Seattle City Council Public Safety & Human Services Committee 6/22/21

It is 9.31 a.m., and I'm Lisa Herbold.

I'm the chair of the Public Safety and Human Services Committee.

We will come to order, and will the clerk please call the roll?

Council President Gonzalez, Council Member Lewis.

Council Member Morales.

Here.

Council Member Sawant.

Present.

And Chair Herbold.

Here.

Three currently present, and I understand Council Member Lewis will be with us in just a minute.

Thank you so much.

So for today's agenda, we will first hear and consider voting on the appointment of Megan McGann for the Seattle Municipal Court Administrator.

Then after that, we will be hearing a presentation from the Human Services Department on council's investments in crisis response.

Back in April, we hosted an update from the Human Services Department on the new Safe and Thriving Division and the council's transfer of victim advocates from the Seattle Police Department into the new Safe and Thriving Division.

And today's presentation will cover Council's additional investments in crisis response including the HealthONE expansion, the case managers that are part of HealthONE are housed in HSD, the mobile crisis team through DESC, it's contracted through the Human Services Department, and the crisis response team and those are professionals that work with the Seattle Police Department to respond to folks who are in crisis.

And then finally, we'll be hearing a briefing and discussion of legislation to limit the use of less lethal weapons.

We will not be voting on that particular item today.

And just to clarify, on the second item, you know, we had a big roundtable in our last committee meeting focused on crisis response.

And this is really a conversation about how, for today, is really a conversation about how HSD has made the adjustments internally to accommodate the council's budget action.

So just wanted to make that clarification when we talk about crisis response.

on this committee.

With that, we will now approve our agenda for our committee meeting today.

If there is no objection, today's committee meeting will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, today's agenda is adopted.

At this time, we will move into public comment.

I will moderate the public comment period in the following manner.

Each speaker will be given two minutes to speak.

I will call on each speaker by name and in the order in which they registered on the council's website.

If you've not yet registered to speak but would like to, you can still sign up before the end of the public comment period by going to the council's website.

This link is also listed on today's agenda.

Once I call a speaker's name, you'll hear a prompt, and once you've heard the prompt, you'll need to press star six to unmute yourself.

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

We'll hear a chime.

when 10 seconds are left of their allotted time.

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

If you do not end your comments by the end of the allotted time provided, the mic will be muted after 10 seconds to allow us to hear from the next speaker.

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

And if you plan to continue following the meeting, you can certainly do so via the Seattle channel or the listening options listed on the agenda.

We've got 11 people signed up for public comment today.

And so with that, we will move into beginning to hear from the individual speakers.

And I'm going to call on speakers two at a time.

So first person signed up, we have Howard Gale.

And Howard will be followed by Jack Francis.

Good morning.

howard gale district seven before you today is a bill to ban and limit the police use of non-lethal weapons a bill that as others will point out has serious inadequacies but even if this bill was perfect what is the point why would the council put into law rules that the s p d can freely ignore because we have no real accountability system to ensure consequences for violating such laws last week o p a director of marburg stated to kill a w that the o p a is the quote most robust transparent civilian-led system in the united states of america it is not debatable we have more civilian oversight here that anywhere else i have not seen a model it's better than ours unquote this is norwellian and patently ludicrous claim from the most important person in our supposed accountability system the very same person that shows to ignore the sbd murder terry caber last year for three months and now more than thirteen months later has failed to release any report on this murder this is the same person that took charge of the okay just weeks after charlene a while who's killing four years ago failing to do any investigation and then stood by as five in severe mental health crisis all wielding a knife or no weapon at all we've been killed by the s p d evening these killings lawful and proper opened no investigation or failed to release findings this is the same person that has worked his whole life defending police including defending new york city from the just claims of the central park five police scorecard dot org give seattle's accountability system eight twenty percent out of a hundred score and ranks it well below average in the U.S. in the 35th percentile.

We also have the objective reality that the SPD has killed more people after the start of our efforts to improve accountability versus the decade before that.

We must create a system of accountability that is 100% civilian and community-led, a system not led by a police apologist.

Please visit Seattle.

Thank you, Howard.

Our next speaker is Jack Francis followed by Cody Zalewski.

Jack?

Hi.

Hi.

My name is Jack Francis.

I am gay.

I am gender excluded.

I am 23. I'm Armenian and I live in the U District.

I'm calling today to demand that council amend CB 120105 to remove all restrictions on the right of action and restore it to its original form.

The right of action is the accountability mechanism for when SPD violates this bill.

The right of action is currently limited to injuries in a gathering that is not, uh, that, excuse me, The right of action is currently limited to injuries in a gathering, quote, that is not a violent public disturbance, unquote.

The narrow definition effectively excludes everybody.

I ask council members who can utilize this right of action.

SPD has deployed less lethal weapons against hundreds of people, hundreds of times over the last 13 months, causing serious injuries, including on people like me.

Can council members provide an example of someone harmed by SPD that would qualify under the current right of action?

Here are some examples of events that have happened over the past 13 months that you could not follow up for accountability against the SPD.

For example, the Pink Umbrella incident, that was declared a riot by SPD, and therefore, if this bill isn't amended, basically, the use of tear gas and pepper spray against all those civilians would be justified and including also up people who experienced it just sitting in their homes just living in capitol hill and just bystander the collateral damage that would all be justified you know it's just it it extremely on human dehumanizing and just it reminds me of syria it reminds me a little bit this uh...

syrian warfare with barrel bombs being dropped on people and stuff like that and like them using uh...

chemical agents against children We need to do more.

I agree with the person before, this isn't enough, but this is a start.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Cody Zalewski followed by BJ Last.

Cody?

Oh, can you hear me?

Yes.

Hello?

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Hello City Council.

My name is Cody Zaleski and I'm a resident of District 4. I'm here representing the organization Decriminalize Nature Seattle.

Our group seeks to have entheogenic plant medicine be listed as the lowest law enforcement priority with protections for medical practitioners.

I would first like to thank the seven Seattle City Council members for their signatures on the letters submitted by council members Lewis and council members Herbold several weeks ago.

There is increasingly more recognition that schedule and designations of psychedelic entheogenic medicine is based in archaic misinformation.

Therefore, the examination and inclusions of these medicines in the OEIR task force is an extremely welcome change.

The passing of the Controlled Substances Act 50 years ago has buried the benefits of these psychedelic plant medicines.

We find that these substances are incredibly valuable in the treatment of pathological rumination and psychiatric disorders.

Not only do these medicines carry low to no risk of addiction and abuse, but are actually beneficial in treating the abuse of other substances such as alcohol and opiates.

Based on preliminary evidence, these medicines even succeed the success rates of the 12-step programs.

In addition to their inclusion in the OER task force, we would ask the council to signal their support by taking this very modest step of making enforcement of drug laws related to entheogens lowest law enforcement priority as soon as possible.

If the city of Seattle passes our measure, we would be the ninth city in the country to acknowledge the benefits of these substances and send a signal to state and federal lawmakers that people are ready for comprehensive legal change in related drug laws.

Thank you, and I cede my time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, BJ Last, is listed as not present.

If BJ returns, I will call on BJ again.

Our next speaker, listed as present, is Guy Oron, followed by Julia Buck.

Guy?

Hello there.

Hi.

My name is Guy Oron.

I'm a local constituent living in District 5 and Israeli-American.

I'm calling on the Seattle city council to commit to demilitarization and pass legislation to ban police exchanges with apartheid Israel.

Over the last decade, a number of police officers have trained with Israeli occupation forces, including notably, um, former chief of police current desk.

Um, these trainings intensify state surveillance and exchange the worst racist police tactics between us and Israeli police, making them both worse.

Um, over the past month, we've seen thousands of local community members and other people stand up in the streets and online, um, against Israeli apartheid and in solidarity with Palestine.

Please join our community in standing up for demilitarization and justice, both in Palestine and here in Seattle.

Um, please pass legislation to ban the deadly exchange.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Julia Buck followed by Peter Condit.

Julia.

I'm a resident of District 6. Thank you for the opportunity to do this.

kind of mechanism for PD when right now the limitation to a gathering that you have to be in a gathering that is also not a violent public disturbance is a really restrictive and narrow way of determining who's eligible and I I can't think of who would be able to use this right of action.

You know, the general of Raqqadi, who lost her hearing when the SPD blastballed her, was physically separated from the crowd of protesters and behind the police line.

So she wasn't in the gathering, which means she would not qualify.

The child who was pepper sprayed by SPD would be barred because OPA Director Andrew Myerberg said that protesters were pushing the SPD and that would make the gathering violent.

Unfortunately, you know, a right of action that bars anyone from using it is not very just and needs to be amended.

So I'd like to ask Council to please amend the right of action to remove the restrictions on who can be on who can seek damages.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Julia.

Thank you, Julia.

Our next speaker is Peter Condit, followed by Will Stern.

Peter?

Hello, my name is Peter Condit, and I'm a resident of District 4. I'm calling to ask the City Council to amend Council Bill 120105 to remove all restrictions on the right of action and restore it to its original form.

The right of action is the accountability mechanism for when SPD violates this bill.

The right of action is currently limited to injuries in a gathering that is, quote, not a violent public disturbance, unquote.

SPD themselves can determine if the situation meets this definition and will naturally interpret it in the narrowest possible way, or they will outright lie about the situation.

SPD has deployed less lethal weapons against people hundreds of times over the last 13 Causing serious injuries.

Can council members provide an example of someone harmed by SPD that would qualify under the current right of action?

For example, everyone SPD hit with pepper spray and tear gas during the pink umbrella incident would be barred because SPD declared it a riot.

The infant SPD tear gas in its own home would be barred because it wasn't in the public gathering.

Aubriana Inda who went into cardiac arrest after SPD hit her in the chest with a blast ball.

would be barred because SPD deemed the crowd to be violent.

Journalist Renee Radecki, who lost some of her hearing, would most likely be barred because she was physically separate from the crowd of protesters when SPD shot the blast ball at her.

The child pepper sprayed by SPD would be barred based on OPA Director Andrew Meyerberg's assertion that protesters were pushing SPD and therefore the gathering was violent.

We cannot leave these determinations to the subjective opinion of SPD or SPD sympathizers.

I ask council members who can utilize this right of action.

A right of action that includes any of the above examples needs to be amended.

And lastly, I'll say end the Israeli military police exchanges and defund.

Thank you, Peter.

Our next speaker, Will Stern, is showing as not present.

I will return to Will.

if Will shows as present later in the testimony.

Our next present speaker is Equinox Seattle, followed by Alana L. Equinox.

Remember to press star six.

There you go.

Hi, my name is Equinox and I'm a resident of District 2. Two weeks ago I sat in exactly the same place I'm sitting now listening to a roundtable of quote unquote experts talk in circles for two hours about how Seattle lacks proper resources to truly address mental health concerns in our community.

Yet not a single person is offering community-based solutions.

Each one of the options you've listed and discussed requires a first responder intervention by calling 9-1-1.

Yet calling 9-1-1 almost always guarantees police intervention.

In what world do you think that someone experiencing a mental health crisis would want a traumatizing armed force to attempt to provide aid.

Give us a community based solution that does not require us to call 9-1-1 for help.

This is not a solution when more than half of your constituents are terrified of the police and rightly so.

June 18th was the four year anniversary of Shalena Lyle's murder by the Seattle Police Department and Lyle's family has said that she had a longstanding history of mental health problems And they strongly believe that that was part of the factor of police murdering her.

We also just passed the four month anniversary of Derek Hayden's murder, another life taken by SPD, because again, these officers are untrained and inexperienced and should never be the end-all be-all for mental health concerns.

Another thing that while not specific to this meeting, I urge you all to think about the racism and accessibility problems of hosting a meeting at 9.30 a.m.

on a weekday.

I signed up for comment at 915 and was 9th in line.

These meetings are inherently racist and inaccessible.

You're counting on people who can be away from work for an extended period of time during the work day.

How dare you.

Who do you think can do that.

Do you think that it's the people who are impacted by this meeting.

Because I don't think that's who's calling in.

Get it together.

You're supposed to be an example for the rest of this country and I'm ashamed of you.

The OPA is a biased joke.

Police can't police themselves.

Abolish SPD and do your job.

Our next speaker is Alana L.

followed by Ellis Harris.

Alana?

Hello.

I would like to dedicate my public comment into a moment of silence for Charlene R. Lyles, who was murdered by Seattle police June 18th, four years ago.

Thank you.

you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Alana.

Our next speaker is Ellis Harris.

Ellis, are you with us?

Hello, my name is Ellis Harris calling in from District 7. I'm demanding the council to amend CD 12015 to remove all restrictions on the form of action and restore it to its original form.

The right of action is currently limited to the injuries in a gathering that is not a violent public disturbance.

And as we can see, this narrow definition effectively excludes every single person who is at a protest or even those who may encounter a protest.

I demand council members to utilize the right of action uh...

at the end of the put left in lethal weapons against hundreds of times or lack there to my uh...

causing serious injuries even though the the definition question out that we think about what it left when we go weapon really mean when obriana and uh...

uh...

when in the cardiac arrest at their fpd hit her in the chat for the black ball and she she would have been barred from the fpd could they do not to be a violent uh...

a crowd And is that less than lethal when someone goes on a cardiac arrest and they literally had to be revived multiple times in the hospital?

Journalist Renee Reckett, who lost some of her hearing, was most likely debarred because she physically separated from the crowd of protesters when SGB blasted her.

And we can see that these things are just going to continue to get worse and worse unless counsel does something about it and stands up and and even changes language from less than lethal the i mean just cuz they're not uh...

they're not bold it doesn't mean that they can't kill somebody uh...

and and we thought that uh...

in it happened july twenty-fifth i would question ought to go back and watch what the police did to our citizens my friend my family and what they they they brutalized people but we're watching the sixties but with the modern-day version where people were out there protesting and they were just being bombarded with tear gas and pepper spray because a judge granted them to go do that.

And we saw that the people behind.

Thank you, Ellis.

That was our last public speaker.

And so we will move into the items of our agenda today.

I want to note that Council President Lorena Gonzalez has joined the meeting.

And I believe that Council Member Lewis may have as well?

That's correct.

Thank you very much.

Will the clerk please read the first item into the agenda?

Agenda item number one, appointment 01950, appointment of Megan McCann as court administrator of the Seattle Municipal Court.

Thank you so much.

Let's start off with a round of introductions for this item.

Presiding Judge Gregory, would you like to start?

Yes.

Good morning, council members.

Judge Willie Gregory, Presiding Judge Seattle Municipal Court.

First, I'd like to thank you, Committee Chair Herbold, for scheduling us to be with you this morning in front of the Public Safety and Human Services Committee.

I am very pleased to introduce to you Seattle Municipal Court's new Court Administrator, Meg McCann.

As court administrator, Meg will lead the administrative and operational functions of this court.

Meg's first day with the court was May 1st, excuse me, June 1st.

Throughout the court administrator recruitment process, our staff's feedback was crucially important.

We partnered with Seattle Department of Human Resources to gather staff input through several focus groups and this feedback informed the position description.

During the interview process, over 50 staff members participated in candidate interviews, and all finalists met with our race and social justice change team.

As court administrator, Meg leads over 230 staff and oversees the court's business operations.

Meg is an exceptionally strong leader with a demonstrated commitment to racial equity and inclusion, accountability, visibility, community involvement, and relationship building.

As you all know, this is a transformative time for Seattle Municipal Court as we work to ensure that we are an equitable court, engage our community in new ways to ensure their voices inform and guide our programs, work to eliminate disproportionate impact on BIPOC communities, and collaborate with our stakeholders to transform the criminal legal system and improve outcomes so that individuals leave the court better than when they enter I am very confident that Meg brings the necessary leadership, experience, and skill set to help us be the court that our community can trust, and I'm excited to have her on board.

This time, I'd like to turn it over to Meg so she can share some more with you on her background and her vision for this role.

Thank you so much, Judge Gregory.

You're welcome.

Meg, thank you so much for joining us.

Let's hear a bit about your background and how you hope to influence the municipal court.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Judge Gregory, for providing me with this opportunity to serve the court and the city of Seattle.

And council members, thank you for having me here today.

It's an honor to have this opportunity to share with you why I want to be your next court administrator.

As Judge Gregory mentioned, the court and the city are at a pivotal juncture in our approach to community safety.

We have a unique opportunity to co-create with our community and stakeholders a criminal legal system that works for the people we serve and create a truly community-centered court that supports people to get to a better place in their lives.

This means we have a lot of work to do to reform our system, which is rooted in systemic racism.

I believe in the role and the mission of the court.

It's fundamental to our democracy and our community's well-being.

And my passion lies in delivering services to the public.

And I'll know that I'm successful in this position when we've co-designed a system that is transparent and trusted by the people we serve.

I'll know that I'm successful when our judges, employees, community partners, and stakeholders demonstrate in their actions that they feel valued, included, accountable, and empowered to create a barrier-free access to justice with fair and equitable outcomes.

I'll know I'm successful with court operations when our performance data indicates that we've been efficient and effective with our resources, and that the court user's experience was positive, meaningful, and supportive, and that we've earned the trust and respect of the community.

I'm very excited to have this opportunity to take the court's vision and bring it to life, and I feel that my experience has well prepared me for this opportunity.

I'm an experienced lawyer, executive leader, and diversity, equity, and inclusion champion.

I have extensive experience at the Washington State Department of Licensing as a leader at the Attorney General's Office here in Washington and at the Pierce County Superior Court and leading complex organizations through transformative change.

I'm skilled at building systems within organizations to understand where systemic oppression exists and to reimagining delivering those services with the communities we serve.

I'm confident in my ability to lead the court as we work towards our goal of transforming to a courthouse where people leave in a better place and their lives than when they arrived.

Also, as court administrator, I'll have the opportunity to lead the court through the $40 million Municipal Court Information, or EMSIS, replacement project.

At DOL, I was the executive sponsor for many technology modernization efforts valued at over $110 million in public investment.

I understand the need to thoughtfully position the organization to deliver successfully and implement this project.

This project also represents a unique opportunity to shift the court to be more effective and efficient and equitable, because we're going to need to look at every process and simplify and reimagine them to the benefit of our clients, employees, stakeholders, and the public at large.

The role of court administrator allows me to bring my passion for equitable public service and my extensive experience in supporting and leading organizations through change to a court that's eager to be on the cutting edge of innovative, anti-racist, community-driven approach to the legal system.

During my first week at the court, I shared a quote with the staff that has really pushed me to use my power and privilege to uplift others.

It's from Sonya Renee Taylor, who's a poet, an author, and an activist, and she wrote regarding the pandemic.

We will not go back to normal.

Normal never was.

Our pre-corona existence was not normal other than we normalized greed and inequity, exhaustion, depletion, extraction, disconnection, confusion, rage, hoarding, hate, and lack.

We should not long to return, my friends.

We are being given opportunity to stitch a new garment, one that fits all of humanity and nature.

I truly believe that if we lift others up and invite others in, We can co-create and imagine a court and a courthouse that serves everyone.

I'm excited to build on the great work that the court has undertaken in the last year and a half and to be that part of the community.

And I'm eager to stitch a new garment here together with court staff, the people of Seattle and stakeholders, including city council and elsewhere.

Thank you.

Thank you, Megan.

I really appreciate that overview of your background and your interest in serving in this new role.

I appreciate understanding that you've gone through a very rigorous interview and screening with six rounds of interviews.

with both internal and external stakeholders, focus group deliberations with court leadership and the RSGI team and full staff as well.

And congratulations for getting to this stage.

I have a couple of questions, but I wanna open it up to my colleagues first to see if they have thoughts or questions for you.

I'm not seeing any raised hands.

I see a real hand.

President Gonzalez.

Thank you.

Sometimes I have the raised hand function and sometimes I don't on Zoom.

I don't know.

Thank you, Chair Herbold, for giving me an opportunity to ask a few questions here.

So Meg, and of course, Presiding Judge Gregory, thank you so much for being here with us this morning.

You know, there's been a lot of work that the Seattle Municipal Court has done under the leadership of Presiding Judge Gregory, which I'm very grateful for in terms of looking more deeply into some big dem inequities in the municipal court system that have unfortunately created unintended consequences around disproportionate impact, particularly to people of color, particularly to those who are experiencing homelessness and poverty.

And so I just would like to get a sense from you about how you see the court administrator playing a role in supporting the work and the vision of the presiding judge and of course of delivering on sort of the broader community um, demands and desire to move away from carceral systems and from, you know, systems that are designed to, um, to, um, enforce our our criminal laws, whether it's misdemeanors or otherwise.

So just just wanted to get a sense from you about sort of how you see the court administers role functioning in that context.

And then I have another question that I'd like to ask after after that conversation.

Thank you.

I see my primary role as to bring the court's vision into light.

And I think that there's real work to be done in three different areas.

One is really understanding, let me step back.

When you asked how I see my role in helping to dismantle the racist systems at work, I think there's three areas that I'm gonna turn my focus to.

One is in the way we deliver services to the public.

Second, within our internal operations, and then third, within our workplace.

And I think, I think what I'm gathering from your question is, what am I going to do in terms of improving the system in terms of how we're serving the public?

And I think the number one thing I learned at the Department of Licensing is the number one way I'm going to do that is by partnering closely with the community and really trying to understand how people walk through our services and really understanding where people get stuck, where they're excluded or not invited in, or where they're harmed, over-served, or under-served in the process.

The way I did that at the Department of Licensing is with the team is starting to work with community members and understanding as if you were to map out what is the customer's experience in engaging with your system and really understanding the consequences at each and every step and then redesigning those consequences to get better outcomes.

One of my favorite examples that I like to use is when we decided at the Department of Licensing to implement a third gender option on driver's licenses.

When I came on board, we only had the option of male and female.

And by the time I left, we had the option or M, F, or X.

And what we learned through that process and engaging with community that we had created in our system rated and rooted, sorry, and distrust of the people we serve and all sorts of bias that we had made it incredibly hard for people to change their gender on their driver's license or ID cards.

And so after working with community and really understanding people's experience working through our systems, we developed as barrier-free as a process as we could to allow people to change their gender.

And we did that by not defining what M, F, or X meant.

We did that by not charging a fee, because we learned a lot about the negative impacts of excessive fines and fees.

And we did it as smooth of a process so we could do it through one transaction, not multiple engagements.

So we were really trying to honor and think about how do we move people through quickly.

And so I'll bring those same lessons learned to all the work of the court and really systematically looking at the way we're delivering services to make sure it's easy, intuitive, and as accessible as possible for those we serve.

Thank you, Megan.

Council President Gonzalez, you have a follow-up?

I do.

In the same vein, but inward looking, there's obviously a lot of different functions within this Yale Municipal Court that make up the family of services that you're referring to, to people who are engaged with the court.

And so I, you know, of course, it's a unionized workforce at the Seattle Municipal Court and would like to get a sense from you about sort of how you see, you know, what kind of experience you have with unionized workforces.

And of course, I know that the Municipal Court had to make some difficult decisions in the face of pretty, pretty dire economic forecasting last year that resulted in the reduction of several probation officer positions in particular.

And so I just I just want to get a sense of sort of how you and what kind of experience you have with unionized workforces and sort of what your vision is for sort of the model of how we uh, how the court provides those, um, uh, services related to probation in a way that, that is focused on harm reduction as opposed to, um, transactional supervision.

I had a very similar experience at the Department of Licensing.

So the Department of Licensing has members in four different unions, the largest union being Protech 17, which is also the union that serves our employees here at the court.

And my experience was to partner closely with the unions because we have similar goals in mind, right?

We want to make sure our employees have a safe and fair workplace.

And I share that commitment as well.

At the Department of Licensing, I joined the agency after a heartbreaking scandal.

And I'm sure we all recall, it was approximately three and a half years ago, The front page of the Seattle Times shared and exposed the fact that the agency at the time had been sharing information with ICE about residents here in the state of Washington.

So when I joined that agency, there was a lot of work to be done to reimagine our role.

The agency, prior to my tenure there, really saw their role as quasi-law enforcement.

And they really saw their role as being a gatekeeper and saying no to people for services unless they absolutely had to say yes.

And so we worked really hard as a regulatory agency, both on the ID and driver side, but also the 44 businesses and professions that we regulated to partner with our licensees, because we believe that people in general want to comply and will comply if you give them the tools, the knowledge, the information, the access they need to be successful.

So we really reimagined and reinvented our culture to go from one of quasi law enforcement to one of partnership.

And I would expect that that same process needs to happen with our probation services to go from a place of a historical practice that was in fact rooted in racism and designed to keep people oppressed to a place where we rely on people to help us determine what they need to be successful and that we build on people's strengths and help them get to a better place.

So I really think that the mindset shift from I'm here to mind you to I'm here to support, partner, encourage you and see you succeed is fundamental to our success moving forward.

And there is gonna be a lot of work, and I don't wanna shy away from this conversation.

I do recognize there is a lot of work.

People have spent their careers being taught to perform their role under one mindset, and I'm gonna be asking them and insisting that they shift that.

I think having clear conversations with our partners and labor and across the agency here at SMC is gonna be fundamental on making that transformation happen.

Thank you for that, Meg.

Really appreciate your responses to my questions.

And I don't have any other questions.

Thank you, Chair Herbold.

Absolutely.

Thank you for asking an important question, a couple important questions.

And I think one of them really, the question that focused on probation services really gets to the heart of some of the changes that Seattle Municipal Court is making.

partially in response to, I'm sure you're familiar with it, Meg, the Vera report.

And there's an accompanying city auditor report that I think we're expecting soon as well, but really focusing in on transforming probation services.

And I wanna thank Council President Gonzalez for queuing up that work with working in tandem with Municipal Court when she was chair of the Public Safety Committee, because it's a big part of why we are where we are today.

And again, thanks to the leadership of Presiding Judge Gregory.

Really appreciate that you provided very, very comprehensive written responses to our questions.

Eight pages worth of answers.

Thank you so much.

just tease out one of the questions.

In the second question, you noted that one of the things that you were really excited about working on was developing a robust performance measurement program that provides transparency and accountability to all of the court's operations.

Can you talk a little bit more about what that looks like and what transparency and accountability for the court's operations means to you?

One of the things I think we have really clearly here at Seattle Municipal Court, and in large part, thank you to Judge Gregory for, is we have a really clear vision.

But what we need to build now are the systems in which to achieve that vision.

And so I like to always think about the vision that we have as a destination.

And just because it seems like everybody's going there right now, our destination is Hawaii.

And I imagine that we're flying a plane there.

And what we need to know is, are we on track to reach our destination?

And at this point, we've got some great program evaluation around the services we provide to the public, but I think we have a real opportunity to build some dashboards and some effective performance indicators as to whether or not we're getting closer and closer and closer to our vision.

What I really love about running an organization is taking that vision, breaking it down into measurable pieces, and building a roadmap that's visible to everybody, whether it's in the form of a dashboard or other visual management, for where anybody, council members, the public, employees of the court can understand and see how we're making progress towards that final destination.

I think that data is gonna be key to making sure we're using our resources effectively and efficiently.

I think that data is gonna be key for our employees to understand how they're contributing to us getting towards that vision.

So I'm really excited to bring that capability to the court and really expand on it and make that one of the ways we communicate with those we serve about how we're doing.

Thank you, Megan.

Really appreciate that.

And I think the accountability to the public and to the users of the court and getting that feedback is really, really important.

I gave credits to Council President Gonzalez and Presiding Judge Gregory and the Vera Report for a lot of our work in the probation services area.

Rightfully, it was a grassroots group of users of the court, supporters of users of the court, advocacy organizations with the Budget for Justice that first pointed us in this direction.

creating systems that allow that to happen and allow for that continuous improvement by hearing from folks who are using your services is, I think, really important for realizing that vision.

So just looking here to see whether or not there are any additional questions.

Yeah, thank you.

And I do and I and I and I appreciate that clarification because I do think that that was instrumental to, you know, getting some Movement on on really taking a more sort of systemic view and analysis of some of these issues, and I've appreciated the courts receptiveness in the ensuing years around accepting.

The the opportunity to engage in this really important work and you know Judge Gregory and I you've you and I have had really powerful conversations about why this reimagining work is really important and how the municipal court isn't.

you know, exempted from the need to engage in that self-reflection and in the opportunity to re-envision how it engages with people who interact with the criminal system via the municipal court.

I want to continue to work with you all to make sure that as we are transitioning as a society in Seattle, as we envision a community in which we aren't incarcerating our community members, but instead connecting them with restorative harm reduction services.

I want to continue to talk to you all about how we can create an intentional, effective way of transitioning court employees from the body of work that they're doing now to other transformative You know, trauma informed harm reduction bodies of work because that just transition is important, you know, we talk about just transition a lot in the context of climate change and moving from a dirty economy to a green economy.

And I don't think we spend enough time talking about how we can effectuate the just transition for folks in probation services and other functions within the court who rely on these jobs to support themselves and their families, and who I know for a fact are nervous about being left out and left without.

a job and a career by virtue of this transformative and transitional work.

And so I'm interested in continuing to have conversations with you all about how we can come up with an intentional way to plan for that transition for the workforce as we continue to implement the Vera recommendations and as we continue to sort of look at how to transform the municipal court system as a whole, as part of the criminal legal system.

appreciate the ongoing conversations that I get to have with you all, and also appreciate the conversations that I get to have with ProTech and their members as well on these really important issues.

Member Lewis, your hand is up.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just wanted to make a few closing remarks that first, I really appreciated the ability to meet with Ms. McCann and Judge Gregory prior to the hearing to ask some questions and really get to know this nominee to be the administrator.

And I think it's indicative to a new culture that Council President Gonzalez alluded to as someone who used to practice in the municipal court.

that really the leadership of the court under Judge Gregory has moved in a very, very progressive direction than where it was going under his predecessor.

And like, I'm not saying that to disparage any previous presiding judges, but I do think it's important to recognize during this time of crisis and the storm that COVID has been, and what that has done to courts all over the country, just the creativity, the adaptiveness, and the leadership, and the programs that are being put in place, and just the responsiveness to Criticisms of how the court system is working has really been a stark contrast to historically how the court has conducted itself.

And I just really wanted to take a moment to recognize and lift up Judge Gregory's leadership.

And I really appreciate his stewardship of the court.

And it makes me optimistic that a lot of the things Council President Gonzales just alluded to through this partnership can come to fruition.

So Judge Gregory, thank you for your leadership and thanks for being here today.

Thank you.

I think that is a great segue if there are no additional questions or comments to move the appointment.

Seeing, hearing no additional questions or comments, I move appointment 01950 as listed on the agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council President Gonzalez?

Aye.

Council Member Lewis?

Aye.

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

Council Member Sawant.

Yes.

And Chair Herbold.

Yes.

Five in favor.

Thank you so much.

Congratulations, Meg.

Really, again, appreciate and welcome you to the Seattle Municipal Court.

And Judge Gregory, I'll see you later on this afternoon.

All right, let's move on to the second item on the agenda.

Will the clerk please read in agenda item two?

Item number two, Council Investments in Health and Crisis Response.

Thank you, Alex.

And so we have presenters with us today from the Human Services Department.

If we could just maybe start off with a quick round of introductions before we dive in.

Director Howell?

Oh, I think you're on mute.

Sorry to say.

My apologies.

There you go.

Helen Howell, Interim Director of the Human Services Department.

Thank you.

Connie Kim, Interim Deputy Director at the Human Services Department.

Andrea LaFascia-Garity, Aging and Disability Services Division with the Human Services Department.

Perfect.

Thank you so much.

And so this is one of a series of briefings from the Human Services Department to ensure that the council is up to date and has the status of the budget investments and recommendations that came out of last year's budget deliberations, will make us be prepared and ready for what is just around the corner, which is another fall's worth of budget deliberations.

And so this focus is really on the council's investments in health and crisis response.

Last committee meeting, we heard from the folks who are sort of on the ground doing the work with HealthONE, LEAD, the mobile crisis teams.

and the social workers that pair with the Seattle Police Department through the Crisis Response Unit.

Now we're going to hear from the Human Services Department sort of the back of the house work that you guys are doing to make these kinds of shifts that I think are so important to to filling the gaps for our crisis response with community-based responses that don't rely on folks responding to a crisis.

As a police officer, somebody who's armed, making sure that we're pairing the right person, the right skills with the response that's needed.

So really appreciate all the work that you've been doing.

in this area, and I'm eager to hear from you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Herbold.

Again, my name is Helen Howell, and I serve as the Director of the Human Services Department.

Today, we're going to present an update on the investments in health and crisis response in the 2021 budget.

And I, with that, want to pass the presentation to Tanya Kim, Deputy Director of HSD.

And Andrea, and the work is so important, we're going to have two introductions, mine being the second.

So the presentation, of course, covers the 2021 council budget ads, specifically around HealthONE, the mobile integrated health program operated by Seattle Fire Department in partnership with the Human Services Department, Aging and Disability Division case managers, and two programs in mental health crisis response.

So those are mental health professionals on the Seattle Police Department crisis response team and the mobile crisis team.

And so without further ado, we're going to toss it over to Andrea.

Good morning.

I'm Andrea LaFaisia Garrity with Aging and Disability Services Division.

I work as the contract and budget manager for our division.

This morning, as Tanya mentioned, I'll be providing the overview of the programs within HSD.

So starting off with HealthONE, the 2021 budget added funds to expand the number of HealthONE units from one unit to three units.

Our second unit launched this year during the spring, and we anticipate the third unit to launch in the fall.

HealthONE is a partnership between the Seattle Fire Department and the Human Services Department Aging and Disability Services Division.

HealthONE is a multidisciplinary team with two firefighters and one case manager slash counselor per each HealthONE unit.

This team brings unique skills and approaches to all of the scenes that they respond to.

The units are designed to respond to individuals immediately in their moment of need and help them navigate through that very difficult situation, whether that be medical care, mental health care, shelter, or other social services.

The overarching goal is to reduce the impact of non-emergent calls on the Seattle Fires Operation Division.

and also to better connect individuals in need with appropriate care and crisis response services.

So as you'll see, this is an example of a case study and impact of HealthONE's work.

It's really important to highlight that this is one example and that overall our data is showing us in the last eight months, our HealthONE units have responded to nearly 540 alarms and enrolled over 800 clients for follow-up, outreach, service connection, and referrals.

And to also note, The health one and mobile integrated health terms are sometimes used interchangeably in this work.

We are really excited about this expanding partnership and are very appreciative of the opportunity to expand to additional units.

Now I'll just pause there.

I just want to make sure before we move on that folks don't have questions.

I want to lift up the fact that the proposed budget last year included expansion for Health 2, and that's both on the fire side and on the the mobile integrated health team side through HSD.

The council added funds for a third unit, which is, I think, planning to be implemented, the third unit, either sometime in the early fall.

I've heard I've heard October.

I'm hoping for August.

And just want to just check in.

Based on the Health 2 expansion that occurred in April, and since we have you from HSD here, are you anticipating sufficient staffing?

for the Health 3 expansion coming in the fall?

Yes, I can answer this.

Yes, we are conducting the hiring process currently for the expanded positions.

And so we anticipate, I would guesstimate within the next month, having that all finalized and then starting the training for the new staff.

So they will be ready by the fall.

Thank you so much.

Any other questions from council members before we move on to the next element?

All right, seeing no questions, thank you.

All right, thank you.

So now I'm going to move on to our update on the mental health crisis response work.

In this part, I'll be discussing both the mental health professionals, which are part of our Seattle Police Department crisis response team, and the mobile crisis team.

So as was mentioned previously, at a previous council meeting, I believe on June 8th, the Seattle Fire Department, excuse me, the Seattle Police Department And our partners from DESC, Downtown Emergency Services Center, were here and presented on the program aspect of their work.

Today I'll be presenting on the HSD funded portion.

The crisis response team is a co-responder model which partners mental health professionals or MHPs with specially trained police officers.

The team uses a holistic approach to crisis response of law enforcement with individuals who are experiencing behavioral health issues or crises.

The goal of the crisis response team is to divert individuals from the traditional criminal justice system and redirect them to the most appropriate resources.

In the 2021 budget, the city moved the contract for the crisis response team mental health professionals, which is provided by DESC from the Seattle Police Department to HSD.

We currently have five mental health professionals who are teamed with trained officers.

During those times, if a trained officer isn't available during a particular shift, our mental health professionals are still working hard.

They focus on the top 10 list of both individuals and locations within each precinct.

What this means is each precinct generates a list of the top 10 calls or locations that may be related to a crisis, specifically behavioral health.

The mental health professionals are vetting individuals and locations, and they're creating a tailored quote-unquote response plan that the police can then use during the time if a mental health professional is not available to be on scene.

This includes coordination with external providers and is a really nice transition for allowing the police officers with a detailed plan on how to respond to somebody in a mental health crisis.

The team also provides phone and virtual follow-ups to individuals and they occasionally are dispatched to low acuity situations that are specific to high utilizers of the 911 system.

So what that means is if it's an individual that law enforcement and the crisis response team is very familiar with, they may just dispatch a team of mental health professionals to go respond to those types of calls.

Andrea, can you speak to whether or not, and it's early days yet, but whether or not you perceive any programmatic changes that, or shifts resulting from the contract moving from SPD to HSD?

That's a very good question.

At this time, we have not discussed any shifts, but I think that we also have the work going on, as you know, with the What Works Cities Sprint Initiative, and there is some discussion within that broader city planning on how to best use the various different crisis response services and programs that we currently have.

Yeah, I just I'm thinking my understanding from talking to SPD is the the.

cohort of officers over at the crisis response team.

Many of them have either been moved into patrol or left the department.

I think there was five of them.

And so there aren't a lot of, I think there's maybe only one or two left in the CRT right now.

And so that reduces the potential for pairing the DESC mental health experts with an officer.

If, in fact, the SPD pairing part of this program is becoming less used because of staffing issues over at SPD, whether or not that creates an opportunity for HSD in the programmatic area to look at other ways to expand this really, I think, important function.

I mean, you point to the What Works Cities cohort that we're all involved in, and maybe that will provide additional opportunities, but I just see HSD not just in a funding role, but in a program development role.

And if the program is not functioning in the way it was designed because of staffing issues at SPD, that does create, I think, some opportunities and challenges.

Not seeing any other questions, we can move on.

Thank you.

So now I'm going to move on to providing an update on our mobile crisis teamwork.

During the 2021 budget, this included a $1 million expansion of the mobile crisis team.

HSD is partnering with King County Department of Community and Human Services to provide the funding to their contract, which is with DESC, Downtown Emergency Services Center, which already currently supports accounting wide services for the mobile crisis team.

And just as a side note, just a high level overview of why we made this decision and what the crisis response system is for the entire county that DESC is currently partnering with King County and now the city of Seattle on.

Our crisis response system really started to develop on the King County side in early 2008 to 2011-12 as part of the mental health and drug dependency local sales tax that the county collects for mental health substance abuse and therapeutic court services.

As part of this planning, was created is called the Crisis Solution Center.

This center provides resources for police, fire, medics, mental health professionals, and other first responders to respond to individuals who are in crisis.

And it is designed to be an alternative to jail or hospitalization.

The Crisis Solutions Center includes three components.

It includes the Crisis Diversion Facility.

So this is a facility that accepts individuals who are in crisis that are referred by first responders in King County.

The clients stay in this program for up to 72 hours, and they receive various kinds of stabilization, monitoring, and referrals to other resources.

The Crisis Solution Center also includes what's called the Crisis Diversion Interim Services.

This is designed to be a step-down program which admits clients that are directly referred from the Crisis Diversion Facility.

So after somebody has completed their 72 hours and they are stabilized from a crisis standpoint, But if that individual does not have a safe place to return to, so either they may be homeless or they just might not have a living situation that would help further advance their recovery, they can go to this interim services and may stay up to 14 days.

And they receive additional long-term support.

They are connected with an ongoing mental health or substance abuse therapy.

and they're really engaged into the system to help their overall behavioral health and help develop the skills to prevent crises in the future.

Also to note, both of our, the Crisis Diversion Facility and the Crisis Diversion Interim Services are located within the City of Seattle, which is a great resource for Seattle because it's close.

But the program is countywide.

And as I mentioned, the primary fund source for the Crisis Solutions Center funding is the Mental Illness and Drug Dependency Local Sales Tax Fund.

The third component is what I'll be speaking in more detail on today is the mobile crisis team.

This team is comprised of mental health and substance use disorder professionals who accept referrals directly from police, fire, EMT, medics to provide services to individuals experiencing crises.

The mobile crisis team is a 43 team, 43 member team.

Each team consists of two mental health professionals or clinicians who also have training in de-escalation, crisis response, and substance use disorders.

As I mentioned, the team accepts accepts referrals from first responders.

In addition to that, they accept referrals from Crisis Connections.

Crisis Connections operates what we know as 211, not only for Seattle and King County, but statewide.

But how it works in King County is they may receive crisis calls of somebody in crisis, perhaps at risk for a suicide.

They do suicide prevention intervention.

They can also make referrals directly to Mobile Crisis Team.

And then our last referrer is our Designated Crisis Responders.

So our Designated Crisis Responders were previously known as the County Designated Mental Health Professionals.

So that might be more familiar with the committee.

These individuals have the authority to detain somebody involuntarily for a mental health issue.

So this is, they can involuntarily detain if somebody is at danger to self, others property due to serious, and they can detain somebody if they are gravely disabled and serious harm to themselves.

The goal of the mobile crisis team is to stabilize the individual in behavioral crisis in the community.

The team has the ability to intervene within their own community.

So they're meeting the person exactly where they're at.

They identify immediate resources on the scene, and they help provide that linkage and connection.

They may even transport somebody.

That's not the norm, but if it's needed, they can provide that type of resource.

And their goal is to help to prevent and stabilize to the point and provide the resource so there isn't a further need for intervention, whether that be from law enforcement, fire, or whoever the referrer was.

The city funds are being used to expand some of the mobile crisis team work.

As I mentioned, the program overall is funded by MID.

During the 2020 year, the sales tax collection was down overall in the state, as we know, due to the pandemic.

And so that resulted in a shortage just for the program overall.

So it was amazing that the city stepped in and was able to fill that gap.

In addition to filling that gap, there was a little bit of excess revenue where we worked with DESC and the county to propose a pilot.

And so what we're piloting is called the Behavioral Health Response Team.

This team will be working in collaboration with the existing Mobile Crisis Response Team and the Crisis Response Unit within the Seattle Police Department.

This team, what makes it really unique is that in addition to including a mental health professional, it also includes two peer navigators.

The reason why we like to highlight that is because peer navigators are a new addition to our crisis response system.

They're designed to be role models, and they're somebody with lived experience.

And what I mean by lived experience is they're somebody either with an existing mental illness, substance use disorder, and have had some sort of crisis connection or issue within our system.

So they actually know what it's like to be on the receiving end of a crisis response.

So the peer navigators are trained and they provide information that really helps the client in their greatest moment of need help overcome their barriers.

They can really speak to what it feels like and help deescalate any situation.

And with the ultimate goal of preventing another crisis or, and also to help link and re-engage individuals into ongoing treatment.

This pilot started in April, and it's designed to run through the end of December.

So we're really excited.

It's up and running right now.

I do not have any data yet because it's so, so new.

But it's already providing that intensive follow-up.

with those individuals that they are encountering that are in some sort of behavioral health crisis.

And our ultimate goal is to resolve crises in the community.

And so we really want to meet the individual where they're at and help prevent that repetitive and high utilization of the 911 system.

And so Our goal and what we'll be looking to see over time is that, does this type of intervention address the core issues that led to the crisis or the behavior that contributed to their high utilization of 911?

Quick question here.

So how does this pilot, the behavioral health response team, which is focused on doing follow-up with clients who perhaps the mobile crisis team had helped previously or another crisis intervention effort had helped previously, I understood you to say that there's a list created for the behavioral health response team to do ongoing visits.

How does that follow-up team differ from the follow-up work that the ADS case managers do for HealthONE?

That's a really good question.

They're very similar.

The primary difference is the the basically the avenue that the call comes in.

And so the avenue for this team that I provide for the mental health professionals, the avenue is primarily through law enforcement and through our crisis response system.

The ADS case managers that work with our health one team, they're receiving all of their calls come through fire 911. So they're dispatched through a call that comes into fire And it is, I guess, designated as being some sort of health response primarily versus the calls coming in to the law enforcement side is a criminal violation of some sort.

Okay, that's helpful.

And then I just wanted to get a sense from, you whether or not, are we anticipating a ongoing city commitment for the base 750,000?

Because I just to clarify for the listening public, this was not a $1 million to expand the mobile crisis teams, it was 750,000 to backfill dollars that were unavailable and $250,000 for the pilot.

And so I'm just wondering, do we have a sense of whether or not MID funds are going to be available for the base funding for Mobile Crisis Team, or is it too soon for me to be asking that question?

Right now, it's too soon.

We don't know.

We The division did end up being a little bit different.

It's about 550 for the backfill instead of a 750 and about 450 for the pilot.

And the county has informed us that they are committed to continuing to fund the Crisis Solutions Center, because it's that overarching, you know, three different components with MID.

But yeah, I agree.

We're going to have to wait and see how the revenue comes in.

Thank you.

And then also, on the issue of a designated crisis responder, I understand that the mobile crisis team takes referrals from designated crisis responders.

But I'm wondering, has there been any thought to actually putting a designated crisis responder on the team itself?

That's a really good question.

Interesting question.

I don't know if they've ever considered that.

I know that just overarching the program within King County has always remained very separate from any of their other crisis response.

So I don't know, that is something that we can ask the county if they've ever considered that.

And the reason why I ask is, and I guess I'm less interested whether or not the county has considered it and more interested in whether or not we might consider funding a designated crisis responder for mobile crisis response within the city of Seattle.

And the reason why I ask is I understand that I think there's only four for the county, and it's very difficult, I think, throughout the whole county to get these responders to address some of our issues.

the issues that folks have when they are likely to or have shown evidence that they have or will harm themselves or others.

So just flagging my interest in getting a Seattle-specific designated crisis responder.

And I'm just looking to see if there are any questions from council members here.

I'm not seeing any.

So yes, please move on.

All right.

Thank you.

I've wrapped my last slide.

So this is just provides an example of the work of our partnership with Seattle Police Department and DESC for the crisis response team.

Overall, just to summarize, all of these investments are designed to meet people where they're at and to respond to the crises in that moment.

We're hoping to meet the ongoing needs of individuals and help prevent further entry into our criminal justice system.

I think next we have questions and answers.

And that really concludes our presentation.

We really do need to thank Andrea.

Most of that was scripted and she went off script and just has content here in her brain.

And so I just wanted to thank you for allowing us to come back.

And we're happy to take any final questions.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

I do have a real quick question on the organization of this work within HSD.

We've heard from you a presentation about the creation of the Safe and Thriving Communities Division.

and heard about what functions are being funded out of that division.

Is there any exploration within HSD of moving some of these other functions that we heard about today into the Safe and Thriving Communities division?

The good news is that soon we will have leadership and capacity to really do a deep dive and look at our investments.

We want to make sure that Whatever analysis we do, of course, we're focusing on our community, you know, at the center.

And so if it makes sense without disrupting, you know, we can always have dotted lines, too.

We currently have some dotted lines, even within the Safe and Thriving Communities Division, for example, with the police department.

And so we will explore all options for whatever it makes sense without disruption.

So absolutely.

Thank you, Tanya.

I'm looking for raised hands and not seeing any virtual raised hands or real ones on the screen.

And so with that, just wanna really thank you for joining us.

It was good to hear from you again, the sort of the back of the house description of all of the work that you're doing to make the crisis response shifts that are happening on the street possible, and really look forward to your ongoing work.

I did actually remember one other question.

There was supposed to be, I think, a study associated with the mobile crisis response team budget action.

The council budget action that added a million dollars for the mobile crisis team and the pilot said the agency that receives the funds should submit a report on how to separate the dispatch of a mobile crisis team from the contacting of law enforcement.

We want to make sure that it doesn't get lost in the shuffle and what we might expect there.

Yes, we'll be working with DESC and King County on that and to provide a report.

We're aware.

All right.

I'd almost forgotten, so.

All right, great.

Well, thanks again.

Again, thank you for your work, and really appreciate you making some time today to share it with the committee.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Will the clerk please read in agenda item number three?

Agenda item number three, Council Bill 120105, an ordinance relating to the Seattle Police Department banning the ownership, purchase, rent, storage, or use of less lethal weapons and amending section 3.28.146 of the Seattle Municipal Code for briefing and discussion only.

Thank you, Alex.

And so before I hand it off to Lisa Kay of Council Central Staff to present the legislation, I just want to note that this is a first briefing, so no vote is planned.

And I think I'm just going to hand it over to Lisa Kay.

You've got a background of how we got here in your presentation, or should I do that?

I think I was advised that you would be doing that.

OK, fair enough.

Let me just quickly legislation itself that's before us today that has been introduced.

This is the first version of the new bill that has actually been introduced on the introduction referral calendar as of this week.

It follows the engagement with the U.S.

Department of Justice and the Consent Decree Monitor in line with the process laid out in the Consent Decree for Use of Force Policies.

It builds off the legislation originally introduced by Council Member Sawant and unanimously adopted by the City Council.

and subsequent consensus recommendations from the three accountability bodies and feedback from the U.S.

Department and monitor in line with that process required by the consent decree.

We last voted on an unintroduced draft bill.

We didn't vote on the bill.

We voted on a motion to send the draft legislation to the Monitor and the DOJ for their review.

We did that back on February 9th.

And changes since the February 9th version are designed to address the issues raised by the Department of Justice and various court decisions.

Again, the council originally docked legislation back in June 2020. In July, the Department of Justice sought a restraining order on that legislation that Judge Robart granted.

on August 15th.

We received recommendations for the CPC, the OIP, and the OPA.

They were presented to committee in September.

With budget starting in September and committees not meeting, that didn't allow for very much time to develop and adopt a new version.

And so in December, the committee held a roundtable discussion of the recommendations with SPD at the table.

In January and February, the committee discussed a draft bill based on we first amended the bill to make changes that reflect the things that the three accountability bodies agreed on.

Since then, there have been meetings with the DOJ and the monitor to get feedback.

And during discussions about the draft bill, the Department of Justice expressed concern about the potential that restricting the use of certain less lethal tools, and for the listening crowd, the terminology, listening audience, the terminology is not less than lethal, Because we agree that in some instances, these tools have been lethal.

The term is less lethal, meaning they are less likely to be lethal.

And so that is, I think, the terminology that we use to reflect that impact.

I just remember hearing that from a testifier today, so I wanted to lift that up in case folks are still listening.

The DOJ's concern was that restricting the use of certain less lethal tools in crowd management circumstances could actually lead to officers using higher levels of force, putting both assaultive protesters and the surrounding non-violent protesters at higher risk of harm.

This was how DOJ expressed their concern.

Drobart expressed similar concerns and the DOJ likewise inquired whether or not the draft bill would provide time for relevant SPD officers to be framed changes in policy, again, to avoid the unwanted impact of having untrained officers resort to higher levels of force than necessary.

Bert also raised this issue.

So my overall goal is to adopt the very strongest legislation possible, again, within the consent of the consent decree.

What does that mean?

First of all, under the consent decree, Judge Robart must approve the legislation.

Second of all, the US Department of Justice Department of Justice can challenge whatever legislation we pass, as they did in successfully seeking and obtaining a restraining order, and in challenging some aspects of the draft accountability ordinance in 2017. So there's a history of that occurring that's different.

for example, than the state legislature, which is not under a consent decree that recently made changes to legislation limiting the use of tear gas.

So that is sort of my goal for this bill and the context which we're operating in and the history of this legislation being back to June of last year.

And with that, I will now hand it over to Lisa to proceed with the presentation.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

With your permission, I'll go ahead and share my screen.

So let's put that there.

Okay, is that showing up for you all?

It is.

Good, okay.

So I'm Lisa Kay with council central staff.

I just remind you that the staff memo for the bill is on page 49 of your packet.

As Council Member Herbold said, last February, the committee sent a draft less lethal bill to Department of Justice and the Monitor for their review and comment.

And the revised bill responds to their feedback in four ways.

I'm going to go through this quickly because Council Member Herbold did it really thoroughly.

The revised bill does restructure some sections for purposes of clarity.

It does allow limited use of less lethal weapons during demonstrations as a safer way to respond to small groups engaging in illegal activity.

It does allow the use of tear gas in limited circumstances outside of a demonstration or rally.

And it does provide an implementation period to allow the police department to revise its policies and train to the revisions.

So with that, I'm just going to walk through a little bit more of what the bill does.

The bill does ban five types of less lethal weapons, which are the same as in the February draft.

The acoustic weapons, directed energy weapons, disorientation devices, including blast balls, ultrasonic cannons, and water cannons.

It then goes on to restrict the use of four other less lethal weapons, and it makes any use of these subject to a risk test.

That is, they can only be used when the risk of serious bodily injury from violent actions would outweigh the risk of harm to bystanders.

This is a broader application of this risk test than had been included in the February bill.

It applies to all of the weapons in all uses.

So I'm going to walk through each of the four restricted less lethal weapons now.

And then the last few slides will describe the other provisions in the bill, including the timeline by which the police department must revise its operating policies to reflect the new bill.

So starting with the noise flash diversionary devices, this is section 1D of the ordinance or the proposed bill.

These devices would be prohibited from any use in any demonstration or rally.

They could be used outside of a demonstration or rally, but only by SWAT officers and only if circumstances meet that risk task.

That is the risk of harm from violent actions outweighing the risk to bystanders.

In terms of 40 millimeter launchers used to deploy chemical irritants, this is addressed in section 1E of the bill.

These launchers may be used only by SWAT officers and only when the risk task is met.

Then, subject to those two conditions, use of the launchers would be allowed outside a demonstration or rally or in a demonstration or rally for purposes other than crowd control.

So, for example, intervening with small groups that may be engaged in dangerous or illegal activity.

Section 1F of the bill addresses pepper spray restrictions.

pepper sprays that before we move on i just want to ask say a little bit about the last slide uh...

because i think in my in my thinking uh...

it this is the most uh...

significant uh...

change from the last bill uh...

the last version of the bill uh...

was really clear that 40 millimeter launchers, or I should say was clear in my mind in how the language was written.

Although I recognize that from a legal construction reading of it, it could have been read differently.

But in my mind, the 40 millimeter launchers that were launching pepper balls were banned for being used in a demonstration or rally.

and did not have any specific risk factors that allowed it to be used.

And the reason why it's changed in this version is because the changes that the police department made in response to Judge Jones's restraining order on the Seattle Police Department from using tear gas at all.

Some of the crowd control strategies, changes that the police department made included purchasing and developing policies for these pepper ball launchers.

So again, that was in response to Judge Jones's TRO, Temporary Restraining Order, and Those new policies for the pepper ball launchers actually went to Judge Robard and were approved in late February.

And these have been used as an alternative to blast balls.

So given that Judge Jones approved these policies, it seemed that we could be testing the patience of the court to bring back a bill that basically undoes the work that the court did in February.

Thank you.

OK.

So moving then to the pepper spray restrictions, use of pepper spray could take place in any of these three circumstances, but only when the risk test is met.

So this allows use of pepper spray outside a demonstration or rally, during a demonstration or rally, but for purposes other than crowd control or for crowd control during, but only during a violent public disturbance at a demonstration or rally.

The second bullet is also a new provision that also responds to the Department of Justice's concern that police department have some less lethal weapons available to respond to small groups within a larger crowd.

The next two slides will describe how Section 1F of this Council Bill 120.105 would regulate the use of tear gas.

First, SWAT officers would be allowed to use tear gas outside a demonstration or rally, but only if two conditions are met.

First, the use must be reasonably necessary to prevent the threat of imminent loss of life or serious injury, and the risk of serious bodily injury from violent actions must outweigh the risk of harm to bystanders.

This authority was added to respond to the Department of Justice's concern that the police department retain the ability to use tear gas in the event of a hostage situation or when responding to a barricaded individual.

The bill also authorizes the use of tear gas at a demonstration or rally, but only if five conditions are met.

So these first four conditions were already in your February draft.

The fifth adds the risk test that the risk of serious bodily injury from violent actions must outweigh the risk of harm to bystanders.

I'll turn now to some of the other provisions in the bill.

In Section 1B, there are provisions about mutual aid, which are essentially the same as was in the February bill.

but does have an added clause for clarity prohibiting agencies that offer mutual aid from operating in a manner inconsistent with the provisions in the relevant mutual code or municipal code.

Section 10 has the same right of action as was in the February bill.

Sections two and three provide notice and implementation provisions that are similar to what was in the February bill.

Section four is new and it directs the police department to revise its manual to comply with this bill within 60 days after the bill takes effect and to publish the revisions on its website.

And then the effective date for the bill is 30 days after the court approves the police department's revised policies.

So between the 60 days for the police department to revise its manual and the 30 days for the effective date, the police department would have 90 days to train its officers in the new policies before they become effective.

And again, this was responding to the Department of Justice's concern that the police have time to train their officers in the new policies.

And that completes my presentation, Madam Chair.

You are muted still.

Thank you.

Before I open it up to see if folks have questions, I'm wondering, I don't know if you had a chance to listen in to public comment, but there were a number of commenters who had concerns about changes in the bill, and I don't believe we've made any changes as it relates to the right of action for aggrieved parties.

So I think what they were speaking to is that in February, the right of action was changed from what had been proposed in the June 2020 bill.

So those were added to...

Let's see whether I can...

The additional language or the language that differs from what had been in the June 2020 bill was that the injuries needed to have been.

Could you would not have a right of action if you sustain injuries during a violent public disturbance and it would exclude the person who, in the judgment of a reasonable person.

Commits a criminal offense at or immediately prior to the use of the force.

And I mostly heard testimony about the first bullet concerned that if the use of less lethal weapons occurred in something that was determined to be a violent public disturbance, that that individual would not have a right of action.

But a violent public disturbance is not just something that somebody just arbitrarily decides, it does have a legal definition in the law, correct?

That's right.

It's defined in the bill as any gathering where 12 or more persons who are present together use or threaten to use unlawful violence towards another person or group of people, and the conduct of them taken together, this sounds very legalese, is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety.

So it really has to be, the violent public, the criteria for violent public disturbance is spelled out here and it needs to be, there needs to have been use or threatened of use of unlawful violence towards another person or other people.

And does the definition define who determines that there is a violent public disturbance?

No, that would likely be addressed in the police operating policies.

I see your hand up.

Yeah.

I just, I just wanted to clarify that.

I mean, Lisa has already done that, but I wanted to underscore it.

All the public comment, the speakers were addressing the differences between what is being discussed today by this committee and the actual, you know, a real honest-to-goodness weapons ban that was voted for unanimously by the city council.

The bill that was brought from my office, as you said, Chair Herbold, under pressure from the massive street protests last summer.

And so when people are talking about the absence of the private right of action, they're comparing this bill to the bill that was passed in the summer.

I don't think the committee should keep misleading the members of the public by comparing this, what's being discussed with the February draft.

The February draft was just a draft, as you said, Chairman Harbaugh, that was never, that was not an ordinance passed into law.

So that, it means nothing.

What people are comparing the city council's potential actions to is the bill that was passed by the city council last summer.

We should also keep in mind that in terms of the violent public disturbance that Lisa was just talking about, I mean, it's defined as any time there are 12 or more people being violent, that could be 12 proud boys starting a fight in a 10,000 person peaceful progressive or left movement rally.

I mean, that is what the people who spoke in public comment were talking about, that, you know, real life instances where people would not get any redressal under the, if what is being discussed today is passed into law.

So I think that that should be taken into consideration.

And I mean, that should really be the focus, not just taken into consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Solange.

Any other questions or thoughts from Council Members or Lisa?

I could, let me just see, am I muted?

I'm not.

So I would just call the committee's attention as you're considering this in anticipation of any subsequent hearings, there is a chart on page 52 of your packet that is attached to the staff memo that provides sort of a high level summary of how the various less lethal weapons would be regulated in these various circumstances.

So,

Thank you.

It's super, super helpful and really appreciate the time taken to put it together.

And just to respond to why we are having a conversation that focuses on the changes from the bill that a majority of committee members voted on a motion to send to the the DOJ for their review is I wanted committee members and the public to see what recommendations the DOJ made for changes.

This is our opportunity to do that.

If there are no further questions, just a reminder, we are not voting today.

Thank you, Lisa, so much for the presentation.

Thank you, my colleagues, for being here to hear it.

And if there are no further questions or thoughts, we'll move into adjournment.

The next Public Safety and Human Services Committee is scheduled for July 13th.

And if there are no further comments from my colleagues, The time is 11.16 AM and we are adjourned.

Thank you so much.