Public Safety and Human Services Committee 5/9/23

♪ ♪ ♪

I'm sorry, Council Member Mosqueda is excused.

Council Member Nelson.

Present.

Council Member Peterson.

Present.

Vice Chair Lewis.

Present.

Chair Herbold.

Here.

For present.

Thank you so much.

On today's agenda, we will be hearing first an appointment to the Community Police Commission.

Then we will be lifting a or considering lifting a budget proviso for the human services appropriations to support a human services program that we'll talk more about amending ordinance 126725, which adopted the 2023 budget.

We'll also be receiving an update on the lead co lead contract.

And then finally, we'll be receiving a briefing on a draft draft app based workers deactivation rights ordinance.

This is again, this is a draft bill.

It has not been introduced yet, but want to share.

the status of the ordinance and the content that we have so far with the results of the stakeholder engagement that is ongoing.

At this time, we will transition into public comment.

I'll moderate the public comment period in the following manner.

Each speaker will have one and a half minutes to speak.

I'll alternate between virtual and in-person public commenters.

I'll call on each speaker by name and in the order in which they registered on the council's website and on the sign-in form.

If you've not yet registered to speak but you would like to do so, you can sign up before the end of the public comment session.

And once I call a speaker's name, if you are using the virtual option, you will hear a prompt.

And once you've heard that prompt, you need to press star six to unmute yourself.

Please begin speaking by stating your name and the item which you are addressing.

Speakers will hear a chime when 10 seconds are left of the allotted time.

And once the speaker hears that chime, we ask that you begin to wrap up your public comments.

If speakers do not end their comments at the end of the allotted time provided, the speaker's mic will be muted after 10 seconds to allow us to hear from the next speaker.

Once you've completed your public comment, We ask that you please disconnect from the line.

And if you plan to continue following the meeting, we ask that you please do so via the Seattle channel or the listening options listed on the agenda.

We have 14 people signed up for public comment.

Four of those individuals are virtual and 10 are in person.

Oh, I think that's the other way around.

10 are virtual and four are in person.

And again, I will, read folks' names into the record two at a time, starting with the in-person options.

We'll have Alex Zimmerman followed by Michael Wolff.

Thank you.

Michael, my dirty, crazy, stupid, Nazi, garbage, rats, a psychopath, a nine, stupid, absolutely mentally sick psychopath.

My name Alex Zimmerman.

Where is my picture?

Oh, no.

Okay, I stay in this with my red sign and my yellow Jewish star.

You know what this mean?

Yeah.

Again and again.

After 14 trespasses that expired yesterday, I come back again.

Again and again and again and again.

And I will come again and again before we clean this dirty chamber from this psychopath with Nazi Gestapo principle.

a mentally sick nine consul what is can be elect only in city with 750,000 degenerate idiot and slave.

That's exactly what has happened.

14 trespass to expire yesterday and I come again and again and again.

1,200 day I cannot go to consul chamber.

No analogy in American history.

I am a sea liberty right now.

You're supposed to be giving me two minutes because I'm seeing a liberty right now.

Stand up, 750,000 idiota.

Thank you very much.

Our next speaker will be Michael Wolf and Michael will be followed by Nguyen The An.

Good morning.

My name is Mike Wolfe.

I'm the executive director of Drive Forward.

I'm here to comment on the draft legislation to outbake workers' deactivation rights.

First, I'd like to thank Council Members Herbold and Lewis for introducing this important piece of legislation.

I'd also like to thank their staff members, Sonny Nguyen and Camilla Brown, and central staff members, Karina Bull and Jasmine Rojar, for meeting with us and listening to our concerns over this proposed ordinance.

We're very pleased to see that some of our feedback was implemented in this latest draft, especially around making the definition of egregious misconduct more specific.

However, we do feel it needs to be clearer language on when an app based worker can be deactivated by a company if or when they have accumulated multiple traffic infractions or at fault accidents.

in a specific period of time.

This language is important so that app-based workers know exactly what is required to maintain their accounts on the apps or to newly sign up for work on the apps.

Again, thank you for bringing forth this legislation that provides valuable protections for app-based workers.

I'm happy to continue to work with council and staff to make this legislation really good.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Nguyen Theon followed by Georgina and Hannah Savio-Hall.

Howell.

Good morning, council.

I wish we can meet in different circumstances as a resident of the city for 30 years.

We all felt and seen the changes over the years.

And I'm here because for the past 10 years, I could not get any of your public office hours to have a one-on-one meeting.

I wrote several articles just to mention about the state of our city.

I'm here because I felt that the city have neglected its duty as a guardian to this entire city.

Major constructions popping up everywhere, and it is promoted by city leaderships to have affordable housing, yet we never address the core of the problems of the drugs epidemic.

The bottom line is mental health.

We just don't have enough treatment.

As a veteran, as someone who worked in early childhood education and working in cities and now working for the states, I've seen the aspects of human suffering and we are not doing a very good job.

By increasing just affordable housing, we are passing the cost to the renter and the homeowner.

Instead of that, we need to increase private home ownerships.

I'm also here to beg you to raise a penalty of the construction violation to $10,000 per incidents.

I've been awakened by high impact constructions before the hours of city ordinance allow.

I have been seeing sidewalk being taken over for a period of a year, up to four years by construction company.

There's no regards.

City issues unlimited permits to construction.

This has to stop.

It's a violation of civil rights.

Thank you.

Thank you our next speaker is Georgina and how and I believe we might have interpretation services.

Okay.

and you'll be given an extra bit of time to accommodate.

Durante el verano del 2022, la comunidad latina hispana vio a sus trabajadores golpeados durantemente por el desempleo.

No fue diferente en la comunidad de gift workers.

Pensé que estaría a salvo porque soy un gran Dasher.

No quería creer que estas gift companies estaban apuntando a latinos, latinas, pero es difícil ignorar cuando tus amigos y familiares también se desactivan de sus propias cuentas.

At the end of summer of 2022, workers in the Latino and Hispanic communities were hit hard by the lack of employment opportunities.

The gig worker community faced a similar situation.

I thought that I would be safe because I'm a great dasher.

I didn't want to believe that these gig companies were targeting Latinas and Latinos, but it's hard to ignore this fact when your family members and friends accounts are also being deactivated.

Muy frustrante porque para mí no sé la razón de la que cerraron mi cuenta.

No entendí la situación.

No me dieron ninguna aclaración al respecto.

Me hicieron apelaciones, pero no se dieron respuesta.

Este paro laboral no solo me afectó a mí y a mi familia, sino a otros a quienes les estaban pagando, como a mis médicos, mi alquiler.

Las tres semanas que no pude trabajar, no pude pagar mis facturas, y esas facturas se inflaron debido a la falta de pago.

Algo tan simple como una multa de estacionamiento creció de dos a tres veces porque no pude pagarla a tiempo.

My account was deactivated twice.

It was very frustrating for me because I didn't know the reason why they closed my account.

I didn't understand what was going on and I wasn't given an explanation as to why my account was being deactivated.

Appeals were made, but no answers were given.

This work stoppage affected not only me and my family, it also affected others whom I was paying, like my doctors and my rent.

I wasn't able to pay my bills during the three weeks that I wasn't able to work and those bills grew exponentially because of non-payment.

Something as simple as a parking ticket increased to two to three times the original amount because I couldn't pay it on time.

I went from working for DoorDash to working for Uber Eats since I had to keep making money.

And within a couple of months, I also received a deactivation letter from Uber Eats.

I was notified in January that my account had been closed.

I submitted an appeal statement in hopes that I could get back to work.

DoorDash o Uber Eats te penaliza y te desactiva por tomar decisiones económicas de si puedes o no tomar un pedido.

No puedes trabajar gratis.

Necesitamos protecciones de desactivación para hacer de este un trabajo confiable y no algo que pueda perder en cualquier momento sin explicación.

DoorDash or Uber Eats penalize and deactivate your account for making economic decisions about whether or not you accept an order.

You can't work for free.

We need protections against deactivation in order to make this a reliable job and not one that I can lose at any moment with no explanation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Howard Gale and Howard will be followed by Edwin Bregado.

Howard.

Good morning, Howard Gale with seattlestop.org and the Seattle Human Rights Commission Criminal Justice Task Force.

Chair Herbold, six years ago, the SPD murder of Charlene Alliles, after the SPD murder of Charlene Alliles, you said, and I quote, what I am pledging to you is to work on finding a new way of doing things so that we actually get different results, unquote.

Yet the SPD went on to kill Albert Frederick, Jr., ISF Altogo, Danny Rodriguez, Ryan Smith, Sean Leeford, Terry Caver, Derek Hayden, and the person who remains still unnamed killed by the SPD on Beacon Hill last year.

All of these people were holding no weapon when killed or were experiencing a severe behavioral health crisis while holding a knife.

All these killings were deemed, quote, lawful and proper by our police accountability system.

The profoundly lacking response to these continued killings is explained by who gets appointed to the Community Police Commission.

Today, you will appoint an SPD officer Well, over the last 10 years, the CPC has had not one single member who is directly impacted by serious SPD violence.

You privilege and seat the abusers and you silence the abused, shutting out their voices.

The CPC has been unrelenting in silencing and gaslighting the community, going so far as to prevent the public from commenting at CPC meetings.

This unrelenting culture of shutting out the pain of the community has now led to the council and the accountability system rendering the one program for these affected people the APD program dead on the run.

Where is the shame?

Where is the empathy?

Where are the different results?

Thank you.

Our next speaker signed up is Edwin Bergato.

Edwin's showing is not present.

Next, we'll move down to Danielle Alvarado and Danielle will be followed by Castille Hightower.

Danielle.

Good morning.

My name is Danielle Alvarado.

I'm the Executive Director of Working Washington.

I'm here to express our strong support for the draft deactivation ordinance and to thank the sponsors for their thoughtful engagement process to date.

Deactivation consistently comes up as a top priority among our members across all apps.

Deactivation means immediate loss of income, and for many gig workers, this sets off a chain reaction where they risk eviction, losing their car, and not being able to afford basic medical care.

It has profound consequences, and in many cases, it's avoidable.

One of our members was deactivated from Rody last year after he was assigned an after-hours delivery that required a signature.

He was left to choose between completing the delivery and not getting a signature or not finishing the job.

When he was deactivated, he tried to communicate with app support, but he could only text.

He never could get a human being on the phone and never got a straight answer about what he could do to explain the situation.

Unfortunately, we hear stories like this all the time.

Workers across apps have too many common experiences of being deactivated because of uninvestigated customer complaints, bias in facial recognition software, and for needing to take time off, among other things.

The draft policy is a substantial step forward in establishing the basic rights any worker should have.

Deactivation protections are a critical piece of ensuring our other labor standards really mean something in the lives of gig workers.

We are glad to see the council remains committed to addressing this urgent issue and we look forward to introduction later this month.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Castille Hightower and Castille will be followed by Allison Ford.

My name is Castille Hightower and I'm the sister of Herbert Hightower Jr. who was murdered by Seattle police while he was experiencing a mental health crisis.

Similarly to the ways in which Seattle police have continued to brutally murder Seattle residents while under the consent decree, including a gentleman who had his crotch attacked by an SPD canine before being shot to death, whose name the CPC has never even bothered to utter.

And the SPD has never been held accountable for.

Today, the CPC is set to add yet another police officer as a commissioner as they continue to bully, silence, and systemically prevent Seattle residents directly harmed by Seattle police violence to have a voice, including creating a safe enough space within their own commission for an affected person to become a commissioner themselves, something I've directly had to deal with.

Blocking the affected persons program for five months and refusing to create an appeals process for victims for six years only to begin talking about it as a way to undermine the affected person's program, and then promptly and conveniently giving excuse after excuse after excuse as to why there's no reason to even try to create one to begin with.

The city wants to call SPD a model department as we continue to be brutalized, murdered, and silenced.

They want to call SPD an example, as all efforts of actual accountability and actual centering of affected voices is attacked, stalled, and then promptly swept under the rug.

A model, an example, I call it a farce, and we deserve better.

Shame on you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Allison Ford.

And Allison will be followed by Valerie Schlarrett.

Good morning.

Good morning Chair Herbold and committee members.

My name is Allison Ford.

I am a public policy manager for Uber here in Seattle.

I am calling today regarding the proposed Seattle App-Based Worker Deactivation Rights Ordinance.

I wanted to begin by thanking those committee members and staff that have met with us regarding this proposed ordinance to hear our feedback and concerns.

Uber shares the values intentions and motivations behind the proposed ordinance.

At the same time, we do have serious concerns with several provisions in the proposed draft that severely limit our ability to ensure a safe environment for customers, small business partners, and delivery workers.

Our primary concern is to ensure that our platform remains safe to use and that we retain the ability to protect the privacy of individuals that use our platform from exposing their personal information beyond what is necessary to temporarily complete an order.

We take the safety and reliability of our platform seriously and we require the ability to protect access to our platform from users that have displayed behavior or a pattern of behavior that could put the health safety and economic well-being of individuals and small businesses in Seattle at risk.

We are hopeful for the continued opportunity to work with the ordinance sponsors and stakeholders to improve this draft with an outcome that protects workers and provides them with the process they need without sacrificing the safety and privacy of Seattle customers and small businesses.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Valerie Schleret.

Valerie followed by Catherine Holm.

Good morning.

Good morning.

My name is Valerie Schleret.

I've been following Seattle's police reform under the consent decree for over a decade and have seen how it fails.

That's obvious if you measure what matters most like how many people are killed in encounters with SPD, how SPD reacts to protest, and whether officers are held accountable for egregious unnecessary harm.

Remember that a police officer killed a pedestrian when he sped through a marked crosswalk in South Lake Union in January.

We're still waiting in that case for SPD to announce an outcome to what should be a straightforward internal investigation.

On May 30th, the city will ask the federal court to lift part of the consent decree.

To do this, it has declared the reform process a great success.

Let's be honest.

The reform process has not worked to improve the most critical areas of policing and oversight.

What it has done is create a large expense of bureaucracy that creates a false appearance for accountability while stifling the voices of those community members who are most affected by policing.

Please abandon the triumphalist rhetoric and support efforts to create the APP, the Affected Persons Program, created by people for people most affected by harmful policing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Catherine Holm, and Catherine will be followed by Anna Powell.

Good morning, Chair Herbold and members of the committee.

My name is Catherine Holm, and I am the Western Region Deputy Manager for Instacart.

We are here today to comment with concerns surrounding the deactivation proposal.

That said, We appreciate the stakeholder process and the meetings done on this issue so far.

Inscart has operated in Washington since 2014 to deliver groceries and other essential goods to thousands of households.

We partner with nearly 54 grocers across 1,500 locations, helping them grow their business, serve their customers, and support their local communities.

In the rare and unfortunate case where a shopper needs to be removed from our platform we have a thorough deactivation process in place.

I want to be very clear.

The safety of Instacart shoppers, customers, and retailers is paramount.

When signing up to shopper Instacart, shoppers agree to the Instacart independent contractor agreement and account access guidelines.

There is no situation where a shopper would be deactivated without first being suspended and an investigation into the behavior taking place.

Depending on the alleged violation a shopper may even receive multiple notices before a suspension occurs.

To be shopper activated the shopper has the right to request an appeal and the average appeal response time is less than 12 hours.

We look forward to continuing to work on the proposed ordinance with other stakeholders to ensure the Seattle community can remain safe.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Anna Powell, and Anna will be followed by Coco Weber.

Hi, Council Member Herbold and members of the committee.

My name is Anna Powell, and I'm the Manager of Government Relations in the Northwest for DoorDash, a technology company that empowers your local community.

We take deactivation seriously, and we work to ensure that any Dasher who is deactivated has an opportunity to appeal that decision.

a full deactivation policy can be found on our website.

Though well-intentioned, we want to ensure that this overly broad bill does not limit our ability to act quickly in rare instances of fraud or other harmful behaviors where an immediate deactivation is necessary to protect merchants and customers.

We also have concerns about the bill's broad disclosure requirements that could potentially spur unsafe escalation, as well as the broad definition of deactivation.

which would essentially include any restriction to accessing the platform, like in the instance of a severe weather event.

We appreciate the progress that has been made on the bill thus far, and we hope to continue working with the council and community advocates to help shape this policy to keep platforms like ours safe.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Coco Weber, and Coco will be followed by Jill Williams.

Hi, my name's Coco.

I live in D3 and I'm calling to testify on behalf of a medical professional who also lives in D3 who is asking the council to not expand criminalization for people who are seeking help around fire services.

This medical professional experienced a situation where they were a plain clothes person who was responding to an overdose and they were there to give chest compressions and they were forced to leave the space by a police officer.

It didn't matter that they were explaining that they're a medical professional.

They were still forced to be removed from that situation.

Overall, it has been shared that when we criminalize services around medical care, that is going to inevitably lead to the unintended consequence of people dying because they will not want to access services when it means that there will be officers involved.

I'm asking for myself to please do your due diligence and run the social justice toolkit before putting this forth as a vote.

This is everybody here committed to having a more equitable council, more equitable policymaking.

And the way that we do that is by running that toolkit.

And there's no reason why we should be waiting to see the unintended consequences after we put this forward.

Thank you.

Please delay the vote.

Run the toolkit.

See what the unintended consequences will be.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Jill Williams.

And Jill is showing as not present.

So we'll move down to our last speaker that signed up, which is Aiden McCarroll.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

I am calling in support of the deactivation protections and also against the firefighter zone because firefighters are not aligned on this and there are other ways to establish a zone without criminal punishment for breaking a perimeter.

There can be a safety perimeter otherwise.

If council cares about the jail death, they won't create a new law that sends more little people to the jail.

We need to decrease contact between SPD and the public.

And SPD is how people, we trust to make these decisions.

I want to remind, if it hasn't already been said, the incident In Red Square, when someone was shot on Trump's inauguration day, there was someone holding, um, uh, the wounds were, um, and the police demanded this and forced them to move away when they were, you know, even at risk of them, you know, bleeding out.

We're lucky that they survived.

The police are not necessarily the people we trust to decide who is providing medical assistance and who is not.

I really encourage you to read the full op-ed by Latanya Sevier, who is a firefighter who also really understands the abolitionist perspective of which everybody has something to gain from thinking about public safety differently.

And the people who decriminalize are most of the people whose fire department will be trying to help.

Thank you.

That is our last public speaker who is showing as present.

We did have two that are showing as not present and not seeing that status change.

We will conclude public comment and move into the items on our agenda.

Clerk, please read in agenda item number one.

Agenda item one, appointment 02509, Appointment of Anthony Gadkia's member, Community Police Commission, for a term to December 31, 2025. Morning.

Thank you so much.

With us today is Community Police Commission co-chair Joel Merkle to present this appointment by the CPC.

This is an appointment to fill the Seattle Police Management Association slot, which has been vacant for a bit.

And it's an appointment made by the CPC as required by the 2027, sorry, 2017 accountability ordinance.

CPC co-chair Merkel, would you please do some introductory remarks about the work that the CPC does and then present the appointment?

Yes, thank you.

Good morning, Chair Herbold and members of the committee.

Thank you for your consideration today of Anthony Gadke to the SPMA position on the Seattle Community Police Commission.

My name is Joel Merkel.

I'm an assistant attorney general.

I'm a volunteer CPC commissioner and currently a co-chair of the commission.

And a little bit about the commission, as you know, following the 2010 shooting death by Seattle Police of First Nations woodcarver John T. Williams and a series of other serious incidents involving police and people of color, there was tremendous public concern over the use of bias and excessive force at the Seattle Police Department.

And after a federal investigation, the Department of Justice and the City of Seattle entered into a consent decree in 2012 and out of that consent decree came an MOU which created the Seattle Community Police Commission.

And in 2017, under that ordinance that Chair Herbold just referenced, the city made the Seattle Community Police Commission a permanent and independent member of the Seattle Accountability System alongside the Office of Police Accountability and the Office of Inspector General.

And as one of the three accountability partners, in the Seattle Accountability System, our vision, the CPC's vision, is that the SPD and Seattle's communities are aligned in shared goals of safety, respect, and accountability.

And our mission is to listen, amplify, and build common ground among communities that are affected by policing in Seattle.

And we work with the community and our accountability partners to ensure that police services in Seattle are rooted in the Constitution, centered justice, equity, and transparent accountability.

There are three appointing authorities for CPC commissioners.

There's the mayor's office, the city council, and the CPC itself.

And in the 2017 accountability ordinance, the city established some dedicated positions on the commission, including positions within the SPMA and also SPOG.

And I don't think it's a a coincidence that having those representatives at the table has helped the CPC and the community work together to achieve a lot of results over the course of the consent decree.

But, you know, as the commission has said, following the recent motion filed by the city and the Department of Justice to enter into a transition agreement with respect to the consent decree, the work of police accountability is never over.

police accountability, community-based police oversight is only going to become more important in a post-consent decree world.

And there is a lot of work to do, including on racial disparity, use of force and crowd control, and particularly on police accountability mechanisms through the next BOG contract.

And that's why I'm pleased to introduce Anthony Gadke of SPMA.

As you know, the city and SPMA entered into a contract last year, which, led to a lot of breakthroughs on accountability mechanisms that the CPC is hopeful to see as a baseline in the next BOG contract.

And so, you know, the CPC is happy to welcome Mr. Gadke into the commission and we look forward to his contributions and thank you for your consideration of his appointment today.

Thank you so much and thank you Mr. Gadke for being willing to serve in this capacity.

I wanna just lift up the remarks of co-chair Merkel as it relates to the progress in the SPMA contract agreements and how that progress is leading us to a better place as it relates to the consent decree and accountability more broadly and hope you and other members of SPMA saw how the city's filings with the court lifted up that work and celebrated it.

So thank you so much.

And with that, I'll turn it over to you if you want to say a few words about your interest in serving in this capacity.

Thank you, Chair Herbold.

I'd just like to thank you and Vice Chair Lewis and council members Nelson and Peterson also for this opportunity to speak to all of you this morning.

I'm in reference to my appointment.

Excuse me.

I know that the work that the Community Police Commission does is an integral part of our police accountability system here.

The Community Police Commission is the community's advocate as the commission fosters relationships with and collaborates with the various communities in Seattle.

Uh, I know that the roles of the commissioners is to engage with the community, to hear their concerns about policing in Seattle and to work with them, the community, to consider what policing should look like moving forward, as well as how to improve our police community relations.

Um, I do understand the importance of the work that the community police commission does, and I'm looking forward to serving as a commissioner.

And with that, again, just want to say thank you for this opportunity and thank you for your time and your consideration.

Absolutely.

Do council members have any additional questions or comments?

Council Member Nelson.

Hello, thank you for being here today in person and being willing to serve on the commission.

I have a question about your professional experience.

I see that since 2000 to now, you have been serving as a lieutenant and well, actually, since twenty seventeen.

But one of the one of your responsibilities is on the force review unit.

So could you please tell a little bit about that work?

Sure.

So I was assigned In the force review unit as the acting captain, so I basically ran the unit.

So the main function of the force review unit is.

All applications of force used by any officer.

It's reviewed by that unit that we have various levels of force from a type one which is very low level, very minor like somebody complaining about a handcuff application paying up to type two which would constitute injury or an officer uses a less lethal device, all the way up to a type three, which would be a serious injury up to and including an officer involved shooting.

Captain of that unit, or actually captain, excuse me, my responsibility is I had to chair our force review boards, which met every Tuesdays, and it applies myself with fellow board members.

And we would review type 2 uses a force to ensure that they were consistent with our policy laws.

and training, and if there was any issues or concerns to get those addressed through the proper remedy, either being through a referral to our office of police accountability or potentially a training issue, or maybe it's a policy gap matter to address.

And then I also sat in and co-chaired when we had to review a type three use of force.

And those were run by our assistant chief of the Bureau, Chief Cordner managed those, but I was there as a co-chair to offer any suggestions or insight.

So that process learned a lot, learned about what it meant to be part of a committee and chairing a committee, and then looking for different input and to flush out concerns or issues to get to the bottom line of how do we remedy if something even needs to be corrected.

Thank you.

It seems that being in those rooms will be relevant and helpful information for your work going forward.

Thank you.

Absolutely appreciate the relevant experience in reviewing use of force for the department.

And again, just wanna thank you for your willingness to serve.

And this is really important partnership to move the city forward and appreciate understanding your interest in your objectives and goals in playing this role.

Are there any other questions or comments?

Not seeing any, checking virtually as well.

And with that, if there are no additional comments, I'd like to move that the committee recommend the confirmation of appointment 02509. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to recommend confirmation of appointment 02509. There are no further comments.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Councilmember Nielsen.

Aye.

Councilmember Peterson.

Aye.

Vice Chair Lewis.

Yes.

Chair Herbold.

Yes.

Four yes.

Thank you so much.

The appointment will move on to the full council meeting on May 16th and congratulations and thank you.

Please read in agenda item number two.

agenda item to Council bill 120560 an ordinance relating to appropriations for the human services department amending ordinance 126725 which adopted the 2023 budget lifting a proviso and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

Thank you so much.

Good morning.

Thank you for joining us today.

We have and leave the interim deputy director for the human services department to present this legislation and would you please introduce yourself and.

I just as background the legislation lifts a proviso on funds in the 2023 adopted budget.

And after your instructions, you can you can lead the discussion and let us know what we need to know here.

Thank you, Chair Herbold and council members.

My name for the record is Annie Lee.

I'm the Interim Deputy Director for the Human Services Department.

I'm here this morning to discuss legislation that came about in the 2023 budget and the spending plan and answer any questions you might have about this.

So to start, this legislation in front of you lists a proviso included in the 2023 adopted budget for the Human Services Department funds.

Specifically, CBA HST 21-8002 specifies that $200,000 be appropriated for the therapeutic services for women who have experienced sexual exploitation on Aurora Ave.

The proviso identifies the safe, healthy, empowered clinic for this funding.

The proviso conditions authorization to release funds to come after the announcement of awards for the gender-based violence survivor services RFP.

These awards were announced in December of 2022. If approved, HSD would contract with the Safe, Healthy, Empowered Clinic and Aurora Commons, which meets all the conditions outlined in the council budget action.

For your information, the SHE clinic is a program of both Aurora Commons and partnership with Harborview Medical Center.

The funds would be used specifically for a regular mobile health unit for women on Aurora Ave facing homelessness, drug dependence, violence, and commercial sexual exploitation.

The She Clinic provides low-barrier drop-in space, multidisciplinary health care, behavioral health services including mental health care, substance abuse and counseling, and life skills.

On site, there are community advocates that also provide crisis intervention support and connection to medical and therapeutic resources, as well as emotional support and information about DV, sexual abuse, and commercially sexually exploited persons resources.

That concludes my presentation.

I would welcome any questions.

Thank you so much.

Just as background, I just want to lift up the fact that this proviso was sponsored by Council President Juarez during the budget consideration last fall and want to thank her for her leadership in this supporting this funding.

Just wondering where we are in the contracting process as HSD started those conversations with the SHE clinic in anticipation of the proviso lift.

And what do you know about the expected timeframe for moving from a conversation to executing a contract?

Yes, Chair Herbold, the Grants Contracts Unit or the MODBSA group is prepared to enter the contract right away once the proviso is lifted through this legislation.

Great.

And broadly speaking, could you speak a little bit to, with the understanding, of course, that this is probably subject to ongoing discussions right now, but could you speak broadly to the expected performance outcomes?

Oh, I am a bit unfamiliar.

I'm sorry to talk specifically about that, but we can provide that to the committee.

Absolutely.

Happy to follow up on that.

And then, understanding that this is a collaborative program run by a requirement Commons and Harborview.

Can you just help us understand how the contract will be structured?

Will one hold the city contract and subcontract with the other or how does that work?

It's my understanding that the contract is directly with Aurora Commons and they provide a number of staff and an array of services in the physical mobile unit.

Harborview also has its own staff and personnel that will come on site to provide services.

And so is the Harborview component funded separately or is there a subcontract?

I believe so.

Okay, understood.

Thank you so much.

Checking to see if there are any additional questions from my colleagues seeing none.

If there are no concerns, I'd like to get this moving and get this before the full council.

With that, I move that the committee recommends the adoption of Council Bill 12-0560.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It moved and seconded to recommend adoption of Council Bill 12-0560.

There are no additional comments.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Aye.

Vice Chair Lewis?

Yes.

Chair Herbold?

Yes.

Four yes.

Excellent.

The council move the bill to full council on May 16th.

Thank you.

Clerk, please read in agenda item number three.

Agenda item three, a lead, co-lead contract update.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

We have a couple of presenters today.

like us to get started with your introductions and then I'll have a couple quick notes to start us off and I'll pass it on to you.

Excellent.

One second while I pull this up.

While he's doing that, I can introduce myself.

I'm Tara Moss, co-executive director of PDA, Purpose, Dignity, Action, formerly the Public Defender Association.

And good morning, committee chair Herbold and council members.

My name is Chris Clayson and I serve as a strategic advisor.

for the Human Services Department.

Thanks for having us.

Yes.

Thank you for joining us today.

So this is background.

PDA serves as the project manager for LEAD, which is a voluntary collaboration among multiple jurisdictions who signed on to a memorandum of understanding back in 2010, as well as with agencies who provide services under subcontracts to the PDA.

policy guidance and oversight of lead are provided by the policy coordinating group of which I am a member, along with representatives from the King County Executive, King County Council, Mayor's Office, City Attorney's Office, King County Prosecutor's Office, SPD, and the King County Sheriff's Office.

And that is not all inclusive, but that that is that those are some of the representatives on the policy coordinating group.

In 2019, council adopted Resolution 31916, which declared our commitment to ensuring that law enforcement pre-arrest diversion programs such as LEAD receive public funding sufficient to accept all what are called priority qualifying referrals citywide.

In 2021, in response to that statement of legislative intent, the council proved and.

Lead researched and presented the lead scale study, which with the help of central staff examined the number of referrals that might be expected.

and the funding that would be required to expand pre-arrest diversion to accept those referrals.

Council has consistently acted to support and expand LEAD even in difficult budget environments, although we have not yet reached the commitment to fund LEAD at scale.

I'm really glad to have HSD and PDA with us here today to discuss the new LEAD and CoLEAD contract.

My office shared that contract with committee members yesterday as context.

And I know that the Human Services Department and PDA have been in conversation for some time about updating this contract, particularly the performance metrics.

The goal is to gather information that will help Council, and I understand more precisely, Council and I, to understand more precisely the impact of LEAD and CoLEAD in Seattle, as well as answer questions about Council's investments in LEAD over time.

And with that, I'll pass that off back to you to get it started on the presentation.

And I think we'll hold questions that we might have until the end of the presentation to let you get through it.

Thanks.

Well, thank you so much.

And on behalf of HSD, I'd just again like to thank the committee for having us here to present about our work with LEAD and CoLEAD.

Again, this presentation is really going to provide an overview of the 2023 contract for both the LEAD and CoLEAD programs that was recently executed between HSD and Purpose Dignity Action, or PDA, also formally known as Public Defender Association.

Also, before we get into it, I just want to thank Tara Moss again for joining us today, co-executive director of PDA.

First off, I just want to start off providing an introduction on HSD's role today as one of the largest contributors of Seattle's safety net, or to Seattle's safety net, excuse me.

Following that, I'll step into a discussion about the lead and co-lead program models, then provide details on the contract's performance metrics before closing out by sharing information on the overall contract budget and the amount specifically allocated to lead and co-lead, and then we will take questions.

So before getting into the contract, I just want to share a little bit more about HSD.

Our department's mission is to connect people with resources and solutions during times of need so we can all live, learn, work, and take part in strong, healthy communities.

And HSD works to accomplish this mission through six impact areas, which you can see here.

preparing youth for success, supporting affordability and livability, addressing homelessness, promoting public health, supporting safe communities, and promoting healthy aging.

One of the longstanding programs in HSD's portfolio to support safe communities is the LEAD Program, which has been alternately known as Let Everyone Advance with Dignity and Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion Program.

This is a program that allows law enforcement officers and community members to refer people who are engaged in low-level offenses that are related to behavioral health challenges or income instability to community-based services instead of jail and prosecution.

And this is including via officers making pre-booking arrest diversions.

This program is here to provide individuals with services to better their situation and to reduce harmful impacts on neighborhoods, businesses, and vulnerable residents.

CoLEAD is a second and related program that launched in 2020. It provides temporary lodging and intensive case services to LEAD eligible individuals who are unsheltered.

PDA developed the initial LEAD program and is central in implementing and project managing it.

Their work includes managing various subcontracts with service providers, convening community stakeholders to ensure needs are understood and addressed, and lastly, identifying resource gaps and developing additional supports to ensure LEAD and CoLEAD clients can succeed.

As mentioned earlier, LEAD is governed under an interjurisdictional memorandum of understanding by a policy coordinating group to which PDA's project management team reports.

The policy coordinating group's governing board sets policy and approves operational protocols for the LEAD work.

Before getting into the details of the 23 contract, I did want to provide a little more context and set the table for the discussions that guided its development.

LEAD has grown increasingly complex over time as it advanced in scale.

HSD originally funded PDA for LEAD in 2014 at $830,000.

And year over year, the contract has grown as LEAD expanded with the 2023 allocation standing at nearly $16.6 million.

Adding to this complexity was the launch of CoLEAD in 2020. This developed during the COVID-19 pandemic when many of the services and supports LEAD clients relied on became inaccessible.

PDA developed code lead so that these individuals could continue receiving intensive case management, as well as temporary lodging.

HSD provided funding to this initiative, but fully integrated co-lead into the city's portfolio in 2022. Given this growth in program complexity and budget, HSD and PDA's primary goals entering this year's contract development were to, A, bring clarity to both the program models and articulate how they separately serve the broader mission, B, improve and enhance the performance metrics to clearly detail the activities and outcomes of lead and co lead and to demonstrate how they are accomplishing those outcomes.

And finally, see provide separate budgets to understand the individual costs of each program pathway.

Ultimately, HSD and PDA executed a single contract that encapsulate both lead and co-lead.

And this was done to emphasize that the two programs are related and exist under a larger mission to address and reduce public safety concerns in Seattle.

The program seek to accomplish this at an individual community and systems level, which speaks not only to the direct services provided to clients, but also the project management and policy advocacy held by PDA.

Despite the shared mission, LEAD and CoLEAD do have very distinct service offerings, and therefore the contract, or DA23-1492, provides separate contract exhibits to clarify how both achieve the overarching mission.

This slide provides an overview of the LEAD and CoLEAD program models, describing client eligibility, services, and service providers associated with each.

Leads key eligibility criteria are individuals who commit or at high risk of committing law violations.

And the same is true for co-lead with the addition that a person receiving services must be unsheltered and having a high community impact.

Lead services include outreach based care and coordination to enroll individuals into the program.

Once enrolled, clients receive harm reduction based case management and resource navigation.

that is tailored to their specific needs and identified goals.

What this means is that individuals receive counseling and also connections to chemical dependency treatment, medical health care, legal systems coordination, and referrals to shelter and permanent housing, among other supports.

Flex funding is also available to lead clients to help them afford basic needs, such as food, transportation, and more, to support their journey on behavior change.

And PDA subcontracts with Evergreen Treatment Services REACH program or lead outreach and case management services while PDA provides overall project management.

In addition to that project management, PDA operates lead legal services to assist in resolving barriers related to criminal history and civil legal needs.

Turning to co-lead services here include lodging with staff available for 24 seven support and medical care on site.

Once in a co-lead bed, clients receive case management and housing navigation assistance to locate opportunities to exit into permanent housing.

Co-lead clients can also access similar legal services to lead participants.

A key difference here is that PDA provides the majority of staffing here, including aftercare services to individuals exiting from co-lead beds into permanent housing to ensure they continue receiving guidance and resources to remain stably housed.

This includes regular check-ins with case managers, legal consultation, eviction, prevention, assistance, and more.

In terms of some of the other providers involved with CoLEAD, again, I mentioned PDA staff provides the outreach, case management, aftercare support, and also employs a medical director to care for those with low acuity needs.

And two organizations are subcontractors of CoLEAD funds.

We Deliver Care, or WDC, offers an alternative response to deescalate situations threatening the safety of clients and staff.

in co-lead facilities, and Rebel X provides co-lead property management services.

As for how individuals find their way into these programs, the next two slides are going to share information on how referrals are made.

Regarding lead, law enforcement referrals are prioritized, and there are three specific pathways.

Arrest diversion referrals occur when law enforcement refers an individual to lead rather than arresting them for a crime.

Social contact referrals are also known as pre-arrest diversion referrals and occur when law enforcement refers to those who believe are engaging in law violations, but have no probable cause for arrest.

And the third pathway are community referrals, which do not involve law enforcement, but are instead community identified via neighborhood groups, businesses, community-based organizations, and other stakeholders.

In 2023, PDA expects the majority of community referrals to come from the nine focus impact areas seen on this slide.

The areas here were selected to continue ongoing lead work with its community partners that they've been engaged with for some time.

For instance, a couple examples here, the Ballard and University District focus impact areas are going to build on existing case conferencing work with law enforcement and community stakeholders.

The Chinatown International District work will capitalize on additional federal funding that LEAD has received.

And finally, the work with the Soto Business Improvement Area is building on longstanding work to address individuals with a particularly strong impact on the community.

As for co-lead, referrals will come in via two referral pathways.

The first are lead eligible clients.

Bed access will be made available for unsheltered lead individuals through the focus impact area work.

And secondly, beds may also be allotted for city priority encampment and public safety response.

Thus far in 2023, I wanted to mention a couple examples.

The city and PDA have made co-lead beds available.

individuals supported by the 3rd Avenue project and also the multi-jurisdictional and cabinet resolution at Southwest Michigan and 1st Avenue South.

The next slide discusses the performance metrics that are included in this year's contract and as you can see it is a fairly robust list.

This is an area of Extreme emphasis for us as we were in our contract development and HSD and PDA collaborated on these primarily again to increase clarity on lead and co-leads performance and the activities and outcomes its clients receive as a result of those services.

Collectively, we believe these metrics will allow HSD and PDA to better share lead story and effectiveness to a broader audience.

Just a couple notes about this slide.

The column on the left displays those performance metrics carried over from the 2022 contract, while the column on the right highlights new metrics adopted in 2023. In terms of those continuing 2022 metrics, we have information on referrals and enrollments into the programs, caseload size, referrals to behavioral health and substance use treatment programs, The number of operational work groups or case conferencing meetings held and efforts to educate the community on how to access lead and co lead services.

As for the new metrics in 2023 on a monthly basis PDA will report on the number of unduplicated individuals referred to lead by focus impact area, which allows us to better understand the level of need and effectiveness of the community approach.

The number of active clients connected to legal services and those establishing stable lawful income sources.

The number of substantive meetings with case managers and also the number of participants having a substantive meeting in the last month.

And this substantive meeting or those are those in which a client is actively engaged with a case manager to access resources, change behavior and work toward achieving identified goals.

The monthly metrics will also include the co-lead occupancy rate and the average co-lead length of stay.

In addition to those, we also have some quarterly metrics that will be provided, which include the number of unduplicated clients achieving at least one goal they've identified in partnership with a case manager, and the number of duplicated clients achieving goals by a specific goal category.

Just to provide an example of what these goals look like, a couple of examples here, housing access, substance use support, and also basic needs such as obtaining clothing and documentation.

Finally, the number of co-lead exits to permanent housing, temporary housing, and returns to homelessness will also be reported.

And as reports are provided, HSD and PDA look forward to collaborating and discovering what trends the data captures and to keep an eye towards future improvements as well.

In terms of the program budget and staffing, the total contract budget for DA23-1492 is nearly $14.5 million.

It's important to note that HSD does hold the licensing agreement for one of the co-lead facilities and is responsible for paying the monthly licensing fee.

And accordingly, HSD retains about $2 million to pay those costs.

Similar to what was done with the program models, the contract lays out separate allocations for each program.

Of the $14.5 million, LEED receives roughly $9.9 million, with CoLEED having the remaining $4.6 million.

This will allow HSD and the city to better understand the distinct service costs that are associated with each.

And finally, the contract funds roughly 63 LEED staff, which includes 53 REACH staff and 10 PDA FTEs.

and the contract funds 21 co-lead staff who sit at PDA.

Two more slides here.

This slide provides a breakdown of LEED's funding by provider.

Of the $9.9 million provided by the City of Seattle, roughly $6.9 million is ongoing funding.

In terms of non-Seattle funding sources, $1.7 million comes from the Recovery Navigator Program, over $1.3 million from the King County Mental Illness and Drug Dependency, or MID, and $145,000 from True Blood funding.

And there's also one-time funding of $1.5 million secured via the Federal Consolidated Appropriations Act passed last December.

The final slide here shows the breakdown for COLEAD funding.

City of Seattle again provides 4.6 million to PDA.

Of this amount, there is funding, excuse me, one-time funding of 1.25 million to support the transition of COLEAD from a hotel to a tiny house village.

HSD continues to search for potential property that could accommodate a 72-unit tiny house village and will partner with PDA to further explore this shift.

The budget also includes funding secured by the King County Regional Homelessness Authority.

This includes a projected 2.5 million that is anticipated to continue supporting KCRHA's funded portion of COLEAD in the second half of 2023. And finally, there is again a one-time funding appropriation of 2.7 million secured via the Federal Consolidated Appropriations Act passed last December.

And with that, we are happy to take questions.

I want to just recognize that I failed to make space for Council Central staff who's joining us remotely on this presentation and give Ann Gorman, who is again with us remotely, an opportunity to provide any remarks that I should have made possible earlier.

Thank you, Chair Herbold and committee members.

I just want to acknowledge that the contract that you just heard about is the fulfillment of a commitment that HSD made during the council budget process last year.

So I want to acknowledge that and the hard work that HSD and Purpose Dignity Action put into developing the contract.

We're very excited about the separate funding being identified for the lead and co-lead programs.

And we feel that this will better allow the tracking and reporting of discrete program outcomes.

And just just want to just want to say that we on central staff.

So appreciate our good relationship and partnership with HSD and the city budget office, and we've been able to speak candidly with them about opportunities to improve performance reporting, which you just heard about for the 2023 contract, and potentially this this effort will be ongoing in future contracts.

So I just want to acknowledge and thank everyone who contributed to the 2023 contract that committee members heard about.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, so, um, before I open it up for questions, Tara, do you have, um, any observations or reflections you'd like to share about, uh, the, these new.

Uh, performance metrics.

I always say no and then I say something, so I'm trying not to say no.

I think overall, this has been a great partnership.

I really appreciate the work that's been done here.

We're always wanting to be transparent and provide any data that the community, council members or funders want to provide, want to request of us.

I'm really excited about the focus impact areas as we ask Policy Coordinating Group for guidance, as well as council members and the community about how we can make the best and most felt impactively to the community.

I think these focus impact areas will allow that in a variety of ways.

So just appreciate the partnership and the coordination.

And we use this data to show what good and great work we're doing, but we also use data to see where we need improvement or adjustments as well.

So we're always open to all types of conversations based on the information we receive.

So thank you.

Thank you.

I do have some questions about the numbers.

On page, let's see, of the presentation, on page five, it states that the 2023 LEED contract stands at 16.6 million.

I'm assuming that is referring to the city contract

Yep, and that is referring to the City of Seattle amount.

And then, but comparing that number to what is described on page 12, where the total project for LEED is 14.6 and the City of Seattle funding is about 9.9.

Can you explain that?

Maybe not discrepancy, but I'm sure there's an explanation for it.

Yeah, the explanation, the numbers get a little wonky here.

I think first to talk about the city funded portion, it is 16.6 million for both lead and co-lead.

Again, the lead portion seen on this slide is the 9.9 million for lead.

There's the 4.6 million for co-lead.

And then held separately to the side is that 2 million for the co-lead.

Um, lodging facility, the slides 12 and 13 that kind of provide the individual budgets for all funders for leading Coley.

That's where it probably gets a little murky here as well, because the numbers are all very close to each other, but we get it on page five.

It says the 2023 lead contract now stands at 16.6 million.

So what that is intended to say, the combined lead and code.

Yeah.

So just digging into some questions about these new performance metrics, looking to see whether or not my colleagues have any questions, and I'll sort of filibuster with some of mine if folks are working on what they might be interested in following up on.

One of the new quarterly metrics is the number of clients achieving goals by goal category.

Just wondering if you could just give us a little flavor about what some of those categories are and why it's meaningful to track them individually.

Sure.

Yeah.

The goals that are going to be included in this are again, these are goals identified with clients and their case managers, and they can include such things as mental health, physical health, substance use, family, community, culture, housing, legal needs, finances and benefits, and also foundational, which are basic needs such as clothing, food identification.

This is another point of emphasis, I think, in just trying to figure out what metrics we could include in the contract to talk about specific outcomes related to lead and co-lead.

I think for the co-lead side, it's pretty clear individuals getting into a bed and then exits and where they're exiting to.

Really just wanted to bring more clarity, I think, into what it means to go through lead services, Uh, really speak to the clients work and the case managers work and identifying.

Um, these specific goals, and then who is able to achieve them?

What does it look like?

How long is it might it take for them to achieve?

Um, Tara, I don't know if you'd want to speak anymore about the goal work or if that.

Fairly captured.

I mean, lead is a client centered program harm reduction based but we see that when you do that you're really engaging it and seeing a lot of impact positive impact for the client and the community.

So I guess, in terms of the metrics that you're talking about, none of this is linear.

Someone may jump in and might really want to work on their mental health goals and then go back to their basic needs once they come out of treatment or support or it may be the other way around.

So all these goals are very important.

Client identified for the most part, or if not all, and really working through a lot of engagement, a lot of outreach to get people there.

We have found, as you mentioned, that when we're in COLEAD and that someone's in lodging, you can really meet a lot of those goals a lot faster.

People's basic needs are met and stabilized quicker.

But in general, these tend to be the most common goals that we see with clients that they identify for themselves and with the help with case managers.

So one of the things that I learned about recently when PDA came to us with a presentation, it was either to this committee or it might have been at the advisory group meeting, but we learned about the program outcomes for Just Care.

And specifically, the Just Care outcomes around health insurance.

And prior to enrolling in Just Care, which was a pandemic-era program serving the same population as CoLEAD for the viewing public, sorry.

But prior to enrolling in Just Care, 41% of participants had health insurance.

And that figure increased to 89% once they're enrolled.

And this is just an incredibly important outcome because of the connection of around health to all other social determinants that we're looking at improving people's lives in.

And I'm just wondering, is this an outcome that we're looking at including in, the co-lead and lead participant metrics.

It's not specifically outlined, but I do think one of the great things coming out of the contract development work was a commitment to continue working with each other to explore additional metrics and findings that are related to both programs and really spelling that out.

So we've talked about how we could collaborate with the National Lead Support Bureau on potential survey work and also any evaluation work that's going on to really shine a light on that and what success means for these programs.

And then the other question I had relates to how the expanded reporting dimensions might help us understand the impacts of incremental increases in program funding.

Just wondering whether or not it will be possible to do an analysis of how many additional clients the PDA could take on, how many of them could be likely to achieve at least one of their goals, find stable housing with a certain number of dollars of increase.

So that's important analysis that if it's available with this new approach will help us in those conversations about whether or not we want to look at additional incremental increases with the hope that that will also mean the additional ability for LEAD and COLEAD to help individuals.

Yeah, I think we're certainly hopeful that we'll be able to get closer to that with these performance metrics we have in the contract.

And I do also, along with that, just want to call out again, I think the important work in providing separate budgets for LEAD and COLEAD and viewing them as distinct but related programs.

I think that work and seeing the expenditures coming in for each will really be helpful in figuring out what does going to scale mean and how much does that cost.

Fantastic.

May I jump in just to go back a question if that's okay.

Just in terms of health insurance and connections that is being tracked quarterly.

I want to check with my data guy first before saying that.

That's in the finance and benefits category.

It is.

Great.

Thank you.

Councilmember Nelson.

Thank you.

So I had, I brought to the table some questions and then I wanted to expand on some of the ones us so I'm talking about incremental costs I am too interested in moving toward an understanding of the approximate cost to support one lead or co lead participant per year over the course of a person's engagement with the programs I think that's really important and that's what my constituents want to know.

And you can break it down in simple math if there are 700. And this is not the correct number of clients, and that, you know, the 2023 program is. 9.9 million, then that works out to be about 14,000.

You get where I'm going here.

So that way we know what the next year's ask might be because there is a policy framework for basically the two that explains the increases year over year in this funding.

And I just wanted to reference that a bit.

So let's see here.

Resolution 31916, which was adopted in 2019, established a program growth goal that serves as the policy framework.

It says, quote, the city intends that the LEAD program operate at scale by 2023 with scale understood to mean that the program will have appropriate funding to accept all priority qualifying arrest and social contract referrals citywide.

So that basically means that it's going to grow to the need.

And I think that we need to have more information and be really careful about that, because it can serve as sort of a blank check if we're not careful, because this the same resolution also says that Scaling would be supported through a secure mix of public funding sources, including city funding and some combination of county, state, federal and Medicaid funding.

And so one question I have is, how are we doing on tracking the the other sources of funding that are also feeding into that combined with our investment that you show on page?

I think it is twelve, I believe.

Yeah, I think again, we've in past contracts also included other funding sources, and I think we do want to keep a real important and fine eye on those funding sources coming in and how they change as well and what other resources are out there.

So I think it is just another critical component in telling the lead and co-lead story overall about who are the other partners in this, who's funding this, who else is engaged in this, and how can we all work together on forwarding them as well.

Tara, anything else on that?

No, I think those are excellent points.

I will say as being involved in LEAD for the past five, six years, time flies, we are, we have been, and we still are, and we're doing it with the guidance of Policy Coordinating Group now, denying a lot of high qualified referrals based on what our funding is right now.

There's a lot of, if it they're not in a focus impact area for example, based on the guidance we've been given we're denying people who are committing crimes or law enforcement referrals.

We're trying to prioritize those but those are even a little tougher outside of the focus impact areas.

So there's still a lot of demand, but diversifying funding is a goal and trying to be as efficient as possible with the work that we're doing, referring people who are beyond the resources we have right now.

We're trying to connect to other programs, but often what we find is a lot of programs where LEAD is the last stop.

They've tried everywhere else first, and they're really asking for our help, whether it's community members, other service providers, or LEAD partners.

Okay, well council budget action that we approved last fall, which provided for $2 million did say that funding to expand leads capacity while the PDA explores ongoing funding sources.

And I think that that is being held by HSD.

So can we expect a report maybe by within the 2024 contract or the budgeting process

You can certainly take that back and see what we can add in that front.

OK.

Is that it?

You have more?

Sure.

I think what I mostly want to say is I really do appreciate that this contract seems to me to be really geared toward tightening up some of the performance metrics.

And I appreciate that because People want to know how the, how our investment is being spent and I also am looking forward either offline or in in the contract understanding more what the particular outcomes are because there's a difference between reporting how many individuals are served or touched etc.

And then, but what are we trying to What are we trying to accomplish, you know, that is falls in line with what Councilmember herbal was saying about, you know, an identifiable outcome like number of people who have insurance or something like that.

Anyway, because the, because the PDA relies so much on subcontractors and I think that on page, what was it six you referenced 53 reach.

employees and 10 PDA employees.

Because the reliance on subcontractors is so much, can it be expected that the PDA itself will be looking for that kind of accountability from its subcontractors?

And remember, this is an issue for me because I put forward that council budget action.

I think it was HSD 603A that asked for reporting precisely because We, you know, you're working with so many different groups.

Yeah, absolutely.

I mean, a lot of our data is coming from our subcontractors, but we're often auditing, checking, asking why numbers are trending up or down.

What is some of the stories behind the numbers, not even just the numbers that are that are occurring?

I will say that we're also looking to diversify our contractors.

Some of the things that we're finding, I know that your question is that you have so many, maybe I shouldn't say, and there may be more, but there may be more in that one of the things we're finding is, for example, reach is stretched pretty far based on the demand for lead.

And so we want to be responsive to all communities with different service providers and in any way that the policy coordinating group will approve of.

And so we release our RFP for that as well.

But and that was one of the things we are identifying in terms of what's going on with our contractors to surface provision and making sure that everyone's needs are being met and especially our participants.

Well, what data and reporting requirements exist for your subcontractors?

And would it be possible to see those contracts that you have with your subs?

Yeah, most of the if not all data requirements are the required bits of reporting for the city of Seattle and King County.

But we're happy to provide all that data to you.

Thank you.

Yeah.

All right, thank you so much for joining us this morning.

I know we'll be hearing from this team a couple more times this year as reporting is received.

Currently, we're planning on an August presentation on the first two quarters of reporting and then quarter three reporting after the council's budget process.

Really appreciate everybody's work on the contract, including the folks who are not at the table but are joining with us in the audience and really look forward to hearing more later this year and thank you for all of this work.

Thank you.

Will the clerk please read in agenda item number four.

Agenda item four, draft app-based workers deactivation rights ordinance.

Thank you so much.

We have presenters with us virtually from council central staff.

Just as quick background, we're continuing the work on discussing the next piece of legislation in the pay up effort to address workplace standards of people who are doing contract work.

These bills have been sponsored by the previous bill and this bill are sponsored by myself and Council Member Lewis.

Last May, we passed our first pay-up bill through council guaranteeing minimum compensation, increasing transparency, Ensuring flexibility, these rights go into effect in January of 2024. We know that app based work is 1 of the fastest growing sectors of our economy, meaning that the number of workers without these basic rights continues to grow.

Last September, the committee held a discussion with Drive Forward and Working Washington to discuss this issue of app-based workers deactivation rights, and I really appreciate their coming to council and presenting on the impacts of not having these rights.

enshrined in law.

Large platforms often rely on a lot of automation and algorithmic systems that, as we've heard, sometimes result in deactivation without any human review or intervention.

We have heard in our community engagement sessions from workers who was, for instance, deactivated because they weren't able to get downtown to West Seattle in 15 minutes while the bridge was closed.

Most workers don't even receive notice of the alleged violation leading up to their deactivation.

And whether or not they do, they're often unable to effectively challenge and discuss these allegations with an actual person.

An algorithm may not understand why downtown to Seattle was a challenging trip during the period of time where the bridge was closed, but any person would understand.

So workers really need these protections to do the work that the companies rely on and the work that Seattle residents rely on as well.

So today we have Council Central staff, Jasmine Maraja and Karina Bull to present to committee a draft of the app-based workers deactivation rights ordinance.

This is a pre-introductory draft.

It's an opportunity for the committee to understand and discuss the legislation before it is introduced.

The draft is informed by almost a year of community engagement with workers.

and the platforms that facilitate this work, and that outreach is continuing.

The draft is still evolving, and I'm really grateful for the feedback that we've received from workers, their advocates, and grateful that many of the platforms have engaged with us in meaningful conversation, including those who called in today for public testimony.

We hope to finalize the draft for introduction soon.

And with that, I will turn it over to Jasmine and Karina.

Thank you very much Council Member and good morning Council Members.

I think what I think we're waiting for the presentation to be put up on the screen but while we're doing that I'll just say.

My name is Jasmine Marwaha, for the record, on Council Central staff, and I'll be presenting a draft, as mentioned, of the App-Based Worker Deactivation Rights Ordinance that will be up for your consideration in the next few weeks.

And I really appreciate Karina Bull being here as well, who will be running the slides for me and has been a great thought partner in the work and is here to help answer questions as well.

And before we begin, I also just want to say that I did my best to strike a balance between summarizing the information and digestible bites and providing the level of detail needed to understand the ordinance and stakeholder feedback you may be receiving, which can get at a very granular level of detail.

I erred on the side of including more information on the slide, so you can have that information for reference.

But we'll do my best to summarize the salient points in discussion without reading the entire slide.

Thank you.

Just before we get started, it looks like Council Member Nelson has a question.

Do you prefer that we ask questions at each slide or after the whole thing?

If you can hold your questions to the end, that would be great.

Thank you so much.

OK, so next slide, please, Karina.

Hi, I'm Karina Bull with Council Central staff, and I'm just inserting my voice here to, because I'm having a little bit of technical difficulty, but I'm going to try to get to the next slide.

So 1 moment, please.

Okay.

I apologize.

Well, I can also just the next slide was just going to be a presentation outline.

So.

Basically, I'll be going over the background to the proposed policy and the policy goals.

And then I'll go over the draft legislation itself.

And finally, we'll highlight some ongoing policy questions and talk about next steps.

There we go.

We got it.

All right, and then so now we can get to the next slide.

Perfect.

Yay.

So, as Council Member Herbold mentioned and has been talking about the ongoing outreach with app-based workers, you'll recall that about a year ago, this committee considered and Council ultimately passed an ordinance that provided Minimum Payment Transparency and Flexibility Protections for App-Based Workers.

And this draft bill before you represents a continuation of that work, looking at protecting workers from unwarranted deactivation.

And here's a very high-level background as to what this bill attempts to address.

So, as again mentioned before, app-based work often involves algorithms managing worker access to the platform.

There's been extensive documentation in academic literature and media reports about the impact of algorithmic management on app-based workers and what the Federal Trade Commission recently called an invisible, inscrutable boss that dictates core aspects of work.

The reports from local workers who've engaged in stakeholder conversations confirm what has been reported in this literature.

Workers face deactivations for rejecting too many orders, or delays outside of their control, or changing an unpredictable performance expectations.

And many times, as you've heard even in public comment, for unknown reasons.

Workers have reported trying to log onto the app only to find that they are blocked from access without explanation.

And even for companies that do not exclusively rely on algorithms to dictate their deactivations, workers report similar difficulties and lack of substantive response from companies when they try to challenge deactivations.

And workers further report feeling hamstrung because the network company has control of the records and information related to the deactivation.

So they don't have the information they need to chat to fully challenge the company.

So the goal of this policy would be to create more stability and job security for app-based workers, and where applicable, create a balance between the efficiencies of algorithmic management and the needs of Seattle workers.

Next slide.

And in summary, this ordinance would require network companies to base deactivations on reasonable policies and provide app-based workers notice, records, and human review of all deactivations.

And when we say notice, we mean notice relating to their policies that could get them deactivated, as well as the notice of a specific deactivation and the records that substantiated a deactivation that showed there was an investigation, as well as human review of that investigation and challenge.

So, who's covered?

The current draft proposes that all network companies with 250 or more app-based workers be covered.

And app-based worker coverage, for the most part, would be limited to workers who have had at least 10% of their offers in the past 180 days involve performing services in Seattle.

This threshold is modeled after the eligibility requirements to challenge deactivations that were in place for the TNC Deactivation Rights Ordinance.

And essentially, it's intended to make sure that there's an ongoing nexus to Seattle that was not overly burdensome for workers to track.

But after a worker performs one offer in Seattle, they should receive a notice of rights from the company that includes a system for workers to understand their eligibility, namely, when they meet that 10% threshold in the previous 180 days.

There's no questions beginning to move on to the next slide.

So for deactivation requirements, for the obligations themselves, under this proposed ordinance, companies must give fair notice of the reasons that could get a worker deactivated.

And those reasons must be reasonably related to the network company's safe and efficient operations.

This ordinance includes a list of unreasonable reasons to deactivate an app-based worker, which is on the next slide, which is a lot of unreasonable reasons.

The first three are meant to be consistent with the flexibility provisions provided in the app-based worker minimum payment ordinance.

And I won't go into detail on the whole list unless people have questions about a particular bullet point, but I'll note that two of the ones that have gotten the most stakeholder feedback are one, the prohibition on deactivating a worker based on quantitative metrics derived from aggregate customer ratings.

And the second reason that has been the subject of some back and forth is the prohibition on deactivating a worker based on the results of a background check.

For that one, we will talk more about how the exception of egregious misconduct softens the prohibition as we dive into egregious misconduct later on in the presentation, and how egregious misconduct is interpreted may shape one's thoughts about this particular prohibition, and we'll definitely come back to it.

Okay, but first, we'll do a quick rundown of the other requirements for a deactivation beyond the reasonable policy requirement.

A deactivation must be based on an investigation that demonstrates by a preponderance of evidence that the app-based worker violated the company's policy.

The deactivation must also represent consistent application of the rule or policy, and it must be proportionate to the offense, and it cannot intend or result in discrimination.

Those are the other requirements for the deactivation.

But now we can go, we can dive into egregious misconduct.

And as you've seen, first, we're going to talk a little bit about the implications before we get into the actual definition, because I think it's important to understand.

So first, as we just, as was just mentioned in the previous slide, you don't need to complete an investigation before deactivating a worker in the case of egregious misconduct.

You can deactivate right away if, a company can deactivate right away if there's egregious misconduct.

But the investigation must be completed within 10 days unless there are extraordinary circumstances beyond the company's control.

You can, as mentioned, you can deactivate immediately without needing to provide that 14 days notice as well.

And you can deactivate based on the results of a background check that reveals egregious misconduct if the network company can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the conduct directly relates to the app-based worker's fitness to provide app-based services.

Okay, so that's what egregious misconduct does.

And we can go to the next slide that talks about the definition.

And just a bit of a delay here, but egregious misconduct means an abhorrent or wrong action or behavior by an individual, app-based worker, that endangers the physical safety of the customer or a third person or intentionally causes economic harm to the customer, a third person, or the network company.

Egregious misconduct includes conduct that occurs outside of an applicant's worker's provision of app-based services if the network company can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the conduct directly relates to the applicant's worker.

And the director may issue rules for defining this.

It looks like we might be having some more technical difficulties on the presentation, or is it me?

Technical difficulties in the presentation, is it not?

It's not.

Yeah, the slide is still on the implications from what I'm seeing.

So, I'm not, I don't know who is advancing the slide, but.

Karina is, I think I might be having some technical difficulties.

Okay, you know what I can, I can just share I will go ahead and it might be easier for me to share on my screen.

But I can.

Keep going, okay.

Apologize for this.

Sorry about that, everyone.

It's okay, no problem.

Everything looks okay on my end, but it's not broadcasting.

Okay, can folks see me, hear me, or see the presentation and hear me?

We can see the presentation.

Yes, I hear you.

Okay.

And you can, can you see the presentation?

We can.

Yes.

Okay.

Misconduct definition.

Okay.

Great.

Yes.

Misconduct definition.

All right.

I will keep it like this then.

Okay.

So, yes, so, as I just read, as I promised, I promised not to read the slide, but I didn't read this entire slide for you.

But that was the definition of egregious misconduct.

I just went over and then we also have the definition also includes.

examples from egregious misconduct.

And so you can see, I won't again, I won't read the entire set of examples, but they do include things like assault, sexual assault, theft, robbery, harassment, unlawful harassment.

I mean, and so these definitions This definition, for the most part, is modeled after the ANC Deactivation Rights Ordinance definition of egregious misconduct.

Certainly the examples are exactly the same, but there are a couple of tweaks to the overarching definition.

But for the most, which we can get into if there are questions about that, but there has been a lot of back and forth about this definition.

I think we're saving questions to the end, so if there are further questions about this, I can address those at that time.

Next, we have an app-based worker's notice of deactivation.

App-based workers are entitled to 14 days notice of deactivation, except in the case of egregious misconduct, as we noted.

But even with egregious misconduct, the app-based worker is entitled to receive a notice of deactivation on the date of deactivation, and the notice of deactivation must include all the items listed on this slide.

Those items, we have the records relied upon to substantiate deactivation and the network company's process for challenging a deactivation.

So getting to the process for challenging a deactivation.

An app-based worker shall have the right to challenge an unwarranted deactivation through an internal deactivation challenge procedure, and there must be a response provided within 14 days certified by an individual who has authority to reinstate the worker.

After, either after they receive a response or 14 days, whichever is earlier, they'll have a right to file a complaint with OLS or pursue their private right of action or, challenging an unwarranted deactivation.

And they, as we've noted earlier, the notice of deactivation must include the records relied upon by the network company to substantiate a deactivation.

And that these records must also be certified by an individual that they're true and accurate.

And if new evidence comes to the network company's possession after the notice of deactivation, they must provide those records to the worker.

This may be, for example, may occur when there's egregious misconduct alleged, which may not have a lot of, may not have records at the time of the notice of deactivation, because an investigation can take up to 10 days after the notice of deactivation.

So if there's additional records, you know, that are uncovered during that investigation, that worker would be entitled to receive records at that time.

conclusion of the investigation.

The draft ordinance also requires network companies to provide a system for workers to access records of their offers or payment disclosures.

The intention here is that, you know, for network companies who are already required to transmit receipts or payment disclosures under the app-based worker minimum payment ordinance, or the independent contractor protections, those workers would have access to the work records that would already have been transmitted beyond their deactivation if those records are only available, particularly if those records are available only in the app.

And we know that this has been the subject of much back and forth.

It was mentioned in a public comment today.

Let's see.

So, you know, this ordinance draft does allow for companies to anonymize information that they think could compromise a customer or third-party safety, and it allows for OLS to issue rules if needed to clarify what measures have been taken.

My interpretation of this language is that companies can protect privacy of customers and third parties, but I would welcome any specific feedback about this, about how if companies don't feel like this does protect privacy.

And we can go on to enforcement.

So the proposed effective date in this draft is June 1st, 2024, coming a few months after app-based worker minimum payment and the expansion of app-based worker PSST go into effect.

OLS would likely want this date to be extended to allow more time for rulemaking, but this is the date that's in the draft.

And wherever this date lands, the draft contemplates a date somewhat further out when OLS would enforce the ordinance.

In this gap between the effective date and the enforcement date, workers can pursue their private right of action and OLS would have a little more time to stand up enforcement practices and procedures after the rulemaking is done.

The draft also restricts OLS's enforcement role to enforcing the procedural requirements and facial policies and does not require OLS to review individual deactivations to determine whether the individual deactivations were substantiated.

So, Getting a little more detail here, OLS would enforce facial policy requirements.

That would be the, you know, whether there was a fair notice of a deactivation policy or whether the policies were reasonable.

And they would also enforce the procedural requirements, whether the notice of deactivation was issued in a timely manner, whether there was a right to challenge the deactivation and those requirements were met, and whether they had access to their records.

These provisions are kind of meant to address the the information asymmetry and the power imbalance that would otherwise exist if a worker were to challenge their deactivation in an arbitration proceeding.

Additionally, a violation of any of these provisions would incur a fine.

payable to the aggrieved party or the worker.

So if a worker didn't receive their notice of deactivation and didn't receive any records substantiating their deactivation, theoretically, OLS may assess a penalty for those two violations that would add up to about $1,250.

That's some redress for the worker, even if it is too burdensome for that worker to pursue their full claim in arbitration.

This enforcement proposal is admittedly unusual, and it is in response to OLS's concerns about the burden on enforcing the entire ordinance and based on the volume of intakes experienced in the TNC Deactivation Rights Ordinance.

Just handling that level of intakes, which I believe were over 3,000 that were experienced in the TNC context, would represent a significant burden on OLS and would be difficult for the agency to absorb.

Even with enforcement focused on just procedural requirements and facial policies, OLS estimates it will need about a million dollars a year to implement the ordinance in addition to startup costs.

So whether that level of resourcing is needed or not, and whether it's reasonable to expect the volume of intakes to be comparable as it was for TNCs, the issue of resourcing at any level is still one for council to consider.

And then to kind of summarize it, I tried to do like a visual presentation.

Hopefully, this is helpful.

But essentially, you know, the draft ordinance would require all workers, all covered workers to have a fair notice of policy and those policies to be reasonably related to the safe and efficient operations of the company.

Then, if a worker is hit with a notice of deactivation, the notice of deactivation has certain requirements, including records, and the activation has to report with all the requirements that are also in that green box as well.

After 14 days, a worker can be deactivated after receiving the notice.

And any time after receiving the notice of deactivation, up to 90 days, they can file for an internal deactivation challenge.

And then after 14 days, they can get a response, they're entitled to a response.

At that point, they can file a complaint with OLS or file under their private right of action.

If there's egregious misconduct, you essentially don't have that 14-day notice of deactivation period.

So you get the fair notice of policy, you get the reasonable policy, you just get deactivated.

You still have the notice of deactivation in terms of the records and the other requirements that are related to the deactivation.

And there's 10 days to complete the investigation, except for extraordinary circumstances.

They can still file for their, they can still file a challenge in the internal procedure and still are entitled to response within 14 days.

And then after that point, they can file with if there's any procedural or facial policy violations, or they can pursue their claim in private right of action.

a little bit different way of engaging and helpful.

But there still are a number of policy questions that we also may get, or that we'll get into, that we're also receiving stakeholder feedback about.

You know, one is the issue of coverage, both network company coverage and worker coverage.

You know, whether, so there might be a question, questions about that or further feedback on that.

One is the reasonable policies, whether the list of unreasonable policies meets the needs of workers and strikes the right balance for council members.

The definition of egregious misconduct, which we went into in great detail, You know, we have further, there'll be further feedback about that and up for further consideration.

This idea, this question about privacy, the balancing the needs of workers to have records, you know, to understand why they were deactivated and to be able to discuss their reasons for deactivation with the company, while also balancing privacy and safety concerns that companies have mentioned.

And then there's the issue of enforcement, which is related to the resourcing element and diving in further to this idea of like the procedural and facial policy enforcement versus the substantive review of deactivations.

There's probably other things that we'll discuss, but those are sort of the big questions and issues that have come up so far.

The next steps will be the introduction of the legislation and committee meeting with a formal issue ID for you and a memo and all that.

So now, any questions?

Thank you, Jasmine, and thank you, Karina.

Do colleagues have any questions at this time?

Thank you, Chair Humboldt, and thank you, Jasmine and Karina for that presentation.

This legislation, who it would impact from the employer standpoint, so.

the impact of this legislation, who came from this and have they been participating in the stakeholder discussions?

I'm sorry, Council Member Peterson, I believe you had it in and out.

I believe you were asking about which companies had been approached in the stakeholder process.

Yeah, I'm interested in knowing which companies that would be impacted by this are Seattle-based companies.

They're headquartered in Seattle.

So I'd like to know the list of those companies and then also whether they've been consulted.

That's my first couple of questions.

And you can get back to us on that unless that's handy.

with a list of the invitees to our stakeholding process.

Council Member Peterson, is that all right?

And you're cutting out a lot, I'm not, okay.

Oh, okay, so it is on my end.

I don't know if it's on your end, but I know we're having some issues here at the city with the network.

Okay.

So, so, yes, it would be great to get a list of the companies.

And my main.

And I noticed that the definition section of the draft.

Page page draft.

It says that, uh, a network company will, will include.

So.

I'm wondering if that once again would be, uh, bringing companies still wondering if that into the, into this regular, this new regulation, a company like Rover that does pet sitting throughout Seattle or task rabbit.

So I think you're getting to the question of what type of workers are covered by the legislation.

And specifically, I think your question relates to the inclusion of the marketplace apps.

We recognize that the structure of different app-based companies are different, but one thing that is the same is that deactivation is widespread issue across the industry, whether or not you're talking about on-demand or marketplace apps.

It's one of the most potent ways that apps exert control over workers, whether or not, again, it's an on-demand app-based worker or marketplace worker by eliminating their access to their source of income.

We've heard from workers across apps, including the marketplace companies, that they're struggling with the same course no matter which app that they use.

Again, the core issue being immediate loss of income with no explanation, No way to get meaningful seeming to rely on reasons that are potential for discrimination and bias to ensure that workers across the industry have the same basic protections and due process, no matter what app they're on.

So that's the That's the thinking here for why the scope of the legislation is as it is.

Because again, the problems that workers are facing are across apps, regardless of the model.

Councilor Nelson.

Following up on that, I will say that yes, It is true that let me just start again.

I do think that we have to recognize that regulatory structure for that is imposed on both companies and TNCs and food delivery, et cetera.

That is that is ignoring the very unique ways that workers are Perhaps impacted by deactivation in different circumstances, but that's not what I was going to say.

I have concerned that.

Worker protections and network.

company's ability to enforce its rules.

We're not talking about the customer.

And I am concerned that the end user, their safety could be at risk.

being could be a risk.

So my egregious conduct is defined, you know, going back to the definition, it's defined by endangers the physical safety of the customer or a third person or intentionally cause harm to the customer.

That leaves a lot like threats and repeated fraud.

Or, for example, using the personal information.

Of of the the the customers, so and we've also heard that there is an issue about when we're talking about customer, we're talking about in rovers case, the.

The safety of perhaps pets and the, the inability to use background checks to check on some of the other things that are not caught with the.

The definition of egregious misconduct does raise concerns.

So I'll be looking at going forward how we're going to address some of those concerns.

But I wanted to talk also about the coverage, which is described on page five.

Doesn't this perhaps have an extraterritorial impact?

Because here what we're saying is that if someone spends 10% they're working in Seattle, then our protections apply across the board, no matter where else that person might work.

So if they come to Seattle and do a few rides and then spend most of their time in other jurisdictions, are we not defining the the laws under which a person can be deactivated if they spend the most time in another place?

I mean, why not just use the Um, a substantial part test from other Seattle laws, which typically requires a worker to perform at least 50% of their services in Seattle.

That is something that I would also like to be addressed going forward.

And then finally, One other thing I'll mention now, although I might think of something else, we're getting short on time here, is that this seems to create two sets of standards for a company like Uber that contracts with app-based workers to perform.

Um, in store is in a position where must comply with 2 different regimes.

1 for carrying other things.

And why are we adopting separate schemes here?

Thank you.

I think these are all good issues to raise.

I appreciate your engagement at the committee level adoption and would appreciate your following up with council central staff on some of these items.

I think there are some good answers for some of them.

And there also may be alternatives that we want to want to pursue either.

The introduction process great, because I know that I've been getting these from meetings with the actual companies.

And so I'm really hoping that you're hearing their concerns.

We are also meeting with the actual companies.

Okay, well, it's not incorporate some of those concerns, especially around privacy.

We haven't spoken about the fact that even if it's anonymized, it's pretty easy to tell which customer lodged, which complaint, and that has put the person that lodged the complaint at risk as well.

Yeah, Jasmine flagged that as an issue that she would like to get some more additional feedback on.

I appreciate her doing so.

Council Member Lewis.

Thank you so much.

I did just want to put out there too that the working definition of egregious misconduct in particular has been significantly shaped by consultation with a broad group of stakeholders, including the companies involved.

that have raised a lot of the salient points that have been raised in committee session today from Councilmember Nelson and Councilmember Peterson that do go to the heart here of wanting to maintain the integrity of the services that these platforms provide, but balance.

the need for due process and transparency on the side of the worker.

So I do just want to, I'm sure that a lot of those app-based companies are watching today, I do just want to say that the participating feedback from those companies are working directly with Working Washington on Uh, the definition of egregious misconduct has been a very fruitful process of finding some shared interest in common ground.

Uh, and we'll continue to do that, um, given that we're still fairly early in our process and that what has been brought for attention.

Today is a deliberative has not yet been formally.

reduced.

So I do appreciate the access everyone's been given and the engagement that people have been giving to my office and Council Member Herbold.

I have another question.

Oh sure, go for it.

Is this the first time that any municipality has tried to institute these terms for deactivation?

I ask because any employer will tell you that keeping someone on who Has committed some who has done some things that warrant being fired keeping them on for a couple of weeks is potentially.

Again, part customers that employee interacts with lower the morale of a workplace and also provides 2 weeks to continue that behavior.

So that I think should have been a.

an issue that was raised in stakeholdering, but I'm just wondering if that has been brought up in other jurisdictions.

That's why we have an egregious conduct definition, because people who are being deactivated for egregious conduct do not get the two weeks advance notice of their deactivation.

They can be immediately deactivated.

But as I said before, the definition for egregious conduct is very narrow and there's a lot of behavior that...

It actually isn't.

I would urge you to go back and take a look at the list and the presentation.

Many of the things that you named as not being covered are covered.

So fraud is covered.

There's a long list that is in the presentation of types of conduct that would be defined as egregious misconduct.

But we can certainly revisit that as well.

But, you know, again, the notion of...

And we heard some testimony against including economic harm against...

People call it harassment in there?

Yes, it is.

I would add that, sorry, I don't want to jump the gun here.

There were earlier deliberative definitions that have been circulated of egregious misconduct that may be leading to some of the confusion.

There were very, very narrow egregious misconduct definitions that have been proffered that candidly would have resulted in very poor deactivation policy.

I am looking at what I think is the current definition that would include causes economic harm, which is a pretty broad category that would include fraud, and then endangers the physical safety of a customer or a third person, which would include, in addition, obviously, to sexual assault, other threats of violence, and anything that would put a person in a position of feeling like they can't rely on the platform because they don't think that platform will be able to keep them safe by effectively self-policing through deactivation.

But there were deliberative drafts that were much more high level, very prescriptive, and very narrow, and would have excluded a considerable number of scenarios that are serious and would warrant deactivation.

That is definitely the case.

And thank you for putting up on the screen the list.

Assault, sexual assault, sexual harassment, communicating with a minor for moral purposes, sexual conduct as defined in state law, unlawful harassment as defined in state law, unlawful imprisonment, solicitation of any sexual act, theft, fraud, robbery, burglary, prostitution, reckless driving, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, failing to maintain a valid state driver's license.

That is the list that we're working with currently.

Not saying that there aren't improvements, but that is the list that we're working with.

Repeated violations of school zones.

I'm sorry?

I'm also referring to repeated violations of school speed zones, things like that.

If that's not covered under reckless driving.

Well, again, I'm not suggesting that this is an all encompassing list, but wanted to address.

School speed zones, things like that.

Just moving on.

It is. who as mentioned uh really encourage uh committee members ordering process um to uh get in touch with my office council member lewis's office and council central staff um for uh your interest in exploring issues further, developing alternatives.

We are continuing the stakeholder process in getting the legislation ready, and we'll have more about the timeline for next steps, hopefully within the next week or so.

And with that, It is 11.43 a.m.

If there are no further comments on the agenda here, I just want to let the viewing public know that the next Public Safety and Human Services Committee is scheduled for Tuesday, May 23rd, 2023. If committee members anticipate being absent from that meeting, you could let us know now or sometime before that meeting.

And again, if there are no further comments, it is 11.44 a.m., and we are adjourned.

Thank you.