Public Safety and Human Services Committee 7/11/23

Good morning.

The June, I'm sorry, July 11th, 2023 meeting of the Public Safety and Human Service Committee will come to order.

It is 9.33 a.m.

I'm Lisa Herbold, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Council Member Nelson.

Present.

Council Member Peterson.

Present.

Vice Chair Lewis.

Present.

Chair Herbold.

Here.

For present.

Thank you so much.

On today's agenda, we're going to be hearing three items.

The first is a mid-year report by the Community Police Commission, the Office of the Inspector General, and the Office of Police Accountability.

The second item we'll be hearing is discussion and possible vote on Council Bill 120608. 120608 comprise amendments to the police accountability legislation regarding operations of the community police commission.

And then lastly, we'll be hearing discussion and possible vote on amendments related to Council Bill 120580 on deactivation protections for app-based workers.

We're going to continue considering amendments that we began consideration of at our last meeting.

With that, we'll move on to approve our agenda for today's committee meeting.

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

Hearing no objection, today's agenda is adopted.

At this time, we will transition into public comment.

Each speaker will be given one minute to speak.

I think we've got about 29 people signed up to speak.

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

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

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

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

And once you've heard that prompt, we ask that you press star six in order to unmute yourself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, there are 22 people signed up for public comment, seven people virtually, sorry, and 15 in person.

And let's see here, I will, as long as there's no objections, I'd like to, at the front of the public comment period, extend the time for public comment to go instead of for 20 minutes, we'll have it go for a full 30 minutes and that will bring us to 9.47 a.m.

Moving on, we'll just go right into public comment, and we'll start with in-person speakers.

We'll start with Humberto Souza, followed by Maria Hernandez, with interpretation from Hannah Savio Howe.

Good morning.

My name is Humberto Souza.

And if you can get right up on the mic, Just pull it right up to you.

I'm here today in support of the pay up campaign and the deactivation bill presented to you.

I used to work for Rody, an app-based courier company.

I was deactivated last year.

This has impacted my life, causing me unpredictable stress when having a loss of income and a loss of life quality.

Workers receiving notice of deactivation for non-sensical reasons, workers have to choose whether they can take an offer and if it's financially viable.

If workers don't have a certain acceptable rating, they can be deactivated or be given a violation.

Even though road declines, you have the option to choose and accept or even decline an offer after you have accepted a job without road users to excuse that the decline offers to deactivate you.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is Maria Hernandez with interpretation from Hannah Savio Howe.

Hola, buenos dias a todo el comité y a la ciudad de Seattle, a todos los asistentes a este evento tan importante para todos los que somos Geek Workers.

Me llamo Trini, Ma, Trinidad, y yo estaba desactivada por DoorDash.

Estamos aquí para pedirles, por favor, que nos escuchen, que necesitamos estas políticas de desactivación porque no nos pueden encasillar a todos como malos trabajadores.

We need specific information to know which geek is referred to in the news of the deactivation.

When I was deactivated by DoorDash, I did not receive the details I needed to know what happened and how I could resolve the situation.

Si esta política va a mantener la intención de tener un proceso de desafío, necesitamos estos detalles.

Nosotros somos trabajadores esenciales las 24 horas del día.

Habemos algunos que trabajamos algunas horas, otros trabajan todo el día.

y somos trabajadores sin salario, sin beneficios, y estamos completamente desprotegidos por las compañías para las que trabajamos.

Les pedimos nos ayuden con estas políticas las cuales nos benefician a nosotros y a nuestras familias.

Por favor, mantengan las intenciones de la política que incluye transparencia de información, así podremos retar una desactivación con información significativa.

Gracias por sus votos.

De antemano, nuestra lucha continúa.

Gracias.

Good morning to the Seattle City Council Committee, to all the attendees of this very important event, for all of us who are gig workers.

My name is Trini and I was deactivated by DoorDash.

We are here to ask you to please listen to us because we need these deactivation policies because they can't pigeonhole us all as bad workers.

We need specific information to know which gig the deactivation notice refers to.

We are essential workers 24 hours a day.

There are some who work a few hours, others who work all day, and we are workers with no salary, no benefits, who are completely unprotected by the companies we work for.

Please uphold the intentions of this policy, which includes transparency of information so we can challenge a deactivation with meaningful information.

Thank you for your votes to advance our fight.

Thank you.

Moving on to some of the online speakers, we have Courtney Gillespie followed by Barbara Finney.

Courtney?

Hi, my name is Courtney Gillespie, and I'm the Director of Government Affairs at TaskRabbit.

Thank you to the committee today for the stakeholder engagement to date and for letting me speak today about the deactivations ordinance.

TaskRabbit, very briefly, is a two-sided marketplace that connects people who need help with small tasks around the home with self-employed independent contractors or taskers who offer their services through our app.

While deactivations are rare, TaskRabbit and its users perhaps uniquely value the ability to remove a user from the platform in the interest of user safety.

The average duration of a task is two hours and generally takes place inside the home, which means the tasker and a client interact for a significant period of time.

And that's why we must be able to respond to protect users, both client and taskers, psychological safety, as well as their physical well-being.

So we're grateful for the recent amendments to the agreed conduct definition in the bill, there's several amendments proposed today, which would address some of our additional concerns.

Thanks again for the opportunity to provide comment.

We look forward to continuing our work with you and other stakeholders to address remaining concerns.

Thank you.

Our next speaker sign up remotely is Barbara Finney.

I'm barbara for me and I urge you to vote no today on the amendments related to the community police Commission's proposed changes.

CPC has failed the community it's supposed to serve.

The CPC has rejected the voices and participation of those critical of the PD including those most harmed by them.

A conclusion from last year's CPC Commission's year-long strategic planning process states that The CPC's community engagement to date is lacking depth.

CPC is viewed as uninvolved and disconnected from community, only engaging certain voices they agree with and transactional in their engagement." This conclusion hits the mark. In 2021, the CPC successfully fought against the city council funding a 2017 proposal from the city of Seattle auditor to have the entire police accountability system, including CPC independently audited. That was a failure of city council. Now they're asking for more power. No, please no more power and money vote no today. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next signed up remotely for public comment is Tony Inea.

And after Tony, we'll move back to in-person and hear from Kimberly Wolf.

And Tony, if you're with us, can you hit star six, please?

To unmute yourself.

Perfect.

Council Member Herbold and members of the Committee on Public Safety and Human Services.

My name is Tony Anaya and I'm head of government relations for DoorDash and I'm offering testimony on the deactivation ordinance.

We appreciate the council's work thus far on this bill.

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

Our full deactivation policy is available to dashers and the public on our website.

So well intentioned we want to ensure that this bill does not limit our ability to act quickly in rare instances of harmful behavior where immediate deactivation is necessary to protect merchants and customers.

We continue to have concern about the bill's extensive disclosure requirements which mandate that all evidence, including reports from merchants, customers, and even other workers be turned over to a deactivated worker, even if the names of reporting individuals are redacted This is enough information to spur unsafe escalations or retaliation, or even create a chilling effect in reporting misconduct.

We support many of the amendments offered here today, but several of them stand out as priorities.

These include amendments 7A, 7B, and 8B.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Kimberly Wolf, and Kimberly will be followed by Kay Ness.

Kimberly Wolf, Gig Worker.

We spent a lot of time and stakeholdering to come to an agreement on this bill.

And it's really annoying that the apps who were so silent during that time decided instead to make a run around at the end and push for all these amendments.

really disappointing.

Disappointing with the council members that go along with that.

Council Member Peterson, you mentioned last time that you wanted to exclude like roadie, the dog walkers, whatnot from this, much like them trying to do network apps being excluded from this, because it wasn't kind of commensurate with the last pay up bill.

But the thing is, it was.

But at the last minute, amendments run around excluded.

So I would ask, with the exception of Herboldt and Lewis's amendment today, that you pull all the rest of the amendments, because every one of them are gutting this bill.

And it's just ridiculous.

Thank you.

Our next speaker in person is Kay Ness.

And after Kay, we'll hear from Valerie

Hello, all.

My name is Kay Neff.

I'm the lead director of government affairs at Rover.

My comment today regards CB120580.

Thank you to this committee for engaging Rover on this bill.

And thank you also to Working Washington for your meetings with us.

Rover's processes align with the values of this bill.

They are human-led, don't involve deactivation by algorithm, provide users with transparency and dialogue, and are rooted in safety and shared community guidelines.

We've worked on proposed amendments that are crucial to adapt this bill to pet care, to in-home services, and to marketplace network companies generally.

We're grateful that the committee has voted to expand the definition of egregious misconduct, and we believe additional amendments remain important to protect the safety of all users and the reputation of sitters who routinely offer exceptional care and offer that care on or over.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thanks so much.

Next, we have Valerie Shoret with us remotely, followed by Michelle Marina.

I am here in person.

The question I have to ask you is how can there be police accountability when the people who oversee it are unaccountable?

Over 10 years ago, the Seattle Community Police Commission was created by the federal court overseeing the reform of SPD.

It was supposed to be the voice of the community, but over the last decade, they have become the commission to police the community.

The CPC has rejected engagement with those most harmed by the police.

Not a single CPC commissioner over the last decade has been a person directly affected by Seattle Police violence.

Just as the police abuse their power when they remain unaccountable, so too has the CPC.

We're here today to ask you to vote no on the CPC's proposed changes to the legislation, the accountability legislation.

Please vote no on CP120608.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next in-person speaker is Michelle May-Rina, and my apologies if I'm mispronouncing your name.

Hello, my name is Michelle Mairena, and the CPC has gone from excluding the community it is supposed to represent to now being hostile and attacking that community.

When a community member severely impacted by SBD violence voiced criticism of the CPC at a public meeting in February, her mic was shut off and staff threatened to end the meeting.

Then in May, five community members attended a CPC public meeting in a silent, non-violent protest, attempting dialogue after the meeting.

In turn, the CPC's lander attendees lied about what happened and said that the commissioner's safety was put at risk.

and threatened to call the police in the future.

They are threatening people who have suffered the worst of SPD violence with further violence.

In 2021, the CPC then successfully fought against the city audit proposal to have the entire police accountability system, including the CPC, independently audited.

Now they're asking for more money and power while demanding to remain unaccountable and unaudited.

Today CPC is arrogant, authoritarian, and unaccountable.

It does not represent what those affected by SB the violence are asking for.

It's not listening to what the community needs.

Vote no on SB 12060A.

Thank you so much.

Our next in-person speaker is Rob Engel followed by Vic Ariel, I believe.

Hello.

The CPC has now become a force that stymies progress by promoting faux accountability while actively fighting against accountability improvements, including giving those most impacted by police violence a voice.

Today, the city council will consider the CPC's proposed grab for more money, more power, and more privilege.

There should be no changes to the 2017 ordinance that created the CPC until the following three demands are met.

One, a public forum with those impacted by SPD violence proposing changes to the legislation.

Two, a fully independent audit of the CPC.

And three, for the CPC to end its interference with both the attempt at forming a city program for people and family members impacted by serious SPD violence.

and with the CPC's failed attempt to create an appeals process for failed investigations of police complaints.

These projects must be shaped by people most impacted by police violence.

When I talk to people about the CPC, they either have never heard of it, they don't know what it is, or they're like me or Howard or Castile, and they are way too experienced with how uninteractive they are.

Thank you.

Moving back to virtual public speakers, we'll have Catherine Holm followed by BJ Last.

Good morning, Chair Herbold and members of the committee.

My name is Catherine Holm and I'm the Western Region Deputy Government Affairs Manager for NCART.

We're here today to once again share our concerns with the deactivation proposal.

We've participated in stakeholder meetings sent over numerous amendments but unfortunately we cannot support the ordinance until certain amendments are accepted.

As we've stated previously the safety of the shopper customer and retailer is paramount.

There are no situations in which a shopper would be deactivated without first being suspended.

We also always investigate alleged behavior before making a final decision.

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

The current draft of the ordinance requires 14 days notice before deactivation.

We strongly oppose it because it is dangerous for families and communities across the city.

No other industry has a 14 day notice requirement and for good reason sometimes immediate action is necessary.

Additionally the data submission every quarter is onerous and is not accounted for in the fiscal notes which we believe will blow up the cost of the ordinance.

We remain committed to being a trusted partner in Seattle.

Thank you.

Thanks so much.

B.J.

Last will be followed by Justin Heyer.

My name is B.J.

Last.

The CPC is not the voice of the community.

It's hostile to community input especially those most harmed by the police.

Council should reject CD 120-608.

There should not be any changes to the 2017 Police Accountability Ordinance without at least a public forum and a fully independent audit of the CPC.

Council should also remove CPC from the city's attempts to set up a program for people and family members impacted by serious SPD violence and to create an appeals process for failed investigation.

CPC has actively fought against these programs and blocked community members from participating.

Council also should approve CB120580 You can app based workers the activation protection without watering down the bill with any of Councilmember and Peterson's really bad amendments and counsel should not be listening to any of the companies calling in today.

water down this bill, given those history of the same workers that's why we are here those workers and school over for those companies for over 4.7 million.

from the act-based workers alone in Seattle last year, according to Office of Labor Standards.

They should not be considered serious partners on legislation protecting their workers.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Justin Heyer.

That is the last speaker that we have virtually.

And Justin will be followed by an in-person public speaker, Dicea Mestis.

Justin?

Good morning.

My name is Justin Hyer, and I'm the Director of Government Affairs for SHIP.

Thank you for providing me with a few moments to address some concerns regarding CB 120580. For a brief overview of our platform, we're a retail tech company that connects consumers to delivery.

We value the effort shoppers using our platform put into establishing connections with both shoppers, customers, and retailers in the ecosystem that we have.

While we're committed to providing access to work opportunities for those utilizing our platform, we must always prioritize both safety and security.

Customers put an incredible amount of trust in shoppers to deliver personal items like groceries and home goods to their homes and places of business.

And it's paramount that the experiences on the platform don't risk the safety of other users, including customers and the retail partners we work with.

At Shipt, we really take these shopper relations seriously, deactivating any account in the course of last This process includes an internal review by our team.

It's not a decision we take lightly, but I'm happy to meet with any of you to express our concerns and explain these in further detail.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Justin.

Moving back to in-person public comment, we've got Dacia Maestas, or Maestas, followed by Arthur Guilford.

Hello, I'm Daisha Mestiz.

I'm a mental health counselor at a local nonprofit here.

And I'm speaking on the CBC proposed changes.

I'm voting no against it because I feel like we should have an audit of this program.

I had a coworker that was a part of it and it just, it didn't feel like a safe space for her to share like what she, like the idea she wanted to bring.

A lot of us are forced to share our trauma, like when we're brought to community spaces and it's just, not really fair to us.

I have to like pour everything that we've had to go through to like change what's going on in the city.

So I would just like to vote no and that's all I have to say.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is Arthur Guilford and Arthur will be followed by Howard Gale.

Good morning.

I would like to reiterate comments already made by the community to vote no on CB 120608, the CPC's proposed changes until there can be the three demands already made.

The public forum with those who are impacted by SPD violence proposing changes to the legislation.

a fully independent audit of the CPC and for the CPC to end its interference with both the attempt at forming a city program for police and family members impacted by serious SBD violence and with the CPC's failed attempt to create an appeals process for failed investigations of police complaints.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Howard Gale.

Howard will be followed by Ari Russell.

Howard Gale?

You skipped Vickie Hall when you went to online.

I'm calling, I'll figure it out if I've skipped somebody, but right now I'm calling Howard Gale, Dr. Gale.

Good morning, Council Members.

You've already received all the information by email and our public comments in previous occasions, so there's really not much to say.

The two things I will tell you in today's presentation from the CPC, there are two slides that are relevant.

One slide is a slide you will not see.

That's a slide from their presentation last year that shows their own independent study indicated that they were detached and hostile to the community.

This is the CPC's own review from 2021, 2022, sorry.

The other slide, which you will see today, is this slide on international community engagement celebrating the fact that one of their staff went to Dubai for a police conference.

How detached from reality in the community do you have to be sending a member of your staff from the Community Police Commission to an authoritarian government in which the police routinely beat people up, and they are proud of that.

This, better than anything, shows you how disconnected and removed they are from the community.

Thank you.

Thank you, Dr. Gayle.

Moving back to Vic, my apologies, and I think it's Vic Abel.

Thank you.

I know my handwriting.

I'm here to speak on CB120608.

The CPC has presented a plan to the City Council to add to its $1.9 million budget of load of bureaucracy.

The Commission wants to add a Deputy Director at a salary of around $140,000 or more than doubling the monthly stipends for their three co-chairs, amounting to $43,000 a year.

We cannot find any City Commission that pays commissioners this way.

CPC commissioners can get $550 monthly stipends for serving while not even needing to show up in person to meetings or ever turning their cameras on when connecting remotely.

which commissioners have admitted to attending multiple meetings when supposedly only attending CPC meetings.

The proposed legislation will increase these stipends to $700.

The only approval needed for a stipend is CPC's executive director, with the people asking for the stipend having unilateral control over the hiring and firing of that executive director.

This is a system that breeds corruption, and I insist on a no vote to ZB120608.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Ari Russell, and Ari will be followed by Elizabeth Stanton.

Today on your agenda is a proposal from the Community Police Commission to alter the 2017 accountability legislation.

In 2021, the CPC successfully fought against a proposal to have the entire police accountability system independently audited.

Now they are asking for more power and money while demanding to remain unaccountable and unaudited.

And all while they attack community members severely impacted by Seattle police violence.

Vote no on CB 120608, the CPC's proposed changes, until there can be one, a public forum with those impacted by SPD violence proposing changes to the legislation, two, a fully independent audit of the CPC, and three, for the CPC to end its interference with both the attempt at forming a city program for people and family members impacted by serious SPD violence and with the CPC's failed attempt to create an appeals process for failed investigations of police complaints.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Elizabeth Stanton followed by Michael Wolfe.

Is Elizabeth Stanton with us, please?

Thank you.

I'd like to thank the council for this opportunity and express my empathy and compassion and sorrow for the amount of abuse that you're receiving from the community as you try to go about dealing with our problems during these difficult times.

That said, I'm very concerned overall about our budget, but we'll speak specifically to the vote today as I understand it.

on to expand the funding and services of the citizens police commission.

I heartily have affection for all the members of the commission and the hard work that they do.

But given the every day that I'm faced with information about our budgetary restraints, I feel it is not appropriate to expand their budget and their involvement at this time.

So thank you for the opportunity to have a voice.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Michael Wolf and Michael will be followed by Castille Hightower.

Thank you, Chair Herbold, members of the committee.

I want to first take the opportunity to thank all the central staff for doing such hard work on the App-Based Workers Deactivation Bill.

It's been a pleasure to work with them and with Council.

I want to thank this committee for adopting Amendment 3 last week.

That was very important to us and our members.

And Drive Forward stands in full support of passage of the bill.

We do, obviously, we are agnostic on many of the remaining amendments and are just looking for a bill that is as fair and balanced and covers as many of our members and independent contractors as possible.

Thank you, and thank you again for all the hard work.

Thank you so much.

Our last speaker signed up is Castille Hightower.

My good.

I'm Castillo Hightower, my brother Herbert Hightower Jr. was shot and killed by Seattle police in 2004. You all know me.

It ain't nothing new.

You all know that the affected persons program right now is being undermined by the CPC.

You know that they've worked to undermine the amicus status.

And you also know that they threaten us with violence the last time that we did a peaceful protest in front of them.

Threaten me with police violence, threaten my life, threaten my livelihood, threaten other community members with violence for having a peaceful protest to talk about the ways that they've been undermining the community, to talk about the ways that they've been harming the community, to talk about the ways that they refuse to listen to the community.

Instead of doing that, they decided to threaten us with violence.

You know the evils that they are doing in this community.

You know that the harms that they're doing in this community.

And instead of holding them accountable, you are deciding to give them more money.

You are deciding to reward them.

And it's disgusting.

I'm tired of having to talk about my brother being killed over and over again.

And you guys just wanted to continue to just give them more money over and over again, continue to just give them more platforms, allow the police to come and just It's disgusting, and I'm tired of it.

I don't give a damn about your one minute.

I don't care.

I'm tired of it.

Why, Herbal?

Why are you allowing them to do this?

Why are you allowing them to continue to hurt us?

Why, Lewis?

Why, Nelson?

Why, Peterson?

And why the hell is Latina?

You all continue to...

I'm sorry, we're going to have to...

Wrap it up.

Thank you.

Can you please wrap up?

We're going to end public comment.

You're our last speaker.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Clerk, can you please?

Mr. Clerk, can you please?

Is the mic still on?

Okay.

We're going to move on.

Castillo, we're going to move on to the next item on the agenda.

Thank you, and I'm sorry.

With that, Our public comment period is closed, and we are going to move on to the items on the agenda.

Mr. Clerk, can you please read in agenda item number one?

The agenda item one is 2023 Mid-Year Police Accountability Report.

Presenters, please come to the table.

Thank you so much.

While we're being joined by the presenters for our first item on the agenda, just some quick introductory remarks.

This is the Mid-Year Accountability Report.

This report is required by the 2017 Police Accountability Legislation, specifically for the Community Police Commission and the Office of the Inspector General.

The OPA is required to be present for this report, but the ordinance does not require a report from the OPA, but we're very pleased that the OPA is joining us, not only just to be present, but also to report out on their work.

SPD is also required by the ordinance to be at the table, and I really appreciate the presence of SPD as well.

Could the presenters please introduce themselves?

Good morning.

My name is Gino Betts.

I am the Director of the Office of Police Accountability.

I'm Justin Piccarelli.

I'm the Policy Manager with the OPA.

Good morning.

I'm Betsy Marie Scott, Deputy Inspector General, Office of Inspector General.

Good morning.

My name is Miriam Sierra.

I'm with the Office of Inspector General.

Good morning.

I'm Kali Ellis, Interim Executive Director of the CPC.

Good morning.

Brian Maxey, Chief Operating Officer, Seattle Police Department.

Thank you so much.

I have given some introductory remarks.

I think with that, we'll just hand it over to you to do the presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Herbold.

Again, my name is Geno Betz.

I'm the Director of the Office of Police Accountability.

It's an honor to be here before you this morning to present OPA's mid-year report to the committee.

I started at OPA almost a year ago.

And when I got here, obviously I looked at the ordinance to find out what was required of OPA.

but I also connected with the community to find out what was expected of OPA.

And after touring the city, listening to stakeholders, I came back to my team and I challenged them to make 2023 about raising awareness about OPA, improving the complainant experience with OPA.

And ultimately the overall goal is to earn community's confidence in the work that we do.

So with that, I will turn it over to OPA's Policy Manager, Dr. Justin Piccarelli, to kind of talk about our progress towards reaching those goals.

Thank you.

Hello, Council.

So here's a roadmap of where we're going today with regard to OPA's presentation.

We have cases by classification type, sources of complaints, allegations by type and location, ultimate case dispositions, Management action recommendations, then we're going to talk about community outreach and engagement and our Q3 accountability projects.

All right.

This is the total number of cases by classification type, and this data is from January to June 21st of this year.

And so intakes basically are, we haven't yet assigned them or classified them to a bucket at this point, but they will be soon.

Contact logs are basically cases that do not warrant OPA investigation after we kind of determine that.

Supervisor actions would be a minor misconduct that's best handled by chain of command at SPD.

And then investigations are full investigations, we do full interviews of all parties and named employees affected.

And then expedited investigation, we have enough to perform without doing full interviews.

So basically, they require a little less work from our staff in terms of interviewing.

All right.

This shows basically share year over year of each of these categories.

And we would expect as intakes kind of get placed, we'd probably have slightly higher investigations as a percent of the total this year relative to others, but we will see it soon.

Again, this is up until June 21st.

And can you just on that page speak briefly to the fluctuation in expedited investigations?

That's the category that I see the most change in.

I mean, it's possible with the other category being so high that we draw from that category and it'd be higher.

I don't really know where it will end up being at the end of the year.

Got it, because this is just a, my apologies, I was thinking that each of the years was a year-to-date comparison.

It's not.

The other three years provided here are full years, whereas 2023 is only for through June.

Thank you.

Correct, and Chair, I would point out that we still have 22% of our intakes that have not been classified.

those could possibly boost the expedited investigation numbers by the end of the year.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

So, um, where do our complaints come?

How do we solicit them?

Uh, a good percentage actually are internal.

Um, and what that means is SPD reports the complaints.

They have a duty to do so.

They're, um, Basically, they take the accountability system seriously and bring the complaints to us.

Of note, there's also a great deal of paperwork that comes with dealing with those complaints and filing reports at the end of the day.

From what I gather, they're working much, much past the end of shift to complete certain complaints.

So the filing method we typically draw from the OPA, our OPA website, phone and email are next in line.

We actually get some things like certified mail too on occasion.

All right, so allegations by type and location of complaints.

All right, this chart, I need to move the zoom screen for here, is a little complicated, so bear with me a minute.

So you've got the allegation type on the bottom portion.

And this chart actually compares 2022 with 2023 preliminary.

And the way that was done is they're put on two different axes.

So if you look over on the left side, that is the y-axis for 2023 to date.

More or less.

So, June, so it's incomplete and that's why the right axis, the y axis is actually 2022. So we can compare the two.

And granted the year's not done, but we still have kind of a relative comparison.

With that said, we still have professionalism as our top allegation type.

And then bias-free policing and use of force are actually slightly increased this year so far.

And I will get more into that on this next chart.

All right.

So this one just shows use of force as a percentage of our total allegations.

And 2023 is January to June 21st again.

it actually went from eight to 12% of our total allegations.

And again, this one, if you look at that right axis, it's just telling us that is the percentage share, nothing more.

And well, it's worth probably hitting on in 2019, Our use of force percentages of allegations was it was 19 I think the year prior was 18% of the total so that was pre pandemic for what that's worth.

I looked into a couple other cities San Francisco was 7% used to force allegations in 2021 again that's mid pandemic Chicago was 17% in 2022. There are different people, places, different intake procedures.

There are a lot of variables.

Comparisons can be difficult for what that's worth.

Okay.

This is the chart on the left is a count of intakes by location of incident.

I could give you the same for 2022, but it doesn't really tell you anything looking at all those little colors, which is why the bar chart On the right actually gives you a comparison of 2022 relative to 2023. We have a couple categories or a couple areas that went down, a couple that went up.

East and north are slightly elevated, and then the rest are kind of the same or lower.

All right, disposition of cases.

I'm gonna move this around.

So this is our number of sustained findings relative to the overall total and each of the non-sustained or not sustained categories.

And this is for January to June.

And then discipline imposed.

We've got written reprimand is a major category and we expect more will be assigned there.

Some resigned prior, there probably will be some other categories depending on how these pendings end up at the end of the year.

On the left part of the chart, what is the total number of findings that we're looking at?

I don't have to do the math in my head.

I believe it's 393. Almost 400. Thank you.

I have another math question.

I'm going to go back to that other one.

I don't know if you can hear me.

Yeah.

So sustained cases was thirty one and then but it doesn't seem like the.

The chart on the right equals the same amount, so it is off by one, I think there's at least one double counting where someone was they resigned and then there was a written reprimand, so I'm not sure how we.

entirely account for that.

And also the chart on the right doesn't reflect the oral reprimands that were handed down.

So it was about five of those.

So that should make up the difference that we're not seeing there.

Okay.

Cause when on the left it's 31 and on the right it's 25. Right.

And we had a five to six oral reprimands that were imposed.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um, and can you real quickly just go over the dispositions The definitions of the decision?

Definitions of them, sure.

So a sustained finding is, you know, we investigated and we found that more likely than not that the employee violated policy.

Not sustained is we investigated and there was, we found that the allegation did not occur as it was alleged.

Not sustained training referral means that we investigated minor misconduct may have occurred, but it was best handled by through training or counseling by the chain of command.

Not sustained for timeliness, that's if we blow the 180 timeline, which rarely happens.

It has not happened since I've been here.

Not sustained lawful and proper means that it's not sustained because the officer acted within policy and according to policy and training.

and not sustained and conclusive means that there's insufficient evidence to overcome our burden of proof, which is a preponderance of the evidence.

Thank you, and I just want to note that the category not sustained training referral in some other cities, those types of cases are considered sustained.

I recognize that we all understand that they are findings of violations, but they're minor violations.

But I just want to highlight for the viewing public that that language can sometimes be confusing.

And really want to note that this was an issue that was raised by the inspector general in the disciplinary audit that they had done a couple years ago.

They lifted up the fact that other cities, these types of complaints, as we've categorized them, would be considered sustained.

And they flagged this as an issue for future discussion.

Thank you.

All right, this one just shows our allegations and kind of the distribution of each of the categories.

That said, if we move to the case level, and keep in mind, a case can have several allegations within it.

You could have, you know, three, four allegations within a particular case.

If you look to the right, we actually have the 2022 sustained versus not sustained rates and percentages.

So 2022, we were a 13% sustained cases.

So far in 2023, we have 23 sustained cases, and that's a 19% rate.

And that's actually a growth of 46% or increase of 46%.

And I'm.

Similar to the previous page, I'm having a hard time making the images on the right consistent with the images on the left.

We've got 8% sustained on the left, but 19% sustained on the right.

So the left are allegations, and the right are cases.

And so you can have a case with, yeah, three, four.

Once we start digging, there could be even more allegations that we find within a case.

Thank you.

So sorry, I'm jamming a lot in one.

Very helpful.

Appreciate it.

I looked into sustained case rates.

San Francisco had 11 percent sustained case rates in 2021. The national average, they say, is four percent.

But again, there are a lot of differences, even in terms of how they categorize.

Right.

Which are worth thinking about.

All right, management action recommendations.

This is 2023 and 2022. Until recently, OPA lacked a policy person.

And what I found is the MARs were actually written into the DCMs.

So there aren't that many so far, but we expect to have more.

But these are basically the different categories they fell into, active, would be we just put it out there, we're waiting for some response.

Fully implemented would means we consider them SPD to have complied with it.

Partially implemented means they're either halfway or partially there.

In progress means we're still kind of waiting.

It could be a longer three-year, five-year process, and then decline to action or two.

I am going to turn it over to Director Betts here.

Thank you.

So I gave Dr. Piccarelli the heavy lift, and I get to come in and talk about the fun stuff that we're doing at OPA.

So how do I go to the next slide?

All right, so to date, we have participated in 35 events, surpassing last year's total events that we attended.

Last year, it was 33 events.

We're already at 35. We've interacted with over 2,664 community members, and we have nine more events scheduled throughout August.

You know, my conversation with our community engagement team is not to just show up and be present and be visible, but to really be intentional about the events that we are attending and really be proactive about disseminating information about OPA.

So what we know is that, you know, certain communities have disproportionate police contacts, right?

So we are very intentional about, you know, going to those events.

Like we went to, um, the Youth Detention Center and did a Know Your Rights presentation.

We went to a company called Black Coffee Northwest.

They're a business, but they also do youth development as well.

And I spoke at the Breakfast Club, that's a mentoring program for black youth here in Seattle about a month ago.

So we're being very intentional and proactive about reaching out to the community.

Of course, CPC is the voice of the community, but OPA, there's still space for OPA to engage with the community to learn what the community expects from us.

Okay, we have a couple projects in the pipeline.

Number one is a complainant experience survey.

And the purpose of that is to get feedback from complainants who have gone through the OPA process of us investigating their complaint to learn what worked, what did not work, and how we can improve.

On the right, we are working on a more robust survey targeted toward BIPOC communities and communities with disparate police contacts.

We know that black youth and indigenous communities have disproportionate police contacts, but we're not seeing the same number or ratio of OPA complaints from those demographics.

So we wanna figure out why.

Is it because they don't know about OPA or is there some distrust that we have to overcome and earn from those communities.

Next slide.

Okay, the project on the left was actually inspired by Chief Herbold.

She noticed that we included the imposed discipline in our closed case summaries, but we were not including what we what the discipline committee recommended to the chief of police.

So for to promote transparency she recommended that we added that that's now live and active.

So you will find that on op on on our close case summaries going forward.

The project on the right, also inspired by Chief Herbold, hits in the early stages.

Right now, if you are a community member and you want to search the progress or track the progress of an OPA investigation, you have to have the OPA case number.

That's not practical for a lot of people.

So we want to implement a keyword search.

So if you know you want to search use of force cases, you can just type in use of force.

and it will populate use of force cases.

If there's a specific case that you want to track, you should be able to type in the keyword and that should populate.

Like I said, it's in the early stages.

We're working with a major private company to help us bring this to life.

Director Betz, just a couple, I want to give proper credit.

The first item, although I might have been the initiator of the solution, the recommendation derived again from the OIG's discipline audit, an audit that was done by member of the OIG team and they identified this issue.

I suggested a way to address it and I really appreciate Dan Pitts in the Office of the Inspector General for bringing this issue forward and for you working with me as well as SPD and the law department in identifying a way to address this issue of important transparency.

And then the closed case search project that just arose because of members of the community who might not know a particular case number.

And that was the only way to search for a particular case to monitor it was by knowing a number that only the complainant knows, but not a member of the general public.

being able to insert search words will make it easier for folks to narrow down the cases that they want to watch and really appreciate your attention to those two of those efforts right from day one.

Thank you.

Well, thank you so much for that point of clarity.

Thank you, OIG, for your support.

Always appreciate it.

What's the next slide?

That's all we have for OPA.

I'll turn it over to OIG.

Thank you, Cheryl.

Yes, pause.

Yes, customer questions about the OPA presentation.

Absolutely.

Yeah, this is time.

Sorry, we need you back.

I just wanted to wait until the end to ask mine to see if it came up, because I really appreciate the Office of Police Accountability providing this midyear update.

And just wanted to go back to a couple slides to ask some clarifying questions.

If we could go back to...

the slide nine, the one that has the two axes, just wanted to put in a request if we could get, have you send to the council a version that uses the same axis on both sides just so we can compare apples to apples.

Appreciate you're trying to fit all that data into one slide.

I think it would just be helpful because otherwise the 2023 number sometimes looks bigger than the 2022 number, even though it's not, it's just trying to annualize it.

And so, I appreciate you- Yeah, we can absolutely do that.

For what it's worth, the bars, so the left axis, those numbers are on the bottom, whereas the other numbers are up top if you need a tansy check.

Right, understood.

And then the scale's actually two to one.

Yes.

Let's answer your question.

Yes, we will do that.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

I know I've just got another question on slide 10. So with this, I really appreciate you providing some additional context just for the viewing public and just so I understand it better.

When we're looking at 2022 and then we're going to half the year in 2023, you're using this percentage.

So that should account for the difference in the two time periods, but you're going from 8% to 12%.

And so I guess this is the additional context there that that is coming down from the earlier years.

And you mentioned some pre-pandemic years.

I thought that was really helpful because 2020, obviously, there would be additional allegations during the protest periods.

But in 2018 and 2019, I think I heard you say it was about 18% or 19% in the pre-pandemic years.

It was 2019, I think it was 19%.

I'm sorry, 2018 it was 18%, 2019 it was 11%.

So we're back around that 2019 territory right now.

Thank you for providing the pre-pandemic contacts.

That's super helpful.

And, you know, when you are looking at other cities, you know, at some point, just looking at the other national best practices and what some other cities we want to emulate.

I don't know if, you know, you mentioned San Francisco, Chicago, I'm not sure.

Those are helpful to look at.

And also looking at ones that, you know, we're trying to emulate as well and just sort of using those as benchmarks would be helpful.

But I really appreciate you providing this additional transparency to us today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

No further questions, we'll move on to- I have a question.

Oh, Council Member Nelson.

So I just had, I wanted to know what the takeaway was from your mentioning other cities' percentage of sustained cases, et cetera.

Is that because you are doing, and also change over time here, is that because you're doing a much better job overseeing investigations or is it because more things are happening here?

It's a conversation we have all the time.

Are we doing a thorough or better job?

Are the police doing a better job?

All of these things are possibilities.

Thank you.

All of you.

Thank you so much.

Madam Chair, should we do a time check?

We're doing all right.

All right.

Thank you for checking.

Thanks so much for having us here.

I'm giving the presentation for the Office of the Inspector General, our midyear report.

We are going to be talking about audits and reviews, including youth Miranda audit, leave administration audit, our biannual audit of SMC 1412, as well as surveillance recommendations, follow up and mutual aid.

Then we'll move to OPA reviews, talking about classification review statistics, investigations review, bias reviews, and then we'll close out with policy projects.

Monitoring transition is one of them, workflow mapping, which will have a little tool that we've created.

as well as traffic stops, sentinel event review, and deceptions in public safety.

Right.

For our first audit unit, we are doing a youth Miranda audit.

Currently, it's reviewing SPD compliance with local and state youth Miranda right laws.

And we are, this is at the request of Madam Chair Herbold.

SPD has been very engaged with OIG throughout this process and throughout the audit.

Can't talk about the outcomes yet, but we're appreciative that SPD is very invested in the findings and in taking OIG's recommendations.

We've been reviewing, as a part of the process, stakeholder engagement and lots of body-worn video, and we're crafting currently our preliminary findings, which are expected to be released in the fall.

We're also doing a leave administration audit.

What we're referring to is the use of sick leave in its entirety prior to retirement.

This was initiated by someone from the mayor's office.

We are looking at two areas of risk.

One is the administration of COVID leave, which we will be complete that report in the fall, as well as proceed practice of personnel using down sick leave prior to retirement.

So almost done that and we'll have that to you in a few months.

Our next audit is the SMC 1412. We're required to do this audit twice a year.

The challenge with this particular audit is that it was written in 1979, which is well before the internet.

So it's been interesting trying to align the requirements with the 21st century.

And this covers protected information, which includes sexual, religious, and political beliefs and activities.

We are looking to make sure that SPD is appropriately collecting and using protected information.

So we will also be releasing an audit next month.

All right.

Next up is the annual surveillance usage reviews.

We are required to do this by S&C 14.18.060, and we have to report on 10 technologies, SPT technologies.

Those include cop logic, computer-aided dispatch, forward-looking infrared, sorry, real-time video, 911 logging recorder, situational awareness cameras without recording, video recording systems or cameras in SPD facilities, automated license plate readers, parking enforcement, including automated license plate readers, audio recording systems, and 12 I-Bays.

So we've already issued five of these technology reviews this year.

So we're on track to complete the final five at the end of the year.

And the reviews include the usage patterns, data sharing and security, and analysis of potential disproportionality or impacts on civil liberties.

I have a question on this slide.

Oh, Council Member Nelson.

I think the hands up are from the last.

Council allocated dollars for an additional FTE last year to help with these audits.

And you have to do these annually.

And is that workable?

I have also heard from the office that that is a lot of work.

It is a lot of work.

And we are thankful for the additional FTE.

So when we first started, we actually fully relied on external experts, but we are developing in-house expertise and are scaling up our capacity and subject matter expertise to take this fully in-house.

But it is a lot of work, especially for something like 1412, which continues to have the same recommendations since it was written in 1979. So maybe updating it would help with that work as well.

But it is a lot of work for the team.

Do you still recommend doing them perhaps once every five years, once every three years?

What?

Yeah, I think it would be hopefully in conjunction with SPD to talk about the 10 areas, which ones are more of an issue with civil liberties, which ones need, you know, what are the timetables that they should be on?

Some, you know, yearly, some every three years, some every five years.

I think there's a stratification within the 10 that we could talk about.

in terms of the frequency of the review.

And that would be very helpful to us and the system.

Thank you.

Thank you for the question.

All right.

So the next area that we're working on is recommendation follow-up.

And this is for implementation status of prior audit recommendations to SPD.

We are looking at releasing a report at the end of the year.

We have a standardized protocol for audit recommendations.

We use yellow book and we follow up, you know, on the recommendations.

So there's capital R recommendations and then there's soft suggestions and wouldn't it be nice is and we're following up with all of those and we'll be having a We also worked with SPD and the partners this week on a recommendations clearinghouse project to follow up in real-time and de-conflict recommendations and make them more actionable for having all the accountabilities given by SPD.

lots of recommendations.

Streamlining those, vetting those with each other, and SPD, and following up will make the process easier.

It doesn't diminish our independence as individual entities.

We can all make separate recommendations as well, but this is just to get some things through the portal faster to have the recommendations clearing house.

All right.

We also are doing a mutual aid review.

So this project was started actually in 2019. When we first started, it was to look at how SPD officers work with other agencies as a part of a task force or within mutual aid partnerships.

It was envisioned that the review would include how uses of force were investigated among other topics.

And at that time, immigration was a big issue.

There are lots of factors that happened in 2019 and 2020, which expanded on the need to look at the way we work together.

So we couldn't get our arms around the scope.

So we placed this audit on hold and are picking it back up.

We placed it in our 2023 work plan and have begun scoping it.

We're re-scoping the work and we split out the issues to focus on routine law enforcement under mutual aid, and then we'll separately look at task forces.

We expect to begin that work next month, I believe, and have a report issued at the end of the year, or in the Q1 of 2024. We've modified the scope to better address current risk associated with the two separate areas of task force operations and mutual aid and law enforcement operations.

Next up is OPA review, our investigations unit.

We do classifications which are separate outside of reviewing complaints.

We have four classification types that we look at, contact logs, supervisor action, mediation, and rapid adjudication.

So far this year, we've reviewed 502 for contact logs, 57 supervisor actions, one mediation, and one rapid adjudication.

So this is just a snapshot as of, I believe, June 13th.

Next up, we have the investigation review.

We have to certify the OP investigations are thorough, unbiased, and timely.

OIG has certified 154 cases so far in 2023 as of June 13th.

93% of the certifications issued were full certifications, and 11 were partial certifications.

Partial certifications means that cases had a factor that did not meet all three of the certification criteria.

For example, it may have been thorough and unbiased, but it may not have been timely.

So that's what the partial certifications refer to.

Next up, we have bias reviews.

So far, we've reviewed 62 in 2023, and we concur 100% with the outcomes that OPA has determined.

And OIG will begin collecting additional data in Q3, and it includes discernible personal characteristics and other demographic data outlined in SPD's bias-free policing policy.

And just want to note here, I really appreciate your attention to this issue broadly, as well as including a review of the process that the OPA uses for bias review complaints.

The most recent OPA annual report identified that there were 155 biased reviews done in 2022. Those reviews allow the OPA to identify cases that might merit an OPA bias intake and further investigations, and we found that only two of those 155 reviews in 2022 were deemed to merit an update.

I know the OPA is looking at this issue as well, and I think the review of the process will be enhanced by the OIG's participation.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

All right, now we're moving on to our policy unit.

So our biggest effort right now is with the monitoring transition.

OIG is absorbing the monitor's function in alignment with the ordinance and the recent filing in the court.

We're working on three areas right now, the use of force assessment, a force review board assessment, and we have a new standards and compliance team that we were allotted three FTEs for.

And so we will start with use of force assessment.

We've developed a new tool to discuss how FRBs, the force review boards are facilitated and how thorough the discussions are.

And so we'll be releasing our, we have a draft of the force review assessment and it will be released probably in quarter one.

We have a new data collection template and we'll begin using it in August and we'll use it as a part of that review.

We also will be conducting an interim crisis intervention assessment.

We talked with SPD yesterday about this.

So use of force assessment will actually come after the crisis intervention assessment.

And you'll see why in my next couple of slides.

That report will be completed in October.

Our new standards and compliance team will have a team lead, a policy analyst, and a statistical analyst.

We have hired the lead and are working on hiring the policy analysts and statistical analysts, and that work will be getting underway in the summer, right now, actually.

All right, next up is traffic stops.

In 2021, we worked with SPD and stakeholders to identify low-level violations and to recategorize secondary offenses, resulting in an interim, hopefully soon to be permanent, SPD policy with five deprioritized violations.

which includes expired or missing vehicle registration, issues with display of registration plates, technical violations of SMC 11.84140, which is windshield obstruction, and bike helmets.

So we're going to continue this work throughout the summer.

We have some roundtables scheduled and we'll be looking at different jurisdictions and policy development and the legislation there.

as well as development of a public dashboard and a continued analysis of trends and data.

Thank you, I just wanna say I appreciate the phase one that the OIG has led working together with SPD in deprioritizing some traffic stops and appreciate as well that everybody's working together in phase two.

This is an area of great interest and it also I think dovetails into questions around racial disparity and bias policing.

just two questions.

One, will the phase two work include review of SPD traffic stops data?

You may recall that several years ago, the City Council passed a bias-free policing bill that required reporting on traffic stops data, but SPD didn't have the capability to do so until very recently, I think mid-year last year, and so I'm interested to know whether or not the data on traffic stops, particularly the demographic data, is going to be informing this phase two work around traffic stops.

This is an area of great interest to the council, to the court, and in particular I know that Councilmember Mosqueda has been working with the Vera Project on sort of a side effort, and just would hope that all that work gets tied in together.

Yes.

That's the original plan, but we need to first work on the roundtables and discussion before we can move to that.

Okay.

We got that.

That's the plan, but it kind of trailed off after that.

We first need to work on the roundtables and discussions before we move to the data and how we're going to present that data.

but you are working with SPD to receive it, the data.

Yeah.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Next up, we have the central event reviews for officer-involved shootings of persons in crisis.

So I previously mentioned pivoting to do the crisis intervention assessment, and that will be foundational for this project that we'll be completing.

The original SCR model was very valuable in terms of problem solving and community involvement.

So we're using it as a learning tool and we're gonna be using it for the office-involved shootings for persons in crisis.

in particular, and the panel will be starting this fall to look at that work.

Next up, we have use of deception in public safety.

We're doing a continued review of use of deception by SPD officers.

In 2022, we looked at patrol, and in 2023, we're looking at interviews and interrogations.

So this is an ongoing body of work for the OIG.

We produced a white paper last fall, And stakeholders for the work included the Public Defender Association, Innocence PDA, Innocence Washington, National Innocence Project, the ACLU, and other stakeholders from the defense world to help us look at police recommendations and patrol.

And we'll be looking at interviews and interrogations with Andy Griffiths from the UK in this work.

So it will just continue into 2023. And last up, we've created a tool for all of our work.

We have a lot of work at the OIG, and we thought a workflow mapping tool that could be internal and external facing could help members of the council as well as the public in terms of what we're working on and our projects by status, description, purpose, topic area, and which division within our shops it's in.

And so we have that here, which we're hoping to be able to preview today for the first time, which is why we have Miriam with us.

Let's see if we can.

Thank you.

Council Member Peterson, is that a new hand or an old hand?

Council Member Peterson, new hand or old hand?

old hand.

Fantastic.

Thank you.

I want to just real quickly go back to the deceptions policy.

Just want to more for public awareness and transparency on on what has happened in what is yet to happen, flagging that in May 2018 and May 2020, there were some examples of two egregious ruse occurrences resulting in OPA findings.

In the former, there was a partial fulfillment of a management recommendation from OPA.

After the I would like to press attention to the second egregious press conference in, again, January 2022. And we stood together to call for an end to that policy.

It's a year and a half ago.

In October, OIG made recommendations for a new ROOS policy, also working diligently with the police department and the development of that ROOS policy, as well as, as Deputy Director Smith mentioned, working with external stakeholders as well.

Those recommendations, again, were made in October 2022. And then in December 2022, those draft policies were submitted to SPOG for their review.

So that's to say that everybody at the table here has done what they can do to move this work forward.

It's been seven months since SPD submitted that draft policy.

This is a really important issue that arose during my time as a public safety chair.

It's important that we get closure on the issue.

When I stood with the mayor and the chief, I pledged to not address this issue legislatively because I had confidence that this issue would be resolved with expedience.

I am just, it's, I think, important for us to work to, again, close the chapter on this issue and make sure that we have better policies moving forward.

So thank you to everybody at the table who's had a hand in that.

Thank you.

There are no further questions or comments.

We'll move on to the CPC.

Okay.

Thank you, council members, for the opportunity to share the tremendous progress that the Community Police Commission has made as a commission, an organization, and a key partner in Seattle's oversight accountability system since the last mid-year report in 2022. I am Kali Ellis, Interim Executive Director of the CPC, and I'm joined here by two CPC co-chairs, Joel Merkel and Reverend Harriet Walden, as well as CPC staff.

2023 has marked a critical turning point for the Community Police Commission.

We are taking a forward-looking approach to rebuilding staff and commission capacity, as well as trust with our accountability partners, city officials, and the community.

This has been a year of change and growth, and we are excited about the opportunities to review and strengthen community partnerships at this critical time for police oversight in the city.

The Community Police Commission is important because everyone in the City of Seattle needs, as our governing ordinance states, effective constitutional policing and a police department that has the trust, respect, and support of the community.

The CPC has a vital role to play in ensuring police accountability in our city and provides an important analysis and policy recommendations that are meant to ensure the integrity of our law enforcement system, one in which police officers are entrusted with extraordinary life and death powers.

2023 is a year of new beginnings for the CPC in staffing, community engagement, and leadership, and I'm excited to share with you what we are doing.

The Community Police Commission has taken measurable strides in rebuilding connections with our accountability partners at the Office of Police Accountability and the Office of Inspector General.

In addition, SPD is back at the table and has invited the CPC to now comment on the SPD's regular policy review schedule, which has not happened in a few years.

We have meaningful relationships with our accountability partners.

For example, OIG staff attends all CPC workgroups, including behavioral health, complainant appeals, and police practices, and has been a valuable partner in the police practices workgroup, especially working together on BOLA wrap and emergency vehicle operations.

OIG has been at every meeting, and we have regular one-on-one meetings between CPC and OIG policy staff.

The CPC is excited to strengthen our existing work with OIG and OPA and work collaboratively on important future projects.

We are enthusiastic about this partnership and are eager to participate going forward.

This is the recommendations tracker, where the CPC reflects the management action recommendations published by OPA and SPD's response to these recommendations.

In 2022, 17 MAR reports were published with around 24% of those recommendations being fully implemented by SPD, around 24 that continue to be active or in progress, and around 12% that were declined implementation by SPD.

In 2023, the Community Police Commission welcomed five new commissioners, including those filling ordinance mandated roles in public defense, civil liberties, and a representative from the Seattle Police Management Association.

As we look forward to potential ordinance changes that reduce the size of the commission from 21 to 15, these new commissioners are especially important to helping guide the future direction of the CPC.

This is why we held an in-person new commissioner orientation in May, at which Director Betz, you can see here, shared information about OPA's role in the accountability system, along with Inspector General Judge, Deputy Inspector General Scott, Chief Diaz, City Attorney's Office, as well as other representatives from the Seattle Police Department and the Mayor's Office.

The core of the policy work at the Community Police Commission happens in workgroups comprised of CPC commissioners, representatives from OIG, the Community Engagement Team, and supported by CPC staff.

These workgroups currently include the Police Practices Workgroup, which has sent letters to SPD asking clarifying questions on emergency vehicle operations policies, examined deployment of BOLARAP and plans to learn more about POET, SPD's new crowd management model.

The Behavioral Health Work Group, which examines SPD policies, practices, and training related to community members in crisis, specifically monitors, assesses, and makes recommendations as appropriate based on diverse and representative community perspectives, available data, and best practices.

This work group is currently standing up with new commissioners and is tracking the progress of efforts to create a dual dispatch or alternative response system or the care department, is planning a community presentation on the crisis intervention team, co-presenting with one of the crisis response units mental health practitioners.

And finally, the complaint and appeals work group, which is mandated by city council resolution 31753, stating that CPC will lead stakeholders in assessing the need for and developing a complaint appeals process.

that is consistent with employee dual process rights and provides any recommendations adopted by a stakeholder group to the council for consideration.

The mayor's office recently asked the federal monitoring team to provide technical assistance to this workgroup, so any policy recommendations developed will benefit from their expertise as well.

Under the accountability ordinance, the CPC is charged to identify and advocate for reforms to state laws that will enhance public trust and confidence in policing and the criminal justice system.

In 2023, commissioners voted to support the sections of the city's legislative agenda related to policing, including qualified immunity reform, which in this session was House Bill 1025 sponsored by Representative Tai, support for independent prosecutions of deadly force by law enforcement at the state level, as well as House Bill 15, 1513, sponsored by Seattle's Representative Street, which aims to reduce interactions between law enforcement and citizens by limiting the ability of officers to stop vehicles for many non-moving violations.

In 2023, the CPC voted to support legislation that is consistent with the accountability ordinance, recognize the independence of the CPC to assess the applicability of policies to community concerns separate from the goals of the city, promotes effective constitutional policing that facilitates the trust, respect, and support of the community, and addresses community concerns with respect to the ordinance.

Since most police accountability bills did not move in the 2023 session, the CPC looks forward to active engagement with the legislature in the 2024 session, including taking steps to address long-standing CPC priorities about police contract reform at the state level.

The CPC has a robust communication strategy to share our work with city council and community members.

Our redesigned website is regularly updated and reflects all the work that we do, as well as being a resource for archival materials from CPC's history.

We have an ordinance education series of videos to educate the community on the accountability ordinance that also guides our work and that of our partners.

This is the most important.

Community engagement is the most important work of the Community Police Commission.

We work hard to learn from the lived experiences of a diverse array of community members, fulfilling our mandate from the accountability ordinance to be a community police commission charged with significant oversight function intended to serve as a community voice for the entire city, which should include voices from all corners of the city so that no geographic area is left out.

In 2017, community and city leaders working together made a strong system of civilian oversight of policing part of the laws that govern the city.

This system was thoughtfully designed to incorporate community input to build a strength that other cities struggled with in their own civilian oversight systems by including the voice and values of the community that is being policed.

These voices may not always be the loudest, but it is our charge as the CPC to learn from them.

These voices may not necessarily speak English or want to speak in front of crowds or even such as young children be able to voice their needs and values.

But it is our job at the Community Police Commission spelled out in our governing ordinance to learn about the values and interests of all communities, not just the loudest ones.

The Community Police Commission always accepts written public comment at our meetings, which is advertised on our website and our meeting agendas.

As you know, as council members, the Community Police Commission did not accept oral public comment as part of the regularly scheduled CPC bimonthly public meetings until January 2021. Of the 46 meetings between then and March 1st when the CPC returned to prior practices, more than 60% of the comments were from one person.

However, the accountability ordinance mandates that all partners, including the CPC, reflect the values of Seattle's diverse communities.

CPC commissioners shall be representative of Seattle's diverse population, drawn from different socioeconomic backgrounds and racial and ethnic groups, including immigrant and refugee communities, and from the African-American, LGBTQ, youth, faith, business, and other communities reflecting the overall demographics of Seattle residents.

I know that city council also wants to hear from the perspectives of a diverse set of community members while also considering limiting oral public comment at special city council meetings and restricting certain types of public comment to agenda items.

In contrast to the highly restricted, time-limited, one-way public comment at public meetings, our community engagement staff has been engaged in developing rich feedback mechanisms for our work.

From January to July of 2023, staff has spent approximately 1,920 hours of staff time just on community engagement, and that's what I want to focus on here.

Please stop the comments from the audience.

These are some of the key leaderships of the CPC community engagement staff.

Please stop the disruptions.

Continue, please.

Thank you.

Community engagement works with communities in multiple ways, including tabling and presentations, trust building and bridge work for the community in the Seattle Police Department to the community, community to SPD, and CPC to the community.

There are multiple ways in which we build bridges in the community.

One way is by attending demographic and precinct advisory councils.

These are meetings for many of the councils that have resumed since COVID, such as the African American Community Advisory Council, the LGBTQ Plus Advisory Council, the East African Advisory Council, NorthPAC, and SouthPAC.

At these meetings, officer liaisons attend advisory council meetings and spend non-enforcement time with community-based organizations referred by councils.

They also problem-solve issues with council and community members, educate the community about the department and its role, respond to crisis situations in their respective communities, and facilitate meetings regarding police and citizen interactions.

The CPC's community engagement staff provide critical expertise and insight.

The community engagement team was invited to meet with PERF, the Police Executive Research Forum, to discuss immigrant and refugee community engagement with policing.

This event focused on immigrant and refugee families and their communications with police.

CPC staff was also present at the signing of Mayor Harrell's executive order in support of immigrant and refugee communities during crisis responses to sudden, unexpected, and unnatural deaths.

One area of expertise on CPC staff is engagement with non-English speaking communities in Seattle.

We have staff who speak multiple languages, which are a valuable resource for refugee and immigrant community outreach.

CPC's community engagement staff meets with community members in community spaces.

Here we see them at the Rainier Beach Community Health Fair, connecting the community with information.

Community engagement was also representing at the FAST Fathers and Sons Together Barbershop Conversations event, the Barbershop Chat and Chew and Play at the Rainier Beach Community Center, and representing at the Wear Orange to Prevent Gun Violence event.

The Community Police Commission was an official and proud sponsor of the second annual One Seattle Juneteenth celebration.

We were proud to be able to share information about the CPC and answer questions from community members at this important community event.

It may be interesting to know that the Seattle Police Commission has...

Please.

You have been repeatedly asked to stop disrupting this meeting.

them accountable and we wouldn't have to be here, hold on.

Stop allowing private meetings so we wouldn't have to be here.

Stop allowing them to undermine the amicus status, we wouldn't have to be here.

Please stop disrupting the meeting.

I am going to have to ask for your removal from the meeting if you do not stop disrupting.

Thank you.

Please continue.

Thank you, Chair Herbold.

The Seattle Community Police Commission has received international attention for our groundbreaking work.

In April, the CPC hosted law enforcement leaders from Quebec and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as part of the U.S.

Department of State's International Visitor Leadership Program.

These officials met with current and former CPC staff and commissioners to learn about the unique development and function of the CPC as a model for including diverse voices in partnership with the police.

In October 2022, the Community Police Commission's Community Engagement Director, Felicia Cross, was chosen as a guest keynote speaker at the Community Police Dialogue Session Conference in Dubai.

The conference gathered Dubai police senior officers, heads of security from key communities, including residential, educational, commercial, and entertainment communities, and technology experts to share knowledge on the best strategies to effectively strengthen security through partnerships between Dubai police forces and society members.

This was an internationally attended event.

Director Cross spoke about defining community.

Being chosen to speak to an international audience of more than 300 was a testament to Director Cross's recognized leadership on community relationships.

Finally, I want to highlight the award-winning staff of the Community Police Commission.

Just last month, Community Engagement Specialist, Murgitu Argo, received the Southeast Seattle Peace Coalition's Who's Rising in 2023 Award.

As you know, the Peace Coalition is one of 52 community wellness organizations statewide.

Community Engagement Director Felicia Cross, a Certified National Association of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement Citizen Oversight Practitioner, was selected to be a member of the planning committee for the 2023 NACOL, that's the acronym, Conference in Chicago.

In conclusion, the Community Police Commission is well prepared to fully engage as a partner with the Office of Police Accountability and the Office of the Inspector General and Community Oversight Policing.

This is a very exciting year for us, and we very much look forward to continuing collaboration with you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

Council Member Lewis.

Thank you, and thank you for the presentation.

I do just want to take a moment to talk about the the in-person public comment policies, just because that is a very consistent complaint that we get, as was just heard.

from our public comment today and that did lead to significant disruptions during this meeting out of frustration with that policy from a significant cohort of people who want to publicly comment at your meetings.

I used to serve on the Seattle Human Rights Commission.

We had a public comment period in person.

We were able to conduct our work and conduct our business.

I understand that part of the justification of limiting the comment seems to be a perception that it was not being widely utilized or that it was mostly being dominated by a single person.

I don't really see those as compelling reasons to limit having in-person public comment.

that we are hearing from people who are engaging in this policy and when we move the public comment procedures and processes of the CPC are not very inclusive.

Thank you.

So I'm joined here by one of the CPC commissioners, Reverend Harriet Walden, to answer that question.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember, and I'd like to answer that question.

For what you see here today is what we have gone through for the last, ever since we went back to public comment, this is what you see today, and that we feel threatened, okay?

I feel threatened by the people.

You know, we're not elected.

We are volunteers, commissioners, and what you saw today is what we've been going through ever since we've been back to public comment.

And I think that it raises to the level that you're going to put them out, and you're going to do that.

Because you felt threatened, but you might not say that because you have people you have security here.

You have protection.

Okay, when we went back to public comment, and we had stopped because Skip Kokuda, when he was a commissioner, who was a representative, a former elected official, he was called out of his name with a slur.

He was Japanese heritage, and he had a heart attack.

and we were not able to tell him we were sorry for what happened from some type of just what you saw here today.

And he had a heart attack.

We stopped public comment and the individual who's leading most of this has never ever missed but one meeting.

And this is because they want to build something else.

They want to destroy the community police commission on not only the whole foundation.

And so this is the last, The CPC is the last one they're coming after.

They've gone after each one of the departments.

And so just like you were feeling, just like you were feeling them, well, just think about us.

We're at a table just like this, closer to the individuals than you are.

I was assaulted downtown.

just walking down the street, okay, by an irate person.

So I automatically feel threatened.

I mean, when they come with the loud voices, and the next time, if they come to a public meeting for the CPC, and I feel threatened by them, I'm calling SPD.

I want you to know that.

I really want you to understand how we feel, as we're volunteers.

And they're not, and they're going specifically, they're not interested in helping build the CPC.

I mean, the individual who's leading this has come to every meeting and had an opportunity.

And I'm glad I'm still here because I'm the history keeper.

I understand that I'm the, I am the history keeper for the CPC.

We're glad you're still here too.

Thank you so much.

And you can tell that, you could tell that I'm visibly different than I was before the meeting.

I feel threatened here today.

I really do.

As someone who's been doing this work for 30 years in Seattle, 32 years in Seattle, I feel threatened today.

I really do, I want you to understand that.

I really do.

I was at the table.

I brought the DOJ to town, okay?

And Rick Williams, the family of John T. Williams, they wanted to do peace.

They wanted to do restorative justice.

They wanted to do circles.

And Rick Williams, what they did in the Native community, they put up a Peace Pole.

It's at the Seattle Center.

There was an affected family who brought the DOJ to town, but chose peace.

That's what they chose.

And you can see that peace.

It was the first time in 75 years that a peaceful had been raised in Seattle.

That's what the Williams family wanted.

They wanted peace.

And I leave you with that.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

I think this is a good segue, especially with you at the table, Reverend Walden.

We're going to move right into the next item.

I did want to make that's okay.

Council Member Nelson.

Yeah, sure.

But we're going to just move right into the next item.

So if folks presenting on the next item want to start coming up, we'd really appreciate that.

Go ahead.

Thank you very much for sharing, Dr. Reverend Walden, your experience.

That is very compelling, and I hear you.

I just also want to note that Ordinance 125315, which states the CPC's independent budget process obligation to do their work without interference and overall independence, does state in many places, in many sections, the words without interference and independent.

And so therefore, I want to note that it is I believe, not the place of council to define public process processes and that it is the commission's job to exercise that independence to implement the policies they see as most appropriate.

Thank you, Council Member Nelson.

Follow-up, Council Member Herbold?

I'd really like to move on.

No, I know, but just really briefly.

Council Member Lewis.

Yeah, thank you.

I appreciate Reverend Walden's response to my question and I think all of us up here on the council dais can kind of understand the I would just encourage the commission, given that this continues to be an issue, to maybe develop policy and procedures that focus the in-person public comment and hold public commenters accountable for their conduct.

We do ban people from chambers who engage in conduct that is disruptive, that is threatening, that is intimidating.

I don't think anyone would have any issue with the CPC doing the same thing if people were coming and engaging in a way that was unprofessional.

But it does seem like getting rid of public comment entirely is something that goes a little further than what is expected of government practice.

But I do think that that certainly no one on the commission should be expected to be putting up with and tolerating abusive behavior.

And there should be some ways to accomplish those goals short of completely eliminating the in-person public comment, and I'd be happy to work with the commission on that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Clerk, can you please read in agenda item number two?

Agenda Item 2, Council Bill 12608, an ordinance relating to civilian and community oversight of the police, clarifying the role, governance, and operating procedures of the Community Police Commission, reducing its size and geographic appointment requirements, giving it authority to remove members and executive director for cause, and amending its stipend provisions.

Establishing qualifications and procedures for the commission's executive director and creating a deputy director.

Referring to the commission's role in collective bargaining hearings, amending sections 3.29.010, 320, 330, 340, 350, 360, 400, and 4.04.120 of the Seattle Municipal Code and repealing ordinance 124543.

Thank you so much.

the 2017 police accountability for addressing purely administrative operations of the CPC.

We have an introduced version of the legislation before the committee.

We've got Greg with us.

Appreciate your staff memo, and you're here to summarize the bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes, Greg Doss, Council Center staff.

For the record, good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

As you heard the clerk read, it's a very long title.

This legislation does quite a few things.

The CPC co-chairs and exec went over it a couple weeks ago, so I'm just going to hit the high points of what the legislation does as a reminder to the committee.

Really quick, by way of background, the CPC was established in 2012 by Executive Order 02-2012 and Ordinance 124021. with responsibilities under the consent decree between the city and the U.S.

Department of Justice.

In 2017, the city's Accountability Ordinance 125315 expanded the CPC's legislative authority and incorporated the commission into the city's three-pronged accountability system.

And so Council Bill 120608 would make a number of changes to the Commission's legislative authority.

It would remove language that defines the CPC's role as one that ensures public confidence in the effectiveness and professionalism of SPD.

The co-chairs have indicated that the Commission's role is to engage with the community to understand concerns and recommended changes to police policies and practices, but it's not within the commission's ability to affect public confidence in SPD, and so that language would be removed from the authorizing legislation.

Council Bill would add a new section that establishes qualifications for the CPC Executive Director.

The language in that section would mirror language in the accountability ordinance that establishes qualifications for the Executive Directors of the OPA and also the OIG.

There would be a new deputy director position.

The co-chairs have indicated that the addition of that position would create parity with the OIG and the OPA.

It would also ensure the uninterrupted operation of the CPC when the executive director is not available.

The legislation would amend the process by which the CPC may remove its executive director for cause.

The bill would allow the CPC co-chairs to remove the executive director for cause after consultation with the Seattle Human Resources Department.

The executive director could still contest the decision through a vote of commission in open session.

The bill would add language that clarifies that the executive director shall discharge their authorities and responsibilities in consultation with and under supervision of the co-chairs.

It would reduce the size of the commission from 21 members to 15 members and transfer the Seattle Police Management Association representative from a CPC appointment to a mayor's office appointment.

It would clarify that the CPC may remove a CPC appointed commissioner for cause by a two-thirds vote of its membership and may do so without a confirmation vote from the city council.

It would eliminate a requirement that at least one commissioner must represent each city council district.

It would eliminate references to Ordinance 124543 on CPC stipend reimbursements, which was adopted in 2014. Instead, the bill lays out in whole the stipend reimbursements and establishes that the purpose of the reimbursement is to compensate for the financial burden of performing duties of a commissioner, And in 2024, stipends would be set at a monthly reimbursable rate of $1,200 for a co-chair and $700 for a commissioner.

And finally, it would make technical adjustments for the collective bargaining provisions required for the hearing that would precede the Seattle Police Management Association negotiations.

That is my high-level overview of the bill.

Open to questions now.

Thank you so much.

Really appreciate the presentation.

Appreciate that as the system functions, there are on occasion consideration of necessary changes to assure the functioning of the CPC and appreciate that the CPC came forward with a proposal and that the Commission as a whole reviewed the draft presented to this committee on June 13th but they They also reviewed it within the commission body itself.

The increase to the stipend for CPC members is roughly in line with the National Consumer Price Index change from 2014, which was the last time there's been any increase.

The co-chair position entails a higher volume of duties.

And I really appreciate, Greg, that you provided a very good level of detail in the fiscal note, and appreciate also the information in the memo about the city charter.

This is a question that's come up.

As well as for correcting the public record that we heard during public comment.

The CPC co-chairs do not have unilateral power to fire the executive director.

The powers are related to removing an executive director are limited to instances where there's cause, so there's no There are good safeguards in place for the powers granted to the CPC co-chairs.

Just checking here to see whether or not there are additional comments or questions.

Council Member Lewis.

Thank you so much, Chair Herbold.

And maybe this is for Greg.

My understanding, because there was some public comment relating to the potential cost of the reforms, my understanding is it's in essence self-balancing by making some adjustments in one place and some increases in another that were not anticipated to to be seeking supplemental support in the budget for the CPC based solely on this bill.

Is that a correct understanding?

I would say partially.

In terms of the stipend reimbursements, I think that that's probably true because the change in the composition of the commissioners going from 21 down to 15 sort of offsets the increase in compensation.

There's an additional $5,000 that would be required.

That's obviously something that the CPC can handle within its budget.

The addition of a deputy director position is not something that is anticipated to cost any money this year because the CPC is not asking for any budget authority this year.

But it is something that could require budget authority and the CPC has asked the executive for budget authority in 2024. That is not part of the current 2024 endorsed budget.

So the potential financial impact would be one FTE in the next biennium.

That's correct.

Okay.

Yeah, so it's a pretty minimal budget impact for the reform.

Yeah, it's a hundred and ninety-one thousand.

Yeah.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Are there additional questions?

Councilmember Peterson.

Thank you, Chair Humboldt.

Comments?

I want to thank the volunteers and leadership of the Community Police Commission and welcome the CPC staff who joined us here today to assist City Hall in its oversight responsibilities.

We clearly rely on our accountability partners, including the Office of Police Accountability, the Office of Inspector General, and the Community Police Commission.

So even with the heartfelt concerns raised today, I think there's general agreement that we want the CPC to be even more effective, especially as we enter the second decade of the organization's existence.

I appreciate the committee chair providing time for us to think about these recommendations.

I believe we should implement all of these recommendations and then we can assess whether they enhance the effectiveness of the organization as hoped.

The recommendations add structure and clarity to this unique oversight commission, which can advance the shared goal of enhancing the organization's effectiveness for the broader community.

So, thank you.

Appreciate that.

Council Member Nelson.

To the point that Councilmember Lewis brought up, it's my understanding that there's broad support among folks at CBO for this position, and it's simply because, adding on to what Councilmember Peterson just said, it does add to the stability of the organization.

So, correct me if I'm wrong.

Okay, I'm getting nods.

Thank you very much.

Thanks so much.

I'm just wondering whether or not there are additional questions.

If there are not, I will proceed with a motion seeing no further questions.

Council members, I move the committee recommends the passage of Council Bill 120608. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to recommend passage of Council Bill 120608. Are there further comments?

I'm just going to briefly say that I'm very proud of the work of the new leadership team at the CPC and really coming out of a very difficult period during COVID that resulted in lots of vacancies of commissioners.

Just a lot of work increasing without a lot of commensurate additional resource.

Really appreciate the resourcefulness of the commission's leadership and a whole bunch of recent policy initiatives including the conclusion of the consent decree litigation and a number of other things.

And just look forward to how we can, through these reforms, continue to enhance that mission and keep going forward in a strong way.

So I really appreciate you being down here today and responding to our questions and hope that we can keep the momentum going.

Yeah.

I really want to just echo what you've heard from my colleagues here.

We are indebted to your work and we appreciate that you've been doing this work at a very challenging time in our city's history.

Appreciate that you're framing your efforts for continuous improvement.

as new beginnings for the CPC and really appreciate that you center the responsibilities of the CPC as defined in the accountability ordinance as you're guiding North Star as it relates to community engagement and the responsibility that I know all commissioners take very seriously to not only lead with compassion and engagement, but also recognizing that this is work that is ongoing and we may not ever feel like we are reaching an end point, but we can see the progress that you're making and I just want you to hear that.

We see your progress.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

With that, Mr. Clerk, can you please call the roll?

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Aye.

Vice Chair Lewis?

Yes.

Chair Herbold?

Yes.

For yes.

Thank you.

The bill moves to the full council on July 18th.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

July 18th.

Appreciate it again.

You're being here and we'll continue to monitor your progress and continue our engagement both with you and with our other accountability partners.

We are at 11.30.

I promised my committee members that we would have 11.45 as our end time, so I'm going to entertain the hope that we can get through 15 minutes' worth of amendments.

There is a substitute version, which incorporates amendments adopted at the June 27th meeting.

I think we have about a dozen amendments, and we are, like I said, going to get through as many of them as we can.

The substitute only contains changes voted on as amendments in our last meeting.

It reflects a base bill that we're not that we're now considering And so we will move right into amendments.

Will the clerk please read in agenda item 3?

Agenda item 3 council bill 1 2 0 5 8 0 an ordinance relating to app based worker labor standards, establishing labor standards on deactivation protections for at-base workers working in Seattle, amending section 3.02.125 of the Seattle Municipal Code, and adding a new chapter 8.40 to the Seattle Municipal Code.

Thank you so much.

Presenters, can you please introduce yourselves?

Jasmine Marwaha, Council Central staff.

and Carina Bull, Council Central staff.

Thank you so much.

A question for you before we move into amendments.

I was under the impression that we were not going to be moving the substitute again.

It just simply incorporates the amendments from our last bill.

We're going to hold on to that.

It's a work in progress, but we don't need to get the substitute in front of us today.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

The posting on the agenda reflects a miscommunication.

The substitute that's for today's agenda is already reflected in version two of the base bill that's in Legistar, and it only reflects the amendments that were voted on in committee on June 27th.

Perfect so at our last committee meeting we discussed amendments 1 2 a 2 b 2 c 3 4 5 a and 5 b Since then we've had a number of amendments withdrawn from consideration the amendments I understand that are withdrawing from consideration our amendments 6 a 6 b and Again, our goal is to get through as many amendments as possible today.

Last night, my office circulated Amendment 6F to be walked on today.

While the amendment was requested by my office, it does use language and concepts originally drafted by Councilmember Nelson.

And with that, I think that brings us right up to Amendment 6F.

Is that correct?

Excellent.

And Council Central Staff, how would you like to help keep us on track and on target?

You're going to show the amendments as we discuss them on the screen?

Excellent.

Yes, and control L would make it full screen.

Fantastic.

So just confirming my understanding, Council Member Nelson, you're withdrawing 6C and 6E, am I correct?

Fantastic.

Thank you.

So with that, I would ask that Council Central staff describe 6F.

Thank you.

6F is sponsored by Councilmember Herbold and it would make two revisions to the actions that network companies are required to take before deactivating an app-based worker.

First, the amendment would allow network companies to complete investigations of the alleged violation of their policies based on reasonably available sources of information if the app-based worker does not participate or provide relevant information in the investigation process.

Right now, the way that the legislation is drafted, the investigation must demonstrate an unbiased and neutral view of facts collected.

This would broaden that to reasonably available sources of information.

The second revision would permit network companies to complete investigations of egregious conduct in 14 days rather than 10 days.

So it would extend the amount of time for investigations of egregious misconduct.

In those instances, network companies would be allowed to immediately deactivate an at-base worker without providing advance notice.

Thank you so much.

We I'm going to get the amendment in front of us and if there's additional questions or comments we can entertain that then I Move amendment 6f.

May I have a second second?

Thank you so much.

As mentioned, the amendment addresses some of the concerns that I've heard from network companies about building a reliable and consistent process for investigations of violations of conduct agreements.

I've met with network companies regarding the changes in this amendment.

I understand that a thorough, unbiased, and reasonable investigation takes time.

Rushing those investigations is harmful to both the network company and workers.

Several platforms have shared that 14 days is a reasonable standard for investigation timelines, and workers I've met with have shared that they also believe 14 days is a reasonable timeline they can agree to.

That amendment, this amendment allows for that time while still holding the companies to an accountable timeline.

This amendment was created by combining concepts from Councilmember Nelson's 6C and 6E, so I'm very grateful for her work moving these concepts forward, and Councilmember Nelson, I hope you will consider this a friendly iteration of your amendments.

Are there additional questions or comments?

I do and no.

Thank you so much.

Any others?

All right, great.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of 6F?

Councilmember Nelson.

Aye.

Councilmember Peterson.

Aye.

Vice Chair Lewis.

Yes.

Chair Herbold.

Yes.

Four yes.

Thank you.

The amendment passes and we can move on to the next amendment.

7A.

We have two amendments listed under 7, 7A and 7B.

To clarify, it's my understanding that these are not mutually exclusive.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

They're not mutually exclusive, but they are alternatives so that if 7A does not pass, the committee may consider 7B.

If 7A does pass, then 7B would be moved.

Okay, thank you.

And do you want to describe both 7A and 7B for us?

Chair Herbold.

I'm sorry to interrupt, but I withdraw 7A for lack of sufficient support.

OK.

Thank you.

We'll hear 7B?

Correct.

All right.

Can you please describe 7B?

Sure.

Amendment 7B would add subsection 840.070D to revise network company requirements for providing the notice of deactivation.

So the proposed addition would allow the network company to provide notice no later than the effective date of deactivation instead of the 14 days if the network company previously provided the app-based worker with a warning based on a past violation.

And as more detail is in the section, if they provide that warning that future violations of the deactivation policy may result in a deactivation and provide a means for the worker to review information regarding past violations of the policy.

And yeah, if they have those two conditions met, they can provide the notice of deactivation on the day of deactivation.

Thank you so much.

Councilmember Peterson, would you like to speak to Amendment 7B?

Thank you, Chair Herbold, and thank you to central staff for explaining 7B.

Colleagues, this amendment is similar to the one Councilmember Nelson had of 7a, but mine is less extensive.

With my amendment, the 14-day notice rule would still apply, except when the company has notified the app-based worker of a previous violation, the company is given a warning, and there's been a new violation.

In that case of repeated issues, the network company could deactivate without waiting.

So the revised language allows the opportunity for increased visibility for this process.

In practice, this means the company would inform the worker if there's been a violation, provide notice that future violations may result in deactivation, and provide ways for the worker to review the information regarding the past violations via smartphone app or online web portal.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Would you like to offer a motion?

Oh, yes.

I'd like to move Amendment 7B.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Additional comments?

I'll comment, Council Member Furbel.

Absolutely.

Council Member Lewis.

Thank you.

I appreciate the intent of Council Member Peterson and Council Member Nelson in sponsoring the related amendments that are trying to get at some of the issues that we've heard from Amazon Flex.

I think some of the ambiguity here in this amendment could potentially be addressed in rulemaking.

But I do think that there's still some areas where I have lingering concerns that it could create too broad of a loophole generally for the 14-day process.

I am interested in still engaging with the platforms on this particular issue that that could maybe bring back a different version of this later in the process.

But at this time, I don't feel like this can, that this can exist within the egregious conduct definition that we've created.

and that it creates too big of a loophole in and of itself.

So at this point, I'm a no, but I am sympathetic to the issue that this amendment is trying to fix.

Thank you, Councilmember Lewis.

There are a couple of remaining issues in addition to this one where The sentiment expressed by Councilmember Lewis is one that I share.

And so with this amendment as well as Amendment 11, I'm open to trying to continue to get at some of the issues that you're raising.

But I'm not prepared to vote in favor of this amendment today.

Councilmember Peterson, yes.

Can I follow up with a comment?

Yes, absolutely.

Thank you.

You are the motion maker and the amendment sponsor.

You can close us out.

So I just want to take a step back here.

So the big picture is that by the end of this month, the city of Seattle will once again impose unique new regulations on employers that are the first of their kind.

So these particular well-intentioned regulations requested by advocacy groups led by a group called Working Washington aim to protect gig workers against unreasonable deactivations by the technology applications the workers use to connect with customers.

Because Seattle City Council is once again charting new territory and regulating employers, I want to be careful not to overreach or create unintended consequences.

So this is one of the reasons why there are so many amendments that we need to consider.

But it's important context that we're going from nothing to something new.

So to claim that amendments water down anything is misleading because we currently don't have any of these regulations today.

So we heard some of those from public commenters.

So while we will have new regulations, we have a responsibility to be careful in how we craft these new wide-reaching regulations.

These amendments have been available for weeks.

I did not hear from my colleagues that they wanted to make changes.

I'm hearing about it the first time now on the dais.

This is a public safety committee, not a gig workers committee.

So I appreciate the patience and grace as we work through these new requests, try to get them right the first time.

So I'll look forward to hearing from colleagues on what they are able to do.

But again, we're going from nothing to something.

And I think we want to be very careful so we don't have unintended consequences.

Thank you.

And I just want to exercise my chair's prerogative to clarify.

The concern I have with this one is that building out of a warning system doesn't allow for any challenge of the underlying And the goal of this legislation, the writ large goal, is to allow for review of complaints.

And so, whereas I am sympathetic with the interest of having sort of a stepped approach to discipline, I'm concerned that this amendment, as it's written, could undermine the entire bill.

because of the ability to use this warning system in this manner.

So with that, can we please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 7B?

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Aye.

Vice Chair Lewis?

No.

Chair Herbold?

No.

2-2.

Thank you.

The motion fails.

The amendment is not adopted.

Moving on to amendments A and B.

These are two mutually exclusive amendments, amendment A and amendment B, 8A and 8B.

Central staff will describe both versions and the sponsors can speak to the amendments.

I'll then request a motion and a second and we can proceed with the votes.

Council Central staff.

Yes, thank you.

As the chair just noted, amendments 8A and 8B are mutually exclusive and both relate to the records or evidence substantiating deactivation to be provided to the app-based worker.

Amendment 8A would allow for summary information to be provided to the worker upon the notice of deactivation if the reason for the deactivation is based solely on complaints from a customer or a third party.

Amendment 8B would revise the network company requirements for substantiating deactivation in a number of ways.

Let me just scroll down to it.

So it would remove the requirement for a network company to provide record substantiating a deactivation and instead require a summary description of evidence only if an app-based worker challenges the deactivation according to the network company's internal deactivation challenge procedure.

The amendment would also remove the requirement that an individual at the network company with authority to reinstate the app-based worker, provide a certified statement attesting that they're true and accurate records.

The amendment would allow for personally identifiable information from the summary description, would remove, sorry.

It would allow for the company to remove personally identifiable information from the summary description if the company believes that the information could compromise safety.

And then finally the amendment would exclude marketplace network companies from the sections requirements Thank you so much appreciate that So let's first before we speak in favor of either version of the amendments Let's just first see whether or not there are any policy related questions or clarification on the either one of the amendments councilmember Nelson

Yes, I noted last week to Yolanda, who was here in the absence of Karina and Jasmine, that I do not consider that 8A and 8B are mutually exclusive.

I want to note that, you know, this is the conclusion of central staff right now, but 8A would provide in certain circumstances for network companies to provide a summary of records supporting deactivation rather than the underlying records.

8B would provide for a summary too, but in more circumstances.

But it also contains some additional provisions relating to providing a certified statement and applicability to marketplace network companies, and we already know that that is that's a separate issue.

So I think that 8B with some more work, for example, without the language about providing a summary can get to a place where it complements rather than is seen as contradicting 8A.

And so for that reason, I could pull the amendment for possible reconsideration on July 17th if we have that meeting with those changes.

Central staff, do you want to speak to the, And I'm wondering if there's a debate of whether or not the two are perhaps what Councilmember Nelson is saying is the intent is not for them to be mutually exclusive, but perhaps what you're saying is drafted.

They are currently mutually exclusive.

Yes.

Our analysis is that based on how they're drafted currently, in the sense that if they were both voted on, they would be difficult to reconcile because one would require a summary description only if the deactivation was based on a complaint, Amendment 8A, and the other would require a summary description upon a challenge to the deactivation of the network company.

So they kind of relate to different parts of the deactivation process.

And 8B also contains a number of other components.

a number of other amendments that may be possible to layer on top of 8A, but there were enough elements of 8B that were in conflict with 8A that we determined that they were mutually exclusive.

So it is possible that there could be, with further consideration, there could be a layering that's done, if that makes sense.

That does make sense.

Let's get 8A in front of us.

The amendment was, 8A was drafted in response to feedback from the platforms while also trying to balance safety and privacy of customers with the right of workers to be able to challenge an unjust deactivation, just to explain the policy intent.

I'll just move 8A.

I move Amendment 8A.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you so much.

The intent is to strike a balance by allowing platforms to summarize and anonymize specific records in specific circumstances that might endanger the privacy and safety of a customer while also requiring the provision of other records at the time of deactivation.

Again, the goal is to give workers the best chance to challenge unfair deactivation by providing all the information needed to do so.

I have discussed this amendment with platforms including TaskRabbit and Rover.

They've shared their support for this amendment in protecting user safety and privacy.

And I'll hold my comments on 8B and maybe Following your lead, Council Member Nelson, after we vote on this one, we can talk about how we want to address 8B.

So, with that, Mr. Chair, can you...

If it's going to be seen as contradictory, then should I go through 8B, or should I assume that you...

There's a motion for 8A in a second, so we're going to dispense with that one.

I recognize you, Council Member Lewis, and then we'll talk about 8B.

Okay.

Councilmember Lewis.

Thank you, Chair.

Given that we are six minutes past the hard stop, might it then make sense for us to take action on 8A and then give an opportunity for Councilmember Nelson to potentially...

I actually, I agree with Councilmember Nelson's point that I think it's mostly a drafting thing that might make 8A and B somewhat incompatible.

I do think the policy could be compatible between the two with a reworking of the amendment.

So maybe this would be an elegant place after we take action to stop business for the morning.

Just a recommended potential course.

Absolutely.

Okay.

So yes, take action on 8A, hear from Councilmember Nelson on 8B.

her preferred course for AP.

There are any other questions or comments?

Seeing none, Mr. Clark.

Council Member Nelson.

I'm going to abstain.

That is to indicate that I am still trying to catch up with the process.

I'm sorry.

Council Member Peterson.

Abstain.

Vice Chair Lewis.

Yes.

Chair Herbold.

Yes.

to and support to abstentions.

Thank you so much.

The motion carries.

The amendment is adopted.

And Council Member Nelson, before we close out here, do you want to speak to the next amendment and describe your preferred course of action?

Sure.

So I'll just give you the rationale for 8B.

So as drafted, Council Bill 120580 would stifle reporting and safety concerns and make it harder to create a safe community in Seattle.

When an employer has to let an employee go, they provide the reason, but they don't lay out all of the information they've gathered leading up to that point because it could betray the trust and privacy of customers or coworkers who essentially blew the whistle or complained.

So to promote a safer community for all people and pets, it is critical that people feel secure that they can confidentially report concerns about a person or particular experience.

The required production of detailed records and private communications in connection with deactivation raises significant safety and privacy concerns.

And people are understandably fearful that if someone learns they reported them, they may be exposed to harassment or even physical threats, such as someone showing up at their home.

And this concern is especially acute for communities where workers make home deliveries.

you know, communities that have become more vulnerable and since the pandemic and rely more on these services.

So by providing a summary of what occurred, it's vague enough not to warrant retaliation, but also clear enough so that a worker, shopper, pet sitter, et cetera, understands what they did wrong and why they're being deactivated.

And additionally, we don't want to provide so much information that it could provide a playbook for bad actors in the future.

if they decide to use this information against the company, customer, and retailers.

So that is essentially the rationale of this amendment.

But again, I said that it is fine with me to massage it and work with you so that it is more complementary.

Fantastic.

Thank you.

Appreciate the expression of that intent Similarly, I do have that goal for amendment 11 that We are not acting on today But there I think there's a lot of common ground that we can we can reach and So we're gonna hold 8B, Amendment 10, 11, and Amendment 12, and Amendment 13 for the next committee meeting.

How about 14?

And 14 as well.

So, we do have a special meeting scheduled on July 17th.

Just plugging along here, trying to get through all of the amendments as we can.

Once we've done so, we will have another substitute.

Version to get before us.

Hopefully it will be a clean version on July 25th our committee meeting then And hopefully we'll be voting that out of committee with no further amendments and really want to thank council members for your good faith and sincere engagement on this policy and thank also, of course, Council Central staff and staff in our respective Council offices.

There's a lot of efforts that are going on behind the scenes.

And thank you as well to our partners at the Office of Labor Standards, the platform companies, and workers who have been engaging very deeply in the development of this policy.

With that, our next regularly scheduled Public Safety and Human Services Committee is scheduled for Tuesday, July 25th.

That's our next regular one, but we do have a special Public Safety and Human Services Committee meeting scheduled for Tuesday, July 17th.

Before we adjourn, are there any closing comments from my colleagues?

Seeing none, the time is 11.57 adjourned.

Thank you.