Well thank you everyone for being here this afternoon.
To begin with I just wanted to introduce myself.
I'm Council Member Lorena Gonzalez.
I'm one of the two citywide council members on the Seattle City Council and it's my pleasure to be here with all of you and to stand here with community today on this very important day.
To begin with, I want to appreciate the ongoing hard work of community members, our public safety unions, and Chief Best on the work that they have done to date to implement portions of the accountability ordinance and to comply with elevated standards required of all officers under the federal consent decree.
And nothing we say here should take away from the progress that the city of Seattle has made in this space.
I am incredibly grateful for the hard work that folks have done to get us this far.
But of course, for those of us who have years of experience in this work, we know that this work is iterative.
We know that we can acknowledge when progress is made, but we know that we must always remain vigilant and always strive to do more and to not just comply with national standards, but to be the city that sets those standards in the first place.
Today, July 15, 2019, was the day the city of Seattle was supposed to deliver to this courthouse a plan to get back into full and effective compliance with the consent decree, a consent decree that has been hanging over the city's head since 2012. that was imposed on the Seattle Police Department as a result of a finding that the department had a pattern and practice of using unconstitutional use of force, as well as an expression of concerns about a practice of bias policing against communities of color and people of color in the city of Seattle.
Central to that consent decree was the creation of the Community Police Commission, a body of ordinary people that was designed to infuse the voice of the public into the city's ongoing police reform work, not just during the period of the consent decree, but for the foreseeable future.
The current City Council and the prior mayoral administration held fidelity to the important role that was intended for the Community Police Commission, not for the sake of doing so, but because the voices of those most negatively impacted by unconstitutional policing is key and fundamental to the work of police reform.
Centering our work on those voices, the voices of people who have lost brothers and sisters and other relatives to police violence.
Centering our work on those voices is what will ultimately achieve transformation of this system.
Systems that are supposed to be designed to deliver justice to victims of police misconduct when that misconduct is investigated and substantiated.
how misconduct is investigated, and how officers are disciplined, including the appeals process, is fundamental to the city's ongoing police reform work.
And if we miss the mark, the price we pay is community trust.
I want to be clear that standing here today and demanding additional police reform is not anti-cop or anti-labor.
Let me say that again.
Asking for additional police reform is fundamentally not anti-cop or anti-labor.
This is the city council that is made up 100% of pro-labor individuals, folks who come to this work in some instances from the labor movement, in other instances with a stellar record as it relates to being an ally to labor.
So what we are not doing today is unilaterally demanding that the current SPOG contract be voided or reopened.
We are not deviating from our obligations to engage in good faith labor negotiations with labor unions.
Rather, we are requesting, we are asking that SPOG jointly come to the table to address the concerns raised by Judge Robar, who sits in this very courtroom.
This is to our mutual benefit.
It's to the benefit of the city and to SPOG members and to the people who serve the city and deliver public safety services every day.
And we hope, we really hope that they will join us in an effort to deal with these additional concerns at the negotiation table consistent with labor law and principles.
Now we're going to hear from some other community members today, and for those of you who have a copy of my letter, we are asking the mayor to consider in the strategies moving forward some pretty concrete ideas to advance us, our work in the police reform effort, and to get ultimately back into full and effective compliance with the consent decree.
First, we are asking once again for there to be a good faith effort by the executive and labor negotiators to pursue joint agreement to limited reopeners, specifically in those areas that the court identified as problematic.
That includes labor arbitration process.
It includes the timeline by which investigations have to be completed.
And it also includes the limitation of subpoena powers that is imposed on the office of the police accountability.
Second, we want those reopeners to be pursued quickly and immediately so that the city council has an opportunity to understand how that is going to be represented to the court in time for August 15th filing.
Third, we want to set the framework for what we expect in future labor negotiations with the SPOG.
I think it's really important for us to do the hard work now.
We know that it took us four years to enter into a labor negotiation with SPOG before.
We want to make sure that, again, for the mutual benefit of ourselves, community, and SPOG, that we give ourselves as much time as we possibly can to find agreement on some of these really key, important issues that we have not found agreement on quite yet.
It is my belief and the belief of Councilmember Mosqueda and Herbold, who signed on to this letter with me, that the sooner we start these labor negotiations, the better off we will all be in terms of achieving agreement before this contract ends in December of 2020. Next, we have expressed concerns regarding the retained consultant firm, 21CP Solutions.
Listen, I'm sure that these folks are very qualified and that they understand the work that they are doing, but they are not from Seattle and they are not rooted in community.
And it is important for us to make sure that the work that has been completed by both this city council and the Community Police Commission and many of the people standing behind me is respected.
That we have an opportunity to reground our work in the work that has already been done.
We know what is wrong with this accountability system.
That is exactly why we advanced the accountability ordinance that was unanimously passed and signed by the mayor in 2017. We need to go back to that framework, we need to respect the work of community, and we need to move forward what we know this community needs and wants as it relates to additional reforms in the space of police accountability.
And this letter communicates our concerns specifically around that area to the mayor.
in hopes of receiving a response before we get too far down the path of substituting the work, the many, many years of work that has been done by the City Council and community in this space.
I will go ahead and end my remarks there because we're going to hear from a few community members.
I also just wanted to read a prepared statement by my colleague, Council Member Mosqueda, who unfortunately had a conflict that she couldn't avoid.
So this statement is from council member Teresa Mosqueda, also city council member serving in a citywide position.
And she writes, I appreciate all that the community members, police union, frontline workers, the chief and the city has done to implement components of the police accountability ordinance and to be in compliance with the federal consent decree.
However, we know that we have not yet fully addressed the court's concerns.
We need to act with urgency, not engage in further delays with external consultants.
I want to make it very clear we are uncompromising in our commitment to the principles and importance of collective bargaining and simultaneously join the court in agreeing that the accountability system is a critical part of the overall effort to achieve long-term sustainable police reform and community trust.
We will never bust open collective bargaining as those who are opposed to unions like the Freedom Foundation want.
We are not asking to reopen the entire contract or to make this request unilaterally.
The intent and the application of the letter, as described in Seattle Times, requires just a little bit more nuance.
Instead, the request is on the narrow items where we have joint agreement to reopen and negotiate only if there is joint agreement to bargain on those items.
If there isn't joint agreement, which is the deeply respected right of the union under the law, then let's work to get back to the bargaining table for next year's contract, recognizing that no one benefits from another prolonged process or future delays.
We can do this, respond to the court, and simultaneously protect the critical role of labor laws and the principles of collective bargaining.
That and this will help us forward as a city and be responsive to the court as well.
So that being said, I'm going to hand it over to Diane Narasaki.
We're going to have you go first and then Council Member.
Good afternoon.
I'm here from the Asian Pacific Islander Coalition on behalf of over 24 community civil rights and civil liberties organizations, many of whom are represented here today, that have come together to share grave concerns about our city being out of compliance with the consent decree on police accountability and our objections to the path the mayor is taking in light of the court's order to work with the community police commission and independent monitor on a plan to bring the city back into compliance.
We thank the council members for standing up and speaking out on many of our shared concerns.
The community, the community police commission, The City Council and previous mayors, using local and national expertise, have collaborated over the past seven years to identify what's wrong with Seattle's police accountability system and formed recommendations to solve these problems.
Many of these recommendations were incorporated into the accountability ordinance that was unanimously passed by the City Council and signed by the previous mayor in 2017. The important work to assess the accountability system and how to improve it has already been done by the Civilian Oversight Body, the Community Police Commission, and their experts, as they were directed to do in the consent decree's memorandum of agreement and in the CPC and its experts' filing and declaration to the court.
ignoring this work and using five mostly ex-police officials from 21st century policing solutions from other parts of the country as consultants hired by the mayor to help guide the city's response on forming an assessment and recommendations on how to improve the system.
is a slap in the face to the community and the community police commission and the city partners.
A betrayal of trust and a distraction which will only result in further delay of what needs to be done.
Rather than wasting time and money Using these consultants, the city should work with the local community, community police commission, and independent monitor to remedy the problems using recommendations the CPC and its experts have already identified.
And ensure that the 2017 accountability ordinance can be fully realized through good faith negotiations with the police unions.
As is its right, the city must ask the police unions to come back to the bargaining table on reopeners to contracts already agreed upon by the city and the police unions, and through their mutual efforts, heal the damage done to the accountability system.
Many accountability measures were developed to prevent recurrences of past failures.
For instance, had the provisions in the accountability ordinance been agreed to in the Spog contract, it's unlikely that Adly Shepard, the police officer who punched a handcuffed woman in a police car, would have been able to overturn the discipline he deserved, and future such failures in accountability would have been much less likely.
For many reasons beyond those mentioned today, the current contract actually makes it harder to uphold discipline and accountability required for the community's trust that justice will be done in cases of police misconduct.
The community has waited too long, worked too hard, and suffered too much for further delay.
We call for the city to live up to its promises to us as exemplified in the 2017 accountability ordinance.
Stop wasting our community's time, Respect the work that we have done to reform the system as exemplified in the CPC and its expert filing declaration and exhibits to the court, which should be used as a roadmap to achieve compliance on accountability.
And finally, do the work we have called for in true partnership with us.
Justice delayed is justice denied, and we demand justice now.
Thank you.
So next we're going to hear from Andre Taylor, founder of Not This Time.
Andre.
Thank you, everyone.
Let me just say, speaking from a community perspective, there has been an incredible lot of work done in this city and this state.
Again, there's been a lot of work done in this city and this state for many years, but particularly over the last three years.
There's been a lot of people coming together to make Seattle and Washington State leaders in reform.
My organization, Not This Time, the NAACP, the CPC, city council members in 2017 unanimously agreeing to reform.
Three of the largest police organizations in the state, SPA, excuse me, WOSPEC, WACOPS, and the FOP.
Deescalate Washington created the largest people of color coalition in the history of this state to bring forth reform.
Reform is hard work, but it's people coming together, working out our differences, and getting the job done.
We did not pass the first historic police accountability law in this nation to go backwards.
We need to represent, which I do, people's concerns in this state.
How did we pass that reform?
Because people in Washington State voted 60% for reform and police accountability.
And 71% of those people that voted in King County, 71% in King County voted for reform.
So I'm here making sure that the voters today's reform vote is protected in this state and in this city.
We asked for a champion, the voters did.
Lorena Gonzalez, Lisa Herbold and many city council members are stepping forward today to be the champion of those voters that asked for reform.
Let me say this, I have always been concerned with Spock.
Because over these three years, I have personally asked him, Kevin Stuckey, to get involved in these relationships with community.
And guess what?
Not one time have they decided to do so.
But guess what?
In 2018, when they were asking for a pay increase, the community agreed to that.
We said, absolutely, Spock should have a pay increase.
But we were asking for accountability back then.
We agreed with their pay increase, but they're disagreeing with police accountability.
And that's problematic.
And that is because you have not been involved in the conversation.
We're asking you to get involved in the conversation.
Get involved with Seattle's leadership.
Get involved with Washington State's leadership on accountability.
as we show the country what it could look like with all communities coming together that's how we did it with black folks white folks asian pacific islanders latino organization and native tribes we all came together and that is what it's going to continue to take and we're asking spog to come be a part of that togetherness so that we can move forward That's what we're asking today.
And we are united today as we have been united to lead this country.
We must continue to lead, but leadership is hard.
Will you stand with us today?
That's what we're asking.
Thank you.
All right, so that concludes our formal remarks, and I just want to acknowledge that Councilmember Herbold has joined us.
And I'm happy to take any questions that folks might have from the media.
Questions?
Councilmember Gonzalez?
Yes.
Noting your concerns with what has happened, why did you vote for the police contract knowing that it also contradicted the ordinance of 2017?
The city council was very aware that there were still issues in the negotiated contract that was before us.
We received two requests from community.
One was vote to approve the wages that were necessary for police officers to be brought to 2018 wages.
And that, I think, was heavily considered and weighed by many council members, including myself.
To us, it was really important to make sure that those wages were paid, and it was not feasible for us to split up the contract in a way that would allow us to vote in favor of the wages, but not in favor of the accountability provisions that we had concerns about.
Because of that, I shepherded through a resolution that communicated to the court the three areas of significant concern to the city council.
So that the court understood that even though we ratified the contract, it wasn't without serious concerns about provisions related to accountability in that contract.
And I was pleased to see that the judge's order outlined the three same exact areas that we had concerns about.
Showing to me that we have some alignment between how city council sees this contract and how Judge Robar sees this contract.
We received a communication from SPOG this morning and they have offered an opportunity for us to have a conversation and I'm looking forward to having that meeting and continuing to engage with them.
We received a call from Kevin Stuckey who's the president of SPOG.
It'll be up to him to decide who on SPOG he'd like to invite.
On my side, at a minimum, it'll be me.
And I will make sure to put in a request to the other signatories in the event they'd like to join me as well.
To be clear, are you saying that Spog is willing to join you at the table for these negotiations that you outlined here?
No, I'm not saying that.
What I'm saying is that I appreciate the fact that this morning Kevin Stuckey, who's the president of Spog, reached out directly to my office asking for a one-on-one meeting with me.
That does not mean that we're at the labor negotiation table.
It does mean that we're beginning the process of having communications between city council and that police union, and I appreciate that.
So how do you, if they do come to the table, how do you propose that you guys can meet
You know, labor law is pretty well established in our state.
There are ways for us to engage with the labor union if they are in agreement to join us back at the labor negotiation table before the expiration of this contract.
We will likely engage in the process of establishing some ground rules around what is on the table and what is not on the table.
I think from my perspective, The three things that the judge identified in his court order absolutely have to be on the table.
That's labor arbitration, timeline for administrative investigations, and subpoena powers that have been provided to the civilian oversight investigation unit.
And so at a minimum, I would hope that those would be the issues that we could engage in a conversation about.
At that point, it would be subject to ordinary collective bargaining law, and we would go back and forth.
with offers around how we can further reform that arbitration process to, again, meet the purpose and the intent of the consent decree and to make sure that our arbitration process isn't going to be a black hole where it's not transparent to the public and where we lose an opportunity to have meaningful discipline of officers who deserve it.
And on that point, I just want to point out that I have been working with our independent Office of Inspector General for Public Safety, Lisa Judge, on having her do a deep dive analysis of all of the systems involved in police accountability, including the arbitration and grievance process.
And I brought just a little bit of a show and tell here.
But what you're looking at here is an overview of the grievance process for SPOG officers and what you see in this pop out here that looks like a little subway map.
is where all the labor issues arise that community is concerned about.
These are issues that are not in the eye of the public.
They're completely dictated by the chief of police, by our city attorney's office, and by SPOG, in some cases with the employee, in some cases without the SPOG member at the table.
But this is an opportunity for us to get a better understanding of exactly how these processes work and how these processes can really undermine community trust.
And ultimately, the obligation of holding officers who have been found to have committed misconduct accountable to the community and to their department.
Have you ever seen the mayor acknowledge that the city is partially out of compliance yet?
I think what's more important is what the judge has said.
Judge Robar has made very clear in his court order that the city of Seattle is partially out of compliance with a consent decree.
That is clearly stated in his order, and we have an obligation to charge forward in a way that will get us back into full and effective compliance in all areas, not just in some.
So you haven't heard the mayor say that we are impartially out of compliance?
I have not personally heard her say that.
This morning, the chief of police, just to change gears for a minute, but related, held a news briefing.
I'm sure you're familiar with it.
And she said that the police department doesn't feel like they have the support of public officials, that we're losing too many officers, we have recruitment issues, and they need public support from public official support.
Your reaction?
I think the city council has taken many steps to address issues related to recruitment and staffing issues at the police department.
We continue to do a lot of work in that space.
I think that it's important not to conflate the two issues.
The reality is that we're not This city council and community isn't going to accept, and neither should the police department, accept that what we are going to give up in order to address some of the morale issues at the police department is constitutional policing.
That's a price that is too high to pay, and we're not gonna pay it.
So I believe that good officers want to be well trained.
They want to know what the discipline system is, and they want to know what the rules of the game are.
And right now, it's very unclear to me what the rules of the game are as outlined by Judge Robar.
And so we have an obligation as elected officials in this city to do right, not just by the people who are making complaints, who've been victims of police misconduct, but by those officers who are going to be subjected to those investigation processes.
Just this weekend at the Seattle Center, there was a shooting.
There was a crowd that the chief described as a melee, and that officers got surrounded at one point.
Medics had difficulty administering CPR to one of these victims.
And that had they not had the emphasis patrols on duty, they wouldn't have had enough officers.
So clearly, staffing is an issue.
Right, and I think that's an example of good operations taking place.
The issues that we are talking about here do not impact or tie the chief's hands in any way to be able to deploy law enforcement services in a way that she sees appropriate.
And I think the example that you just talked about is an example of the important role that officers play in our city in terms of delivering public safety.
We have many people who are standing behind me who acknowledge that that's an important service.
What the nuance here is, is when they do show up to our communities, when they do show up within the city of Seattle, it's important that they do that understanding what constitutional requirements exist so that they're not disproportionately violating the constitutional rights of people of color in this city.
And that we're all at the end of the day going to go home safe, officers and members in our community alike.
Councilmember Gonzalez, so outside of the consent decree, since you're right in front of us, I want to piggyback on that question.
So the chief basically was not talking about the consent decree.
The purpose of the press conference was to call in city leaders to be more supportive in their rhetoric towards police officers.
She specifically said council members agreed with that.
And she said that it was a concern, some of the things that she was seeing in the exit interviews.
And also that the rhetoric itself is directly impacting recruitment and that people have left the force because of it.
We're talking about 60 people, 90 officers left last year, 60 of those were resignations, they were not retirement.
And she says that's a problem.
What is your response to that?
We agree that recruitment is an issue at the police department, which is why we shepherded through the city council a piece of legislation that not only gave benefits, a bonus to lateral hires, but I personally led the effort to add a new hire recruitment bonus.
That's actually the area where we've been seeing progress in the hiring numbers at the police department is in that new hiring number.
Listen, I think that the best thing for morale at the City of Seattle and the Seattle Police Department is to get out of under the consent decree.
If we want to do right by these officers, then we have an obligation to get back into full and effective compliance, to get that two year time clock of supervision to start so that it can end.
Right now, that clock is stopped.
We will continue to be under supervision of this court until we exercise the political will to get back into full and effective compliance with every single aspect of the consent decree.
We have heard clearly from Judge Robar that we are not there because of the accountability pieces.
So we know what we need to do.
The question is, is will we do it?
And again, I think that the biggest concern I hear from officers is the feeling of the burden of the obligations under the consent decree and sort of the cloud of ongoing supervision by a federal court judge over their day-to-day work.
The easiest way to make that end is to make an end.
Is there any other reasons for recruitment issues?
How do you rationalize that with constitutional policing?
Well, I don't think you're hearing a proposal from any of us who signed onto the letter to abolish arbitration.
accountability legislation, you got rid of arbitration.
We created a different path for those grievances to be addressed.
So there is still a path for people to take their grievances that flow from a contract to a disciplinary process.
And we don't have the ability to modify or change state law with our laws.
So we have an obligation to continue to comply with state law and nobody's suggesting that we don't.
I certainly am not.
What would you say to the officers in the exit interviews who say they're leaving because they don't feel supported by public officials?
I mean, they specifically say that.
First of all, I want to make really clear that there are 1,200 officers at the Seattle Police Department.
What we saw was a very small set of exit interviews, approximately 72, if I recall correctly.
That is a very small percentage of the overall police force.
So I just want to make sure that we're putting that into context when we're having this conversation.
Second of all, I would say that we understand that there are concerns about how they do their day-to-day job.
This is not unique to the city of Seattle.
This is a national issue.
Every single police department in a major urban city is experiencing difficulty both recruiting and retaining officers.
And we have laid out why, and the department has laid out to us why they think that is.
So I appreciate that the city is gonna continue to work on parallel track to address some of those morale concerns and to continue to work on retention issues.
Chief Best specifically said she didn't need to see any more exit interviews to know that she feels like and her officers feel like they don't have enough support.
She says she can't guarantee public safety without more support from public officials.
How do you address that comment?
I think that Chief Best is the top cop in the Seattle Police Department and she's the boss.
She gets to set the terms and it's also my expectation that she directly addressed the morale concerns with the tools that are available to her.
as the as the executive of her department.
How about the fact she says she doesn't have more support from city officials like yourself and Councilmember Herbold?
I disagree with with that characterization.
Again this city council has taken many steps and has made many comments to support officers in the work that they are doing.
Councilmember Herbold and I for example attend multiple public safety related meetings that include not just command staff, but rank and file officers to talk directly about how to better equip the police department and community to fulfill public safety needs.
That is not something that we are backing away from.
And I think it's a false dichotomy to pit public safety against The right to have your constitutional rights respected.
We're talking about people who may be subjected to use of force.
That's also a public safety issue.
The two can mutually exist in our city.
I believe that to be true.
And I believe the good officers want to comply with the Constitution.
I believe the good officers want to be held to higher standards.
And I also believe the good officers want the bad officers to be held accountable as the bad apples that they might be within this system.
My thoughts are very much aligned with Councilmember Gonzalez on this particular issue.
I actually believe this action is in support of public safety.
I'm concerned about our staffing numbers and that we're not meeting our goals for new hiring.
And I strongly believe that addressing the issues that are keeping us out of compliance with the consent decree does have an impact on the morale of the police department.
And I want to remove those things.
Simple as that?
Is it just the consent decree?
No, I mean, there are a lot of things that fall into, you know, what makes a good employment environment.
I think this is one of the things that we can do together, and I think it's in all of our best interests, as well as the best interest of public safety in the city of Seattle.
Chief Bess says though that the public officials, she doesn't feel like her officers have your support.
She's talking specifically about council members.
Sure, it's frustrating, I have to admit.
We as council members have objective ways of demonstrating our support for our police department.
That's how we vote, and that's the budgets we pass.
And this council, for the period of time I've been on the council, We've increased the police department's budget from $300 million a year to $400 million a year.
We approved their contract.
We approved $40 million in back pay for the period of time they didn't have a contract.
And we approved hiring bonuses.
These are the objective ways that we have as council members.
We are not police officers.
We are council members.
We are lawmakers.
We are legislators.
These are the methods that we have available to us to show and demonstrate unequivocally our support for our police department.
Anything from Chief Best prior to this briefing about this issue?
I've not heard anything directly from Chief Best about this issue, although Councilmember Gonzalez and I have over the last several months had conversations with Chief Best about addressing some of the rhetoric that we hear coming back to us from constituents about our support for that department.
Are there any other questions about the consent decree?
Yes.
In addition of asking the mayor to do something and asking Spock to do something, but you guys did have a vote and before you made that vote the community groups were saying the same thing they're saying now and you even urged other council members to support the union contract.
So do you regret giving up that power and now being in a position where you're asking people to do something?
Now, I think what I did in the city council was fulfill the commitment to increase the wages of officers, which was one of the requests made by community.
Had community come to me and said, don't approve the wages because we can't stomach the accountability, I would have voted no on that contract.
That wasn't the request.
So, I think, look, at the end of the day, it's about how we're going to move forward.
We set up a path and a legal strategy to give the court an opportunity to signal clearly to us as policymakers whether there were issues with the SPOG contract that would impact the city's ongoing compliance with a consent decree.
We've heard loudly and clearly from the judge that the answer is yes, there are concerns.
Now we know what those concerns are specifically.
It's time for us to come together as you see us here today, roll up our sleeves and do the hard work of police reform.
And that doesn't mean that we're always going to agree.
It does mean that I think we have a shared goal, which is how do we ultimately make sure that community voices continue to be centered in this work.
And how do we make sure that we don't lose all the progress that we made in the years of work it took us to get to the 2017 police accountability ordinance?
So I'm committed to that.
I think the folks behind me are committed to that.
And we're asking for Spog and the mayor to also join us in that commitment.
One more thing on the letter, which complains that the mayor's office has not been communicative on these issues.
But have there truly been no briefings on how to approach Judge Robart's concerns or anything like that?
We've had two executive sessions with our city attorney's office that were quite lengthy.
That is the limit of the information that we've been able to ascertain on this issue.
Anything else?
All right.
Thank you.