITIATIVES RELATED TO THE
RECALL CAMPAIGNS.
THE ISSUES RELATED TO ANY AND
ALL RECALL CAMPAIGNS REGARDING
ANY SEATTLE-BASED ELECTED
OFFICIAL OR ISSUES RELATED TO A
POLITICAL PROCESS THAT ARE
BEYOND THE SCOPE OF TODAY'S
LEGISLATION, AND UNRELATED TO
OUR CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS.
COUNSEL BILL 119891 IS BASED ON
STATE STATUTE.
SPECIFICALLY, RCW 4.9 6.041
SUBSECTION 3 PROVIDES THE CITY
COUNCIL WITH THE FRAMEWORK BY
WHICH TO CONSIDER THIS ISSUE.
TO BEGIN WITH, I HAVE CONSULTED
WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
TO INFORM MY UNDERSTANDING OF
THE STATE STATUTE.
THE REQUEST FOR LEGAL DEFENSE,
AND THE PROCEDURAL AND
LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS THAT
ARE NECESSARY FOR ANY ELECTED
TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE
VARIOUS INDEMNIFICATION
PROVISIONS OUTLINED IN RCW 4.9
6.041. THERE HAVE BEEN COMMENTS
BY MEDIA AND MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC THAT THE COUNCIL MUST
FIRST CONCLUDE THE
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT WAS ACTING
WITHIN HER OFFICIAL DUTIES IN
ORDER TO AVAIL HERSELF OF THE
REQUESTED LEGAL DEFENSE.
OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS
ADVISED THAT THIS IS NOT THE
CASE FOR SUBSECTION 3 OF RCW
4.9 6.041.
WHILE THERE ARE OTHER
INDEMNIFICATION PROVISIONS IN
RCW 4.9404 41 THAT DO HAVE,
ACTING WITHIN OFFICIAL DUTIES
REQUIREMENT AND DETERMINATION,
SUBSECTION 3 DOES NOT HAVE THAT
REQUIREMENT.
FOR THE RECORD, I THINK IT IS
IMPORTANT THAT I NOW TAKE A
MOMENT TO READ THE FULL RCW
SUBSECTION 3 INTO THE RECORD.
WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS: "
SUBSECTION 3. THE NECESSARY
EXPENSES OF DEFENDING AN
ELECTIVE OFFICER OF THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY IN A
JUDICIAL HEARING TO DETERMINE
THE SUFFICIENCY OF A RECALL
CHARGE, AS PROVIDED IN RCW 29.8
2.023 SHALL BE PAID, SHALL BE
PAID BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL
ENTITY IF THE OFFICER REQUESTS
SUCH DEFENSE, AND APPROVAL IS
GRANTED BY BOTH THE LEGISLATIVE
AUTHORITY OF THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY, AND THE
ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY.
THE EXPENSE IS PAID BY THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY MAY
INCLUDE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH
AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION
RENDERED BY THE SUPERIOR COURT
CONCERNING THE SUFFICIENCY OF
THE RECALL CHARGE."
>> THIS LEGISLATION REPRESENTS
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT'S FORMAL
REQUEST THAT THE CITY COUNCIL,
AS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL
ENTITY, AUTHORIZE THE CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO PROVIDE
HER WITH LEGAL DEFENSE
REGARDING THE JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS RELATED TO THE
SUFFICIENCY OF THE RECALL
CHARGE THAT HAS BEEN FILED
AGAINST COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS
REPRESENTED TO ME THAT THE CITY
ATTORNEY, PETE HOLMES, IS
WILLING AND ABLE TO PROVIDE THE
REQUESTED LEGAL DEFENSE.
IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS MY
UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT SECOND
ELEMENT THAT THE ATTORNEY
REPRESENTING THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY HAS ALSO
APPROVED PROVIDING THE DEFENSE
REQUESTED BY COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT SHOULD IT BE APPROVED
BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
THIS WOULD SATISFY THAT SECOND
STATUTORY REQUIREMENT.
>> SO, COLLEAGUES, THAT IS THE
BASIS OF THIS PARTICULAR
LEGISLATION.
AND, THIS IS A LEGISLATION THAT
IS BEFORE US NOW, AND I AM
HAPPY TO OPEN IT UP FOR ANY
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS OR
ADDITIONAL DEBATE.
SO, ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS ON THE BILL?
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS?
>> THANK YOU MADAM PRESIDENT
FOR THAT SUMMARY.
I DO WANT TO BRIEFLY ADDRESS
THIS, JUST BECAUSE MY OFFICE
HAS RECEIVED A CONSIDERABLE
AMOUNT OF COMMUNICATIONS FROM
FOLKS ON ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER
OF THIS.
AND I DO THINK IT IS
UNFORTUNATE THAT SOMETHING THAT
SHOULD BE VERY PRO FORMA LIKE
THIS IS BEING POLITICIZED.
SO, I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS
FOR A MOMENT AND SAY THAT AT
THE TOP, I WILL BE VOTING YES.
AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT I
AM VOTING YES.
AND IN DOING SO, NOT COMMENTING
ON THE MERITS OF THE RECALL
ALLEGATIONS.
I AM VOTING TO UPHOLD THE
VALUES OF OUR DEMOCRACY HERE IN
SEATTLE AND THE PRINCIPAL THAT
WE, AND THE MAYOR AND THE CITY
ATTORNEY, THE DULY ELECTED
CHARTER OFFICERS OF THE CITY,
HAVE REPRESENTATION IF WE ARE
FACING RECALL EFFORTS, HAVING
BEEN DULY ELECTED.
AND THE FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLE
OF THIS IS THAT WE HAVE A
PROCESS FOR PICKING OUR ELECTED
REPRESENTATIVE.
IT IS NOT RECALLS.
IT IS THROUGH ELECTIONS.
AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT YOUR
REPRESENTATIVE IS DOING, YOU
CAN OPT TO NOT VOTE FOR THEM IN
THE NEXT ELECTION.
WE JUST HAD A MASSIVE ELECTION.
ALL OF THESE ISSUES WERE
LITIGATED.
AND RECALL ELECTIONS IN
WASHINGTON STATE A VERY NARROW
GROUNDS AND ARE EXTREMELY RARE.
AND A LEGAL PROCESS IS
REQUIRED, AS WE JUST DISCUSSED
THROUGH THE RCW'S, TO MAKE SURE
THAT THE PURPORTED GROUNDS FOR
A RECALL MEET THE VERY HIGH
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS TO
OVERTURN THE WILL OF THE
VOTERS.
OVERTURNING THE WILL OF VOTERS
IS AN EXTREMELY SERIOUS,
SERIOUS BUSINESS.
AND THIS REQUIRES THAT ALL OF
THE PARTIES BE REPRESENTED
ADEQUATELY BY COUNSEL IN THESE
PROCEEDINGS.
AND TRADITION IS, IN SEATTLE,
THAT THE CITY COUNCIL IS
REPRESENTED BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN THESE
PROCEEDINGS.
IN 2011, JUST AS CITED, THERE
WAS A RECALL PETITION FILED
AGAINST COUNCILMEMBER RICHARD
CONLON.
THE COUNCIL VOTED TO ALLOW THE
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO
REPRESENT COUNCILMEMBER CONLON
IN THOSE PROCEEDINGS.
I WOULD SAY ALSO, TOO.
IF MAYOR DURKIN CAME DOWN TO
THE COUNCIL TO SEEK SIMILAR
SUPPORT FOR THE ONGOING PENDING
RECALL EFFORT AGAINST MAYOR
DURKIN, I WOULD
ENTHUSIASTICALLY SUPPORT AS
WELL AUTHORIZING FUNDS FOR THE
MAYOR TO BE SUPPORTED, BECAUSE
SHE WAS ELECTED, LIKE ALL OF US
WERE ELECTED.
AND THIS PRACTICE HAS TO BE
APPLIED UNIFORMLY.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT ENDORSING
ANYBODY'S DECISIONS OR
SPECULATING ON THE MERITS OF
ANY LEGAL ALLEGATIONS.
THIS IS ABOUT RESPECTING THE
PROCESS AND MAINTAINING AN
IMPORTANT PRECEDENT.
AND IT IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE IF
WE START PICKING AND CHOOSING
WHO DOES OR DOES NOT RECEIVE
THESE KINDS OF LEGAL
REPRESENTATIONS.
AND NO MATTER HOW IT IS SLICED,
TO DENY THAT LEGAL
REPRESENTATION WOULD BE TO MAKE
ARBITRARY SOMETHING THAT SHOULD
BE OBJECTIVE.
AND I DID THIS APPLIES TO
EVERYBODY, OR GOING FORWARD, IT
IS GOING TO APPLY TO NOBODY.
SO, I WILL BE VOTING YES.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
LEWIS.
FOR THOSE REMARKS.
I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE WITH
THOSE COMMENTS.
COLLEAGUES, ARE THERE ANY OTHER
COMMENTS.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD, PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU.
I JUST WANT TO ADD TO THE
RECORD AS IT RELATES TO OUR
VOTE ON THIS ISSUE.
IT IS CLEAR THAT RCW 4904 13
GIVES VERY LITTLE DIRECTION
UPON WHICH TO BASE THE DECISION
TO FUND A RECALL DEFENSE BEYOND
, AGAIN, AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT
GONZALES HAS EXPLAINED, THE
REQUIREMENT THAT THE ELECTED
ESTIMATE THE REQUEST AND THE
CITY ATTORNEY HAS TO AGREE TO
PROVIDE THE DEFENSE.
BOTH OF THESE THINGS HAVE
OCCURRED AND IT IS LEFT US.
WE DO KNOW, THAT MAKING A
DETERMINATION, WHETHER OR NOT
THE SUBJECT INDIVIDUAL IS
ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF
DUTIES IS NOT A REQUIREMENT.
SO, LIKE COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS
REFERENCE, I THINK LOOKING BACK
ON THE CITY'S PRECEDENTS, THE
PRINCIPLES UPON THESE
PRECEDENTS, IS IT REALLY
IMPORTANT.
THIS COUNSEL HAS ESTABLISHED A
RESIDENT OF PROVIDING FUNDING
FOR RECALL DEFENSE PRIOR, AS
WAS STATED, WITH PRIOR
COUNCILMEMBER RICHARD CONLON.
ANOTHER IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE, I
WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD, WHICH
YOU KNOW, I DEFINITELY RELATED
TO THE PRINCIPLE EXPRESSED BY
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS, IS THAT WE
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT FUTURE
COUNCILMEMBERS, PEOPLE WHO ARE
CONSIDERING RUNNING FOR CITY
COUNCIL, NO THAT THIS IS THE
STANDARD OF THIS COUNSEL TO
PROVIDE FUNDING FOR DEFENSE, AS
A REALLY IMPORTANT EQUITY
PRINCIPAL.
SO, THAT THOSE FOLKS WHO ARE
CONSIDERING RUNNING FOR PUBLIC
OFFICE TO OUR CITY COUNCIL
WITHOUT A LOT OF FINANCIAL,
PERSONAL RESOURCES, ARE NOT
CHILLED FROM MAKING THAT
DECISION TO RUN FOR PUBLIC
OFFICE BASED ON A DECISION THAT
THE COUNCIL WILL NOT DEFEND
THEM IF THERE IS A RECALL
EFFORT MOUNTED AGAINST THEM.
I THINK THAT, IF WE WERE TO
MAKE A DECISION TO NOT FUND THE
DEFENSE FOR THIS RECALL, IT
WOULD HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON
OUR GOALS AS THE CITY TO MAKE
SURE THAT FOLKS ARE RUNNING FOR
POLITICAL OFFICE FROM A
DIVERSITY OF BACKGROUNDS.
SO, THAT IS WHY I WILL BE
VOTING IN SUPPORT OF THIS
MEASURE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU MEMBER HERBOLD.
COUNCILMEMBER HIM MARIAH ELLIS
AND OTHER COUNCILMMBERS
>> I CAN AFTER COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES, PRESIDENT . THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
JUAREZ, I WILL CALL ON YOU
AFTER COUNCILMEMBER MORALES.
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES.
>> I WILL BE PREPARED I WANT TO
SAY IT IS CLEAR THAT ELECTED
OFFICIALS RECEIVE LEGAL
DEFENSE.
I THINK ANY OF US IF WE WERE
FACED WITH A SIMILAR SITUATION
AND IS COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD
JUST SAID PREVIOUS
COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE BEEN IN
SIMILAR SITUATIONS.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR
CITY ATTORNEYS ARE TO PROVIDE
LEGAL COUNSEL.
AND THAT IT IS AFFORDED TO
OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS.
I THINK ESPECIALLY IN THIS
TIME.
WE NEED TO PROTECT OUR
DEMOCRACY AND ENSURE THAT LEGAL
PROTECTIONS ARE AFFORDED TO OUR
ELECTED OFFICIALS, ARE
RESPECTED AND I WILL BE
SUPPORTING THIS BILL.
>> THANK YOU MEMBER, THANK YOU
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES.
COUNCILMEMBER WHEREAS.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR OVERVIEW.
MY CONCERN IS THIS.
LOOKING AT, YOU SENT US AN
EMAIL YESTERDAY.
AT ABOUT 4:00 REGARDING THE
STATUTE THAT YOU CITED EARLIER.
RCW 4.960 41.
AND YOU PUT IN QUOTATION
SECTION 3. SO, I WOULD ASK MY
COLLEAGUES TO LOOK AT THAT,
BECAUSE THERE ARE FOUR SECTIONS
TO SECTION 49601.
BEFORE YOU CAN GET TO 3, WHICH
TALKS ABOUT THE CRITERIA AND
WHAT IS NECESSARY, APPROVAL OF
THE CITY COUNCIL.
SECTIONS 1 A 2, PARTICULARLY 2,
STATE THE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY
IS A LOCAL GOVERNING ENTITY.
PAST THE FUND THAT THE ACTS,
OMISSIONS OF THE OFFICER ARE IN
GOOD FAITH PURPORTED TO BE
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS OR HER
OFFICIAL DUTY.
THE REQUEST SHALL BE GRANTED.
I TEND TO DISAGREE WITH A FEW
OF MY COLLEAGUES HERE.
I THINK THE LAW IS VERY CLEAR.
ABOUT WHAT THE STEPS ARE BEFORE
WE GET TO 3, BEFORE WE
HIGHLIGHTED THE WORD SHALL, I
THOUGHT TODAY'S DISCUSSION WAS
WHETHER OR NOT, NOT DETERMINING
THE MERITS OR THE UNDERLYING
ELECTED BACK TO THE PETITION
THAT WERE FILED.
I BELIEVE THERE WERE 8 AND 2,
THEY REMOVED THEM SO THEY ARE
DOWN TO 6. BUT THE QUESTION AND
THE DISCUSSION TODAY WAS NOT
DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT THESE
ACT WERE IN GOOD FAITH, BUT
HAVING A DISCUSSION ABOUT
DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT THESE
ACTS WERE WITHIN THE OFFICIAL
SCOPE OF COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT'S
OFFICIAL DUTIES.
IF SO, THEN WE APPROVE THE COST
OF DEFENSE.
IF NOT, WE DON'T.
SO, JUST DOESN'T GO TO BREAKING
DOWN DEMOCRACY OR A SLIPPERY
SLOPE AND ALL OF THE STUFF
ABOUT LOADING.
IF THAT WERE ALL TRUE, WE WOULD
NOT HAVE AN RCW 496041 FOUR
RECALL FOR THAT VERY REASON.
SO, I CAN PREPARED, LOOKING IT
UP AND LOOKING AT THE LAW,
BESIDES A SECTION THAT YOU
CITED COUNCIL PRESIDENT IN YOUR
EMAIL TO US YESTERDAY, ALL FOUR
PIECES OF IT, SECTIONS OF IT,
ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT WAS ACTING
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HER
OFFICIAL DUTIES.
AND WHETHER OR NOT WE WOULD BE
PAYING FOR THAT DEFENSE.
WHICH EITHER WAY, I AM OKAY
WITH THAT.
BUT I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT
THIS IS JUST PRO FORMA, AND
THAT WE, AS A CITY ATTORNEY
SAID, THEY ARE WILLING AND
ABLE, BEFORE WE GET TO THAT,
COUNSEL HAS TO MAKE A DECISION
TO APPROVE, AND APPROVAL IS
CONTINGENT ON THE QUESTION
ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT COUNSELOR
SAWANT WAS ACTING WITHIN THE
SCOPE OF HER OFFICIAL DUTIES.
SO, WHAT I AM HEARING YOU SAY
IS THAT LEGAL COUNSEL, CITY
ATTORNEY IS NOW SAYING WE ARE
NOT GOING TO HAVE THAT, WE
DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A
DISCUSSION.
THAT WE JUST GO TO SECTION 3
AND WE SHALL JUST, SHALL
APPROVE THE COST.
SO, MAYBE I AM READING THIS
WRONG, IF I COULD GET A LITTLE
MORE CLARIFICATION, I DID NOT
HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THE CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE COUNCIL
PRESIDENT.
I KNOW THAT YOU DID.
SO, I KNOW THAT WE DID, SOME OF
US DID LOOK AT THE PETITION
THAT WAS FILED SEPTEMBER 1. I
KNOW THAT WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT
THE UNDERLYING FACTS,
ALLEGATIONS WITH THE MERIT.
THE JUDGE WILL MAKE THAT
DETERMINATION.
ABOUT WHETHER TO CERTIFY THE
RECALL PETITION.
I THOUGHT OUR JOB HERE TODAY
WAS TO DISCUSS WHETHER OR NOT,
AGAIN, THESE ACT WERE WITHIN
THE SCOPE OF HER OFFICIAL
DUTIES.
AND AGAIN, IF SO, THEN WE
APPROVE IT.
THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS WHAT
HAPPENED WITH COUNCILMEMBER, I
CAN'T REMEMBER HIS NAME.
YOU TO SET IT., AND.
THINK THIS IS A LITTLE BIT
DIFFERENT.
IF YOU ALL LOOK AT THE
PETITION.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH
IT.
THOSE ARE JUST A LEGEND.
BUT IN ITS TOTALITY, THAT'S WHY
WE HAVE THIS LAW.
IT'S FOR THIS DISCUSSION, AND I
AM GUESSING, IF I COULD HEAR
MORE FROM YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
PRESENT, PRESIDENT OF MY
COLLEAGUES, PLEASE CORRECT ME
IF I'M WRONG, WERE NOT GOING TO
HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT.
WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THAT.'S
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
WHEREAS.
I WANT TO SAY A COUPLE OF
THINGS IN RESPONSE TO YOUR
COMMENTS.
ONE IS THAT I THINK YOU HAVE
MADE AN INSINUATION THAT I HAVE
CHERRY PICKED SECTIONS OF THE
LAW TO PUT IN FRONT OF THE
COUNCIL.
AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT
THAT IS NOT THE CASE.
I HAVE NOT DONE THAT.-I HAVE
PROVIDED THE CITY COUNCIL
MEMBERS WITH THE LINK TO THE
FULL LAW.
AND THE REASON THAT I HAVE
FOCUSED ON AND REFERENCED, AS I
MENTIONED IN MY EMAIL, THE
RELEVANT PART OF THE STATUTE IS
SUBSECTION 3. IN MY
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE LAW
DEPARTMENT AND IN LEGAL ADVICE
THAT I HAVE RECEIVED FROM THEM,
THAT IS THE ONLY SECTION THAT
APPLIES TO THIS PARTICULAR SET
OF CIRCUMSTANCES.
SO, I CAN APPRECIATE THAT YOU
AS A LAWYER DISAGREE WITH OUR
LAWYERS.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY, I AM NOT THE
CITY'S LAWYERS AND I HAVE TWO
YOU KNOW, ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE PLAYS
THAT ROLE.
AND THEIR LEGAL ADVICE TO US IS
THAT SUBSECTION 3 IS THE ONLY
RELEVANT SECTION TO THIS
PARTICULAR SET OF
CIRCUMSTANCES.
BECAUSE, WE START WITH A
QUESTION OF, WHAT IS THE
INDEMNIFICATION NEEDED FOR?
AND THE ANSWER TO THAT
RESPONSE, TO THAT QUESTION IS,
MISS INDEMNIFICATION IS IN
RESPONSE TO A RECALL CHARGE.
THE OTHER THREE SECTIONS THAT
YOU HAVE NOTED EXIST IN 4.9
6.041, ARE RELATED TO ISSUES
THAT MAY BE REQUIRING LEGAL
DEFENSE, BUT LEGAL DEFENSE
WHOLLY UNRELATED TO A RECALL
CHARGE.
AND OF THOSE INSTANCES, MY
UNDERSTANDING IS, IN SOME
CASES, LEGISLATION IS NOT EVEN
REQUIRED.
IT JUST OCCURS.
NOT REQUIRING US TO TAKE ANY
SORT OF LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENT
OR CONSIDER ANY KIND OF A BILL.
SO, AGAIN, I FEEL THAT THE
LEGAL ADVICE THAT WE HAVE
RECEIVED, THAT MY OFFICE HAS
RECEIVED FROM CITY ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE HAS BEEN CONSISTENT AND
HAS BEEN CLEAR, THAT THE ONLY
SUBSECTION OF THE RELEVANT
STATUTE THAT APPLIES UNDER THIS
SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES BECAUSE IT
IS RELATED TO A RECALL CHARGE
IS SUBSECTION 3. THEREFORE,
DISPENSING WITH THE NEED, OR
YOU KNOW, FRANKLY, NOT
TRIGGERING THE REQUIREMENT TO
HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT
WHETHER OR NOT THE RECALL
PETITION IS ROOTED ON THE
THRESHOLD QUESTION OF WHETHER
THE INDIVIDUAL WAS ACT BEING IN
GOOD FAITH PURPORTING TO
PERFORM HER OFFICIAL DUTIES AS
AN EMPLOYEE.
SO, YOU KNOW, THIS IS PART OF
THE REASON WHY I ENCOURAGE
FOLKS TO REACH OUT DIRECTLY TO
THE LAW DEPARTMENT YESTERDAY.
BUT, I WILL, YOU KNOW, FOR
PURPOSES OF ESTABLISHING THE
RECORD HERE, IT HAS BEEN
CRYSTAL CLEAR TO ME THAT THE
ONLY SECTION OF 496 THAT
APPLIES IS SUBSECTION 3. NOT
SUBSECTION 1. NOT SUBSECTION 2.
NOT SUBSECTION 4. AND
THEREFORE, WE GO BY THE
LANGUAGE THAT EXISTS JUST IN
SUBSECTION 3, WHICH DOES NOT
HAVE A REQUIREMENT THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL ENGAGE IN A
CONVERSATION AROUND WHETHER OR
NOT THERE WAS PERFORMANCE IN
GOOD FAITH OF OFFICIAL DUTIES
PRIOR TO MAKING THE
DETERMINATION OF WHETHER A
LEGAL DEFENSE SHOULD BE
PROVIDED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE.
>> IF I MAY RESPOND?
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
THANK YOU.
FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO
APOLOGIZE.
I DID NOT MEAN TO IMPUGN THAT
YOU ARE CHERRY PICKING.
BUT I WAS LOOKING AT IS WHEN I
JUST SAW SECTION 3 I THOUGHT
THERE WAS MORE TO THIS IN
SECTION 3 SO I APOLOGIZE FOR
THAT.
SECOND OF ALL, I AM NOT STATING
THAT HIS LOSS AS WE HAVE TO
ENGAGE IN A DISCUSSION ABOUT
GOOD FAITH.
IT DOESN'T.
WHAT THEY ARE ASKING, WHAT HAS
TO BE DECIDED IS WHETHER OR NOT
THERE WITHIN THE SCOPE
OFFICIAL, OFFICIAL DUTIES.
NOT THE GOOD FAITH THAT IS JUST
DECIDING, IF WE ARE DECIDING
WHETHER HER ACT'S WERE, OR IN
GOOD FAITH PURPORTED TO BE.
WE ARE NOT DECIDING THAT.
WHAT I AM GETTING AT, WHAT I
READ IT AS, IF WE WOULD BE
DECIDING WHETHER THE ACTS WERE
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF OFFICIAL
DUTY.
NOT TALKING ABOUT GOOD FAITH.
THAT IS A CLARIFICATION THERE.
SO, JUST SO I AM CLEAR THAN.
LEGAL HAS SHARED WITH YOU AND
YOU HAVE SHARED WITH US AND I
DON'T DOUBT YOUR WORD, THAT IN
REGARDS TO THE RCW 4.96041,
THAT SECTIONS 1 A 2 DON'T APPLY
AND CERTAINLY NOT 4, WHEN YOU
READ IT.
JUST SECTION 3. SO, THAT IS
WHAT YOU ARE SHARING WITH US
TODAY FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE, CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
SO, WE RECEIVED PRETTY CLEAR
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT THAT IS
IN FACT, IN FACT THE CASE.
SO, THERE IS A SPECIFIC
QUESTION THAT WAS POSED TO THE
LAW DEPARTMENT FROM ONE OF OUR
COLLEAGUES ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT
THERE WAS A RECORD REQUIREMENT
THAT WE AS A COUNCIL FIND THAT
THE ACTIVITIES ARE WITHIN THE
SCOPE OF THE OFFICIAL DUTIES
PRIOR TO, I.E.
AS INDICATED IN SUBSECTION 1 IN
SUBSECTION 2, PRIOR TO MAKING
THIS DETERMINATION OF WHETHER
OR NOT COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT
WOULD BE ENTITLED TO LEGAL
DEFENSE.
THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
RESPONDED THAT RECALL DEFENSE
COSTS " RECALL DEFENSE COSTS
ARE GOVERNED UNDER RCW 4.9
6.041 SUBSECTION 3. IN CONTRAST
TO OTHER INDEMNIFICATIONS
GOVERNED UNDER SECTIONS 1 AND
2. AND SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE
4.64.
>> OKAY.
AND IF I MAY, I'M SORRY.
IF I MAY RESPOND COUNCIL
PRESIDENT?
>> SURE.
>> OKAY.
SO, AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO BE
CLEAR HERE.
WE HAVE SAID THIS MANY TIMES.
WE ALL GOT COPIES OF-I RECITED
WHAT WAS FILED.
IN SUPERIOR COURT.
WE ARE NOT ARGUING THE MERITS
OF THAT AS YOU CORRECTLY
STATED.
I THINK WHERE I AM AT, AGAIN,
AND I STAND BY THAT BELIEVE
THAT I THOUGHT THAT OUR
DISCUSSION TO DAY BASED ON A
PROVABLE MEANT THE DISCUSSION
ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THESE ACT
WERE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF
OFFICIAL DUTIES.
SO, THAT BEING SAID, MAYBE WE
CAN AGREE TO DISAGREE.
BUT I WANT TO ADD THIS MORE ON
A PERSONAL NOTE.
WE HAVE BEEN ON COUNSEL FOR A
FEW YEARS NOW.
AND I NEVER TAKE WHAT SOME OF
MY COLLEAGUES DO WHEN THEY
STAND UP AND HAVE A POSITION, I
DON'T TAKE IT PERSONALLY.
WE CAN'T HAVE THESE KIND OF
JOBS WHERE WE GET HURT
PERSONALLY IF PEOPLE DON'T
AGREE WITH US.
WE AGREE TO DISAGREE.
WE HAVE OUR MOMENTS OF COURSE.
BUT I ALWAYS HAVE RESPECT.
AND I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THE
ELECTION PROCESS AND WHY WE
HAVE IT.
AND WHEN THE PEOPLE SPEAK.
AND THIS PETITION AND THIS
THING, WHAT HAPPENED ON ITS OWN
MERITS AND COUNTY SUPERIOR
COURT WHERE IT BELONGS.
SO, WITH THAT, I UNFORTUNATELY
WELL NOT BE NOT THE VOTING
YESTERDAY.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
WAREZ.
úAGAIN, I JUST WANT TO, BECAUSE
I DON'T WANT TO MUDDY THE
WATERS HERE.
FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO
ARE WATCHING THIS.
BECAUSE YOU HAVE INTRODUCED THE
CONCEPT, IN MY OPINION,
INCORRECTLY ABOUT THE NEED FOR
THE COUNCIL TO ENGAGE IN A
CONVERSATION ABOUT WHETHER OR
NOT COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT WAS
ENGAGED IN OFFICIAL DUTIES.
AS ALLEGED OR CONNECTED TO THE
RECALL PETITION.
AND I AM STATING VERY CLEARLY
FOR THE RECORD, THAT BASED ON
THE ANALYSIS, EVALUATION AND
LEGAL ADVICE OF A CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, THAT IS
CATEGORICALLY NOT ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT THE COUNCIL SHOULD
OR MUST CONSIDER IN ORDER TO
PROVIDE THE AUTHORIZATION FOR
THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO
GIVE COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT LEGAL
DEFENSE AS SHE WOULD BE
ENTITLED TO UNDER THE VARIOUS
INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSES.
SO, I JUST, I WANT TO BE REALLY
CLEAR WITH THE PUBLIC, THAT TO
THE EXTENT THAT THERE IS AN
INSINUATION THAT WE ARE
SKIPPING A STEP, I WANT TO SAY
REALLY CLEARLY, THAT WE ARE NOT
SKIPPING ANY STEPS.
WE ARE BOUND I STATE LAW.
AND STATE LAW IS LIMITED TO RCW
496, I AM FORGETTING THE NUMBER
NOW.
496.041 SUBSECTION 3, IN
ISOLATION AND TO THE EXCLUSION
OF SUBSECTION 1 AND SUBSECTION
2. AND, THAT IS THE RUBRIC BY
WHICH WE ARE REQUIRED TO
ANALYZE THE BILL THAT IS BEFORE
US.
NOW, SETTING THAT ASIDE,
COUNCILMEMBERS OF COURSE, ARE
COMPLETELY WITHIN THE RIGHT TO
VOTE ANY WAY THAT THEY WISH ON
THIS COUNSEL BILL, WHETHER THAT
IS A YES OR NO.
AND I APPRECIATE YOU INDICATING
CLEARLY FOR THE RECORD, THAT
YOU INTEND TO VOTE NO ON THIS
PARTICULAR COUNSEL BILL.
>> AND AGAIN, COUNCIL
PRESIDENT, I JUST WANT TO STATE
AGAIN FOR THE RECORD, I AM NOT
INSINUATING THAT YOU ARE
SKIPPING A STEP.
I THINK WE JUST HAVE TO AGREE
TO DISAGREE ON THIS.
THAT'S ALL.
I AM NOT INSINUATING ANY ILL
WILL, MAL INTENT ON ANYBODY.
TRUST ME.
YEAH.
>> COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ, I AM
NOT SAYING YOU ARE PROCEEDING
ITH MALICE OR MAL I
BUT I THINK THAT YOU HAVE
CLEARLY STATED ON THE RECORD
THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT WE MUST
ENGAGE IN A DETERMINATION AT
THE CITY COUNCIL ABOUT WHETHER
OR NOT COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT
ENGAGED IN OFFICIAL DUTIES
BEFORE WE GET TO SUBSECTION 3.
AND I AM SAYING THAT THAT IS,
FOR PURPOSES OF THE VIEWING
PUBLIC, THAT IS NOT THE CASE.
SO, I DO NOT WANT TO CREATE AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE
VERY STRONG POLITICAL FEELINGS
ABOUT THE UNRELATED RECALL
PETITION TO FURTHER SORT OF
FUEL THE FIRES THERE, IN TERMS
OF PEOPLE'S POSITIONS BASED ON
THE PROCESS AND THE STEP SEND
THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAVE
BEFORE US.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US
TO BE REALLY CLEAR THAT THAT
DOES NOT INCLUDE AN EVALUATION
OF WHETHER OR NOT COUNCILMEMBER
SWANT WAS ENGAGED IN OFFICIAL
DUTIES.
>> COLLEAGUES.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE BILL?
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN?
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
I WANT TO THANK MY CONSTITUENTS
WHO TOOK THE TIME TO CONTACT ME
IN MY OFFICE WITH THEIR VERY
STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT THIS
ISSUE.
BOTH FOR AND AGAINST IT.
SINCE IT WAS REPORTED WIDELY IN
THE MEDIA OVER THE PAST MONTH.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER 3
REASONS FOR THE VOTE I AM ABOUT
TO TAKE.
NUMBER ONE.
I PASSIONATELY DISAGREE WITH
MANY ACTIONS AND POSITIONS OF
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT . AND SHE
CERTAINLY DISAGREES WITH ME,
TOO.
YET, THE DECISION AND THE
SPECIFICS OF LAW BEFORE US
TODAY ARE NOT ABOUT
DISAGREEMENTS OVER POLITICS OR
PERSONALITY.
DURING THESE TUMULTUOUS TIMES
OF PUBLIC HEALTH PANDEMICS,
ECONOMIC RECESSION, WHEN OUR
PRESIDENT AND WASHINGTON
CHEAPENS OUR DEMOCRACY BY
DEMONIZING HIS OPPONENTS WITH
PERSONAL ATTACKS ON THE
CHARACTER, WE HERE IN SEATTLE
CAN DO A BETTER JOB RESPECTING
OUR DIFFERENCES, FINDING COMMON
GROUND, STAYING FOCUSED ON WHAT
WE WERE ELECTED TO DO.
SO, TODAY'S DECISION IS NOT
ABOUT PERSONALITIES OR
POLITICS, BUT ABOUT THE
PROVISIONS OF THE STATE
GOVERNMENT LAWS, AND THE
RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE
REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON,
SAYING THAT THE ELECTED
OFFICIAL HAS TO MAKE THE
REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE, WHICH
SHE DID.
THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS TO
APPROVE IT, WHICH HE DID
APPROVE IT.
AND THE CITY COUNCIL HAS TO
VOTE ON IT.
THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY.
SO, IN DECIDING THE MOST
PRUDENT PATH, I WOULD NORMALLY
CONSULT A CITY ATTORNEY FOR
ADVICE.
AND IN THIS RARE CASE, THE CITY
ATTORNEY HAS ALREADY INDICATED
HIS APPROVAL.
OUR ELECTED CITY ATTORNEY HAS
APPROVED THIS.
AND HE SUPPORTS HAVING US PAY
FOR THE LEGAL ASSISTANCE AND TO
HAVE HIS OFFICE PROVIDED LEGAL
REPRESENTATION GOING FORWARD.
NUMBER TWO.
WHILE THE SITUATION IS
UNFORTUNATE AND UNUSUAL, IT IS
NOT UNPRECEDENTED.
IN FACT, THERE IS A VERY
COMPELLING PRECEDENT MENTIONED
BY MY COLLEAGUES EARLIER.
2011, JUST ONE YEAR BEFORE HE
JOINED THE CITY COUNCIL AS A
BRIGHT-EYED LEGISLATIVE AIDE,
THE SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED NEARLY
IDENTICAL LEGISLATION TO DO AND
COUNCILMEMBER RICHARD CONLON
AGAINST THE RECOMPOSITION-
PETITION.
COUNCILMEMBER CONLON WAS
ACCUSED OF TAKING UNAUTHORIZED
GOVERNMENT ACTIONS, WHICH
INCLUDED SIGNING IMPORTANT
DOCUMENTS, ETC.
ULTIMATELY, HE WAS CLEARED.
AND IRONICALLY, HE LATER LOST
HIS REELECTION NARROWLY TO
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT WAS
REELECTED LESS THAN A YEAR AGO.
AND FINALLY, NUMBER THREE, THE
LAWS GOVERNING THE RECALL OF
ELECTED OFFICIALS IN WASHINGTON
STATE AS WE DISCUSSED ARE
COMPLEX.
THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE NOT
CRYSTAL-CLEAR.
SUCK ALL THE MORE REASON HAVING
ADEQUATE LEGAL COUNSEL SHOULD
BE AVAILABLE TO A DULY ELECTED
OFFICIAL DEFENDING AGAINST THE
RECALL PETITION, WHETHER OR NOT
THEY CAN AFFORD SUCH LEGAL
ASSISTANCE.
A RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY IN YOUR
DEFENSE, WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN
AFFORD IT.
SO, I REALIZE THIS IS NOT A
POPULAR POSITION IN MY
DISTRICT, AND SUPPORTERS OF MY
WILL BE ASKING ME FOR A LONG
TIME HOW COULD YOU SUPPORT
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT?
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO ASSURE ALL
OF MY CONSTITUENTS, THAT WHAT I
AM ACTUALLY SUPPORTING AND
HONORING ARE THE FACTS AS I
KNOW THEM, THE THOUGHTFUL
APPROVAL OF OUR ELECTED CITY
ATTORNEY, AND THE CRYSTAL-CLEAR
PRECEDENT SET BY A PREVIOUS
CITY COUNCIL, WHICH APPROVED
THE SAME ACCOMMODATION FOR A
PREVIOUS COUNCILMEMBER.
SO, ULTIMATELY, THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE DECIDED
BY VOTERS IN DISTRICT 3 IF THE
RECALL PETITION ADVANCES.
TODAY'S ACTION, IF APPROVED,
WOULD MERELY PROVIDE A MODICUM
OF LEGAL ASSISTANCE TO THE DULY
ELECTED OFFICIAL WHO WAS THE
SUBJECT OF THE RECALL PETITION.
SO, I WILL BE VOTING YES.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN.
FOR THAT, ARE THERE ANY OTHER
COMMENTS ON THE BILL?
HEARING NONE, COLLEAGUES, I
WILL CLOSE OUT DEBATE-JUST
KIDDING.
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS.
PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
I, TOO.
HAVE READ THE RCW S
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ HAD
INTERPRETED IT WITH THE
SUBSECTION 4 BEING RELEVANT TO
OUR CONVERSATION TODAY.
AND, I AM NOT SURE THAT THE
ACTIONS OUR COLLEAGUE TOOK WERE
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HER
OFFICIAL DUTIES.
THAT BEING SAID, HEARING FROM
YOU TODAY REGARDING THE
SUBSECTION 3 IS THE ONLY
SECTION THAT WE NEED TO
ADDRESS.
YOU KNOW, WHAT I WOULD SAY IS
THAT OVER THE COURSE OF THE
LAST FEW MONTHS, THERE HAVE
BEEN, AND I HAVE BEEN THE
RECIPIENT OF, QUITE DIVISIVE
LANGUAGE ETC.
AND THAT IS NOT PERTINENT FOR
HERE.
I WOULD LOVE TO SEE OUR COUNCIL
WORK TOGETHER IN A
COLLABORATIVE WAY.
AND I KNOW THE MAJORITY OF US
DO AND DO SO REGULARLY.
I WON'T BE COMMENTING ON THE
MERITS OF THE RECALL PETITION
TODAY.
AND S COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN
SAID, WE NEED TO HAVE
IMPORTANT LEGAL REPRESENTATION
DURING THIS COURSE OF DUE
PROCESS.
TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS A
JUDICIAL MATTER, RATHER THAN A
LEGISLATIVE MATTER.
AND WITH THE ELECTION HAVING
JUST OCCURRED, THIS IS A VERY
SERIOUS MATTER THAT NEEDS TO
HAVE FULL LEGAL REPRESENTATION.
NOW, I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT WE
CAN'T CONTINUE TO FUND LEGAL
REPRESENTATION FOR BEHAVIOR
THAT IS NOT WITHIN THE BOUNDS
OF OUR ROLES AS ELECTED
OFFICIALS.
SO, IT IS IMPORTANT TO TAKE
THIS ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.
AND, WITH YOUR MAMA PROVIDING
YOUR ANALYSIS FROM THE LAW
DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE ONLY
SECTION WE NEED TO BE ADVISED
ON A SUBSECTION 3, I WILL TAKE
THAT UNDER CONSIDERATION.
THANK YOU COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON
THE MIDDLE?
HEARING ON, I'LL GO AHEAD AND
CLOSE OUT DEBATE BY MAKING SOME
FINAL REMARKS BEFORE I ASKED
THE CLERK TO CALL THE ROLE ON
THIS PARTICULAR BILL.
SO, AGAIN, COLLEAGUES, I
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
HAVE A CONVERSATION HERE, AND
YOU KNOW, WHILE THERE IS NO
SPONSOR AND THIS ORDINANCE DOES
NOT REQUIRE A SPONSOR FOR US TO
CONSIDER IT, I DO TAKE THE ROLE
OF BEING COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERY
SERIOUSLY.
AND, I ASSURE YOU THAT IF ANY
OF YOU FOUND YOURSELF IN THE
SITUATION AND YOU CHOSE TO MAKE
THIS REQUEST FOR
INDEMNIFICATION, I WOULD GIVE
YOU THE SAME DUE CONSIDERATION.
AND, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR
NOT WE HAVE AGREED WITH EACH
OTHER IN THE PAST, AND
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT I
AGREE WITH TACTICS THAT ARE
DEPLOYED BY COUNCILMEMBERS IN
THEIR INDIVIDUAL ROLES AS
INDEPENDENTLY ELECTED
OFFICIALS, I THINK IT IS
IMPORTANT FOR US TO STAY TRUE
TO THE REQUIREMENTS, LEGAL
REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE BEFORE
US.
THERE ARE MANY INSTANCES IN OUR
SOCIETY IN WHICH LEGAL DEFENSE
IS PROVIDED TO INDIVIDUALS THAT
HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF
WRONGDOING.
THOSE ACCUSATIONS RUN THE
GAMUT.
AND WE HAVE, AS A COUNTRY,
ESTABLISH CONSTITUTIONALLY THAT
PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO LEGAL
DEFENSE.
AND IF THEY CANNOT AFFORD A
LEGAL DEFENSE, THEN COUNSEL
WOULD BE PROVIDED TO THEM.
THAT IS COMMONLY KNOWN AS
PUBLIC DEFENSE ACROSS OUR
ENTIRE SYSTEM.
FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO THINK IT
IS EXTRAORDINARY TO USE
TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO PAY FOR
LEGAL DEFENSE, THIS IS NOT A
NOVEL IDEA.
AS WE HAVE A CRIMINAL JUSTICE
SYSTEM BUILT ON THE CONCEPT OF
PROVIDING FREE LEGAL DEFENSE TO
THOSE PEOPLE WHO REQUEST IT,
BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT IN A
POSITION TO PROVIDE THEMSELVES
WITH THEIR OWN LEGAL COUNSEL.
I WAS SAY THAT SUBSECTION 3,
WHICH IS THE ONLY APPLICABLE
SECTION IN THIS CONSIDERATION
IS INHERENTLY STRUCTURED TO BE
MINIMAL.
AS COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD
HIGHLIGHTED, THERE IS NOT A LOT
OF GUIDANCE THERE.
IT IS PRETTY BARE-BONES.
WHICH IS LEGISLATORS MEANS THAT
WE CAN READ INTO THE
LEGISLATIVE INTENT , WHICH
COULD MEANS THAT IT APPLIES OF
THE LEGAL DEFENSE UNDER THE
CONTEXT OF THE RECALL CHARGES
IS SO SIGNIFICANT AND THE
CONSEQUENCES OF A RECALL
CHARGER SO SIGNIFICANT GIVEN
THE GRAVITY OF POTENTIALLY
CANCELING OUT THE WILL OF
THOUSANDS OF VOTERS THAT IN
THOSE INSTANCES, LEGAL DEFENSE
SHOULD BE READILY AVAILABLE, AS
LONG AS THE MINIMAL
REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSECTION 3
HAS BEEN MET, WHICH HAS BEEN
DONE.
I ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT THERE
HAVE BEEN SOME COMMENTS ABOUT
TRYING TO COMPARE THIS
PARTICULAR COUNSEL BILL TO WHAT
MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN TAKEN
ADVANTAGE OF BY MAYOR DURKIN,
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS SPOKE TO
THIS MOMENTARILY.
I DO WANT TO REITERATE THAT
EVERY ELECTED OFFICIAL WITHIN
THE CITY OF SEATTLE, SHOULD
THEY FIND THEMSELVES IN A
SIMILAR SITUATION, DOES HAVE
THE STATUTORY RIGHT TO MAKE
THIS REQUEST.
BUT THAT IS A VOLUNTARY ACT
THAT THE ELECTED OFFICIAL HAS
TO TRIGGER THEMSELVES.
AND, WE ALL MAKE THOSE CHOICES.
PERSONALLY.
AND DID PENDING ON OUR OWN
PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, AND I
AGREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS
HAD MAYOR DURKIN MADE A REQUEST
FOR THIS OR ANY OF YOU MADE A
REQUEST WITH THIS BECAUSE YOU
FOUND YOURSELVES IN THE SAME
SITUATION, I WOULD HAVE GIVEN
AT THE SAME, FAIR AND DUE
CONSIDERATION THAT WE ARE
GIVING THIS BILL TODAY,
REGARDLESS OF ANYTHING ELSE.
SO, WITH THAT BEING SAID, I AM
GOING TO GO AHEAD AND
OFFICIALLY CLOSE OUT DEBATE.
I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL AGAIN
FOR MAKING YOURSELVES AVAILABLE
TODAY.
AND I AM NOW GOING TO ASK THAT
THE CLERK ALL THE ROLE ON THE
PASSAGE OF THE BILL.
>> JUAREZ.
>> NO.
>> LEWIS.
>> YES.
>> MORALES .
>> YES.
>> MOSQUEDA.
>> YES.
>> PEDERSEN.
>> YES.
>> STRAUSS .
>> YES.
>> HERBOLD.
>> YES.
>> RESIDENT GONZALEZ.
>> YES.
>> 7 IN FAVOR.
1 OPPOSE.
>> THANK YOU MADAM CLERK THE
BILL PASSES IN THE CHAIR WILL
SIGN IT.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE AFFIX MY
SIGNATURE TO THE LEGISLATION ON
MY BEHALF.
COLLEAGUES, THIS DOES CONCLUDE
THE ITEM OF BUSINESS ON TODAY'S
AGENDA.
OUR NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED
CITY COUNCIL MEETING IS ON
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2020 AT
2:00 P.M..
ONCE AGAIN, THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR MAKING YOURSELVES AVAILABLE
FOR THE LAST 43 MINUTES.
I HOPE THAT YOU ALL HAVE A
WONDERFUL AFTERNOON.
WE ARE ADJOURNED.
>> THANK YOU.