ARE WE ROLLING?
>> WE ARE RECORDING.
THANK YOU.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
JANUARY 12, 2021 MEETING OF THE
PUBLIC SAFETY AND HUMAN
úSERVICES COMMITTEE WILL COME T
ORDER.
IT IS 9:30 1 AM.
I AM LISA HERBOLD.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL?
>> COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS?
>> PRESENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MORALES?
>> HERE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT?
>> HERE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD?
>> HERE.
>> AND COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ
WILL BE JOINING US SHORTLY.
>> THANK YOU, ALEX.
ON TODAY'S AGENDA, WE WILL BE
HEARING SIX APPOINTMENTS TO THE
COMMUNITY POLICE COMMITMENT .
THE APPOINTMENT OF CURRY MAYER
TO THE OFFICE OF COMMUNITY
MANAGEMENT.
THEN WE'LL HAVE A DISCUSSION
CONCERNING OPTIONS TO AMEND THE
CROWD CONTROL WEAPONS ORDINANCE
DEVELOPED BY, WITH OPTIONS
DEVELOPED AND PROPOSED BY OUR
POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY PARTNERS.
WITH THAT, WE WILL APPROVE OUR
AGENDA FOR OUR COMMITTEE
MEETING.
IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION,
TODAY'S AGENDA WILL BE ADOPTED.
HEARING NO OBJECTION, TODAY'S
AGENDA IS ADOPTED.
AT THIS TIME, WE WILL
TRANSITION INTO PUBLIC COMMENT.
I WILL MODERATE PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER.
EACH SPEAKER WILL BE GIVEN TWO
MINUTES TO SPEAK.
I WILL CALL ON EACH SPEAKER BY
NAME. I WILL CALL ON THEM IN
THE ORDER IN WHICH THEY
REGISTERED ON THE WEBSITE. IF
YOU HAVE NOT YET REGISTERED TO
SPEAK, BUT WOULD LIKE TO DO SO,
YOU CAN SIGN UP BEFORE THE END
OF THE PUBLIC HEARING BY GOING
TO THE COUNCIL'S WEBSITE.
THE LINK IS ALSO LISTED ON
TODAY'S AGENDA.
WHEN I CALLED THE NAME OF THE
SPEAKER, YOU WILL HEAR A
PROMPT.
ONCE YOU HAVE HEARD THAT
PROMPT, YOU WILL NEED TO PRESS
á6 TO UNMUTE YOURSELF.
PLEASE BEGIN BY STATING YOUR
NAME AND THE ITEM WHICH YOU ARE
ADDRESSING.
THE ITEM ON THE AGENDA THAT YOU
ARE ADDRESSING.
FIRST, WE WILL HEAR A TIME WHEN
10 SECONDS ARE LEFT OF THE
ALLOTTED TIME.
ONCE THE SPEAKER HEARS THAT
SHINE, WE ASK THAT YOU BEGIN TO
WRAP UP YOUR PUBLIC COMMENTS.
SPEAKERS DO NOT END THEIR
COMMENTS IN THE TIME PROVIDED,
THE MICROPHONE WILL BE MUTED
AFTER 10 SECONDSIN ORDER TO
ALLOW US TO HEAR FROM THE NEXT
SPEAKER.
ONCE YOU HAVE COMPLETED YOUR
PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE
DISCONNECT FROM THE LINE.
IF YOU PLAN TO CONTINUE
FOLLOWING THE MEETING, PLEASE
DO SO THROUGH THE SEATTLE
CHANNEL OR THE LISTENING
OPTIONS THAT ARE LISTED ON THE
AGENDA.
PUBLIC COMMENT IS FOR ABOUT 20
MINUTES.
WE ARE ALWAYS OPEN TO INCLUDING
MORE TIME ASSUMING OUR AGENDA
ALLOWS IT.
I JUST WANT TO KNOW TO OUR
CLERKS, I HAVE NOT RECEIVED IT
PUBLIC COMMENT SIGN-UP SHEET.
ALEX?
>> COUNCIL MEMBER, I JUST SENT
THE LIST OVER TO YOU THROUGH
EMAIL.
>> THERE IT IS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE HAVE 20 PEOPLE SIGNED UP FOR
PUBLIC COMMENT HERE, BUT NOT
EVERYONE IS PRESENT.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS, WE
WILL CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT WE
WILL ADD MORE TIME DEPENDENT ON
HOW WE GET THROUGH THIS CURRENT
LIST.
BUT I AM GOING TO START BY
CALLING THE FIRST TWO NAMES ON
THE LIST.
THAT WOULD BE HOWARD GAIL
FOLLOWED BY -- YES.
HOWARD?
>> GOOD MORNING.
I AM COMMENTING ON POLICE ABUSE
AND ACCOUNTABILITY.
SEATTLE OFFICR MIKE SO LONG,
HE HAD HAD -- THE HEAD OF
SEATTLE POLICE UNION IS BLAMING
BLACK LIVES MATTER FOR LAST
WEEK'S INSURRECTION IN D.C. HE
RAN A CAMPAIGN FOR UNION
PRESIDENT LAST YEAR WHERE HE
PROMISED TO GET SERIOUS WITH
PROTESTERS.
LAST YEAR, WE HAVE SEEN
OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF THE
FAILURE OF POLICE REFORM AND
WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE WHEN POLICE
FOLLOW HIS CALL TO GET SERIOUS.
THE EGREGIOUS AND HATEFUL ABUSE
OF PROTESTERS INCLUDING HURTING
PEOPLE WITH GLASS BALLS AND
PUNCHES, KNEELING OVER THE NEXT
OF PEOPLE, HAVING OVER DOZEN
OFFICERS BE UNMOVED TO THE PAIN
OF AN ILLEGALLY RESTED WOMAN
WHILE SHE LIES ON THE PAVEMENT,
HAVING REPEATED SEIZURES IN
OTHER CASES OF ABUSE.
WITH ALL THIS EVIDENCE OF THE
NEAR DECADE-LONG FAILURE OF THE
POLICE TRAINING POLICY, THIS
TALKS ABOUT WHAT WEAPONS OUT OF
CONTROL OFFICERS SHOULD ASSAULT
US WHAT.
OF COURSE, YOU NEED TO TAKE
AWAY ALL THE TOOLS THAT THEY
HAVEN'T USED TO ASSAULT THOSE
THEY HAVE SWORN TO PROTECT AND
SERVE, BUT INSTEAD THEY HAVE
SHATTERED.
YOU NEED TO UPHOLD THE BAND
THAT YOU VOTE FOR A FEW MONTHS
AGO.
THEY STILL HAVE THEIR CARS AND
THE BUSINESS AND KNEES AND
BIKES TO ASSAULT US WITH, WHICH
THEY HAVE DONE.
WE NEED TO LEARN TO HOLD POLICE
TO ACCOUNT.
WE NEED CIVILIAN POLICE
OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY.
FOR MYSELF, I HAVE BEEN
ASSAULTED WITH GLASS BALLS AND
I HAVE BEEN ASSAULTED WITH
CLUBS.
FOR SOMEONE WHO SUFFERS A
NEUROLOGICAL BRAIN INJURY, IT
REALLY DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER
IT WAS A GLASS BALL.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER, YOU ARE
MUTED.
>> THANK YOU, ALEX.
WE HAVE POLLY FOLLOWED BY KATE
RUBIN.
POLY?
>> HELLO, CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> YES, THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
MY NAME IS POLLY AND I AM A
POLICE ACCOUNT ABILITY ACTIVIST
AND RESIDENT OF SEATTLE.
I GATHERED SIGNATURES FOR
INITIATIVE 940, CAMPAIGN FOR
ITS PASSAGE, AND FORWARDED
COMMUNITY INTERESTS DURING THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAWN
2019.
I STILL WORK EVERY DAY WITH THE
FAMILIES OF THE VICTIMS OF
POLICE VIOLENCE, WHERE MY
FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES. AS WE
SPEAK, THEY ARE FORWARDING
THEIR AGENDA FOR RACIAL JUSTICE
AT THE STATE LEGISLATURE IN
OLYMPIA.
I AM PART OF THE GREAT TEAM
THAT HAS DRAFTED OPPOSED
LEGISLATION TO RADICALLY CHANGE
THE LEGAL LANDSCAPE OF POLICE
ACCOUNTABILITY AND THE STATE.
I SINCERELY THANK AND ADMIRE
ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE MOVEMENT
IN SEATTLE FIGHTING FOR TRUE
POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY.
I VEHEMENTLY OPPOSE THE CITY
COUNCIL WATERING DOWN OR
REPEALING THE BAN ON TEAR GAS,
GLASS BALLS, CHEMICAL WEAPONS,
AND ALL THE WEAPONS OF WAR THAT
THEY UNLEASHED ON THE PUBLIC
THIS PAST SUMMER.
THE INTENTION OF COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD AND OTHER POLICE
APOLOGISTS IS TO CREATE A SWISS
CHEESE LAW WHERE THE EXCEPTION
TO THE LAW EFFECTIVELY
REINSTATES THE ABILITY OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT TO TERRORIZE OUR
COMMUNITIES WITH WEAPONS OF
WAR.
I WELCOME THE VOTES OF
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD,
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA, AND
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ, WHO
PROVED TO ELIMINATE, ALLOWING
POLICE OFFICERS TO ACT WITH
IMPUNITY AND VOTING THEIR
OPPOSITION TO BLACK LIVES.
MARK MY WORDS, IF THEY VOTE TO
REPEAL THESE BANDS, PICTURES OF
ALL THOSE INJURED BY THESE
WEAPONS WILL BE DISTRIBUTED AT
THEIR CAMPAIGN EVENTS.
THEY WILL HAVE TO ANSWER WHY
THEY BELIEVE SEATTLE POLICE IS
TRUSTWORTHY ENOUGH TO POSSESS
AND USE THESE WEAPONS AFTER
THEIR A PORT BEHAVIOR THIS PAST
SUMMER.
THE SMALL CHILD WAS MACED, THE
TEAR GAS WHICH WAS SO ABUSED
AND CAUSED BABIES TO FOAM FROM
THEIR MOUTHS IN THE CRIBS.
COUNCILMEMBERS WILL HAVE ANSWER
THE ABOUT.
I WELCOME THE CLARITY THAT THEY
WILL PROVIDE.
GOOD DAY.
>> HELLO.
NEXT SPEAKER, KATE?
DO WE HAVE KATE RUBIN WITH US?
>> GOOD MORNING, YES.
THIS IS KATE RUBIN.
I AM A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT 2
AND I AM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
OF THIS.
I AM CALLING IN SUPPORT OF THE
POVERTY DEFENSE BILL INTRODUCED
BY COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
CRIMINALIZING POVERTY IS NOT
HELPING ANYONE.
IT JUST UPHOLDS OUR RACIST
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.
IT IS WELL DOCUMENTED THAT
BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE OF COLOR
STATISTICALLY RECEIVE HARSHER
SENTENCES FOR COMMITTING THE
SAME CRIMES AS THEIR WHITE
COUNTERPARTS.
THEY ARE ALSO MORE LIKELY TO
LIVE BELOW THE POVERTY LINE.
POVERTY DEFENSE IS AN ESSENTIAL
PART OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
REFORM.
I HEARD A LOT OF SCREAMING
AROUND THIS, BUT THERE WILL BE
A SURGEON THEFT AND PROPERTY
CRIMES.
THE IDEA THAT THE ONLY THING
PREVENTING THESE THINGS FROM
HAPPENING IS FEAR PROSECUTION
IS LUDICROUS.
DESPERATE PEOPLE ARE ALREADY
DOING DESPERATE THINGS IN ORDER
TO GET THEIR BEST NEEDS MET.
LIMPING MALICIOUS CRIMINALS
WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE JUST TRYING
TO SURVIVE MAKES IT MORE
DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE TO GREAT
--.
THE POVERTY CYCLE.
THIS MAKES IT HARDER TO GET A
JOB.
IT IS NOT HELPING ANYONE.
IT IS NOT HELPING THE
BUSINESSES, AND I THINK IT IS
IMPORTANT THAT WE MOVE FORWARD
WITH THIS CHOICE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, KATE.
FOR THE PUBLIC TO, BECAUSE I
IMAGINE THERE MAY BE MANY
PEOPLE WHO ARE SCOURING THE
COUNCIL INTRODUCTION AND
REFERRAL CALENDAR AFTER KATE'S
TESTIMONY, BUT THERE HAS NOT
BEEN LEGISLATION INTRODUCED YET
AT THIS TIME.
NEXT SPEAKER IS CASTILLE
HIGHTOWER FOLLOWED BY KAREN
TAYLOR.
>> HELLO.
MY BROTHER WAS KILLED BY
SEATTLE POLICE IN 2004 WHEN HE
WAS EXPERIENCING A MENTAL
HEALTH CRISIS.
MY FAMILY HAS NOT GONE JUSTICE.
THE BLACK LIVES MATTER
MOVEMENT, ONE OF THE FIRST IN
THE NATION, BAND SO-CALLED
CROWD CONTROL WEAPONS LESS,
DURING THE HEIGHT OF THE
PROTEST.
COUNCILMEMBERS BROUGHT THIS
FORWARD IN SOLIDARITY WITH THE
BLACK LIVES MATTER STREET
PROTESTS.
WE WANT TO UNANIMOUS VOTE
BECAUSE OUR MOVE AND FOUGHT FOR
IT.
WE ACTIVISTS REMEMBER HOW OVER
200 PEOPLE CALLED IN TO FIGHT
FOR THAT STRONG BAND.
BLACK LIVES MATTER PLAZA
PROTESTERS WERE TO ATTACKED BY
SEATTLE POLICE, SHOWERED WITH
TEAR GAS, PEPPER SPRAY, GLASS
BALLS, AND OTHER MILITARY GRADE
WEAPONS. IN CONTRAST, LESS THAN
A WEEK AGO, WE SAW POLICE IN
WASHINGTON, D.C. CODDLING A
VIOLENT FAR RIGHT MOB AS THEY
TOOK OVER THE CAPITOL BUILDING
INA BLATANT ATTEMPT TO OVERTURN
AN ELECTION RESULT.
WE HAVE SEEN OVER AND OVER AND
OVER THAT THESE ELECTION, THESE
POLICE VIRUS -- VIOLENCE IS
RESERVED FOR LEFT WING ACTIONS.
I URGE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO DO
THE RIGHT THING, TO UPHOLD YOUR
OWN VOTE FOR LAST JUNE.
REJECT ANY WATERING DOWN OF
THIS BAN.
THANK YOU.
>> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS KAREN.
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> YES, WE CAN.
>> MY NAME IS KAREN TAYLOR AND
I'M CALLING IN ABOUT THE
CHEMICAL WEAPONS BAN. I WANT TO
CALL IN JUST TO LET YOU KNOW IT
IS NOT JUST PEOPLE WHO HAVE
BEEN VERY PERSONALLY EFFECTIVE
OR SORT OF EXTREME SOCIALISTS
OR SOMETHING.
WE WANT THIS BILL UPHELD.
I AM AN ORDINARY CITIZEN.
I AM ON DISABILITY, SO I HAVE
TIME TO COME TESTIFY.
I AM NOT REPRESENTING ANY
PARTICULAR GROUP.
I HAVE A SMALL GROUP OF FRIENDS
AND ACQUAINTANCES WHOM I KNOW I
AM REPRESENTING RIGHT NOW.
WE HAVE NOT FORGOTTEN THAT
VIOLENCE.
WE HAVE TO HAVE PEOPLE WITH
THESE MARCHES ALL THE TIME
BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT VIOLENCE
CAN HAPPEN.
NO ONE IS ASSURED THAT IT WON'T
HAPPEN.
PEOPLE I LOVE ARE SPENDING
THEIR TIME OUT IN THE COLD
HIKING, BIKING, AND WE NEED TO
DO YOUR PART IN YOUR WARM HOMES
TO KEEP CHEMICAL WEAPONS OUT OF
THE HANDS OF POLICE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> NEXT ON THE LIST IS KURT
SORENSEN.
ARE YOU WITH US?
>> MY NAME IS KURT SORENSEN AND
I HAVE AN ADVANCED DEGREE IN
REHABILITATION AND A DECADE OF
EXPERIENCE IN GETTING
MARGINALIZED PEOPLE BACK TO
WORK.
PLEASE REJECT ANY PROPOSAL BY
GONZALEZ OR COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT.
THEIR STATED GOAL IS TO DESTROY
CAPITALISM, TO DISSOLVE THE
PRIVATE SYSTEM AND REMOVE
PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF HOUSING.
TO ANY REVOLUTION HIS NOSE, TO
CONTAIN AND RETAIN POWER SHIP
AND CONTROL, YOU MUST FIRST
INDUCE CHAOS BY REMOVING LAW
AND ORDER AND IMPEDING THE FLOW
OF INCOME TO INDIVIDUALS.
MANY OF YOU ON THE COUNCIL HAVE
DENOUNCED THE FAITH OF YOUR
PARENTS AND LIVE WITHOUT A
SPIRITUAL BAROMETER.
PLEASE KNOW THAT ALL ANCIENT
SCRIPTURES, THE QURAN, THE
BIBLE, THE TOROK, EVEN THE
WRITINGS OF HINDI'S DENOUNCED
STEALING AND THE DESTRUCTION OF
OTHER PROPERTY IN ORDER TO KEEP
AN ORDERLY SOCIETY.
ALLOWING CRIME IS ENCOURAGING
CRIME.
PLEASE DON'T BETRAY THE SMALL
BUSINESSES OF SEATTLE.
THERE IS AN INTENT TO USE
MINORITIES AND IMMIGRANTS AS
PAWNS IN A POLITICAL MOVEMENT.
SHE GREW UP WITH SERVANTS.
SHE KNOWS HOW IT WORKS.
SHE IS FROM AN ELITIST FAMILY.
DISCRIMINATING, DECRIMINALIZING
THEFT AND BURGLARY, ASSAULT,
DRUG DEALING IS NOT A COURSE TO
HELP ANYONE.
DISMISSING THE INTERESTS AND
CONCERNS OF OUR SMALL
BUSINESSES AND NOT ADDRESSING
TESTED PROGRAMS IS NOT
FULFILLING YOUR OBLIGATIONS.
WE HAVE THE MONEY IN THE CITY.
MARTIN LUTHER KING ASKED US TO
PUT THIS IN AND FOCUS ON THE
CHARACTER OF PEOPLE, NOT THEIR
RACE OR COLOR.
>> THE NEXT SPEAKER, MADISON
FITZPATRICK, IS NOT LISTED AS
BEING PRESENT.
SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO VALERIE
ULRICH.
VALERIE?
>> HELLO.
I LIVE IN DEACON HILL.
I HOPE YOU ALL FOLLOWED CITIZEN
JOURNALISTS THIS SUMMER AND DID
NOT JUST RELYING CORPORATE NEWS
MEDIA.
IF SO, YOU WILL HAVE SEEN THAT
SBD APPROACHED THE BLACK LIVES
MATTER FREE SPEECH PROTEST WITH
BELLIGERENCE, ESCALATION, AND
MILITARY WEAPONS AND BEYOND
MILITARY GRADE WEAPONS LIKE
TEAR GAS.
ALTHOUGH THAT POLICING WAS
REPEATEDLY RECORDED AND MANY
INCIDENTS THAT SERIOUSLY HARMED
NONVIOLENT PROTESTERS, THERE
HAS BEEN NO REAL ACCOUNTABILITY
TO DATE.
GIVEN OUR CURRENT SYSTEM, THERE
MAY NOT BE.
THEY INJURED PEOPLE FROM
HEARING DAMAGE TO BLINDNESS.
ANYONE WHO THINKS POLICE SHOULD
USE THESE ON THE SEATTLE
POPULACE HAS A TWISTED VIEW OF
HOW HUMAN NATURE AND BEHAVIOR
WORK.
IT IS THE JOB OF ELECTED
REPRESENTATIVES IN A DEMOCRACY
TO ENABLE A SAFE SOCIETY
THROUGH SOCIAL JUSTICE AND
MUTUAL COOPERATION, NOT TO
CONTROL OPPRESSION AND POLICE
VIOLENCE.
THE LEGISLATION BANNING CROWD
CONTROL WEAPONS LIKE GLASS
BALLS AND TEAR GAS SHOULD BE
DEFENDED AND WRITTEN WITHOUT
LOOPHOLES.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS PETER
TOLEDO.
PETER?
>> GOOD MORNING.
HELLO.
I AM A SCIENTIST AND I REPRESENT
DISTRICT 4. I LIKE TO SPEAK
AGAINST WATERING DOWN OR
REPEALING A BAN ON THE USE OF
TEAR GAS, CHEMICAL WEAPONS,
FLASHBANGS, AND OTHER SO-CALLED
CROWD CONTROL WEAPONS.
I ENCOURAGE YOU TO FIGHT
LIFTING THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE
THING THIS BAN WITHOUT
INTRODUCING LOOPHOLES.
THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS TO
EXERCISE THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT
RIGHTS WAS GROSSLY VIOLATED
THIS SUMMER WITH THE REPEATED,
UNWARRANTED USE OF WEAPONS
INTENTIONALLY ASSAULTING AND
INJURING WAS SENTENCE.
-- INJURING RESIDENTS.
A SMALL GIRL GOT MACED IN THE
FACE.
SOMEONE GOT TACKLED AND
RECEIVED PHYSICAL FRACTURE
WHILE SHE WAS BEING ARRESTED
FOR A MISDEMEANOR.
THIS AFFECTS INDIVIDUALS AS
WELL AS THE ENTIRE CAPITOL HILL
NEIGHBORHOOD AS GAS WAFTED UP
INTO APARTMENTS, REQUIRE PEOPLE
TO EVACUATE THE SAFETY OF THEIR
HOMES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE.
I URGE YOU TO FIGHT FOR THE
STRONGEST POSSIBLE BAN ON
POLICE WEPONS.
IF OFFICERS ARE TOO AFRAID TO
WORK WITH THESE REASONABLE
RESTRICTIONS, THEY CAN ALWAYS
QUIT.
I HAVE FULL FAITH IN MY
COMMUNITY TO PROVIDE FOR PUBLIC
SAFETY NONVIOLENTLY THROUGH
WELL-FUNDED EDUCATION,
AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMS, STUDENT
HOUSING PROGRAMS, PEDESTRIAN
ONLY ZONES, AND OTHER
INITIATIVES.
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING.
BLACK LIVES MATTER.
>> THANK YOU.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER, WHO IS
LISTED, IS MICHAEL.
GO AHEAD.
MICHAEL, I THINK YOU ARE STILL
ON MUTE.
YOU WANT TO HIT á6.
THERE YOU GO.
>> MY NAME IS MICHAEL AND I AM
A RENTER IN DISTRICT 3. I HAD
TEAR GAS INTO MY APARTMENT
THROUGH OPEN WINDOWS THIS
SUMMER AFTER BEING DEPLOYED BY
SBD DURING APE PEACEFUL
DEMONSTRATION.
PLEASE DO NOT WATER DOWN A
REPEAL THE BAN. EYESIGHT
RESTRICTIONS PLACED BY THE
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT RATHER THAN
UPLIFTING ALL THE OTHER.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER, WHO IS LISTED
AS PRESENT, IS ERIC SALINGER,
SO GO AHEAD.
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> YEAH, I CAN.
>> GREAT.
MY NAME IS ERIC SALINGER FROM
DISTRICT 7. I AM CALLING
BASICALLY TO SUPPORT THE CRAWL
CONTROL WEAPONS BAN. MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT BLANKET
BANNING OF CROWD CONTROL
WEAPONS MAY NOT BE SUSTAINABLE.
I WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE YOU
TO DO AS MUCH AS YOU CAN TO
KEEP THOSE BANS IN PLACE.
I THINK THERE ARE COUPLE OF
OTHER AREAS THAT WE NEED TO
FOCUS ON.
NUMBER ONE, THERE IS A
REASONABLE STANDARD FOR USING
CRAWL CONTROL WEAPONS.
THAT STANDARD NEEDS TO NOT BE A
REASONABLE POLICE OFFICER,
BECAUSE REASONABLE POLICE
OFFICERS IN THE CITY HAVE GONE
TO WASHINGTON, D.C. TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE INSURRECTION
AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
IT NEEDS TO BE AN AVERAGE
CITIZEN OF SEATTLE.
THIS IS A PROBLEM WITH A LOT OF
LAWS AROUND THE POLICE IN
GENERAL.
THEY USE THIS REASONABLE
OFFICER STANDARD AND POLICE ARE
NOT REASONABLE.
THE SECOND ISSUE THAT WE NEED
TO ADDRESS IS THE USE OF BIKES
BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF CASES,
2019 0880 BEING ONE OF THEM,
WHERE A POLICE OFFICER RIDES
HIS BIKE INTO SOMEBODY, WHICH
WOULD BE AN ASSAULT IF I DID
IT.
THEN THEY USE THAT CONTACT AND
THAT PERSONS LAUGH OF IMMEDIATE
DEFERENCE AND SUBMISSION TO
JUSTIFY ARRESTING AND DEPLOYING
ADDITIONAL FORCE AGAINST THAT
INDIVIDUAL.
POLICE HAVE DONE THIS TO
PROTESTERS.
POLICE HAVE DONE THIS TO
SOMEBODY WHO IS NOT EVEN
INVOLVED IN THE DEMONSTRATION.
THEY ALSO SLAMMED ANOTHER WOMAN
UP AGAINST A BUILDING IN THE
PROCESS OF DOING THAT.
THEY DID NOT ARREST HER BECAUSE
SHE SAID I AM SORRY TO THE
OFFICER WHO HIT HER WITH A
BIKE.
WE SAW A POLICE OFFICER WHO HAS
NOT BEEN FIRED RIGHT HIS BIKE
OVER THE HEAD OF A PROTESTER.
I THINK THAT WE DO HAVE, AND I
KNOW THERE HAVE BEEN SOME
RECOMMENDATIONS AROUND THOSE
KINDS OF USES OF FORCE, BUT
THEY NEED TO BE MORE HEAVILY
CODIFIED.
LASTLY, WELL I THINK I'M OUT OF
TIME, SO I MAY JUST EMAIL YOU
THE LAST PART.
I JUST THINK WE REALLY NEED TO
KEEP THESE BANS UP AND KEEP
PUSHING ON THE POLICE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, ERIC.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER?
>> I AM ASHLEY.
I AM A LOCAL SEATTLE ACTIVIST.
I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN
PROTESTS.
A LOT OF THE VIOLENCE, MYSELF
AND -- WE HAD IN AN ASSAULT ON
JULY 25.
I STILL HAVE PHYSICAL THERAPY.
I STILL HAVE NIGHTMARES.
[ NO AUDIO ] WE NEED A BAN ON
CRAWL CONTROL WEAPONS, MILITARY
WEAPONS, AND THE PEOPLE CALLING
IN AGAINST IT, THOSE OF THE
SAME PEOPLE WHO PROBABLY WOULD
STORM THE CAPITAL.
I WANT COUNSELL TO START TAKING
THIS SERIOUSLY.
OUR TRAUMA IS REAL.
THERE IS REAL SUFFERING.
WE NEED A FULL BAN ON CRAWL
CONTROL WEAPONS.
POLICE SHOULD NOT BE THROWING
FLASHBANGS AT OUR HEADS.
THEY SHOULD NOT BE GASSING US.
THEY SHOULD NOT BE PEPPER SPRAY
AND PEOPLE LIKE ME SO THEY GO
TO THE HOSPITAL.
NONE OF THIS SHOULD BE
HAPPENING.
I ALSO HAVE A STRONG CRITIQUE
OF WHY COUNSEL IS ACTING
SURPRISED AND WHY MIKE SOLAN'S
BEHAVIOR NOW IS INADMISSIBLE
WHEN HE HAS BEEN ACTING LIKE
THIS THE WHOLE TIME.
MIKE SOLAN AND CARMEN BEST HAVE
BEEN LYING ABOUT BLM ACTIVISTS
SINCE MAY, PUTTING US IN DANGER
OF CAR SUPREMACISTS -- WHITE
SUPREMACISTS.
REMEMBER WHEN THEY CALLED AN
UNLIT CANDLE AN IED AND THAT
WAS BLASTED ALL OVER, THAT WE
WERE HAVING EXPLOSIVES?
IT WAS A MEMORIAL CANDLE.
YOU REMEMBER WHEN MIKE SOLAN
BLASTED STABLE HOLES COWBOY
WHILE THEY BLESSED US WITH JOY?
REMEMBER WHEN THEY SAID WE
EXTORTED BUSINESSES THAT GUN
POINT, WHICH IS ALSO PROVEN
FALSE?
THESE LIES ARE NOT DUE.
THIS BEHAVIOR IS NOT NEW.
MIKE SOLAN HAS BEEN TRYING TO
DO THIS ALL ALONG, TELLING ALL
THESE LIES.
WE HAVE BEEN ATTACKED ALL
ALONG.
IT ONLY SEEMS THAT COUNSEL
CARES NOW THAT WHITE
SUPREMACISTS ARE ATTACKING
POLITICIANS.
THANK YOU.
WE ARE AT THE 20 MINUTE MARK.
I SEE A FEW PEOPLE WHO ARE
MARKED AS NOT PRESENT HAVING
RETURNED TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT
LOBBY.
IF THERE ARE NO OBJECTIONS, I
WOULD LIKE TO EXPAND OUR AGENDA
TO ALLOW FOR ANOTHER 10 MINUTES
OF PUBLIC COMMENT.
HEARING NO OBJECTIONS, THE IN
AGENDA IS AMENDED.
WE WILL MOVE ON TO HEAR FROM
JEFFERY FERNANDEZ FOLLOWED BY
AURORA MULHOLLAND.
>> GOOD MORNING.
I AM THE FATHER OF TWO YOUNG
CHILDREN, DISTRICT 5, AND I
WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO SPD
ATTACKING CIVILIANS.
DEAR COUNCIL MEMBERS, PLEASE
REMEMBER WE HOLD YOU
ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE VIOLENCE
SPD INFLICTS ON OUR COMMUNITY.
YOU CAN MAKE THE POLICE FRIENDS
INSTEAD OF THE RACIST AND
VIOLENT ENEMIES THEY HAVE
BECOME AND YOU HAVE ENABLED.
THEY RIDE BIKES OVER OUR
SCHOOLS, BEAT US WHILE WE ARE
HANDCUFFED, DRESS AND ACT LIKE
A FOR MILITARY, AND ATTACK US
WITH CRAWL CONTROL WEAPONS.
ONLY YOU CAN STOP THIS.
IT WOULD BE CRIMINALLY
NEGLIGENT FOR YOU TO WEAKEN THE
CHEMICAL WEAPONS BAN FASCIST
LEANING, RIGHT WING LEANING SPD
ONLY TERRORIZE THE PUBLIC WHEN
USING THESE WEAPONS AGAINST
PROTESTERS.
YOU MUST MAKE THE SPD
ACCOUNTABLE TO CIVILIAN RULE.
NO MORE INDEPENDENCE, NO MORE
ABOVE THE LAW NONSENSE, THE
WERE LICENSED TO HARMING KILL
CITIZENS, NO MORE CORRUPT OPAE
INVESTIGATIONS.
YOU MUST CREATE A CITIZEN LED
OPA WITHOUT ANY POLICE
COLLABORATORS CORRUPTING THE
PROCESS OF JUSTICE.
OPA IS LOADED WITH STONEWALLING
ADVOCATES WHO PREVENT JUSTICE
AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY.
OPA IS A FARCE AS IT CURRENTLY
EXISTS.
GET RID OF MIKE SOLAN.
HE IS A TOXIC FASCIST.
AND PLEASE UPHOLD THE BAN,
EXPANDED. DO NOT WEAKEN IT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS AURORA
FOLLOWED BY HANNAH.
>> GOOD MORNING.
CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> WE CAN.
>> GOOD MORNING, COUNCIL
MEMBERS.
I AM A MEMBER OF DISTRICT 7. I
AM CALLING BECAUSE I AM VERY
CONCERNED ABOUT US REPEALING A
BAN ON WEAPONS OF WARFARE.
THESE AGENTS NOT ONLY AFFECT
THE PEACEFUL PROTESTERS WHO ARE
EXERCISING THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS, BUT IT ALSO AFFECTS THE
NEIGHBORHOOD IN WHICH THESE
WEAPONS ARE DEPLOYED.
THERE ARE CHILDREN LIVING HERE.
THERE ARE PETS LIVING IN THESE
APARTMENTS THAT ARE AFFECTED BY
THIS TEAR GAS, BY THESE GLASS
BOMBS.
IT IS TRAUMATIZING TO THESE
PEOPLE IN THESE NEIGHBORHOODS.
IT IS ALSO STRANGE TO ME THAT
IN ORDER TO GET A FEDERAL
CONSENT DECREE LIFTED, WHICH
ADDRESSED THE USE OF EXCESSIVE
FORCE BY THE SPD, WE ARE TRYING
TO REPEAL A BAN WHICH ALLOWS
THE USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE.
SORRY, IT IS VERY FRUSTRATING
TO HAVE TO EXPLAIN ALL THIS.
THESE ARE LETHAL WEAPONS AND
LESS THAN LETHAL WEAPONS, SO
I'M VERY FRUSTRATED.
I FEEL WE NEED TO REIMAGINE HOW
WE HANDLE CONCERNS THAT THE
COMMUNITY IS TRYING TO GIVE
THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS.
PROTESTS ARE CONCERNS.
THE WORKING CLASS PEOPLE,
EVERYDAY PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO
EXPLAIN TO YOU THAT THIS IS HOW
WE FEEL ABOUT THINGS.
WE NEED YOU TO LISTEN TO US.
WE NEED TO HANDLE THINGS IN A
MORE HUMANE MANNER.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU.
OUR LAST SPEAKER IS HANNAH.
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> YES, WE CAN.
THANK YOU.
>> GREAT.
I AM A MEMBER OF DISTRICT 1,
COMMENTING ON UPHOLDING THE BAN
ON CHEMICAL AND LESS LETHAL
WEAPONS.
THIS PAST SUMMER, WITH ALL THE
BLM PROTESTS AND THE SYSTEMIC
RACISM, I WAS AT HOME WATCHING
NEWS OF KIDS YOUNGER THAN ME
BEING MACED IN THE EYE,
PROTESTERS BLINDED WITH RUBBER
BULLETS, AND IT LOOKS LIKE
HUNGER GAMES, HONESTLY.
IT WAS CRAZY.
IT WAS REALLY CRAZY.
I WAS SCARED TO GO TO PROTESTS
BECAUSE A LOT OF THEM WERE
PEACEFUL AND STILL THE CHEMICAL
WEAPONS WOULD GET BROKEN OUT.
I DO NOT THINK THIS IS OKAY.
A LOT OF THESE WEAPONS THAT ARE
USED DEFINITELY DO NEED TO BE
RESERVED FOR -- SEEM TO BE
RESERVED FOR LEFT WING AND
BLACK LIVES MATTER PLAZA'S.
AS WE SAW LAST WEEK WHEN WHITE
NATIONALISTS STAGED AN
ATEMPTED COUP ON THE WHOLE OF
CONGRESS AND WERE FOR THE MOST
PART ESCORTED OUT PEACEFULLY
WHILE TEAR GAS, WHICH IS A
SUBSTANCE ACTUALLY BANNED BY THE
GENEVA CONVENTION, IT IS BANNED
FROM WARFARE.
IT SHOULD NOT BE USED ON
PEACEFUL PROTESTS.
PLEASE UPHOLD THIS BAN.
THANK YOU.
>> I BELIEVE THAT CONCLUDES
PUBLIC COMMENT.
THANK YOU TO EVERYBODY FOR
BEING WITH US TODAY.
WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE INTO
THE BUSINESS ITEMS ON OUR
AGENDA.
BEFORE WE DO THAT, I WANT TO
GIVE A QUICK REPORT ON A PIECE
OF LEGISLATION THAT WE EXPECTED
TO BEGIN DISCUSSION OF TODAY IN
TODAY'S MEETING.
THAT IS THE CARRYOVER BUDGET
LEGISLATION RELATED TO
ADDITIONAL CUTS TO THE SEATTLE
POLICE DEPARTMENT IN ORDER TO
ADDRESS THE ADDITIONAL 2020
OVERTIME EXPENDITURE.
WE ARE NOT HEARING THAT BILL IN
THIS MEETING AS ORIGINALLY
PLANNED.
WE ARE WAITING FOR ADDITIONAL
DATA REGARDING SEPARATIONS FROM
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
SEPARATIONS OF OFFICERS WHO
HAVE LEFT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
THAT IMPACTS BOTH THE REMAINING
2020 BUDGET, AS WELL AS IT
IMPACTS THE NUMBER OF DOLLARS
THAT CAN BE SPENT IN 2021 BY
THE SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT
AND ULTIMATELY WOULD IMPACT OUR
DELIBERATIONS AROUND THIS BILL.
SO EACH CENTRAL STAFF, THE CITY
BUDGET OFFICE, AND THE MAYOR'S
OFFICE HAVE REQUESTED
ADDITIONAL TIME TO GET THAT
IMPORTANT FINANCIAL INFORMATION
THAT WE NEED FOR CONTINUED
DELIBERATIONS.
I AGREED, BECAUSE I TOO WANT TO
HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE BUDGET
DECISIONS BASED ON REAL
INFORMATION ABOUT THE FINANCIAL
SITUATION OF THE DEPARTMENT.
HOPEFULLY WE WILL BE BRINGING
THAT BILL FORWARD IN OUR NEXT
MEETING ON THE 26th.
>>> THE FIRST ITEM ON THE
AGENDA IS ONE THROUGH SIX.
THAT IS THE COMMUNITY POLICE
COMMISSION REAPPOINTMENTS.
THESE ARE ALL REAPPOINTMENTS.
THERE ARE SIX OF THEM.
úTWO EACH ARE FROM THE THREE
APPOINTING BODIES, THE COUNCIL,
THE MAYOR, AND THE COMMUNITY
POLICE COMMISSION AS THE
AUTHORITIES FOR NOMINATING
INDIVIDUALS TO SERVE ON THE
COMMISSION.
TYPICALLY, OUR CONVENTION IS WE
ASK THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE
FROM THE BODY WITH THE
AUTHORITY TO NOMINATE PRESENT
THE APPOINTMENTS.
WHAT THAT MEANS IS I WOULD LIKE
EACH, I WOULD LIKE REVEREND
WALD AND -- REVEREND WALD AND,
AND WE WILL HEAR FROM HER ABOUT
THE RECOMMENDED APPOINTMENTS.
THEN WE WILL HEAR FROM DEPUTY
MAYOR WASHINGTON ABOUT THE
RECOMMENDED APPOINTMENTS COMING
FROM THE MAYOR'S OFFICE TO THE
CPC.
THEN WE WILL HEAR ABOUT THE
VARIOUS APPOINTMENTS FROM THE
MAYOR'S OFFICE AND THE CITY
COUNCIL.
THE APPOINTMENTS MAY BE AT THE
MEETING AND THEY CAN BRIEFLY
SPEAK TO THEIR INTEREST IN
CONTINUING TO SERVE.
BY THE COUNCIL'S STANDARDS AND
POLICIES, WE DO NOT REQUIRE
REAPPOINTMENTS TO BE PRESENT.
WE DO EXPECT THAT NEW
APPOINTMENTS BE PRESENT AT
THEIR COUNCIL CONFIRMATION
HEARING.
WITH THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO
HANDED OVER TO REVEREND WALDEN
TO SPEAK ABOUT THE WORK OF THE
CPC AND LET US KNOW ABOUT THE
TWO REPRESENTATIVES THE CPC IS
RECOMMENDING THAT THE COUNCIL
REAPPOINT.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER, CAN I READ
THEM INTO THE RECORD FIRST
REALLY QUICK?
>> MY APOLOGIES, ALEX.
PLEASE READ ITEMS ONE THROUGH
SIX INTO THE RECORD.
>> ITEM NUMBER ONE, THE
REAPPOINTMENT OF ALINA
SANTILLAN AS A MEMBER OF
COMMUNITY POLICE COMMISSION FOR
A TERM TO DECEMBER 31, 2022.
ITEM 2, APPOINTMENT 01754,
REAPPOINTMENT OF SUZETTE
DICKERSON AS MEMBER THE
COMMUNITY POLICE COMMISSION FOR
A TERM TO DECEMBER 31, 2023.
NUMBER THREE, REAPPOINTMENT OF
ERIN GOODMAN AS A MEMBER THE
COMMUNITY POLICE COMMISSION FOR
A TERM TO DECEMBER 31, 2023.
ITEM NUMBER FOUR, REAPPOINTMENT
OF DOUGLAS E. WAGONER AS MEMBER
OF THE COMMITTEE PLEASE
COMMISSION FOR A TERM TO
DECEMBER 31, 2023.
NUMBER FIVE, REAPPOINTMENT OF
PRACHI DAVE AS A MEMBER OF THE
COMMUNITY POLICE COMMISSION FOR
A TERM TO DECEMBER 31, 2023.
AND NUMBER SIX, REAPPOINTMENT
OF LA ROND BAKER AS A MEMBER
OF THE COMMUNITY POLICE
COMMISSION FOR A TERM TO
DECEMBER 31, 2023.
MY APOLOGIES, REVEREND WALDEN.
I NOW HANDED OVER TO YOU.
>> GOOD MORNING.
THANK YOU SO MUCH,
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
THE SEATTLE COMMUNITY POLICE
COMMISSION WAS COMMUNICATED AND
MADE BY THIS CONSENT DECREE AND
CREATED BY LANDMARK LEGISLATION,
AN ACCOUNTABILITY ORDINANCE IN
2017 TO BE A VOICE OF COMMUNITY
AND THE POLICE ACCOUNT ABILITY
PROCESS.
THE COMMISSION IS COMPOSED OF
21 COMMISSIONERS, SEVEN
SELECTED BY THE COUNCIL, SEVEN
BY THE MAYOR, AND SEVEN BY EACH
APPOINTING AUTHORITY.
OUR WORK IS TO CONTINUE TO TRY
TO ACHIEVE POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY
IN SEATTLE.
IT IS IMPORTANT NOW MORE THAN
EVER.
I AM HERE TO PRESENT FOR
REAPPOINTMENT TWO OUTSTANDING
COMMISSIONERS WHO HAVE BEEN
SURFING HERE ON THE COMMISSION.
FIRST, I WANT TO PRESENT PRACHI
DAVE.
SHE HAS BEEN WITH US AS A
COMMISSIONER FOR A LITTLE OVER
A YEAR.
SHE HAS HAD A HUGE IMPACT.
SHE IS SERVING AS A COCHAIR OF,
ALONG WITH MYSELF ACTUALLY, AND
HAS DONE A FANTASTIC JOB IN
THAT.
SHE HAS HELPED LEAD THE EFFORT,
NOT ONLY BEING A COCHAIR, BUT
ALSO THE BAN ON THE CROWD
WEAPONS, THE USE OF WEAPONS
AGAINST THE CITIZENS.
SHE HAS, ALSO SHE WAS REALLY
INSTRUMENTAL IN HELPING US IN
THE COURT SYSTEM WHEN WE ARE
FILING, WE DID NOT WITHDRAW OUR
FILING.
IT IS STILL IN THE COURT.
SHE WAS ABSOLUTELY A PART OF
THAT.
AT THIS MOMENT, I THINK SHE IS
HERE.
SHE HAS DONE A FANTASTIC JOB AS
A COCHAIR.
SHE HAS BEEN ON THE COMMISSION
FOR A LITTLE OVER A YEAR.
SHE HAS STEPPED UP IN A GREAT
WAY TO BE ONE OF THE COCHAIRS
AND PROVIDE ABSOLUTELY GREAT
LEADERSHIP.
I AM SO HAPPY TO SAY THAT SHE
HAS BEEN SUCH A GREAT COCHAIR
WITH ME.
THIS IS OUR PAST PUBLIC
APPEARANCE AS COCHAIRS.
NEXT WEEK WILL BE THE ELECTION
FOR NEW COCHAIRS.
I THINK SHE IS HERE.
PRACHI, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY
FEW YARDS -- SAY FEW WORDS?
>> NO, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
THOSE VERY KIND WORDS, REVEREND
WALDEN.
I BELIEVE THAT YOU HAVE COVERED
EVERYTHING.
THANK YOU FOR APPROVING ME IN
THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS.
>> THANK YOU.
I THINK THAT LA ROND BAKER HAD
TO LEAVE.
SHE IS PREPARING TO HAVE A CASE
IN FRONT OF THE SUPREME COURT.
BUT SHE IS OUR NEWEST
COMMISSIONER.
SHE HAS HAD A MASSIVE IMPACT.
SHE HAS TAKEN LEADERSHIP IN THE
STATEWIDE ADVOCACY FOR THE CPC.
SHE HAS LED THE CPC, INCLUDING
OUR FIRST REAL STATE
LEGISLATIVE AGENDA.
SHE HAS POSITIONED US WELL TO
ADVOCATE FOR MAJOR CHANGE IN
OLYMPIA THIS YEAR, 2021.
LA ROND IS IN THE PROCESS OF
HELPING BUILD THE CPC TO THE
COMMISSIONERS RECRUITING
COMMITTEE.
THROUGH HER WORK WITH OTHERS ON
THE COMMITTEE, WE HOPE TO HAVE
A BRAND-NEW COMMISSIONER FOR
YOU TO A POINT IN THE COMING
MONTHS.
SHE HAS ONLY BEEN ON THE
COMMITMENT, COMMISSION FOR SIX
MONTHS.
SHE HAS BEEN POWERFUL.
SHE STEPPED UP RIGHT AWAY TO
TAKE LEADERSHIP.
THAT IS REALLY GOOD FOR US, FOR
PEOPLE TO STEP UP RIGHT AWAY.
SO WE RECOMMEND, THE CPC IS
RECOMMENDING THAT LA ROND BAKER
ALSO BE REAPPOINTED.
THANK YOU.
AND THAT IS ALL.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, REVEREND
WALDEN.
I THINK WE WILL HANDED OVER
NEXT TO DEPUTY MAYOR WASHINGTON,
REGARDING THE APPOINTMENTS THAT
THE MAYOR'S OFFICE IS MOVING
FORWARD.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD.
GOOD MORNING.
IT IS MY PLEASURE TO PRESENT
THE REAPPOINTMENTS OF THE
MAYOR'S OFFICE TO THE
COMMISSION.
THOSE APPOINTMENTS ARE ERIN
GOODMAN AND SUZETTE DICKERSON.
I AM NOT SURE IF EITHER ARE ON,
BUT I WILL WALK THROUGH THE
VARIOUS POINTS.
IF THEY ARE ON THE PHONE, THEY
CAN DEFINITELY UNMUTE TO SPEAK.
ERIN GOODMAN IS THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE SOTO BUSINESS
IMPROVEMENT AREA, REPRESENTING
BUSINESSES IN THE HARD OF THE
INDUSTRIAL COMMUNITY SINCE 2014.
HER ROLE INCLUDES CULTIVATING
COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIPS
BETWEEN BIA, BUSINESS AND
PROPERTY OWNERS, ELECTED
OFFICIALS, CITY DEPARTMENTS,
AND COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS.
SHE HAS ALSO SERVED ON THE
SOUTH PRECINCT ADVISORY COUNCIL
, WORKING TO BUILD CONNECTIONS
BETWEEN THE PRECINCT AND THE
COMMUNITY.
I AM VERY EXCITED THAT SHE HAS
AGREED TO CONTINUE TO SERVE ON
THE COMMUNITY POLICE
COMMISSION.
SHE HAS DONE GREAT WORK OVER
HER FIRST TERM, INCLUDING HER
RECENT UNDERTAKING OF UPDATING
THE BYLAWS OF THE COMMISSION.
THAT IS ERIN GOODMAN.
I DO NOT SEE HER ON, SO I WILL
MOVE ON TO SUZETTE DICKERSON.
SUZETTE GRACIOUSLY FILLED OUT
THE REMAINDER OF THE VACATED
TERM LAST YEAR.
I AM EXCITED THAT SHE WILL
CONTINUE TO SERVE IN HER SECOND
TERM. SHE IS THE STAFF
REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE
WASHINGTON STATE COUNCIL OF
COUNTY AND CITY EMPLOYEES WITH
A DEMONSTRATED HISTORY OF
WORKING IN THE GOVERNMENT
RELATIONS INDUSTRY.
SHE IS SKILLED IN TEAMBUILDING,
MANAGEMENT, AND LABOR
RELATIONS.
SHE HAS A STRONG PASSION FOR
HELPING OTHERS AND IS DRIVEN BY
EQUITY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE.
THESE TWO COMPONENTS ARE A
DRIVING FORCE FOR HER WORK DAY
IN AND DAY OUT.
SHE IS SERVING AS THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
COMMISSION DURING THE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROCESS.
THOSE ARE THE TWO MAIN ORAL
REAPPOINTMENTS.
>> WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING WITH
US THIS MORNING.
THIS IS MY FIRST CHANCE TO
CONGRATULATE YOU.
CONGRATULATIONS ON SERVING
MAYOR DURKAN IN YOUR NEW ROLE
AS DEPUTY MAYOR.
AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
FORWARD THESE FINE CANDIDATES
FOR REAPPOINTMENT.
MOVING ON TO NEWELL ALDRICH,
WILL PRESENT THE APPOINTMENTS
FROM THE COUNCIL.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER.
THE FIRST OF TWO COUNCIL
APPOINTMENTS IS ALINA
SANTILLAN.
SHE WORKS AS THE DIRECTOR FOR
RACIAL EQUITY FOR THE SEATTLE
CENTER COHORT SUPPORTING
ORGANIZATIONS TO STRENGTHEN
THEIR RACIAL EQUITY STRATEGIES
AND PRACTICES.
HE IS A GRADUATE OF THE SEATTLE
COMMUNITY POLICE ACADEMY AND A
VOLUNTEER FOR NUMBER OF YOUTH
ORGANIZATIONS.
THE SECOND COUNCIL APPOINTMENT
IS DOUGLAS WAGONER.
HE HAS A BROAD RANGE OF
EXPERIENCE IN LOCAL STATE AND
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INCLUDING
YOUTH VIOLENCE PREVENTION,
CULTURAL COMPETENCY, AND
COMMUNICATIONS.
HE SERVED AS DIRECTOR OF
COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE
PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE,
COMMUNICATIONS LEAD AT THE
OFFICE OF HEALTHY AND SAFE
COMMUNITIES IN THE WASHINGTON
STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.
HE WAS IN THE ADVOCACY
COMMITTEE FOR THE WEST FOOD
BANK FOR DIRECTORS AND HAS AN
ADDITIONAL WIDE RANGE OF
EXPERIENCE IN GOVERNMENT AND
WITH YOUTH VIOLENCE PREVENTION.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
REALLY APPRECIATED.
AT THIS POINT, I WOULD LOVE TO
OPEN IT UP TO ANY COUNCILMEMBERS
WHO MIGHT HAVE COMMENTS THAT
THEY WOULD LIKE TO OFFER.
I AM GOING TO BE WATCHING FOR
FOLKS EITHER TO COME ON CAMERA
OR COME OFF OF MUTE AS MIKE YOU.
SEEN NONE, WHAT I WILL -- JUST
GIVE ME A LITTLE PAUSE.
>> SORRY, CHAIRWOMAN HERBOLD?
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
>> I WAS A LITTLE LATE.
>> HAVE ADDED.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRWOMAN
HERBOLD.
I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THESE
ITEMS FORWARD TODAY.
I WELCOME ALL THE COMMENTS BY
REVEREND WALDEN AND OTHER
SPEAKERS. I JUST WANTED TO
WELCOME THE NEW APPOINTEES AND
THE RE-APPOINTEES.
I WANTED TO MAKE A FEW GENERAL
COMMENTS.
THE COMMUNITY POLICE
COMMISSION, IN MY VIEW, HAS
BEEN THE ONLY ONE OF WHAT I
WOULD CALL THE ACCOUNTABILITY
PARTNERS CONSISTENTLY DEFEND
THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE
BEEN BRUTALIZED BY POLICE
OFFICERS.
WE HEARD A LOT OF PUBLIC
COMMENT ABOUT IT, AS WELL.
LEADER ON IN THE AGENDA, WE
WILL DISCUSS THE BAN ON CROWD
CONTROL WEAPONS.
I REMEMBER THAT WHEN THIS WAS
DISCUSSED OVER THE SUMMER, TO
MY RECOLLECTION, ONLY THE CPC
AMONG THE SO-CALLED
ACCOUNTABILITY PARTNERS TALKED
ABOUT THE HARM DONE TO MANY
PEOPLE IN THE BLACK LIVES
MATTER PLAZA MOVEMENT BY THE
SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND
SPECIFICALLY IN THE AGENDA
LATER ON TODAY, WE WILL SEE THE
RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT THE SO-
CALLED CROWD CONTROL WEAPONS
PROPOSED BY THE CPC, WHICH I
BELIEVE ARE GOOD AND STRONG
RECOMMENDATIONS.
THEY STAND IN STARK CONTRAST TO
THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE
OTHER ACCOUNTABILITY PARTNERS,
THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
AND THE OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL
ACCOUNTABILITY.
I THINK THE CPC STANDS OUT IN
COMPARISON WITH THEM IN
SUPPORTING THE RIGHTS OF
PEACEFUL PROTEST MOVEMENTS DO
NOT HAVE TO FACE CONSTANT
POLICE BRUTALITY.
I WILL JUST SAY, I HAVE SAID
THIS BEFORE, I HAVE JOINED ANY
OTHERS IN THE MOVEMENT IN
BELIEVING THAT WE NEED A FULLY
FLEDGED ELECTRIC COMMUNITY
OVERSIGHT BOARD WITH FULL
POWERS OF THE POLICE, INCLUDING
HIRING AND FIRING.
I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT WE ARE
CALLING FOR THAT BECAUSE WE
FEEL THAT IS ACTUALLY WHAT WILL
MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE.
WE WILL KEEP FIGHTING FOR.
THIS IS NOT IN ANY WAY ATTENDED
AS A COMMENTARY ON THE WORK OF
THE MEMBERS OF THE CPC AND THE
OVERALL WORK OF THE CPC.
IT HAS BEEN VERY MUCH
APPRECIATED AND I WOULD
ENCOURAGE THEM TO KEEP GOING.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT.
I ALSO WANTED TO MENTION MY
THANKS TO THE CPC FOR INCLUSION
OF NEWELL ALDRICH FROM MY
OFFICE AND THEIR EFFORTS TO
RECRUIT ADDITIONAL MEMBERS TO
SERVE ON THE CPC AND INCLUSION
OF NEW NEWELL IN THE INTERVIEWS
TO ENSURE THAT CBC HAS FULL
MEMBERSHIP.
THE STANDARD THAT MEMBERS OF
THIS PARTICULAR COMMISSION HAVE
TO MEET IN MANY WAYS ARE HIGHER
THAN MANY OF, ANY EXAMPLES OF
VOLUNTEERISM AND CIVIC DUTY.
WE NEED CANDIDATES TO FIND THE
TIME THAT THE CPC DOES TO
FULFILL ITS MISSION.
I THINK CPC MEMBERS AGAIN WHO
ARE FULFILLING THIS MISSION AND
SPENDING THAT TIME. AGAIN,
THANK YOU TO THE CPC FOR YOUR
WORK NOT JUST ON THE POLICY
SIDE, BUT ALSO IN RECRUITING
FUTURE LEADERS IN THIS EFFORT.
WITH THAT, I MOVE ITEMS ONE
THROUGH SIX FOR A VOTE.
THAT'S 1753, 1754, 1755, 1756,
1758, AND 1759.
>> SECOND.
TO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
>> WHAT ABOUT ROLL CALL
>> IS CALLED THE ROLL CALL.
>> COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MORALES
>> AYE .
>> COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ?
>> AYE.
>> OKAY WE HAVE FOUR VOTES AND
UNOPPOSED.
>>> NEXT IS FROM THE OFFICE
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT.
WE HAVE DEPUTY MAYOR MIKE FONG
WITH US AND DEPUTY MAYOR CURRY
MAYOR .
>> THIS IS MIKE FONG, DEPUTY
MAYOR.
>> AND CURRY ?
>> HELLO, CURRY MAYOR .
>> WE WILL HAVE THE DEPUTY
MAYOR INTRODUCE AND SING THE
PRAISES OF DIRECTOR MAYER.
WE ARE NOT VOTING IN TODAY'S
MEETING, BUT WE HOPE TO DO SO
AT OUR NEXT MEETING ON JANUARY
26.
AS FAR AS OUR PROCESS GOES, THE
COUNCIL WILL BE COLLECTING SOME
QUESTIONS TO SEND FOR THE
DIRECTOR'S RESPONSE LATER ON
THIS WEEK.
WE WANT TO HAVE THIS
OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM DEPUTY
MAYOR FONG ABOUT WHY THEY ARE
RECOMMENDING THAT WE CONFIRM
DIRECTOR MAYER.
WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THIS
OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM
DIRECTOR MAYER AS WELL TO HEAR
WHY SHE IS INTERESTED IN
FULFILLING THIS ROLE.
>> I WILL PUT THIS INTO THE
RECORD REALLY QUICK.
THIS IS AGENDA ITEM NUMBER
SEVEN, APPOINTMENT 01757,
APPOINTMENT OF CURRY MAYER,
DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT.
>> IT IS MY PLEASURE ON BEHALF
OF THE MAYOR TO PRESENT TO YOU
THE EXECUTIVES NOMINEE FOR THE
NEXT DIRECTOR FOR THE OFFICE OF
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, CURRY
MAYER.
SHE HAS OVER 20 YEARS OF
EXPERIENCE IN EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT, BOTH IN THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, WASHINGTON,
D.C., AS WELL AS HERE IN OUR
OWN STATE OF WASHINGTON.
SHE HAS AN EXTENSIVE AMOUNT OF
EXPERIENCE AROUND PLANNING AND
EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER
RESPONSE EFFORTS.
HER MOST RECENT ROLE WAS AS THE
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, MANAGER
FOR THE CITY OF BELLEVUE.
JUST AS A SIDE NOTE, THE CITY
OF SEATTLE HAS HAD A CRIMINAL
TRACK RECORD WITH REGARD TO
RECRUITING EMERGENCY MANAGERS
FROM OUR FRIENDS FROM ACROSS
THE LAKE, AS WE HAD MULTIPLE
PEOPLE FROM THE CITY OF
BELLEVUE.
WE ARE REALLY EXCITED TO HAVE
CURRY JOIN OUR TEAM.
SHE REALLY UNDERSTANDS ALL
FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
RELATED TO EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT.
FOLLOWING UP ON HER EXTENSIVE
NATIONAL SEARCH DURING A VERY
CHALLENGING YEAR IN 2020, WE
ARE VERY FORTUNATE TO HAVE
ACTUALLY FOUND WHAT WE BELIEVE
IS THE MOST QUALIFIED AND
EXPERIENCED EMERGENCY MANAGER
IN OUR OWN BACKYARD TO BECOME
THE NEXT DIRECTOR OF OEM.
CURRY IS THE STAR OF THE DAY,
IF YOU WILL.
I WILL END MY COMMENTS HERE.
I WILL GIVE DIRECTOR MAYER THE
OPPORTUNITY TO REALLY INTRODUCE
YOURSELF TO YOU.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO FACILITATING
THE PROCESS OF THE COUNCIL WITH
REGARDS TO QUESTIONS FROM YOU,
THE TEAM, AND ANY MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC AS WE HOPEFULLY GET
DIRECTOR MAYER CONFIRMED IN
SHORT ORDER . WITH THAT, CHAIR
HERBOLD, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO
YOU.
>> THANK YOU, DEPUTY MAYOR
FONG.
WE APPRECIATE YOU JOINING US
THIS MORNING.
WE JUST WANT TO HEAR INFORMALLY
FROM DIRECTOR MAYER AND JUST
HERE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHY YOU
WANT THIS JOB, WHICH YOU HOPE
TO ACCOMPLISH, AND HOW YOUR
EXPERIENCE IN BELLEVUE PREPARED
YOU FOR THIS JOB AND ANYTHING
ELSE YOU THINK WE NEED TO KNOW.
>> OKAY, GREAT.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR
SPENDING TIME WITH ME TODAY.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO THANK
MAYOR DURKAN FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE SEATTLE.
I AM REALLY HONORED TO BE HERE,
ONE OF THE GREAT CITIES OF THE
WORLD.
THANK YOU, DEPUTY MAYOR FONG.
I WOULD LIKE TO THANK DEPUTY
DIRECTOR LAUREL NELSON AND THE
TALENTED OEM TEAM THAT HAS
ALREADY PROVIDED ME WITH A
GREAT DEAL OF SUPPORT.
AS DEPUTY MAYOR FONG MENTIONED,
I HAVE BEEN IN THIS FIELD FOR
QUITE SOME TIME.
I AM VERY PASSIONATE NOT ONLY
ABOUT EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, BUT
HAVING A POSITIVE IMPACT ON THE
COMMUNITY AND FOR HELPING
PEOPLE.
THERE ARE MANY COMPONENTS
NECESSARY FOR EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT TO BE SUCCESSFUL.
I REALLY BELIEVE THAT SEATTLE
HAS THOSE.
SO A COMMITMENT TO RACIAL AND
SOCIAL JUSTICE, VALUES OF
INCLUSION, LEARNING,
ACCOUNTABILITY AND STEWARDSHIP,
A TALENTED AND COMMITTED OAM
STAFF, AND ALSO THE BELIEF THAT
GOVERNMENT WORKS BEST WHEN IT
WORKS COLLABORATIVELY WITH THE
COMMUNITY THAT IT SERVES.
SO THIS MEANS ALSO NOT ONLY
THAT YOU ARE A GOOD LISTENER,
THAT YOU HAVE BOTH DIVERSITY OF
THOUGHT THAT IS VALUED AND
ENCOURAGED, AND DIVERSITY OF
VOICES.
SEATTLE IS ONE OF THE GREAT
CITIES OF THE WORLD AND IT IS
KNOWN FOR BEING INNOVATIVE.
IT IS REALLY EXCITING TO HAVE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE IN
THAT WAY.
I ALSO BELIEVE THAT MY SKILLS
AND EXPERIENCE WORKING WITH
MANY DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS
OUTSIDE OF GOVERNMENT AND
PUBLIC SAFETY HAS ALLOWED ME TO
REALLY LEARN HOW TO LISTEN TO
WHAT A GROUP VALUES AND NEEDS
AND THEN CONNECT THAT TO
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
PRINCIPLES, WHICH IS REALLY
ABOUT BUILDING COMMUNITY
RESILIENCE.
SO I REALLY BELIEVE THAT
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT IS
CONNECTED TO EVERYTHING.
IT IS OUR JOB IN THE EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT PROFESSION TO
EXPLAIN TO PEOPLE WHAT THAT
MEANS AND HOW NOT ONLY CAN WE
HELP THEM DURING TIMES OF
DISASTER OR SOME OTHER KIND OF
IMPACT TO THEIR DAILY LIVES,
BUT WHAT THAT MEANS AND HOW
THEY CAN BE INVOLVED IN THAT.
THAT ALSO MEANS MEETING PEOPLE
WHERE THEY ARE.
SO UNDERSTANDING HOW SOCIAL
JUSTICE ISSUES, POVERTY, LIMITED
ENGLISH SKILLS, OR ANYTHING
ELSE THAT CAUSES PEOPLE TO HAVE
ACCESS AND FUNCTIONAL NEEDS,
WHAT IS IT THEY REQUIRE IN
ORDER TO EVEN BE AWARE OF WHAT
THE HAZARDS MAY BE IN THEIR
COMMUNITY?
AND THEN FROM THAT AWARENESS,
HOW DO THEY GET RESOURCES?
HOW DO THEY BUILD RESILIENCE?
AND WHY SHOULD THEY TRUST THOSE
OF US IN GOVERNMENT TO BE ABLE
TO HELP THEM?
I BELIEVE THAT COMMUNITY
PREPAREDNESS IS REALLY THE WAY
TO GO, RATHER THAN INDIVIDUAL
PREPAREDNESS.
I ALSO AM A FAN OF USING WHAT
WE CALL CULTURE BROKERS TO
BRIDGE THE COMMUNICATION FOR
THOSE WHO DON'T TRUST GOVERNMENT
AND LOOKING TO COMMUNITY
LEADERS TO HAVE STRONG
PARTNERSHIPS WITH US, STRONG
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIPS BEING
ALSO IMPORTANT.
I SPEND A LOT OF TIME IN
BELLEVUE BEING A PART OF A
NUMBER OF REGIONAL COMMITTEES.
I WORK WITH WASHINGTON 2-ON-1
BOARD, -- 211 BOARD, WHICH TIES
PEOPLE TO RESOURCES AND DOES
FULL-CIRCLE ENGAGEMENT WITH
PEOPLE WHO CALL AND NEED
RESOURCES.
I AM ALSO WITH THE CENTER OF
EXCELLENCE FOR COMMUNITY
MANAGEMENT.
IT WORKS WITH ALL THE TECHNICAL
COLLEGES IN THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON NOT ONLY TO GET
PEOPLE NTERESTED IN THE
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
PROFESSION, BUT TO REALLY HELP
AND SUPPORT A STRONG EMPLOYMENT
FOR ALL OF WASHINGTON TONY
EVANS -- ALL WASHINGTONIANS. SO
THROUGH THAT COMMUNITY COLLEGE
NETWORK, WE WORK WITH THE
PUBLIC SECTOR, THE PRIVATE
SECTOR, AND STUDENTS TO REALLY
HELP THEM BE ENGAGED AND BE
EMPLOYED IN A NUMBER OF
DIFFERENT WAYS.
I HAVE WORKED A LOT WITH KING
COUNTY ON THE EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COUNCIL,
WHICH IS A BODY THAT ADVISES
THE KING COUNTY COUNSEL ON
ISSUES THAT FACE OUR COUNTY.
I ALSO AM CHAIR OF THE CRITICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE WORKGROUP, A
PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP
RELATIONSHIP THAT WORKS ON ALL
THOSE THINGS THAT MIGHT IMPACT
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ACROSS
COUNTY LINES, SO NOT JUST IN
THE COUNTY, BUT WITH OUR
NEIGHBORS AS WELL.
ALSO IN BELLEVUE, I WORKED
REALLY CLOSELY WITH THE
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT DOING
TRAINING AND EXERCISES FOR
DEBRIS MANAGEMENT PLAN AND
ENGAGEMENT WITH OTHER CITY
DEPARTMENTS ON HOW WE WOULD
MAKE THAT A REALITY.
THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT
HAD EVER BEEN DONE.
I LED THE EFFORT OF THE CITY ON
COVID RESPONSE, WHICH LIKE IN
SEATTLE, WAS A CITYWIDE
ENGAGEMENT.
WE SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON OUR
CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS
ANNEXES AND MAKING THOSE A
REALITY.
THIS WAS OUR TEST ON HOW WE DID
WHEN WE PUT THOSE TOGETHER AND
HOW WE CONTINUE TO WORK
TOGETHER ACROSS DEPARTMENTS.
SO I BELIEVE THAT THAT
EXPERIENCE, MY EXPERIENCE IN
CALIFORNIA, AND THE WORK THAT I
HAVE DONE WITH THE ACADEMIC
WORLD HAS REALLY PREPARED ME TO
BE A STRONG LEADER IN SEATTLE,
NOT JUST IN EMERGENC
MANAGEMENT, BUT AS A
COORDINATOR AND KIND OF THE
GLUE BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS FOR
HOW WE CONTINUE TO BUILD
COMMUNITY RESILIENCE.
SO AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
I THINK YOU FOR THE NOMINATION
AND FOR THE ENGAGEMENT WITH
YOU.
I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, DIRECTOR
MAYER.
I JUST WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO
COMMENT THAT IT TAKES A SPECIAL
TYPE OF PERSON IN THE MIDDLE OF
A PUBLIC EMERGENCY TO MOVE TO
ONE MEDIUM-SIZED CITY TO A
LARGER CITY WHILE WE ARE STILL
IN THE MIDDLE OF A PUBLIC
EMERGENCY.
I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR
WILLINGNESS TO SERVE US HERE IN
SEATTLE, TAKING OVER FROM THE
AMAZING WORK THAT THE INTERIM
DIRECTOR HAS BEEN DOING OVER
THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS.
THERE WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY
FOR MORE OF, I SAY WITH HUMOR,
GRILLING AT OUR NEXT MEETING.
I JUST WANT TO GIVE MY
COLLEAGUES AN OPPORTUNITY TO
WEIGH IN OR WELCOME YOU. IF
ANYBODY HAS SOMETHING THEY
WOULD LIKE TO CONTRIBUTE AT
THIS POINT, THEY CAN SAY IT
NOW.
OTHERWISE, WE WILL SEE YOU ON
THE 26th.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> JUST ONE COMMENT.
I DID WANT TO TAKE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO ALSO JOIN YOU IN
THINKING LAUREL NELSON, OUR
INTERIM DIRECTOR.
WE HAD A WELL-DESERVED
RETIREMENT TIMED RIGHT WHEN THE
PANDEMIC HIT OUR REGION
AGGRESSIVELY.
BUT LAUREL NELSON HAS DONE AN
INCREDIBLE JOB HOLDING THINGS
DOWN FOR THE BETTER PART OF
2020.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE ON THE
RECORD THE EXECUTIVE TAKES THE
OPPORTUNITY.
>> THANK YOU, DEPUTY MAYOR.
>> MUCH AGREED.
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU AGAIN.
WE WILL SEE YOU ON THE 26th.
>> THANK YOU AGAIN, ALL OF YOU,
FOR YOUR TIME.
I SO APPRECIATED.
I AM TRULY HONORED TO BE HERE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
I SEE THAT COUNCILMEMBER
GONZALEZ HAS JOINED US.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE WITH
US TODAY.
>>> WILL CLARK PLEASE READ INTO
THE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER EIGHT?
>> IT IS THE DECISION AGENDA
UNLESS THE FULL RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE COMMUNITY POLICE
COMMISSION, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR
GENERAL, AND OFFICE OF POLICE
ACCOUNTABILITY.
>> THANK YOU, ALEX.
THIS IS THE THIRD IN A SERIES
OF MEETINGS THAT THIS COMMITTEE
HAS HELD SENSE COUNSEL ADOPTED
ORDINANCE 126102 IN RESPONSE TO
THE MURDER OF GEORGE FLOYD AND
A HEAVY USE OF CROWD CONTROL
WEAPONS BY THE SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT.
ORDINANCE 126102 PROHIBITS THE
USE OF NUMEROUS LESS LETHAL
WEAPONS.
I WANT TO STATE AT THE OUTSET
THAT I AGREE THAT OUR GOAL IS
TO HAVE THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE
ORDINANCE. THAT I BELIEVE IS
THE FRAMEWORK THAT WE ON THIS
COMMITTEE ARE OPERATING UNDER.
WE SHARE THE GOAL TO REGULATE
THE USE OF LESS LETHAL WEAPONS,
PARTICULARLY LESS LETHAL
WEAPONS THAT ARE BEING USED IN
CROWD CONTROL SITUATIONS.
BUT THERE ARE SOME IMPORTANT
CONTEXTS TO UNDERSTAND AS IT
RELATES TO ACHIEVING THAT GOAL.
AFTER THE CITY SUBMITTED THE
ORDINANCE TO THE COURT AS
PROVIDED BY THE ORDINANCE ITSELF
AND REQUIRED BY THE CONSENT
DECREE, WE HAD TO SUBMIT THE
ORDINANCE TO THE COURT FOR THE
REVIEW OF THE COURT AS WELL AS
THE REVIEW OF THE MONITOR.
IN JULY, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
JUDGE ROBILLARD ISSUED A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER ON
THE ORDINANCE.
IT PROHIBITED -- I AM SORRY,
THE ORDER PROHIBITED THE
ORDINANCE ITSELF FROM GOING
INTO EFFECT.
IN AUGUST, THE THREE
ACCOUNTABILITY BODIES COMPLETED
RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO THE
BAN IN THE ORDINANCE.
AGAIN, BOTH THE COUNCIL AND THE
COURT REQUESTED THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE THREE
ACCOUNTABILITY BODIES.
THE COUNCIL REQUESTED IT WITHIN
THE ORDINANCE ITSELF AND THE
COURT REQUESTED IT AS PART OF
THE CONSENT DECREE REVIEW THAT
WE ARE REQUIRED IN THE CITY OF
SEATTLE TO GO THROUGH FOR ALL
ORDINANCES OF THESE TYPES.
ON SEPTEMBER 11, AT THE PUBLIC
SAFETY AND HUMAN SERVICES
COMMITTEE MEETING, THE POLICE
COMMISSION AND THE OFFICE OF
POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY EACH
PRESENTED THEIR
RECOMMENDATIONS, THE SAME
RECOMMENDATIONS WE RECEIVED
BACK IN AUGUST.
ON DECEMBER 17, WE HAD A SECOND
ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION WITH THE
ACCOUNTABILITY BODIES AND THE
SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT ABOUT
THE CONTENT OF THE
RECOMMENDATIONS. TODAY, WE ARE
CONSIDERING NEW DRAFT
LEGISLATION THAT REFLECTS FIRST
THE CONSENSUS ITEMS FROM THE
ACCOUNTABILITY BODIES, AND A
DECISION AGENDA FOR ALL OTHER
ITEMS WHERE THERE IS NO
CONSENSUS FROM THE
ACCOUNTABILITY BODIES.
SO AGAIN, THERE IS A BILL THAT
WE ARE USING AS SORT OF OUR
BASE BILL THAT REFLECTS THE
ITEMS WHERE EVERYBODY AGREES.
THAT IS THE CPC, THE OPA, AND
THE OIG.
THEN WE WILL HAVE A DISCUSSION
AND GIVE INDICATION ABOUT OUR
PREFERENCE ON THE ITEMS FOR
REGULATION THERE IS NOT FULL
AGREEMENT ON.
THE COMMITTEE MAY VOTE ON
LEGISLATION AT OUR NEXT MEETING
ON THE 26th.
AND THEN AFTER THE COMMITTEE
VOTE, BUT BEFORE FULL COUNCIL
ACTION, THE LEGISLATION WILL
HAVE TO BE SENT TO THE MONITOR,
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AND
JUDGE ROBART IN LINE WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE CONSENT
DECREE PROCESS.
THIS HAS TO HAPPEN BEFORE ANY
CONSIDERATION AT FULL COUNCIL
IF WE WANT TO BE ULTIMATELY
VOTING ON A BILL THAT WITHSTANDS
SCRUTINY OF THE COURT.
AGAIN, THERE IS NO CITY LAW
CURRENTLY IN EFFECT LIMITING
USE OF LESS LETHAL OR CROWD
CONTROL WEAPONS.
THERE WILL NOT BE ONE WITHOUT
THE SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF
THE CONSENT DECREE REVIEW
PROCESS RELATED TO THIS
LEGISLATION.
THERE ARE CURRENT PARTIAL
LIMITATIONS AS A RESULT OF THE
BLACK LIVES MATTER, ACLU
LAWSUIT.
AGAIN, THOSE PARTIAL
LIMITATIONS ARE THE RESULT OF A
LAWSUIT AND A COURT ORDER.
THEY ARE NOT MEETING OUR GOALS
AND COUNSEL TO HAVE POLICY THAT
IS REFLECTED IN THE SEATTLE
MUNICIPAL CODE.
UNDER THE CONSENT DECREE, JUDGE
ROBART HAS THE FINAL SAY.
IT IS WORTH US LOOKING AT THE
CLUES HE HAS PROVIDED AS A
REGARDS THE ORDINANCE.
SO THE JUDGE IN THE JUNE
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
SAID THAT HE WAS CRITICAL OF
THE ORDINANCE ADOPTED BY THE
COUNCIL.
HE WAS CONCERNED THAT IT DID
NOT INCREASE PUBLIC SAFETY AS
IT WAS WRITTEN.
HE HAS ALSO EXPRESSED INTEREST
IN HEARING FROM THE THREE
ACCOUNTABILITY BODIES, AS THE
COUNCIL DID AS WELL IN ITS
ORDINANCE.
THAT IS THE KEY REASON THAT THE
COMMITTEE HAS MET TWICE SINCE
THAT TIME TO HEAR, DISCUSS, AND
ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
ACCOUNTABILITY RECOMMENDATIONS
AND WHY THE DISCUSSION IS
STRUCTURED WHOLLY AROUND THEIR
RECOMMENDATIONS.
THE JUDGE IS A PERSON WHO MUST
AUTHORIZE ANY BILL, AND UNLIKE
A MAYORAL VETO, THE COUNCIL
CANNOT OVERRIDE THE JUDGE'S
RULINGS.
THE NORMAL POWERS OF THE
COUNCIL TO ENACT LEGISLATION
UNDER THE CITY CHARTER DO NOT
APPLY AS THEY NORMALLY DO
BECAUSE OF THE DID CONSENT
DECREE BUT IF THE COURT DOES
NOT AUTHORIZE THE ORDINANCE
THAT THE COUNCIL PASSES TO GO
INTO EFFECT, WE WILL BE IN THE
SAME POSITION THAT WE ARE IN
NOW, WITHOUT ANY LAWN EFFECT.
I JUST WANT COUNCILMEMBERS TO
KNOW THAT WE DO HAVE
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CPC, THE
OIG, AND THE OPA PRESENT IN
CASE COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE
QUESTIONS.
WE HAVE THE OPA DIRECTOR, THE
DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL FROM
THE OIG, AND SOMEONE FROM THE
COMMUNITY POLICE COMMISSION.
BUT WE ARE GOING TO DO IS WERE
GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO
CENTRAL STAFF TO START THE
PRESENTATION.
WE WILL GO THROUGH AN OVERVIEW
OF THE OVERSIGHT AGENCIES AND
BRIEFLY TALK ABOUT THE BASE
BILL.
THEN WE WILL WALK THROUGH SOME
POLICY ITEMS TO FURTHER AMEND
THE BASE BILL. MY HOPE IS THAT
COUNCILMEMBERS WITH US TODAY
CAN EXPRESS THEIR POLICY
PREFERENCES FOR OPTIONS THAT
WILL BE CONTAINED.
THE OPTIONS ARE DRAFTED AROUND
DIFFERENT, LESS LETHAL WEAPONS.
THERE ARE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT
OPTIONS FOR EACH OF THE TYPES OF
LESS LETHAL WEAPONS.
MY HOPE IS THAT, AGAIN, THAT
COUNCILMEMBERS EXPRESS THEIR
POLICY PREFERENCE AND THAT
CENTRAL STAFF CAN USE THAT
INFORMATION TO DEVELOP ANOTHER
BASE BILL THAT WE WILL THEN
AGAIN COME BACK ON THE 26th TO
DISCUSS AND HOPEFULLY MOVE OUT
OF COMMITTEE AS OUR COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATION THAT WILL AGAIN
GO TO THE JUDGE.
ARE NOW HANDED OVER TO LISE
KAYE.
>> I AM LISE KAYE AND MY
PARTNER , GREG DOSS, HAS AGREED
TO MOVE THE SLIDESHOW FOR ME.
I WILL WAIT UNTIL SHE CAN
PULLS UP AND SHARE THE SCREEN.
SO WE CAN MOVE TO SLIDE TWO,
GREG, AT YOUR CONVENIENCE.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS SAW THIS
CHART AT YOUR DECEMBER 17
MEETING.
IT SHOWS HOW EACH
ACCOUNTABILITY AGENCY WOULD
CHANGE THE BAN ENACTED IN
ORDINANCE 12610243 CATEGORIES
OF USE.
-- 126102 23 CATEGORIES OF USE.
WILL WERE CALLING THE BASE BILL
FOR DISCUSSION WOULD BAN THE
USE OF TEAR GAS BY PATROL
OFFICERS.
SO THAT IS THE STARTING POINT.
IT'S GO TO SLIDE THREE, PLEASE,
GREG.
FOR THIS DRAFT BASE BILL, WHICH
AS CHAIR HERBOLD SAID, IS JUST
THE STARTING POINT FOR THIS
DISCUSSION, BUILDING ON THOSE
FOUR AREAS OF CONSENSUS.
IF THIS BILL WERE ADOPTED AS
DRAFTED, IT WOULD DIFFER FROM
THE CRAWL CONTROL BILL IN FOUR
WAYS.
USE THE TERM LESS LETHAL
WEAPONS INSTEAD OF CROWD
CONTROL WEAPONS.
AS WITH THE ORIGINAL BAN, THE
LEGISLATION WOULD STILL APPLY
ONLY TO THOSE ADVICES DESIGNED
TO BE USED ON MULTIPLE
INDIVIDUALS TO CROWD CONTROL.
THIS IS IMPORTANT, BECAUSE NOT
ALL LESS LETHAL WEAPONS WOULD
FIT THIS DEFINITION.
FOR EXAMPLE, A TASER IS NOT
DESIGNED TO BE USED ON MULTIPLE
INDIVIDUALS.
SO IT WOULD NOT BE LEGISLATED
OR REGULATED BY THIS
LEGISLATION.
THE SECOND AREA WOULD INCLUDE
UPDATED RECITALS TO INCLUDE
COURT RULINGS AND WOULD INCLUDE
THE FOUR AREAS OF CONSENSUS IN
THE ACCOUNTABILITY PARTNERS
REPORT.
THE NEW BILL WOULD MAINTAIN A
BAN ON THE USE OF 40 MILLIMETER
LAUNCHERS AND FLASH DIVERSION
DEVICES FOR CROWD DISPERSAL
PURPOSES.
BUT IT WOULD ALLOW PATROL AND
S.W.A.T.
OFFICERS TO USE THEM FOR NON-
CRIME CONTROL PURPOSES.
-- NON-CROWD CONTROL PURPOSES.
THE THIRD IS THAT IT WOULD
ALLOW PEPPER SPRAY TO BE USED
FOR NON-CROWD CONTROL PURPOSES.
THE ORIGINAL BILL HAD A
EXCEPTION THAT ALLOWED OFFICERS
TO USE PEPPER SPRAY AS LONG AS
A DID NOT LANAE MORE THAN ONE
INDIVIDUAL.
THE REVISED BILL IS JUST
BROADER THAN THAT, ALLOWING
LESS SPECIFIC THAN THAT, BUT
STILL ALLOWS PATROL OFFICERS TO
USE PEPPER SPRAY.
I WOULD NOTE WITH SOME EMPHASIS
THAT LAW IS STILL REVIEWING
THIS BASE BILL.
THIS SHOULD DEFINITELY BE
CONSIDERED A PRELIMINARY DRAFT.
LET'S GO ON TO SLIDE FOUR.
AS CHAIR HERBOLD MENTIONED, WE
WOULD LIKE THE FEEDBACK OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE POLICY
DISCUSSIONS REGARDING EACH OF
THE FIVE LESS LETHAL WEAPONS
ADDRESSE IN THE DRAFT BILL.
FOR EACH OF THESE, YOU WILL SEE
AT LEAST THREE PRIMARY OPTIONS
AND IN SOME CASES A FOURTH
OPTION.
THESE WOULD BE TO AFFIRM THE
BAN ON THE USE OF THE DEVICE,
EXEMPT THE DEVICE FROM THE BAN,
OR EXEMPT THE DEVICE FROM THE
BAN WITH SPECIFIC POLICY
CONDITIONS, WHICH WOULD BE
EITHER WRITTEN INTO THE
LEGISLATION OR DRAFTED BY THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT WITH THE
APPROVAL OF THE COURT.
AGAIN, FOR ANY EXEMPTIONS WITH
CONDITIONS, SO IF YOU CHOSE
THIS THIRD OPTION, THE
COMMITTEE DOES NOT NEED TO
FINALIZE ANY DESIRED CONDITIONS
TODAY.
THE CHAIR IS HOPING THE
COMMITTEE CAN DETERMINE WHETHER
THE POLICY CONDITION SHOULD BE
INCLUDED IN THE ORDINANCE OR
LEFT FOR SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT TO DEVELOP IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE
ACCOUNTABILITY AGENCIES AND THE
COURT.
>> THANK YOU, LISE, FOR MAKING
THAT PARTICULAR POINT.
I JUST WANT TO UNDERSCORE IT.
I DON'T THINK WE ARE GOING TO
HAVE THE TIME TO GET INTO THE
UNIVERSE OF CONDITIONS THAT WE
MIGHT WANT TO APPLY.
WERE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO
TALK ABOUT ALL THE DIFFERENT
KINDS OF CONDITIONS THAT WE
MIGHT WANT TO APPLY.
I WELCOME CONVERSATION ABOUT
IT.
BUT I JUST DON'T WANT
COUNCILMEMBERS TO FEEL
PRESSURED TO IDENTIFY WHAT ALL
OF THOSE MIGHT BE IN THIS
MEETING.
WE WILL HAVE THAT DISCUSSION
MORE IN DEPTH AT OUR NEXT
MEETING.
AS LISA STATED, WOULD BE GREAT
TO HEAR FROM FOLKS WHETHER OR
NOT THEY THINK CONDITIONS
SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE
ORDINANCE OR WHETHER OR NOT WE
SHOULD DIRECT THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT TO DEVELOP POLICIES
FOR THOSE CONDITIONS AND OF
COURSE THOSE POLICIES OF THE
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WILL HAVE
TO GO THROUGH THE CONSENT
DECREE PROCESS.
>> MADAM CHAIR, SHOULD I GO
AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO THE
SPECIFIC POLICY OPTIONS AT THIS
POINT?
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT?
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A FEW
GENERAL POINTS BEFORE WE GO
INTO THE SPECIFICS, BUT I JUST
WANTED TO SAY, AS THE PEOPLE
WATCHING THIS WILL RECALL, THE
BAN ON CROWD CONTROL WEAPONS
WAS WON BY THE MOVEMENT LAST
JUNE DURING THE HEIGHT OF THE
STREET PROTESTS.
IT WAS PUT FORWARD BY THE
OFFICE ALONGSIDE THE MOVEMENT.
I WANTED TO MAKE SOME REMARKS
RELATED TO THAT AND WHEN I
THINK ABOUT THE OVERALL
FRAMEWORK HERE. THIS WAS A
CRUCIAL VICTORY FOR THE BLACK
LIVES MATTER MOVEMENT.
AS MANY HAVE SAID BEFORE ME,
THE EVENTS OF LAST WEDNESDAY,
WHICH I KNOW MOST OF THE
COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE ALREADY
SPOKEN TO THIS AND WE ARE IN
AGREEMENT ABOUT THIS, IT WAS
REALLY OMINOUS WHAT WE ARE
SEEING FROM THE FAR RIGHT.
WHAT IS ALSO OMINOUS ALONGSIDE
THAT IS THAT THE FAR RIGHT MOB
WAS GREETED WITH KID GLOVES,
WHEREAS CONSISTENTLY, ALMOST
OVERWHELMINGLY, UNANIMOUSLY WE
HAVE SEEN HIS WEAPONS BEING
DEPLOYED AGAINST LEFT WING
PROTESTS.
THAT IS WHY IT IS REALLY
CRUCIAL TO NOT HAVE ANY
WEAKENING OF THE BAN.
I APPRECIATE COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD POINTING OUT THAT
OBVIOUSLY, BECAUSE THE CITY IS
UNDER THE CONSENT AGREEMENT, WE
NEED TO GO THROUGH THAT
PROCESS.
I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT WE ARE
NOT TRYING TO PRETEND THAT WE
EXIST IN THE UNIVERSE THAT DOES
NOT HAVE THAT PROCESS.
AS I SAID YESTERDAY, I FEEL
QUITE CONCERNED THAT IN REALITY
THE APPARATUS OF THE CITY,
MAYOR DURKAN, THE POLICE CHIEF,
FORMER POLICE CHIEF BEST, AT
THAT TIME WRITER -- RIGHT AFTER
WE HAD PASSED THIS UNANIMOUSLY,
THEY USED THE PROCEDURAL STEP
OF NOTIFYING THE FEDERAL COURT
OVERSEEING THE CONSENT DEGREE
-- CONSENT DECREE.
THEY WERE TRYING TO USE IT AS
AN OPPORTUNITY TO DERAIL THE
BAN AND STOP IT FROM BEING
IMPLEMENTED.
THAT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BY JUDGE
ROBART AT THAT TIME, WHO
REFUSED TO GRANT WHAT THEY WERE
ASKING BETWEEN THE LINES, WHICH
IS TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
ON THIS ORDINANCE. AND THEN OF
COURSE, HE LATER ON, AS YOU
MENTIONED, HE DID GRANT THAT.
BUT THAT WAS IN RESPONSE TO A
REQUEST FROM TRUMP'S DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE.
THAT WAS JOINED BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY.
THAT IS WHAT CONCERNS ME.
I CANNOT THINK OF ANOTHER TIME
WHEN THE CITY HAS GONE TO COURT
TO BLOCK THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
LEGISLATION THAT WAS PASSED,
MUCH LESS UNANIMOUSLY, BY THE
HIGHEST LEGISLATIVE BODY OF THE
CITY.
WILD DONALD TRUMP'S DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE AND JENNY DURKAN'S
POLICE DEPARTMENT ARE
SUPERFICIALLY THE TWO SITES OF
THIS, THEY ARE IN TOTAL
AGREEMENT ON THIS POINT AND ON
THE REPRESSION OF PROTESTS.
THERE WAS NOBODY IN THE COURT
REPRESENTING THE PROTESTERS AND
ORDINARY PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT
THESE WEAPONS DEPLOYED.
BY CONTRAST, WHEN A DIFFERENT
FEDERAL JUDGE PLACED A
DIFFERENT INJUNCTION ON THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT TEMPORARILY
BANNING THEIR USE OF TEAR GAS,
AND THIS WAS MENTIONED BEFORE,
THE POLICE VIOLATED THAT
INJUNCTION AND THE CITY
UNSUCCESSFULLY WENT TO COURT TO
FIGHT TO HAVE THAT INJUNCTION
LIFTED.
AND SO I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT
THAT WE PASS LEGISLATION THAT
DOES NOT HAVE ANY LOOPHOLES.
I WILL HAPPILY SUPPORT ANY
LEGISLATION AROUND ANY AMENDMENT
TO SUPPORT ENDING THAT
INJUNCTION SO THE BILL CAN GO
INTO EFFECT.
I DON'T WANT TO SEE IS LOOPHOLES
, AND WE WILL HAVE THAT
DISCUSSION, SO WE WILL SEE
WHERE THE COUNCILMEMBERS STAND,
BUT IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE
DON'T CREATE GIANT LOOPHOLES.
I WILL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE
MEMO THAT CHAIR HERBOLD
CIRCULATED AND ALSO LAST NIGHT,
HER OFFICE CIRCULATED, THE
BASELINE LEGISLATION WITH I
APPRECIATE, BUT THERE ARE ALSO
OPTIONS THAT LISA WILL GO
THROUGH NOW THAT WILL CREATE
THAT OPPORTUNITY.
I WOULD URGE COUNCILMEMBERS
THAT GIVEN THE CLEAR TRACK
RECORD OF POLICE DEPARTMENTS
TARGETING PROGRESSIVE AND LEFT-
WING MOVEMENTS WITH VIOLENCE
AND USING KID GLOVES IN
RESPONSE TO FAR RIGHT MOBBS,
THAT WE HOLD THE LINE AND
REALLY SUPPORT THE PRINCIPAL
AND PAST THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE
LEGISLATION.
THANK YOU.
>> YOU REMINDED ME OF ANOTHER
IMPORTANT PIECE OF CONTEXT THAT
I WANT TO REMIND EVERYBODY AND
MAKE SURE THAT THE PUBLIC
UNDERSTANDS, AS WELL.
UNDER THE CONSENT DECREE, THE
SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT IS
REQUIRED TO REGULARLY REVIEW
ITS INTERNAL POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES.
THEY ARE REVIEWING THEM IN
REGARDS TO CROWD CONTROL
MANAGEMENT AS WELL AS REGARDS TO
LESS LETHAL WEAPONS OPTIONS.
AS PART OF THEIR REVIEW OF
THOSE POLICIES, THEIR
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES TO
THOSE POLICIES WILL ALSO GO
THROUGH THE CONSENT DECREE
PROCESS, JUST LIKE OUR
LEGISLATION HAS TO GO THROUGH
THE CONSENT DECREE PROCESS.
SUBJECT TO THE REVIEW OF THE
MONITOR AND JUDGE ROBART.
I THINK ONE OF MY GOALS IS NOT
CONSENT DECREE REVIEW PROCESS
STRONG LEGISLATION, BUT TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE HAVE A BILL THAT
THE CONSENT DECREE PROCESS CAN
REVIEW ALONGSIDE THE
RECOMMENDATIONS, THE
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE SPD IS
MAKING FOR REVIEW OF ITS
POLICIES.
I AM VERY CONCERNED THAT WE
COULD GET INTO A SITUATION
WHERE THE COURT AND THE MONITOR
ARE ONLY REVIEWING THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT. THAT IS ONE REASON
WHY IT IS SO IMPORTANT THAT WE
WORK WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY ON
ENSURING THAT THE TIMEFRAME FOR
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT REVIEW
AND SUBMISSION OF THEIR
POLICIES HAPPENS IN A WAY THAT
ALLOWS THE COUNCIL TO ACT SO
THAT THE JUDGE UNDERSTANDS BOTH
WHAT THE POLICY PREFERENCES OF
THE COUNCIL ARE AS WELL AS THE
PREFERENCES OF THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT.
I DON'T WANT A SITUATION WHERE
WE HAVE THE CONSENT DECREE
REVIEW PROCESS OR THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDED CHANGES
TO BE HAPPENING IN A VACUUM
WITHOUT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF
THE COUNCIL CHANGES TO THE
LEGISLATION.
THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS FOR MY
COLLEAGUES. LET'S MOVE ON TO
THE POLICY OPTIONS FOR EACH OF
THE LESS LETHAL WEAPONS.
>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
SO WE ARE STARTING WITH BLAST
BALLS.
I WILL GIVE A BRIEF REMINDER
PRIOR TO EACH OF THESE ABOUT
WHAT THESE DEVICES DO.
YOU ARE ALL INTIMATELY FAMILIAR
WITH THIS, I AM SURE.
GLASS BALLS ARE ROUND, RUBBER
DEVICES DESIGNED TO CREATE
DIVERSIONARY LIGHT AND SOUND.
THEY ONLY USE THESE BALLS THAT
PRODUCE LIGHT AND SOUND IN
POWDER OR A SMALL AMOUNT OF
PEPPER SPRAY.
THE DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT IS THE
BASE BILL DOES NOT MAKE ANY
CHANGES TO THIS SPAN OR TO THE
BAN THAT WAS IN THE ORDINANCE
126102.
THERE WAS NOT CONSENSUS AMONG
THE ACCOUNTABILITY AGENCIES ON
WHETHER OR NOT TO USE THESE.
GIVEN THAT, THE COMMITTEE'S
OPTIONS ARE TO RETAIN THE TOTAL
TWO -- THE TOTAL BAN; OPTION
TWO, WHICH WOULD SPECIFY
EXCEPTIONS TO THE BAN ; AND
OPTION THREE, WHICH WOULD
SPECIFY EXCEPTIONS TO THE BAN
SUBJECT TO AT A CONDITIONS THAT
WOULD THEN BE SPECIFIED EITHER
IN LEGISLATION OR DRAFTED BY
THE SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT
WITH COURT APPROVAL.
I WILL TURN THAT BACK TO YOU,
MADAM CHAIR, FOR A DISCUSSION
ON BLAST BALLS.
>> I AM LOOKING TO SEE WHETHER
OR NOT FOLKS HAVE ANY COMMENTS
ON THIS.
WANT TO SEE IF FOLKS HAVE ANY
COMMENTS IN THIS PARTICULAR
LESS LETHAL FORCE WEAPON.
JUST A FEW BACKGROUND COMMENTS
AS IT RELATES TO THE HISTORY OF
THE USE OF BLAST BALLS. I WANT
TO REMIND FOLKS THAT IN 2016,
THE COMMUNITY POLICE COMMISSION
BALD -- CALLED FOR THE POLICE
OMMISSION TO STOP USING BLAST
BALLS AFTER INJURIES WERE
REPORTED TO PROTESTERS AND
REPORTERS.
THE CPC CONTINUES TO RECOMMEND
A COMPLETE BAN.
THE OTHER TWO AGENCIES ARE NOT
RECOMMENDING A COMPLETE BAN.
BACK IN 2016, THE CPC SET UNTIL
SUCH TIME AS BLAST BALLS
PROPENSITY FOR CAUSING INJURY,
INCLUDING SPECIFIC EVIDENCE
FROM THE PAST TWO YEARS IN
SEATTLE AND THEIR APPROPRIATE
USE GIVING THAT RISK HAVE BEEN
PUBLICLY WEIGHED, WE ASK THAT
THE SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT
SUSPENDED THEIR USE.
THIS IS WHAT THEY SAID IN 2016.
IN JUNE OF LAST YEAR, A
PROTESTER WAS NEARLY KILLED
AFTER USE OF A BLAST ALL.
DESPITE TRAINING,
INDISCRIMINATE USE AND
CONSISTENT WITH TRAINING
CONTINUES.
-- INCONSISTENT WITH TRAINING
CONTINUES.
THE CPC RECOMMENDS THAT THE BAN
ALLOWS FOR USE OF APPROPRIATE
LESS LETHAL OPTIONS, THAT THE
BAN SHOULD ALLOW FOR USE OF
APPROPRIATE LESS LETHAL OPTIONS
WITH STRONG POLICIES AND
ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS
OUTSIDE OF CROWD CONTROL.
THE CPC STILL BELIEVES THAT WE
SHOULD ALLOW FOR THE FULL BAN
OF BLAST BALLS AND TEAR GAS.
THERE IS ALSO AN OLD REPORT FROM
, I WANT TO SAY IT WAS AROUND
2017, COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ
MIGHT REMEMBER BETTER THAN I ,
ONE OF THE ACTION STEPS RELATES
TO THE USE OF BLAST BALLS.
ABSENT CLEARLY ARTICULATED
CIRCUMSTANCES, THEY SHOULD NOT
BE DEPLOYED.
HISTORICALLY, THERE HAVE BEEN
DRAMATIC DEVIATIONS FROM THE
NORM.
AGAIN, THERE HAVE BEEN LONG-
STANDING EXPECTATIONS THAT THE
SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT MAKE
CHANGES TO THEIR APPLICATION
AND USE OF BLAST BALLS THAT,
FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THEY ARE
NOT FULFILLING SET
EXPECTATIONS.
I AM INCLINED TO SUPPORT THE
POLICY OPTION THAT IS
IDENTIFIED AS OPTION ONE,
RETAINING THE TOTAL BAN FOR
ORDINANCE 126102.
>> CHAIR?
>> YES, PLEASE.
THANK YOU.
ARE YOU CALLING ON ME?
>> I AM CALLING ON YOU.
>> OKAY.
>> I HAD TO LOOK AT MY CAMERA
TO ACTUALLY SEE WHAT IS GOING
ON ON MY SCREEN.
FEEL FREE TO SPEAK UP.
>> OKAY.
SO I AM INCLINED TO AGREE WITH
YOU.
PARTICULARLY AFTER ALL OF THE
VIDEO FOOTAGE THAT WE SAW OVER
THE SUMMER WHERE THESE DEVICES
THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ROLLED
INTO A CROWD ARE ACTUALLY BEING
THROWN OVERHEAD AND BEING USED
IN A WAY THAT APPARENTLY SEEMS
TO BE TARGETING INDIVIDUAL
MEMBERS AND CAUSING INJURY, I
DO THINK THERE HAS BEEN
REPEATED ATTEMPTS AND REQUESTS
FOR BETTER TRAINING AND REVIEW
ON HOW THESE DEVICES ARE BEING
USED AND ALSO REPEATED
DISREGARD FOR THAT.
AT THIS POINT, I AM INCLINED TO
AGREE WITH YOU THAT WE SHOULD
JUST CONTINUE THE BAN ON THESE
THAT IS INCLUDED IN THE
ORDINANCE.
>> THANK YOU.
I APPRECIATE YOU SPEAKING UP
HERE.
ANYBODY ELSE?
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT?
>> I WAS USING THE RAISE THE
HAND FEATURE.
>> I THINK COUNCILMEMBER
GONZALEZ WAS BEFORE ME.
I WILL LET HER GO FIRST.
>> OKAY, GO AHEAD.
>> DOES NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE
TO ME WHETHER I GO BEFORE OR
AFTER YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT.
I AM ALSO INCLINED TO SUPPORT
OPTION ONE, WHICH IS RETAINING
THE TOTAL BAN ON THE USE OF
BLAST BALLS PER THE ORDINANCE
THAT WE PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED
FOR ALL OF THE REASONS THAT YOU
HAVE STATED, CHAIR HERBOLD, BUT
ALSO FOR THE REASONS THAT
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES JUST
STATED, AS WELL.
I WILL JUST NOTE THAT IN
ADDITION TO THAT, IN EARLY
DECEMBER, THE ISSUE OF THE USE
OF BLAST BALLS WAS CONSIDERED BY
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
RICHARD JONES, WHO ISSUED A 27
PAGE ORDER IN RESPONSE TO A
MOTION BY BLACK LIVES MATTER
KING COUNTY IN WHICH THERE WAS
A REQUEST TO FIND THE POLICE IN
CONTENT OF AN INJUNCTION THAT
WAS ISSUED EARLIER.
I TAKE TO HEART AND VERY
SERIOUSLY THAT THE COURT IN
THAT PARTICULAR CASE, AND AGAIN
THIS IS AS EARLY AS JUST ABOUT
A MONTH AGO, THAT THE COURT
MENTIONED IN THE ORDER THAT, OF
ALL OF THE LESS LETHAL WEAPONS
USED, THE COURT WAS MOST
CONCERNED WITH THE USE OF BLAST
BALLS, WHICH THE COURT ORDER
DESCRIBED AS BEING THE MOST
INDISCRIMINATE OF THE FOUR
CROWD CONTROL WEAPONS THAT HE
WAS ASKED TO EXAMINE.
I DO THINK THAT THERE IS
UNFORTUNATELY A PRETTY
CONSISTENT TRACK RECORD OF
MISUSE OF BLAST BALLS IN SPITE
OF A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF
TRAINING IN THIS SPACE AND IN
SPITE OF THE INDEPENDENT
CONSULTANT THAT WAS HIRED TO
EVALUATE THE USE OF BLAST BALLS
BY SPD AFTER, I BELIEVE IT WAS
IN 2015 OR 2016 WHEN THERE WAS
SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS OF BLAST
BALLS INJURING JOURNALISTS AS
WELL AS PROTESTERS BECAUSE OF
THEIR INDISCRIMINATE NATURE
ONCE DEPLOYED.
IT IS IMPORTANT FOR US TO TAKE
IN CONSIDERATION, AS LONG AS WE
ARE LOOKING AT LOSING CUES --
CLUES AND CUES THAT WERE
GETTING, IT IS IMPORTANT TO
KEEP IN MIND THE COURT ORDER
THAT WAS ISSUED IN DECEMBER BY
JUDGE JONES, WHO DID NOT MINCE
WORDS ABOUT HOW BLAST BALLS ARE
VERY INDISCRIMINATE AND CREATE
A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF HARM TO
PROTESTERS.
SO I THINK GIVEN THAT ORDER AND
THE OTHER REASONS THAT HAVE
BEEN STATED ON THE RECORD, I
WOULD VERY MUCH BE IN FAVOR OF
OPTION ONE.
THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU.
JUST CHECKING TO SEE IF ANYBODY
ELSE HAS A RAISED HAND.
>> CAN I GO?
>> SORRY.
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT, GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU.
OF COURSE, THE BAN ON, A TOTAL
BAN ON GLAD BLAST BALLS WAS
PART OF THE LEGISLATION THAT MY
OFFICE HAD RE-SPONSORED IN
JUNE, WHICH WAS UNANIMOUSLY
ADOPTED.
NEEDLESS TO SAY, I MAINTAIN
SUPPORT OF A TOTAL BAN ON BLAST
BALLS.
I ALSO COMMEND THE STATEMENTS
ON THE THREE COUNCILMEMBERS WHO
HAVE MAINTAINED THEIR SUPPORT
ON THE TOTAL BAN.
I WOULD WELCOME OTHER
COUNCILMEMBERS TO ADOPT THAT
POSITION.
WE HEARD FROM MANY PEOPLE IN
PUBLIC COMMENT, IN LETTERS, BUT
THERE ARE ALSO STATISTICS THAT
SHOW HOW PEOPLE ARE INJURED,
SOMETIMES PREVIOUSLY, BY BLAST
BALLS DURING PROTESTS.
IT ALSO POINTS TOWARDS WHY, WHEN
WE FORMED THE ORIGINAL
LEGISLATION, WE DID NOT USE THE
TERM LESS LETHAL WEAPONS.
YES, IT IS TECHNICALLY TRUE
THAT THESE ARE LESS LETHAL THAN
BULLETS THAT COULD TAKE IN
LIFE.
BUT IT IS NOT LESS LETHAL THAN,
FOR EXAMPLE, NOT HAVING A BLAST
BALL OR PROJECTILE THROWN AT
YOU.
THEY CAN BE QUITE INJURIOUS. I
THINK THE COMMUNITY POLICE
COMMISSION FOR NOT ONLY
SUPPORTING THE TOTAL BAN NOW,
BUT AS COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD
MENTIONED, THE CPC HAS SPOKEN
ABOUT THIS PUBLICLY AND SENT
LETTERS TO THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT SENSED 2015, 2016.
I WOULD ALSO MENTION THAT THE
FACT THAT IT HAS NOW BEEN FOUR
OR FIVE YEARS WHERE IT HAS NOT
ONLY BEEN THE POSITION OF THE
CPC, BUT THE DATA COLLECTED
OVER THAT TIME SHOWS HOW
HARMFUL THESE WEAPONS ARE, THAT
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT CONTINUES
TO USE IT.
THIS ALSO POINTS TOWARDS HOW,
IN ADDITION TO UPHOLDING A VERY
STRONG BAN ON THESE WEAPONS
COMING OUT OF THIS COMMITTEE,
WE ALSO NEED TO HAVE AN ELECTED
CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT BOARD.
THERE IS REALLY NO ENFORCEMENT,
NOT NO ENFORCEMENT, BUT LITTLE
ENFORCEMENT HAPPENING OVER THE
USE OF THESE WEAPONS BY THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT.
>> MADAM CHAIR, I HAVE SOME
COMMENTS AS WELL IF THIS WOULD
BE THE APPROPRIATE TIME.
>> CERTAINLY.
>> MOST OF MY POINTS HAVE
ALREADY BEEN COVERED,
PARTICULARLY BY COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES AND COUNCILMEMBER
GONZALEZ.
I WILL SAY THAT I WOULD
ACTUALLY HAVE A VERY HARD TIME
VOTING FOR AN ALTERNATE
ORDINANCE UNLESS THERE WAS A
COMPLETE BAN ON BLAST BALLS.
I AGREE WITH THE CONSENSUS THAT
HAS EMERGED HERE.
I DO JUST WANT TO SAY THAT
FOLLOWING COUNCILMEMBER
GONZALEZ'S COMMENTS REGARDING
THE FINDING FROM JUDGE JONES,
WHICH I THINK IS PARTICULARLY
INSTRUCTIVE HERE, I CANNOT
IMAGINE MORE NOTICE FOR THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT TO BE UNDER
REGARDING THE APPROPRIATE AND
PROPER DEPLOYMENT PER POLICY OF
THESE WEAPONS.
WE STILL HAD OFFICERS THROWING
THESE THINGS OVERHAND WHEN IT
HAD AT BEEN EMINENTLY AND STATED
THAT THIS IS A DEPARTURE FROM
STATED POLICY.
AS LATE AS LATE AUGUST, THERE
WERE STILL INSTANCES RECORDED
AND ARE A MATTER OF A CONTEMPT
FINDING AGAINST THE CITY OF
OFFICERS THROWING THESE WEAPONS
OVERHAND IN A WAY THAT MOST
GENEROUSLY COULD BE DESCRIBED
AS INDISCRIMINATE AND MOST
OMINOUSLY COULD BE DESCRIBED AS
A SPECIFIC TARGETING OF
INDIVIDUALS.
GIVEN THAT, I JUST DON'T SEE
HOW SUPPLEMENTAL EFFORTS TO
ENFORCE, TO TRAIN, TO GUIDE
POLICY ARE GOING TO BE MORE
EFFICACIOUS THAN THE EFFORTS BY
THE FEDERAL COURTS AND THE CITY
TO REIN IN THIS USE OVER THE
SUMMER THAT HAS STILL RESULTED
IN MISUSE OF THESE WEAPONS.
FOR THAT REASON, I DO SUPPORT
RETAINING THE TOTAL BAN ON THE
BLAST BALLS.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
LEWIS.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S MOVE TO THE
NEXT SLIDE.
I BELIEVE THAT IS 48 MILLIMETER
LAUNCHERS.
I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THIS DISCUSSION, WE
ARE TALKING ABOUT NOT THE
LAUNCHER ITSELF, BUT HOW IT IS
USED AND WHAT IS IN IT.
AND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ITS
USE TO LAUNCH OC SPRAY.
THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF
LAUNCHERS.
ONE IS A SINGLE USE LAUNCHER
AND THE OTHER MULTI USE
LAUNCHER.
I WOULD LIKE IT IF WE COULD
FOCUS OUR DISCUSSION TODAY ON
NOT THE EQUIPMENT ITSELF, BUT
HOW IT IS USED TO DEPLOY
DANGEROUS CHEMICAL IRRITANTS IN
A WAY THAT IS INDISCRIMINATE.
>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
YOU HAVE SLIDE SIX IN FRONT OF
YOU THERE.
THIS IS 40 MILLIMETER
LAUNCHERS, AS CHAIR HERBOLD
MENTIONED.
THESE CAN BE USED TO FIRE
SPONGE ROUNDS AND OTHER
PROJECTILES.
THE SPONGE ROUNDS MAY OR MAY
NOT BE INFUSED WITH PEPPER
SPRAY.
AS THE COUNCIL MEMBER
MENTIONED, THERE ARE SINGLE AND
MULTIUSE APPLICATIONS WITH
DIFFERENT DISTANCES THAT CAN BE
ACHIEVED BY THE DIFFERENT TYPES
OF LAUNCHER.
THE DRAFT ORDINANCE REFLECTS
THE CONSENSUS THAT THESE
LAUNCHERS SHOULD BE BANNED FOR
USE FOR CROWD DISPERSAL, BUT
AVAILABLE FOR S.W.A.T.
AND PATROL OFFICERS TO USE IN
NON-CROWD CONTROL SITUATIONS.
YOUR POLICY OPTIONS, YOU WILL
HEAR THESE ALL THE WAY THROUGH
THESE PRESENTATIONS, BUT OPTION
ONE IS TO RETAIN THE TOTAL BAN,
OPTION TWO WOULD REFLECT THE
CONSENSUS POSITION IN THE BASE
BILL, WHICH IS TO ACCRUE
EXEMPTIONS TO THE BAN FOR
PATROL AND S.W.A.T.
OPTION THREE WOULD APPROVE
EXEMPTIONS THE BILL FOR PATROL
AND S.W.A.T., BUT ALSO SPECIFY
EXEMPTIONS FOR CROWD CONTROL
SITUATIONS.
OPTION FOUR WOULD BE, IF THERE
WERE THOSE ADDITIONAL
EXCEPTIONS ADDED, YOU WOULD
MAKE THOSE SUBJECT TO
CONDITIONS EITHER IN
LEGISLATION OR AS DRAFTED BY
THE SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT
WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE COURT.
>> ON THIS, TOO, I SEE ON THE
SLIDE, AND I MAY HAVE HURT YOU
DIFFERENTLY, BUT THE CONSENSUS
POSITION IS TO BAN FOR PATROL
AND S.W.A.T.
, AND THAT IS WHAT IS REFLECTED
IN THE BILL, CORRECT?
THE CONSENSUS POSITION DOES NOT
INCLUDE BANNING IN CROWD
CONTROL SITUATIONS.
>> CORRECT.
>> ALL RIGHT.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER, I WOULD LIKE
TO ADD ONE OTHER THING.
WHILE FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES,
THERE IS A DIFFERENTIATION
BEING MADE BETWEEN PATROL AND
S.W.A.T., THE BILL ITSELF, THE
EXISTING ORDINANCE CAN NOT MAKE
ANY EXISTING DIFFERENTIATIONS.
IF WE WANT TO MAKE ANY
DIFFERENTIATIONS, THAT WOULD
NEED TO BE REPORTED IN THE
BILL.
>> THANK YOU, GREG.
THINK ABOUT PUTTING A PIN IN
THAT AND RETURNING TO THOSE
DEFINITIONS AT A FUTURE MEETING.
AGAIN, THE OPTIONS ARE
RETAINING THE TOTAL BAN AS THE
ORDINANCE REQUIRES, APPROVING
THE BASE BILL WHICH ONLY
INCLUDES THE CONSENSUS POSITION
OF THE BAN FOR PATROL IN
S.W.A.T.
-- PATROL AND S.W.A.T.,
OPTION THREE BEING APPROVING
THE EXEMPTIONS TO THE BAN FOR
PATROL IN S.W.A.T.
AND ADDING ADDITIONAL
EXEMPTIONS FOR CROWD CONTROL.
AGAIN, WITH THIS ITEM, I AM
INCLINED TO MAINTAIN THE BAN
AS PROPOSED IN ORDINANCE 126102.
AGAIN, THE CPC RECOMMENDS
BANNING FOR CROWD CONTROL. THE
OPA AND OIG HAVE NOT
RECOMMENDED BANNING THIS TOOL
IN CROWD CONTROL SITUATIONS.
THE BILL AS IT IS CURRENTLY
DRAFTED REPRESENTS A CONSENSUS
TO ALLOW IN NON-CROWD CONTROL
SITUATIONS -- AND AGAIN, AS I
MENTIONED, I WANT TO FOCUS ON
REGULATING HOW THE LAUNCHER IS
USED AND WHAT GOES IN IT, WHAT
-- NOT WHAT TYPE OF LAUNCHER IT
IS.
IN RECOGNITION THAT THERE IS A
CONSENSUS POSITION THAT THERE
BE NO BAN FOR PEPPER SPRAY IN
CROWD CONTROL SITUATIONS WHERE
IT IS TRADITIONALLY EMPLOYED,
SO THAT IS NOT ONLY THE
CONSENSUS POSITION, BUT THE
POSITION CONTAINED IN ORDINANCE
126102, WHAT THAT MEANS IS IF
WE LOOK AT MAINTAINING THE BAN
FOR CROWD CONTROL SITUATIONS OF
LAUNCHING OC, THE ORDINANCE AS
DRAFTED ALLOWS PEPPER SPRAY TO
BE DEPLOYED IN CROWD CONTROL
SITUATIONS WITH SOME DEFINED
CONDITIONS.
AND I THINK WE CAN HAVE ANOTHER
CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT THOSE
DEFINED CONDITIONS MIGHT BE.
AGAIN, MY INCLINATION IS TO
MAINTAIN THE BAN ON DEPLOYING
PEPPER SPRAY BY LAUNCHER. AGAIN,
I THINK THIS IS A HARMFUL
CHEMICAL IRRITANT THAT, WHEN
DEPLOYED BY LAUNCHER, IS FAIRLY
INDISCRIMINATE.
THE DEPLOYMENT METHOD MAKES IT
VERY HARD TO USE IN THE METHOD
IN WHICH PEPPER SPRAY WAS
DESIGNED TO BE USED, WHICH IS A
FAIRLY TARGETED FASHION TO NOT
IMPACT LARGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE,
BUT TO FOCUS ON INDIVIDUALS WHO
ARE ENGAGED IN ILLEGAL ACTIVITY.
SO WITH THAT, I WILL GET BACK
MY SCREEN HERE.
I WILL SEE IF MY COUNCIL
COLLEAGUES HAVE ANY THOUGHTS
ABOUT THAT RECOMMENDATION.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD, I AM
HAPPY TO WEIGH IN.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
GONZALEZ.
>> I APPRECIATE YOUR
DESCRIPTION HERE.
I WAS LOOKING AT SOME OF THE
COURT ORDERS RELATED TO THE
LAUNCHERS AND SAW THAT, IN SOME
INSTANCES, LAUNCHERS WERE BEING
USED TO -- THE THING THEY WERE
LAUNCHING WAS SOMETHING OTHER
THAN A CHEMICAL IRRITANT
I AM INCLINED TO AGAIN SUPPORT
WHAT IS IN THE CURRENT BASE
BILL, OPTION TWO, FOR THE
REASONS THAT YOU DESCRIBED.
BUT I AM OPEN TO CONTINUING TO
HAVE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT HOW
THIS MUNITION IS USED IN CROWD
CONTROL SETTINGS. THAT COULD BE
A WORLD IN WHICH WE WANT TO
REVISIT THE BASE BILL TO BE
MORE RESTRICTIVE, NOT JUST
LIMITING ITS BAN ON APPOINTMENT
OF CHEMICAL IRRITANTS, BUT ALSO
PROJECTILES THAT COULD BE VERY
HARMFUL.
AND SO I DON'T WANT TO EXCLUDE
THE OPTION TO AT LEAST HAVE A
CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT.
I AM NOT SAYING THAT IS WHERE I
AM IT.
I AM JUST LAGGING THAT I WOULD
BE INTERESTED IN LEARNING MORE
ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR DEVICE
AND HOW IT IS DEPLOYED IN THESE
SETTINGS.
BUT FOR NOW, BASED ON THE
INFORMATION I HAVE, I AM
COMFORTABLE WITH MOVING FORWARD
WITH OPTION TWO AS SORT OF THE
BASELINE OF WHERE WE WILL START
THE CONVERSATION, WITH THE
UNDERSTANDING THAT WE MAY WANT
TO REVISIT THIS AS WE GET MORE
INFORMATION ABOUT HOW THIS
MUNITION IS DEPLOYED.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
GONZALEZ.
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES, I THINK
YOU HAD A QUESTION?
>> I DO.
THIS IS ACTUALLY FOR THE
COMMUNITY POLICE COMMISSION.
I WILL SAY THAT I HAVE BEEN
THINKING ABOUT THIS WHOLE ISSUE
MUCH DIFFERENTLY IN THE LAST
WEEK.
AND SO I AM CURIOUS, I AM
LOOKING AT THE TABLE THAT WE
HAD UP BEFORE.
YOU KNOW, MY INCLINATION IS TO
AGREE THAT NONE THESE WEAPONS
SHOULD BE USED FOR CROWD
CONTROL DISPERSAL, ESPECIALLY
IN THE WAY THAT THEY HAVE BEEN
IN OUR CITY.
AND I AM ALSO WONDERING, IF
THERE IS A CROWD CONTROL
DISPERSAL METHOD, I AM THINKING
PARTICULARLY ABOUT FASCIST MOBS
, THAT THE CPC IS THINKING, OR
IF THERE IS AN EXISTING
ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF THE
ESCALATION IN THESE SORTS OF
SITUATIONS, THAT WE SHOULD BE
REVISITING WITH SPD.
>> DEFINITELY.
AS FAR AS POLICE TACTICS AROUND
CROWD CONTROL, I THINK THAT IS
DEFINITELY A CONVERSATION THAT
WERE WILLING TO HAVE.
THE SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT
IS NO LONGER THE ONLY ONES
WEIGHING THESE BANS ON CROWD
CONTROL WEAPONS AND SUCH.
THIS IS A CONVERSATION
HAPPENING.
IN PHILADELPHIA, THEY'RE
LOOKING TO FIND BETTER WAYS TO
NOT INFRINGE ON PEOPLE.
BUT ALSO, WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
THERE ARE OTHER SITUATIONS SUCH
AS TERRORIST ATTACKS LIKE WE
SAW IN THE CAPITAL, OUR
RECOMMENDATIONS DEAL WITH CROWD
CONTROL AND THE TYPES OF FIRST
AMENDMENT DEMONSTRATIONS THAT
WE SAW OVER THE SUMMER.
THAT IS DEFINITELY A CONTINUING
CONVERSATION THAT WE ARE HAVING
IN THE CPC.
IF IT IS HELPFUL FOR READING
OUR RECOMMENDATIONS, I AM
CONSIDERING THE BAN ON 40
MILLIMETER LAUNCHERS.
WHEN WE WERE CONCEIVING THESE,
WE WERE CONTINUING TO SUPPORT
THE ELIMINATION OF CHEMICAL
WEAPONS USED AGAINST PROTESTERS
IN ANY FORM. WHEN WE WERE
TALKING ABOUT THE 40 MILLIMETER
LAUNCHER, WE WERE MORE
DESCRIBING THE USE OF PHONE
BULLETS THAT SPD IS USING.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION.
>> AND IF YOU COULD ADD ME TO
THE QUEUE.
>> I THINK THE EXCHANGE BETWEEN
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES AND THE
COMMISSIONER WAS SORT OF ALONG
THE LINES OF WHAT I AM THINKING
WITH A LOT OF THESE DECISIONS
THAT WE ARE MAKING TODAY.
I THINK THE KEY CONCERN OR THE
KEY PROBLEM IS DETERMINING THE
SPECIFIC DEFINITIONS AND WAYS
TO GOVERN THE PROCESS BY WHICH
SOMETHING GOES FROM A FIRST
AMENDMENT CROWD TO A MOB THAT
IS ATTACKING SOMETHING.
AND THIS HAS BEEN THE ISSUE
THROUGHOUT 2020 THAT I THINK
WAS VERY CHALLENGING.
IT WAS CHALLENGING IN OUR
COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT, DISAGREEMENT OVER
WHAT CONSTITUTES A CROWD OF
PEOPLE THAT REFLECTS A THREAT
TO PERSON OR PROPERTY VERSUS A
CROWD OF PEOPLE WHO ARE WANTING
TO BE HEARD AND TO DEMONSTRATE.
I THINK THAT THOSE ATTENDED
DEFINITIONS, I KNOW I AM
STRAYING FROM EXACTLY THE
POLICY THAT WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT HERE, BUT I THINK IT DOES
HAVE IMPLICATIONS TO HAVE A
FIRMER GRIP ON MAKING SURE THAT
IF THERE ARE POLICIES THAT ARE
CREATED THAT ENVISION SOMETHING
LIKE A TERRORIST ATTACK ON A
SEAT OF GOVERNMENT OR A MOB
WITH VIOLENT INTENT SEEKING TO
DISRUPT OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT
PROCEEDINGS WITH ILL INTENT,
THAT THAT IS NOT A DEFINITION
THAT CAN BE EASILY MASSAGED TO
JUSTIFY USE OF THESE TOOLS ON
FIRST AMENDMENT DEMONSTRATIONS
WITH IMPLAUSIBLE ARGUMENTS THAT
THE DEMONSTRATION WAS AN
INCIPIENT INSURRECTION.
AS WE CONTINUE TO TALK ABOUT
THESE THINGS, AND THIS IS JUST
A BRIEF DIGRESSION, DESPITE THE
HORRIBLE INITIAL RESPONSE BY
FEDERAL AUTHORITIES LAST WEEK
TO THE ATTACK ON THE CAPITAL,
THE REASON MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
WERE NOT MURDERED OR KIDNAPPED
AND THAT THOSE CEREMONIES WERE
ABLE TO CONTINUE IS THERE WAS
ULTIMATELY A DEPLOYMENT OF SOME
LESSER LETHAL MUNITIONS THAT
CLEARED THE CAPITAL AND ALLOWED
THE AUTHORITIES TO GET THE
CAPITAL UNDER CONTROL.
IT IS CLEAR THERE ARE CONTEXTS
WHERE IT IS ESSENTIAL TO HAVE
ACCESS TO SOME OF THESE TOOLS.
PERSONALLY, I THINK A LOT OF
THIS COMES DOWN TO TIGHTENING
UP THE DEFINITIONS OF RIOT, OF
MOB, OF SOME OF THE THINGS THAT
HAVE BEEN USED OVER THE SUMMER
TO GROUND DOWN PEACEFUL
ASSEMBLIES AND JUSTIFY MASSIVE
USES OF FORCE WHEN THERE ARE
JUST A FEW PEOPLE DIGRESSING
THE CROWD.
ANYWAY, SORRY.
THAT IS JUST A LARGE BRAIN DUMP
OF SOME OF MY THOUGHTS BASED ON
THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES AND THE
COMMISSIONER.
I AM SORT OF IN THAT SAME PLACE
OF TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE
WE DRAW SOME OF THOSE
BOUNDARIES.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
LEWIS.
JUST TO GIVE A PREVIEW OF MY
RECOMMENDED POLICY PREFERENCES
AS IT RELATES TO THESE WEAPONS,
RIGHT NOW, FOR THIS PARTICULAR
WEAPON, I AM RECOMMENDING THAT
WE MAINTAIN THE BAN FOR CROWD
CONTROL SITUATIONS.
I AM NOT TAKING THE POSITION
THAT THE POLICE SHOULD NOT HAVE
ACCESS TO ANY LESS LETHAL
WEAPONS IN CROWD CONTROL
CONDITIONS.
SO I AGREE WITH YOU THAT WE DO
NEED TO HAVE A CONVERSATION
ABOUT THOSE CONDITIONS.
WHEN USING IN A CROWD CONTROL
SITUATION AND WE HAVE FLAGS
THAT WE WILL SPEND SOME TIME IN
OUR NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING
TALKING ABOUT THE CONDITIONS,
THOSE CONDITIONS WILL BE APPLIED
IN SO FAR AS WE CREATE
EXEMPTIONS TO THE BAN FOR THE
USE OF THESE WEAPONS IN CROWD
CONTROL SITUATIONS.
WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE IN
CONCURRENCE THAT THIS
PARTICULAR ITEM SHOULD NOT BE
USED IN CROWD CONTROL
SITUATIONS BECAUSE OF, I SHOULD
SAY THIS PARTICULAR ITEM AS IT
RELATES TO ITS USE TO DEPLOY
CHEMICAL IRRITANTS, IF YOU ARE
IN AGREEMENT THAT THAT SHOULD
NOT BE A TOOL THAT OFFICERS
HAVE IN CROWD CONTROL
SITUATIONS, THEN I THINK WE CAN
NOT DELVE FURTHER INTO THE
CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW TO
DEFINE A RIOT OR WHAT THOSE
CONDITIONS MIGHT BE.
BUT IF YOU ARE TAKING A
POSITION THAT WE WANT TO RETAIN
THE USE OF 40 MILLIMETER
LAUNCHERS TO DEPLOY PEPPER SPRAY
, I THINK THAT IS, THE
CONVERSATION ABOUT CONDITIONS
UNDER WHICH WE WOULD ALLOW THAT
EXEMPTION FOR THEIR USE IN
CROWD CONTROL SITUATIONS IS
VALID FOR THIS SLIDE.
>> SORRY.
TO BE CLEAR, MADAM CHAIR, I
CONCUR WITH MADAM CHAIR'S
POSITION ON THIS POLICY.
I WAS JUST MAKING A GENERAL
DIGRESSION THAT FORESHADOWS
THINGS WE WILL TALK ABOUT
LATER.
SO SORRY, I SHOULD HAVE
INCLUDED THAT IN MY REMARKS.
>> NOT A PROBLEM.
THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT?
>> THANK YOU.
SO I JUST WANTED TO, JUST TO
MAKE SURE MY COMMENTS ARE ABOUT
WHAT IS BEING DISCUSSED HERE,
THIS BEING A LITTLE BIT CHANGED
FROM THE ORIGINAL POWERPOINT,
SINCE YOU ARE ASKING,
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD, FOR ANY
COMMENTS ABOUT LAUNCHERS
LAUNCHING CHEMICAL WEAPONS, I
RESERVE I COMMENTS ABOUT OTHER
USES OF LAUNCHERS LIKE RUBBER
BULLETS UNTIL THE QUESTION
COMES UP UNLESS YOU WANT ME TO
MAKE THOSE POINTS NOW, WHICH I
DON'T THINK YOU ARE SAYING.
ACTUALLY, BEFORE MY POINT ON
THAT, I WANT TO CLARIFY THE
ORIGINAL BILL FROM MY OFFICE,
WHICH WAS PASSED IN JUNE, ASKED
TO BAN ALL LAUNCHERS.
THAT IS THE BASELINE.
RIGHT NOW, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
USING LAUNCHERS TO DEPLOY
CHEMICAL WEAPONS LIKE PEPPER
SPRAY. ABSOLUTELY, I OPPOSE THE
USE OF LAUNCHERS FOR CHEMICAL
WEAPONS. AND I THINK LAUNCHERS
SHOULD BE TOTALLY BANNED WHEN
SHOOTING CHEMICAL WEAPONS.
PERHAPS THE WAY TO DO THAT IS
TO EXPLICITLY PROHIBIT THOSE
PEPPER SPRAY MUNITIONS.
THAT IS A QUESTION THAT NEEDS
TO BE DISCUSSED.
I CANNOT IMAGINE A TIME WHEN
SOMETHING LIKE OC IS LAUNCHED
FROM A 40 MILLIMETER LAUNCHER
OUTSIDE OF CROWD CONTROL
SETTINGS.
REALLY, IT IS SET UP TO KIND OF
TERRORIZE AND BRUTALIZE A
PEACEFUL PROTEST.
I JUST DON'T BUY THESE
ARGUMENTS THAT ARE BEING MADE
THAT IF THE POLICE HAVE THEM,
THEY CAN PREVENT A FAR RIGHT MOB
FROM CAUSING DAMAGE.
WELL, THEY DIDN'T.
THEY DID IT LATER, BUT THEY HAD
ALREADY CAUSED A LOT OF TERROR
AND DAMAGE BY THEN.
IF THEY HAD CONTROLLED THE
CROWD FROM THE BEGINNING, THAT
WOULD NOT HAPPEN.
BUT THAT IS WHAT SHOWS THAT IT
IS NOT POLITICALLY MUTUAL.
WHAT THE POLICE DO IS NOT
POLITICALLY MUTUAL.
THEY SPECIFICALLY TARGET LEFT
WING PROTESTS, LABOR MOVEMENT
PROTESTS.
THERE IS A LOT OF HISTORY OF
THAT.
THE CIVIL RIGHTS PROTESTS, THE
ACTIONS WERE POLICED IN A WAY
THAT THE NEVER FACED . THEY
NEVER FACED ANY RETALIATION
FROM THE POLICE.
I AM SAYING THAT THERE IS A
LONG HISTORY BEHIND THIS.
WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL AND MAKE
SURE WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE
POLICE IN MANY WAYS WERE PART
OF ENABLING THE FAR RIGHT
TERROR IN THE CAPITAL.
I DON'T BELIEVE A LOT OF
ORDINARY PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT
GIVING THEM MORE WEAPONS WILL
HELP THEM.
AS FAR AS OUR ORDINANCE IS
CONCERNED, I THINK WE SHOULD
AVOID DOING THAT.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S MOVE ON TO THE
NEXT ITEM.
>> OKAY.
LET ME MAKE SURE I AM NOT
MUTED.
THE THIRD ITEM IS NOISE FLASHED
THE VISIONARY DEVICES.
THESE CREATE A LOUD FLASH.
THEY ARE SOMETIMES CALLED
FLASHBANGS.
THE DRAFT ORDINANCE REFLECTS
THE CONSENSUS THAT THESE
DEVICES SHOULD BE BANNED FOR
USE IN CROWD DISPERSAL'S, BUT
AVAILABLE FOR S.W.A.T.
AND PATROL OFFICERS TO USE IN
NON-CROWD CONTROL SITUATIONS.
SO THE POLICY OPTIONS SHOWN ON
THIS SLIDE OPTION ONE, TO
MAINTAIN THE TOTAL BAN; OPTION
TWO WOULD BE THE CONSENSUS
POSITION IN THE BASE BILL THAT
WOULD APPROVE EXEMPTIONS TO THE
BAN TO ALLOW PATROL AND
S.W.A.T.
TO USE THESE.
OPTION THREE WOULD GO, WOULD
INCLUDE OPTION TWO, BUT AT
EXCEPTIONS TO THE BAN FOR CROWD
CONTROL SITUATIONS . OPTION
FOUR WOULD MAKE ANY EXCEPTIONS
SUBJECT TO ADDED CONDITIONS,
WHETHER THOSE WOULD BE IN
LEGISLATION OR DRAFTED WITH THE
COURT IN MIND.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
LISE IS OUTLINING SOME
BACKGROUND ON THE USE OF FLASH
DIVERSIONARY DEVICES.
THESE ARE CYLINDRICAL METAL
DEVICES, SOMETIMES CALLED
FLASHBANGS.
THEY CREATE A BRIGHT FLASH AND
A VERY LOUD SOUND.
ACCORDING TO OIG, ONLY S.W.A.T.
TEAMS ARE AUTHORIZED TO USE
THESE.
IN SEPTEMBER, WITH A CENTRAL
STAFF MEMO, THERE WAS LITTLE
INFORMATION AROUND THE NOISE
FLASH DIVERSIONARY DEVICES
BEING USED IN PROTESTS. I DON'T
KNOW IF WE HAVE LEARNED MORE
ABOUT THEIR USE.
PERHAPS THE OIG OR ANOTHER
ORGANIZATION CAN SPEAK TO THAT.
AS BACKGROUND, THE CPC HAS
RECOMMENDED BANNING FOR CROWD
CONTROL THE DEVICE.
THE OP IS NOT CONCURRING ON
THAT PARTICULAR ITEM. MY
THOUGHT ON THIS IS SIMILAR TO
THE 40 MILLIMETER LAUNCHERS
BEING USED FOR CHEMICAL
IRRITANTS.
EVEN WITHIN CROWD CONTROL
SITUATIONS, THERE DOES NOT
APPEAR TO BE A WAY TO AVOID
INDISCRIMINATE USE. THERE CAN BE
HARM BECAUSE, AGAIN, THIS IS A
DEVICE THAT, AS I UNDERSTAND
IT, CAN CREATE SOME HARM. IT
HAS CREATED HARM.
WITH THAT, I WILL CHECK TO SEE
WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE OUR
FRIENDS AT EITHER OPA OR OIG TO
SPEAK TO WHETHER THEY HAVE
LEARNED MORE FROM COMPLAINTS
ABOUT USE.
I AM HAVING A HARD TIME
SWITCHING OVER TO MY CAMERA.
FEEL FREE TO JUST SPEAK.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER, I AM WITH
THE OIG.
WE WILL REFER TO THE DIRECTOR
FOR SPECIFIC CASE USAGE.
I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD ON
THE DETAILS OF THEIR USE FOR
SPECIFIC INSTANCES.
>> APPRECIATE IT.
THANK YOU.
>> WE DON'T HAVE ANY INDICATION
THIS FAR THAT ANY OF THESE WERE
USED IN THE CASES WE HAVE
INVESTIGATED.
>>> THANK YOU, DIRECTOR.
SO, OTHER COMMENTS ABOUT THIS
POLICY OPTION, THE ISSUE AND
THE OPTIONS IDENTIFIED?
AGAIN, OPTION TWO WOULD BE TO
APPROVE THE BAN OUTSIDE OF
PATROL AND S.W.A.T.
AND MAINTAIN A BAN IN PLACE FOR
CROWD CONTROL SITUATIONS.
THAT IS WHAT I AM PUTTING ON
THE TABLE.
I AM HAPPY TO HEAR OTHER
PREFERENCES FROM OTHER MEMBERS.
>> THIS IS COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
>> THANK YOU.
MY COMMENTS TO SOME DEGREE WILL
BE ABOUT THE PEPPER SPRAY,
RUBBER BULLETS, AND FLASHBANGS
OR NOISE DIVERSIONARY DEVICES.
THEY ALL HAVE THE SAME
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE
COMMUNITY POLICE COMMISSION AND
ARE DESCRIBED THE SAME IN THE
DRAFT BILL THAT WAS SENT OUT
FROM YOUR OFFICE, COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD, AND FORWARDED TO OTHER
MEMBERS LAST NIGHT . THAT IS IN
ADDITION TO THE OTHER MEMO ON
POSSIBLE OPTIONS AS WE HAVE
SEEN IN THE PRESENTATIONS,
WHICH COULD INCLUDE LOOPHOLES.
AS COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD
MENTIONED, THERE IS A CHANGE IN
THE BASELINE COMPARED TO THE
ORIGINAL ORDINANCE.
I WANTED TO ADDRESS THAT.
I DO NOT OBJECT TO THE IDEA OF
HAVING AN EXCEPTION OUTSIDE
PROTEST SETTINGS.
HOWEVER, I DO HAVE CONCERNS
ABOUT THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IN
THE BASELINE BILL.
THERE WAS ONE LINE IN THE
BASELINE BILL THAT CONCERNS
WHAT WAS DISCUSSED WHEN MY
ORIGINAL CROWD CONTROL WEAPONS
BAN WAS DISCUSSED OVER THE
SUMMER.
THE CHANGE IN THE BILL OR RATHER
THE STATEMENT IN WHAT IS NOW
THE NEW BASELINE BILL SAYS
THESE VARIOUS DEVICES ARE NOT
LESS LETHAL WEAPONS FOR
PURCHASE OF OWNING OR STORING.
BUT THEN THERE IS AN ADDITION
THERE.
UNLESS SUCH WEAPONS ARE USED
FOR CROWD CONTROL PURPOSES.
MY CONCERN IS THAT THIS
LANGUAGE, THE LANGUAGE THAT
SAYS UNLESS THEY ARE USED FOR
CROWD DISPERSAL PURPOSES, MY
CONCERN IS THAT THIS LANGUAGE,
WHAT HAPPENS IF POLICE SPRAY
CROWD WITH MACE OR SET OFF A
FLASH BANG AND SAY IT WAS NOT
INTENDED FOR CROWD CONTROL OR
CROWD DISPERSAL PURPOSES, BUT
INTENDED TO STOP ONE PERSON
FROM THROWING A BOTTLE.
I KNOW I AM NOT STATING A
HYPOTHETICAL CASE.
THIS IS HAPPENED TIME AFTER
TIME.
AGAIN, AS I SAID, I HAD STATED
THIS CONCERN AT THAT TIME, AS
WELL, IN THE SUMMER.
THIS COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED
AGAINST THE CHILD WAS MACED IN
THE FACE, SAYING THE CHILD WAS
NOT THE INTENDED TARGET.
AT THAT TIME, IT WAS A BRUTAL
EXAMPLE.
OVER THE SUMMER, WHEN WE WERE
VOTING ON THAT ORDINANCE, I
SUGGESTED A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE
IN AN ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS THIS
ISSUE.
I WANTED TO REITERATE MY DESIRE
TO WORK WITH THE CHAIR AND THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ON THE
LANGUAGE TO FOCUS ON BANNING
THOSE WEAPONS, BUT NOT TO MAKE
THE PURPOSE, OR THE STATED
PURPOSE OF THE POLICE AS A TEST
ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE
COMPLYING WITH THE ORDINANCE.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT.
IF I HEAR YOU CORRECTLY , YOU
ARE TALKING ABOUT CONDITIONS
THAT WOULD LIMIT THE USE OF
CERTAIN CROWD CONTROL WEAPONS,
LESS LETHAL WEAPONS IN
SITUATIONS THAT MIGHT INVOLVE A
CROWD, BUT TO ENSURE THAT THEY
ARE NOT USING, THEY ARE NOT
BEING USED TO CONTROL THE
CROWD, THE BEING USED TO
CONTROL THE ACTIVITY OF THE
INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THE CROWD.
UNLESS YOU ARE INTERESTED IN AN
OPTION OTHER THAN SIMPLY
APPROVING EXEMPTIONS TO THE BAN
FOR PATROL AND S.W.A.T.
FOR NOISE FLASH DIVERSIONARY
DEVICES, UNLESS YOU WANT TO
CREATE AN EXEMPTION TO THE BAN
TO ALSO INCLUDE CROWD CONTROL
SITUATIONS, I REQUEST THAT WE
HOLD THAT DISCUSSION SIMILARLY
TO WHAT I HAVE REQUESTED OF
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS TO THE NEXT
TWO ITEMS, WHICH ARE PEPPER
SPRAY AND TEAR GAS.
>> I AM HAPPY TO HOLD TO THE
DISCUSSION. BUT JUST TO
CLARIFY, MAYBE I DIDN'T SPEAK
CORRECTLY TO EXPRESS MY
CONCERNS.
WHAT I AM SAYING IS THEY SHOULD
NOT BE USED IN A CROWD AT ALL.
I DON'T WANT THEM TO BE USED ON
PEACEFUL PROTESTERS.
I ALSO DON'T WANT TO TO BE USED
ON ONE PEACEFUL PROTEST OR IF
WE MAKE IT ABOUT WHAT THE
POLICE CLAIM WAS THE PURPOSE,
THEN THAT IS THE PROBLEM.
>> UNDERSTOOD.
AT THIS POINT, WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT THE NOISE FLASH
DIVERSIONARY DEVICES, WHICH ARE
BY THEIR NATURE IMPACTING OF
THE WHOLE CROWD AND CANNOT BE
USED IN A TARGETED WAY.
I AM SUGGESTING THAT OPTION
TWO, WE APPROVE ONLY THE
EXEMPTIONS FOR PATROL AND
S.W.A.T., MAINTAINING THE BAN
FOR CROWD CONTROL SITUATIONS.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU FOR THAT.
>> NO PROBLEM.
THANK YOU.
DO OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS WANT TO
WEIGH IN NOW?
IF NOT, WE CAN MOVE ONTO THE
LAST FEW ITEMS.
ALL RIGHT.
LAST TWO ITEMS.
>> OKAY.
THIS FOURTH ITEM HERE IS PEPPER
SPRAY, WHICH DISTRIBUTES A
SUBSTANCE THAT CAUSES AN INTENSE
BURNING SENSATION WITH SKIN,
EYES, MUCOUS MEMBRANES ON
CONTACT.
PEPPER SPRAY SHOULD BE BANNED
FOR USE FOR CROWD DISPERSAL,
BUT AVAILABLE FOR S.W.A.T.
AND PATROL OFFICERS TO USE IN
NON-CROWD CONTROL SITUATIONS.
THE OPTIONS HERE, OPTION ONE
WOULD RETAIN THE PARTIAL BAN IN
ORDINANCE 126102 THAT
ORIGINALLY DISALLOWED THE USE
OF PEPPER SPRAY IN A
MENSTRUATION OR OTHER FIRST
AMENDMENT PROTECTED EVENTS, BUT
WOULD ALLOW IT IF IT DID NOT
LAND ON MORE THAN ONE
INDIVIDUAL IN PATROL
SITUATIONS.
OPTION TWO WOULD APPROVE THE
BAN FOR BOTH PATROL AND
S.W.A.T.
OPTION THREE WOULD APPROVE THE
BAN FOR PATROL AND S.W.A.T.
AND ALSO MAKE EXCEPTIONS FOR
CROWD CONTROL SITUATIONS.
OPTION FOUR WOULD SPECIFY
EXEMPTIONS TO THE BAN SUBJECT
TO AT A CONDITIONS, EITHER IN
THE LEGISLATION OR DRAFTED
SUBJECT TO COURT APPROVAL.
>> IN THE MEMO I SENT, I THINK
I UNNECESSARILY COMPLICATED
THINGS.
THE ORDINANCE ALREADY INCLUDES
SOME CONDITIONS.
I AM SUPPORTIVE OF THE NEED FOR
CONVERSATION AROUND THE
LANGUAGE THAT IS IN THE
EXISTING ORDINANCE WITH THE
UNDERSTANDING THAT WE MAY NEED
TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS THAT ARE
REQUIRED TO BE MET BEFORE
PEPPER SPRAY CAN BE USED IN AN
EVENT WITH MULTIPLE INDIVIDUALS.
THIS IS ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT I
WOULD LIKE TO, LIKE ORDINANCE
126102 DOES , WORK TO SPECIFY
SOME OF THOSE CONDITIONS WITHIN
THE BILL ITSELF.
AND I AM LOOKING TO SEE IF
ANYBODY IS COMING OFF MUTE HERE.
I AM NOT SEEING ANYBODY COME
OFF MUTE.
I AM NOT SEEING ANYBODY'S HAND
RAISED IN THE HAND RAISING
FUNCTION.
SO LET'S MOVE ON TO THE LAST
ITEM.
>> SO THE LAST ITEM IS TEAR
GAS, WHICH IS A CHEMICAL AGENT
DESIGNED TO CAUSE COUGHING AND
PHYSICAL DISTRESS.
THE DRAFT ORDINANCE WOULD
SUSTAIN THE BAN ON TEAR GAS.
WE DO NOTE THAT THE, BILLY --
THE ACCOUNTABILITY AGENCIES
AGREED THAT OFFICERS SHOULD NOT
BE ABLE TO USE TEAR GAS, WHICH
IS OPTION TWO.
BUT THE AGENCIES DIFFER AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT IT SHOULD BE
AVAILABLE TO THE S.W.A.T.
UNIT. THE OPTIONS HERE ARE
OPTION ONE, MAINTAINING THE
TOTAL BAN FOR THE ADOPTED
ORDINANCE; OPTION TWO,
MAINTAINING THE BAN ON TOTAL
CONTROL.
OPTION HREE WOULD APPROVE THE
BAN ON CONTROL AND SPECIFY
ADDITIONAL EXCEPTIONS TO THE
BAN FOR S.W.A.T.
AND OR CROWD CONTROL
SITUATIONS.
OPTION FOUR WOULD THEN ADD
EXCEPTIONS SUBJECT TO
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS, EITHER
WRITTEN INTO THE LEGISLATION OR
DRAFTED BY SPD WITH COURT
APPROVAL.
>> THANK YOU, LISE.
AGAIN, AS FAR AS THE BACKGROUND
AS STATED, THE CPC IS
CONTINUING TO ADVOCATE FOR A
TOTAL BAN.
THE OIG AND THE OPA ARE NOT
TAKING THAT POSITION. WE ALL
WITNESSED AND SOME OF US
EXPERIENCED THE USE OF TEAR GAS
NIGHT AFTER NIGHT, SPECIFICALLY
ON CAPITOL HILL. I THINK WE ARE
UNIFIED IN OUR BELIEF THAT HOW
TEAR GAS HAS BEEN USED HAS NOT
BEEN ACCEPTABLE. IT IS NOT
ACCEPTABLE THAT TEAR GAS HAS
BEEN USED IN CONTRAVENTION OF
THE RESTRAINING ORDER. WE ALL,
I THINK, REMEMBER THE HEART
WRENCHING STORY OF A FAMILY
THAT FLED THEIR HOME WHEN THEIR
BABY STARTED COUGHING AND THE
FEAR THAT THE FAMILY HAD FOR
THEIR YOUNG CHILD'S LIFE.
WITHIN THIS CONTEXT, WE DO HAVE
TO CONSIDER THE CONCERNS THAT
WE HAVE HEARD BOTH FROM JUDGE
ROBART ABOUT A TOTAL BAN; THE
OIG LIST THE CONCERNS ABOUT
THEIR USE SPECIFICALLY AS IT
RELATED TO SMALL PARTICLES OF
CS THAT, THEY DISPERSE WIDELY.
AS DEMONSTRATED BY COMPLAINTS
FROM RESIDENTS ABOUT CS SEEPING
INTO THEIR HOMES DURING THE
DEMONSTRATIONS ON CAPITOL HILL,
YES.
THE DEPARTMENT AND THE COUNCIL
MAY WANT TO CONSIDER LIMITING
USE OF THIS WEAPON TO FULL-SCALE
RIOT SITUATIONS INVOLVING
VIOLENCE.
CLEARLY, AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED
BEFORE, THE STATE DEFINITION OF
RIOT IS COMPLETELY
UNSATISFACTORY BASED ON THE
MINIMUM NUMBER OF PEOPLE
NECESSARY TO DECLARE A RIOT
BEING THREE PEOPLE.
THE RECOGNITION THAT TEAR GAS
HAS THE POTENTIAL UTILITY IN
CROWD CONTROL SITUATIONS IS
PRESENT IN MY MIND, BUT I
REALLY FEEL STRONGLY THAT ANY
EXCEPTION HAS TO BE VERY
NARROWLY TAILORED.
WE CANNOT HAVE A REPEAT OF THE
EXPERIENCE OF THE LAST SIX
MONTHS.
THE SPD AND THE COUNCIL, I THINK
, SHOULD HAVE A CONVERSATION AS
RECOMMENDED BY THE OIG ABOUT AN
OUTRIGHT BAN EVEN IN CROWD
CONTROL SITUATIONS. WHEN THE
USE OF TEAR GAS IS SOLELY IN THE
DEFENSE OF PROPERTY, THAT IS A
CONDITION I WOULD LIKE TO
CONSIDER FOR PURPOSES OF THIS
LEGISLATION.
I AM INTERESTED TO KNOW, AND
PERHAPS WE CAN DO A LITTLE BIT
OF RESEARCH, BECAUSE I THINK
THE CONVERSATION -- IF THERE IS
A RECOGNITION BY MY COLLEAGUES
ON THE COUNCIL THAT TEAR GAS,
WE MIGHT CONSIDER REAUTHORIZING
TEAR GAS IN CROWD CONTROL
SITUATIONS DEPENDENT ON
CONDITIONS. I THINK IT WOULD BE
USEFUL TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT
THERE ARE OTHER CITIES THAT
EXPLICITLY SAY THAT TEAR GAS
SHOULD NOT BE USED IN DEFENSE
OF PROPERTY, BUT ONLY IN DEFENSE
OF LIFE. I WANT TO JUST
REFERENCE ALSO, AGAIN, MY
INTEREST IN TRYING TO CODIFY
SOME OF THESE CONDITIONS IN OUR
ORDINANCE ITSELF.
I WANT TO ENSURE THAT, AGAIN,
ISOLATED, UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY BY
INDIVIDUALS OR SMALL GROUPS
WITHIN A CROWD WILL NEVER
AUTOMATICALLY FORM THE BASIS
FOR DECLARING AN ASSEMBLY
UNLAWFUL OR JUSTIFY THE USE OF
LESS LETHAL TOOLS, WEAPONS THAT
HARM MULTIPLE PEOPLE.
WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT CONDITIONS
SUCH AS THE REQUIREMENT TO
DEVELOP TACTICAL, DETAILED
TACTICAL PLANS PRIOR TO
DEPLOYMENT.
THAT IS IN ADDITION TO THE
PREVIOUSLY STATED CRITERIA.
I AM VERY INTERESTED IN
CODIFYING THAT.
AND THEN ANOTHER PIECE THAT I
AM INTERESTED IN CONSIDERING IS
DELAYING THE AUTHORIZATION DATE
FOR THE USE OF TEAR GAS IN A
SITUATION AS DEFINED BY
CONDITIONS SHOULD NOT BE ONCE
THIS ORDINANCE APPROVED BY THE
COURT, I BELIEVE.
I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE A
CAREFUL LOOK AT THE GAPS IN
TRAINING AND ONLY AUTHORIZE THE
REDEPLOYMENT AFTER SUCH TRAINING
IS COMPLETED.
I BELIEVE THAT JUDGE ROBART
SPOKE TO THIS PARTICULAR ELEMENT
OF THE NEED FOR TRAINING AND
THE NEED FOR AUTHORIZATION OF
THESE WEAPONS IN A WAY THAT
OCCURS ONLY ONCE SUFFICIENT
TRAINING HAS OCCURRED.
THAT IS ANOTHER ELEMENT I AM
INTERESTED IN CONSIDERING AS IT
RELATES TO CREATING EXCEPTIONS
TO THE BAN WITH CONDITIONS.
WITH THAT, I WILL PAUSE I WILL
SEE WHAT COLLEAGUES COMMENTS ARE
AVAILABLE.
I AM LOOKING FOR PEOPLE TO COME
OFF OF MUTE OR TO SEE WHETHER
OR NOT ANY COUNCILMEMBERS HAD
THEIR HAND RAISED.
IN THE MEANTIME, I SEE AMY HAS
HER HAND RAISED.
>> JUST VERY BRIEFLY IN YOUR
SPEAKING OF CONDITIONS, IN
ADDITION TO THE POSSIBILITY OF
SITUATIONS APPLYING TO
PROPERTY, WHITE SHE WOULD ALSO
BE SUPPORTIVE OF NOT HAVING IT
USED IN DENSE RESIDENTIAL
AREAS.
THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER POTENTIAL
CONDITION FOR CONSIDERATION.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT?
I SEE YOUR HAND IS RAISED.
>> I THINK THAT TEAR GAS NEEDS
TO CONTINUE TO BE TOTALLY BANNED
IN ALL SITUATIONS.
I BELIEVE THE COMMUNITY POLICE
COMMISSION AGREES.
IT WOULD BE FRANKLY SHOCKING IF
THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERED
REAUTHORIZING TEAR GAS IN ANY
USE, GIVEN THAT THE CODES
CREATED AN INJUNCTION.
I AM ALSO EXTREMELY CONCERNED
ABOUT THE DIRECTION OF THE
DISCUSSION.
I THINK THIS IS INFLUENCED BY
THE POSITION THAT HAS BEEN
DEVELOPED OF CREATING AN
EXCEPTION FOR USING TEAR GAS
WHEN THERE IS DANGER TO PEOPLE.
THIS IS THE WORD OF THE POLICE,
THAT THERE IS DANGER TO PEOPLE.
I DON'T THINK THAT PASSES
MUSTER BASED ON OVERWHELMING
EVIDENCE.
THE POLICE SAY THEY ALWAYS FEEL
THREATENED.
I WAS AT THE CAPITOL HILL
PROTESTS.
OBVIOUSLY, HUNDREDS OF YOUNG
PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY COURAGEOUS
PROTESTERS, GOT TEAR GASSED
NIGHT AFTER NIGHT.
MY STAFF MEMBER, ADAM, AND I
WERE ALSO THERE.
ONE OF THOSE NIGHTS, WE WERE
ALSO TARGETED.
FOUR HOURS BEFORE THEN, THE
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT SYSTEM, IT
WAS A DISEMBODIED VOICE.
I COULD NOT SEE THE FACE OF THE
COMMANDER.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE HE WAS.
BUT HE KEPT SAYING, AND I AM
PARAPHRASING OBVIOUSLY, BUT
SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF WE
FEEL THAT THIS IS THREATENING.
IF YOU KEEP MOVING FORWARD,
THAT IS THREATENING.
THAT WILL LEAVE US NO CHOICE
BUT TO DEPLOY WEAPONS THAT WE
DON'T REALLY WANT TO USE.
AND THE STARK CONTRAST BETWEEN
THE PROTESTERS WITH WHOM I WAS
STANDING WHO HAD NOTHING WITH
THEM EXCEPT THEIR UMBRELLAS AND
CELL PHONES, AND A FULLY ARMED
TO THE TEETH POLICE FORCE WITH
RIOT GEAR AND ALL KINDS OF
SHIELDS.
THEY ALSO HAD BODY SHIELDS ON
EVERY PART OF THEIR BODY.
THEY HAD HELMETS.
THERE WAS A SNIPER ON ONE OF
THE ROOFS.
IN THAT SITUATION, THEY CLAIMED
THAT THEY WERE FEELING
THREATENED.
I FEEL THAT IS JUST A SLIPPERY
SLOPE.
IF YOU CREATE THAT OH OPENING,
THEY WILL ALWAYS USE IT AS AN
EXCUSE.
THEY WILL SAY THEY FEEL
THREATENED.
WITH YOUR PERMISSION,
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD, I
WANTED TO TALK ABOUT SOMETHING
THAT IS CONFUSING TO ME.
I AM NOT TOTALLY CLEAR ABOUT
HOW YOU ARE WANTING TO STRUCTURE
THE QUESTIONS AND ALSO THE
PRESENTATION.
I AM CONCERNED ABOUT HOW THE
OPTIONS ARE DIVIDED INTO ASKING
ABOUT APPROVING FOR PATROL OR
S.W.A.T.
VERSUS CROWD CONTROL.
THAT CONFUSES ME BE BECAUSE
PATROL AND S.W.A.T.
ARE EXACTLY THE OFFICERS
DEPLOYED AGAINST PROTESTS.
THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY
IN THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE FROM
MY OFFICE AND THE GRASSROOTS
MOVEMENT, WE PHRASED THE THINGS
IN TERMS OF PROTESTS AND OTHER
FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTED
EVENTS.
THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY
WHEN I LAST SPOKE, I QUOTED THE
LANGUAGE OF THE PROPOSED
LEGISLATION.
I AM SURE YOU WILL AGREE THE
DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS.
THE LANGUAGE FROM MY ORIGINAL
BILL STATED THE TEST FOR WHICH
WE WOULD SAY THAT THE POLICE
COULD OR COULD NOT USE, IT IS
USED IN A DEMONSTRATION RALLY
OR OTHER FIRST AMENDMENT
PROTECTED EVENT.
THAT IS HOW IT WAS STATED IN
THE ORIGINAL BILL.
IN MY VIEW, THAT IS MUCH MORE
CLARIFYING AND IS A MUCH BETTER
TEST THAT THE POLICE'S ACTIONS
CAN BE HEALTHY.
>> I AGREE THAT THE
CONVERSATION AROUND DEFINITIONS
IS IMPORTANT.
GREG DOSS AGREED ABOUT NEEDING
THE CONVERSATION FOR THOSE
DEFINITIONS.
LOOKING AT OPTIONS FOR
DEFINITIONS WILL TELL US MORE
ABOUT WHICH IS THE BETTER
APPROACH.
THE POLICY OPTIONS IN THIS
DECISION AGENDA ARE STRUCTURED
AROUND THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT
WE RECEIVED FROM ACCOUNTABILITY
PARTNERS.
SO THAT IS WHY WERE KIND OF
USING THESE TERMS, CROWD
CONTROL, PATROL, OR S.W.A.T.
THEY ARE INTENDED TO TALK ABOUT
CIRCUMSTANCES, NOT TYPES OF
OFFICERS.
AGAIN, I TOTALLY AGREE THAT
THIS IS A CONVERSATION THAT WE
NEED TO HAVE.
AND WE NEED TO HAVE ADDITIONAL
CLARITY IN THE ORDINANCE ABOUT
THAT.
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES?
I SEE YOUR HAND.
>> THANK YOU.
I WILL BE BRIEF.
WE HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT ALL
OF THESE THINGS YESTERDAY AND I
INDICATED THEN THAT THIS IS THE
ONE ISSUE OR ONE WEAPON THAT I
REALLY THINK WE NEED TO BAN
ENTIRELY.
TEAR GAS IS INDISCRIMINATE.
IT IS TOXIC.
IT HAS BEEN BAN BY
INTERNATIONAL LAW IN WARFARE.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE WOULD
USE SOMETHING LIKE THIS IN OUR
CITIES.
IT HAS BEEN BAN ACROSS THE
GLOBE . SO ESPECIALLY WHEN WE
SEE HOW IT HAS BEEN USED IN OUR
CITY AND THE IMPACT IT HAS ON
OUR NEIGHBORS, IF WE ARE
SAYING, IF THE RECOMMENDATION
IS NOT TO ALLOW OR TO PUT
PARAMETERS OUTSIDE OF DENSE
POPULATIONS, TO ME THAT MEANS
IT IS NOT USED IN OUR CITY.
I WOULD ADVOCATE FOR AN ENTIRE
BAN ON THIS PARTICULAR WEAPON.
>>> I JUST WANT TO UNDERSCORE
THAT, IF THAT ENDS UP BEING THE
POSITION OF THIS COMMITTEE,
THEN THAT IS PRETTY MUCH AS IT
RLATES TO, AFTER HAVING GONE
THROUGH ALL THESE ITEMS, AS IT
RELATES TO CROWD CONTROL
SITUATIONS, THAT IS PRETTY MUCH
THE STATUS QUO OF THE BILL THAT
WE HAVE ALREADY HEARD FROM THE
COURT.
THE COURT FEELS THAT IT IS
OVERBROAD.
AGAIN, THE ORDINANCE AS ALREADY
REVIEWED BY THE COURT DID ALLOW
FOR SOME NARROW USES OF PEPPER
SPRAY. WE HAVE CONTINUED TO
TAKE THAT POSITION.
WE WANT TO MAINTAIN THE BAN IN
CROWD CONTROL SITUATIONS FOR
THE LAUNCHERS, FOR FLASHBANGS,
AND FOR BLAST BALLS.
AND THIS MAY BE AN ISSUE THAT
WE DON'T HAVE A CONSENSUS
POSITION ON.
BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM
MY OTHER COLLEAGUES ON THE
COMMITTEE.
THAT IS IF THEY HAVE THOUGHTS.
>> THAT UNSHARE, I HAVE A
COUPLE OF THOUGHTS.
HERE IS MY CONCERN, BECAUSE I
AGREE WITH WHAT COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES SHARED REGARDING THIS
PARTICULAR WEAPON IN REGARDS TO
THE COMPLETELY INDISCRIMINATE
NATURE OF IT RELATIVE TO THE
OTHER THINGS WE HAVE DISCUSSED
TODAY, THE PUBLIC HEALTH
IMPACTS THAT IT HAS
PARTICULARLY IN REGARDS TO
DEPLOYMENT IN DENSE RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WE SAW
THROUGHOUT LAST YEAR.
MY CONCERN IS THAT AS WE GET
INTO CRAFTING AND DEVELOPING
CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS, THAT IS
INHERENTLY GOING TO INVOLVE
CERTAIN DISCRETIONARY DECISION
POINTS THAT PEOPLE IN THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT WILL GET TO
MAKE DECISIONS ON.
WE HAD ONE PARTICULAR EVENING,
DURING THE WEEK OF THE MOST
INDISCRIMINATE TEAR GAS USE IN
THE DEMONSTRATIONS LAST YEAR IN
JUNE, A WEEK THAT CULMINATED IN
A VERY BROAD PRONOUNCEMENT FROM
THE MAYOR AND THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT ABOUT PUTTING
SIDEBOARDS ON THE DISCRETION TO
USE TEAR GAS.
THAT EVENING CULMINATED IN THE
DEPLOYMENT OF TEAR GAS OR IN
THE DEPLOYMENT OF SOME AGENT
AKIN TO TEAR GAS.
MY CONCERN IS BALANCING THAT
WITH THE REALITY THAT I CAN
DEFINITELY ENVISION
CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE
DEPLOYMENT OF A WEAPON LIKE
TEAR GAS COULD BE WARRANTED IN
A VERY RARE EVENT.
I THINK IT IS WORTH NOTING THAT
THE CITY HAD NOT REALLY USED OR
EMPLOYED TEAR GAS EXTENSIVELY,
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF
DEMONSTRATIONS LAST YEAR, FOR A
LONG HISTORY.
SO THERE ARE CLEARLY WAYS TO
LIMIT THE USE.
BUT I HAVE CONCERN. IF WE ARE
TO GO AND TRY TO SPECIFY
EXEMPTIONS, WHERE THERE ARE
DISCRETIONARY DECISION POINTS,
AND WHAT KIND OF SIDEBOARDS
THERE ARE.
AGAIN, I THINK THAT KIND OF
COMES BACK TO THE TIGHTENING OF
DEFINITIONS, THE TIGHTENING OF
CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH
CERTAIN STATES CAN BE DECLARED
TO BE IN AN EXISTENCE OF RIOT
OR A MOB OR WHATEVER ELSE.
AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS, IT IS
MY OBSERVATION THAT THOSE
DEFINITIONS WERE CONSIDERABLY
STRETCHED OVER THE COURSE OF
LAST YEAR TO JUSTIFY THE USE OF
WEAPONS LIKE THIS.
I CAN TOTALLY ENVISION
CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE IT WOULD BE
WARRANTED.
AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, IT IS
POSSIBLE, THE ELECTORAL VOTES
LAST WEEK COULD HAVE BEEN
STOLEN AND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
COULD HAVE BEEN MURDERED EXCEPT
FOR THE DEPLOYMENT OF SOME OF
THESE WEAPONS TO RETAKE THE
CAPITAL.
IN FIGURING OUT THOSE
DISCRETION POINTS AND PUTTING
ON SIDEBOARDS TO PREVENT
CONSIDERABLE DAMAGE TO THE
COMMUNITY AND TO PEOPLE
úEXERCISING THEIR FIRST
AMENDMENT RIGHTS IS SOMETHING
WE REALLY NEED TO CAREFULLY
LOOK INTO IN SPECIFYING THOSE
EXEMPTIONS TO POSSIBLE BAN
CONDITIONS.
I AM JUST PUTTING THAT OUT
THERE.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
LEWIS.
I AM LOOKING TO SEE WHETHER
THERE ARE ANY ADDITIONAL
THOUGHTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS. I
AM NOT SEEING ANYONE COMING OFF
ME.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD, I
WOULD JUST SAY THAT I AM
INCLINED TO SUPPORT THE OPTION
THAT YOU HAVE PUT FORWARD FOR US
AS A STARTING POINT.
I DO THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR
US TO WORK ON THIS POLICY ISSUE
IN A MANNER THAT WILL TRULY BE
RESPONSIVE TO THE CONCERNS THAT
WE HEARD FROM THE FEDERAL
COURT.
SO I UNDERSTAND THAT WE STILL
NEED TO HAVE ADDITIONAL POLICY
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THIS.
BUT I THINK THE OPTION THAT YOU
HAVE SET FORWARD IN YOUR BASE
BILL IS A REASONABLE PLACE FOR
US TO START THE CONVERSATION.
>> THANK YOU.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE,
BECAUSE I AM NOT HEARING
CONSENSUS AS IT RELATES TO THIS
POLICY OPTION, IS THAT WE WORK
WITH CENTRAL STAFF BETWEEN NOW
AND THE NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING.
THEN WE CAN BRING BACK TWO
OPTIONS, ONE TO RETAIN THE
TOTAL BAN FOR TEAR GAS AND
ANOTHER , THOSE OF US WHO WANT
TO ALLOW SOME NARROW EXEMPTIONS
THAT DON'T HAVE A LOT OF
DISCRETION AND INCLUDE
CONDITIONS FOR USE IN CROWD
CONTROL SITUATIONS, WE WORK TO
DEVELOP THAT BETWEEN NOW AND
THE NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING.
THEN WE WILL HAVE AN UP OR DOWN
VOTE ON BOTH OPTIONS FOR THE
NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING.
I WANT TO BE FAIR TO THE
DEFERENCE OF OPINION AROUND
THIS PARTICULAR ITEM. I WANT TO
SEE, IS THAT ACCEPTABLE TO
FOLKS?
>> I AM SORRY, COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD.
CAN YOU SUMMARIZE THAT AGAIN?
>> I THINK WE HAVE GONE THROUGH
A LOT OF AREAS WHERE THERE IS
CONSENSUS.
SO MY EXPECTATION FOR CENTRAL
STAFF IS TO BRING US BACK A NEW
BASE BILL FOR THE 26th THAT
REFLECTS THOSE AREAS OF
CONSENSUS.
THIS IS AN AREA WHERE THERE IS
NOT CONSENSUS.
I AM SUGGESTING THAT FOR THE
NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING THAT WE
HAVE TWO OPTIONS, AS PAINFUL AS
THAT MAY BE.
ONE IS TO CONTINUE THE TOTAL
BAN AND THE OTHERS TO IDENTIFY
FOR THOSE OF US WHO ARE
INTERESTED IN CREATING A NARROW
EXCEPTION TO THE BAN WITHOUT A
LOT OF EXCEPTION, WITH
CONDITIONS AND POTENTIALLY AN
EFFECTIVE DATE THAT ALLOWS FOR
AUTHORIZATION ONLY AFTER
CERTAIN THINGS OCCUR.
WE CAN BRING THAT OPTION BACK
AND WE CAN CONSIDER BOTH
OPTIONS IN THE NEXT ITERATION
AT THE NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING.
ALL RIGHT.
NOT HEARING ANY STRONG FEELING
-- COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ?
>> I WOULD SUPPORT THAT.
AS WE THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT
WE DON'T HAVE CONSENSUS HERE, I
AM REMINDED ABOUT THE 2017
ACCOUNTABILITY ORDINANCE
PROCESS, IN WHICH THERE WERE
SEVERAL AREAS IN WHICH THERE
WERE DISAGREEMENTS AMONGST THE
PARTIES REGARDING THE OPTIONS
TO SET FORTH IN THE
ACCOUNTABILITY ORDINANCE.
IN THAT INSTANCE, WE DID SUBMIT
TO JUDGE ROBART A SET OF
OPTIONS THAT WERE BEING
CONSIDERED AS A POLICY
POSITION.
I JUST WONDER IF WE ARE UNABLE
TO ACHIEVE CONSENSUS HERE AS A
COMMITTEE, IF THIS AREA LENDS
ITSELF TO THAT KIND OF A
STRUCTURE MOVING FORWARD TO
ALLOW THE FEDERAL COURT MONITOR
AND THE JUDGE TO CONSIDER.
>> THANK YOU.
I THINK THAT IS DEFINITELY A
STRATEGY WORTH LOOKING INTO.
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT, DID I SEE
YOU RAISE YOUR HAND?
>> YES.
SORRY, I HAD A COUPLE OF
QUESTIONS BASED ON WHAT YOU
WERE PROPOSING AS TO THE
PROCESS MOVING FORWARD.
I DON'T HAVE AN OVERARCHING
OBJECTION TO WHAT YOU JUST
SAID.
I AM ALSO A LITTLE CONFUSED.
THAT I HAD ANOTHER QUESTION.
ISN'T THE CURRENT BILL, DOESN'T
IT REFLECT CONSENSUS ON MOST OF
THE POINTS?
I AM NOT SURE WHAT THE NEW
DRAFT THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT,
IT WILL BE THE SAME EXCEPT IT
WON'T HAVE LANGUAGE ON TEAR GAS
WHERE THERE IS AN CONSENSUS?
IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING?
>> YES, THAT IS MY SUGGESTION.
>> OKAY.
>> FOR OTHER THAN TEAR GAS, THE
NEW BILL REFLECTS, WILL BE
UPDATED TO REFLECT OUR
DISCUSSION TODAY.
>> OKAY.
THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD GOES
BACK TO MY CONCERN ABOUT HOW WE
ARE DEFINING THINGS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR RESPONSE,
AMY.
YOU TALKED ABOUT HOW YOU
RESTRUCTURED THINGS.
THIS STRUCTURE FOLLOWED THE
STRUCTURE OF THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
DIFFERENT AGENCIES.
BUT I AM STILL WORRIED THAT IF
WE STRUCTURE THINGS AS A TROLL
VERSUS S.W.A.T.
VERSUS CROWD CONTROL, THAT WE
MAY NOT GET TO WHAT WE REALLY
WANT TO GET TO I AM GOING TO
ASK, IS THE STRUCTURE OPEN TO
DISCUSSION OR NOT?
>> AS MENTIONED, GREG DOSS
FLAGGED THE NEED TO HAVE SOME
DEFINITIONS AROUND PATROL AND
S.W.A.T.
TO CLARIFY THAT WE ARE NOT
TALKING ABOUT WHO, BECAUSE
PATROL OFFICERS AND S.W.A.T.
OFFICERS STAFF CROWD CONTROL
EVENTS.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE TYPE
OF EVENTS.
WE WILL HAVE THOSE DEFINITIONS,
WE WILL HAVE A DISCUSSION
AROUND THOSE DEFINITIONS.
AND IF WE FIND THAT THEY ARE
NOT SUFFICIENT FOR REGULATING
THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH
THESE WEAPONS ARE BEING USED,
THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT A
DIFFERENT APPROACH.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
THIS IS A VERY LONG CONVERSATION
, NECESSARY AND THOUGHTFUL.
I REALLY APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S
PARTICIPATION.
AGAIN, ON THE SLIDE, NEXT STEPS
. POTENTIALLY A REFERRAL OF A
NEW BILL BECAUSE WE HAVE A NEW
TITLE.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION ON
JANUARY 26 ON OUR NEXT
COMMITTEE.
IN THE REQUEST TO THE MONITOR
TO REVIEW A DRAFT BILL.
IF THERE IS NOTHING MORE FOR THE
GOOD OF THE ORDER, IT IS 12:14
P.M.
AND WE ARE ADJOURNED.
THANK YOU, EVERYBODY.