Seattle City Council 11/13/18

We are on television.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Thank you for being here in City Hall.

Thanks for joining us this afternoon.

The November 13, 2018 City Council meeting, the full City Council meeting to come to order.

It's 2 o'clock, 2 o'clock 5 p.m.

I'm Bruce Harrell, President of the Council.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Beg Shah?

Gonzalez?

Here.

Herbold.

Here.

Johnson.

Here.

Juarez.

Here.

Mosqueda.

Here.

O'Brien.

Here.

Sawant.

Here.

President Harrell.

Here.

Nine present.

Thank you very much.

Before we get into the introduction and referral calendar, I do want to say we're using several language interpretation devices, and so we'll try to speak clearly.

And we do realize we have an overflow of folks downstairs, so we're going to try to coordinate and get as much public testimony as we can.

So having said that, I move to adopt the introduction and referral calendar for today.

But I do believe that Councilmember Gonzalez may have something to say about that.

Yes, and I can give you something to say I think the clerk will tell me if I'm doing this incorrectly But I request that the council rule relating to circulation of a proposed resolution for introduction and adoption Before 5 p.m.

On the preceding business day be suspended No objection there that rule will be suspended councilmember so what I would like to make a comment on this particular issue?

Either right now or when we vote to amend the introduction and referral calendar.

Okay, I'll come right back to you.

Okay, so right now we are, Council Member Gonzalez is moving to suspend the council rules relating to the circulation before 5 p.m.

and I don't hear any objections.

I think we could just do it without any objections.

So you may proceed on amending the IRC.

So I move to amend the proposed introduction and referral calendar by introducing Resolution 31855, entitled, A Resolution Recognizing the Service and Dedication of the Seattle Police Department's Police Officers, Detectives, and Sergeants, and Requesting the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Conduct a Judicial Review of the Collective Bargaining Agreement Reached Between the City of Seattle and the Seattle Police Officers Guild, and by Referring the Resolution to the City Council for Adoption Today as the Second Item on the Agenda.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded to amend the introduction referral calendar stated by Councilmember Gonzalez.

Councilmember Swant, should we get through that and I'll loop back to you or did you want to say something about this particular issue?

Okay, so Councilmember Swant, you have the floor.

Thank you, President Harrell.

The Seattle Police Officers Guild contract has been discussed in the media and among constituents for months.

So we have to wonder why this resolution is being put forward so late that it not only needs to be walked on to the introduction and referral calendar, but it even needed the rules to be suspended to allow that vote to happen.

I can only conclude that this resolution, which does not fundamentally do or change anything, is being sprung on the police accountability movement with no notice as a ploy to ram through the contract itself.

I will not stand in the way of introducing this resolution, and I will be voting yes on allowing this resolution to be introduced in the calendar.

because I think that council members should have the opportunity always to be on record and cast a vote.

To be clear, when it comes time to vote on the resolution itself, I intend to vote no and I will explain my reasons then.

But I also urge members of the public watching this to remember this moment next time council members complain that progressive legislation that supports regular people was too last minute or too rushed.

Thank you.

Thank you for those words.

We have a motion and a second to amend the IRC.

Any other comments before we cast a vote?

All those in favor of amending the introduction referral calendar as stated by Councilmember Gonzalez, vote aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, vote no.

The motion has it on that one and I believe Councilmember Herbold, you have two amendments as well.

Thank you.

Council Member Herbold.

I move to amend the proposed introduction referral calendar by introducing Clerk File 314409 entitled Memoranda of Understanding and Memorandum of Agreement incorporated into the Collective Bargaining Agreement referenced in Council Bill 119368 Appendix F of Attachment 1 and by referring it to the City Council for consideration today as Agenda Item 3.

Second.

Thank you.

I'm sorry.

And did you articulate both of the amendments or just one?

We'll take them one at a time.

So on this one, was there a second?

There was.

Okay.

So it's been moved and seconded to amend the introduction referral calendar stated by Council Member Herbold.

Any further comments?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

The ayes have it.

Council Member Herbold, you have the floor.

Thank you.

I also move to amend the proposed introduction referral calendar by introducing Resolution 31856 entitled A Resolution Committing to Collaborate with the executive to ensure the transfer of properties that have a mutual and offsetting benefit at least to the organizations currently residing in those facilities no later than March 2019 in circumstances where those organizations have expressed interest in taking ownership of those properties and demonstrated the financial capability of maintaining the facility and by referring this resolution to the Select Budget Committee.

Is there a second?

Second.

Almost died for lack of a second.

Any further comments about this amendment?

Any other comments?

All those in favor of amending the introduction for our calendar as stated by Council Member Herbold regarding Resolution 31856 say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

So I think those are all the changes we have to the interaction referral calendar.

And just by way of context, we have a council rule that we've imposed upon ourself that any legislation we are to consider should be in writing to the public, to our own colleagues by 5 o'clock, usually Friday, the week before.

It is a discouraged practice to introduce and amend the rules or suspend the rules to consider legislation.

We've done it many times and we seem to articulate that it is not a favored practice but often we do work over the weekend and often we do have a need to amend the agenda.

And so that is done countless times and that is what we did for three matters today.

But again, it is a discouraged practice but one that sometimes is unavoidable.

Okay, we have an amended district referral calendar.

Any other comments?

All those in favor of, let me strike that.

I move to adopt the introduction referral calendar as amended.

Is there a second?

All those in favor of the introduction referral calendar as stated say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed?

The ayes have it.

Let's move to the agenda.

I will Unless there's no objection, today's agenda will be adopted.

I don't believe we have any changes to today's agenda.

Okay, there are no minutes for approval today.

Presentations, we do have a presentation.

We're very honored to have a presentation made by Councilmember Herbold.

And Councilmember Herbold, you have the floor.

Thank you very much.

So before I get started, I do want to share with council members testimony from our former city council member, David Della, who is unable to join us today.

And he writes that he is unable to attend the council meeting today in person, and he wanted to express his support for the proclamation honoring Filipino and American World War II veterans.

He thanks us for moving forward on this proclamation on the heels of Veterans Day this year.

We give honor and thanks to the many men and women who put themselves into harm's way to protect our freedoms and our way of life.

This includes Filipino soldiers who have served shoulder to shoulder with American soldiers during World War II to do the same.

In former Council Member Della's family, his uncles on his mother's side served in many of these battles in Asia, The only difference is that Filipino World War II veterans were never given full recognition of their efforts during the war and in fact were denied full benefits afforded other soldiers who fought valiantly and also made the ultimate sacrifice.

This is a very big issue in the Filipino-American community, and today the Council has the opportunity to honor and pay tribute to the many Filipino World War II veterans with this proclamation.

I want to thank Ray Pasqua, who is with us today with representatives of the Filipino Veterans Recognition and Education Project.

FilVetRep Region 8, representing the Pacific Northwest, Seattle Filipino community, and others there.

With that, I'd like to read the proclamation.

Please do.

Thank you.

Whereas, celebrating U.S. public law 11-4-265, which awards the United States Congressional Gold Medal to Filipino and American forces commanding or serving in an active duty status under the command of the United States Armed Force in the Far East during World War II, And Filipinos have been in the continental United States for 431 years and have contributed to the cultural, economic, social, and political life of the state of Washington, the Pacific Northwest, and the entire country.

And the people of Seattle have previously adopted a proclamation which permanently recognized October as Filipino American History Month.

And the United States Congress in 2016 passed the Filipino Veterans of World War II Congressional Gold Medal Act of 2015, now enshrined as public law.

11-4-265, and whereas on October 25, 2017, the U.S.

Congress for the first time nationally recognized the service and sacrifices of Filipino and American veterans of World War II who fought under the U.S.

Armed Forces in the Far East by awarding the U.S.

Congressional Gold Medal to the veterans or to their surviving families, and that gold medal is one of the highest civilian awards bestowed by the U.S. and represents a public expression of the nation's gratitude for the distinguished contributions of 260,000 Filipino soldiers and guerrillas during World War II in the Philippines.

And the recognition of these Filipino and American history heroes continues, defined by the national work of the Filipino Veterans Recognition and Education Project and other civic Filipino and veterans organizations.

in awarding the Congressional Gold Medal replicas to eligible veterans and the project has issued medal replications in four separate ceremonies since October 2017. And now, therefore, the mayor and the Seattle City Council do hereby declare the Veterans Day of 2018 as United States Congressional Gold Medal for Filipino and American World War II Veterans Recognition Day.

We encourage the citizens in our city to call upon all residents to join in celebrating these American heroes on this joyous and solemn occasion.

Thank you.

As Councilmember Herbold presents this to our fine members of the Filipino community, I do want to remind everyone that we have interpreters in Cantonese, Vietnamese, Mandarin, Spanish, And that was a challenge when you speak that quickly for those interpreters.

And so we're going to slow it down just a little bit to let our interpreters do their work.

The rules are suspended.

We'd love to hear from you.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

I want to thank Mayor Durkan and the City Council for passing this wonderful resolution and proclamation.

Washington State has 145,000 Filipinos, and we are all proud this year because a culmination of three years' effort has occurred.

And I'm so happy that in December of 2016, President Obama was the one who signed the Public Law 114-265.

I'm going to introduce to you Thelma Sevilla, who is the Deputy Director of the Filipino Vet Recognition and Education Project.

The group that was with us included some relatives of servicemen who did receive the Congressional Gold Medal.

Cindy Domingo, Carrie Yui Pasqua, Damian Sevilla, and Emi Katage joined us here today.

And I also wanted to say one last thing.

Congratulations to my good friend Diane Narasaki for her recent retirement.

So Thelma.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

I've been here before on behalf of the International Drop-In Center, so this is not entirely foreign to me.

Today, I have brought with me the Congressional Gold Medal for you to enjoy and appreciate.

So it belongs to my father, Sergeant First Class Mark San Diego, who is passed on.

And I believe that it is a very, very prestigious award.

It's symbolic of the heroism and valor that many of the soldiers exemplified.

On behalf of the Filipino Veterans Recognition and Education Project, Deputy Director for Region 8 and the daughter of a World War II veteran and prisoner of war, Bataan Death March survivor, I am proud and honored to accept this prestigious proclamation from the City Council members and Mayor Jenny Durkan of Seattle.

Phil Vet Rep is especially grateful to Council Member Lisa Herbold for championing this proclamation and seeing it come to fruition.

This proclamation, as Lisa indicated, honors 260,000 women and men who bravely and honorably served our nation during World War II to keep freedom and democracy alive.

Though not American citizens, these brave men and women chose to serve under American command to combat the imperial designs of the Axis powers in the Pacific theater toward the liberation of their own land and to pave the way for further gains that ended in ultimate victory.

Our hope is that by promoting the proclamation, it may carry to other generations and even to other nations a message to inspire citizens everywhere to serve without counting the cost.

On December 8, 1941, not even 24 hours after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Japanese Imperial forces attacked the bases of the United States Army in the Philippines.

By April 1942, the enemy had overtaken the Bataan Peninsula and over 78,000 members of the United States Armed Forces were captured.

These soldiers were forced to march the 70 plus miles distance to a prison camp in northern Luzon.

over a period of one week without food or water.

The tortuous march came to be known as the infamous Bataan Death March.

An estimated 700 U.S. warriors and 6,000 to 10,000 Filipinos perished during this journey.

The United States remains forever indebted to the bravery, valor, and dedication that Filipino veterans of World War II displayed.

Their commitment and sacrifice demonstrated a highly uncommon and commendable sense of patriotism and honor.

Their valor and sacrifices were to be diminished, however, with the passage and signing of the Rescission Act of 1946 by President Harry S. Truman.

This law, shamelessly and retroactively annulled, took away soldier benefits that would have been payable to Filipino troops for their military service benefits under the Armed Forces Command.

Those benefits included monthly pension, medical, housing, tuition assistance, and burial benefits.

Three years ago, after many months of grassroots engagements and advocacy, the Filipino Veterans of World War II Congressional Gold Medal Act of 2015 was signed by President Barack Obama on December 14. It was his last act before leaving office and took 75 long years before these valiant warriors were finally recognized.

October 25, 2017, the United States Congress formally presented the Congressional Gold Medal to the veterans at the Emancipation Hall in Washington, D.C. This Congressional Gold Medal is publicly displayed at the Smithsonian Institute American History Museum.

Washington State was the first to have a 100% participation by our federal congressional leaders.

The Senate and House legislators all signed on to sponsor the bill.

As of October 27, Region 8 is proud to have hosted four major congressional gold medals awarding 322 medals to 15 living veterans and 307 posthumously to families of veterans.

It is the goal of PhilVetRep to develop an education program to complement the Congressional Gold Medal and educate the American public on the history and worthiness of sacrifice made by the veterans.

This Thursday, November 15th, the Seattle Seahawks will honor and pay tribute to the Filipino veterans of World War II during their halftime show.

As a tribute to Military Day, there will be five living Filipino veterans attending the game.

We appreciate and feel honored that the Seahawks is recognizing and remembering our Filipino veterans.

By doing so, they bring to light public awareness and education of the importance of our fathers' and grandfathers' valor and contribution to the victory and success of World War II in the Pacific.

Again, thank you for this honor to remember our Filipino and American World War II veterans of the Pacific Campaign.

With me today, I have a copy of the Washington State House of Representatives Proclamation or Resolution, which I would like to present to the City Council, and Public Law 114265. Thank you very much.

I would like my medal back, please.

Thank you.

Thank you for sharing.

And in the Filipino way, we say, Mabuhay.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And Council Member Herbal, thank you for your leadership in supporting that proclamation.

Okay.

So at this time, we'll take public comment on items that appear on today's agenda.

the introduction and referral calendar, and the City Council's 2018 work program.

And again, as I stated earlier, we have interpreters in several languages, and so we'd ask that you at least be mindful of that as you speak, and we'd love to hear from you.

So I'll call you out in the order with which we speak.

We generally give 20 minutes for public comments.

We're going to take it down to one minute because we have a lot of people and we want to try to hear from as many people as possible.

So, if you're down on the list, sort of maybe get your notes ready so we can condense it to one minute.

And I'll start off with Mr. Pauli G followed by, and we're going to, hold up for a second Pauli, we're going to try to use both mics.

So, Tim Lee, is it Tim Lee, your second, Tim, and maybe you could come, there you are, hey Tim, over on this mic and then we'll just alternate mics and, Polly, you are on.

My name is Pauly G, and I'm a community activist for police accountability and reform.

Today, I ask the city council to vote no and reject this proposed contract, which threatens civilian oversight and accountability of the police.

Let's remember that the history of the Seattle Police Department is one of documented, racially biased violence.

And each council member that votes yes is sending a department a green light to continue that violence.

Shockingly, there are secret sections in the contract with terms and conditions that are only just now being released to the public, and you saw that with the Council suspending its own rules in order to vote on it right now.

And by the way, just because the Council hasn't been transparent in the past doesn't justify it not being transparent now or in the future.

So what the secret sections in the appendices say or what they allow the police to do is completely unknown because the public has not had no opportunity to review it.

If you wouldn't purchase a car or a house with a contract you couldn't fully read, why would you do so with a police department?

Thank you.

Followed by...

Tim will be followed by Mary T. Andrews.

Hi, Tim.

Good afternoon, President and the Board of Council Members.

My name is Tim Lee, and I represent the advisor of, I'm the advisor of senior inactions from Chinatown International District, and also members of Chinatown International District businesses.

And the reason we support, we support with a 1,300 sign signature, starting, we started November 9th, and then until last night, and last night I think I have, email to every council members and also Mayor Durkin's regarding our support of our police department and the reason we support it because we want our Police to be wearing body camera So in case if anything that our community cannot express we want it to be able to record it in our body camera so that is why one of the reason we support it and also that this contract after you approve it we will have the Office of the Inspector General to be fully accountable for it, and also the Office of Accountability that we want to involve.

Could you wrap up your time?

Thank you.

The most important reason is because we want to also hire more bilingual police, and we cannot do that without a contract, and no police contract will work for us.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

And may I present this?

with a date and an address.

I just had a question on how this sign-up sheet looks.

It has two names in one slot.

Were you speaking with Michael or is Michael...

I'm a board member of Michael E. Lee Social Justice Foundation as a former board member...

Before you start, you have two names in one line, so are you speaking with him or...

Where is Michael?

I'm Mary T. Andrews.

I am a board member of Michael Randall Ely Social Justice Foundation.

Is Michael here today?

He's passed away.

He was killed by the Seattle Police in 1997.

Go ahead and start your time.

I just saw two names on there, so I was trying to make sure.

Go ahead.

Yeah, I didn't write out the whole organization.

It's Michael Ely Randall Social Justice Foundation.

I'm a board member with Mrs. Ely, who at that time when her son was killed, there was no police brutality in the media, nor was there social media.

I want to mention J2 Williams, Alex Jackson, Ray Nix.

I also want to mention Henry Northwind's son.

All police brutality by the killed or maimed by the Seattle Police Department.

I want to let you know.

We need police, but we need the police to act in our behalf, especially the most vulnerable, the mentally ill.

I had came to this council one time, said I want to see a million dollars go to police accountability and crisis intervention training.

Apparently you've done so, but it's not earmarked as such.

If that includes bilingual and if that includes training and to take the contract and say, They need to be accountable.

I think that's time.

Mothers in several groups have stood forward, and also with the ACLU, they're in violation of human and civil rights.

Let's do a no-shoot-to-kill policy here in the city of Seattle.

Let's set the standard for our country.

They work for us.

Alex Jackson said that several times.

They work for us.

You work for us.

Please honor the people's request and disclose their budget and make it part of public safety.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony.

So our next two speakers, if we could have Katrina Johnson in the middle and then Nikita Oliver over here.

So we have Katrina and Nikita in that order.

Katrina's first, Nikita's second.

I find it problematic that you guys would endorse 940 and in the same breath sign off on this SPOG contract that undermines all police accountability measures that you voted for last year.

It is the slap in the face of family members who have lost their loved ones to law enforcement like myself, Charlena Lyles.

You all represent the community.

And with that being said, please pay the officer their long overdue wages, but reject the rest of the contract that further marginalized and endangers impacted communities.

Just one sec following the key to Oliver be Reverend Walden Reverend Walden you have the middle phone miss Oliver you have the floor I just remind folks when you're coming up to testify to slow your speech down a little bit I know it's hard to do, but we got lots of translators around so just wanted a reminder I also, I'm asking people to speak slowly, not because I'm trying to interfere with people's First Amendment rights, but because there are trans leaders in the room.

That's it.

That's my request.

If you can, great.

If you can't, that's okay.

Okay.

So, Ms. Oliver, you have the floor, and Ms. Reverend Wallenby, second.

So a year ago you all responded to communities cry after many years of fighting for police accountability legislation.

Legislation that does not prevent communities already impacted by police brutality from experiencing that brutality but provides us a venue or a vehicle for hopefully achieving justice when misconduct does occur.

You have a contract before you that was achieved by what I would consider a sacred process, the collective bargaining agreement, which we should protect.

And yet this contract flies in the face of the work that communities have been doing for years to achieve police accountability in a way that we can at least have a way to access justice.

Voting for this contract will dismantle the work that we've been doing for years, and it will dismantle the ordinance that you voted on unanimously last year.

So we're asking you to reject the contract so we can find a way to move forward that honors the families whose lives have been disrupted by police brutality.

And I've been speaking slow, so I'm going to ask for a little more time.

That honors the lives that have been lost.

but more importantly, honors the work that we've been doing and protects our families and our young people from ever having to encounter that kind of disruption ever again.

Thank you, Ms. Oliver.

Madam Clerk, is it possible to adjust the clock to 1 minute and 20 seconds?

And so then we could slow the cadence down a little bit and still get the one minute.

Just one moment, Reverend Walden.

The next speaker just says CPC.

So is the CPC going to speak as a group?

Okay.

Following Reverend Walden, it just says CPC, and I'll speak as the chair of CPC.

You have the floor, Reverend Walden.

Good afternoon.

Thank you, City Council, for this hearing today.

I mean, and looking for this historic vote.

Mothers for Police Accountability have been working on these issues for many, many years.

And what we believe truly is that the city failed in this negotiation.

It was the city's failure.

I mean, the gill, you know, their job is to get as much as they can.

for the union members.

So we're, mothers believe that the, we're asking the city council to reject it, but also find a way to pay the officers.

We're not against police officers.

We're not.

I mean, I mean, real not.

And we want to go on the record as saying that Mothers for Police Accountability is not against police officers.

We believe they should get paid.

And we believe that the contract, the way it is, does not give the police chief the tools that's necessary for whoever the chief is to issue discipline and to make sure that the police officers, once they're fired, does not be able to get their jobs back like it was in the Cynthia Whitlock case.

So anyway, we stand with the community.

We stand with the police.

They're part of the community.

We're not trying to isolate them.

We believe they should get paid.

Christmas is coming.

Give them some money.

Okay, but let's go back to the table and give the community police accountability with transparency.

That's what we work for.

Transparency, accountability, and they all work for us.

You know, the police work for us.

We're there.

We're there for them and they're there for us and let's make this work.

I believe we can do that without making us to be the bad guys.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Following the CPC in the middle mic will be S.

Naomi Finkelstein.

Okay, Isaac Ruiz, co-chair of the Community Police Commission.

I agree with what Reverend Walden said and what Ms. Oliver said.

We're here as a direct consequence of choices that were made.

The choice at the bargaining table to deprioritize and depart from important reforms in the legislation in significant ways.

The choice not to include the Community Police Commission as a technical advisor in bargaining.

The choice not to provide a copy of the tentative agreement to the CPC until SPOG had already approved it.

So make no mistake about it, community did not have a seat at the table in these negotiations, period.

The CPC has choices too.

The CPC could have remained silent or it could speak up about the flaws in this tentative agreement, and I'm thankful to my colleagues on the Commission for doing their job.

But ultimately, what difference will it make is the question.

Speaking of choices, you have a choice as well.

I see the leaders here are the same ones who passed the historic legislation last year.

And I understand that your jobs are difficult and political headwinds are tough.

And years from now, I want you to know we're not going to be talking about the unintended consequences of this agreement.

We will be talking about the things that we have already laid out before you and you are making a choice today.

If the council approves this contract, you are consenting knowingly to the flaws that have been outlined concerning this agreement.

I'm almost done.

There has to be a solution that gets officers the pay they deserve immediately, but that reopens negotiations on the accountability provisions to make the revisions to the concerns that have been identified.

Why not try?

Thank you.

Following Andre Taylor to the outside mic, please proceed.

My name is Naomi Finkelstein and I'm with the Washington Poor People's Campaign, Washington ADAPT, and Kadima, a progressive Jewish congregation.

I'm a trans person and I'm a disabled person and I stand here today taking the leadership of people of color Because all three of those groups have been murdered again and again and again by the police.

It makes no sense to pass 940 and legislation in 2017. And then, I'm sorry, I'm just going to say it because I'm from the Bronx really.

It's pretty sleazy to slip it in, to undo all that legislation with a contract.

It's not about democracy.

We're always busy looking at, you know, the orange guy saying what he's doing to undermine democracy.

But this contract undermines democracy.

And I want to remind you that 40 union leaders wrote a letter not supporting this contract.

This is not what unions were made for.

Unions were not made to, what's a nice word?

To mess over people.

They're there to support the people, and I want to remind people, an injury to one is an injury to us all.

That is a basic union premise.

So, again, as a trans person, as a disabled person, I stand behind the leadership of people of color who are saying this contract does not work.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Following Mr. Taylor will be Eric Sullivan.

Eric Sullivan, do you mind taking the middle mic?

Mr. Taylor, you have the floor, sir.

Thank you.

I believe in every single one of you guys' positions for the community, I believe that you are engaged with community matters.

I say that because of the action that each and every one of you unanimously endorsed 940. You endorsed the voice of community.

I know you understand the importance of that.

Let me dispel this convoluted narrative that I keep hearing out here in the community that somehow community don't want officers to get paid.

That is ridiculous.

Those community members that are in support, they have their own jobs and could not think about not getting paid for four years.

That's ridiculous.

So let's just bring clarity to that.

The community supports law enforcement getting paid.

What we don't support is any measure going forward undoing what you all agreed to last year.

And we all celebrated together.

We do not support that.

It is not against anybody.

It's just that we set forth something that everybody celebrated last year.

And I just don't want us as a whole to give the community different signals, because that's what's going on right now.

We don't understand the signals that you are giving us right now.

I believe in every one of you guys' leadership.

Show us that you will lead.

Let the officers get paid.

go back to the negotiating tables and make sure that there is accountability for us.

Because one thing 940 does that you all recognize is it brings everyone together.

Law enforcement, community.

That's where we're heading as a city and a state.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Taylor.

Following Mr. Sullivan will be Nicole Grant.

Nicole, if you don't mind taking the outside mic.

You have the floor, Mr. Sullivan.

Good afternoon, Councilmember Harrell, Council President Harrell, and the rest of the City Council.

More than a week ago, King 5 reporter Alyssa Hahn reported that federal judge James Robart reviewed the collective bargaining agreement with the Seattle Police Union and he admitted that he was taken aback by some of it, specifically when it comes to police accountability.

but declined to go on record until after the city council approves it, which doesn't make any sense if your whole point of your job in this situation is to review and give your opinion so you guys can make a better decision.

He has supervised the reform process over the last six years with the Seattle Police Department.

He says that just because SPD is in full compliance with the consent decree, He found just the opposite about the tentative agreement, the opposite of compliance.

I wanted to say that slow so that the translators got it.

The opposite of compliance is what he found.

This is a federal judge whose job it is to review this contract, but he has declined his official statement until after you make your decision.

It doesn't make sense.

He points to the CPC who also says that the agreement rolls back progress when it comes to disciplining an officer.

Please do not allow the rollback on disciplining an officer when too many have died in those hands.

Thank you.

Following Ms. Grant will be, I'm going to lay out three names to get prepared.

Linda Soriano, Randy Peters Sr., and Kirsten Wagner.

So Linda, Randy, Kirsten.

Ms. Grant, you have the floor.

Thank you, Council President Harrell, City Council members.

My name is Nicole Grant from MLK Labor.

We represent over 150 unions in King County and over 100,000 workers.

And I'm asking you today to please vote yes on the Seattle Police Officers Guild's contract.

This is a contract that was negotiated by SPOG president Kevin Stuckey, and by Carmen Best, Seattle's police chief.

It's their contract, and they are leaders that I trust in our community.

I want to say that to everybody whose voice was heard, in the conversation around this contract and public safety and policing, that the labor movement is committed to continuing conversations so that we're having the best policing possible and the best practices for policing in the city of Seattle.

And I wanna end by recognizing the dozens of union members that are in the audience today from several different unions.

Thank you.

Hello council members, my name is Linda Soriano, Lummi Nation.

I'm asking you to please vote no on the Seattle Police Officers Guild contract.

If you've already made that decision, I'm asking you to reconsider.

Yes, the officers need a pay raise.

However, not at the expense the way the contract is written if it's going to mess with the police reform legislation.

Going back to 2010 when John T. Williams was murdered and Officer Ian Burke got away with it without being prosecuted, all the city can do is give the family money.

And that's not even sufficient.

We need police reform.

So back to the bargaining table, and that contract needs to be negotiated.

Please vote no on that contract.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Randy and Christian.

My name is Randy Peters.

The Council of Seattle, I speak to you and tell you that the blood of the people of the different nations in the city here are on your hands.

The decision that you make is very important.

The decisions that you make.

is very important to the people.

You need to ask for wisdom and knowledge.

Wisdom and knowledge.

Because what I see down the line, if you don't fix the problem now of homelessness, If you don't fix this problem of drugs, that is running rampant in the city.

The problem keeps going on and on.

I can see tanks going down the road trying to control the problem.

More policemen coming in to try to fix the problem.

And this is not the way.

This is not the way.

But I want to say thank you to the policemen.

Thank you, Randy.

That give their life and put it.

Thank you very much.

So I want to thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Randy.

So our next speakers after Kirsten, just one moment, if you may, will be Dustin Lambrow, then Jason Chan.

Great, Kirsten.

Good evening.

My name is Kirsten Wagner.

I'm speaking today because I want to urge you to reject the current proposed contract with the Seattle Police Officers Guild.

While I absolutely support the increase in wages for officers, it is deeply concerning to me that this contract would completely undercut and eliminate essential reforms that you enacted in 2017 to improve police accountability and transparency.

When you enacted these reforms, you were listening to community voices and holding yourselves accountable to community.

To approve the current contract would be to turn your backs on your community members and on their years of efforts to improve policing in Seattle.

As you know, 24 community groups have explicitly denounced the proposed contract.

Instead of maintaining the reforms from your 2017 legislation, the contract would make it harder to hold police officers accountable by shortening the timeline for investigations into misconduct, limiting the OPA's power, and restricting civilian oversight, among many other changes.

Removing this contract would mean a return to allowing the police to police themselves and carry out their own investigations of misconduct among their members, which is unacceptable.

I strongly urge you to abide by the recommendations of the Community Police Commission in renegotiating this contract.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Council President Harrell and members of the council.

I'm Dustin Lambrow with Teamsters 117. In addition to the hundreds of members who work here at the City of Seattle who we represent, we also represent members in law enforcement at multiple police agencies across Puget Sound, including the officers and sergeants at the Port of Seattle Police Department.

We're here today in strong support of the contract negotiated between SPOG and the city of Seattle, which was bargained in good faith.

At this point, our members want to know if we can count on the city council to approve contracts that are bargained between both sides in good faith.

Police officers are hard working, dedicated public servants who go to work every day to keep our community safe.

We owe it to them to make sure that they are protected by a union contract.

It's not just about pay increases, this is about the protections related to a police contract.

Of course there are issues that the community has and those discussions should continue to be deliberated.

by the city, but not at the expense of holding up hard-working public servants' contracts for leverage.

Thank you.

Thank you, Dustin.

Following Jason will be, I think I'm saying, is it Gray Dominique, maybe?

Gray Dominique and then Isaac Ruiz.

But Isaac spoke, but anyway, so I got, or maybe it's Gary.

Gary, Dominic, and Jason Chan, you have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Council President Harrell and council members.

My name is Jason Chan.

I represent, I'm from the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 751. I'm here to speak in support of approving the contract for Seattle Police Officers Guild.

The hardworking men and women of the SPD are members of our communities.

They defend our rights as citizens, so when it's needed, we as organized labor, we need to step up and defend their rights.

The members of SPOG have gone nearly four years without a contract or a raise.

They deserve a collective bargaining agreement.

They have one.

It's agreed upon by their employer and by the union that represents them.

The public also deserves accountability and oversight, and I feel that this contract addresses that as well.

Negotiation is give and take.

I don't think you're ever going to have a contract that's agreed upon or pleases everybody, but it's something to build on.

Without a contract, we're going to continue to see officers leave.

We're not going to be able to retain officers.

We're not going to be able to entice or get more folks to apply.

So with that, I strongly urge that the council approves this contract and we can move forward.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir.

Pretty far away from the last person's name, because I don't even see the person coming forward.

It was number 17. I think it was Gary Dominique or something.

I'll keep saying that.

But in the meantime, Isaac Ruiz and then Danny LeClaire.

I get a second opinion here.

All right, okay.

We're getting signals that Isaac already spoke.

Okay, Isaac already spoke.

So Danny, you are up.

Danny LeClaire and then Jamie Fleming.

All right.

I'll get a third.

Is it this one?

Oh, it is this one.

All right.

Right.

We ready?

Yes.

All right.

All right.

I'm not against police not getting paid for what they deserve to be paid for their service.

But this contract, This contract is not going to hold police officers accountable, even though they are public servants who have sworn to preserve and protect the people.

But when they're not held accountable and they murder someone or they harass people, it inspires fear in the people.

They see police and they're intimidated.

And they do not feel like they're protected by the police.

These public servants are supposed to protect and serve the people, not inspire fear in them.

That's all.

Thank you.

Thank you, Danny.

Jamie, just one second, if you don't mind.

So following you will be Elizabeth James.

The name that I stumbled on, this person wanted to speak on the contract, and it says bike trail.

Maybe that'll trigger.

There's probably one person here to talk about bike trails.

So that will be that person.

So please proceed.

All right, I'm Jamie Fleming from Teamsters Local 174, and I wanted to say first and foremost that Teamsters Local 174 stands in solidarity with our brothers and sisters in blue.

Collective bargaining is a delicate balancing act where you have to achieve a contract that meets the needs of both parties.

That process is challenging enough without interference from outside groups with their own agendas.

Once agreement is reached between the two parties, which has been in this situation, that needs to be respected.

While I'm up here, I also wanted to let the council members know on the subject of the Burke-Gilman Trail that we do have 5,000 signatures.

You guys wanted to see some more support from the community for moving it to Leary, and we have achieved that, so we will be dropping off those signatures to your offices after this meeting.

But just circling back to the Seattle Police Officers Guild, we wanted to let you guys know that you have the support and respect of the Teamsters Union.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name's Elizabeth James and I'm from Speak Out Seattle.

And I want to thank all of our police officers for all the work they do every day to keep our communities as safe as possible.

I also want to thank Councilmember Juarez and any other council members who will be voting for this contract.

That really shows leadership because we need to have public safety be a number one priority in this city.

I also want to thank the Philippine American veterans and their supporters who showed up today and all the union members who are here to support the police.

The CPC is not an elected body.

Maybe it should be.

But it's not.

You are an elected body.

We support a fair process.

Mayor Durkan drafted the consent decree.

She can read a contract and she supports this one.

This is more than about just a raise.

This is about a vote of confidence to your Seattle Police Department.

They need to know that they have council members that support them.

Bellevue is offering $16,000 bonuses to steal police officers away.

That will happen.

So it's not just about a raise.

It's about when you need a police officer and you call 911, we want to have one there.

If you respond on time.

Thank you.

We've gone about 10 minutes beyond the 20 minutes allotted according to our rules.

We have still a lot of folks that have signed up.

And unless there's strong objection, I think we could at least stand it for another 20 minutes and keep plowing through.

We've heard from over 20 folks.

But I have several sheets, so why don't we just keep plowing through it.

And Madam Clerk, I have your notes that we've exceeded the time.

So we're going to extend it unless they hear objection.

So having said that, Matthew Perkins, you are up, followed by Eder Nardone.

And I apologize in advance when I'm, when I slaughter the names, not if, when, so I apologize.

Thank you, City Council.

I'm here as a resident of District 2 because as a city we need to approve the SPA contract.

We can all agree that in the past the Seattle Police Department has had serious issues, but that does not mean we should sit by and watch the department crumble.

It means as a city we should be doubling down on our efforts to create the best police department in our country.

And the only way to be able to create and maintain that department is to recruit and keep the highest qualified officers that there are.

We cannot do this without first approving the contract and implementing best hiring practices throughout the police department.

As a city, we can all agree that everyone deserves a fair and livable wage, and that does not exclude the brave men and women that put their lives on the line every day for this city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Following Aidan is Diana Arasaki on the other mic.

Diana?

Good afternoon.

My name is Aidan Arasaki and I'm with Speak Out Seattle also.

First I want to thank all our dedicated, hard-working Seattle Police Department, law enforcement.

We really count on you and rely on you.

City Council members, Please support and ratify this contract.

These folks need to be able to do their work and know that they're supported.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Before we hear from Ms. Narasaki, Stephen Prey, then Joseph Lachman, and then Kirk Rodriguez.

Stephen, Joseph, Kirk.

Mr. Narasaki, you have the floor.

Good afternoon, I'm Diane Narasaki, Executive Director of Asian Counseling and Referral Service and co-chair of the Asian Pacific Islander Coalition.

We urge you to vote no on the proposed contract with the Seattle Police Officers Guild.

We believe in workers' rights, the collective bargaining process, and unions.

The City should proceed with immediate pay increases and benefits negotiated with SPOG, but also require immediate reopeners to address and incorporate into the SPOG contract Essential accountability measures included in the landmark accountability ordinance you all unanimously passed just last year.

Civil and human rights, as well as workers' rights, must be protected and go hand-in-hand in the contract.

We strongly support the Community Police Commission, the most widely respected community voice with the most empirical and technical expertise in oversight of the entire accountability system.

We stand with them and 24 major organizations and coalitions and 40 union leaders and members in Seattle in asking you to vote no on the proposed contract.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Joseph and Kirk.

My name is Steven Prey, and I'm a union representative with the professional and technical employees, Local 17. PTE Local 17 is the largest union of city employees, representing nearly 3,000 members.

I'm here today on behalf of Local 17, as well as the Coalition of City Unions, which represents a majority of city employees.

Just like the Mayor, Chief Best, the LRPC, and 96% of the SPOG membership, Local 17 and the Coalition strongly support the ratification of this contract by the City Council.

A rejection of this agreement is a rejection to the collective bargaining process as a whole.

To do so would unquestionably be regressive bargaining and would call into question the good faith of the city at the bargaining table for all future contracts.

Ratifying the tentative agreement implements key reforms.

If the agreement is not passed, it will represent a major step backwards on police reform and will inevitably result in years of litigation.

Please ratify this tentative agreement and maintain labor's confidence in the city as a good faith partner at the bargaining table and beyond.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Joseph is next.

Just a moment, please.

My name is Thieu Phung Ping.

Excuse me, just a moment, please.

Joseph Lockman.

Kirk Rodriguez and Michael Eadie.

Are you Joseph?

Yes.

Good.

Thank you.

Joseph, please proceed.

Thank you, Councilmembers.

My name is Joseph Shoji Lachman, and I'm speaking today as a lifelong resident of Seattle, and also as a current resident of the Chinatown International District.

I'm asking you to vote no today on this BOG contract.

I want to emphasize that this is not about opposing unions, labor, or fair wages, as I think a lot of my colleagues have emphasized here.

But I want to emphasize that I'm speaking in solidarity with these other 24 community organizations, 40 other union leaders, and also the Community Police Commission on stating that this proposed contract fundamentally undermines the landmark 2017 Police Accountability Ordinance.

I have extreme concerns about the way it rolls back regulations on secondary employment as well as using vacation time for suspensions.

I'm also very concerned about agreements that are listed in the appendices but not made available to the public for evaluation.

and also in terms of how it limits the OPA's ability to contribute to criminal investigations, as well as limiting investigators and making it so that they cannot be a part of investigations related to allegations that might result in a termination.

So essentially what I want to say here is that please don't undermine years of work that went into this police accountability ordinance, and please don't undermine Seattle's position as a nationwide leader on police accountability.

Please vote no.

Thank you.

So this is Kirk.

Then we got Michael Itty and David Leong.

I used to sleep outside and all I saw from the police was lying, thievery, use and abuse, hatred toward plenty of people, primarily black, brown, trans, queer, homeless, neurodivergent folk.

I do not trust them.

Never had a conversation with them where they expressed support for human rights.

Simply do not trust them as human beings.

that they asked to shirk their personal responsibility, community responsibility is disgusting and nothing short of cowardice.

I'm not surprised by these people, not surprised.

Okay.

Thank you, Kirk.

So that was Kirk's testimony.

So she wants to speak.

Is she on the list?

What is her name?

What is her name?

P-E-N-G-Q-I-U-F-E-N-G.

Okay, so let's let her proceed, but I don't see her name.

Was her name called out?

Compare yourself, you know, put yourself in the position of the policeman.

If your son and daughters have worked for five years without a raise, you will ask your children to leave that job and not to stay in that job.

Now there is a serious inflation and there is no race and the police has worked so hard and they are in danger every day.

They're facing danger and risk every day.

How do you answer to the police?

Seattle is a beautiful city.

It's a developed city.

However, the police wage or salary is lower than comparable cities such as Portland and San Francisco.

It is below them by 12%.

I ask you, leaders, how are you going to answer that?

Okay, we as an elderly community in the Chinatown, every one of us support the new contract.

Support the raise.

We, the people, we pay tax every single year.

We give money to the government every single year.

Why doesn't the government use the money in the most appropriate place or the most needed place?

We need more police to protect us.

international district to protect the community there and also the property there.

We request the whole council, you use your action to approve, you support us to vote yes for the contract, to approve the contract, do not delay it anymore.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, so I have three speakers.

We have Michael Itty, David Leong, and then Michelle Storms.

Hello, Michael Itty, representing Chinese Information and Service Center and Asian Pacific Directors Coalition.

Like the previous speakers today, we support the pay increases and support our police officers.

However, you know, it's taken a lot of community effort over the years to improve accountability and also public trust.

And it's taken a lot of community efforts to create reforms that are being discussed today, as well as with Initiative 940, and at the county level, the reform with the inquest process.

And so, like the previous speakers, we want to make sure that all the reforms that have been discussed and advocated for by the Community Police Commission are incorporated in the final contract.

And we urge the Council to, to find a solution that ensures that all the reforms are in the final contract.

And please, to urge you to vote no right now.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Counsel.

Michelle Storms, Deputy Director, ACLU of Washington.

I think it's deeply unfortunate that we've come to this place where it's about a dichotomy, as though no on the contract means it's not supporting police or unions, and yes means there's no accountability.

It's unfortunate to be in this place because we've missed an opportunity to have both.

Seattle's a world-class city.

We should pay our officers well, and we should ensure systems of accountability.

And that's what draws both the best police officers and the best people to come and live here.

We testified in support of the accountability ordinance last year because it established a comprehensive system of reforming police practices that had been problematic over many years in Seattle.

and because it created reforms in a holistic system that upheld police accountability, public safety, community trust, and all of these things.

It's the council's duty to bring all of these things together, which is why we're asking for a no vote on this contract, because it does not bring us to where we need to be, which is a place of well-paid officers, community safety, public safety, community trust, and police accountability.

The lessons from Seattle's progress on this ordinance that has been historic and unanimously approved by you and the consent decree case are that we need to go forward and not backwards.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Hello council, members, president, thank you.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak a little bit.

My name is David Leong, and I'm a volunteer in the Chinatown International District, and I'm also a third generation Seattleite.

So we've heard a lot of emotional testimony for and against.

I don't think it has to be one way or the other.

I think being a long time Seattleite, If you're new to Seattle, you have to understand this city is growing massively in the last 10 to 15 years.

Everything is at maximum progress in terms of development, even homelessness, drugs, everything.

Everything is busting at the seams.

So we have a choice.

Now, I don't think that the new agreement nullifies the accountability.

There are many accountability groups that are overseeing the police.

There are also the needs of the police to perform their job adequately, okay?

Now, when a city grows tremendously at a pace like we are growing right now worldwide, I've lived all over the world, okay?

If we don't keep up with law and order, you're gonna have chaos, okay?

And that's going to be, you know, of course, I'm not one way, 100% disregarding another group.

I think the approach is, let's be logical.

Police, they put their lives out on the line every day.

Just like our military.

Okay, thank you very much.

So Peng Kwai Feng.

Is that the young...

is that...

we heard from her?

And so, Peng Kwai Feng, that was our speaker, I think.

It was...

that was...

no, she...

that was her.

Okay, we just went a little out of order.

I'm sorry?

P-E-N-G was the first name, then Q-I-A...

Okay, very good.

So I just took her a little out of order.

Okay.

So here's the next three speakers.

Andy Yip, Aaron Goodman, and Mike Stewart.

Andy Yip, Aaron Goodman, Mike Stewart.

Good afternoon, City Council.

I'm here to represent the Seattle Chinese community, and you have heard from the seniors and many communities that speak before me.

I'm here to urge you to support the contract, but only reluctantly.

All of us at the community feel that It is important that the police officers, the hardworking ones, that are risking their lives to safeguard us needs to be paid a fair wage, and it is long overdue.

That's what we support the contract on.

But by supporting the contract, please do not keep yourself in thinking that we're turning a blind eye on the police accountability issues.

You have heard from many communities this is very important to us across the board.

But the choices that are in front of you are very limited.

You're either for or against.

negotiating the terms right now.

So in order to not delay it, we're urging you to support the contract because they deserve to be paid.

Because if you were to reject it, by the time the next negotiation comes about, Seattle Police Department will continue to lose talented officers.

And when the next negotiation comes around, it might take us even a longer time to rebuild the talent pool that is being lost in this lost time.

So please take our heat in funding ways to support the police officer and get them paid, and also continue to improve legislation and bring back the accountability issue for the police officers.

Thank you.

Thank you, Andy.

Just one moment, Aaron.

So we're trying to get through this.

We actually went through our extended time, and I'm going to keep trying to plow through it.

So let me just say this to our Seattle community here.

You don't have to use the full minute.

You could accept it, reject it, punch it out there, and then we could move on.

So that way you could hear for more.

So you don't have to use the full minute.

That's the outside time.

So Aaron, you're on.

But after Aaron, it'll be Mike Stewart, Marla Murdoch, and then Faye Lopez.

Aaron, Mike, Marla, Faye.

We're going to keep trying to plow through it.

But we do have a full agenda, and we want to hear from the council members.

Aaron, you have the floor.

Well, I will take your recommendation and be quick.

Erin Goodman with the Soto Business Improvement Area, and I'm here today to urge you to approve this contract.

The conversation has been going back and forth, but it needs now to be approved so the judge can review it and determine whether it is in line.

Our officers need a contract, and we need a police force that's helping our neighborhoods.

Thank you.

Thank you, Erin.

All right.

Thank you, Council President Harrell and City Council.

My name is Mike Stewart, Executive Director of the Ballard Alliance, representing hundreds of businesses and thousands of residents in the Ballard core.

We're deeply committed to public safety in our neighborhood, and unfortunately, we've seen an increase in crime and an erosion of public safety.

You have an opportunity today to take a large step forward in addressing this issue by approving the agreement between the City of Seattle and the Seattle Police Officers Guild, and I'll leave it at that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, good afternoon.

My name's Marla Murdock, and first I want to thank the City Council for passing the 2017 Police Accountability Ordinance.

I'm a resident of Seattle and requesting that the City Council reject the proposed Seattle Police Officers Guild contract.

I've worked closely with the immigrant community and have listened to their concerns regarding police accountability.

For example, a parent of a student I worked with did not want their child to take an after school job because of safety concerns of being harassed and targeted while traveling home from the job.

This child had already been questioned previously and asked why he was in a certain neighborhood.

The 2017 legislation must be implemented as passed unanimously by the city council in order to retain community trust in law enforcement.

Community trust is important to all stakeholders as it promotes safer interactions and better communications for everyone involved.

Real input must be allowed from the CPC representing our communities.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Just one sec, Faye.

Following Faye is Ian Burns, and then Ty Moore.

Good afternoon, council members.

I'm the executive director of the Seattle Community Police Commission.

I was president-elect of the Latina Latino Bar Association of Washington back when the letter was sent to the DOJ, and I was a signatory on that letter to the Department of Justice.

Currently, I was appointed to this position in 2014. The mayor and the council and the city have broad authorities and broad understanding and are responsible for many, many aspects of how this city runs.

The CPC's role is to have specific expertise in this area.

Our job is to remember our history, those incidents that bring us here today.

The recommendations aren't theoretical.

There are names associated to each and every change, each and every reform.

Our job is to follow up.

Our job is to daylight those recommendations, the legislation, and implementation.

This is about decades worth of reform.

It's about reform that was negotiated transparently.

It is and was incumbent upon us, the Seattle Community Police Commission.

It is our duty to flag these issues, our job to daylight, and our job to remember.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ian, yeah.

Hi, my name is Ian.

I am a proud former member of UAW 4121 and a member of Socialist Alternative.

I was proud to see that my former union president signed onto a letter alongside nearly 40 other union leaders and rank-and-file activists saying that you should vote no on this contract.

I'm going to read a couple lines from that letter right now.

We the undersigned Seattle area union members fully support fair pay for Seattle police officers.

The wage increases their union.

The Seattle Police Officers Guild has negotiated with the city are overdue with the officers not having received raises since 2014. Nonetheless, we urge Seattle City Council to reject the proposed contract between the City and SPOG because the agreement undermines and rolls back the hard-won but still all-too-limited accountability reforms contained in the 2017 law passed unanimously by this same City Council.

These accountability reforms protect the civil rights of all working people, including union members in our community.

And those who assert that the council must approve the agreement in its entirety because the police officers deserve their raises are trying to force a false choice on the council.

The rights of community members, as enshrined in the 2017 law, are not bargaining chips to be traded away.

The history of our labor movement that unions are strongest when we stand shoulder to shoulder with community allies because we recognize that we must defend the rights of workers both at work and in the community.

My name is Ty Moore.

I'm an organizer with Socialist Alternative.

We stand united with the two dozen and more community organizations, with Councilmember Sawant, and with all the union members who have stood up to oppose this contract.

In the best traditions of the labor movement, as the previous speaker said, has been to stand in solidarity with working people in and out of unions, and particularly with those who are least represented and most marginalized, which also are those who are targeted by police, whether these are communities of color, the queer community, and those who have been underrepresented in city government.

We stand in solidarity with all people, all working class people.

Now that is a very, that's a serious definition of labor solidarity.

It's a very narrow definition that unfortunately many labor leaders have adopted today.

So I think this council needs to take seriously the voices that we've heard today and the voices that are not able to make it in this room.

It is not in good faith how this decision has been rushed through in the midst of the midterm elections, in the midst of the struggle for 940, in the midst of the budget battle, without a proper ability for the wider community to bring its voices forward.

We've only seen these voices brought forward in the last few days, and that has not been a genuine process and a transparent process.

So I'd urge the council to table this, to bring it back to the negotiating table, and bring us a contract without these rollback and accountability measures.

Thank you.

I called Thelma, but I think Thelma just might have signed up and she was already presented for the proclamation.

So having said that, James Bible, do you have the floor, sir?

I was also a signer on that letter to the Department of Justice asking for some sort of intervention.

See, you must understand, I've sat in those rooms with families that have lost their loved ones as a result of police shooting.

I continue to represent young, gay, black, and beautiful children who ended up being thrown around in jail cells by police officers.

in recent years.

I now represent a young man who's only 70 years old who was driving to church with his friends when he was pulled over at gunpoint, pulled out of his car, and his arm was slammed behind his back.

I continue to see the same officers over and over and over again play this system and end up still in a position where they get leave, they continue to work, they get time off, and then they end up working again.

Working again.

For us, in our name, with their badge.

This isn't about whether or not people are making a living wage, because people are making a living wage.

People are also dying.

People are also being humiliated.

And justice, justice in this room seems to be blind.

What it seems to be about exclusively is money.

And if you care about us, if you care about us, you will reject this contract.

You will go back and say, what about the people that can't make it into this room?

What about the poor?

What about the impoverished?

What about those that have traditionally been illegitimized by this system?

What will you do for them?

Thank you, Mr. Bible.

You'll actually take a stand.

Thank you, Mr. Bible.

OK.

So we are going to close, call a comment.

We heard from over 55 people.

Thank you for your testimony.

We're going to move to our agenda.

Please read the title for the payment of the bill section.

I'll move to pass Council Bill 119404. It's been moved and seconded that the bill pass.

Any further comments?

Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Begshaw?

Aye.

Gonzales?

Aye.

Herbold?

Aye.

Johnson?

Aye.

Juarez?

Aye.

Muscata?

Aye.

O'Brien?

Aye.

Sawant?

Aye.

President Harrell?

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Please read the first agenda item.

The report of the City Council agenda item 1, Council Bill 119368 relating to the city employment, authorizing the execution of the collective bargaining agreement between the City of Seattle and Seattle Police Officers Guild to be effective January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2020. amending Ordinance 125493, which amended the 2018 budget by increasing appropriations to the Seattle Police Department and the Police Relief and Pension Fund, and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts, all by three-fourths vote of the City Council.

Okay, so this is actually an action that's come out of the Labor Relations Policy Committee, which I chair, but it's a public safety police department matter, and certainly Councilmember Gonzalez is the lead there.

So, Councilmember Gonzalez, would you like to introduce the matter and speak on it?

I have one minor amendment to make that Came to me from the law department.

So I'm gonna first put the council bill on the table and then I'll need a second and then we can discuss the amendment vote on the amendment and then we'll have a bill amended bill to discuss.

Okay, so That was your motion.

I moved to pass council bill one one nine three six eight So just so

people understand that sort of this amendment has been moved and seconded for the bill to be amended.

And Council Member Gonzalez, can you explain that a little bit?

Yes.

So I move to amend Council Bill 119368, end of Section 2, by adding the following language, quote, any portion of the above appropriations shall not lapse at the end of the 2018 fiscal year.

But shall automatically carry over into the 2019 fiscal year until fully expended abandoned or reappropriated closed quote so the effect of this particular amendment is to add language that allows the appropriations represented in council bill one one nine three six eight to Effectively carry over into the 2019 year as opposed to ending on December 31st 2018 so this is a error in the originally transmitted bill from the mayor's office that we were asked to correct in order to appropriately reflect the appropriation actions we are going to take upon vote of Council Bill 119368.

Thank you.

So just to be clear that this is a technical amendment.

This is not the controversial piece of it at all.

This is a more of a fiscal note.

So this is just the amendment.

This is not the base legislation.

So you're just amending it, the technical piece, and you can still reserve your right to vote on the base legislation either way.

So any questions about the amendment?

Okay, it's been moved and seconded.

All those in favor of the amendment as articulated by Councilmember Gonzalez say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

The base legislation is amended and Councilmember Gonzalez you could proceed.

Thank you.

Council Bill 119368. So I wanted to just make some remarks.

I would love to be able to sit up here and say that they are brief, but they will not be brief.

So buckle up.

So before becoming a council member, I was a civil rights attorney for 10 years.

My law practice included many types of cases, but the foundation of my practice was representing people whose civil rights were violated by those in power, including by police officers.

Many of my clients were monolingual Spanish speakers, women, or people of color.

I had the honor to advocate for their civil rights as a constitutional lawyer in federal and county courtrooms across the state of Washington, including here in Seattle.

But my advocacy for people's civil rights and my commitment to advocate for police reform extended well beyond the courtroom.

For example, in 2008, I was appointed by then-Mayor Greg Nichols to serve on a blue-ribbon panel to recommend changes to the City of Seattle's police accountability system.

After eight months, the task force recommended almost 30 changes to the police accountability system, many of which needed to be negotiated with the city's police unions.

Some of those changes were successfully negotiated, while others were not, so I understand that disappointment that comes along with not getting everything you want in labor negotiations after advocating for them for so long.

My work as a civil rights lawyer was fueled not just by my law degree, but by my lived experiences as a Mexican-American woman growing up in central Washington as a migrant farm worker.

I have unfortunately personally experienced what it means to not have public confidence in the police.

And as recently as this past July, I witnessed one of my own brothers be pulled over and treated unfairly and disrespectfully by law enforcement in front of the house I grew up in.

So for those people that are passing judgment on me for supporting this contract on the basis that I somehow don't get what is at stake here, let me disavow you of that belief.

I do get it.

Not because I have heard a recent story about police brutality, but because I've seen my own brothers and family members experience racial profiling.

and unconstitutional policing.

I've sat in rooms with black and brown families as well, with men who have been stripped of their dignity by a man wearing a police uniform.

I've sat in a room holding a woman's hand while she sobbed and cried about being tased and physically assaulted by an officer, and then being unfairly prosecuted for assaulting that same officer.

I've sat in a room listening to a mom or grandmother telling the trauma of having lost her son or grandson after an encounter with an officer.

I became a council member to put those lived experiences, my legal experience, and my subject matter expertise in the specific area of constitutional policing, police reform, and accountability to work, and I certainly did not sign up for this job to take a step backwards on police reform.

That's why in 2017, I was honored to work with my friends on the Community Police Commission to chart a path forward on passing a belt and suspenders ordinance that would lay out our pie-in-the-sky vision for the police accountability system in Seattle.

There is no question that our goals were lofty, and along the way, we each knew that many aspects of the accountability ordinance that so many of you have cited here in this room today would need to be negotiated in good faith with the Seattle Police Management Association and the Seattle Police Officers Guild.

Indeed, that is why in section 3.29.510, the accountability ordinance, we laid out our collective understanding of how and when the accountability ordinance would or could be implemented into effective law.

The language of the accountability ordinance clearly provides that the accountability ordinance is in limbo until two things occur.

One, collective bargaining is completed, and two, the court overseeing the city's compliance with the consent decree reviews the collective bargaining agreement and the ordinance, all to determine compliance with the spirit of the consent decree.

The accountability ordinance also clearly provided that until these two things occurred, Quote, the current accountability system shall remain in place to the extent necessary to remain consistent with provisions of the consent decree in the matter of United States of America versus City of Seattle, close quote.

Shortly after passage of the 2017 accountability ordinance, the city attorney's office filed our legislation with the federal court seeking approval of it and requesting permission to immediately implement the accountability ordinance.

The court, in an order dated September 7th, 2017, declined to approve the accountability ordinance, thereby consistent with the accountability ordinance, leaving the current accountability system in place.

And in that September 7th, 2017 order, there were three different areas in that order in which the court not only invited, but in fact ordered the city to submit the accountability ordinance and the collective bargaining agreements at the end of the collective bargaining process to the court for judicial review.

And I'm going to take a moment to read directly from the court's order.

On page three, lines three through eight, the court indicated that the court declines to rule on the entirety of the ordinance as it relates to the SPD accountability system at this time.

Until the collective bargaining process is complete, the court cannot be assured that the ordinance as it stands today is a final product.

The court declines to rule on a variant of the ordinance, but will await the final version that is ultimately implemented following collective bargaining.

Also, on page 3, lines 14 through 18, the court stated, the court simply declines to place its final imprimatur on what is essentially a work in progress.

The court cautions the parties who either are or will be engaged in collective bargaining over provisions of the ordinance that the United States Constitution and the right of the city's citizens to have constitutional policing ultimately trumps all other concerns at issue here.

And on the final pages, page 4, lines 8 through 11, the court conditionally approves the creation of the Office of Inspector General and also some of the provisions related to the Office of Police Accountability, but cautions that its approval is conditional and states, quote, if these provisions change in any way as a result of the collective bargaining process or otherwise, the parties, meaning the city of Seattle and the Department of Justice, must so inform the court and resubmit the provisions to the court for further review.

On November 5, 2018, Judge Robar held a status conference to learn more about the tentative agreement and the city's next steps.

It was clear to me during that hearing that Judge Robar had some concerns that aligned with some, but perhaps not all, of the Community Police Commission's concerns.

I also heard him state that he would not, that he could not and would not weigh in on those concerns until this city council voted to approve the tentative agreement.

Colleagues, I would suggest that it is incumbent upon the City Council to now take that step to approve this contract and to petition the court to, with the City's guidance, evaluate whether the deal represented in this contract meets the mandates of constitutional policing.

I believe that the City's best interest in our ongoing journey of reform is best served by pursuing a legally viable path through the judicial process.

Some have argued that rejecting the accountability ordinance aspects in this contract and heading back to the negotiating table on those issues is the more viable option.

Unfortunately, I disagree with that position.

Rejecting this contract will send the parties back to their respective trenches, where each side will begin the process of orchestrating their legal positions in likely litigation that will consume whatever reservoir of good faith is left between the parties, and that is unacceptable.

Again, I believe that it is now the City Council's turn to approve the tentative agreement as we did last November with the Seattle Police Management Association.

This is the next step in what has been a very long journey of progress towards the long-term and sustainable police reform accountability that we all seek.

As one of the authors of the accountability ordinance, let me assure you that there is perhaps no one else on this dais that is more vested in protecting the integrity of the legislation that this city council unanimously passed in May of 2017. Together with community partners and our former colleague, Tim Burgess, we clocked hundreds of hours and yes, in some cases, literally shed tears and sweat to craft this legislation.

I care deeply about the accountability ordinance and about this city's ongoing and iterative work of constantly reforming the Seattle Police Department.

The accountability ordinance, however, is not the Constitution of the United States of America.

It is an important piece of legislation that aspires to meet the mandates of constitutional policing.

It is also an important piece of legislation that, as I've previously discussed, the federal court has declined to approve until collective bargaining with our police unions is final.

That moment has come.

And on balance, I believe that the contract is a better deal for the city than the contract that expired on December 31st of 2014. And today is one of those days where I find myself in the unfortunate position of agreeing with some of the observations made by my friends at the CPC while disagreeing as to others and fundamentally disagreeing as to one, the impact of this contract on our ongoing police reform efforts and two, the appropriate next steps to take to continue making progress on police reform.

I believe that friends can remain friends, even in the midst of disagreement on substantive issues.

And just because I have come to a different conclusion than the Community Police Commission, that does not mean that I do not have profound respect for their work and role within our accountability system.

And there have been many remarks made publicly and privately to me about the CPC that I find incredibly troubling.

So let me be clear.

I believe that the CPC is doing exactly what it should be doing.

It's not easy to lift up concerns that are not politically expedient.

For those that question the CPC's legitimacy within our accountability system or the depth of their representation of community, I ask you to reevaluate your position.

For years, communities that have been disproportionately impacted by unconstitutional or unlawful policing have not had a voice within the morass of government.

And the CPC was specifically created by the consent decree to address and lift up those concerns of those community members.

So accordingly, the CPC has taken its charge under the consent decree seriously and we must continue to support the spirit of what CPC was designed to do.

Second, I am recommending that my colleagues approve this tentative agreement for three basic reasons.

One, Chief Carmen Best, who's with us in chambers today, has clearly stated that approval of this contract is necessary to increasing department morale and to her basic ability to hire and retain additional officers.

The contract brings the compensation we offer to our officers up to a competitive level with cities that we ordinarily compete with for recruits and lateral hires.

Currently, Seattle is dead last in this wage comparison.

This contract would bring Seattle officers' wages to the middle of the pack of the seven comparative cities on the West Coast that historically have been used as a benchmark for compensation comparisons.

Second, city-sanctioned public safety service continue to tell us time and time again that virtually every single neighborhood in the City of Seattle believes we need additional officers to effectively deal with neighborhood-specific public safety concerns.

That is an important aspect of the evaluation for this City Council in determining whether or not to approve this contract.

While I am not satisfied with every term included in this contract, this contract does advance some critical reforms to our accountability system that we will lose for years if this contract is not advanced and reviewed by the judge overseeing our compliance with the consent decree.

So I'm going to spend time on that last point.

And while I don't have time to go through every single aspect of the contract that could fairly be characterized as progress, I do want to spend some time to highlight a few that are important to me.

One, I believe that this contract allows the City of Seattle to increase civilian oversight of the Police Department in order to strengthen public confidence in our Police Department.

It does this in a few critical ways.

It increases the number of civilians in the Office of Police Accountability, which investigates complaints of misconduct lodged against officers.

Many have criticized that the civilianization of the Office of Police Accountability doesn't go far enough.

But I—and they cite the accountability ordinance as requiring complete civilianization.

But my reading of the accountability ordinance simply provides that there be a mix of civilian and sworn investigators, and this advances us in the direction of increasing the number of civilians within the Office of Police Accountability.

Secondly, it legitimizes the entire existence of the Office of Inspector General as the third leg of the city's accountability system with full and unfettered access to information from SPD and OPA.

Let me say that again.

This contract legitimizes the entire existence of the Office of Inspector General for Public Safety, which has the responsibility to do full system-wide audits of the Office of Police Accountability and the Seattle Police Department to ensure the health and the fidelity of our police reform efforts as it relates to the consent decree and the need to continue to engage in ongoing sustainable police reform.

Without this contract, the Office of Inspector General effectively would sit on a shelf and have no power to do anything.

Thirdly, this contract abolishes the Disciplinary Review Board, otherwise known as the DRB, as the third venue for officers to pursue appeals of disciplinary actions.

In my experience, that is the area in which we saw many disciplinary proceedings be dismissed or be reversed in favor of police officers.

and in contravention to those filing complaints about misconduct.

In my view, abolishing the DRB goes a tremendous way towards increasing the public confidence in our disciplinary system at the Office of Police Accountability.

And lastly, this contract would allow for full implementation of body-worn video cameras to be worn by all uniformed officers.

Body-worn video cameras are seen as a tool for improving police services and public confidence, and I believe it is time for us to fully deploy that as a tool.

So from my perspective, in this thing we call a negotiation, it is fair to say that there was an appropriate amount of give and take to balance the needs of bringing wages up to a fair and competitive level and cementing key aspects of the accountability ordinance.

The question for us is whether we are willing to forego not just pieces of police reform, but all of it while we continue to wade through the legal battles that will ensue if we reject this contract.

We cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater.

We should not leave aspects of the accountability ordinance that are included in this contract on the table.

We should take what we've been able to achieve and commit to continuing to work for more, both through the judicial review process and through the impending labor negotiations that are going to come to us very soon and through the various reopeners that are included in this tentative agreement.

This contract is not perfect, but it is progress and it continues the reform process that we began in 2012. Our labor negotiation process on this contract in particular has been tough.

It's been tough on us as management, it's been tough on community, and it has been tough on the men and women of the Seattle Police Department who have been working in 2018 under 2014 conditions.

But ultimately, we have before us a contract that recognizes the collective bargaining rights of SPOG members under Washington state law, while also prioritizing the need to ensure that the public can continue to have confidence in our police officers.

And I believe that rejecting this contract now would be a mistake.

This being said, I believe that there are aspects of this contract that worry me.

This is why I'm advancing a resolution that we will consider after this bill that would request that the city attorney's office petition the federal court to review the tentative agreement and the accountability ordinance as he indicated he wanted to do at the recent status conference on November 5th, 2018 and in his September 7th, 2017 order in which he declined to approve the accountability ordinance pending city council action on a contract with our police unions.

I believe that that is the appropriate venue to address concerns about the standard of review when discipline is being appealed by officers, adjustments to the 180-day investigation rule, and the narrowing of the subpoena powers of the Office of Police Accountability and the Office of Inspector General as reflected in our original accountability ordinance.

It will be up to the federal court overseeing the consent decree to pass judgment on those aspects of the contract and the accountability ordinance that bump into the consent decree and the Constitution.

And colleagues, with all of that being said, I would urge you to join me in voting in favor of ratifying this contract and then saying yes to the resolution we will discuss shortly.

Thank you, Councilman Gonzalez, for your explanation.

I'm sure many of my colleagues will have things to say.

I have a few things to say, too, but I'll wait for a moment until I see Councilman Mosqueda grabbing that mic.

Councilman Mosqueda, would you like to say a few words, a few comments?

Thank you, Mr. President.

So as Councilmember Gonzalez so eloquently explained, really we're being asked to vote on two issues today.

First, should we approve the collectively bargained negotiated wages and benefits for workers who've been without a contract for years?

And what we've heard today is a unanimous agreement, yes.

On the comments that we've heard from people today and the many emails and calls we've received over the last few months, the answer is yes.

And it is my commitment that anyone who works for the city and anyone who contracts with the city should be paid a fair wage so that we can afford to live in the city that we work.

And I will continue to advocate for that in the budget that's coming up in the next week.

Second, Should police reform, long demanded by black and brown communities, by the Latino and African American and the API communities, be realized?

And the answer here is also clear.

Yes.

Today we are being asked to vote on both of these issues at once.

And unlike regular legislation, our options today are limited for amendments that would help clarify the points that Councilmember Gonzalez has just raised.

I know that we all agree we need good living wage jobs, and we also need to make sure that there is accountability in the system and that we make improvements centered on racial justice.

I deeply respect the collective bargain process.

I also deeply respect the individuals and the organizations that have raised questions and concerns.

And my hope is that with judicial review by a federal judge, we will be able to get the answers to the questions that have been raised and clarity on a path forward.

The resolution that accompanies this collection bargaining agreement makes sure that if the federal judge tells it that there is a violation or a misstep on any aspect of the contract, we will be back at the bargaining table and we will be bargaining in good faith.

Thank you, Council Member Esqueda.

I, Councilman Johnson, would you like to say a few words?

Just briefly.

Sure.

I know that other folks will probably speak for longer about this topic than I, but I just wanted to offer a few thoughts.

You know, when the consent decree was signed eight years ago, I think that the officers and leadership of SPD have made really great strides towards reform.

And I recognize that there are differences between the negotiated contract and the accountability ordinance.

that was passed last year.

Those have been outlined very well by my colleagues.

I'm looking forward to hearing more from the judge about Judge Robart about how the new contract affects compliance with the consent decree.

But fundamentally, I believe that Seattle's police officers work really hard to serve our city and keep our neighborhoods and communities safe.

I believe they deserve a living wage.

I believe and respect that the city should bargain in good faith.

And the collective bargaining process is something that we should respect.

So I'm looking forward to voting yes on this bill today.

Thank you, Councilmember Johnson.

I'll say a few words since I did share the LRPC and then I'm certainly not meaning to be last.

I don't have notes.

You guys had notes.

So I'll just sort of keep it real as my kids say.

And I sort of grew up in a city, I was born here, where if you didn't believe in accountability and you didn't believe in reform, you are a Uncle Tom, you're a sellout, you've lost track, you are, it's one of the worst characteristics you could have in the streets that I grew up in in Seattle in the 60s.

And I see your signs, we're rolling back reforms.

And I heard a lot of testimony to that effect.

So what I did was I tried to listen and I dug deep to see exactly what reforms we were rolling back.

And many of you who testified and said, hey man, you're rolling back reforms, you are losing police accountability.

I say as an attorney, as a person that is committed to my community, that we are not.

That if you look specifically at the suggestions that are made, and I'll take them one by one, from the subpoena power of the Inspector General to the clause in the contract that says if there's a conflict between the accountability ordinance and the SPA contract, that the SPA contract would prevail.

I'll take that as an example.

That does not roll back reforms.

That is standard contract union language that we, there's no clause in there that, where there's a contradiction, we are rolling back reforms.

I'll tell you my introduction coming out of Garfield High School of dealing with the police officers was very simple.

It was testifying in Superior Court on behalf of Pastor Witherspoon from Mount Calvary Church against his brother, looking at an officer, and basically the officer gave testimony one way, I gave testimony another, and I realized right there that Let me just put it this way.

There was a lack of trust in that situation because I know exactly what I saw and it was different from what the officer saw.

So when I tell you at the ripe age, and how old I am is none of your business, but at my ripe age, that we are committed to reform.

We are, and it is in this contract.

So if you go through each one of these clauses where we're saying, not one person said, how in the hell we're rolling back reforms?

Not one person said that.

They just repeated this rumor.

And I got to tell you, rumors usually have more wings than the truth.

So if you go back to the first one, it says, And by the way, KUOW did a very nice piece on looking at the highest criticisms.

The first one about the contractual language about if the SPOG contract, there could be a clause where the SPOG contract could supersede the accountability.

What clause is that?

Where are we losing?

what we fought for.

In fact, if you remember in 2017, we passed a racial bias law.

We gave private people a right to sue the city, one in a few cities in this country that allowed citizens to sue for racial bias policing.

One of the concerns I had is who gets stopped by the police.

I want to see that demographic.

Because I could tell you experiences about that demographic.

So we are required, the department is required to keep those demographics such that attorneys could look at that and see if they do see a pattern.

Who are these folks that seem to get more Terry stops than others?

Okay.

So you go back through the data, and like I said, I could go through each one, this notion of somehow the The investigation on bad officers is thwarted.

We are giving the Inspector General a position we created, unfettered access to these files.

And we are staffing that through our budget.

We are giving them more resources to do their job.

And if you look at who the Inspector General is hiring for these positions, These people are not sellouts, let me tell you.

These people are committed to protecting the rights of people who routinely and historically have gotten the bad end of the deal on policing.

So don't tell me we're rolling back reforms.

That is an insult.

I understand what the CPC is.

I understand where your hearts are.

But trust that when we go through this thick binder, we're going through it to make sure we get the reform to protect our community.

That's what we do.

So when I hear that, I understand.

And many of you are my friends, are my good friends.

And there's an old saying that fake friends believe in rumors, and real friends believe in you.

And I will vote for this contract, and I'll say that we have not rolled back any reforms.

And today, tomorrow, and the next day, I'll protect my kids and my grandkids from misconduct from the police.

And one last thing about the police.

I believe in leadership.

You change the culture by changing some of the people.

I believe in Chief Best.

I believe in Andrew Myerberg as an inspector general.

As an OPA director, I believe in Lisa Judge.

I believe we are changing people to change the culture.

And there have been times where I have mistrusted officers, and there's been times where I've relied on officers to protect me and my family.

And I believe we are achieving both in this contract.

And I make no excuses about supporting this contract.

I will support it, and I'll say whatever I have to say when I vote for it, because I think it's a darn good contract, both to achieve accountability, and to protect the people that need to be protected in this city.

I yield the floor.

I will be voting no on this proposed contract between Seattle Police and the City of Seattle, which I cannot support in its current form.

I am a rank-and-file member of a public sector union.

I want to be clear that I support the right of all public sector workers to negotiate raises, including the police, though it is deeply unfortunate that few public sector workers get raises as substantial as these, including EMTs.

I also want to be clear that I support the right of the police to their union and to collectively bargain.

However, I am completely opposed to the serious and unacceptable rollback of police accountability measures in this contract.

I do not share the view of the establishment that the accountability measures passed in last year's ordinance were quote-unquote landmark legislation because I believe that they did not go nearly far enough.

But they were extremely important and they were hard fought by years of activism by working people, especially led by communities of color like the black and brown communities and the indigenous community.

And now this proposed contract between the city and SPOG would dramatically undermine even those steps forward unanimously approved last year by the same city council.

As I have said before, it is my view that the Seattle police have had a long record of police brutality and racial bias and that this is an ongoing problem.

This is also a nationwide problem and in reality is part and parcel of the capitalist system which relies on structural racism and inequality.

Council President Harrell, I think it is disrespectful for you to say that community members are going by rumors.

In the last week, more than two dozen community groups have come forward to oppose this rollback of police accountability, including the Seattle King County NAACP, the Church Council of Greater Seattle, One America, Casa Latina, Not This Time, El Centro de la Raza, the Northwest Immigrant Rights Projects, the American Civil Liberties Union, Creative Justice, Africatown, Mothers for Police Accountability, Asian Counseling and Referral Service, Latino Civic Alliance, Real Change, CEMAR, and last but not least, the experts on this issue, the Community Police Commission, who unanimously voted to reject the contract.

I joined these groups along with more than 40 of my fellow union members who have signed a statement opposing this contract in its current form and calling for it to be renegotiated with all police accountability measures restored.

The labor movement has a proud history of standing with working people facing racism and oppression.

In its best traditions, the labor movement has fought against how the ruling class uses the police to oppress and divide sections of the working class against black and brown workers in particular, but also against the queer community, homeless community members, impoverished people, and against protests and picket lines also.

As Naomi Finkelstein said in public comment, an injury to one is an injury to all.

It is with this proud tradition and with my fellow union members in Seattle who are opposing this contract in its current form that I stand in calling for the contract to be renegotiated and all police accountability measures restored.

As our statement from the union members says, quote, the right of community members as enshrined in the 2017 law are not bargaining chips to be traded away, unquote.

In 2011, public sector workers in Madison carried out a courageous occupation of the Capitol building in Madison to prevent right-wing Republican Governor Scott Walker from ramming through legislation to strip all public workers, except police and firefighters, of their right to collective bargaining.

Hundreds of thousands of people at that time occupied the capital.

Enough teachers and students called in sick that many schools were forced to close during the protests, and there was even widespread discussion of a general strike among public sector workers.

Of course, I am greatly happy to say that Scott Walker will no longer be Governor Walker, but At that time, as always happens when there are strong progressive movements, the police forces were mobilized to attempt to quell the protests.

However, we also saw many of the individual rank-and-file officers had personal or political sympathy for the other public sector workers who were protesting.

With signs reading, cops for labor, some of them even marched with other protesters.

Police were given orders to guard the doors of the Capitol building, and while they did station themselves there as ordered, many did not obey their superiors' orders to physically stop the public sector union members from entering.

Unfortunately, this break in the chain of command, out of sympathy with fellow workers, is not usually the case with the police, but on that day, it was.

For many on the left, the police are the force that physically stops you from exercising your free speech rights, the force that defends the interests of billionaires and those in power against everyone else.

And the reality is, that is how big business and corporate politicians use police forces around the world.

Workers are arrested if they steal $10 out of desperation or poverty, but when bosses or banks steal billions from workers, they are rarely held to account.

When mass movements break out and big business and the political establishment attempt to use the police to put down the movement, police officers' connections to the labor movement through their unions can sometimes be the difference between the violent suppression of the movement and an uncommitted police response like in Wisconsin.

I raise these examples to explain that if this police contract was fundamentally a labor issue, if it was fundamentally only about wages and benefits and working conditions that do not infringe on the rights of other workers, then it would be my position as a socialist and union member to vote yes.

However, with this contract in its current form, I feel this is clearly and fundamentally an issue of police accountability.

It is working people who are the most impacted by crime and a lack of public safety.

While there is no doubt that the police frequently play a useful role in apprehending violent people and preventing violent attacks, it is also unfortunately the case that the police are too often a source of harassment and at worst terror among particularly communities of color, homeless community members, and poor people.

I do not agree with the union representative who said that these are outside groups that are trying to influence the police contract.

What about our own union members who are black and brown?

While we do not believe that all police officers behave the same way, there are far too many examples and far too systematic a record of people being wrongfully arrested.

There have been far too many people of color who were killed for no reason at all, like Charlena Lyles.

In Seattle, an elderly black man, William Wingate, was arrested walking with a golf club, and then after it was proved that it was racially biased policing, the officer faced no disciplinary penalty because a 180-day investigation window was closed.

Such abuses must stop.

When the details of this contract were released to the public, it was met with unanimous opposition from the members of the Community Police Commission.

And later, a letter of opposition from the 24 organizations, some of whom I mentioned, which represent tens of thousands of workers who are concerned that this contract would harm their human rights.

Today, this morning, we saw the NAACP, Not This Time, Nikita Oliver, and others say loud and clear that the black community and others facing the brunt of police brutality strongly reject this contract.

That is not a labor issue, it's a police accountability issue.

Other council members have argued that the accountability changes in the contract are inconsequential or somehow even positive.

This is appallingly dishonest and inaccurate.

What are some of the specifics of why so many have objected to this contract?

And I'm guided here by the CPC's expert recommendation, not rumors.

First, the proposed contract states that in any conflict between the accountability laws and the language of the contract, the contract language takes precedence.

If, as the mayor and some council members have claimed, this contract does not reverse important accountability measures, then why was this clause deemed necessary in the first place?

Next, the contract language reintroduces the 180-day accountability loophole that stops Officer Cynthia Whitlatch from facing consequences for the racist arrest of William Wingate for walking with a golf club.

That is an illustrative example because it also points to another problem, that is, the language also hampers the ability to investigate reports of police brutality, racially biased policing, etc.

It puts extreme limitations on civilian investigators.

Again, the SPD will be investigating the SPD and the rest of society is just expected to accept that they are policing themselves fairly.

It prohibits accountability investigations from coordinating with criminal investigations into the same incident.

It removes some of the subpoena powers of the investigators, meaning that investigators, again, need to rely on the information that is volunteered.

In other words, this contract reverses many of the hard-won and yet limited police accountability reforms to defend the rights and, in some cases, the actual lives of regular people in Seattle.

This is completely unacceptable.

Even Judge Robart, in reviewing this contract, has questioned the city's contention that the contract is consistent with the consent decree, saying he doesn't believe that to be, quote-unquote, accurate.

He also responded sharply to the addition of what he called, quote-unquote, bribe to pay officers for wearing body cameras, when in fact they have already been ordered to do so in the context of the 2012 Department of Justice consent decree.

I have stated, as I've done so right now and in the past, that the accountability bill passed last year is not sufficient to create genuine accountability to end discrimination and violence from the forces that are given the immense power over life and death that the officers are given.

Really, we need to go much further in passing serious reforms.

We need an elected community oversight board with full powers to hold police accountable, including the right to subpoena.

This would also include the right of police to have union representative if being interviewed or disciplined.

In this contract, we can see that when police negotiate with the political establishment, there is no one in the room that cares about how police officers impact communities of color and other working class people.

The SPOG is advocating for their members, but the political establishment is mainly interested in maintaining the police as a force to reliably defend their power.

Which elected official here is defending the rights of Charlena Lyles?

Winning real change and serious police accountability measures will require that we all, those of us who care about our members of the community who are impacted by police brutality and racial profiling, that we all together join to build a stronger and broader movement.

As I have said so far the last five years, social movements and class struggle are how change will be won in Seattle, not by putting any confidence in this city's Democratic Party-led political establishment.

We can take as an example the inspiring Block the Bunker movement right here in Seattle, which forced this establishment, very much against its will, to halt the construction of what would have been the most expensive police station in the nation, while the city languished, and still languishes, in a deep housing affordability crisis that is gentrifying the working class and communities of color out of this city.

This housing crisis is a central part of the deep and growing inequality in this city, deep inequality which is itself at the root of crime and public safety problems.

We can also take as an example the movement that demanded and finally won justice for Laquan McDonald in Chicago.

But to win more far-reaching and urgently needed reforms, we will need a far stronger movement that brings together different sections of the working class and the labor movement together with the oppressed to fight together.

I want to be clear, I support the wages and benefits negotiated in this contract, and if they were proposed without reversing any of the city's accountability legislation, I would be voting yes.

For people who consider this fundamentally a labor issue, I would ask you to also consider the rights of other union members and working people in Seattle when they are negatively impacted by the police force.

Think about your fellow union members who are stopped by the police simply for driving while black.

I have read in the news that some have said that voting against this contract would lose me their support in the next election.

However, at the end of the day, I am not a career politician.

I am here to fight for all those who are left out in the corporate politics of City Hall and its backroom deals.

If I wasn't going to consistently stand up for working people in oppressed communities, there would be no point in my being here.

In closing, I also want to point out that the upcoming resolution that council members are claiming is somehow some sort of evidence that the police accountability will be upheld.

I just want to let you know, I will have my comments later, but the resolution does not address anything.

I would hope that council members would today send this contract back to the mayor and the Labor Relations Policy Committee to restore all accountability measures and bring back a new version that the movement and I can support, one that does not increase the discrimination people face every day or the danger of mistreatment at the hands of the Seattle police.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Kawak.

Council Member O'Brien, you have the floor, sir.

I want to thank all the folks who came out to testify today.

I really appreciate hearing passionate, dedicated testimony on two different sides of an issue, but in a respectful way of the whole system.

What I heard today broadly was agreement in the room that we want to see fair wages for our public servants and their right to collective bargain.

And I also heard a commitment that we want to see police accountability.

Unfortunately, it feels like the vote today has made those two mutually exclusive, but I do not believe that they are mutually exclusive.

I do believe the reality of what we're facing today is particularly challenging.

And as one of the public commenters said, it's an unfortunate place we're in, where it feels like we have to pick between those two.

I am 100% dedicated to making sure that all workers have the right to collectively bargain, and that certainly public servants have a right to a fair and living wage.

I also am 100% committed to the police reform work that's necessary.

The decision before us today with the contract we have could go further.

I think it could be a better document.

But I'm going to support and vote yes on this today.

I think that when I look at the options that are going to play out before us and the options I have by voting yes or no, I believe the best path forward to getting the reform we want is a yes vote on this contract.

I know that the contract is not as strong as the legislation we passed earlier this year.

That legislation that we passed was a unilateral decision by this council as opposed to a bilateral negotiation.

And the idea that we would get everything we wanted in that legislation in the contract, that would be ideal, but it's maybe not the reality that we could do.

I think that when I look at the contract and what's in there, there are some good things that will allow us to move forward and improve police accountability.

There are some things that folks have raised questions about that may prove to be challenges or they may not be, and we're going to have to look at those.

And there are probably also components of this legislation that we have not focused on much, and yet when we move forward, we'll find them to be challenges that need to be worked on.

The reality is that police accountability work is an ongoing exercise that we're going to have to continually be moving in the right direction.

And I believe what we have today and the choices before us that the most prudent thing to do is move forward.

Council President Harrell, you spoke a little bit about your experience growing up in the city, and I was also born and raised here.

But my experiences are very different.

My interaction with the police are very different.

And that's largely because I'm white.

And I think as we move forward on police accountability, it's critically important that we center race and thinking about how police accountability works.

Unfortunately, the color of your skin is a huge predictor about getting involved in the criminal justice system today.

And it shouldn't be that way in our city, in our country today.

And yet it is the reality.

I'm proud of what's in this contract, many aspects of it.

I'm also disappointed that we weren't able to go further here, but I think what's gonna be necessary in the next step is to live with this and learn from it and be ready to continue to revise it and move forward, going forward.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Bryan.

Council Member Herbold, I believe you have the floor.

So to start off, I just want to make note so I don't forget that I'll be making a motion after consideration of this legislation and after Council Member Gonzalez's resolution to move the clerk file that I mentioned earlier.

And that relates specifically to some needed transparency about the documents referenced in this contract.

I want to vote for a contract to raise officers' wages and pay them their four years of fairly negotiated back pay.

I also want to defend all of the reforms contained in the historic ordinance the Council passed in 2017. Many of these reforms are outside of the consent decree, but that doesn't make them any less important to me. 1,300 Seattle police officers, detectives, and sergeants provide critical public safety services to the residents of the city of Seattle, and they've done so without a labor contract since January 2015. Officers have implemented police reform.

The Federal Monitor's report on use of force from 2017 said At the same time, the force that SPD officers do use is, by and large, reasonable, necessary, and proportional, and consistent with the department's use of force policy.

Credit for this major milestone goes first and foremost to the men and women of the Seattle Police Department.

I've also heard very compelling principles from Labor about the importance of preserving the sanctity of bargaining in a post-Janus reality.

The Janus decision has put public sector unions in a challenging position, so they need to show that they can be effective in representing their members.

The bargaining process is paramount as unions face a nationwide struggle in the wake of a Janus decision.

We've heard strong critiques of this agreement from the Community Police Commission, And from a number of community leaders, some of the same leaders whose original complaint to the DOJ in 2010 led to the DOJ's findings in 2011 and the consent degree in 2012. I've heard a lot of reassurance that reform is a result of incremental change.

And to be really honest, I find that reassurance really cold comfort.

I was working on the council in In 1999, when the OPA was created, I'm really well familiar with incremental reform that we've eked out since that time.

And I don't feel that incremental form is acceptable for policing today because I feel we need transformational reform.

The public believes in the need for transformational reform with the statewide passage of I-940.

Lives lost here and nationally prove that we in Seattle need to pave the way here and not incrementally.

I believe we in Seattle need to pave the way for the nation because we have a president that in 2017 told officers, when you guys put somebody in the car and you're protecting their head, you know, like, don't hit their head, and they just killed somebody, I say you can take the hand away, okay?

We need to pave the way like we said we were going to do when we passed legislation in 2017 that was heralded by this council as historic, that was unprecedented in other cities.

So acknowledging this urgency in 2013, the Community Police Commission was formed by agreement between the City of Seattle and the Obama Justice Department.

nod to Mayor Durkan, and asked to inventory the accountability system, which had been incrementally revised over 14 years, and to propose a complete revamp.

This work was co-led by ideologically diverse participation from the Downtown Seattle Association Director Kate Jankos, SPOG, then Vice President Kevin Stuckey and Mothers for Police Accountability founder Harriet Walden.

The proposals that the CPC had drafted before the last contract expired in 2014 in order to be available to the city for bargaining without constituting an ULP were put forward in the midst of a major scandal as a large number of disciplinary findings were reversed.

contrary by SPD leadership, contrary to OPA recommendations in 2014, and at the high watermark of the Black Lives Matter movement.

This law was not created upon ideology.

Every sentence of the 71-plus page ordinance was crafted with the experience of 18 years of experience with the OPA we have today.

Each sentence addresses cases that were overturned or unsustained and identified by our OPA auditor or community leaders as justice not served, but that could in the future with reform be fixed.

The changes in appeal process were made in the ordinance because of a group of disciplinary findings revealed to be overturned on appeal in a deal by SPD management contrary to OPA recommendations.

The changes in the 180-day timeline were recommended because of a high-profile case mentioned earlier today by my colleagues in which an officer who was fired by Chief O'Toole for bias and making an unlawful arrest was given back pay and allowed to resign in lieu of termination because the 180-day limit made her termination vulnerable to being overturned on appeal and also because OPA faced repeated challenges in completing quality investigations due to the time limit.

The prohibition on using unpaid leave to serve suspensions came after repeated public frustration at the idea of officers who had been found to have committed serious abuses being paid to sit at home.

These are all specific necessary changes resulting from actual cases that will not be made with passage of this contract.

I think it's really important for us to recognize this.

You know, don't clap.

I'm sorry, I'm going to be letting you down.

But I want this all to be on the record because it's really important to me.

Because I believe that we should not miss the chance to do what happened at the state level last January, when backers of Initiative 940, knowing that they were overwhelmingly likely to win at the polls, still chose to sit down with statewide law enforcement leaders and find language that police groups found more palatable than the original version of I-94.

That process of finding a win-win, third way, actually built lasting relationships of trust that foster harmony between police and community.

And I hoped that we could do the same here locally by choosing another approach rather than forcing through the contract that is before us.

Based on the request from the CPC and the 24 community organizations writing to council last week, I was very interested in proposing today a one-week delay on voting on the contract and immediately moving next week to pass a separate piece of legislation appropriating SPOG's three years of back pay of $65 million with a request that SPOG and the executive bring back a contract in December, in less than one month, with all of the points of agreement in that contract, including SPOG's economic package of back pay and raises, body cameras, and other points of agreement, such as the authority of the new OIG, with a re-opener for only the identified items of agreement.

Was this a viable path?

Officers would be paid their new wages, begin to receive their $65 million in three years of three years back pay beginning in January.

That approach was intended by me to ensure that this council expressed today a good faith to SPOG that this council would support passage within a month of a contract with their wages and their back pay even without agreement on reform elements and with a desire to bargain those reform elements however long it took without exerting the leverage held by management around wages.

Yet good intentions aside, I understand that the council unilaterally expressing an interest via legislation in doing what the union, what SPOG or any other union wants outside of bargaining flies in the face of what unions are for.

If the council stated, as a matter of course, started saying, yeah, we'll pay you what you want, you don't have to bargain it, unions would have a more difficult time demonstrating their worth to their members.

This approach, and this affects all unions that the city bargains with, this approach that I would have liked to pursue has been explained to me to be in violation of those very principles that I referred and referenced earlier as so important to a post-Janus world.

For this reason, what I'd hoped was a win-win proposition is actually not a viable path forward.

I also proposed an amendment this morning that would move the ordinance effective date to sometime after the federal court has ruled on whether the elements identified in Councilmember Gonzalez's resolution, which we'll hear about later, conflicted with the consent decree.

Upon advice of legal counsel, I'm not moving that amendment forward.

So I'm left with a difficult decision.

where there's no clear path forward to vote for a contract to both raise officers' wages and pay them their back pay and guarantee our ability to defend all of the reforms contained in the historic ordinance.

the council passed in 2017. And so since there's no path forward to do both of those things, or to work even towards both of those things, recognizing that we wouldn't necessarily get all the reforms in the ordinance, I have to actually weigh the relative value of what reforms this contract does guarantee with my desire to vote in favor of the economic terms of the contract.

So to help me make that decision, I turned to the three-legged civilian accountability system that has been created in part to guide our policymaking around issues of accountability.

We've heard and discussed a lot the CPC's view of this contract, and I value and deeply respect their experience and expertise that they carry on these issues generally, and the 2017 accountability ordinance specifically.

Councilmember Gonzalez requested that each the OPA director and the Inspector General requested their input on the contract's ability.

on the contract's impact on their ability to do their job.

So I appreciate that I have their perspective to consider in this balancing act.

The OPA director has said there were improvements included in this agreement.

The elimination of the disciplinary review board, which included a SPOG member, civilianization of two OPA inspectors, Changing the triggering event for the start of the 180 day clock.

Simplifying classification notifications.

Adding flexibility around OPA transcription due dates.

And initial complaint notification around timing requirements.

And finally, implementing a rapid adjudication pilot.

These also, much like I identified the reforms that aren't moving forward, these also are actual things.

They're actual things that have arisen as needs.

for change to our accountability system because of justice that was not done in other cases.

But I have to weigh those identified improvements against his concerns that expressed that reservations around elements of the agreement that deviate from the accountability ordinance, such as his concern that we're limiting the OPA's authority to coordinate criminal investigations, his concern that we're placing constraints on OPA's ability to allocate staffing and resources as it sees fit, and further complications around the 180-day timeline.

Even as we remove some complications in one area, we are adding additional complexity around the 180-day timeline that are actually more restrictive in the SPOG contract than are in the SPMA contract.

The inspector general similarly noted that the agreement legitimizes the inspector general's authority within the labor structure and solidified the ability to function effectively.

But again, I have to weigh those identified improvements against her stated concern that express reservations about elements of the agreement compared to the accountability legislation regarding access to information, in particular restriction of subpoena power and the standard burden of proof about which Judge Robart has also raised concerns.

She also identified issues around the 188 calculation and changes in finding or discipline.

Neither the OPA director nor the Office of Inspector General has said that they can't do their job with this contract, but they do not dispute the CPC observation that on some very key points, the contract would actually set us back as compared to what was promised in our historic accountability ordinance passed in 2017. So I'm left with the impression that OPA and OIG are looking at this contract as it relates specifically to accountability as a glass half full, not half empty.

Secondly, I have expressed over and over again to my constituents who write to me daily about public safety that I support the SPD hiring plan that seeks to add additional officers.

And I feel today that if I were to vote no, I don't know how I could say with a straight face to my constituents understanding how dire the recruiting picture is for SPD right now.

I don't know how I could say with a straight face that I support adding to the size of our police department because recruiting is so necessary to hire both for separations related to lateral hires and retirement, as well as to add to the size of the force.

Many in our labor community have promised us today that they're in this for the long haul, in the long haul for labor conditions for our workforce, but also in the long haul for law enforcement oversight.

And I'm really going to count on that, and I look forward to working with everybody in this room, including having the leadership of labor moving forward in the contract negotiations that will begin with the reopeners in this contract, and then later in negotiations for a new contract in 2020. And I just want to, in closing, say I really appreciate that so many of the folks who are before us today who have been actually urging us to vote no have also said that they support our acting today to approve increased wages.

Unfortunately, I feel like the negotiation process at this juncture doesn't allow us to do both.

It only allows us to act on the shared value as it relates to the economic package, it doesn't allow us to continue to work on the identified shortcomings on the accountability.

So consequently, I regretfully intend to vote yes today.

Thank you.

Member Herbold, I think we've heard from most.

I will say that every now and then facts do matter.

We've had 285 officers, police officers, go through crisis intervention training and de-escalation training and anti-bias training, all who have left the department.

And we do concern ourselves with the department we're trying to build.

I'd also say that the criticism is about the 180-discipline timeline that seemed to Stimulate some applause because it seemed as though we didn't do anything.

We actually improved that the the windgate matter that council members mentioned I Know very well because he goes my church and he's in my day right out in my office right after that unfortunate incident happened We actually if there's material new evidence it can re-trigger that day.

So we did look at that and last I'd say that the OPA directors ability to quote-unquote coordinate a criminal investigation that apparently we lost.

The intent of that provision always is to make sure that the OPA director is not in the dark, that he or she knows what's going on in there.

And so we looked very closely at that and made sure that he continues or whoever's in that position continues to be in the loop.

They can't affect the outcome of that investigation, but they are to be apprised of that process.

So what's the bottom line there?

The bottom line is there is that when we negotiated over years and looked at our negotiations, we will not cave in on some very critical aspects of accountability.

And the finance piece was, as in any union contract, was always leverage when we look at what we're willing to pay to build a fine department to make sure we get what we needed to achieve.

So Councilmember Gonzalez, if you're prepared, maybe you could close debate and then we can vote.

Great.

I did want to just, in closing, highlight a couple of things.

One is I will go through some of the key police accountability reforms that were achieved in this collective bargaining agreement.

And then lastly, I just wanted to clarify that my reading of the Office of Police Accountability and Office of Inspector General letters does not indicate that we are taking a step back from reform by virtue of the differences that are in the tentative agreement.

And so I just wanted to clarify the record from my perspective in terms of what I thought I heard Council Member Herbold say.

And so the Office of Police Accountability, Andrew Meyerberg, wrote in his letter to the city council that, quote, I recognize, however, that the conceptual arguments surrounding the TA cannot be divorced from the reality that officers, detectives, and sergeants have been working without a contract for the last four years.

They have done so while implementing the reforms under the consent decree and acting as the engine to move the department to full and effective compliance.

I firmly believe they deserve a contract.

I share the concerns raised by many others that department morale is low, and if the TA is rejected, it could undermine the oversight system and further erode the trust and buy-in that OPA has been working hard to undermine.

has been working hard to build, sorry.

These concerns must be balanced against the city's prerogative to negotiate lasting reforms that will ensure accountability and equitable policing moving forward.

Labor contracts consist of a bargain for exchange, whether the trade-offs included in the TA and the non-inclusion of several provisions contained in the accountability ordinance are acceptable is not a question for OPA to answer.

That is for city council to decide.

Similarly, I cannot speak to whether the TA is consistent with the consent decree as this is a question for the parties to the decree and ultimately District Judge Robar.

Regardless of the council's decision, OPA will continue to carry out its mission and effectuate its purpose under both the accountability ordinance and the consent decree.

And the Office of Inspector General likewise issued in its letter to us its conclusion which provides that on balance the Inspector General is empowered to perform accountability duties under the terms of the tentative agreement with potential limitations as highlighted above.

OIG will have a role moving forward as the objective check on the system to review, audit, and evaluate the systems as they play out under the tentative agreement and accountability ordinance.

OIG can use that information to help the city's oversight partners advance recommendations that improve the system and serve as guidance for what is needed to sustain public confidence.

And then lastly, I just wanted to highlight some of the things.

There's been a lot of talk in the room today and in email and otherwise about this concept that somehow we're rolling back police reform.

And I think that because of those comments being stated in public, it's important for me to highlight what I think we actually were able to achieve and move forward in terms of accountability reforms in agreement with the members of the Seattle Police Officers.

Guilds and with the leadership of chief best and so if you will just indulge me for another few moments I'd like to highlight those now so article 3.3 regarding indefinite suspensions expands the ability of the chief of police to impose an indefinite suspension in addition to felonies the chief can now suspend an officer without pay pending investigation for a gross misdemeanor involving moral turpitude or a sex or sex or biased crime where the allegation if true could lead to termination Article 3.5D, due process hearings.

The Office of Inspector General for Public Safety is now allowed to attend.

Article 3.5, disciplinary review board.

Abolishes the disciplinary review board as an avenue for appealing a disciplinary action.

Community members consistently express concerns about the fairness of DRB to those alleging misconduct.

article 3.6 b2 regarding criminal investigations modifies the existing contract to clarify that the 180 day clock is told when a county prosecutor is reviewing a matter and not just a city state or federal prosecutors article 3.6 f5 opa interviews the office of inspector general for public safety is now allowed to attend all opa interviews article 3.6 g statute of limitations is extended from three to four years with a relatively broad interpretation of what constitutes concealment of acts of misconduct.

Article 3.6H, related to OPA investigative file access, allows the Office of the Inspector General for Public Safety to access all OPA files.

Article 3.6 L files retention.

Sustained files will now be retained for the duration of an officer's employment plus six years.

Not sustained files may be retained for three years plus the remainder of the current year.

Article 3.7 related to criminal investigations establishes that the Office of Police Accountability may communicate with those conducting criminal investigations about the status and progress of the investigation but may not direct or influence the conduct of the criminal investigation.

The current collective bargaining agreement prohibits any coordination between the Office of Police Accountability and the criminal investigators.

Article 3.11, Rapid Adjudication.

It establishes a new system allowing for the rapid adjudication for matters in which the officer agrees to waive formal investigation and accept discipline.

While either the office or officer or Office of Police Accountability may initiate the process, both the OPA and the officer must agree before the process is actually utilized.

Article 4.2A regarding personal files will allow the OIG to access personnel files.

Article 4.2C, written reprimands, this deletes the requirement in the collective bargaining agreement that after three years, an employee may request that written reprimands be removed from an employee's personnel file.

So I have just quickly went through 12 additional things that we have been able to achieve through this labor negotiations process that I think we should feel proud of.

Does that mean that we can stop and that we can throw our ticker tape parade and say, mission accomplished?

Of course not.

This process is iterative.

We have to continue to be vigilant.

We have to continue to test the systems.

And let me tell you, I feel very proud of the fact that we will have an Office of Inspector General who's going to be in a position to have full and unfettered access to help us monitor from a systemic perspective whether or not we are fulfilling our obligation to keep our officers safe and to keep the people that they are intended to keep safe also safe.

And so I just, I want to make sure that folks understand that we have been able to accomplish a lot through this contract.

That doesn't mean that our work is over.

It does mean that I think this council can be proud in taking a vote today in supporting this collective bargaining agreement and in taking the next step to making sure that the judge is also in agreement with some of the policy decisions that we have made today.

Thank you, Council Member Gonzalez.

Okay, having said that, and you see I was being polite, I could have reminded you we had translators out there.

So, we're going to keep voting if you could hear me.

Thank you for that.

Please call the roll on the passage.

First of all, let me move to adopt Council Bill 119368 as amended.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Begshaw.

Aye.

Gonzales.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

Johnson.

Aye.

Juarez.

Aye.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

O'Brien.

Aye.

Sawant.

No.

President Harrell.

Aye.

Eight in favor, one opposed.

The bill passed and the chair will sign it.

Please read.

You can clap.

I don't know if that.

And thank everyone for coming out, whether you got what you wanted or not.

Thank you for your testimony and participation.

Please read the next agenda item into the record.

From the amended agenda, resolution 31855, recognizing the service and dedication of the Seattle Police Department's police officers, detectives, and sergeants, I'm requesting the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington to conduct a judicial review of the collective bargaining agreement reached between the City of Seattle and the Seattle Police Officers Guild.

Council Member Gonzalez.

This is a resolution that would advance the tentative agreement that we just voted on to the city attorney's office for consideration by and review of Judge Robar in terms of making sure that there is compliance with the consent decree and the United States Constitution.

Very good.

Any comments about the resolution?

Councilmember Swant.

Councilmember Herbold.

I just want to speak to the fact that I had concerns that though the resolution asked the city attorney join the city council in requesting judicial review, and I appreciate the city attorney's expression of his willingness to do so, I had concerns that the executive might have a separate interest and might want to argue in court that these items fall outside the scope of the court.

In opposition to the request in this resolution, Council Central Staff Director has consulted with the executive on my behalf, and she has confirmed what Councilmember Gonzalez has assured me this morning, that the executive will not be arguing before the court that these six items are outside the scope of the judge.

That said, though I absolutely support us asking, I do have serious reservations that in short shrift, Judge Robarts will be telling us that the six items in the resolution for which we are asking the court review for consistency with the consent decree are outside of the scope of the court, and we will be stuck with those terms until they are bargained out, and I hope that I'm wrong.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

Council Member Sawant.

Thank you, President Harrell.

This resolution does nothing but deflect responsibility for the attack on police accountability in this park contract that was just voted in.

And council members know that voting yes on the contract undermines police accountability, even though they say it doesn't, because this resolution lists six distinct restrictions on accountability in the contract.

If council members know that these are problems, they should have voted no on the contract and sent it back to the mayor to renegotiate to fix these six problems.

Instead, this resolution is an attempt to hide from their responsibility, asking Judge Robart to do the council member's job and to review the contract to see if it violates the consent decree.

This is particularly absurd given that Judge Robart announced last week that he intends to do that review already.

So this resolution literally does nothing, but it is being used as a clumsy attempt to trick the movement for police accountability into ignoring that they have just been betrayed.

I also would like to point out a particularly imaginative whereas clause, which describes the Seattle Police Officers Guild as, quote, strong partners in ongoing efforts to implement lasting police reforms and accountability structures, end quote.

Over 100 Seattle police officers sued to try to block the consent decree.

The Seattle Police Officers Guild as a whole opposed I-940, the de-escalate Washington initiative that was just overwhelmingly passed by voters last week.

And for the past months, they have been suing the city to attempt to block elements of the accountability ordinance.

And this resolution calls them, quote unquote, strong partners on accountability structures.

I have no problem with Judge Robart reviewing this contract.

He should and clearly will do so.

However, I will not be party to this attempt to distract and disorient the movement for police accountability, so I will be voting no on this resolution.

Thank you, Council Member Siwan.

Okay, any other comments before we vote?

I see no.

Let's move forward.

So, I will move to adopt Resolution 31855. Is there a second?

Those in favor of adopting the resolution, please vote aye.

Aye.

Those opposed vote no.

No.

The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it.

Please read the next agenda item.

Please.

Clerk, file 314409 Memorandum of Understanding and Memorandum of Agreement Incorporated into the Collective Bargaining Agreement Referenced in Council Bill 119368 Appendix F of Attachment 1.

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you.

I want to give credit to my staff, Newell Aldrich, for recognizing that this was legislation that was brought forward to us that referred to other agreements that were incorporated by merit of voting on this legislation but weren't actually included in the legislation.

I don't recall seeing that before and so I thought it was really important after checking with the law department that those were actually public documents that they be included as part of the legislative record.

I believe that they are important not only for transparency, but for public understanding of everything that the contract entails.

Some of those agreements, I think, date back to 1992. I asked for and received the agreements.

It's very awkward that we're being asked to vote on legislation that doesn't include all the relevant items.

I think it's also important to note that the Inspector General's letter noted that five of the MOUs that could have potential impacts on Inspector General operations and that the OIG will track these issues.

And so I request your support in approving this clerk file.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

Any comments from any of my colleagues on the clerk file?

Thanks for sharing that with us this morning as well.

Okay.

I will move to file clerk file 314409. Second.

It's been moved and seconded that the clerk file be filed.

Any further comments?

Those in favor of filing the clerk file, please vote aye.

Aye.

Those opposed vote no.

The clerk file is placed on file.

Please read the next agenda item.

From the published agenda, agenda item number two, resolution 31852, setting forth the city of Seattle's 2019 state legislative agenda.

Okay, I'll speak to this matter, and I have been reminded by our favorite council member, our nameless council member, that we have a parks district meeting after this, so I'll be brief.

First, this is our state legislative agenda, and before I get into the substance, I have to substitute the last version that we approved, or at least reviewed for the former version.

So let me first do a technical amendment.

I'll move to amend Resolution 3185 to Exhibit 1 by substituting Version 5 for Version 2. It's been moved and seconded that we make that substitution.

Any comments?

All those in favor of the substitution say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Okay, so real quickly, this is our state legislative agenda and we want to thank all of you and our team at OIR for putting in so much time to making sure that we are trying to coordinate our statewide positions.

consistent with the values that we articulate in the ordinances and resolutions that we pass.

We sort of, as you well know, we divided in sort of four buckets, one being a safe city, a vibrant city, an interconnected city, and an affordable city.

And under the first bucket, we were pretty, we used some pretty strong language in there about supporting every person's right to live, work, and learn free from discrimination.

I have language in there in our agenda about supporting gender equity and family friendly workplace policies, civil right protections for all, a common sense responsible solutions to reduce gun violence, believing that local governments should have the ability to regulate firearms and weapons to ensure the safety of their communities.

In the vibrant city, we talked about maximum funding for early learning and K through 12 and higher education.

We talked about building on the foundation of high quality preschool in Seattle and addressing the racial and socioeconomic disparities that exist in our educational system.

In an interconnected city, we were very articulate about our transportation policies and multimodal funding proposals, including a significant share of funds for cities to help pay for local maintenance backlogs and other local needs.

We talk about modifying our local options that could help with pedestrian safety and adjusting speed limits and helping our transit riders, helping transit, including light rail.

On an affordable city, we talk about our priorities facing, our priorities in trying to address the homelessness crisis in our most vulnerable populations.

And we talked about in our agenda, like many cities, we're facing a homelessness crisis.

We articulate our goals to make it better, safe, and healthier for unsheltered seniors, families, individuals, and children.

And again, I'm just sort of giving a short paraphrase of the rich language we put in there consistent with our values as a city dedicated to those most vulnerable than underrepresented communities and making sure we are cutting edge and high quality as we move forward.

So any comments about our state legislative agenda before we move for adoption?

Okay, I'm glad I bored all of you to sleep there, but we're still going to vote on it.

Okay.

All right.

So, it has been a minute.

So, those in favor of adopting the resolution as amended, please vote aye.

Aye.

Those opposed vote no.

The resolution is adopted as amended and the chair will sign it.

Before we break, I believe we have to go to the other section.

You want to read that?

Consideration of an administrative appeal of exclusion issue to Abram Alex Zimmerman on November 5th 2018 pursuant to council rule 11 d5 Okay, so this is the part of the Agenda where we can consider an appeal

filed by Mr. Zimmerman regarding an exclusion that at the time we believe were consistent with the rules and I suppose continue to believe it so we will actually consider the administrative Let me just read the script, I'm trying.

The city council now considered an administrative appeal to an exclusion issued to an individual on November 5th, 2018. The question is shall the decision to exclude this individual from council meetings through November 29th be sustained, November 29th, 2018 be sustained?

That is the question and we are going to vote on that.

Are there any comments or clarification needed on the question?

Okay.

Those in favor of sustaining the exclusion, Please vote aye.

Aye.

Those opposed to sustaining the exclusion, please vote no.

No no's.

Okay.

The motion carries and the exclusion remains in effect.

Okay.

Is there any further business coming for the council?

No.

So we're going to take a five-minute break.

Five-minute break and we'll reconvene as a parks district.

Okay.

Having that, we're going to have a great five-minute break.

And we stand adjourned.