>>> IF THE SPEAKERS DO NOT
END THEIR PUBLIC COMMENTS AT
THE END OF THE TIME COME THE
SPEAKER'S MICROPHONE WILL BE
MUTED AFTER 10 SECONDS TO ALLOW
US TO HEAR FROM THE NEXT
SPEAKER.
WHEN YOU HAVE COMPLETED PUBLIC
COMMENTS PLEASE DISCONNECT
FROM THE LINE.
AND IF YOU PLAN TO CONTINUE
FOLLOWING THE MEETING, DO SO
VIA THE SEATTLE PANEL OR THE
LISTENING OPTIONS ON THE
AGENDA.
IN ORDER TO ALLOW AS MANY
SPEAKERS AS POSSIBLE, AND IF
THERE ARE NO OBJECTIONS, WE
WILL AMEND THE AGENDA TO ALLOW
AN ADDITIONAL 20 MINUTES OF
TIME FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND
EXTENDING PUBLIC COMMENT FROM
20 MINUTES, TO 40 MINUTES.
HEARING OBJECTION, THE AGENDA
IS AMENDED FOR 40 MINUTES A
PUBLIC COMMENT.
AND WITH THAT, I WILL MOVE INTO
THE SPEAKERS.
>> AGAIN, I WILL BE CALLING
ON YOUR NAME AND ALLOW YOU TO
SPEAK.
THE FIRST SPEAKER I HAVE
PRESIDENT IS SHAMIR TAB
FOLLOWED BY CODY LEWINSKY.
>> HELLO., DISTRICT 7
RESIDENT.
CAN HEAR ME?
>> WE CAN.
THANK YOU.
>> GREAT.
I'M CALLING TO ASK CITY COUNCIL
TO AMEND 119980 WANT TO
TRANSFER 5.4 MILLION FROM SPT
TO PRESBYTERY BUDGETING AND
RESTORE THE 5 MILLION-DOLLAR
PRIVIES GO TO THE ORIGINAL
FORM.
(INDISCERNIBLE) HAS NOTHING TO
DO WITH THE CONSENSUS DECREE.
IT IS TO UNDER THE DECREE
DESPITE THE BUDGET GOING OVER
150 MILLION SINCE YOU ENTERED
INTO.
SPD FOR EIGHT YEARS HAS BEEN
TRYING TO FOLLOW THE DECREE'S
POTENTIAL FORCE OF ACTION
CONSISTENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.
BUT ALONGSIDE THE BUDGET AND
STAFF LEVELS, IT STILL FAILED
TO MEET THE DECREE GOAL OF
ENSURING THE SPD USE OF FORCE
IS CONSTITUTIONAL.
ONE EXAMPLE, THE DATA SHOWS SPD
IS STILL MORE LIKELY TO FRISK
AND USE FORCE AGAINST PERSONS
OF COLOR THAN WHITE PEOPLE.
I URGE YOU TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON
YOUR ORIGINAL COMMITMENT, HOLD
SP ACCOUNTABLE FOR OVERTIME
ABUSE AND ALLOCATE THE FULL 5.4
MILLION TOWARD PARTICIPATORY
BUDGETING AND TRANSFER THE FULL
$59 OF THE PROVISO TO THE
COMMUNITY.
THANK YOU AND I YIELD MY TIME.
>> THANK YOU.
THE NEXT SPEAKER IS CODY
LEWINSKY FOLLOWED BY AND IT
SHEMA.
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> YES, WE CAN.
>> MY NAME IS CODY LEWINSKY.
AND THE MEDICAL RESEARCHER IN
SEATTLE REPRESENTING THE
ORGANIZATION DECRIMINALIZE
NATURE SEATTLE.
THE GROUP (INDISCERNIBLE) IS
LISTED AS THE LOWEST LAW
ENFORCEMENT PRIORITY WITH
PROTECTIONS FOR MEDICAL
PRACTITIONERS CAREFUL.
THE BILL RECENTLY PASSED BY THE
STATE SENATE SB6346 AND ANOTHER
AGGRESSIVE CONTINUATION --
THE CITY OF SEATTLE ACT NOW AND
ASKED THAT THE RESOLUTION
DECRIMINALIZE -- DUCTING
MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS THAT
PRESCRIBE THEM AND YOU CAN
DONATE DEMONSTRATE PUBLIC
APPETITE FOR A CHANGE.
THE ORGANIZATION HAS WON THE
ENDORSEMENT OF THE ♪ ♪
MEDICAL TRANSITION OR'S.
PERSONALLY, I THINK THE
EFFICACY OF THESE PLANT
MEDICINES TREATING SUBSTANCE
ABUSE, PTSD AND IS UNPARALLEL
AND RELATIVE TO MODERN
PHARMACEUTICAL MEDICINE.
THE CITY OF SEATTLE SHOULD JOIN
OTHER MASSIVE HOLIDAYS SUCH AS
WASHINGTON D.C., OAKLAND AND
DENVER AND PASSING THESE ARE
FORMS.
THANK YOU AND I FORWARD MY
TIME.
>> ANNETTE
(INDISCERNIBLE) WILL BE
FOLLOWED BY ANA THOMPSON WYLIE.
>> CAN YOU HIT STAR SIX.
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> YES, WE CAN.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING.
I HAVE BEEN IN ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER FOR NEARLY 15 YEARS.
AM ALSO THE PRESIDENT OF THE
SEATTLE PARK ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER.
I AM CALLED TODAY TO SPREAD THE
LEGISLATION TRANSFERRED FOR THE
ENDORSEMENT.
THE COMMUNITY SAFETY.
FOR CERTAIN POLICE
(INDISCERNIBLE) , CITIES LIKE
DENVER AND PHILADELPHIA ALL
HAVE PROGRAMS THAT DISPATCH
UNARMED CIVILIANS.
THE CEOS ARE THE IDEAL
CANDIDATES. THEY ARE 60% LGBTQ
MOBILE WORKFORCE THAT REFLECT
THE DIVERSITY OF THE COMMUNITY.
THEY ARE TRAINED IN DE-
ESCALATION TACTICS AND MOST
IMPORTATLY, WE ARE COMMITTED
TO SERVING THE COMMUNITY.
SEATTLE RESIDENTS HAVE
EXPRESSED A DEEP DESIRE FOR
CHANGES IN POLICING.
TRANSFERRING IS A REAL STEP
FORWARD TO REENACTING POLICING
AND A SAFER SEATTLE FOR
EVERYONE.
>> THE NEXT SPEAKER IS
WIDELY.
>> MY NAME IS TRIMANA.,
DISTRICT FIVE RESIDENT AND A
MEMBER OF BLACK ACTION
COALITION AND DECRIMINALIZE
SEATTLE.
I'M CALLING TO DEMAND CITY
COUNCIL TO AMEND CB119981 TO
TRANSFER $5.4 MILLION FROM SPD
TO PD AND RESTORE 5 MILLION
PROVISO TO THE ORIGINAL FORM.
IF BLACK LIVES MATTER, I NEED
TO SEE CITY COUNCIL USE IT.
WE NEED THIS VESTED INTO THE
COMMUNITY.
THE QUALITY OF BLACK LIVES
MATTER INVESTING IN
INSTITUTIONS THAT HISTORICALLY
BRUTALIZED AND OPPRESSED THE
COMMUNITY.
STOP HIDING BEHIND THE DISSENT
DECREE.
-- CONSENT DEGREE WHICH DOES
NOT REQUIRE STAFFING OR FUNDING
LEVELS BUT LEAVES OUT A
POTENTIAL COURSE OF ACTION TO
MEET THE GOAL AND APPROPRIATE
FOR ITS ABILITY TO FIND
SOLUTIONS SUITABLE FOR THE
COMMUNITY.
I'M DEMANDING THAT THE COUNCIL
GETS BEHIND BLACK LIVES AND
TRANSFER THE 5.4 MILLION FROM
SPD TO THE PD.
IT IS JUST UNFORTUNATE THAT WE
HAVE TO CONTINUE
(INDISCERNIBLE)
>> I HAVE A VERY UNSTABLE
CONNECTION HERE.
JUST TO LET YOU KNOW.
THE NEXT SPEAKER IS ALICE ALBEE
FOLLOWED BY EMMA KNIGHTON.
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> I CAN.
THANK YOU.
>> MY NAME IS ALICE
(INDISCERNIBLE) AND I'M A TWO
RESIDENT AND AMASSING THE
COMMITTEE TO AMEND CB -- TO
TRANSFER 5.4 MILLION FROM SPD
TO RESTORE THE PROVISO TO ITS
ORIGINAL FORM.
WE NEED POLICE BUDGET
ACCOUNTABILITY AND PASSING THIS
BILL IN THIS FORM WOULD BE A
FIRST STEP.
THE OVERTIME ABUSE TO INFLICT
VIOLENCE ON PROTESTERS ARCHING
IN DEFENSE OF BLACK LIVES
SHOULD NOT BE AWARDED FOR THIS
VIOLENT WASTE OF RESOURCES.
THERE ARE ALSO PREVIOUS
ATTEMPTS AT TO STOP THE PATTERN
FAILED.
THIS ALLOWS SPD TO SPEND FUNDS
ON WHATEVER ONES AND REPORT
BACK TO COUNSEL AFTER THE FACT.
ALSO THE PROPOSED BUDGET ITEMS
WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT CAPACITY
AND RESOURCES TO SPD AT A TIME
WHEN COUNSEL IS WORKING TO
STRENGTHEN THE DEPARTMENT.
SAFETY TEAMS MUST BE EMPLOYED
OUTSIDE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
WHAT WE NEED TO GET THERE IS
SERIOUS INVESTMENT IN COMMUNITY
SOLUTIONS THROUGH BUDGING.
AGAIN, THE CONSENT DECREE IS
NOT ABOUT THE SPD STAFFING
LEVELS OR FUNDING.
I URGE YOU TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON
YOUR ORIGINAL COMMITMENT.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
THE NEXT IS EMMA KNIGHTON
FOLLOWED BY SHARON PARK.
>> HELLO.
I LIVE IN DISTRICT ONE., TRAUMA
THERAPIST AND TRAINED
PSYCHOLOGICAL THERAPIST AND
SPEAKING AS PART OF THE
DECRIMINALIZE -- IN HOPES YOU
ADOPT THE RESOLUTION TO
DECRIMINALIZE PSYCHEDELICS IN
SEATTLE.
AS SOMEONE WHO SPECIALIZES IN
THIS AND A SURVIVOR MYSELF, I
CAN ATTEST THE BENEFITS TO THE
PSYCHEDELIC HEALTH.
T SAVED MY LIFE AND I'VE
WATCHED THEM SAVE THE LIVES OF
MANY OF MY CLIENTS.
AS EFFORTS CONTINUE TO MOVE
FORWARD, WE MUST ACKNOWLEDGE
THE FACT THAT PSYCHEDELICS
THERAPY WILL NOT BE ACCESSIBLE
TO MANY OF THE PEOPLE THAT NEED
THE MOST DUE TO FINANCIAL
BARRIERS AND THE IMPLICATIONS.
DECRIMINALIZING PSYCHEDELICS
WILL ENSURE SAFE AND AFFORDABLE
ACCESS FOR ALL PEOPLE WHO MIGHT
BENEFIT AND WILL OPEN THE DOORS
FOR INCREASED EDUCATION AROUND
CRIME REDUCTION AND SAFETY IS.
COUNCIL MEMBERS OF SEATTLE, I
URGE YOU TO DO THE RIGHT THING.
THIS IS A NECESSARY PATH
FORWARD AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE
SOLUTION.
>> SHARON PARK FOLLOWED BY
BRIAN EVANS.
SHARON.
>> HELLO.
I'M SHARON PARK, RESIDENT OF
DISTRICT THREE.
EMERGING COUNSEL TO AMEND THIS
TO PUT AN END TO THE UNCHECKED
OVERTIME ABUSE. AND ALLOCATE
THE FUNDS TOWARD PARTICIPATORY
BUDGETING AND RESTORE THE
ORIGINAL PROVISO AND TRANSFER
THE FULL $5 MILLION FROM SPD TO
COMMUNITY.
THERE IS A LOT OF ATTENTION ON
WHETHER THE SPD ABILITY TO
COMPLY WITH THE CONSENT DECREE
IS IMPACTING BUDGET CUTS.
THIS OVERLOOKS THE MAJOR
PROBLEMS FOR SPD TO USE THE
MONEY AND HOW ACTIVITIES ARE
ATTACHED TOO AND CONTRAVENING
TO INCREASES.
SPD PROPOSED USE THE $5.4
MILLION FOR PROGRAMS LIKE
MENTAL HEALTH.
THESE PROGRAMS ARE TO INCREASE
THE LIKELIHOOD OF POLICE
VIOLENCE AGAINST PEOPLE
EXPERIENCING MENTAL HEALTH
CRISES AND EFFECTIVELY
REVERSING THE GOAL OF THE
CONSENT DECREE AND POSE A MAJOR
THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY.
EMERGING COUNSEL TO TAKE AN
UNWAVERING STANCE ON POLICE
BUDGET ACCOUNTABILITY AND SET A
NEW PRECEDENT THAT WILL SUPPORT
THE HEALTH AND VITALITY OF OUR
COMMUNITY.
>> THANK YOU.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS BRIAN EVANS
FOLLOWED BY DIANE GREENE.
>> GOOD MORNING
COUNCILMEMBERS.
MY NAME IS BRIAN EVANS.
úI'M A PEO OF THE CITY OF
SEATTLE AND TREASURER OF THE
PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
GUILD.
I'M CALLING IN SUPPORT OF THE
LEGISLATION THAT MOVES PARK
ENFORCEMENT TO THE COMMUNITY
SAFETY AND COMMUNICATION
CENTER.
I SUPPORT THE MOVE TO THE CSCC
BECAUSE I BELIEVE CIVILIAN
OFFICERS CAN BE A PART OF THE
SOLUTION AND THE ONGOING
DIFFICULT CHALLENGE TO
REIMAGINE POLICING.
IN NOVEMBEROF 2020, COUNSEL
RECOGNIZE THE UNIQUE
OPPORTUNITY, THE CHANCE TO
PLACE A UNIT OF DEDICATED,
TRAINED CIVILIAN OFFICERS INTO
A NEWLY FORMED CITY DEPARTMENT
THAT WILL FOCUS ON PUBLIC
SAFETY.
COUNSEL RECOGNIZED A BOLD STEP
FORWARD IS IN THE STATUS QUO
BUT TO CONTINUE FORGING AHEAD
TO IMPROVE THE WAYS THE CITY OF
SEATTLE SERVES ITS RESIDENTS.
I HOPE THIS HAS NOT CHANGED.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU, BRIAN.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS DIANE
GREENE FOLLOWED BY DEZ CALHOUN.
>> GOOD MORNING.
MY NAME IS DIANE GREEN.
I'M A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT
THREE.
I'M CALLING IN SUPPORT OF
TRANSFERRING PARKING
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO THE
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE FOR
COMMUNITY SAFETY AND
COMMUNICATIONS.
THE CIVILIANIZATION OF CERTAIN
POLICE FUNCTIONS IS THE WAVE OF
THE FUTURE.
SEATTLE RESIDENTS HAVE
EXPRESSED A DEEP DESIRE FOR
CHANGES IN POLICING.
TRANSFERRING PARKING
ENFORCEMENT TO THIS CSCC WOULD
BE THE FIRST REAL STEPS TO
IMPROVING COMMUNITY POLICING
AND A SAFER SEATTLE.
THE PARKING ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS GROUP IS A GREAT DEAL
MORE MULTICULTURAL THAN THE
REGULAR SEATTLE POLICE FORCE
AND IS MORE REPRESENTATIVE OF
THE COMMUNITY.
>> THE NEXT SPEAKER IS DOUG
HAVE EZ SHUFFLING.
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> THEY CAN.
THANK YOU.
>> HELLO.
I AM FROM TACOMA.
LAST TIME I SPOKE, I MENTIONED
HOW THIS HAS RESURFACED AND I
LOVE PROVIDING POETRY AND I
WOULD LOVE TO SHARE WITH YOU
ALL A POEM THAT I WROTE WHILE
CONSENTING (INDISCERNIBLE)
WHAT IS THIS FEELING?
IT FEELS RIGHT?
AND I NEVER WANTED TO END.
I CAN SEE THE LIGHT THAT IS
FURTHER AND FURTHER FROM THE
GRASS.
SO CLOSE IF WE CAN JUST BREAK.
BREAK THE CHAINS THAT AT ONE
TIME BOUND US.
CAST OUR FEARS ASIDE AND RIDE
THE STORM INTO THE MOUTH OF THE
DRAGON.
THE DRAGON'S MOUTH IS BUT
ANOTHER DIMENSION THAT WE WILL
EVENTUALLY HAVE TO BREAK FROM.
BREAK THE CHAINS THAT BOUND US.
JUMP INTO THE DRAGON'S MOUTH
AND FIGHT FOR THE DESTINY THAT
AWAITS US.
BREAK THE CHAINS FOR A NEW
WORLD ABOUT TO EMERGE FROM THE
ASHES LIKE A PHOENIX LEFT FOR
DEAD BUT THEN IT RISES.
>> THANK YOU.
THE NEXT SPEAKER IS REBECCA
MARK HAS FOLLOWED BY BJ LAZARD.
>> I'M CALLING INTO AS WE
COUNSEL TO HOLD AS BE
ACCOUNTABLE AND CUT THE BUDGET
BY $5.4 MILLION.
IN THE EIGHT YEARS I HAVE LIVED
IN THE CITY, MY BELIEF THAT THE
POLICE KEEP ME SAFE HAS BEEN
COMPLETELY DESTROYED.
I HAVE WITNESSED POLICE
BRUTALITY, POLITICAL COVERUPS
AND CONSTANT STRATEGIC
MANEUVERING TO ENSURE THAT
THOSE IN POWER CANNOT BE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE.
HOWEVER I BELIEVE THE GOOD
LEADERSHIP TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE
BUT ELECTED OFFICIALS WITH
STRONG PRINCIPLE THAT THE KEY
TO A SAFE SOCIETY.
IVAN MORDANT ENORMOUS RESPECT
FOR YOU ON THE COUNCIL AND I
IMPLORE YOU THAT WE HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE ON FROM THE
HORROR THAT SPD HAS INFLICT ON
US.
THAT IS OVER THE LAST YEAR OF
PROTEST AND TEARGAS BUT THE
DECADES OF HARASSMENT AND
MURDER THAT CAME BEFORE.
WE NEED TO CREATE COMMUNITY
SAFETY THAT DOES NOT DEPEND ON
AN ARMED AND MILITARIZED FORCE
AND CANNOT DO THIS WITHOUT
FUNDS.
PLEASE HOLD SPD ACCOUNTABLE FOR
THEIR ACTIONS AND REMOVE THE
$5.4 MILLION IN THEIR BUDGET
AND TRANSFER IT TO THE
COMMUNITY AS YOU PROMISED YOU
WOULD DO.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
THE NEXT SPEAKER IS AJ LAST
FOLLOWED BY CHRISTINE MENKE.
AND SHE IS SHOWING IS NOT
PRESENT.
IF YOU CAN HEAR US, YOU ARE
COMING UP NEXT.
BJ.
>> MY NAME IS BJ LAST.
I ASKING CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND
AND TRANSFER 5.4 MILLION FROM
SPD TO PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING.
AND REMOVE THE 59-DOLLAR
PROVISO FROM THE BILL.
COUNCILMEMBER GONZCEZ TALKED
ABOUT REBUILDING PUBLIC TRUST
IN GOVERNMENT.
COUNSEL FOLLOWIN THROUGH ON
THE COMMITMENT TO HOLD SPD
ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE
OVERSPENDING CAN HELP RESTORE
THE TRUST AND PLAN FOR FUTURE
ACCOUNTABILITY.
THE GOAL OF THE CONSENT DECREE
IS TO ENSURE THE SPD USE OF
FORCE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
REQUIREMENT OF THE U.S.
CONSTITUTION.
THE REST OF THE DECREE IS A
POTENTIAL COURSE OF ACTION TO
MEET THE GOAL.
THEY HAVE TRIED TO FOLLOW THE
COURSE OF ACTION FOR YEARS
WITHOUT MEETING THE GOAL.
THE SPD BUDGET HAS GROWN BY
OVER $150 MILLION AND THE
DECREE GIVES SEATTLE
FLEXIBILITY TO FIND SOLUTIONS
FOR THE COMMUNITY AND IT IS
TIME TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT
AND DEVELOP LOCAL SOLUTIONS AND
ACCOMPLISH THE GOAL OF THE
DECREE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
I'M GOING TO CALL FOR CHRISTINE
MENKE.
SHE IS SHOWING NOT PRESENT.
SO THE NEXT SPEAKER IS
CHRISTOPHER O'BRIEN.
WE WILL COME BACK TO CHRISTINE
IF I SHOW LATER IN THE MEETING
THAT HE IS NOT PRESENT.
>> MY NAME IS CHRISTOPHER
O'BRIEN.
FORMER RESIDENT OF SEATTLE.
CURRENT PARK ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER AND I'M CALLING TO
SUPPORT THE COMMUNITY SAFETY
AND MEDICATION CENTER AND
TRANSFER PO'S TO THAT.
OVER THE LAST SIX YEARS AS A
PEO, I HAVE DEVELOPED SEVERAL
RELATIONSHIPS WITH RESIDENTS IN
THE COMMUNITY AND MULTIPLE
DIFFERENT AREAS AS WELL AS
BUSINESS OWNERS IN THE
COMMUNITY AND I THINK IT IS A
GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR US AS
PEO'S, TO STEP UP AND MEET THE
NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY AS I
HAVE LISTENED TO PEOPLE IN THE
PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION WANTING
A CIVILIAN EYES AGENCY TO COME
OUT AND HELP THEM WITH THESE
ISSUES AND THAT IS SOMETHING I
BELIEVE THE PEO CAN STEP UP AND
DO.
WE HAVE THE TRAINING AND THE
MEANS AND THE WILL AND I
BELIEVE THAT THE COUNCIL IS IN
THE CORRECT PATH TO MAKE THIS
HAPPEN.
I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THE NEXT SPEAKER IS JAKE
FIXEDLY FOLLOWED BY BRITAIN AND
CAN'T.
>> GOOD MORNING.
I AM UP PARKING ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER IN THE CITY.
I WANTED TO EXPRESS MY
CONTINUED SUPPORT FOR THE MOVE
OF THE UNIT TO THE NEW
COMMUNITY SAFETY AND
COMMUNICATION CENTER.
WHEN YOU THINK OF PUBLIC
SAFETY, YOU DON'T THINK OF
(INDISCERNIBLE) BUT THE FIRE
DEPARTMENT, THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT AND SOON YOU WILL
THINK OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY SAFETY.
COMPLETING THE MOVE OF PARK
ENFORCEMENT TO THE CSCC WILL
NOW THE CITY TO HAVE RESOURCES
IT NEEDS TO CONTINUE HIS
MISSION OF PROVIDING NEW AND
REIMAGINED SERVICES TO ITS
CITIZENS.
WE SEE OURSELVES AS PUBLIC
SERVANTS SO PLEASE LET US
CONTINUE TO SERVE.
I YIELD THE REST OF MY TIME.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, JAKE.
BRITTANY KING.
BRITTANY KING WILL BE FOLLOWED
BY BERNARD BENTLEY.
BRITTANY.
>> MY NAME IS BRITTANY KING.
I'M ALSO A PARKING ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER AND I HAVE BEEN FOR THE
LAST THREE YEARS.
AM ALSO BLACK WOMAN AND I GREW
UP IN SOUTH LOS ANGELES.
I BELIEVE IF CITY COUNCIL TRULY
WANTS TO REIMAGINE POLICING,
SUPPORTING THE MOVE FROM
PARKING ENFORCEMENT TO THE CSCC
IS A STEP IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION.
PARKING ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT
IS ONE OF THE MOST DIVERSE
DEPARTMENTS IN THE CITY.
DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION IS
SOMETHING COMMUNITIES ARE
CRAVING.
EVEN OUR DEPARTMENTS PROMOTING
CHANGE AND INCLUSION IS THE
FIRST STEP.
THE PEO HAS UNIQUE ADVANTAGE AS
WE ARE THE EARS AND EYES OF THE
COMMUNITY.
AND BECAUSE WE ARE SO DIVERSE,
HIGHLY TRAINED, WE CAN USE OUR
VARIETY OF LIFE EXPENSES TO
RELATE AND ESTABLISH A BETTER
RAPPORT WITH COMMUNITIES.
THIS IS A POWERFUL RESOURCE AND
I HOPE WE CAN ASSIST IN ANY
WAY.
THANK YOU AND I YIELD MY TIME.
>> THANK YOU.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS BERNARD
BENTLEY FOLLOWED BY DAN OTTER.
I WILL CALL HIS NAME AGAIN.
LET'S MOVE FORWARD WITH
BERNARD.
>> THANKS AGAIN FOR THE TIME
ALLOTTED TO SPEAK.
MY NAME IS BERNARD BENTLEY.
TALKING ABOUT THE TRANSITION TO
COMMITTEE SAFETY.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THE COUNCIL
HAS OUTLINED WHAT THEY WANT TO
SEE ACCOMPLISH IN THE CITY.
I BELIEVE PARKS ENFORCEMENT IS
TAILOR-MADE.
A COUPLE THINGS.
WE KNOW THE CITY AND WE KNOW
THE TERRITORY.
WE ARE ON THE STREETS EVERY
DAY.
WE THINK WE HAVE OUR FINGER ON
THE PULSE OF THE CITY.
COLLECTIVELY, THERE ARE 1400
LANGUAGES.
WE ARE SKILLED IN SELF DEFENSE
AND CAN RELATE TO A LARGE GROUP
F PEOPLE.
I BELIEVE THAT WE CANNOT ONLY
HIT THE GROUND RUNNING THE
TRANSITION SMOOTHER THAN ANY
OTHER GROUP OF PEOPLE INSIDE
THE CITY.
I HOPE YOU WILL MAKE THE RIGHT
DECISION.
THANK YOU AGAIN.
I YIELD MY TIME.
>> THE NEXT SPEAKER IS DAN
OTTER FOLLOWED BY PETER CONDON.
>> DAN, ARE YOU WITH US?
>> HELLO.
THIS IS DAN OTTER.
GOOD MORNING COUNCILMEMBERS AND
THANK YOU FOR HEARING MY
COMMENTS THIS MORNING.
I AM A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT SIX
AND I'M SPEAKING AS A MEMBER OF
DECRIMINALIZE NATURE SEATTLE
AND ADOPT OUR RESOLUTION TO
DECRIMINALIZE THE GIFTING,
GATHERING AND GROWING OF PLANT-
BASED PSYCHEDELICS IN SEATTLE.
FOR MY BACKGROUND, I'M A PUBLIC
HEALTH AND ADDICTIONS NURSE.
MEDICAL USE FOR PSYCHEDELICS
ARE RAPIDLY BEING RECOGNIZED.
RESEARCH HAS SHOWN INCREDIBLE
POTENTIAL FOR PSYCHEDELICS AND
TREATMENT OF MANY MENTAL HEALTH
DISORDERS INCLUDING DEPRESSION,
SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER AND
ANXIETY.
THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT IN THE
NEXT TO YEARS, (INDISCERNIBLE)
ARE EXPECTED TO BE ABLE TO
ILLEGALLY PRESCRIBE FOR CERTAIN
DIAGNOSES.
THE BAD NEWS IS THAT THE ACCESS
WILL BE LINKED -- A PRIVILEGE
LINKED WITH ADEQUATE INSURANCE.
>> SORRY ABOUT THAT.
WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT
SPEAKER.
PETER CONDIT.
AND HE WILL BE FOLLOWED BY
GARETH SMALL WHO IS CURRENTLY
SHOWING IS NOT PRESENT.
WE WILL COME BACK TO HIM.
AFTER WE HEAR FROM PETER.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
I LIVE IN DISTRICT OUR.
URGE THE COMMITTEE NOT TO MOVE
FORWARD WITH THE COUNCIL BILL
119981 UNTIL IT IS AMENDED TO
HOLD SPD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE
FULL 9-FOOT -- 5-POINT NUMBER
MILLION DOLLARS IT OVERSPENT
BEING VIOLENT LAST SUMMER AND
TO REINSTATE THE PROVISO ON THE
2021 SALARY SAVINGS.
IF YOU MOVE FORWARD WITH THE
BILL IN THE CURRENT FORM, YOU
ARE CONTRIBUTING TO A CULTURE
OF NON- ACCOUNTABILITY.
WHERE POLICE CAN FUDGE
TIMESHEETS OR USE TEARGAS AFTER
IT IS PROHIBITED BY CITY
COUNCIL AND POLICE CAN MURDER
BLACK AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLE
LIKE JOHN WILLIAMS.
DON'T THINK SPD WON'T NOTICE.
THEY WILL READ LOUD AND CLEAR
IF THERE OVER TIME OF YEARS USE
AND VIOLENCE DOES NOT HURT THE
BOTTOM LINE.
THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSENT
DECREE IS TO ADDRESS PATTERNS
OF VIOLENCE.
IT WOULD THEREFORE BE A
VIOLATION OF THE CONSENT DECREE
NOT TO DEFUND SPD BY AT LEAST
FIVE-POINT NUMBER MILLION
DOLLARS AND REINSTATE A IN THE
ONGOING SALARY SAVINGS AS A
CONSEQUENCE FOR THE OVERTIME
ABUSES.
ULTIMATELY, SHIFTING PRIORITIES
SUCH THAT IS PRETTY COMPLIES
WITH THE CONSENT DECREE IS UP
TO THEM.
>> THANK YOU.
THE NEXT SPEAKER IS GARETH
SMALL.
HE IS NOT SHOWING PRESENT.
IF HE SHOWS PRESENT LATER, WE
WILL COME BACK.
THE WILL MOVE ON TO TATIANA KEN
CARYL WHO WILL BE FOLLOWED BY
ANA MCVEIGH.
>> CAN HEAR ME?
>> YES WE CAN.
>> MY NAME IS TATIANA.
I LIVE IN DISTRICT TWO AND
ASKING FOR SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL
TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION TO
ETERMINE I PSYCHEDELICS.
AND I STAND IN SOLIDARITY WITH
REINVESTING THE FIVE-POINT
NUMBER MILLION DOLLARS THAT WAS
BROUGHT UP EARLIER TODAY THE BY
DECRIMINALIZE SEATTLE BACK INTO
THE COMMUNITY.
TRAUMA DECONTEXTUALIZED IN THE
FAMILY LOOKS LIKE FAMILY
TRAITS.
TRAUMA AND A PEOPLE LOOKS LIKE
CULTURE.
THAT FROM (INDISCERNIBLE) OUR
COMMUNITIES ARE SUFFERING FROM
WORSENING MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES
AND ACADEMIC LEVELS OF
PROBLEMATIC SUBSTANCE
DEPENDENCY.
PSYCHEDELICS ARE PROVEN,
RELIABLE AND EFFECTIVE
ALTERNATIVES TO HELP AND IT IS
OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO CREATE
MODELS AND FRAMEWORK THAT WILL
KEEP THESE ACCEPTABLE TO ALL.
OUR MODEL WILL ENSURE THE
TRAITS AND I HOPE THAT SEATTLE
CITY COUNCIL WILL INVEST IN OUR
COMMUNITIES AND GUIDE US.
>> THANK YOU.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS EMMA
MCVEIGH WHO WILL BE FOLLOWED BY
FLORA WRIGHT.
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> WE CAN.
THANK YOU.
MY NAME IS EMMA MCVEIGH AND
EMMA DISTRICT SEVEN RESIDENT
AND I'M CALLING TO ASK CITY
COUNCIL TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL
119981.
I WANT TO REITERATE THE SPD
FUNDING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH
THE CONSENT DECREE.
IF SEATTLE IS STILL UNDER THE
DECREE DESPITE THE SPD BUDGET
GROWING BY $150 MILLION WHEN
SEATTLE ENTERED INTO IT.
MAYOR IN A SPEEDIER 20s BY US
AND USE OF FORCE TRAINING TO
PRESSURE YOU TO GO BACK ON YOUR
COMMITMENT.
PLEASE DON'T GIVE IN.
REMEMBER THAT YOUR COMMITMENT
IS TO THIS COMMUNITY AND
TRAININGS DO NOT WORK.
AND DO NOT CREATE SAFER
COMMUNITIES BY CONTENDING TO
PHONE THE POLICE.
THINK OF ALL THE GOOD WE CAN DO
WITH THIS MONEY.
I URGE YOU TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON
YOUR ORIGINAL COMMITMENT AND
HOLD SPD ACCOUNTABLE FOR
OVERTIME ABUSES BY ALLOCATING
THE FULL FIVE-POINT NUMBER FOR
MILLION DOLLARS TO SUPPORT
BUDGETING AND TRANSFER THE FULL
$5 MILLION OF THE PROVISO TO
COMMUNITY.
THANK YOU AND I YIELD MY TIME.
>> THE NEXT SPEAKER IS FLORA
WRIGHT.
FLORA IS NEXT BUT FOLLOWED BY
DANA LASSITER AND DANA IS NOT
SHOWING AS PRESIDENT.
SO I WILL RETURN TO DAN AFTER
HEARING FROM FLORA TO SEE IF
TINA IS WITH US.
FLORA.
>> THE COMMUNITY MUST RETURN
TO THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF THE
SUBSTITUTE BILL WHICH IS NOT AN
IMPROVEMENT.
THE MAYOR AND IS PRETTY WERE
THE PRIMARY PEOPLE CONSULTED
AND NOT CONSTITUENTS.
MONEY HAD BEEN AIRPORT
EARMARKED FOR BUT IS BUT HER
BUDGETING AND THE ONLY
MECHANISM FOR SPENDING.
MAKING PROMISES TO DEFUND THE
POLICE AND STATEMENTS ABOUT
COMMITMENT TO JUSTICE AND
BACKTRACKING WITH A
SUBSTITUTION.
I URGE YOU TO FOLLOW THROUGH IN
YOUR ORIGINAL PROMISE AND I
JOIN EVERYONE THAT CALLS TODAY
TO SAY, AND THEN 119981 TO
RETURN TO THE ORIGINAL VERSION
WHICH REDUCES THE SPD 21 AND
BUDGET BY FIVE-POINT NUMBER
MILLION DOLLARS AND TRANSFERS
THE BUDGETING.
AND REINSTATE THE $5 MILLION
PROVISO THAT WOULD TRANSFER THE
SPD SALARY SAVINGS TO PRODUCE A
VETTORI BUDGETING WHICH MUST BE
DESIGNED AND HELD BY COMMUNITY
AND NOT BY THE CITY.
WE REJECT THE SUBSTITUTE BILL
BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE
FOR POLICE BUDGET
ACCOUNTABILITY.
I YIELD MY TIME.
>> THANK YOU.
STILL SHOWING DANA LASSITER NOT
PRESENT.
I WILL COME BACK TO DANA IF
DANA JOINS US AT A LATER TIME
DURING PUBLIC COMMENT.
THE NEXT SPEAKER IS NUVEEN
JOCELYN FOLLOWED BY COCO WEBER.
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> WE CAN.
THANK YOU.
I LIVE IN DISTRICT 5. I'M
CALLING TO ASK YOU TO RETURN TO
THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF COUNCIL
BILL 119181.
PLEASE FOLLOW THROUGH ON THE
ORIGINAL COMMITMENT AND
ALLOCATE THE FULL PARTICIPATORY
BUDGETING AND TRANSFERRING THE
FULL 5 MILLION TO THE
COMMUNITY.
I AM A STUDENT AND I KNOW A LOT
OF OTHER YOUNG PEOPLE WHO DON'T
VOTE BECAUSE IT FEELS LIKE OUR
POLITICAL PROCESS IS NOT
(INDISCERNIBLE) THE
ADDITIONAL A POINT NUMBER
MILLION PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING
SHOWS THE CITY IS SERIOUS ABOUT
LISTENINGTH NEEDS AND HOLDING
SPD ACCOUNTABLE.
PROHIBITORY BUDGETING
(INDISCERNIBLE) THANK YOU AND
I YIELD THE REST OF MY TIME.
>> THANK YOU.
(INDISCERNIBLE) WILL BE
FOLLOWED BY KYLE ADAMS.
COCO.
>> THIS IS COCO.
(INDISCERNIBLE) AND THE COUNCIL
TO MAINTAIN THEIR GRIP OF POWER
OVER THE CITY.
THE ORIGINAL BILL WAS MADE BY
THE COUNTS AND A COMMITMENT TO
ADDRESS SPD POWER AND VIOLENCE
WHICH WAS USED TO BRUTALIZE
PROTESTERS IN THE FIGHT FOR
BLACK LIVES IN OUR CITY.
THE CONSENT DECREE HAS PROVEN
AND EFFECTIVE BUT GIVES THE
CITY FLEXIBILITY.
THE STRUCTURE OF THE CONSENT
AGREEMENT AND I DON'T KNOW ONE.
THE PARTIES INTEND CLEAR
MEASURABLE OBLIGATIONS AND AT
THE SAME TIME LEAVING SEATTLE
WITH APPROPRIATE FLEXIBILITY TO
FIND SOLUTIONS SUITABLE FOR THE
COMMUNITY.
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
AGREEMENTS IDENTIFY THE
MECHANISM AND SPECIFIC ELEMENTS
THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED.
HOWEVER, WITHIN THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE AGREEMENT,
SEATTLE WILL HAVE THE ABILITY
TO DEVELOP COST-EFFECTIVE
SOLUTIONS.
THAT IS THE PARTICIPATORY
BUDGET AND I ASK YOU TO MAKE
COMMITMENTS TO THE PEOPLE AND
STAND STRONG AND NOT GIVEN TO
POLICE BULLYING.
>> THANK YOU.
>> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS KYLE
ADAMS.
AND KYLE WILL BE FOLLOWED BY
SHANE MILLHOUSE.
>> GOOD MORNING.
MY NAME IS KYLE ADAMS., PARKING
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IN THE CITY
OF SEATTLE.
I'M CALLING TO SUPPORT THE
LEGISLATION THAT MOVES PARKING
ENFORCEMENT TO THE COMMUNITY
SAFETY AND COMMUNICATIONS
CENTER.
I SUPPORT THE MOVE TO THE CITY
BECAUSE I'M EXCITED FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLORE OTHER
WAS THE PEO CAN SERVE THE
RESIDENTS AND CITY OF SEATTLE.
THE STEP FORWARD AND IMAGINING
HOW SILLY NOBBS WAS TO MAKE AN
IMPACT IN THE PROMISE TO DO THE
HARD WORK.
IN ADDITION, THIS IS TRULY
TAKING A STEP FORWARD AND
LEADING THE WAY FOR THIS
IMPORTANT NATIONAL CONVERSATION
ABOUT COMMUNITY SAFETY.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND I
YIELD THE REST OF MY TIME.
>> THANK YOU.
THE NEXT SPEAKER IS SHANE
MILLHOUSE.
AND SHANE WILL BE FOLLOWED BY
IRIS MCCOLLUM IF IRIS BECOMES
PRESENT.
GO AHEAD, SHANE.
>> REMEMBER TO PRESS STAR SIX
.
>> ANY HEAR ME NOW?
>> WE CAN.
THANK YOU.
>> MY NAME IS SHANE
MILLHOUSE.
AND WITH DISTRICT 3 AND
DECRIMINALIZE NATURE
ENCOURAGING CITY COUNCIL TO
PASS A RESOLUTION SIMILAR TO
THE ONE IN OREGON.
I AM IN SUPPORT OF MICRO DOSING
PSYCHEDELICS.
I FOUND THAT HE KEEPS
POSITIVITY AND STOPS ME FROM
SLIPPING BACK INTO A TREATMENT
RESISTANT DEPRESSION.
I DON'T THINK ANYONE SHOULD BE
LEGALLY PENALIZED FOR NEEDING
NATURAL MEDICINES OR
RESTRICTION OF THE CULTIVATION.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS IRIS
MCCOLLUM.
IRIS IS STILL NOT SHOWING AS
PRESENT.
WE WILL MOVE TO EMMA LOWER.
>> HELLO COUNCIL.
I'M A RESIDENT IN WEST SEATTLE.
I'M CALLING TODAY TO RESTORE
COUNCIL BILL 119981 TO THE
ORIGINAL FORM.
WE DISCUSSED IN THE MARCH 10th
COUNCIL MEETING, THIS ISSUE IS
REALLY NOT ABOUT STAFFING.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO QUOTE A
STATEMENT FROM COUNCILMEMBER
LEWIS DIRECTLY WHEN HE SAID
THERE IS WIDESPREAD CONFUSION
AMONG CERTAIN EDITORIAL BOARDS
AND WHAT WE ARE DEBATING RIGHT
NOW WILL HAVE A TANGIBLE IMPACT
ON MEMBERS AND IT WON'T.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT STAFFING
THE CONSENT DECREE.
IN FACT IT IS ABOUT
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SPD.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE
ORIGINAL COUNCIL BILL IS ABOUT.
IT IS ABOUT MAKING SURE THE
OVER TIME SPENT BY SPD WILL NOT
BE -- WE WON'T GIVE THEN THE
ABILITY TO --
>> THANK YOU.
THE NEXT SPEAKER IS BEN.
HOME FOLLOWED BY.
SALINGER.
>> HELLO.
I'M FROM DISTRICT THREE.
I'M SPEAKING ON
DECRIMINALIZATION SEATTLE.
WE ARE ADOPTING A RESOLUTION ON
DECRIMINALIZING PSYCHEDELICS.
ALSO IN SUPPORT OF CB WIN FOR.
WE LOST THE WAR ON DRUGS.
DRUM CREDIBLE -- DRUG
CRIMINAL VISION IS RUN LIVES IN
THE SCRIMMAGE AGAINST MINORITY
POPULATIONS.
HERE IN SEATTLE, DO YOU THINK
PUTTING MORE MONEY INTO THIS
WILL FIX ANYTHING?
WE NEED TO RETHINK OUR JUSTICE
SYSTEM AND WE NEED TO RETHINK
HOW WE CAN TREAT MENTAL HEALTH.
WE BENEFITED SIGNIFICANTLY IN
ELIMINATING DEPRESSION AND
HELPING.
AND RIGHT NOW WITH THE EYES OF
THE CITY IN THE STATE, I'M A
CRIMINAL FOR USING THIS THERAPY
AND OVERCOMING MY WEAKNESSES.
SOMETHING THAT HAS BENEFITED MY
LIFE SO GREATLY COULD LAND ME
IN JAIL WHERE I WOULD LOSE MY
JOB AND PROBABLY NOT BE ABLE TO
FINANCIALLY RECOVER.
INSTEAD OF PUTTING MORE MONEY
INTO A FIELD CAMPAIGN AND DRUG
ENFORCEMENT, WE NEED TO
STRENGTHEN THE COMMUNITY AND
USE THE MONEY FOR MENTAL HEALTH
TEATMENT THAT WORKS.
WE CAN'T PUT SHINY NEW RINGS ON
--
>> THANK YOU.
NEXT SPEAKER IS ERIC BELANGER.
ERIC WILL BE FOLLOWED BY JULIA
BUCK.
>> HELLO.
CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> WE CAN.
THANK YOU.
>> MY NAME IS ERIC SALINGER.
I LIVE IN DISTRICT 7. I'M
CALLING FOR THE COUNCIL TO PASS
THE ORIGINAL VERSION.
THE COURT MONITOR HAS TOLD YOU
THAT A FUNDING CUT MAY IMPACT
WITH THE CONSENT DECREE BUT SPD
IS CHOOSING TO USE THIS AS
HOSTAGE FOR A SPECIFIC CHUNK OF
FUNDING.
THE CHOICE DEMONSTRATES WHY WE
SHOULD CUT FUNDING IN THE FIRST
PLACE AND THAT IS THE POLICE
TREATMENT DOESN'T CARE ABOUT
THE RESIDENTS OF SEATTLE.
THEY DEMONSTRATED AN DIFFERENCE
IN HOW THEY HANDLED THE
PROTESTS AND HOW THEY HANDLED
GASSING RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOODS AND PEOPLE IN
THEIR HOMES AND HOW IT HANDLES
WELLNESS CHECKS AND HOW WOULD
RATHER REST PROTESTERS FOR
CHOCK RATHER THAN GO AFTER
SOMEONE WHO PUT A 2-YEAR-OLD IN
THE HOSPITAL.
STILL AT LARGE BY THE WAY.
OFFICERS CANNOT EVEN WEAR
MASTERING THE PANDEMIC BECAUSE
I DON'T FEEL LIKE IT.
A COUPLE WEEKS AGO, SPD HAD TO
BACKTRACK. AND WHEN THEY WERE
ASKED FOR COMMENT, THE
DEPARTMENT'S SPOKESPERSON HAD A
LOT MORE TO SAY ABOUT THE
PERSON THAT LEAKED DETAILS TO
THE COUNCIL THAN THE CONTENT OF
THE ORGANIZATION.
>> THANK YOU.
THE NEXT SPEAKER IS JULIA BUCK.
AND JULIA WILL BE FOLLOWED BY
LYNN JUDGE IF LYNN BECMES
PRESENT BUT CURRENTLY SHOWING
NOT PRESENT.
GO AHEAD, JULIA.
>> HELLO.
MY NAME IS JULIA BUCK.
I'M A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT SIX
AND A MEMBER OF THE SEATTLE CFA
AND I'M CALLING TO ENCOURAGE
THE COUNCIL TO SEND THE 8.4
MILLION FROM SPD AND SEND IT
BACK TO THE PARTICIPATORY
BUDGETING PROCESS INCLUDING THE
5 MILLION-DOLLAR PROVISO.
THE CONSENT DECREE WAS DESIGNED
TO BRING SPD INTO COMPLIANCE.
THE CONSENT DECREE HAS NOT BEEN
COMPLIED WITH FOR EIGHT YEARS.
WE HAVE ATTEMPTED TO FOLLOW THE
COURSE OF ACTION LAID OUT.
BUT THE CONSENT DECREE DOES
ALLOW US TO PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY
TO FIND SOLUTIONS FOR THE
COMMUNITY.
I WOULD ENCOURAGE COUNSEL TO
DIVEST FROM SPD
THE CRISIS INTERVENTION
TRAINING HAS NOT WORKED.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THE NEXT SPEAKER IS LYNN JUDGE.
STILL SEEING LYNN NOT PRESENT.
SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO ALEX
LOCKHART AND THEN FOLLOWING
ALEX LOCKHART IS STEPHANIE
CARRUTHERS.
ALEX.
>> GOOD MORNING, COUNCIL.
I USUALLY SPEAK FOR 350
SEATTLE.
350 SEATTLE STANDS IN
SOLIDARITY WITH DEMANDS TO
DEFEND SEATTLE POLICE.
I'M HERE TODAY AS AN ELDER IN
DISTRICT 5. ASKING FOR
INCREASED POLICE PRESENCE
DOWNTOWN AND ELSEWHERE IS
PROBLEMATIC WHEN SO MANY SUFFER
SO MUCH AT THE HANDS OF SPD.
WE ELDERS CAN TRUST AND OUR
COMMUNITY TO KEEP AN EYE OUT
FOR US.
YESTERDAY, I TOOK A BAD FALL
FROM MY BIKE.
IT WASN'T THE FIRST TIME AND A
HELPFUL CITIZEN RUSHED TO SEE
IF I WAS OKAY.
MY ONLY THOUGHT LYING ON THE
GROUND WAS THAT I HOPE NO ONE
WOULD CALL 911 BECAUSE HE WAS A
BLACK MAN AND THE LAST THING I
WANTED WAS FOR THE POLICE TO
COME AND HIM TO SUFFER TRAUMA
OR EVEN HARM.
IN MY 30 YEARS IN SEATTLE, I
HAVE WITNESSED COUNTLESS
INSTANCES OF SPD HARM CAUSED TO
PEOPLE OF COLOR, HOMELESS
NEIGHBORS, NEIGHBORS AND MENTAL
HEALTH CRISES AND PEACEFUL
PROTESTERS.
TO SAFETY FOR ELDERS AND OTHERS
WILL NEVER COME FROM THE HANDS
OF SPD.
THANK YOU.
>> THE NEXT SPEAKER IS
STEPHANIE (INDISCERNIBLE)
FOLLOWED BY AMY CAROL.
THANK YOU.
>> I AM A DISTRICT 3
RESIDENT.
I'M CALLING TO ASK CITY COUNCIL
TO AMEND CB WIN FOR TO TRANSFER
$5.4 MILLION FROM SPD TO
PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING AND TO
RESTORE THE $5 MILLION PROVISO
TO ITS ORIGINAL FORM.
SPD FUNDING HAS NOTHING TO DO
WITH THE CONSENT DECREE.
SEATTLE IS STILL UNDER THE
DECREE DESPITE THE SPD BUDGET
GROWING OVER 150 MILLION SINCE
SEATTLE ENTERED IT.
THE DECREE CAME FROM THE
APARTMENT OF JUSTICE FINDING
SPD ENGAGES IN A PATTERN OR
PRACTICE OF USING UNNECESSARY
OR EXCESSIVE FORCE IN VIOLATION
OF THE CONSTITUTION.
THE GOAL OF THE DECREE IS TO
ENSURE SPD'S USE OF FORCE IS
CONSISTENT WITH REQUIREMENTS OF
THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
THE CONSENT DECREE DOES NOT
REQUIRE ANY STAFFING OR FUNDING
LEVELS.
IT JUST LAYS OUT ITS COURSE OF
ACTION.
>> TSUNAMI A GOAL AND LEAVING
WITH APPROPRIATE ABILITY TO
FIND SOLUTIONS SUITABLE FOR THE
COMMUNITY.
>> THE NEXT SPEAKER IS AIDEN
CAROL FOLLOWED BY KATY
KETTERING.
>> THANK YOU.
MY NAME IS AIDEN CAROL.,
DISTRICT SIX RESIDENT AND I'M
CALLING TO ASK CITY COUNCIL TO
AMEND CB119981CB119981 AND
TRANSFER $504 MILLION FROM SPT
PRESBYTERY BUDGETING AND
RESTORE THE $5 MILLION PROVISO
TO ITS ORIGINAL FORM.
IN THIS CASE, SPD IS ACTIVELY
DEFINING WHAT YOU TOLD THEM AND
DARING YOU TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON
WHAT YOU SAID.
IT IS AS IF YOU WENT TO A
RESTAURANT WITH A FRIEND AND
THE FRIEND SAID, "I ONLY HAVE
$20 IN CASH" AND YOU SAY, "I'M
SORRY.
I DON'T HAVE THE
(INDISCERNIBLE) TO PAY FOR
ANYTHING."
BUT THEY ORDER SHAKEN SAY, CAN
YOU PLEASE PAY FOR IT?
ANY SAY, I TOLD YOU NOT TO.
>> THANK YOU, AIDEN.
THE NEXT SPEAKER IS KATI GENTRY
FOLLOWED BY ALANA BLESSING AND
ALANA WILL BE THE LAST SPEAKER.
KATY.
>> I LIVE IN DISTRICT 6. I'M
CALLING TO TRANSFER $5.4
MILLION FROM THE SPD 2021
OVERTIME ALLEGATION AND TO WHAT
IS VETTORI BUDGETING.
ALSO DECRIMINALIZE PSYCHEDELICS
AND SEATTLE.
WE CANNOT PERMIT SPD TO SPEND
MORE ON OVERTIME THEN ALLOWED
IN THE BUDGET.
IF BLACK LIVES MATTER TO YOU,
YOU WOULD BE DEFUNDING SPD, AND
INCREASING THE BUDGET AND
OVERTIME SPENDING HAS BEEN
CITED AS A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE.
IN 12 DAYS, THE SP OVERTIME
COST TOTALED $6.3 MILLION AND
THERE WERE 15,000 COMPLAINS OF
MISCONDUCT AND A JOINT LAWSUIT.
HOW ARE YOU HOLDING SPD
ACCOUNTABLE FOR MISCONDUCT BY
THE RECENT PROPOSAL?
WHY ARE YOU GIVING SPD THIS
CHECK AS IT RELATES TO
OVERTIME?
IT IS CLEAR BY ALLOWING SPD TO
IT DOES KEEP THE MAJORITY OF
THE OVERTIME SPENDING THAT YOU
ARE NOT HOLDING PEOPLE
ACCOUNTABLE TO THE VIOLENCE AND
POLICE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE HUMAN
RIGHTS VIOLATION AND YOU ARE
OKAYING SPD UNLEASHING HELL ON
PROTESTERS.
BUT YOU REALLY DO NOT CARE ABOUT
--
>> THANK YOU.
ANA BLESSING.
LANA BLESSING.
>> HIT STAR SIX.
>> LANA IS NOT PRESENT.
>> WE HAVE A COUPLE THAT WERE
NOT PRESENT BEFORE BUT THEY ARE
PRESENT.
>> I BELIEVE WE DID EXHAUST
OUR SPEAKING TIME.
SO WITH THAT, THANK YOU ALEX.
WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE INTO
THE REST OF THE AGENDA FOR
TODAY.
THANK YOU.
CLARK, WILL YOU PLEASE READ THE
NEXT ITEM INTO THE AGENDA?
>> AGENDA ITEM ONE, COUNSEL
WILL 121-0065, AN ORDINANCE
RELATING TO EMERGENCY
MEDICATIONS AMENDING ORDINANCE
126237 WHICH ADOPTED THE 2020
ON BUDGET TRANSFERRING
POSITIONS FROM THE SEATTLE
POLICE DEPARTMENT TO THE
COMMUNITY SAFETY AND
COMMUNICATION CENTER AND
RATIFYING AND CONFIRMING
CERTAIN (INDISCERNIBLE) ACTS.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
SO JUST A LITTLE BIT OF
BACKGROUND.
I WANT TO THANK EVERYONE THAT
CALLED IN THIS MORNING.
ESPECIALLY THE PARKING
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS THAT
CONSISTENTLY PUSH THE COUNCIL
ALONG WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF THE
COMMUNITY THAT WE HAVE HEARD
FROM ADVOCATING ON BEHALF OF
THE PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
WORKFORCE DRIVEN VISION FOR
REIMAGINING PUBLIC SAFETY.
AND ALLOWING CIVILIAN ICED
WORKFORCE TO TAKE A GREATER
ROLE.
A WORKFORCE THAT IS 60% BY POK.
THE BILL BEFORE US WILL DO TWO
THINGS.
IT WOULD TRANSFER 911 CALL
CENTER POSITIONS AND THE PEO'S
FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO
THE COMMUNITY SAFETY AND
COMMUNICATION CENTER.
IN THE BUDGET, WE UNANIMOUSLY
PASSED ORDINANCE 126233.
THAT WAS THE ORDINANCE THAT
ESTABLISH THE NEW COMMUNITY
SAFETY AND MEDICATION CENTER
AND INCLUDED BOTH 911 DISPATCH
AND PEO'S.
THE CREATION OF THE COMMUNITY
SAFETY COMMUNICATION CENTER IS
INTENDED TO HELP REFRAME HOW
THE CITY PROVIDES FOR COMMUNITY
SAFETY IN RESPONSE TO THE
COUNCIL INTEREST AND EXPLORES
EXPANDED DUTIES FOR THE PEO'S.
WITH THAT, I WILL HAND IT OVER
TO CENTRAL STAFF TO WALK US
THROUGH OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE
BILL.
AND I WILL MAY BE PEPPER YOU
WITH SOME QUESTIONS OR
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND.
LISA, CAN YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE
YOURSELF.
>> THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR.
LISE KAYE, CENTRAL STAFF.
I WILL GO AHEAD AND SHARE MY
SCREEN TO SHOW THE COUNCIL BILL
HERE IN CASE PEOPLE HAVE
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
TEXT SPECIFICALLY.
COUNCILMEMBER, I THINK YOU GAVE
A GOOD OVERVIEW OF WHAT THE
BILL WOULD DO.
I WOULD EMPHASIZE AGAIN THAT
THIS BILL IS CONSISTENT WITH
ORDINANCE 126233 WHICH COUNCIL
PASSED LAST FALL AND CREATED
THIS NEW CENTER AND WITH THE
ADOPTED 2021 BUDGET WHICH
ANTICIPATED AND TODAY'S
LEGISLATION BUT TRANSFERS THESE
POSITIONS BY JUNE 1st, 2021.
I WOULD NOTE THAT THE EXECUTIVE
HAS APPOINTED AN INTERIM
DIRECTOR TO THE CENTER AND
EXPECTS TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT IN THE
2022 BUDGET.
I WILL JUST ADVANCE THE BILL TO
SHOW YOU A COUPLE OF THE
PERTINENT SECTIONS.
THIS IS ON PAGE 6 OF THE AGENDA
PACKET.
I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT MY STAFF
REPORT IS ON PAGE 50 OF YOUR
AGENDA MATERIALS.
LOOKING AT THE BILL ITSELF,
SECTION ONE MAKES A TECHNICAL
CHANGE WHICH ADDS "A PURPOSE
STATEMENT TO THE BUDGET SUMMARY
LEVEL THAT AUTHORIZES
EXPENDITURES THAT ALIGN WITH
THE 911 AND PEO FUNCTIONS CLICK
WILL.
IT IS A BOOK KEEPING FUNCTION
THAT NEEDS TO BE IN PLACE TO
SPEND THE MONEY.
SECTION TWO IS ABOUT 39 PAGES
OF TRANSFERRING OF THE
POSITIONS.
SO THERE ARE 149 CALL CENTER
POSITIONS AND 120 POSITIONS
FROM THE PARKING ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS UNIT.
SECTION THREE IS A RATIFY AND
CONFIRM CLAUSE THAT WOULD ALLOW
THE EXECUTIVES TO TAKE ACTION
CONSISTENT WITH LEGISLATION
PRIOR TO ITS EFFECTIVE DATE
WHICH WILL BE AFTER THE JUNE
1st 2021 DEADLINE IN THE BUDGET
PROVISO.
AS YOU WILL SEE IN SECTION
FOUR, THE BILL IS EFFECTIVE 30
DAYS AFTER THE MAYOR'S APPROVAL.
THAT BASICALLY COMPLETES MY
REPORT, MADAM CHAIR.
>> CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
JUNE 4th DATE?
>> THE JUNE 1st DEADLINE WAS
ANTICIPATED BECAUSE -- LET ME
START BY WITH A LITTLE BIT OF
HISTORY WHEN THE MAYOR
ORIGINALLY PROPOSED CREATING A
NEW CENTER.
SHE HAD A JUNE 1st -- OR
JANUARY 1st START DATE WHICH
WAS FOUND TO NOT BE FEASIBLE.
WHEN YOU ARE MOVING THE 911
CENTER, YOU NEED TO HAVE A
PARTICULAR NUMBERED DESIGNATION
THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
PROVIDES.
IT TAKES A LONG TIME TO GET THE
PAPERWORK IN PLACE.
SO ORDINANCE 126233 PROVIDED
THE TIME AND SO THAT THE 911
TRANSFER COULD START 30 DAYS
AFTER THAT NUMBER WAS OBTAINED.
BUT THE JUNE 1st DATE WOULD BE
A TRANSFER FOR THE PARKING
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS JUST TO
GIVE TIME TO GET EVERYTHING
ORGANIZED.
>> THANK YOU.
AND SO WHAT WAS THE CHANGE THAT
THE COUNCIL MADE WHEN WE ACTED
DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS AND
CHANGED IT TO JUNE 1st FROM
WHAT THE (INDISCERNIBLE)
PROPOSED WITH JANUARY BECAUSE
IT WAS NOT DETERMINED TO BE
FEASIBLE.
WE ALSO AT THAT TIME CHANGE THE
MAYOR'S PROPOSAL FROM WHAT WAS
BEING CALLED THE SEATTLE
EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION CENTER
BECAUSE AT THAT POINT, IT WAS
ENVISIONED ONLY TO HOUSE 911.
AND WE CHANGED THE NAME FROM
THE NARROWLY FOCUSED SEATTLE
EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION CENTER
TO THE COMMUNITY SAFETY
COMMUNICATION CENTER TO
INCORPORATE THE COUNCIL SORT OF
BROADER VERSION OF PART OF THE
REIMAGINING PUBLIC SAFETY.
AND, LET'S SEE HERE.
I'M LOOKING TO SEE IF THERE ARE
ANY IMPORTANT POINTS THAT WE
NEED TO MAKE.
POINTS THAT HAVE NOT ALREADY
BEEN MADE BY SO MANY OF THE
úFOLKS WHO HAVE JOINED US TODAY
TO SPEAK.
AND I'M ALSO LOOKING TO SEE IF
ANY OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS. AND I'M NOT SEEING
ANY RAISED HANDS HERE.
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALES?
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH CHAIR
HERBOLD.
I WANTED TO FLAG A COUPLE OF
CONCERNS I HAVE ABOUT THIS
LEGISLATION.
THE LEGISLATION IS ORIGINALLY
TRANSMITTED AND INCLUDED THE
COUNCIL'S DESIRE AND WISHES TO
MOVE THE 911 CALL CENTER
EMPLOYEES TO THE NEW COMMUNITY
SAFETY AND COMMUNICATION
CENTER.
IT DID NOT INCLUDE ALSO MOVING
PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO
THE COMMUNITY SAFETY AND
COMMUNICATION CENTER.
SO THERE WAS ANOTHER BILL THAT
PROPOSED MOVING THE PARKING
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO THE
SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION RATHER THAN THE
COMMUNITY SAFETY AND
COMMUNICATIONS CENTER.
AND NOW WE HAVE BEFORE US, A
BILL THAT MERGES THE TWO BILLS
INTO ONE BUT TRANSFERS ALL OF
THESE FUNCTIONS WE ARE
DISCUSSING INCLUDING THE PEO'S
TO THE NEW COMMUNITY SAFETY AND
COMMUNICATIONS CENTER.
SO I'M JUST FLAGGING, BASED ON
MY CONVERSATIONS WITH FOLKS AT
SDOT AND OTHER FOLKS WITHIN THE
CITY COALITION, THAT I CONTINUE
TO THINK THAT THE ORIGINAL TWO
BILLS AS PROPOSED BY THE MAYOR
WERE HEADED IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION AND CONTINUE TO THINK
THAT THE PEO'S SHOULD GO TO
S.D.O.T.
AS INDIVIDUALS WHOSE FUNCTIONS
ARE PRIMARILY DESIGNED
CURRENTLY TO MANAGE THE RIGHT-
OF-WAY AND ADDING IT JUST MAKES
A LOT MORE SENSE FROM AN
ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATIONS
PERSPECTIVE TO HAVE THOSE
FUNCTIONS GO TO S.D.O.T.
RATHER THAN TO THE COMMUNITY
SAFETY AND COMMUNICATIONS
CENTER.
SO UNFORTUNATELY, I JUST CAN'T
-- WHILE I SUPPORT THE
UNDERLINED LEGISLATION OF
MOVING THE 911 CALL CENTER
EMPLOYEES TO THE COMMUNITY
SAFETY COMMUNICATION CENTER, I
AM NOT CURRENTLY A SUPPORTIVE
OF THE SHIFT OF THE PEO'S TO
THE CSCC AND WOULD BE
INTERESTED IN RESOLVING THAT
PARTICULAR CONCERN BEFORE THE
FULL COUNCIL HAS AN OPPORTUNITY
TO CONSIDER THIS COUNCIL BILL.
>> THANK YOU.
IF WE CAN TAKE A QUICK MINUTE
TO RESPOND TO THAT.
THE REASON WHY WE INTRODUCED
THIS BILL TO REPLACE THE BILLS
THAT WERE REFERRED BY THE
EXECUTIVES IS BECAUSE THE BILLS
REFERRED TO THE EXECUTIVE, THE
SECOND BILL THAT TRANSFERRED
THE PEO'S TO S.D.O.T.
WAS SIMPLY NOT IN ALIGNMENT
WITH THE VOTE THAT WE TAKE
UNANIMOUSLY DURING THE BUDGET
PROCESS.
WE ALL VOTED ON THE ORDINANCE
THAT NOT ONLY CHANGED THE NAME
FROM OF THEIR OWN NECK --
VERY NARROWLY FOCUSED
DEPARTMENT THAT WAS ONLY GOING
TO HOUSE 911 AND CHANGED THE
NAME FROM ONLY A COMMUNICATION
CENTER TO COMMUNITY SAFETY AND
COMMUNICATION CENTER AND THE
ORDINANCE ITSELF INCLUDED THE
INTENT TO TRANSFER BOTH 911
DISPATCH AND PEO'S AS WELL.
AND SO I WORKED TO HAVE LISA
DEVELOP A REPLACEMENT BILL THAT
REFLECTED THE COUNCIL'S ALREADY
ESTABLISHED (INDISCERNIBLE) AND
IT IS NOT JUST THE COUNCIL
INTENT BUT IT IS A LARGE
WORKFORCE OF OVER 100 PEO'S
THAT ARE TELLING US THAT THEIR
PREFERENCE IS TO GO FROM SPD TO
THE NEW DIVISION WITHOUT THE
PEO'S GOING TO THE NEW
DIVISION, THE DIVISION WOULD
ONLY HOLD 911 AND WOULD BE AN
NARROWLY FOCUSED DEPARTMENT.
AND IT WILL NOT BE CAPTURING
THE LEADERSHIP AND THE
DIRECTION WE ARE HEARING FROM A
LACK WORKFORCE. I'M HOPING
THAT WE CAN MOVE THIS FORWARD
TODAY AND THAT THERE IS SOME
URGENCY AS IT RELATES TO THE
JUNE 1st STATE.
I LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING
ONGOING CONVERSATIONS.
ARE THERE OTHER COMMENTS,
CONGRESS MEMBER LOUIS?
>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
AND THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD.
THE OVERALL PROJECT OF THE
FUTURE ROLE OF OUR PARKING
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND SOME
KIND OF HEIGHTENED CIVIL
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER POSITION IS
SOMETHING THAT I REMAIN
EXTREMELY INTERESTED IN AND I
APPRECIATE THIS NEXT STEP TO
MOVE THIS CONVERSATION FORWARD
TO THAT NEXT PHASE.
TWO YEARS AGO, THE CITY OF
PHILADELPHIA VOTED TO
ESSENTIALLY PUT THE SAME
CONTEXT INTO THE CHARTER TO
ELEVATE THEIR EQUIVALENT OF
PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
INTO A POSITION THAT WOULD TAKE
ON A BIGGER CIVIL ENFORCEMENT
ROLE TO BETTER SERVE THE PEOPLE
OF PHILADELPHIA AND TAKE CARE
OF SOME OF THOSE ISSUES THAT
ARE CITABLE BUT NOT CRIMINAL IN
NATURE.
ONE OF MY CONCERNS HERE IS THAT
THERE CONTINUES TO BE SOME
DISAGREEMENT IN THE WORKFORCE
BECAUSE IT IS TRUE THAT THE
RANK AND FILE PARKING
ENFORCEMENT FIELD, WHICH I HAVE
BEEN TALKING TO AND AM VERY
SUPPORTIVE OF, HAS A DIVERGENT
VIEW FROM THE UNIT THAT
REPRESENTS THE SUPERVISORS.
AND TO ME, THAT INDICATES THAT
THERE IS STILL DIVISION,
DESPITE THE RANK-AND-FILE
POSITION -- AND AS A RANK-AND-
FILE UNION MEMBER, I FEEL
DEEPLY ABOUT.
IT IS NOT A UNITED WORKPLACE.
SO I WOULD APPRECIATE MORE TIME
TO SORT THAT OUT.
I SAW THE E-MAIL FROM SEAN VAN
EYCK THIS MORNING.
SEAN WHO IS UNABLE TO MAKE IT
FOR PUBLIC COMMENT BUT
RECOGNIZES THE PROJECT 17 AND
JUST INDICATED SOME LINGERING
CONCERNS.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE BEFORE
WE GO FORWARD BEEF WITH THIS
MOVE, WHAT WE CAN DO TO
RECONCILE SOME OF THE CONCERNS
WHERE THERE IS DIVISION IN THE
WORKPLACE.
BECAUSE I DO WANT TO SEE IT GO
TO THIS NEW DEPARTMENT.
I WANT TO SEE IT FORM A NUCLEUS
OF THE NEW DEPARTMENT.
I WANT TO SEE A FUTURE WHERE A
LOT OF THE SAYINGS THAT ARE
CURRENTLY BEING DONE THAT ARE
NONCRIMINAL IN NATURE BY SWORN
UNIFORMED
OFFICERS CAN INSTEAD BE DONE BY
THIS DIVERSE WORKFORCE WHO HAS
A STRONG TRACK RECORD AND
HISTORY OF COMMUNITY
INVOLVEMENT.
BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DO
IT IN A WAY THAT IS NOT
DIVIDING THE MANAGEMENT AND
RANK-AND-FILE OF THE UNIT, BOTH
OF WHICH ARE REPRESENTED AND
JUST SETTING UP A DIFFICULT
TRANSITION.
SO MAYBE THAT CAN BE WORKED OUT
WITH A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME, TO
FIGURE OUT MORE OF THE PROTECTS
AND CONCERNS IN THIS.
BECAUSE I DO THINK IT WOULD BE
A SHAME IF THIS UNIT SIMPLY
WENT TO S.D.O.T., WHERE THE
FUTURE ROLE WAS MORE
CONSTRAINED IMPLICITLY BY
PLACEMENT IN THE UNIT.
I ALSO DON'T WANT TO MOVE THEM
FORWARD WHEN THERE IS NOT A
UNANIMITY ON LONG THE WORKFORCE
IN QUESTION AND TAKING ON A
TRAIL -- BLAZING A NEW TRAIL
IN A DEPARTMENT WE ARE
CREATING.
AND SO I THINK THAT THAT IS A
REQUEST SIMILAR TO COUNSEL
MEMBER GONZALES TO MAYBE HOLD
THIS A LITTLE BIT AND HAVE SOME
OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS RATHER
THAN TAKE ACTION TODAY.
>> I BELIEVE THERE ARE SOME
IMPLICATIONS WE SHOULD CONSIDER
AS IT RELATES TO HOLDING THE
LEGISLATION.
I MENTIONED THE JUNE 1st STATE
THAT THE COUNCIL MOVED FROM THE
MAYOR'S PROPOSED JANUARY 1st
STATE AND SO WE ARE STRIVING TO
MEET THAT GOAL.
AND WANT TO JUST TALK A LITTLE
BIT ABOUT IF THERE ARE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF THE
DELAY.
LISA.
>> YOU WILL SEE ON MY STAFF
MEMO THAT I DID IDENTIFY SOME
CONSEQUENCES SHOULD THE COUNCIL
NOT TAKE ANY ACTION.
BASICALLY THAT WOULD MEAN THAT
EITHER THE EXECUTIVE OR THE
COUNCIL WILL NEED TO PASS
LEGISLATION THAT WOULD PROVIDE
FOR AN ONGOING CASH FLOW SO
THAT THE EXECUTIVES CAN PAY THE
SALARIES OF THE PEO'S IF THEY
STAY WITH SPD.
RIGHT NOW THE COUNCIL'S PROVISO
WOULD HAVE THAT FUNDING STREAM
CUT OFF JUNE 1st AND
TRANSFERRED TO THE CSCC.
>> AS DESIGNED BY THE
COUNCIL, RIGHT?
>> YES.
>> WE WERE ANTICIPATING THIS
AS A NEXT STEP THAT WE NEED TO
TAKE AND WE WANTED TO ENSURE
THAT WE COULD TAKE IT BY JUNE
AGAIN INSTEAD OF BY JANUARY AS
PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED BY THE
MAYOR.
>> I DID REACH OUT TO CBO TO
FIND OUT IF THEY HAD UP
REVISIONARY PLAN AND THEY
DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING IN PLACE
YET.
BUT THERE WOULD NEED TO BE SOME
ACTION TAKEN.
>> AND I BELIEVE THE PAYMENT
ISSUE ALSO AFFECTS 911 DISPATCH
AND NOT JUST PARKING
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.
>> IF IT WAS NOT TRANSFERRED
BY JUNE 1st.
>> THANK YOU.
>> WITH THAT IN MIND, WE HAVE
SOME TIME BETWEEN NOW AND JUNE
1st AT A COUNCIL MEETING THAT
WE WOULD HAVE A DISCUSSION.
BUT I'M INCLINED TO WANT TO
MOVE THIS FORWARD.
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS AND COUNCIL
PRESIDENT GONZCEZ, I SEE BOTH
OF YOUR HANDS AT.
LET'S HEAR COUNCILMEMBER
GONZCEZ FIRST.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS A
COUPLE POINTS THAT I'M HEARING
RIGHT NOW IN THIS DISCUSSION
WHICH I APPRECIATE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE IN THIS
COMMITTEE.
THE FIRST THING I WANT TO SAY
IS, IN TERMS OF THE ARGUMENT
THAT THE COUNCIL UNANIMOUSLY
SUPPORTED A POSITION BEFORE TO
MOVE THE PEO'S OUT OF THE
SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND
INTO A COMMUNITY SAFETY
DEPARTMENT, I DON'T DISPUTE
THAT THAT OCCURRED.
I WILL SAY HOWEVER THAT IN SORT
OF THE SUBSEQUENT MONTHS, WHICH
MANY HAVE PASSED BY, I HAVE HAD
THE OPPORTUNITY TO MORE DEEPLY
ENGAGE BOTH ON SOME OF THE
OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT
CONCERNS BEING EXPRESSED BY
S.D.O.T.
BUT ALSO IN TERMS OF HAVING
ONGOING CONVERSATIONS WITH
REPRESENTATIVES FROM PROTECH
AND ALSO GETTING A BETTER
UNDERSTANDING OF THE POSITION.
I WILL SAY THAT AS A REMINDER,
WHEN WE WERE TAKING THIS
PARTICULAR ISSUE UNDER
CONSIDERATION, MY MEMORY IS
THAT EVEN THEN, THERE WERE
EXPRESSIONS OF CONCERNS BY THE
TWO BARGAINING UNIT
REPRESENTATIVES WITHIN THE
PARKING ENFORCEMENT UNIT ABOUT
WHERE THE FUNCTION SHOULD BE
PLACED.
ON SO UNFORTUNATELY, THOSE
CONCERNS HAVE NOT BEEN
RECONCILED OR RESOLVED AND IN
THIS CASE, YOU KNOW, IT FEELS
LIKE WE ARE MOVING THIS FORWARD
IN A MANNER THAT ISN'T ALLOWING
US A BETTER OPPORTUNITY TO
RECONCILE THOSE DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN THOSE TWO BARGAINING
UNITS.
SO I WANTED TO ADDRESS THAT.
SECONDLY, IT WAS MENTIONED THAT
IF WE DON'T MOVE THE PEOS INTO
THE COMMUNITY SAFETY DIVISION,
IT WILL BE A VERY NARROW SCOPE
DEPARTMENT.
AND I JUST WANTED TO REMIND US
THAT THIS IS SORT OF A FIRST
STEP IN BUILDING THE NEW
DIVISION AND CERTAINLY RIGHT
NOW, THE DIVISION WOULD INCLUDE
THE 911 COMMUNICATIONS CENTER.
IT ALSO COULD, IN ORDER TO
FULFILL THE COMMUNITY SAFETY
COMPONENT OF THE TITLE OF THIS
DIVISION, WE COULD ALSO
TRANSFER -- I THINK THE
INTENT IS TO TRANSFER OTHER
FUNCTIONS INTO THE DIVISION BUT
IT WILL JUST TAKE US A LITTLE
BIT OF TIME TO DO THAT.
SO THINGS LIKE THE COMMUNITY
SERVICE OFFICERS WHICH I
BELIEVE SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED
OVER TO THIS DEPARTMENT, CRISIS
INTERVENTION TEAMS, MENTAL
HEALTH PROVIDERS.
I THINK THOSE ARE OTHER
FUNCTIONS THAT CAN AND WILL
LIKELY FIND THEIR WAY TO THE
DIVISION. SO I DON'T WANT TO
LEAVE THE PUBLIC WITH THE
UNDERSTANDING THAT IF THE
PUBLIC -- I'M SORRY, IF THE
PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
FUNCTION ISN'T TRANSFERRED INTO
THE DIVISION, IT IS EFFECTIVELY
JUST A 911 COMMUNICATIONS
CENTER.
I DON'T THINK THAT IS THE
VISION OR IS WHERE WE WILL END
UP WITH THIS DIVISION
ULTIMATELY.
AND LASTLY, ON THE JUNE 1st 2021
DEADLINE, I APPRECIATE, LISA,
YOU OFFERING A LITTLE MORE
INFORMATION AS IT RELATES TO
THAT DEADLIN.
I THINK THAT THESE PEO'S WOULD
HAVE TO BE PAID REGARDLESS OF
WHICH DIVISION THEY ARE IN.
SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE
PROBLEM IS.
WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO FLAG?
WERE WE PLANNING ON NOT PAYING
THEM OUT OF SPD?
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE
CONCERN IS.
IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE JUST JUST
NOT GOING TO PAY THEM AFTER
JUNE 1st.
SO WHAT IS THE ISSUE?
>> THERE WAS A RELATIVELY
COMPLICATED BUDGET PROVISO
ADOPTED BY COUNSEL IN THE 2021
BUDGET THAT RECOGNIZED
BASICALLY SETTING UP
APPROPRIATIONS TO PAY OUT OF
THE CSCC AND THEN PROVIDED
TEMPORARY AUTHORITY FOR SPD TO
PAY FOR THESE POSITIONS UNTIL
JUNE 1st.
THE TEMPORARY AUTHORITY EXPIRES
JUNE 1st UNLESS COUNSEL PASSES
LEGISLATION TO SOME OTHER AFFECT
. SO THAT WOULD MEAN THE
APPROPRIATION AUTHORITY REMAINS
WITH THE CSCC BUT THE POSITIONS
REMAIN WITH SPD WHICH PRESENT A
PROBLEM.
AND SO THAT IS WHERE THE
EXECUTIVE FOR THE COUNCIL WOULD
NEED TO -- THE EXECUTIVE
COULD PROPOSE A FIX AND COUNSEL
WOULD LIKELY NEED TO PASS
LEGISLATION TO MAKE A TEMPORARY
PATCH.
>> EFFECTIVELY IT WOULD BE TO
EXTEND THE TEMPORARY
AUTHORIZATION?
>> THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE
WAYS TO DO IT, YES.
>> .
>> OKAY.
THAT IS HELPFUL TO KNOW.
I JUST CONTINUE TO BE VERY
CONCERNED ABOUT THE DIVISION
BETWEEN THE PARKING ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS IN THE PARKING
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
SUPERVISORS AND I REALLY THINK
THAT WE GAIN A LOT BY HAVING A
UNIFIED EFFORT HERE.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE WILL BE ABLE
TO ACCOMPLISH THAT.
I KNOW THAT WE HAVE ALL BEEN
COLLECTIVELY COME IN OUR ON
RIGHTS REPORTING ON TRYING TO
FIGURE OUT HOW TO RECONCILE THE
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THOSE TWO
UNITS.
I DO SEE SEAN VAN EYCK'S E-MAIL
TO US TODAY TALKING ABOUT HOW
FROM THE PROTECTS PERSPECTIVE,
S.D.O.T.
AND SAYS THAT S.D.O.T.
IS A NATURAL FIT FOR THE PEO
UNIT AND EVERY EXAMPLE PROVIDED
AND A SIMILAR MOVE BY OTHER
METROPOLITAN CITIES IN THE U.S.
HAVE HAVE THE RESPECTIVE UNITS
TRANSITIONED TO THE CITY'S
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE
DOING SOMETHING THAT IS
CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE MODELS
ARE ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND
AGAIN, I AM PERSUADED BY THE
ARGUMENTS THAT I HAVE HEARD
FROM PROTECH AND S.D.O.T.
ABOUT NEEDING TO PLACE THE PEO
UNIT IN A FUNCTION WITHIN
S.D.O.T.
AND WAS JUST SORT OF HOPEFUL
THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO END UP
IN THAT PLACE.
THAT I UNDERSTAND,
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD, THAT YOU
HAVE AN INTEREST MOVING THIS
FORWARD AND IF YOU WANT TO MOVE
OUT OF COMMITTEE TODAY, I WOULD
PLAN ON VOTING NO ON THIS BILL
UNFORTUNATELY AT THIS POINT.
BUT WOULD BE, AS A RESULT OF
THE REPORT, GIVE US A COUPLE
MORE WEEKS TO SEE IF WE CAN
SORT THIS OUT.
BUT IT WOULD EFFECTIVELY GET IT
OUT OF YOUR COMMITTEE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
>> THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR.
THIS IS JUST A QUESTION FOR
CENTRAL STAFF.
COULD YOU MAYBE GO OVER A
LITTLE BIT.
LIKE ARE THERE ANY PRACTICAL
IMPLICATIONS IN TERMS OF
DEPENDING ON THE DEPARTMENT,
YOU KNOW, WHAT THE DAY-TO-DAY
PARKING ENFORCEMENT OF THE
OFFICERS WILL BE?
AND WHERE THE EQUIPMENT IS
STORED AND HOW THEY ARE
DISPATCHED AND HR.
JUST ALL OF THIS KIND OF
CONSIDERATION TO THE WORKPLACE.
IS THERE ANY RELEVANT
úCONSIDERATION BETWEEN THE
CHOICES WE ARE MAKING?
I DO THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD TO
JUST HEAR PRACTICALLY SPEAKING,
WHAT THE BOTTOM LINE IS.
>> I THINK ONE OF THE BIGGER
FACTORS THAT HAS COME INTO PLAY
IN TERMS OF PRACTICALITY IS THE
QUESTION OF WHETHER THE PEO'S
BOYS COULD BE EXPANDED.
I THINK THAT QUESTION IS THE
SAME REGARDLESS OF FRANKLY
WHERE THE UNIT ENDS UP BECAUSE
A LOT OF THOSE DUTIES THE
OFFICERS ARE REQUESTING
AUTHORITY FOR ARE SUBJECT TO
BARGAINING AND THAT BARGAINING
WILL TAKE A LONG TIME VERY
LIKELY.
AND SO I THINK THOSE CHANGES
ARE NOT SOMETHING THAT ARE
LIKELY TO HAPPEN QUICKLY.
IN TERMS OF AN ADMINISTRATION,
I HAVE HEARD S.D.O.T.
ARGUE THAT THEY HAVE THE
ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE SET UP
AND THEY ARE A FUNCTIONING
DEPARTMENT WITH THE DIVISIONS
AND BACKUP HELP SUPPORT FOR HR.
THEY ARE ARGUING THAT WE NEED
TO GO RIGHT AWAY TO ABSORB A
NEW UNIT.
AT THE SAME TIME, ACTING
INTERIM DIRECTOR LOMBARD FOR
THE COMMUNITY SAFETY
COMMUNICATIONS CENTER IS
WORKING ON SETTING UP THAT
STRUCTURE ALSO AND HAS RETAINED
SOME TEMPORARY (INDISCERNIBLE)
TO GET THINGS GOING.
AND SO THAT IS AS MUCH.
I DON'T KNOW MUCH MORE IN TERMS
OF WHAT IT TAKES TO SET UP A
WHOLE NEW DEPARTMENT.
THE COUNCIL'S INTENT HAS BEEN
APPARENT IN SETTING UP THIS NEW
COMMUNITY SAFETY CENTER EVER
SINCE DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR.
THERE HAVE BEEN TIMES WHEN THE
EXECUTIVES HAVE PUT THE
(INDISCERNIBLE) INTO PLAY.
DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION,
COUNCILMEMBER?
>> YES.
IT SOUNDS LIKE, JUST TO
REPHRASE.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE IS AN
ARGUMENT THAT S.D.O.T.
IS JUST BETTER SITUATED BECAUSE
IT IS AN EXISTING DEPARTMENT,
TO KIND OF ABSORB THE UNIT.
BUT IT DOESN'T REALLY SOUND
LIKE THE DAY TODAY OF THE
PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
WILL BE ALL THAT EFFECTIVE
REGARDLESS OF THE CHOICE.
IT DOESN'T REALLY SOUND LIKE
THERE WILL BE ANY ISSUE OR GAP
OF SERVICE OR ANYTHING LIKE
THAT BASED ON THE DECISION MADE
HERE TODAY.
>> AND TOTALLY STIPULATE TO
THE EXPANDED ROLE AND DUTY OF
THE OFFICERS.
I APPRECIATE THAT THAT WILL
TAKE A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF
ADDITIONAL WORK REGARDLESS OF
WHERE THEY GO.
IN TERMS OF THE IMMEDIATE
IMPLICATIONS, IT DOESN'T REALLY
SOUND LIKE THERE IS THAT BIG OF
A DIFFERENCE.
>> BOTH ENTITIES WOULD HAVE
TO COME UP WITH A NEW WORKING
AGREEMENT ON HOW THEY WOULD
INTERACT WITH THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT BECAUSE THE PARKING
ENFORCEMENT FUNCTIONS DO
OVERLAP WITH THE PATROL
FUNCTIONS AND SO THERE WOULD
NEED TO BE NEW AGREEMENTS
REGARDLESS OF WHERE THE
DEPARTMENT ENDS UP.
>> GO AHEAD, ALEX.
>> I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR
THE EXECUTIVES BUT MY
CONVERSATIONS WITH STAFF HAVE
INDICATED THAT THOSE DAY-TO-DAY
(INDISCERNIBLE) WOULD REMAIN
THE SAME REGARDLESS IF THE UNIT
WAS TRANSFERRED.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE OFFICES THEY
OPERATE OUT I WOULD BE
MAINTAINED REGARDLESS OF THE
DEPARTMENT.
>> APPRECIATE IT.
>> APPRECIATED, ALEX.
>> WHAT ELSE?
I ALSO BELIEVE, LISA, WE
ALLOCATED SOME ADDITIONAL
FUNDING BEYOND WHAT WAS
PROPOSED FOR HR FUNCTIONS FOR
THE NEW DEPARTMENT.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THOSE HAVE BEEN INTENDED
TO BE PART OF THE APPROPRIATION
BUT WAS NOT THE CASE.
THAT IS PART OF WHAT THE
EXECUTIVE WILL BE ASKING FOR
MORE SUPPORT FROM IN THE NEXT
BUDGET.
>> THAT IS HELPFUL.
>> ALL RIGHT.
LOOKING TO SEE IF THERE IS ANY
MORE HAND RAISING.
AND THIS WILL CLEARLY BE A
DIVIDED REPORT.
THAT HOPEFULLY WILL GIVE US A
LITTLE TIME TO HAVE SOME
CONTINUED CONVERSATIONS BEFORE
FULL COUNSEL ON MAY 4th, I
BELIEVE IT IS.
>> AND SO, WITH THAT, IF
THERE ARE NO FURTHER
DISCUSSIONS, --
>> THAT WOULD BE MAY 19th, 2
WEEKS FROM TODAY?
>> IS THAT A HOLIDAY?
>> YES.
IT IS A HOLIDAY.
I THINK IT IS TWO MONDAYS.
>> MAY 24th.
>> I ONLY HEARD THE FOURTH
PART.
>> COUNCIL RULES PROVIDE
UNLESS OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED BY
THE COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE CHAIR
THAT THE COMMUNITY REPORT
SHOULD BE REPORTED TO THE
SECOND COMMITTEE MEETING AFTER
THE DATE OF THE RECOMMENDATION.
>> OKAY.
>> SO THAT WOULD BE MAY 24th.
SO I WILL MOVE THAT COUNSEL
BILL LISTED ON THE AGENDA.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER
DISCUSSION?
>> SEEING NO FURTHER
DISCUSSION, WILL COURT PLEASE
CALL ROLE?
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT
GONZCEZ.
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MORALES.
>> I'M GOING TO ABSTAIN.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
>> ABSTAIN.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
>> YES.
>> TWO IN FAVOR AND ONE
OPPOSED AND TWO ABSTAINED.
>> THANK YOU.
>> LET'S MOVE FORWARD.
>> I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT
THIS DOES MOVE THROUGH WITH YES
AS THE ABSTENTIONS DO NOT COUNT
AGAINST THE VOTE.
>> IT TURNS OUT IT WOULD MOVE
FORWARD EVEN IF IT FAILED.
>> THERE WE GO.
>> IN THAT CASE, IT WOULD
JUST MOVE FORWARD.
SO IN THIS CASE, MOVING
FORWARD.
AND WE WILL 981.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE
126237 WHICH ADOPTED THE 2021
BUDGET INCLUDING THE 2021-2026
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
CHANGING APPROPRIATIONS TO
VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS AND BUDGET
CONTROL LEVELS AND FROM VARIOUS
FUNDS IN THE BUDGET AND ADDING
OR MODIFYING PREVIOUS SHOWS.
>> A QUICK INTRODUCTORY COMMENT
BEFORE I TURN IT OVER. WE LIKE
TO START THE CONVERSATION
AROUND THIS PARTICULAR BILL BY
RECOGNIZING THAT THE SEATTLE
POLICE DEPARTMENT'S 2021 HIRING
BUDGET IS AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN
FULLY FUNDED.
THIS LEGISLATION WOULD NOT
IMPACT THAT.
THE LEGISLATION IS SCHEDULED
FOR DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE
VOTE.
AND THERE IS SOME BACKGROUND
THAT HAS BROUGHT US TO THIS
MOMENT.
WE HAVE HEARD THIS BILL IN
COMMITTEE A COUPLE TIMES NOW.
I THINK THIS MIGHT BE THE THIRD
OR FOURTH TIME.
IN MARCH, THE MONITOR
OVERSEEING THE CONSENT DECREE
ENT SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO T
POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT RECENTLY SENT
ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS TO
THE MONITOR.
AS I NOTED ON A FEW OCCASIONS
NOW, THE COMMITTEE DELAYED ALL
CONSIDERATIONS OF THE
LEGISLATION IN ORDER TO ALLOW
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO
RESPOND TO THE MONITOR BECAUSE
THE MONITOR LET US KNOW IN NO
UNCERTAIN TERMS THAT IT WAS THE
EXPECTATION.
THE MONITOR HAS NOW RESPONDED
TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENTS
FEEDBACK ON THE BILL AND THAT
EMAIL WAS SENT TO COMMITTEE
MEMBERS LAST FRIDAY.
AS FAR AS ORIENTING US ABOUT
THE BILL WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US
NOW, THE LEGISLATION BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE PROVIDES A $5.4
MILLION INVESTMENT TO
AMELIORATE THE REDUCED NUMBER
OF OFFICERS INCLUDING FUNDING
FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICERS,
CRIME PREVENTION COORDINATORS,
FULFILLING PUBLIC INFORMATION
STAFFING REQUEST RECOMMENDED BY
THE CITY AUDITOR, FUNDING FOR
EVIDENCE STORAGE AS RECOMMENDED
BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, AND
SOME FUNDING FOR CIVILIAN
CRISIS RESPONSE IN THE HUMAN
SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
IT CUT $2 MILLION FROM THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT BUDGET AND
PUTS THOSE DOLLARS TOWARD
PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING.
IT MAKES AVAILABLE ADDITIONAL
FUNDING TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT
THROUGH THE RELEASE OF PROVISO.
RELATED TO THE SALARY SAVINGS
THAT SPD IS EXPERIENCING
BECAUSE OF HIGHER THAN
ANTICIPATED PATRICIANS.
THE FACT THAT THE MONITORS
EMAIL STATES THAT THE COURT AND
THE MONITOR ARE CONCERNED ABOUT
THE REDUCTION OF FUNDING TO THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT, IT SAYS THAT
SPD IS AT RISK OF NOT BEING
ABLE TO DELIVER KEY MANAGEMENT
AND OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS AS
PERSONNEL HAS BEEN ALLOCATED TO
FULFILL CRITICAL PATROL DUTIES
DUE TO SEPARATE TRADITION OF
OFFICERS.
AND THE MONITOR GOES ON TO
EMPHASIZE THAT THE CONSENT
DECREE IS A LEGAL AGREEMENT.
IN RECOGNITION OF THAT FEEDBACK,
WE ARE ALLOWING FOR ADDITIONAL
FUNDING FOR SPD TO USE ITS
SALARY SAVINGS TO THE TUNE OF
AN ADDITIONAL $5 MILLION IN
ADDITION TO FUNDING THE
PRIORITY ITEMS THAT SPD HAS
THEMSELVES IDENTIFIED FOR US IN
PREVIOUS MEETINGS IN THIS BILL.
THE LEGISLAION BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE IS WORTH NOTING THAT
THE $2 MILLION CUT, THAT IS
STILL PART OF THIS BILL EVEN
THOUGH THERE IS A $2 MILLION CUT
THERE IS AN ALLOWANCE AND
RELEASE OF A PROVISO THAT
ALLOWS SPD TO USE $5 MILLION IN
SALARY SAVINGS.
THIS IS ON THE CONTEXT OF $360
MILLION BUDGET.
THOSE ARE MY INTRODUCTORY
REMARKS.
I THINK I WILL HAND IT OVER TO
GREG TO WALK US THROUGH MAYBE A
LITTLE MORE DETAIL.
>> THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR AND
GOOD MORNING MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE.
YOU MAKE MY JOB VERY EASY
BECAUSE YOU KNOW THE
LEGISLATION REALLY WELL.
I AM GOING TO SHARE MY SCREEN
AND SHARE A POWERPOINT THAT I
THINK WILL MORE OR LESS PROVIDE
A VISUAL FOR THE CHANGES YOU
WERE TALKING ABOUT.
CAN SOMEONE TELL ME VERBALLY
THAT YOU CAN SEE IT?
>> WE CAN SEE IT.
>> TO START OUT WITH, AND
OVERVIEW OF WHAT THE SUBSTITUTE
THAT IS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE
TODAY DOES.
THE ORIGINAL BILL AS YOU KNOW
WAS INTRODUCED MONTHS AGO IN
JANUARY.
IN THE LAST PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMITTEE MEETING WHERE THIS
BILL WAS HEARD, THERE WAS A
SUBSTITUTION WHERE THE
INVESTMENTS THAT COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD TALKED ABOUT WERE
WEAVED INTO THE AMENDMENT,
WEAVED INTO THE ORIGINAL BILL.
NOW WE HAVE A SUBSTITUTE BILL
THAT DOES MANY THINGS. SO I
WILL PROVIDE A QUICK OVERVIEW
OF THOSE THINGS.
AND TELL YOU WHAT TODAY'S
PROPOSED AMENDMENT WHAT DO.
BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, THE
INVESTMENTS THAT COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD TALKED ABOUT ARE LISTED
HERE ON THIS TABLE . WHAT YOU
CAN SEE ON THE TOP LINE
PROJECTED SALARY SAVINGS
AVAILABLE, $13 MILLION, THAT IS
ACTUALLY AN ESTIMATE MADE BY
CENTRAL STAFF ON APRIL 27. IT
IS SORT OF ADEN UP TO ESTIMATE
AND AN ANNUAL FIGURE. IF GIVEN
THE SEPARATIONS THAT HAVE
HAPPENED SO FAR THIS YEAR, IF
THE DEPARTMENT CONTINUES TO SEE
SEPARATIONS, BUT IT LEVELS OUT
AT SOME RATE, THEN IT IS
POSSIBLE THAT SPD COULD SEE UP
TO $13 MILLION OF SAVINGS IN
SALARY SAVINGS.
IF IT DOES NOT LEVEL OUT AND IT
CONTINUES AT THE TRENDS THAT
HAVE BEEN SEEN IN THE LAST
SEVERAL MONTHS, THERE WILL BE
MORE THAN $13,000.
JUST FOR THE ESTIMATE, WE ARE
SAYING UP TO 13,000 AND HOPING
THAT TRENDS RETURN TO SOMETHING
MORE NORMAL.
I WILL STOP.
THERE MAY BE QUESTIONS ON THAT.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE I AM SAYING
THAT IN A WAY THAT IS
UNDERSTANDABLE.
>> I AM LOOKING TO SEE IF THERE
ARE ANY HANDS RAISED. AND I AM
NOT SEEING ANY.
>> I JUST WANT TO -- GREG, YOU
SAID $13,000 A COUPLE TIMES.
I WANT EVERYBODY TO KNOW IT IS
$13 MILLION.
>> YES.
$13 MILLION. IN MY CONSERVATIVE
ESTIMATE THERE WOULD BE UP TO
$13 MILLION IN SAVINGS. IF WE
CONTINUE TO SEE THE KINDS OF
SEPARATIONS THAT WE HAVE SEEN
IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS, THERE
WOULD BE MORE.
THAT IS HOW I WOULD SUMMARIZE
IT.
MOVING INTO THE INVESTMENTS.
>> BEFORE WE DO THAT, I WANT TO
RESTATE SOMETHING THAT I THINK
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES MADE IN A
PREVIOUS MEETING.
IT IS NOT $13 MILLION THAT IS
FLOATING AROUND IN SPD'S BUDGET
NOW, THAT IS YOUR ASSESSMENT OF
HOW MUCH WOULD BE AVAILABLE
OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEAR.
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
THAT TAKES THEIR CURRENT
SEPARATIONS, WHICH THROUGH THE
FIRST QUARTER WERE 58.
AND THE CURRENT HIRES WHICH
THROUGH THE FIRST QUARTER WERE
30.
AND SORT OF PROJECTS OUT THAT
THEY WOULD HAVE SOMEWHERE
AROUND NINE MORE SEPARATIONS
PER MONTH AND SOMEWHERE AROUND
EIGHT MORE HIRES PER MONTH. IF
IT WORKED OUT THAT WAY, AT THE
END OF THE YEAR THEY WOULD HAVE
$13 MILLION IN SALARY SAVINGS.
>> JUST VERY HIGH LEVEL, WHAT
THIS BILL DOES, THE SUBSTITUTE
BILL THAT WE VOTED TO HAVE
BEFORE US IN OUR LAST MEETING,
VERY HIGH LEVEL, IT USES ABOUT
$5.4 MILLION TO PAY FOR A BUNCH
OF THINGS.
MANY OF WHICH SPD ASKED US TO
HELP THEM FUND, RATHER THAN
DOING THE FULL $5.4 MILLION CUT.
IT FUNDS $2 MILLION FOR
PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING INSTEAD
OF $5.4 BILLION -- $5.4
MILLION.
IT FREEZE UP $5 MILLION IN WHAT
IS PROJECTED TO BE $13 MILLION
IN SALARY SAVINGS TO GIVE SPD
THE FLEXIBILITY THEY HAVE BEEN
REQUESTING.
>> THAT IS A GOOD SUMMARY.
I WILL NOT GO TOO MUCH INTO
DETAIL UNLESS MEMBERS HAVE
QUESTIONS ON THESE SPECIFIC
INVESTMENTS. I KNOW WE HAVE
BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT FOR
SEVERAL MONTHS.
LET ME KNOW IF YOU WANT ME TO GO
INTO DETAIL ON ANY OF THESE
SPECIFIC INVESTMENTS.
SO THE OTHER MAJOR CHANGE IN
THE SUBSTITUTE THAT CURRENTLY
SITS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, IT
REVISED ONE OF THE PROVISOS IT
IN THE ADOPTED BUDGET.
THAT PROVISO WAS HOLDING $5
MILLION IN AUTHORITY AND
REQUIRING THAT THE DEPARTMENT
NOT SPEND THAT MONEY UNTIL A
FUTURE PREPARATION HAD BEEN MADE
. THAT PARTICULAR PROVISO IS
INTENDED TO CAPTURE SALARY
SAVINGS THAT SPD ACCRUES
THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.
THE SUBSTITUTE THAT IS BEFORE
YOU, MORE OR LESS ELIMINATES
THAT PROVISO AND REPLACES IT
WITH A NEW PROVISO THAT WOULD
ALLOW SPD ACCESS TO THAT FUNDING
, AS LONG AS THEY COMPLIED WITH
SOME REPORTING REQUIREMENTS,
SPECIFICALLY AROUND STAFFING.
SO THE COUNCIL COULD CONTINUE
TO WATCH THE STAFFING SITUATION
AT SPD.
I WILL STOP AND ASK IF THERE
ARE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT.
>> IS THERE CONCERN THAT SPD
POTENTIALLY WOULD NOT COMPLY
WITH THOSE REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS? UNLESS WE LIFTED
THE PROVISO OR DID THE PHASED-
IN LIFTING OF IT -- I GUESS I
AM JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND,
DO WE HAVE OTHER WAYS AS A
COUNCIL TO COMPEL THAT REPORTING
, RATHER THAN THROUGH AS WE GET
THOSE REPORTS, RELEASING THE
PROVISO?
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER.
THE OTHER WAY YOU HAVE TO
COMPEL THAT REPORTING IS THE
STATEMENT OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT
. AND YOU DID THAT.
YOU ADOPTED A STATEMENT OF
LEGISLATIVE INTENT THAT ASKED
THEM FOR REGULAR MONTHLY
REPORTS, REPORTS THAT HAVE
HISTORICALLY BEEN PROVIDED ON A
MONTHLY BASIS OR PERIODICALLY.
THEY GO BACK AND FORTH.
THE DEPARTMENT GENERALLY WILL
KEEP THE COUNCIL UP-TO-DATE
WITH DETAILED REPORTS. STARTING
IN JANUARY, THE DEPARTMENT
STOPPED PROVIDING PROJECTIONS
AS PART OF THIS REPORTS.
NO LONGER DO THOSE REPORTS
CONTAIN ANY INFORMATION OR ANY
DATA ON HOW MANY FOLKS THEY
EXPECT TO HIRE OR HOW MANY
FOLKS THEY EXPECT WILL LEAVE.
YOU HAVE ALREADY ASKED THEM FOR
THAT, VIA THE STATEMENT OF
LEGISLATIVE INTENT. AND THEY
ARE SAYING THAT THEY ARE NOT
GOING TO BE SENDING IT. SO THIS
PROVISO IS A STEP IN A FURTHER
DIRECTION TO TRY TO COMPEL THEM
TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION. I
WOULD SAY THAT IN ABSOLUTE
FAIRNESS, THERE IS REALLY NO
WAY THAT ANYONE COULD HAVE
PREDICTED WHAT WOULD HAVE
HAPPENED IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS
IN TERMS OF SEPARATIONS.
AND IT IS UNDERSTANDABLE THAT
THEY ARE HESITANT TO PROVIDE
THE DATA GOING FORWARD.
HOWEVER, THEY DO HAVE ACCESS TO
INFORMATION, SPECIFICALLY FOLKS
WHO HAVE SUBMITTED THEIR
RETIREMENT PAPERWORK, OR THE
NUMBER OF RECRUITS THEY ARE
PLANNING TO HIRE, AS THEY GATHER
ELIGIBLE FOLKS OUT OF THE
TESTING POOL AND AS THEY
INTERVIEW THEM.
SO THEY HAVE SOME CAPACITY TO
DO SOME PROJECTIONS. CERTAINLY
MORE THAN THE COUNCIL DOES,
WITHOUT THAT INFORMATION.
THIS WOULD ASK THEM TO CONTINUE
TO DO THE BEST JOB THEY COULD
AND PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION TO
THE COUNCIL. TAKING A STEP
FORWARD IN REQUIRING THAT
INFORMATION TO BE SENT.
>> UNRELATED QUESTION, GREG.
HAS SPD INDICATED WHAT THEY
WOULD USE THE SALARY SAVINGS FOR
, IN THE EVENT THEY WERE
RELEASED PER THESE CONDITIONS?
>> SPD HAS SAID THEY WOULD USE
THEIR SALARY SAVINGS FOR MANY
OF THE ITEMS IN THIS TABLE.
INDEED THE ITEMS IN THIS TABLE
LARGELY CAME FROM THEM.
MANY OF THEM DID.
THE SEPARATION PAY.
IT NEEDS, CIVILIAN STAFFING.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES FOR PUBLIC
DISCLOSURE, ALTHOUGH NOT
NECESSARILY IN THIS
CONFIGURATION.
THEY HAVE REQUESTED -- THEY
HAVE INDICATED THAT THEY NEED
TO HAVE EVIDENCE STORAGE
ENHANCEMENTS DONE.
IN A LOT OF WAYS THESE ARE
ALREADY SPD REQUESTS AND WOULD
BE USED -- THEY WOULD USE THEIR
SALARY SAVINGS, AT LEAST ON THE
SEPARATION PAY AND IT NEEDS AND
CIVILIAN STAFFING.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
>> I WILL MOVE FORWARD.
NOW I WILL MOVE INTO THE
AMENDMENT THAT IS PROPOSED TODAY
THAT IS BEFORE YOU.
>> BEFORE YOU MOVE INTO THAT, I
JUST WANT TO USE DATES THAT I
HAVE WORKED WITH YOU TO DEVELOP
THIS AMENDMENTS.
WE WERE SEEKING LAW DEPARTMENT
REVIEW, WHICH WE GOT LAST NIGHT.
THIS AMENDMENTS HAS NOT BEEN
POSTED PUBLICLY.
AND SO I AM INCLINED -- IT IS
VIRTUALLY THE SAME AS THE
VERSION THAT MY COLLEAGUES ON
THIS COMMITTEE RECEIVED ON
FRIDAY.
BUT I AM INCLINED TO HOLD THE
AMENDMENT TO FULL COUNCIL.
UNLESS I HEAR OTHERWISE FROM MY
COLLEAGUES. JUST OUT OF AN
INTEREST TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
PUBLIC HAS ACCESS TO THE
AMENDMENT, WHICH BECAUSE OF THE
LATE LAW DEPARTMENT REVIEW,
THEY WERE UNABLE TO GET IT
POSTED TO THE AGENDA.
>> THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR.
WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO GET OVER
IT OR HAVE ME STEP BACK?
>> I STILL WANT YOU TO GO OVER
IT.
THIS COLLEAGUES FEEL STRONGLY
WE SHOULD ACT ON IT NOW, I WANT
TO HEAR THAT.
AND I WANT TO HAVE THE BENEFIT
OF THE DISCUSSION AROUND THE
AMENDMENT HERE IN THE COMMITTEE.
>> THANK YOU.
THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE BUT
YOUR AMENDMENT WOULD MAKE MADAM
CHAIR, IT WOULD ELIMINATE
ANOTHER PROVISO, ANOTHER
RESTRICTION ON THE DEPARTMENT.
THERE WAS $2.5 MILLION OF
PROVISO IN THE ADOPTED 2021
BUDGET THAT WOULD REQUIRE
FUTURE ORDINANCE, FUTURE
AUTHORIZATION AND ALONG WITH
THE PROVISO I REQUEST THAT SPD
AND LABOR RELATIONS ADDITION
THE PUBLIC SAFETY CIVIL-SERVICE
COMMITTEE TO AUTHORIZE 35 OUT
OF ORDER LAYOFFS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE PRINCIPLES IDENTIFIED
IN RESOLUTION 31962 THAT WAS
PASSED LAST YEAR. YOU WILL
RECALL THAT MANY OF THE
PRINCIPLES THAT ARE IN THAT
RESOLUTION HAVE TO DO WITH
FFICER MISCONDUCT,
SPECIFICALLY AROUND SUSTAINED
COMPLAINTS.
SO THIS WAS A HOLD ON AUTHORITY
TO SEE IF THERE WOULD BE A WAY
THAT LAYOFFS COULD BE FOCUSED
ON OFFICERS WHO HAD SUSTAINED
COMPLAINTS, SUSTAINED MISCONDUCT
COMPLAINTS. AND INCLUDED IN
THAT WOULD BE OFFICERS THAT ARE
PART OF WHAT IS CALLED THE GRAY
LIST. THE BRADY LIST IS A
DISCLOSURE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS WHOSE INVOLVEMENT IN A
CASE AS AN ARRESTING OFFICER,
INVESTIGATOR OR WITNESS, IS IN
QUESTION BECAUSE OF A HISTORY
OF DISHONESTY OR MISCONDUCT.
THE GOAL OF THIS PARTICULAR
$2.5 MILLION OUT OF ORDER
LAYOFFS PROVISO WAS TO IDENTIFY
THE OFFICERS AND SEE IF THEY
COULD BE PRIORITIZED FOR LAYOFF.
OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS IT HAS
BECOME CLEAR THAT THAT IS NOT
POSSIBLE FOR SEVERAL REASONS.
THE TWO MOST SIGNIFICANT
REASONS OR BECAUSE THE PUBLIC
SAFETY CIVIL-SERVICE RULES
WOULD ALLOW ANY OFFICER LAID
OFF, REGARDLESS OF THE REASON
WHETHER MISCONDUCT OR OTHER, TO
BE PLACED ON A REINSTATEMENT
REGISTER AND REHIRED WHEN SPD
IS HIRING NEW OFFICERS. AS THE
CHAIR HAS INDICATED, SPD IS
FULLY FUNDED FOR THEIR HIRING
PLAN.
SO ANY -- AND THEY ARE HIRING
AS QUICKLY AND AS MUCH AS THEY
CAN.
PLACING AN OFFICER, LAID UP
OFFICER ON A REINSTATEMENT
REGISTER WOULD MEAN THEY WOULD
BE REHIRED.
ADDITIONALLY, THE RCW PRECLUDES
ANY ADVERSE PERSONNEL ACTION TO
BE TAKEN AGAINST A POLICE
OFFICER SOLELY BECAUSE THEY ARE
ON THE BRADY LIST.
FOR THESE REASONS, IT BECOMES
SOMEWHAT IMPRACTICAL TO SEEK
OUT OF ORDER LAYOFFS,
SPECIFICALLY ON THE MISCONDUCT
ISSUE.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ELIMINATE
THAT PROVISO AND FREE UP THE
$2.5 MILLION FOR THE DEPARTMENT
TO USE AND AS YOU CAN SEE IN
THE SECOND ONE IT ADDS SOME
INTENT LANGUAGE TO EXPLAIN WHY
THAT PROVISO IS BEING DROPPED.
AND I HAVE JUST GONE OVER THAT.
I WILL STOP AND ASK IF THERE
ARE ANY QUESTIONS.
I AM NOT HEARING ANYTHING.
>> ANY QUESTIONS?
OKAY.
>> A COUPLE MORE THINGS --
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD,
SORRY.
>> GO AHEAD.
>> THAT WAS MY FAULT.
I WAS A LITTLE DELAYED.
I THINK NOT NECESSARILY WANTING
TO SPEAK TO THE SPECIFIC
PROPOSAL HERE, I WANTED TO
RESPOND TO YOUR INQUIRY ABOUT
WHETHER OR NOT THE COMMITTEE
SHOULD HOLD ON THIS AMENDMENT
OR TAKE ACTION NOW. I THINK
SEVERAL OF US ON THIS COMMITTEE
, IN A DIFFERENT CONTEXT, HAVE
HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REALLY
WRESTLE WITH THE UNDERLYING
ISSUE PRESENTED BY THE OUT OF
ORDER LAYOFFS PROVISO THAT WAS
ORIGINALLY ADOPTED BY THE CITY
COUNCIL.
I WOULD BE PREPARED TO VOTE ON
THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT, IF
YOU AS THE CHAIR DECIDED TO
CALL IT TO A VOTE DURING
COMMITTEE TODAY.
I JUST WANTED TO SIGNAL THAT
PREPAREDNESS FOR YOU AS YOU
THINK ABOUT HOW YOU WANT TO
MANAGE THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE.
IT WOULD BE -- I WILL SAY IT
WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE THAT WE
RESOLVE THIS POLICY DEBATE
RELATED TO AMENDMENT 1 IN THE
CONTEXT OF YOUR COMMITTEE AS
OPPOSED TO SAVING DEBATE ON
THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT FOR
FULL COUNCIL.
>> THANK YOU.
THAT IS EXACTLY THE KIND OF
FEEDBACK I WAS LOOKING FOR.
ANY OTHER STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT
THAT ISSUE HERE?
FROM OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS. ALL
RIGHT.
>> I WOULD JUST SAY I AGREE WITH
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ . FOR
THE SAME REASONS THAT
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ STATED
AND A THOROUGH STUDY OF THIS
PARTICULAR PROPOSAL AROUND
LIFTING THE PROVISO AND I WOULD
BE PREPARED TO VOTE ON IT TODAY
AS WELL.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS
.
>> GREG, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING
FURTHER FOR US?
>> JUST A COUPLE QUICK THINGS
AND THEN I WILL STEP BACK.
THERE WERE CHANGES MADE TO
SECTION K AND THEY ACKNOWLEDGE
THE RELEASE OF THE $5 MILLION
SALARY SAVINGS PROVISO TO $2.5
MILLION OUT OF ORDER PROVISO.
WITH THE INTENTION TO ALLOW SPD
MORE FLEXIBILITY IN HIS BUDGET
TO PLAN FOR EMERGING FISCAL
ISSUES AS WELL AS STAFFING DUE
TO THE SHORTAGE OF OFFICERS.
AS WELL AS TRAINING NEEDS.
AND THERE ARE SOME TECHNICAL
CORRECTIONS AND CHANGES THAT
ARE MADE THAT I AM NOT GOING TO
GO INTO NOW.
I CAN IF ANYBODY HAS ANY
QUESTIONS, BUT THEY ARE
RELATIVELY INSIGNIFICANT,
RELATIVE THE OTHER CHANGES.
NOW I WILL ASK IF -- CAN STOP
SHOWING MY SCREEN.
I SEEM TO HAVE AN INABILITY --
>> I HAVE A QUESTION.
ON 3, GREG, THIS IS DISCUSSING
NOT JUST THE PROVISO ABOUT OUT
OF PARLOR LAYOFFS BUT THE $5
MILLION SALARY SAVINGS PROVISO.
IS THAT WITH THE COUNCIL
PRESIDENT HAD ADDED TO THE
BUDGET LAST YEAR?
>> YES.
WE TALKED ABOUT THAT EARLIER.
IT MORE OR LESS ELIMINATES THE
$5 MILLION SALARY SAVINGS
PROVISO, AND THEN CREATES A NEW
PROVISO THAT REQUIRES THE
STAFFING REPORTS.
TECHNICALLY IN THE BILL, IT IS
IN AMENDMENT BUT IT IS A RATHER
CONFUSING THING.
SO I WILL SIMPLIFY IT BY SAYING
THAT THE $5 MILLION SALARY
SAVINGS PROVISO THAT THE
COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAD ADDED IN
THE 2021 ADOPTED BUDGET IS
ELIMINATED EFFECTIVELY.
>> THIS AMENDMENT OR THE --
>> BY THE SUBSTITUTE THAT THE
COMMITTEE HAS ALREADY ADOPTED.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
IF THERE IS NO FURTHER
DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT
WE SHOULD MOVE THE AMENDMENT, I
MOVE AMENDMENT 12 COUNCIL BILL
1199 81. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> OKAY.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION?
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT .
>> THANK YOU. I HAD A POINT ON
THE AMENDMENT AND THE BILL AND
IF YOU ARE OKAY I WILL MAKE ALL
MY POINTS AT ONCE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> AS I SAID I WILL SPEAK TO
THE AMENDMENT AND THE BILL AND
IT WILL NOT BE ANY SURPRISE TO
OU THAT I AM OP
SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT TO
ESSENTIALLY INCREASE THE POLICE
BUDGET BY AN ADDITIONAL $2.5
MILLION LIFTING ANOTHER PROVISO.
THE ORIGINAL PROVISO
EFFECTIVELY SAID THAT THE
POLICE COULD NOT ACCESS $2.5
MILLION OF THE BUDGET BECAUSE
THE CITY COUNCIL WAS LOOKING TO
OUT OF ORDER LAYOFFS. AND I
WILL BE VOTING NO ON THE BILL
AS A WHOLE. IN FACT WITHOUT THE
AMENDMENT IT IS A BILL THAT HAS
AND THAT THE EFFECT OF
INCREASING POLICE FUNDING.
DURING THE JUSTICE FOR GEORGE
FLOYD MOVEMENT ORDINARY PEOPLE
FILLED THE STREET TO --
THOUSANDS DEMANDED SEATTLE
DEFINED THE POLICE BY 50% TO
REDUCE THE NUMBER OF OFFICERS
ARRESTING COMMUNITIES OF COLOR
AND ABUSING PEACEFUL
PROTESTERS.
COUNCILMEMBERS WHO INITIALLY
CLAIMED TO SUPPORT THE MAN THEN
BEGAN TO USE MORE AND MORE
ORWELLIAN LANGUAGE TO JUSTIFY
DOING THE OPPOSITE.
DO COUNCILMEMBERS REMEMBER THEIR
PROMISES TO THE JUSTICE FOR THE
GEORGE FLOYD MOVEMENT?
TODAY REMEMBER SAYING THEY
WANTED TO DEFINE THE POLICE BY
50% LAST SUMMER [ INDISCERNIBLE
] DO THEY REMEMBER SAYING THEY
CANNOT REDUCE THE NUMBER OF
OFFICES IN 2021 BECAUSE THEY
NEED TO RESEARCH OUT OF ORDER
LAYOFFS AND AS A SIDE NOTE I
WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT DOING
POLICE LAYOFFS OUT OF ORDER WAS
NEVER A DEMAND OF THE BLACK
LIVES MATTER MOVEMENT.
COUNCILMEMBERS ARE SAYING THAT
-- PLEASE FORGET THAT
COUNCILMEMBERS EVER PROMISED TO
REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE POLICE
FORCE.
FRANKLY IN MY VIEW THIS HAS
BECOME A FARCE.
THE FIRST DRAFT OF THE BILL
REDUCED THE BUDGET BY $5.4
MILLION TO COMPENSATE FOR THE
$5.4 MILLION BY WHICH THEY
ILLEGALLY OVERSPENT THEIR
BUDGET LAST YEAR.
THAN THE MAJORITY OF THE
COMMITTEE AMENDED THE ORIGINAL
BILL TO MAKE THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT REDUCTION TO $3
MILLION INSTEAD OF $5.4 MILLION
BUT AT THE SAME TIME TO LIFT A
$5 MILLION PROVISO.
AS I EXPLAINED LAST TIME, I
WILL QUOTE MY POINTS, THAT MEANS
THE SUBSTITUTE BILL AS A WHOLE
GOT UP TO $3 MILLION FROM THE
POLICE AND GIVES THE POLICE
ACCESS TO $5 MILLION SO ON
BALANCE IT INCREASES THE
AVAILABLE POLICE BUDGET BY OVER
$2 MILLION.
AS MALCOLM X. FAMOUSLY SAID, IF
I STICK A KNIFE IN MY BACK --
TODAY'S NEW SUBSTITUTE WOULD
RELEASE AN ADDITIONAL $2.5
MILLION BY LIFTING ANOTHER
PROVISO.
IF THIS AMENDMENT PASSES, THE
NET RESULT OF THE BILL WILL BE
TO INCREASE THE POLICE FUNDING
BUT A TOTAL OF $4.5 MILLION
RATHER THAN CUTTING THE POLICE
BUDGET BY $5.4 MILLION.
ESSENTIALLY THE CONSEQUENCE FOR
GOING OVER BUDGET LAST YEAR,
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT GOING
OVER THE BUDGET LAST YEAR IS
FOR THEM TO GET EXTRA MONEY
THIS YEAR.
THIS IS WHAT POLICE
ACCOUNTABILITY LOOKS LIKE TO
THE POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENT.
I AM VOTING NO ON THIS AND IT
IS NO LONGER A BILL TO REDUCE
THE POLICE BUDGET AND HAS
BECOME A BILL TO INCREASE THE
POLICE BUDGET.
AND THE PUBLIC COMMENT PEOPLE
URGED COUNCIL TO RETURN IT TO
THE ORIGINAL FORM. I WOULD BE
HAPPY TO SUPPORT AND AMENDMENT
LIKE THAT.
I AM NOT PERMITTED TO MAKE THAT
MOTION -- I WANT TO STRESS THAT
IF ANOTHER COUNCILMEMBER MADE
THAT MOTION I WOULD VOTE, YES.
I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO THE
EXCUSE THAT IS CIRCULATED THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL CANNOT DEFUND
THE POLICE WITHOUT THE
AGREEMENT OF THE FEDERAL
MONITOR.
COUNCILMEMBERS VOTE ON THE
BUDGET, NOT THE FEDERAL
MONITOR.
COUNCILMEMBERS ARE RESPONSIBLE
FOR THEIR OWN VOTES.
IF THEY AGREE WITH THE FEDERAL
MONITOR OR AGREE WITH ANY OTHER
PART OF THE POLITICAL
ESTABLISHMENT, IT IS THERE
DECISION.
I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE FEDERAL
MONITOR IN MY THAT WILL REFLECT
THAT.
IF COUNCILMEMBERS WERE SERIOUS,
THEY WOULD PASS A BUDGET THAT
ACTUALLY DEFINES THE POLICE
WHAT WOULD JUDGE ROBERTS DO?
PLACE AN INJUNCTION ON THE CITY
BUDGET IN RESPONSE TO THAT?
THAT IS NOT A POSSIBLE OR
REALISTIC SCENARIO.
INSTEAD WE GET LETTERS FROM THE
FEDERAL MONITOR EXPRESSING
CONCERNS AND COUNCILMEMBERS ARE
PRETENDING THIS CONCERNS ARE
LEGALLY BINDING, WHICH THEY ARE
NOT.
IF COUNCILMEMBERS WERE SERIOUS
ABOUT DEFUNDING THE POLICE THEY
WOULD NOT BE INCREASING THE
POLICE BUDGET IN THE FIRST
PLACE.
AND THE LESS COMMITTEE
DISCUSSION I QUOTED FROM MY
COMMENTS FROM THE COUNCIL
MEETING ON DECEMBER 14 OF LAST
YEAR WHEN I WAS THE ONLY
COUNCILMEMBER TO VOTE NO ON THE
BILL TO GIVE -- ILLEGALLY SPENT
ON OVERTIME THEY WERE NOT
AUTHORIZED TO SPEND WHEN THEY
FILLED THE STREETS WITH COPS TO
ABUSE BLACK LIVES MATTER
PROTESTERS.
AT THIS POINT I AM QUOTING
MYSELF FROM PAST MEETINGS.
THIS HAPPENS AGAIN AND AGAIN.
AT THAT TIME I SAID I AM VOTING
NO -- ADDITIONAL $5.4 MILLION
TO FUND THE EXTRA OVERTIME THEY
USED ABUSING AND INTIMIDATING
THE BLACK LIVES MATTER MOVEMENT.
[ INDISCERNIBLE ] THOSE ARE THE
FUNDS WE HAVE AVAILABLE TO DO
WITH WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.
HERE WE ARE IN THE LAST COUNCIL
MEETING OF THE YEAR, THIS IS
FROM DECEMBER, THE SAME YEAR
THAT WE HAD AN HISTORIC BLACK
LIVES MATTER MOVEMENT -- WE NOW
HEAR THE POLICE HAVE SPENT 5.4
ME DOLLARS MORE THAN THEIR
BUDGET, MONEY THAT DID NOT
BELONG TO THEM AND ARE
REQUESTING RETROACTIVE
PERMISSION FOR THE MILLIAMPS IN
TAXPAYER MONEY THEY HAVE STOLEN.
-- TO FILL THE STREETS OF
SEATTLE WITH TEAR GAS AND OTHER
WEAPONS AND MAY HAVE TAKEN THIS
FOR PERSONAL ENRICHMENT WITH
INDIVIDUAL OFFICERS AMASSING
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF
DOLLARS AND OVER TIME P PAY.
-- TO THE POINT WHERE THE
COUNCIL EVEN PASSED A
RESOLUTION IN THE SUMMER.
PLEDGING TO SAY NO IF THE
POLICE MAKE THIS REQUEST AT THE
END OF THE YEAR.
NOW IS THE TEST.
WILL YOU HOLD THE LINE?
UNFORTUNATELY IN THE FINANCE
AND HOUSING COMMITTEE LAST WEEK
-- THIS IS FROM LAST YEAR --
THIS YEAR WHILE PLEDGING TO
TAKE IT FROM EXTRAS BUDGET.
WHAT DID IT MEAN AT THAT TIME
FOR COUNCILMEMBERS TO SAY --
WILL THE COUNCIL HOLD THE LINE
OR PUSH IT BACK ANOTHER YEAR?
WHAT IF THEY GO OVER BY $20
MILLION IN THE COMING YEARS?
WE CAN SEE THIS IS HAPPENING
AGAIN AND AGAIN.
[ INDISCERNIBLE ] HAVE DEMANDED
THAT THE COUNCIL HOLD THE LINE
BUT AT THIS POINT, IS OUR
POINTS ARE ALREADY MADE IN
PREVIOUS COMMITTEES BUT THEY
ARE NEEDING TO BE MET AGAIN.
THIS IS NOT HOLDING THE LINE.
THE LINE HAS BEEN MOVED BACK
WITH NO GUARANTEE THAT IT WILL
NOT MOVE AGAIN AND AGAIN.
THERE IS EVERYTHING TO INDICATE
THAT IT WILL ACTUALLY BE MOVED
BACK IN FAVOR OF THE POLICE
AGAIN AND AGAIN.
THE REALITY IS THIS IS NOT
ABOUT LINES OR PROMISES OR
RESOLUTIONS OR GOODWILL, IT IS
ABOUT THE POWER OF GRASSROOTS
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS ON THE STREETS.
IT WAS NOT A COINCIDENCE THAT
AT THE HEIGHT OF TENS OF
THOUSANDS BEING ON THE STREETS,
THAT IS WHEN DEMOCRATIC CONSUL
MEMBERS MADE PROMISES. IT IS
NOT A COINCIDENCE WHEN THE
PROTEST HAD REDUCED, THE
PROMISES WERE RENEGED ON.
FOR LESS AND FOR OUR MOVEMENT
IS WE MUST DEFEND ON HER OWN
STRENGTH. I THINK IT IS CRUCIAL
FOR WORKING PEOPLE TO GET
ORGANIZED AND FIGHT FOR AN
ELECTED COMMUNITY OVERSIGHT
BOARD WITH FULL POWERS OVER THE
POLICE INCLUDING HIRING AND
FIRING, SUBPOENA POWERS AND
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.
MY OBSERVATION FROM HAVING OF
TALK TO HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE IN A
POLITICALLY BROAD SPECTRUM IS
THAT EVEN THE WORKING PEOPLE
WHO ARE NOT SURE ABOUT
DEFUNDING ALSO STRONGLY SUPPORT
AN ELECTED COMMUNITY OVERSIGHT
WITH FULL POWERS OVER THE POLICE
. IT IS A DEMAND THAT WILL NOT
ONLY HELP BRING REAL
ACCOUNTABILITY, BUT IT IS A STEP
FORWARD FOR OUR POLICE
ACCOUNTABILITY AND IT WILL
UNITE WORKING PEOPLE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE
AMENDMENT ? I HAVE JUST A FEW
WORDS. THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF
CONVERSATION ABOUT THE ROLE OF
THE CONSENT DECREE.
AND REASONABLE PEOPLE CAN
DISAGREE. BUT I THINK WHAT IS
CLEAR IS THAT WE DO HAVE A
MONITOR AND THAT MONITORS ROLE
IS TO MONITOR OUR COMPLIANCE
WITH THE CONSENT DECREE.
AND THAT MONITOR, WHEN HE WROTE
TO US LAST WEEK SAID IN ORDER
TO SUSTAIN COMPLIANCE, THE CITY
IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING
NECESSARY SUPPORT AND RESOURCES
TO SPD IN ORDER TO FULFILL ITS
OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
NOW IS THE TIME TO ALLOCATE
RESOURCES TO SPD AT LEVELS THAT
WILL ENABLE THE CITY TO CLOSE
OUT A CONSENT DECREE EFFECTIVELY
AND SUSTAINABLY.
THE MARTYRS POSITION SEEMS TO BE
THAT A $2 MILLION BUDGET CUT IN
THE CONTEXT OF THIS $360
MILLION POLICE DEPARTMENT BUDGET
, COULD SOMEHOW PUT SPD IN THE
POSITION OF NOT BEING ABLE TO
DELIVER KEY MANAGEMENT AND
OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS. EVEN
GIVEN THAT THE VERSION OF THE
BILL THAT THE MONITOR REVIEWED
INCLUDED THIS LIFT OF THE $5
MILLION PROVISO.
IT IS A LIFT OF A $5 MILLION
PROVISO IN A WAY THAT IS SCALED
. THAT IS WHY I AM PROPOSING TO
LIFT THIS ADDITIONAL $2.5
MILLION PROVISO KNOWING THAT WE
CANNOT FULFILL THE OBJECTIVES
OF THE PROVISO.
EVEN THOUGH I AM STRUGGLING TO
UNDERSTAND HOW THE MONITOR CAN
SUGGEST THAT FUNDING CAN SOLVE
SPD'S TRAINING AND PATROL
STAFFING CHALLENGES.
THESE ARE THE ITEMS THAT THE
MONITOR SAYS THAT HE IS
CONCERNED ABOUT, RELATE TO
STAFFING AND TRAINING AND
SPECIFICALLY THAT SUPERVISORS
ARE BEING MOVED FROM TRAINING
TO FILL PATROL STAFFING
CHALLENGES.
THESE ARE ALL NOT PROBLEMS THAT
CAN BE SOLVED WITH DOLLARS,
THEY ARE PROBLEMS THAT CAN BE
SOLVED WITH ADDITIONAL STAFFING
AND THE COUNCIL HAS FULLY
FUNDED THE 2021 STAFFING PLAN.
NEVERTHELESS, I DO FEEL THAT
THE MONITORS ROLE IN THIS
INSTANCE IS A ROLE THAT MUST BE
CONSIDERED BY THIS COUNCIL. THE
MONITOR SPEAKS TO THE COURT ON
A WEEKLY, REGULAR BASIS.
AND I DO NOT WANT TO HAVE THE
CITY BE FOUND TO NOT BE IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONSENT
DECREE.
THAT IS WHY I AM RELUCTANTLY
WORRYING FOR THIS ADDITIONAL
PROVISO.
AND SEEING NO FURTHER COMMENTS.
WILL BASH
>> SORRY.
>> I WANTED TO ADD A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT THE CONSENT DECREE
COMMENTS AS WELL.
AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THE
CONSENT DECREE IS A LEGAL
REALITY AND IT IS A LEGAL
OBLIGATION FOR THE CITY OF
SEATTLE.
IT IS SUBJECT TO A SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT, WHICH IS A LEGALLY
BINDING DOCUMENT ON THE CITY OF
SEATTLE AS IT RELATES TO
ONGOING EFFORTS TO REFORM AND
MAKE SURE THAT THIS POLICE
DEPARTMENT CONTINUES TO BE AND
ENHANCES ITS ACCOUNTABILITY IN
THE AREA OF POLICE REFORM AND
MISCONDUCT.
THAT IS A REALITY OF THE CONTEXT
AND THE ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH WE
ARE BEING ASKED TO MAKE ONGOING
DECISIONS WITHIN OUR CHARTER
MANDATED DUTIES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES TO ALSO
CONSIDER BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS
FOR EACH OF THE DEPARTMENTS.
BUT THERE IS NO QUESTION IN THE
CONTEXT OF EXERCISING OUR
AUTHORITY AS BUDGET
APPROPRIATORS IN THE CITY OF
SEATTLE, WE HAVE TO IN THIS
CONTEXT ALSO EXERCISE THAT
OBLIGATION WITHIN THE CONTEXT
OF KNOWING THAT WE ARE SUBJECT
TO A LEGALLY, BINDING DOCUMENT
THAT REQUIRES US TO CONSULT
WITH AND BE SUPERVISED BY AND
ORDERED UNDER THREAT OF CONTEMPT
OF COURT ORDERS, WE HAVE TO
MAKE THESE DECISIONS WITHIN
THAT CONTEXT. I WANTED TO
EMPHASIZE THAT POINT YOU MADE.
I DO THINK IT IS GETTING LOST
IN THE DEBATE AND THE DISCUSSION
, BOTH IN THE PUBLIC AND
PERHAPS WITHIN OUR VIRTUAL
CHAMBERS.
I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THIS
PARTICULAR PROVISO,
SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE I THINK I
HAVE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT
READING OF THE FEDERAL COURT
MONITORS EMAIL TO US. THAT CAME
TO US LAST WEEK.
I THINK THAT HE CONTINUES TO BE
CONCERNED ABOUT ANY KIND OF
BUDGET REDUCTIONS AND WHILE I
DISAGREE PERHAPS WITH HIS
PERSPECTIVE THAT WE SHOULD NOT
BE MAKING ANY BUDGET DECISIONS
AT ALL, I STILL AM CONCERNED
THAT LIFTING THIS $5 MILLION
PROVISO NOW, WILL CREATE A
DISADVANTAGE TO US IN THE FALL
BUDGET PROCESS.
MY PREFERENCE ON THE $5 MILLION
PROVISO THAT I SPONSORED DURING
THE BUDGET PROCESS, WOULD BE
THAT WE CONSIDER LIFTING IT IN
THE CONTEXT OF UNDERSTANDING
SORT OF AT THE END OF THE YEAR
WHAT THE SALARY SAVINGS WERE.
AND I THINK THAT ALSO POSITIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL TO IDENTIFY
HOW WE WOULD WANT TO SPEND
THESE UNUSED DOLLARS OUTSIDE OF
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
MY RECOLLETION IS THAT IS HOW
WE HAVE DONE IT IN THE PAST. IN
TERMS OF THE PROCESS AND THE
TIMING.
AND FOR THOSE REASONS, I HAVE
CONCERNS ABOUT THE $5 MILLION
LIFTING OF THE $5 MILLION
PROVISO AS PART OF AMENDMENT 1.
>> THANK YOU.
THE LIFTING OF THE $5 MILLION
PROVISO IS NOT IN AMENDMENT 1.
T IS IN THE BASE BILL.
>> RIGHT.
>> IT IS JUST ABOUT THE PROVISO
ON THE OUT OF ORDER LAYOFFS.
>> CORRECT.
>> ON THE OUT OF ORDER LAYOFFS,
NOW I AM SPEAKING TO THE
UNDERLYING BILL.
SNEAK PEEK.
IT IS RELEASED TO THE OUT OF
ORDER LAYOFFS, I THINK IT IS
REALLY IMPORTANT TO SHARE WITH
MEMBERS OF THE VIEWING PUBLIC
THAT AT THE TIME THAT I WAS
SUPPORTIVE OF THE OUT OF ORDER
LAYOFFS PROVISO, I TRULY BELIEVE
WE WERE GOING TO BE ABLE TO
ACCOMPLISH IT.
WE HAD SOME INDICATION WITHIN
THE PUBLIC SAFETY CIVIL SERVICE
RULES THAT INDICATED THAT OUT
OF ORDER LAYOFFS WERE POSSIBLE
TO ACHIEVE, IF THE CHIEF OF
POLICE WOULD ADVOCATE TO THAT
BODY THE DESIRE AND THE WISH TO
DO SO.
UNFORTUNATELY, I FEEL LIKE I
HAVE EXHAUSTED EVERY AVENUE
POSSIBLE TO EVALUATE WHETHER OR
NOT WE COULD EFFECTUATE THE
INTENT BEHIND THE PROVISO AND
ACCOMPLISH THE GOAL OF OUT OF
ORDER LAYOFFS.
IN THAT EXERCISE, EVERY SINGLE
TIME I THOUGHT WE FOUND AN
ANSWER AND A WAY TO DO IT, WE
WOULD OPEN UP YET ANOTHER
PANDORA'S BOX, ANOTHER LAYER
BUILT INTO OUR LEGAL FRAMEWORK
FROM DECADES BEFORE ANY OF US
WERE HERE STRUGGLING WITH THESE
QUESTIONS, THAT HAVE
EFFECTIVELY SHIELDED AND
PROTECTED EVEN THOSE OFFICERS
LAID OFF FOR LYING OR BIAS
POLICING OR BEING CONVICTED OF
A CRIME. EVEN IF WE WERE ABLE
TO LAY OFF THOSE SPECIFIC
OFFICERS WHO HAVE BEEN FOUND OF
SIGNIFICANT MISCONDUCT IN THE
PAST, EVEN IF WE WERE ABLE TO
LAY THOSE INDIVIDUALS OFF, THE
MOMENT THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY
TO HIRE NEW OFFICERS BACK TO
THE POLICE FORCE, THOSE OFFICERS
HAD THE RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL.
I THINK THAT EFFECTIVELY
FRUSTRATES OUR ENTIRE POLICY
GOAL OF FOCUSING OUR EFFORTS ON
OUT OF ORDER LAYOFFS ON THOSE
WHO FRANKLY DO NOT MEET THE
HIGH STANDARDS THAT WE EXPECT
OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO DO
SERVE AS OFFICERS WITHIN THE
SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
AS A RESULT, UNFORTUNATELY,
THAT MEANS TO ME THAT WE WILL
NOT BE ABLE TO EFFECTUATE THE
GOAL OF OUT OF ORDER LAYOFFS.
THAT HOWEVER SHOULD NOT BE
TRANSLATED INTO SAYING THAT
LAYOFFS WOULD OR SHOULD NEVER
OCCUR. IT SIMPLY MEANS THAT THE
CONCEPT OF DOING OUT OF ORDER
LAYOFFS IN ORDER TO PRIORITIZE
IDENTIFYING INDIVIDUALS CANNOT
FULFILL HEIR FULL FUNCTIONS AS
A POLICE OFFICER BECAUSE OF
PRIOR MISCONDUCT, IS NOT
ACHIEVABLE.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
FOLKS UNDERSTAND THAT DOES NOT
MEAN LAYOFFS CANNOT OCCUR, THE
PROVISO IS REALLY ABOUT HOW
LAYOFFS MIGHT OCCUR. I THINK WE
HAVE RUN THE COURSE OF THE
EVALUATION AND REALIZING THAT
THE OUT OF ORDER MECHANISM FOR
ACHIEVING ANY LAYOFFS IS NOT
FEASIBLE NOR WILL IT FULFILL
THE ORIGINAL POLICY GOALS THAT
WE ARE FUELING THE SUPPORT OF
THAT PROVISO.
>> THANK YOU.
IN ADDITION TO OUR PUBLIC
SAFETY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
RULES THERE IS ACTUALLY A
PROHIBITION THAT WE DISCOVERED
EARLIER THIS YEAR IN STATE LAW
PASSED IN 2018 FOR TAKING ANY
ADVERSE ACTION AGAINST AN
OFFICER THAT IS ON THE BRADY
LIST.
I MYSELF, THERE IS SOME BRADY
LIST RELATED BILLS IN THE STATE
LEGISLATURE THIS YEAR AND I
TESTIFIED TO HAVE THAT LANGUAGE
CHANGED AND THAT IS NOT ONE OF
THE REFORMS THAT MOVED FORWARD.
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD.
I SIMILARLY WANTED TO AS
SOMEONE WHO WENT ON THAT
SIMILAR JOURNEY WITH SOME OF
THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THIS
COMMITTEE AND LOOKING INTO THE
OUT OF ORDER LAYOFFS FOR
PEOPLE, OFFICERS ON THE BRADY
LIST, JUST TO DOVETAIL ON YOUR
LAST COMMENT, COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD.
THIS IS A PRIME ISSUE FOR
INTERIM TO WORK WITH OUR
LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION IN THE
RUN UP TO THE NEXT SESSION TO
REALLY PUT AN EMPHASIS ON THIS .
WE KIND OF FOUND THESE
REVELATIONS OF SOME OF THE
ISSUES IN THE STATE LAW A
LITTLE LATER IN THE SESSION.
I THINK WITH THE RUN UP TO THE
NEXT ONE THIS IS A REALLY PRIME
AREA TO WORK TOGETHER WITH OUR
PARTNERS INSIDE AND OUTSIDE
CITY HALL THROUGH THIS REALLY
CRITICAL REFORM.
I THINK IT IS UNBELIEVABLY
COUNTER TO THE PUBLIC POLICY
INTEREST THAT OFFICERS ON THE
BRADY LIST ARE SO INSULATED AND
PROTECTED FROM THIS KIND OF
ACCOUNTABILITY. IT WAS REALLY
DISCOURAGING TO SEE THAT AND
THE SOLUTION TO THAT SITS IN
SOME ESSENTIAL CHANGES TO STATE
LAW AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THOSE
CONVERSATIONS TO CRAP THOSE
POLICIES AND FIGHT FOR THEM IN
THE NEXT SESSION.
>> THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT.
SEEING NONE.
THE CLERK, PLEASE CALL ROLE.
>> THIS IS FOR AMENDMENT 1.
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ.
YES.
COUNCIL MEMBER LEWIS.
I. COUNCILMEMBER MORALES.
NO.
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT . NO.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
YES.
>> THANK YOU.
NEXT WE WILL MOVE INTO THE
UNDERLYING BILL AND MOVE
COUNCIL BILL 1199 81 AS
AMENDED.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU.
ANY DISCUSSION OF THE AMENDED
VERSION OF COUNCIL BILL 1199 81.
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES.
>> THIS IS BEEN A FRUSTRATING
PROCESS, I WILL SAY.
WE ARE ALL FEELING A LITTLE
FRUSTRATED BY THE THINGS WE ARE
LEARNING ALONG THE WAY AS WE
TRIED TO HOLD OURSELVES
ACCOUNTABLE TO THE CHANGES THAT
WE WANT TO MAKE ON BEHALF OF
COMMUNITY. THE WAY THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT WORKS IN THE WAY THE
CITY FUNDS THE DEPARTMENT.
I WANT TO SAY THAT I WOULD
SUPPORT THIS BILL, IF IT WAS
STILL FOLLOWING THE ORIGINAL
INTENT, WHICH WAS TO ENFORCE
BUDGET ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SPD.
BUT THIS AMENDMENT DOES NOT
JUST CHANGE -- THIS NEW BILL
DOES NOT CHANGE THE BILL IT
REVERSES THE IMPACT OF WHAT WE
ATTENDED AND I CANNOT SUPPORT
IT.
I THINK WE NEED TO REINSTATE
THE PROVISO ON THE $5 MILLION
IN FUTURE SAVINGS.
AND I AM SORT OF IN THE SAME
BOAT WITH COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT
AND NOT BEING ABLE TO MOVE THAT
FORWARD.
I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE
THAT SPD HAS ALREADY
ACKNOWLEDGED THEMSELVES THAT
THEY COULD ABSORB THE $5.4
MILLION REDUCTION THROUGH THEIR
SALARY SAVINGS. AND THE RECENT
REQUEST IS MOSTLY FOR NEW ITEMS
THAT WERE NOT IDENTIFIED IN THE
PREVIOUS REQUESTS.
IF THEY FIND LATER IN THE YEAR
OR EARLY NEXT YEAR THAT THEY
HAVE ADDITIONAL NEEDS, THEY
COULD COME BACK TO COUNCIL AND
REQUEST THOSE FUNDS. THERE IS
NO REASON TO PROVIDE THIS NOW.
ONLY ITEM IN THE LIST PROVIDED,
THEY ARE LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO
PAY IS THE SEPARATION PAY AT
$1.8 MILLION. AGAIN, SALARY
SAVINGS ANTICIPATED FOR THIS
YEAR COULD COVER THAT AMOUNT.
THERE IS $2.8 MILLION FOR NEW
TECHNOLOGIES INCLUDING EARLY
INTERVENTION SYSTEM.
WHICH BY THE WAY SPD HAS BEEN
FUNDED FOR ALREADY FOR THE LAST
10 YEARS AND THAT IS NOT DONE
ANYTHING TO IMPROVE USE OF
FORCE VIOLATIONS IN THE
DEPARTMENT.
IN FACT, THE DEPARTMENT REQUIRES
FOR AN OFFICER TO HAVE SIX
DIFFERENT INCIDENTS BEFORE THEY
ARE EVEN ASSESSED INTO THE
PROGRAM.
IT DOES NOT DO ANYTHING TO
PREVENT USE OF FORCE VIOLATIONS.
IN 2015, THE CITY AUDIT OF SPD
PUBLIC DISCLOSURE FOUND SERIOUS
ISSUES WITH THE DEPARTMENT.
THEY WERE NOT KEEPING TRACK OF
INFORMATION.
THE REPORT MADE SEVERAL
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE
DEPARTMENT AS FAR AS WE KNOW
THE DEPARTMENT HAS TAKEN NO
ACTION ON THOSE AND IN FACT IN
THE LAST SIX YEARS THERE HAVE
NOT BEEN ANY REAL IMPROVEMENTS
MADE TO THAT.
I THINK THE RECENT NEWS THAT THE
TEXT OF THE FORMER CHIEF HAS
GONE MISSING IS ANOTHER
INDICATION THAT THE DEPARTMENT
IS NOT SERIOUS ABOUT FULFILLING
THIS OBLIGATION.
WE ALSO KNOW THERE IS A HISTORY
OF UNCHECKED ABUSE OF EVERY
TIME.
2016 AUDITOR'S REPORT FOUND
THEY HAD SIGNIFICANT GAPS IN
CONTROLS AND THEY WERE NOT
COLLECTING DATA ABOUT OVERTIME
AND THEY DID NOT REVIEW THE
TOTALS OF OVERTIME EITHER.
SINCE THEN THE DEPARTMENT IS
MADE VERY FEW CHANGES.
THERE IS JUST A PATTERN OF EVEN
WITH THE DEPARTMENT IS AUDITED
AND RECOMMENDATIONS ARE MADE OF
HOW TO APPROVE ACCOUNTABILITY,
THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE NOT
BEING FOLLOWED.
SPD IS CHOOSING TO PRIORITIZE
THEIR TRANSFER OF 100 OFFICERS
OUT OF SPECIALTY UNITS INTO THE
COMMUNITY RESPONSE GROUP.
THAT IS WHAT HAS RESULTED IN
FEWER STAFFING AND A SPECIALTY
UNITS AND IT IS EASILY REMEDIED
BY MOVING THE OFFICERS BACK TO
THEIR UNIT. THE DEPARTMENT
CLAIMS THAT 911 RESPONSE TIME
IS A PRIORITY ABOUT THESE
OFFICERS DON'T RESPOND TO 911.
THEY RESPOND TO PROTESTS.
EVEN WHEN THEY ARE COUNTED AS
911 RESPONDERS AS WAS REPORTED
IN THE MARCH 9 PRESENTATION TO
THIS COMMITTEE, THE RESPONSE
TIME IS ACTUALLY NO DIFFERENT.
THE DEPARTMENT HAS THE OFFICERS
IT NEEDS, WHERE THEY CHOOSE TO
DEPLOY THEM IS UP TO THE
DEPARTMENT OBVIOUSLY.
BUT THEY CAN'T USE THAT AS AN
EXCUSE TO SAY THEY NEED
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THE
STAFFING ISSUES.
THIS IS A FUNDING CRISIS OF THE
DEPARTMENT SO MAKING. THEY
DECIDED TO OVERSPEND ON
OVERTIME LAST SUMMER, GIVING
MORE FUNDING WILL NOT PREVENT
CRIME. IT WILL NOT ADDRESS THE
HOMELESSNESS ISSUE IN OUR CITY.
IT WILL NOT REDUCE SUBSTANCE
ABUSE.
IT WILL NOT IMPROVE MENTAL
HEALTH OUTCOMES FOR COMMITTEE
MEMBERS.
ONLY INVESTING IN COMMUNITY
SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS WILL DO
THAT.
AND THAT IS WHAT COMMUNITY HAS
BEEN ASKING FOR.
A SHIFT IN THE WAY WE ALLOCATE
OUR PUBLIC DOLLARS. OUR GOAL
SHOULD BE INVESTING IN A WAY
THAT CHANGES COMMUNITY
CONDITIONS, LEAD TO BETTER
HEALTH AND BETTER WELL-BEING
AND REWARDING SPD FOR
OVERSPENDING OUTSIDE OF HIS
BUDGET AUTHORITY WILL NOT
ENCOMPASS THAT.
I WILL BE VOTING NO ON THIS
BILL.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES . ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR
THOUGHTS? I AM NOT SEEING ANY
RAISED HANDS.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
THIS BILL HAS BEEN REALLY
DIFFICULT AND CHALLENGING TO
DEAL WITH.
I APPRECIATE THE POSITION YOU
ARE IN AND I APPRECIATE THAT
YOU ARE WORKING TOWARDS
DEVELOPING A THOUGHTFUL
THREADING OF THE NEEDLE HERE.
TO ALLOW US TO MOVE FORWARD ON
THIS.
UNFORTUNATELY, FOR DIFFERENT
REASONS THAN HAVE ALREADY BEEN
STATED BY MY COLLEAGUES ON THIS
COMMITTEE, ALSO PLAN TO VOTE NO
ON THIS BILL.
AGAIN, FOR SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT
REASONS.
THAT WILL LEAD TO MY POSITION
TO NOT ULTIMATELY SUPPORT
PASSING THIS BILL. IT HAD BEEN
MY HOPE THAT OVER THE LAST
SEVERAL MONTHS THAT WE WOULD BE
ABLE TO COME TO SOME CONSENSUS
WITH THE DEPARTMENT, WITH
STAKEHOLDERS, WITH THE MAYOR'S
OFFICE, AS IT RELATES TO THE
$5.4 MILLION PROPOSAL. I KNOW
AT THE END OF THE YEAR THE
POSITION ON THE EXECUTIVE SIDE
WAS TO OPPOSE IT AND NOT BE
SUPPORTIVE OF THE BILL.
I THINK POSITIONS HAVE SADLY
ONLY FURTHER ENTRENCHED SINCE
WE HAVE FIRST INTRODUCED THIS
BILL AT THE END OF THE YEAR.
AT THIS POINT, I FEEL LIKE WE
HAVE A PROPOSED PIECE OF
LEGISLATION BEFORE US THAT
EVERYONE, FOR THEIR OWN
REASONS, UNHAPPY WITH.
I THINK THAT UNFORTUNATELY THAT
LEAVES ME IN A POSITION TO NOT
BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS BILL
FOR THAT REASON. BUT ALSO
BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE
COUNCIL WOULD BE BETTER SERVED
WAITING UNTIL LATER IN THE YEAR
TO TAKE ACTION RELATED TO THESE
PROPOSED CUTS AND TO THE
PROPOSALS RELATED TO LIFTING OF
MY $5 MILLION PROVISO. WE KNOW
THE EXECUTIVE IS GOING TO BE
BACK BEFORE THE COUNCIL PRETTY
SOON IN SEPTEMBER WITH PROPOSED
BUDGET CHANGES TO THE SEATTLE
POLICE DEPARTMENT'S BUDGET.
THIS COULD TAKE THE FORM OF
GRANT ACCEPTANCES, SPECIAL
EVENTS, COST IN STAFFING AND
OVERTIME COST, SEPARATION PAY,
PAID FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE
REIMBURSEMENTS, THE LIST
PROBABLY GOES ON.
I THINK THESE ARE ISSUES THAT
NEED TO BE ADDRESSED, CERTAINLY
THROUGH A PRE-SUPLEMENTAL
ORDINANCE BUT THEN WE WILL ALSO
HAVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO
CONSIDER SPD'S FULL HOLISTIC
BUDGET DURING THE FALL BUDGET
PROCESS.
AND I THINK RIGHT NOW WHAT IS
MISSING FOR ME IS THAT WE DON'T
KNOW IN WHICH DIRECTION,
WHETHER AN INCREASE OR DECREASE
IN THE BUDGET THAT THESE
ACTIONS WILL LEAD TO TAKE.
MONTHS FROM NOW THE COUNCIL I
THINK WILL HAVE MUCH MORE
FLEXIBILITY AND MUCH MORE
ACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT HOW
TO FIND SOME REAL PRECISION
AROUND THE BUDGET AND ACTIONS
THAT MIGHT BE NECESSARY IN
ORDER TO THREAD THE NEEDLE IN A
WAY THAT MAY BE MORE
SATISFACTORY TO THOSE WHO WE
ARE HEARING FROM.
I AM UNFORTUNATELY NOT GOING TO
BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE BILL
TODAY. BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT WE
HAVE EXHAUSTED OUR DEBATE
PROCESS IN COMMITTEE.
AND WOULD SUPPORT MOVING
FORWARD ON THIS BILL WITH A
VOTE TODAY, EVEN IF IT IS A
DIVIDED REPORT WITH THE
RECOMMENDATION NOT TO PASS.
I STILL THINK COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD, YOU HAVE RUN THE
COURSE AND YOUR COMMITTEE WORK
SESSIONS ON THIS BILL.
AND IF THAT IS HOW THE BOAT AND
IS UP, THEN THE FULL COUNCIL
WILL HAVE THE COMMITTEE'S
RECOMMENDATION ONE WAY OR THE
OTHER. AND WE CAN BE PREPARED
TO MOVE FORWARD ON THIS BUDGET
ISSUE IN FULL COUNCIL AS NEEDED.
>> THANK YOU.
BEFORE I MOVE TO COUNCILMEMBER
LEWIS, I DO WANT TO ASK WHAT I
HOPE IS A CLARIFYING QUESTION.
GIVEN YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT THE
SERIOUSNESS OF THE ROLE OF THE
MONITOR TO BASICALLY SUPERVISE
THE CITY AS IT RELATES TO
OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CONSENT
DECREE, ARE YOU NOT CONCERNED
THAT CONTINUING TO TIE UP $7.5
MILLION IN BUDGET AUTHORITY
WILL NOT DRAW THE SUPERVISION
OF THE MONITOR. WE ARE NOT JUST
HEARING, DON'T CUT THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT'S BUDGET FROM THE
MONITOR.
WE ARE ALSO HEARING FROM SPD
THAT THEY ARE SEEKING THAT
ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY
ASSOCIATED WITH LIFTING THE
PROVISOS.
AND THAT IS THE SPIRIT IN WHICH
I THOUGHT WE VOTED IN THE LAST
COMMITTEE MEETING FOR THE
SUBSTITUTE WHICH INCLUDED THE
LIFTING OF THE $5 MILLION
PROVISO AS WELL AS TODAY'S
AMENDMENT, WAS OUT OF CONCERNED
THAT THE MONITOR WOULD FLAG FOR
THE JUDGE THE FACT THAT WE ARE
HOLDING $7.5 MILLION THAT THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT CANNOT ACCESS.
>> I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION.
I DO THINK FUNCTIONALLY THERE
IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A
PROVISO AND A BUDGET CUT.
PROVISO DOES SORT OF RESTRICT
THE SPENDING OF THE DOLLARS BUT
DOESN'T CATEGORICALLY REDUCE
THE BUDGET FURTHER FOR THE
DEPARTMENT.
MY READING OF THE
COMMUNICATIONS I HAVE SEEN FROM
CHIEF DIAZ TO THE MONITOR HAS
INDICATED THAT THIS BILL, AS
AMENDED, IS TOO RESTRICTIVE.
AND DOES NOT ACTUALLY FULFILL
ITS ABILITY.
I THINK UNFORTUNATELY THAT THE
FEDERAL COURT POLICE MONITOR
BASED ON MY READING OF HIS
COMMUNICATIONS AGREES WITH THAT
PERSPECTIVE IS EXPRESSED BY
SPD.
I AM NOT SURE -- I THINK WE
WANT TO HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY
IN ORDER TO FULFILL THE INTENT
OF THE CONSENT DECREE AND THE
OBLIGATIONS OF THE CONSENT
DECREE, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT
THE COURT OR THE FEDERAL POLICE
MONITOR WILL AGREE WITH OUR
PERSPECTIVE THAT THIS BILL
ACCOMPLISHES THAT FLEXIBILITY
GOAL.
FOR THAT REASON, I THINK BEING
IN A STATUS QUO POSITION OF
WHERE WE ENDED LAST YEAR, WHICH
DID INCLUDE THE PROVISO, IS
KIND OF EIGHT NO FILE, NO HARM
POSITION AS IT RELATES TO OUR
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CONSENT
DECREE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
>> THIS IS A QUESTION FOR GREG.
BUT I THINK COUNCILMEMBER
GONZALEZ JUST ANSWERE IT.
EFFECTIVELY, WERE THIS BILL TO
BE ULTIMATELY NOT PASSED AT
FULL COUNCIL. EVEN IF IT COMES
OUT ON A DIVIDED MINORITY
VOTING IN FAVOR OF IT, AND IT
WENT TO FULL COUNCIL AND DID
NOT PASS. WE WOULD ESSENTIALLY
BE BACK TO WHERE WE WERE WITH
THE BUDGET WE PASSED IN
NOVEMBER, WITH EVERYTHING
UNALTERED, IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT
THE OUTCOME WOULD BE OF NOT
PASSING ANYTHING.
BUT I SEE COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD
NODDING.
I JUST THROW THAT OVER TO GREG
TO CLARIFY.
>> YES.
THAT IS CORRECT. THERE WOULD BE
CONTINUED RESTRICTIONS ON THE
SALARY SAVINGS OF $5 MILLION
AND THERE WOULD BE CONTINUED
RESTRICTIONS ON THE OUT OF
ORDER LAYOFFS OF 2.5 MAY DOLLARS
.
>> THEY WOULD ALSO NOT BE THE
ADDITIONAL $2 MILLION FOR
PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING.
THAT WE INDICATE IN THIS BILL.
>> YES.
>> JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.
>> WE COULD PULL OUT THE $2.5
MILLION PROVISO FOR THE OUT OF
ORDER LAYOFFS AND RUN THAT IS A
SEPARATE BILL?
>> THAT IS ABSOLUTELY THE
COUNCIL'S PURVIEW TO DO SO.
>> BUT NOT TODAY.
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
WE HAVE EXHAUSTED DEBATE ON
THIS BILL.
THAT WAS INTRODUCED BACK IN
DECEMBER.
WITH THAT, I AM GOING TO ASK
THE CLERK TO CALL ROLE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ.
NO.
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
YES.
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES.
NO.
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
NO.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
YES.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THEY VOTE IS 2-3 AGAINST.
THE RECOMMENDATION WILL NOT
PASS THE BILL THE
RECOMMENDATION WITH A DIVIDED
REPORT WILL BE SENT TO THE FULL
CITY COUNCIL.
UNDER THE COUNCIL ROLES THE
LEGISLATION WILL NOT GO TO THE
IMMEDIATE FULL COUNCIL MEETING
UNTIL THE FOLLOWING MONDAY.
AND THAT WILL BE MAY 24.
WITH THAT, THE NEXT PUBLIC
SAFETY AND HUMAN SERVICES
COMMITTEE IS SCHEDULED FOR MAY
25. BEFORE WE ADJOURN ARE THERE
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? SEEING NONE.
WE ARE ADJOURNED.