Housing, Health, Energy, and Workers Rights Committee 12/6/18

Well, good morning.

Thank you all for being here.

Today is Thursday, December 6, 2018 and the Housing, Health, Energy and Workers' Rights Committee will come to order.

It is 933 and I'm Teresa Mosqueda, chair of the committee.

I'm joined here by Councilmember Bagshaw.

Thank you so much for being here and for all of your work during the last few months during the budget.

It's good to be back in committee with you.

We will be joined soon as well by Councilmember Herbold and any other Councilmembers are definitely welcome.

And thanks to Councilmember Juarez for her ongoing support for this work.

While she won't be here today, she is probably watching at home, so we say hello.

We have 12 items on the agenda for today.

Two reappointments to the Capitol Hill Housing Improvement Program Council.

We have six new appointments and two reappointments to the Labor Standard Advisory Commission.

We will be getting a briefing and possible vote on the new Office of the Employee Ombud to prevent harassment, intimidation, and assault, and to do more than that, to build in system-wide training, in-person training, and system policy improvements on a bigger scale.

And we will then be voting lastly on the ordinance to complete the joint utility trench in Bothell from our friends at Seattle City Light.

And we'll talk a little bit later about the connection as well between City Light and some of the issues that we'll be discussing today.

Why don't we go ahead and take public comment at this time?

At this time, we'll go ahead and take public comment.

Each person will be limited to two minutes because we do have a full agenda today.

And we are asking for folks to speak to items on the agenda.

Thank you very much.

The first person that we have signed up is Denise Crownbell.

Welcome, Denise.

Good morning.

Thank you for being here.

Are they working?

Okay, thanks.

Hello, I'm Denise Crownbell, co-chair of the Seattle Silence Breakers.

As we've been here before, we're an organization of current and retired city employees and community members who are working to change how employees are treated at the City of Seattle.

And on behalf of the Silence Breakers, I want to comment on our support of the strengthening of the Office of Employee Ombud as put forth in this legislation.

We were relieved when the mayor included the IDT in the Seattle Silence Breakers recommendation for an ombud with their legislation developing the OEO, but we're concerned the legislation didn't go far enough.

Councilmember Mosqueda heard Seattle Silence Breakers' concerns and has addressed them in this legislation by making the ombud an advocate for employees.

and advocate for employees and able to face force changes where the ombud sees shortcomings or issues, excuse me.

We appreciate the inclusion of annual reporting to the mayor and council with the teeth that is needed in requiring both to report in 100 days on what actions they're implementing and how, in addition to explaining any actions that will not be taken and why.

We also appreciate calling for the OEO to be free of undue influence from elected and reporting authorities because we still have concerns of how that will be done in practice.

We'll be talking more, I'm sure, in the future.

Related to the need for the ombud and true independence from Seattle or from city department and electeds, Seattle Silencebreakers sees the recent City Light Investigatory Report into the issues in CES as Exhibit A in what is currently wrong with city investigations.

I say this of most departments as we have members from almost every city department, so this is about city HR investigations overall.

As a local 17 shop steward, that was essentially the worst investigatory report I've ever seen.

As far as an impact since the report's release, I've had employees come up and say they were, and this is sarcastically saying, they were shocked that there were no serious findings.

And multiple women told me that this type of investigation was exactly why they weren't coming forward to HR to make reports.

So this report will have the further effect of chilling reporting.

And others will be speaking about this momentarily.

Could I have a wrap up, Denise?

Yes.

And this I say to really highlight why the ombud is needed and why we're here to support the legislation.

Thank you.

Absolutely.

Thank you very much, Denise.

And thanks for your ongoing work as well with the silence breakers.

Another silence breaker, Tia Jones.

Thank you so much for coming and member of the IDT as well.

Thank you.

Hi, so silence breakers and I'm just gonna enlighten you with my story on why the ombuds is so important.

After many conversations with my upper management for years with no results, this is how they've tried to silence me.

October of 2017, I filed a grievance for wage discrimination and unethical and unfair labor practice.

November of 2017, my supervisor pulls me aside to confirm she supports my grievance, but to now be careful because upper management is looking for me.

December of 2017, I escalate my concerns of wage discrimination, unethical and unfair labor practice to the Deputy Director of SPU.

All I get is we are aware and feel free to reach out to me at any time.

February of 2018, come into work with a freshly printed policy laying across my keyboard stating that if I do not say the new policy verbatim and written on the printed policy could lead to disciplinary action.

I instantly escalated my concern to the Deputy Director about the threatening language.

Policy was updated and changed the next day.

However, the next day after the policy was updated to remove could lead to disciplinary action, I was pulled into a meeting about my Facebook post.

Escalation to a Facebook meeting happened within two days.

March or April of 2018, disputing the negatively coded language in my performance evaluations needs to be careful on how she, me, presents her concerns and ideas to management.

Escalated through union to our employee relationship HR contact about discrimination in the coded language in my performance evaluation.

In a meeting with the employee relationship HR, she stated it's not always about race, dismissing my claim at the same time or at the end of the same meeting without investigation.

March of 2018, management lies to keep me from being a part of the IDT anti-harassment discrimination for Mayor Durkin and Council Member Mosqueda, citing I'm unable to attend because of mayoral directives.

Also started working that month as well.

June or July of 2018, issue one, my new supervisor, I'm having time removed from my timesheet based on a non-existent policy and after asking for documentation to support the theft of my time, this continues to happen for multiple months and for multiple timesheets, still without any documentation provided.

Issue two, same ongoing issue with my headsets.

Customers are unable to hear me.

Escalated hardware issue to my supervisor.

While on the phone with a customer speaking in Spanish, a supervisor is hovering over me for seven to 10 minutes.

While on that call, I needed the customer to ask the supervisor to email me.

His response, no, I need to show you something.

Call ends, the new supervisor proceeds to instruct me on how to use the up and down volume button on the same phone panel that I've been using for the last three years.

My supervisors never asked clarifying questions about headset issues in a moment of frustration.

I clarified that it wasn't a volume issue, it was a headset issue and I walked away because of how patronizing and frustrated I was because we had emailed back and forth for several days and he never took the time to ask fact-finding questions.

Within an hour, I'm having another meeting with my new supervisor who felt disrespected that I walked away from him and would not allow or tolerate this type of behavior.

July, September of 2018, ID recommendations are submitted, starting to work within my department in Florida, listen to my fellow colleagues who had complained to me individually about ongoing mistreatment from management to join me after work to air out our grievances and talk amongst ourselves.

Ms. Johnson, do you mind summarizing and then we'll definitely take a written copy because I know that there's been a lot that you've helped to inform.

So what it kind of boils down to is this week I had a meeting with my operations manager as well as that same employee relations manager who then told me unsubstantiated that I had made people feel uncomfortable and didn't reference times, dates of the allegations and exactly what the allegations were and there was no resolution.

So now I'm being isolated from being able to communicate with my fellow co-workers.

Thank you for sharing your story, Ms.

Jones.

Council Member Baxhaw.

Thank you very much for coming.

I'd like to hear more as well.

And I'm wondering, could I ask to have the panel, the side panels on the TVs turned off?

Thank you very much, Seattle Channel, for doing that.

Thank you very much, Ms. Jones.

The next person is Lisa Fersin.

Thank you very much, Lisa, for helping me with that.

My name's Lisa Fersin.

I'm a member of the Seattle Silence Breakers, and my comments are regarding Thanks.

My comments are regarding the CES investigation report and the disregard for all the work the IDT has accomplished.

The findings of the report are concerning because it's obvious inappropriate behavior by employees at CES created a hostile work environment for numerous women.

The investigator dismissed these behaviors because she claimed they did not constitute harassment and therefore were not illegal.

The city's press release stated that they did not bother investigating the petition in the spring of 2017 because they state that everyone interviewed, except Beth, informed the investigator that they did not have specific allegations to report to HR.

It's unfortunate that SDHR, SCL, HR, and CES leadership felt that 42 people signing the petition did not warrant any immediate communications regarding resources for reporting future incidents or acknowledgments of the petition.

It's foretelling that the city waited for the Women's Commission to address the petition and the threat of a lawsuit from a former employee to then hire an external investigator to address the petition.

The purpose of the investigation was for the investigator to determine if the allegations of the petition were true.

Two of the petition allegations stated that inappropriate behavior created a hostile work environment and there is a need for sexism training for staff, training for supervisors and managers to understand their legal obligations when notified of inappropriate behavior.

The report was written after numerous women, some who provided stories to the Women's Commission, had already left the utility.

I feel it's pretty clear by the women's detailed experiences of unwanted conversations regarding sex, forceful touching and kissing, and physical aggression that some women would find it uncomfortable to go to work, that job performance would be impacted, and that CES needed training.

As someone who was questioned in the investigation, had my story included but questioned if it ever happened, I can comfortably say that the report is completely biased.

None of my comments that questioned why CES leadership and Larry Weiss waited so long to address the petition were included.

Most if not all my comments supporting the women's concerns in the office and the targeted person in the report were excluded.

Oh, sorry.

It's okay if you want to summarize and then we'll take a written copy of your testimony if you're interested.

I'll just read this last paragraph.

The majority of the report, which contained long-winded opinions presented as fact, were written by people in leadership positions whose job it is to protect the department and the city.

The findings of the report to be used as evidence in the pending lawsuit against the city makes staff feel like pawns and reminded how unimportant we are in the grand scheme of things.

HR only reacted once all of this landed in the hands of the press.

Bad publicity, not harassment of the employees is concerned.

How would the findings of the report change if the issues identified at CES were addressed in a timely manner before the Women's Commission and the Truthful Stranger article?

Would it be focused on the allegations of harassment or still focused on destroying one employee's character and downplaying the willingness of many women who signed, told their stories, and resigned from the city within months to sacrifice themselves and their career for the better good?

Thank you very much for sharing that.

And if you're interested, we will definitely take your written testimony.

The next person is Kathleen Morrigan.

Hi Kathleen, good to see you again.

Welcome.

Hi.

Kathleen Merrigan, I'm a retired electrical worker from City Light and thank you for all the work you're doing on the ombud stuff is very, very important.

There is something that you wrote in one of your things.

As a city, we've made an important commitment to build a safe and inclusive work environment, but we know that the laws must reflect our values and it is the details of those laws and policies that drive the necessary changes in workplace behavior, norms, and expectations.

That is true, but Nothing speaks louder than actions.

The law about the ombuds will never see the light of day when there's actions like that report on CES.

There's problems in every department.

There's ongoing investigations.

When I was on the cruise, The newspaper was how people got the information.

You'd be stuck in a truck or a lunchroom and be getting information in the newspaper how the city doesn't find any reason to believe there's discrimination.

And that's what they have now.

Somebody got the memo, but they didn't pay attention to it.

And I think that's a problem that needs to be resolved as soon as possible.

It needs, that report needs to be rescinded publicly, very publicly.

If you want this to work, that's gonna be really important.

So thanks for your help on this, and I hope that you can get the message to the powers that be, and we see some action.

It's gonna be two months pretty soon, or one month before that report

Thank you very much.

And last person we have is, oh, do you have?

I was just going to say, I'm worried about the cameras coming back on as soon as he leaves.

The last person we have is Gina Petri.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Thank you.

My name is Gina Petrie.

I'm co-chair of the Silence Breakers, expressing my support for the ombud and appreciate this moving forward.

And I'd like to read the anonymous statement of a Silence Breakers member who could not be here.

I think her story and the ones you've heard previously really illustrate the need for this action.

So it goes, fact, multiple media outlets publish stories about hostile work environments of the city of Seattle.

SDHR under Susan Kosky, City Light under Craig Smith, About the female library workers who won a lawsuit against the city but as a condition could never work for the city again.

About the City Light Manager who was given the privilege of resigning after placing a video camera in an employee bathroom stall.

Disgraced former Mayor Ed Murray.

The list goes on.

These are the told stories.

The untold stories do not pale in comparison or frequency, including racism and other isms, and span the protected classes that compromise the diverse workforce that the city of Seattle claims to value.

Fact, City Light recently released an investigation report to the media and others about the customer energy solutions petition signed by 42 employees regarding allegations of sexism in a hostile work environment.

The report was completed by an employee defense attorney hired more than nine months after the petition was received and ignored by many city managers.

Under the guise of, quote, transparency, City Light released the dismissive and biased report to the press.

We are disappointed in Deborah Smith's decision to allow for this to happen.

This is not about transparency, but rather corrupting the narrative of harassment faced by women on the street and in the workplace, as the report does so blatantly, and Donald Trump says, deny, deny, deny.

Fact, many details of the petition investigation reveal reported incidents of sexual harassment in a hostile work environment very similar to those that happened to the female library workers.

One worth noting that highlights the abusive behavior of City Light HR against those who come forward is that of the male supervisor who City Light hired an external attorney on his behalf to investigate his non-sexual complaints against Beth Rocha, the most vocal and outspoken woman from CES.

This occurred within weeks of her nine-month-long, quote, in-house investigation, which included multiple complaints against him and management-level employees being finalized.

This supervisor, in all investigation reports completed, was accused by three women over a period of years of multiple unwanted sexual propositions, multiple questions that were sexual in nature, multiple incidents of non-consensual touching and kissing.

He sticks to the script, deny, deny, deny, and accuses all the women of having racist motivations against him.

He still works at City Light.

Do you mind summarizing?

We're just short on time here today.

And we'll take the written comment as well.

I appreciate you reading it into the record.

Yes, I do have a written copy.

And I and and it goes on there's there's more instances and evidence in here of what happened and I think What this what this illustrates and others have said is this is a citywide problem happening in multiple departments Which is why we have silence breakers have been pushing for the establishment of this ombud to take action to create change so

Thank you very much for reading that and for being here in person.

I know that we do have a few additional individuals who will be coming forward as well who've been critical in helping to shape the draft legislation, and we'll be calling for more as well, including from individuals who are with the Coalition for City Unions and PTE.

So we will, with my colleagues' consent, leave open the public comment in case there are other folks that want to come and testify about this specific issue before that point in the agenda.

I want to thank everybody for testifying today again.

It has been very, very critical to have your voice both here in committee and at the IDT, the Interdepartmental Task Force.

And it is a testament to your courageous willingness to come forward and tell the stories repeatedly, but more than that, to demand change.

So today is a first step, which we'll talk about in a bit.

But I just want to say thank you once again for your ongoing courage to come forward and This will not be a one-time issue.

This is the beginning.

This is the tip of the iceberg in terms of the types of changes that you've recommended in the report, which we'll talk about in a bit.

And I also wanted to say we will also be bringing forward in January at our next meeting a chance to hear more about the Seattle City Light reports and an update from the new director as well in terms of what policy changes are on the horizon and what's happened in the last few weeks slash month.

So thank you again.

More to come on that.

And that with that well, we're gonna leave open public testimony for a few more minutes.

Why don't we go ahead and read in items?

1 through 2 on the agenda if you don't mind buddy there agenda item 1 and 2 reappointment of Frank Alvarado and Eric snow as member to the Capitol Hill housing improvement program council I

Wonderful.

And thank you for joining us, Kenny Pittman.

Good to see you.

Can you give us a short update on the work of the Capitol Hill Improvement Program Council and share a little bit about the work of Mr. Alvarado and Mr. Snow and how they've contributed to the council's work?

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda and Council Member Baxhaw.

I'd like to present to you the two reappointments to the Capitol Hill Housing.

Mr. Frank Alvarado, who is a PDA board member appointee, and Mr. Eric Snow, who's a mayoral appointee for their second term.

As you know, the Capitol Hill Housing has about a 15-member board, with three of them appointed by the mayor, and the others, anywhere from 8 to 12, appointed by the PDA board itself.

Capitol Hill Housing, is basically designed as one of our PDAs to provide development and community development services within the Capitol Hill housing area.

About a little over a year ago, the council passed a resolution or a change of ordinance that allowed them to work outside the city of Seattle within King County and specific areas in their various cities within the city within King County.

And just recently, they have expressed an interest in looking at a project that's outside the city of Seattle.

They've also worked in White Center, done a project in the White Center area, and so they provide a lot of their expertise helping out other nonprofits in developing housing and mixed-use properties there.

One of the things Mr. Alvarado brings is he brings about 15 years of banking experience where he started out with JPMorgan Chase and now he's the vice president branch manager for the Home Street Bank in Capitol Hill Housing.

And he brings a lot of business lending experience to Capitol Hill Housing as they do their redevelopment or their development type activities.

And then the other one is Mr. Eric Snow, who brings about 25 plus years of technology and operations leadership experience to the board.

And he's also the base of a media company called Coco that's based in Seattle and New York, and they work with design firms and they could provide consultant work to the media industry.

And he brings a lot of knowledge of corporate leadership skills, strategic planning, and development skills along with his IT.

Both of them have been very, very valuable members and we support their reappointments.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Any questions on mr. Alvarado or mr. Snow Okay We really do appreciate the work of Capitol Hill Housing Improvement Program Council and excited to have these individuals there I would like to move the committee confirms the reappointments of Frank Alvarado and Eric Snow as members of the Capitol Hill Housing Improvement Program Council for a term ending March 31st 2021 Can I move and second my own motion?

Sure.

You're the chair.

Are there any concerns?

None.

Any comments?

None.

I would like to vote in, I would like to move recommend passage of the resolution to vote for these two individuals.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

None.

The passage is unanimous.

Thank you so much for joining us.

And please pass on our appreciation for them joining us.

Do you mind reading into the agenda items number three through ten, Farideh?

Agenda item three to 10, appointment of Andrew Bean, Betsy McPhilly, Nicole Grant, Elizabeth Ford, Anthony Burnett, Aaliyah Abboud, Mona Smith, and Samantha Grad as members of the Labor Standards Advisory Commission for a term of April 30th, 2020.

Wonderful.

And if you all could join us at the table, that would be tremendous.

Andrew Bean, Betsy McFeely, Nicole Grant, Liz Ford, Anthony Burnett, Aaliyah Abdud, Mona Smith, and Samantha Grad.

We know that we have three members who could not be here with us today, and I do have statements from them.

Council Member Bagshaw, I hope it's okay that I went ahead and affirmed the appointment of Mr. Smith.

Okay.

Yes.

We just had an SOS with four people standing in the hallway saying, do you need us?

And I'm like, no, it's all.

Thank you.

No, we're all good.

So Mr. Alvarado and Mr. Snow have been moved by our committee.

And do we have any central staff individuals coming forward at this point?

OK, no problem.

So thank you guys so much for joining us.

I know some of you have already served, and I believe you're a co-chair of the Labor Standards Advisory Committee.

Before we begin with background on each individual, if you could all read your name into the record, and maybe we'll hear more about what the committee's been up to lately.

Go ahead.

Sure.

I'm Elizabeth Ford.

Samantha Grad.

Andrew Bean.

Great.

And Andrew, would you like to give us a quick update on what the committee's been up to lately and your role as co-chair?

The commission meets quarterly.

There's a co-chair from the business side and from the labor side.

Kellis Borick is the co-chair on the business side and we meet and review either policies that are proposed that impact labor standards such as the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights or updates to sort of wage theft and enforcement that are ongoing from OLS.

And also sort of hear from the Office of Labor Standards on strategies to enforce or sort of how they're.

looking at cases in front of them or how they're thinking about directed investigations and sort of ask questions and discuss.

And it's an opportunity for stakeholders from community and labor and business to get together and discuss these issues at one table.

Excellent.

Let's start down there and come this way.

Is there anything else that you'd like to state about your experience and what you're looking forward to next year on the committee?

Sure, I've been, I'm now a vice president at SGIU 775. We represent, you know, congratulations by the way.

Thank you.

We represent 45,000 primarily home care workers and also nursing home workers around the state of Washington and in Montana.

And you know, most of these folks are low wage workers, disproportionately women and people of color.

And I think that they work that the And I've been on the labor standards advisory commission since the beginning and before that actually served with you and with Marty Garfinkel who is now the director of OLS on the precursor to that committee to really look at how Seattle can lead the way in enforcing wage theft and in implementing labor standards and really fill in the gaps that aren't being met by the federal government, among others.

And so I think the work that the commission has done and the office has done has just gotten better over time.

And we've seen a lot of sort of improvements in how quickly cases are handled and the different kinds of strategies and enforcement tools available to the office over time have just kept improving.

And it's been a lot of good work.

Great, thank you.

Welcome, Ms. Grad.

Would you give us a little bit of background on your work and what you're hoping to accomplish on the LSAC as well?

Sure.

So I'm Samantha Grad, and I am here on behalf of UFCW Local 21. We represent 47,000 workers statewide.

We have about 10,000 members who live and or work here in Seattle.

We have multiple different industries represented here in Seattle.

We have healthcare, retail, grocery, as well as manufacturing, just to name a few of them.

So we have kind of a very wide breadth of different industries that we touch.

We are very excited.

We've worked closely on secure scheduling and minimum wage and sick leave through the city.

Also, personally, I have worked on the initiative 1433 to raise the state minimum wage and pass second safe leave statewide.

We have been working really closely with the Office of Labor Standards around secure scheduling and I personally am very excited to see how we continue to do that work as that's really impacting our members.

That's something that I'm very excited about as serving on the LSEC.

Excellent, thank you.

Excited to help work with you on that.

Hello, Ms. Ford.

Hello.

Thank you so much for joining us.

Do you mind just giving us a little background on your work as well?

Sure.

The work that you're hoping to accomplish on LSAC as well.

Well, first I wanted to say thank you for the opportunity to serve on this commission.

I'm excited about it.

But also for your leadership in creating really well-enforced minimum employment standards in Seattle and focusing that enforcement both in agency and in community.

And so that is, that I think is extraordinary and presents an extraordinary opportunity.

And so I'm excited to serve on this commission because it's an opportunity to regularly and predictably meet with people who think a lot about the experience of workers and people who think a lot about the experience of running a business.

And so having that conversation and sort of getting into the weeds around it is, Super fun for me.

And my background is that I am, so I do two things.

I teach a workers' rights clinic at Seattle University School of Law, which means I'm, I have a little gaggle of law students who help to enforce Seattle's and Washington's minimum standards.

And I direct a free legal services clinic at the Fair Work Center.

So we provide services to low-wage workers, including helping them understand their rights, all the way up to helping them enforce them in a variety of ways.

We try to get people's situations resolved as quickly as possible and add capacity to the work that the Office of Labor Standards does in a way that's complementary.

So thanks again for your work.

Well, thank you for your work.

Before we do questions, I just want to read into the record the written statements from three of the additional individuals who are here for appointment.

From Nicole Grant, who is the Executive Director of the Martin Luther King County Labor Council.

She says, it's been my honor to serve on the Labor Standards Advisory Committee, and I'm looking forward to one more term of service.

The work we accomplished on LSAC is special because it's an opportunity for both employer and worker representatives to interact with city government and especially for the Office of Labor Standards to be in the room.

I'm looking forward to breaking new ground for vulnerable workers in our community and using LSAC as a vehicle for equity.

I would also like to take this opportunity to express gratitude to council members and council staff who have sat in on the LSAC proceedings and supported our work.

Also from Mona Smith, dear committee, I would be honored to serve another term on the City of Seattle's Labor Standards Advisory Commission.

I'm committed to reasonable and thoughtful labor standards that improve the quality of the employee work environment and provide businesses the autonomy needed to be successful in in Seattle.

Much work lies ahead of us to achieve the balance needed to sustain both a diverse and robust economy that attracts businesses of all sizes to the city, that allows businesses, particularly small businesses, the economic engine of Main Street, to compete, thrive, and grow, for workers to have increased job opportunities, a safe space, and to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

I look forward to Seattle and the Office of Labor Standards investing in the right blend of innovation, education and enforcement to achieve compliance with current and future city labor standards and to make Seattle a model for other cities.

And lastly, we have a statement from Anthony Burnett.

Anthony strives to help create and cultivate educational programs and visionary workshops.

In order to enrich the knowledge of the business so that they can make proper labor decisions, Anthony is passionate about giving counsel to other business owners, stakeholders, and executives.

By continuing to serve on this committee, he can donate his time, not for his betterment, but because he has something of substance to share and to give to the betterment of those in Seattle.

Thank you all for sharing those comments.

Did you have any questions?

No, but I do want to say thank you, all three of you.

You and I have worked together in various capacities.

And then, of course, with Mona and Nicole.

This is a fabulous committee.

Thank you for spending your time with us.

And thank you for spending your time in the other committees we've been working on, too.

It was good to see you.

You know, I just want to say thank you again for your service.

I think that the work that LSAC is doing right now is critically important, especially for a non-traditional work environments and including for the work environments that have been considered traditional in the past given the new changes from the Supreme Court and the ways in which workers can express a desire to have a collective voice and how employers may be changing their interaction with employees, we want to make sure that we're cultivating both a sense of respect in the workplace, but also respect for those who want to collectively bargain.

And when we do so, we know from study after study that that's good for the bottom line for many businesses.

It's good for the stability of our local economy as well.

So I do think that this is a win-win to have business and labor at the table.

really appreciate your work.

And I just want to know from you all, would it be helpful if this committee that has oversight over labor issues and the Office of Labor Standards, if we sent to you some questions that we had, would it be helpful for us to send questions to get advice on?

Is there any other thoughts that you have about how we can better interact with you and be more present?

Or if that's not helpful at all, then we are happy to stay away and take all of your recommendations.

Just to your point, I think that We are, one of the things we're taking on next year is looking at misclassification, independent contractors, like how to, what the state's doing, what the city could do, and a lot of that came from Councilmember Herbold, so I think it is helpful when.

You sort of we hear from council members about what issues they might want us to look into.

Excellent.

Okay.

Well, we will keep that in mind and take that homework.

And would love to again attend any meetings that you think are important for us to be there.

But please do express our appreciation to every single one of the LSAC members.

I also want to note that at our next meeting we will have a chance to hear from Betsy McFeely and Aliyah Abood.

We want to make sure we get a chance to hear from them before appointments.

And that includes either a written statement or in person.

So we'll hold those two for the next meeting.

At this point, I'd like to move the committee confirms the appointments of Andrew Bean, Nicole Grant, Elizabeth Ford, Anthony Burnett, Mona Smith, and Samantha Grad as members of the Labor Standards Advisory Committee for a term ending April 30th, 2020. Are there any additional comments?

None.

Okay all those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

None.

It's unanimous.

Thank you very much for your interest in serving on the LSAC and we will bring forward this motion to full committee on December 10th.

I would love to have you there and if you're not able to be there thank you so much again for your service.

Before we move into the next agenda item since it pertains to the office of the employee ombud potential legislation discussion and vote just wanted to see if there was any additional folks who have had a chance to Come that would like to speak to that before we close out public testimony Great.

Welcome.

Come on up

Thank you.

Truly appreciate you guys allowing the time for me to come and give one additional comment.

Can you get a little closer?

A little closer?

Eat the mic?

I'm not sure if it's on.

Is this one better?

I think you're standing up straight, you'll feel better.

All right.

That sounds good, yeah.

Much appreciated.

My name is Ray Sugarman.

I am a union representative with professional and technical employees, Local 17. Local 17 actually represents about 3,000 employees for the city of Seattle.

I'm here today to let our electeds know, city council members know, that Local 17 is in full support of the legislation for the ombuds office.

As an advocate for nearly one third of the city, the City of Seattle workforce, this is a great legislation that offers great opportunities to the employees of Seattle.

It is a great step towards Seattle continuing to be a model employer for the rest of this nation.

And we look forward to when it's established that employees will have a place, a neutral, objective, unbiased, independent place where they can discuss their concerns in the workforce.

and where they can feel supported and heard.

Additionally, it'll be a place where they'll be able to learn about all the other resources that are available to them that the city of Seattle so graciously makes available to their employees, along with other forms of protections that they have.

So Local 17. being over 3,000 employees for the City of Seattle.

I want to thank you all for your commitment in pushing this matter forward.

Thank you Councilmember Bagshot.

Thank you Councilmember Mosqueda.

We're truly appreciative and really look forward to seeing this be established and move forward.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for coming.

Yes, absolutely.

Thank you for getting here.

Any other folks interested in public testimony before we close out?

Okay, great.

Well, seeing none, I would like to close the public testimony at this point and move to our What item was this?

Item number 11. Thank you, Farideh.

If you could read item number 11 into the record for us, that would be appreciated.

Agenda item 11, an ordinance relating to the organization of the city government creating an office of the employee ombud.

Great, and we're gonna be joined at the table here by Patricia Lee and Asha Venkatropman.

Will you say your last name for me?

Venkatropman.

Venkatropman.

Just like it's spelled.

Okay, thank you.

And welcome, Adrienne Thompson.

Thank you for joining us from the mayor's office.

I really appreciate everybody being here today.

I want to just also, before we get started, say again my extreme appreciation for all of the members who've come forward and testified as Seattle Silence Breakers, as frontline workers, as members of unions, as individuals from the community who've called for more action and ensuring that we take steps on the 35 recommendations that were included in the report.

And we'll talk a little bit more about that in a second.

But we see you, we hear you, and we know that this is just the first step today.

So, if I might, I just have a few comments that I'd like to make before we get started here.

At this table we've talked repeatedly about how as a city we've made a commitment.

We've made a commitment to making sure that we're building a safe and inclusive work environment for each and everyone who works here in the city of Seattle.

We want to lead by example for other employers in the city, in this region, and in this country.

And though we've expressed these opinions and desires out loud, the reality is that a lot of employees have felt that those values have not always translated into practice.

The policies and processes that we establish must prioritize the safety of everyone who comes forward to speak up about harassment and discrimination and make sure that we're preventing those bad behaviors from occurring in the first place.

And we're here today because of the hard work of the individuals who came forward since March over the last 10 months and participated in the interdepartmental task force to address harassment.

Thanks to the mayor for working with our office to convene the anti-harassment interdepartmental task force and the individuals who participated in that task force over the last few months to look closely at the current practice and to make sure that we're developing policies to respond to preventing harassment and discrimination in the first place.

Those individuals include our very own Farideh Cuevas out of our office.

Thank you Farideh for your incredible work on that and working with us on this legislation.

and Adrian Thompson from the mayor's office.

Thank you for your leadership as well in making sure that we addressed the individual needs and then also system-wide needs.

Additional individuals include Amy Bowles, Sarah Butler, Felicia Caldwell, Evan Chin, Lee Colbert, Davida Ingram, Linda Elwood, Simone Goldman, Natalie Hunter, Tia Jones who we heard from earlier, Patricia Lee who's at the table with us, Mariko Lockhart, Director of OCR, Andrew Liu, Mark Watson, Mary Keefe on behalf of the Teamsters, Susan McNabb, Lauren Othon, Jane Park who's in the Ledge Department HR, Andrea Shealy, Steve Kovac, Travis Taylor, and did I miss anybody?

Okay.

I just want to acknowledge as well the folks that are here with us today.

We already mentioned Adrienne Amfarideh, Felicia Caldwell, Tia Jones, and Travis Taylor.

Thank you all for being present here today and throughout the last week.

Let's give a round of applause for that work.

Good idea.

So why don't we go ahead and have you give us a sense of what's in the legislation in front of us.

Patricia Lee and Asha have been working on the legislation and they provided a summary memo to us.

I'll have a few more comments before we consider the legislation, but let's give ourselves a baseline understanding of what we're discussing today and where we've come from.

Absolutely.

So to start, we'll be discussing Council Bill 119-374.

And so the way we plan to go through this is that I'll provide some background leading up to the introduction of the bill, some of which you've already spoken to, Council Member Mosqueda.

We'll describe what is in the bill as transmitted by the Mayor's Office and then talk through some issues identified and how proposed amendments might address those issues.

So as you mentioned, the IDT was formed earlier this year, and its report came out in July 2018 about addressing and preventing workplace harassment and discrimination.

There were a variety of recommendations in that report, and one of those recommendations was to create an ombuds function within the city.

The report detailed a variety of characteristics that the ombuds function would have, including being independent, an advocate for employees, addressing concerns that wouldn't rise to a full level of investigation, and then offering support through harm reduction, trauma-informed care.

and listening with empathy.

So as part of those efforts, a few high priority areas were identified for immediate implementation.

One of those as relates to this legislation was to establish an independent identity to support citywide intakes, investigations, and review, as well as ensuring that options were anonymous, confidential, rooted in race and social justice, and independent.

So in response to the IDT report and recommendations, Mayor Dricken signed an executive order in September that outlined how the executive planned to reform and update how it handled allegations of harassment and discrimination.

And then the mayor's office transmitted the bill that we'll be discussing to establish the OEO in conjunction with the proposed budget.

In conjunction with the legislation, the proposed budget had allocated about $564,000 in 2019 to support three staff members to create the office itself.

And it also included funding for creation of a central hub.

to house the investigations unit within the Department of Human Resources.

So council did not approve that expenditure or pass the legislation during the budget process, which is why we are having this conversation now, but instead provided the funds until the legislation establishing the office was passed.

In terms of the legislation that was transmitted from the mayor's office, it accomplished several things.

The first was creating the office and creating the director who the mayor would appoint and council would confirm.

It created the mission of the OEO, which was to assist individual city employees in understanding their options and resources regarding allegations of workplace misconduct and navigating the city systems for reporting, investigating, and addressing workplace concerns.

It created the functions for the OEO, which were to provide navigation to employees about their options, facilitating discussions around miscommunications that could have led to workplace conflict, and creating a requirement for reporting by March 31st annually to the mayor's office and the council about broad systemic issues.

And that report should, would have included recommendations to improve the city's personnel rules, investigation system, workplace expectations, and then any other city processes and systems.

So as reflected in the legislation, the Investigations Unit would not be within the OEO, but instead in the Department of Human Resources, as I previously mentioned.

So in reviewing the bill, central staff in conjunction with the council member looked at potential issues in terms of how the OEO was established and its functions within the base legislation.

And so we'll be talking through some of those issues and how the proposed amendments of the legislation would address those issues.

So moving into the amendments, the first issue that we identified was that the council bill didn't fully reflect the IDT recommendations or provide a lot of detail about how the OEO will function.

So the proposed amendments to provide more detail about those things is reflected in attachment A to the memo.

And in the memo, you'll see that there are page sites to follow along a little more easily.

So on page five of the attachment, there is subsection C to section 315.22, and that starts on line 17, and it lays out that the OEO should submit an implementation plan to mayor and council by the end of the second quarter in 2019, and that implementation plan should address the following eight items.

to see how the OEO will align more closely with the IDT recommendations and some other concerns.

So the list of items that should be in the implementation plan include how they will maintain data on the number of types and outcomes of complaints and inquiries that the OEO receives, how they will maintain and communicate employee confidentiality, how they plan to recommend in consultation with the anti-harassment IDT or subsequent oversight body, pertinent labor organizations, and other key stakeholders regarding oversight of the OEO, which includes but is not limited to a role for a oversight body to help draft recommendations or analyze policy or rule changes that are needed to address departmental or system-wide inefficiencies.

And I'll just note here on the top of page six, when we say key stakeholders, we are talking about individuals and organizations like the key stakeholders that we mentioned this morning, the Seattle Silence Breakers, who've been critical to this work.

So I think they, whether that name changes or the IDT name changes, that those individuals who participated in this work will continue to be able to provide input and feedback.

Okay.

Who is going to be responsible for coming back to us a year from now?

It will be the OEO, the office itself that is required to submit the implementation plan, and it will be at the end of the second quarter.

So by July, we will have these recommendations.

At what point will we get to have the OEO staffed?

I know that part of the issue and interest is to be able to move the legislation so that we can provide the money because we withheld it in the green sheet saying until we had things organized.

But is there the expectation that hiring will commence or at least the process immediately?

Yes, that is the idea.

I believe the jobs are already posted for hiring and the proviso only provides that The funding is held until the legislation is passed.

It's not contingent on the implementation plan.

So as soon as this gets passed by council, the proviso can be lifted.

And I'll just add to that, I appreciate the creative language that we were able to include in your budget to make sure that the proviso didn't hold up the process of both drafting the job announcement, posting it, and potentially considering applications.

Adrian, I don't know if you have anything to add.

I just want to again note for folks the OEO director position is posted online.

We link to it in our Teresa Tuesday alert and it is open until filled.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

It is posted and it will be open until filled.

Great.

So hopefully that means that the process continues along even though we're considering this today.

Okay, but the individual can't be hired until this passes.

Correct, and as we know the hiring process takes some time in the city, so I think as long as we move forward on this legislation quickly, we will be fine.

Thank you for that.

Asha, I know you had a few more here.

Did you want to go through the latter half of the report back?

Sure.

The next item is for the OEO to develop a written disclaimer that would notify city employees that their consultation with the OEO is not actually them filing a complaint or a legal action.

The OEO is not authorized to provide legal advice.

So it just basically lets employees know that the decision about what to do next is theirs.

And so the OEO itself is not moving forward with any actions.

The next item is to recommend to the Department of Human Resources that they incorporate in-person trainings to prevent discrimination and harassment, both upon hire and or on a routine basis.

And I'll just comment on that really quickly.

I think my hope here is that part of what we will look at in the future is not just orientation trainings, but ongoing trainings.

And the request that I know we've heard from frontline workers is that this be in person and that there be a chance for people to ask questions and provide scenarios and that kind of thing.

So really appreciate this language being included that we helped draft.

The next item is for the OEO to come back to tell Mayor and the Council how it will coordinate with the city's contracted employee assistance program for any appropriate emotional assistance or referrals that they can provide to support employees that are going through some of these processes.

And others may be more familiar with the Employee Assistance Program.

In learning about it earlier this month, last month, what I found to be interesting is that this entity really provides that emotional support, referral, consultation, being there on a personal level to really help folks who might be dealing with crisis and to help navigate the various options.

And I thought it was a great way to make sure that this entity is connecting with our existing EAP who's contracted to do this type of work and to make sure that all the dots are being connected.

Great.

The next item is for the implementation plan for OEO in the plan to review the current structures that are in the city to address harassment and discrimination and recommend any changes that are needed to the municipal code to accomplish any recommendations that they have.

And the recommendations should include an evaluation of where the investigations unit would be best placed in order to address barriers to reporting and underreporting.

The item, the last item is for the OEO to review its structure potentially as a independent office so that the OEO would be free from undue influence by elected officials or any other reporting authority.

As the legislation, the amendments of the legislation talk through and we'll discuss this a little bit more.

In the next item, the OEO, excuse me, it clearly states that within the creation, in the creation section, that the OEO should be free of undue influence by elected officials or reporting authorities.

So this piece of the implementation plan would see how they could better be independent with an independent office structure.

And these last two, I think, are really critical to some of the testimony we heard earlier.

And the letter that was provided mid-year this year, I believe, from the Office of Civil Rights, who was reporting back to the IDT on the type of issues that are leading to underreporting and barriers to reporting.

And I think these two in combination, as we continue to look at the structure and the placement, we will be able to address mistrust of HR, mistrust of management, fear of retaliation.

Those are just the top three issues that are relating to why individuals may feel fearful in coming forward.

And as we consider the various structures and the placement of both of these entities, I think our overall goal is to ensure that we're building trust and that people do feel comfortable coming forward.

And more importantly, that ultimately we reduce this type of behavior in the future.

So these are critical and we're really looking forward to getting that information back.

Great.

And thank you for that.

Thank you for your thoughtfulness on this.

And I also want to say thanks to the people that testified this morning.

You know, it really matters for us to hear your stories and to hear the worries and concerns and your feeling of distrust, your feelings that you're not respected.

And this is a way that we can at least try to address some of that.

So I want you to know that you're being heard and we're trying and that this isn't the end of the day.

This gets started.

And six months from now, a year from now, we can come back and fine tune if it's not working.

the way that we're anticipating.

So thanks to you at the table that have helped draft this, and to those who have helped informed it.

The second issue that we reviewed the legislation for was the level of independence of the office.

And so the recommendations had expressed a desire for independence, and the council has transmitted, does propose that the office be within the executive branch, but independent from the Office for Civil Rights and the Department of Human Resources.

To strengthen the independence of the office while maintaining it in the executive branch, there are a few proposed amendments.

The first is the one I just mentioned.

It's on page three at line 14, which states that the OEO shall be free of undue influence by elected officials or other reporting authorities.

It also requires that the OEO provide all reports and requested data concurrently to the mayor and to council.

This, sorry.

Yeah, no, I think that's really great, especially as we look at concurrent drafts and get data, then I think most minds at the table can help identify problems and solutions together.

So appreciate that, the work that we've done with the mayor's office and the stakeholders to request that type of information.

The second amendment, which is on page 6 on line 17, as I already discussed, would require the OEO to submit the implementation plan, but specifically look at independence of the office.

And then the third item is on page 6 at line 19, which would require that the OEO develop its annual report in consultation with the IDT or subsequent oversight body, labor organizations, or other stakeholders to increase transparency.

The third item is a minor one in that it is, it just deals with who the OEO will actually serve.

Because the establishment of the OEO was first discussed in an executive order, which by its nature just applies to executive branch employees, when the legislation came down, it was just, it was not completely clear that the OEO would, would be available to all employees and all branches of government.

So the amendment just clarifies that it makes completely clear that it is available to all employees.

Whether other branches decide that they will use the OEO is their own prerogative, but it is open to employees citywide.

Okay.

Did you have anything else to add in terms of item number two on augmenting the level of independence related to the last section on page eight?

Oh, in terms of the director.

Yes, so I'll discuss this a little bit later as well, but in terms of the appointment and removal of the director, the director shall be appointed by the mayor, but subject to consultation with key stakeholders, still subject to confirmation by council and the director can be removed by the mayor upon filing a statement of reasons with the city council.

And this isn't a novel idea within the code.

This is the sort of removal procedure that is applicable to the director of the office for housing.

And I always forget.

and the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs.

So it would just be similar to those directors.

Great.

Thank you.

Patricia.

I was going to take the last set of amendments.

So one of the main reasons for creating the OEO was to provide an alternative place that employees could go to if they weren't comfortable going to their department HR.

So the initial language that came down was an attempt to make sure that it was a neutral and partial because there are going to be employees who are both seeking help because they aren't sure whether to make an allegation and people who have had an allegation made against them.

So we wanted to make sure employees on all sides of the issue felt free and comfortable in seeking assistance from them.

In order to strengthen the language and make it a little more robust, however, the following changes are being suggested.

The first is while OEO will not give legal advice.

Is it in this?

Yes, it is.

If you're following the memo, it's on page 5 of the memo, and it's looking at amendments starting on pages 4 and 5. of the ordinance.

I don't know if you're following the memo or the ordinance.

You're trying to do both, I understand.

So the first amendment would be to change the language a bit from neutral and impartial information.

So in section 315022B, it would read to assist employees in understanding and assessing the work situation and the options and resources available to them.

So while they are not giving legal advice, we want it to be a bit more robust and having somebody there who you could actually talk to and have a conversation to explore your options.

Do I understand that we are taking a page out of the University of Washington's book here with OEO and then adding to it?

developing our own regulations, but by providing this independent space, it's something that they've said for a couple of years.

The University of Washington does have an ombud who functions in this kind of navigator role, different than King County's ombud who is actually an investigator.

And I believe Chapel Hill was another place that people look to.

So that was the amendment on changing that language.

We also know that inappropriate conduct may not rise to the level of the legal definition of harassment.

So we wanted to make sure that OEO was able to assist employees in talking about conduct that is not just legally defined as harassment, but maybe inappropriate workplace conduct.

And that's I think important for us as we've talked about at this committee.

There's a spectrum of inappropriate behavior.

And as we heard about earlier, often we're only looking at whether or not something was illegal.

And really we need to be looking at the entire spectrum to catch inappropriate behavior at the beginning so that inappropriate comments on an individual's hair or body or skin color or clothing never escalates to actual groping, assault or harassment on an ongoing basis.

And so that entire spectrum I think is really critical both from a prevention standpoint but also making sure that those stories that we heard before of individuals feeling unsafe, having inappropriate comments made to them are heard and that we respond appropriately.

I'm also interested in the flip side of that.

So as we're talking about the continuum, sometimes an individual may say something or comment or, you know, appreciate your necklace or your haircut or something, not meaning it to be offensive, but it's taken as a disrespectful moment.

Are there ways and opportunities for talking with that individual as well so that it doesn't It doesn't feel like a gotcha.

It feels like, hey, look, we're really trying to change the culture here.

Absolutely.

I think that is one of the hopes that this office will be able to facilitate that kind of understanding amongst employees so that you are not excusing inappropriate behavior, but helping maybe to increase the understanding of different people's perceptions on behavior.

Correct.

And it can be different.

One of the comments that was made earlier that struck me, if I had If I had been working on a board where I am taking comments for three years, and now I've got a new supervisor coming in who's telling me, here's the volume adjustment switch.

I mean, just that story alone, it just pushed that horrible sense, that pit in your stomach and that anger.

Like, what are you talking about, buddy?

I've been doing this for three years.

You know, I'm telling you, it's my headset problem.

So can we figure out a place where we can actually fix that without it being adversarial?

So I like the fact that what we're trying to accomplish is to do good work.

And the reason we're all here is to do good work for the taxpayers.

And if something's in the way of that, Let's figure out how we can fix it.

This strikes me as a great opportunity where it isn't an us versus them.

It's all of us trying to figure out good ways to get along and to be respectful of each other and learn what respect means.

Couldn't agree more.

And to keep it from escalating.

Right.

So the next thing that was looked at was the original ordinance said the OEO would inform the city employees about the city processes for reporting, investigating, and addressing workplace conduct.

And section 3.15022B broadens this and includes options available outside of the city.

So our current personnel rules also reference that you also have remedies under state and federal agencies.

And we have an alternative dispute resolution center.

Some people are represented in the city and you may want to contact your union rep to understand and discuss your options under your union contract.

And so that we are not limiting or we're providing people with a full range of options that may be available to them if they choose to pursue them.

So the next section is OEO is obviously seeing people who are extremely distressed or under stress from what is happening in their workplace.

And section 3.15022 would allow the employee to bring another person with them if they wanted to bring somebody there for emotional support when they have their discussions with OEO.

Can you tell me what page that's on?

Absolutely.

I'm sorry.

It's page 5 of attachment A.

Thank you.

Thanks.

It's lines 11 through 13. Thank you.

And it also allows the OEO to refer employees to our employee assistance program.

So on the first point, I just want to comment as well.

This is a direct idea recommendation that came, again, from frontline workers, from silence breakers, from our union representative folks, who know that sometimes in this period of crisis, duress, it's critical to have a trusted partner there, whether that's your union representative or a community advocate who works on these issues.

Being able to bring someone with you.

Regardless of whether you're bringing the claim or someone has a claim against you, it's really critical for creating that trusted environment and hopefully gives people a sense of their voice being heard again.

We don't want these issues to go into a vacuum.

We want somebody to be there so that they have the chance to be able to fully express themselves.

And I think having a person with them will help.

I completely concur, and I've done enough of the facilitation and mediation work to know sometimes you just need a buddy by you.

And oftentimes if you're thinking about what the next sentence is you're trying to say or respond, you might miss something that's pretty important.

So having somebody there can just be not just emotional support, but really help.

facilitate where it is, what are the next steps, what can we do here to really solve?

So I think I couldn't be happier with this addition.

The next area we'll look at is Section 5 of the memo, and it is on oversight.

It is section 315-022-C3, pages five and six of the ordinance.

So after the IDT report came out, the mayor signed an executive order and in that outlining steps how they would respond.

And part of that acknowledged the work of the IDT and foresaw a role in their continuing to provide oversight of the OEE's implementation.

However, that wasn't reflected in the legislation and it's not clear if the IDT is the appropriate oversight or who the appropriate body would be.

So this ordinance amendment would require the OEO to consult with the IDT or a subsequent oversight body as well as labor organizations and other key stakeholders as they put forward on their recommendations on what if any oversight would be appropriate for the OEO.

And the next section would require them to also in their, the OEO, in their annual report to consult with either the oversight body, key stakeholders, pertinent people that have helped develop the legislation to this point.

Finally, the annual report.

There is an annual report that is being requested of the OEO.

I don't want to frighten anybody who's considering taking this job of all the things we are asking them to do.

But part of it was to have them do a policy role as well as an informational role so that as they see people coming through their office and they get a sense of the patterns or the sense of the places where there may be gaps in what we should be addressing, that they have the opportunity in their annual report to let us know where there are places that could be strengthened.

And we've added to the things we would like them to recommend.

So what is being added is for training, specifically in-person training, because sometimes that's more helpful than something online.

as I said before, to identify any patterns or areas where they think there's been inappropriate workplace conduct that should be addressed and whether there are systemic changes that really need to happen in order to root out kind of inequity and injustice in their personnel systems or the way we interact with each other.

And because we know that even with our best intentions, everybody is busy and it's hard to always respond to everything that comes to the council, we've put a requirement that the council and mayor respond to these recommendations similar to what was in the Domestic Workers Ordinance.

So we've required that in 120 days after receipt that we would respond to those recommendations either jointly or separately with the mayor or in consultation with the mayor's office.

And we would identify policies or legislation we intend to go forward with, further information we would need, any alternatives, or if there are recommendations that we don't intend to go forward, the reasons why we aren't.

So that we're responsive and respectful of the work that's being done.

Nice.

I like to call this the report shall not sit on a shelf section.

Good.

Yes.

It will have action.

And finally, there were a couple of things we wanted to point out in the legislation that were not in any of the other prior categories.

So we changed one of the recitals to reaffirm the city's commitment to city employees having a safe and respectful workplace.

And what page are you on, please?

I am on the last page of the memo, and this actually refers back to the whereas clauses of the ordinance.

So is this an addition on page two?

It's the first page of your memo.

Is it the first page of the memo?

The first page of the attachment.

First page of the attachment.

I'm sorry, I'm there now, so go ahead.

OK, perfect.

We added a recital, or in the recitals, reaffirmation of the city's commitment that all city employees have a safe and respectful workplace.

And we identified and called out the IDT's July 2018 report and recommendations.

So they were just additions to the whereases.

I think we've covered all of the changes we have suggested to the ordinance.

And you have a version 3D that incorporates all those changes.

Okay, great.

Before we discuss a few of the questions, Adrienne, on behalf of the Mayor's Office, did you have anything else you'd like to add?

Yes, thank you.

Adrienne Thompson, the Mayor's Office.

First, I just want to thank Councilmember Mosqueda for your leadership, not only on this piece of legislation, but also through the IDT.

I know there's been a lot of work for several months on this, and we're very excited to see this moving forward.

And thank you, Councilmember Bagshaw, for your leadership as well.

When the mayor first took office just a year ago, she clearly heard from employees the vast complaints around harassment and discrimination in the workplace and really wanted to do something that was meaningful and culture-changing in our city and wanted to be supportive of employees.

So we were excited to work with Councilmember Mosqueda in putting the IDT together and really looking at it from across departments, labor, employees, as well as other elected bodies in our city and are excited to put forth recommendations forward.

So we have been working closely over the past month on this legislation and are excited to really see this council adopted and move it forward and happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Great.

I frankly don't have a question.

I'm just so delighted that You have all been working together on this.

Councilmember Mosqueda, once again, this is your leadership, your brilliance, your experience really coming to the table.

And when I had heard from the mayor's office yesterday that they were, she, herself, and the staff working on it were very much in support of this.

I just felt like we've had that hallelujah moment, because it really does make a difference.

The Wayback Machine in 1992, I was a new lawyer at Metro, and they did a great big deal for three days with everybody who was working for Metro at that time, went through a culture change effort.

And I thought it was one of the best steps forward I'd ever seen.

Yet, this is even better because it puts it on the ground for people to come in, to have a place they can talk and work through issues.

But also, as we've talked a little bit ago, a moment ago, if there's two individuals that are having problems or four that are just not communicating I think we are clearly understanding each other's needs.

It provides that forum.

Would you just extend my thanks to the mayor and you and your team that have been working on it.

And Asha and Patricia, I know how much work this went into just by looking at the blue that is all over this.

I think we're on a really good trip, a really good path.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Council Member Baggion.

You have been a steady supporter of making sure that we take those values and put them into action.

So I'm excited to be here.

And again, we recognize that this is the first step.

I do have a few comments.

I really just want to say thanks again to everyone here.

I don't have any additional questions, and I know that we will have a chance to continue to ask questions about implementation, our new director, the staffing of it, as we get the report back at the end of second quarter 2019. And really, I think this has been a collaborative effort, both with the council members, with the mayor's office, and really driven by the recommendations from silence breakers, from union representatives, from frontline workers, who also had the sense of urgency that we needed to act, and we needed to act quickly.

I really appreciate folks' recognition that we needed a little additional time.

to make sure that we got some of these key provisions included to enhance the legislation and really bring forward those values that were embedded, but to be explicit about it for future councils, for future electeds, to make sure that our values were reflected year after year, no matter who is in these seats, that we codified those commitments.

You know, last year, I ran for office in 2017, and in the last two months prior to the election is really when the Me Too movement began to take over all of our social media and traditional media sources.

And having had the experience of a Me Too movement along that spectrum, and like many people have reported, we knew that we needed to act with urgency, and this was one of the key provisions that I wanted to make sure that we had the chance to advance within the first year of being here.

proud that we've been able to take this first step.

And I think that having people who get into these positions, who say that it's no longer okay to put these issues on the back burner, that we will bring these issues forward and be accountable to ourselves, be accountable to the community and accountable to workers is exactly the type of action we need to have, not just in this Washington, but in the other Washington as well.

Good luck on that, but we can do it locally.

We can do it locally.

And we've learned from other colleagues, we've learned from colleagues who are trying to make changes in Congress for the workers who are there, from our state capital, for the workers who are in our legislature.

And doing that here not just for workers within the city legislative department or mayoral department, but doing it citywide I think has really taken this commitment to the next step.

We also want to make sure that we recognize the work that has been done is not just through a broad policy change lens, but it's really through the race and social justice lens.

We know that the issues that have been brought forward in terms of harassment and discrimination have disproportionately impacted women and especially women of color and also individuals who are from the LGBTQ community.

So as we think about the policy changes that we're putting into action here, Yes, it will benefit every single worker, but I'm hoping that it will have a disproportionate positive impact on those who've been historically oppressed and kept out of the policymaking tables, who've been explicitly invited in and have helped to craft this legislation.

My hope will be that not only do we see more people coming forward because they trust the system better now, but that we also get feedback from direct frontline workers that they also feel a greater sense of trust and are safer and that behavior is truly changing.

I think that that is a comment to not only the fact that we want to change individual behaviors, but we truly want to change workforce behaviors.

We want to change system behaviors and we want to look at this through the organizational lens that it deserves to make sure that we're changing our policies so that practices and norms truly do change.

I want to just say that the policy recommendations that came out of this report, Addressing and Preventing Workplace Harassment and Discrimination, if folks haven't had a chance to read it, you can see the full 34 recommendations in that report.

They looked at various jurisdictions, they conducted focus groups, they looked at internal results from our citywide racial and social justice initiative to not only come up with the recommendations, but 126 strategies that follow each of those recommendations to make sure that the city can improve training, reporting mechanisms, personnel rules, workplace culture, anti-racist policies and practices, and most importantly, how we can be accountable to our employees.

So today, again, we're creating that central hub.

One of the recommendations in the report was to create that central hub so that people can understand their options and have a better sense of how to address the situations that they're facing on a daily basis.

And yes, this is an important step, but as Council Member Bagshaw and I both said, this is just the first step among many.

So we will be continuing to look at that report.

And I have one thing else, and I hasten to say that I know I sound like a broken record on this.

We want to be an age-friendly city.

And we want all ages and abilities to be honored.

And oftentimes, when we talk about race and social justice, as critical as that is, I think we need to take the next step, too, and recognize that ageism is alive and well.

So I know that we're making progress.

But part of the reason we're making progress is we keep bringing it up and say, We're going to care not only for people who may have in the past been given or felt very much like they've been disrespected.

And I want to bring our seniors back in and lift them up as well that they are very much part of the workforce.

They also need to be included and recognized and appreciated.

Yeah, absolutely.

Thank you for bringing that up.

We did hear stories directly from the silence breakers as well about ageism and how that has affected their willingness to come forward and the responses that they've received.

So I think that's a really great addition to comment on.

We just have to keep raising it up because it's so easy to stop to say race and social justice means race but not social justice for people who also are experiencing a different kind of discrimination.

So when we talked about creating an inclusive bike network, we used the term alegra, which is all ages and languages, ethnicities, genders, races, and abilities.

And I think maybe that kind of apply here too.

Yeah.

So I just want to thank you all again.

This has been a really important first step for us to take.

The work that we're doing today does not erase the stories and experiences that people have had.

And we have yet to pat ourselves on the back because we need to establish the office and make sure that it's up and running.

But this is truly a critical step that we're making.

So thank you to the mayor's office for working to send us down a piece of legislation and also for working with us to amend it to include these provisions.

Thank you, Council Member Bagshaw.

Thanks to central staff for your hard work.

I know it's been a a long few weeks that we've been updating this legislation.

I want to thank Freddy de Cuevas, who's been leading this effort for us and participating on the IET.

Our office would not be in the position to help advance some of these pieces without you, so thank you.

And again, to the silence breakers, to the frontline workers, to the union members who've come forward and shared your stories and are demanding more.

We will be there working with you.

It's critical that we've applied this to all branches of city government, that we've looked at some basic directives for how the OEO will work, that we've made sure that this is free from political influence, and that we've created an implementation plan to really hold ourselves accountable as well.

I know that that's what we're in the business of, not just checking the box and walking away, but making sure that the legislation works.

So thank you for all of your work, Adrian, and everyone at the table here.

With that, any other questions or comments?

Looking forward to moving this.

All right.

I look forward to working with you all to create the Office of the Employee Ombud, and is coordination with the Investigation Unit, which we also are looking forward to getting feedback on in our six-month report from now.

I'd like to move the committee recommends passage of council bill as amended.

Do I need to do that?

I think you need to move a substitute bill.

So you need to move to substitute version D3 for the version that was transmitted and then you can move.

That way we didn't have to take a vote on each amendment.

Good, the bill is amended.

Okay, I move to substitute Council Bill 119374 version D3 for version D2A.

Second.

Excellent.

All those in favor?

Aye.

All those opposed?

None.

Okay.

So version D3 reflects the changes that we just discussed to the ordinance.

Make sure that these changes put in place a reporting back mechanism, ensure greater stability for the office as we move forward, and additional feedback mechanisms as we implement this new office.

And I'm very excited to work with all of you.

Do we need to have a second vote on this as amended?

Okay.

So here it is.

Okay, I move the committee recommend Council Bill 119374 version D2A as amended.

I think it's three now.

Version three as amended.

I move the committee recommends passage of Council Bill 119374 as amended.

Are there any further comments?

None.

All those in favor?

Aye.

All those opposed?

None.

Any abstentions?

None.

The Council Bill as amended has been approved.

and we are on our way to creating the Office of the Employee Ombud.

Thank you all for your work.

This motion is going to be before full council on December 10th, and we have passed an important first step here, so thank you all very much.

Later by the clerk, what you have approved is version D3.

Yes.

That's correct.

Very good.

Thank you.

Thank you, Patricia.

Thank you, everybody, that's been involved in this.

Okay.

So, let's see.

We have one more item on our agenda and we still have 35 minutes.

We're doing good, guys.

Extraordinary.

Farideh, if you don't mind reading into the record, item number 12.

Agenda item 12. I'm sorry.

Agenda item 12, Council Bill 119359, an ordinance relating to the Seattle City Light Department for a briefing discussion and possible vote.

While you are getting settled in here, I just want to welcome to the table everyone who is here to talk about this last agenda item.

If you guys could read into the record your names, that would be great.

Hi, welcome.

Welcome back.

Debra Smith, why don't we start with you for introductions, and then we'll get started here.

Yeah, great.

So thanks for having us here.

I'm Debra Smith, the CEO General Manager of Seattle City Light.

And again, thank you for your confidence in me to lead the utility and know that the issues that you just discussed are Really an important part of how I'm spending my time right now, so I'm in this first hundred days talking to a lot of employees Customers community members.

I do have a meeting set up with the silence breakers before the holidays, so I Anyway, I'm learning a lot about City Light, a lot about the City of Seattle, really enjoying that, really enjoying being part of Seattle leadership.

And looking forward to working collaboratively with you as a committee, and not just bringing you forward items like this that are legislative in nature, but also just answering your questions and talking with you about the important issues that we both care about or that we all care about.

So this legislation today reflects the council's authority over the utility to enter into an agreement with another jurisdiction to support an important capital project that also impacts our infrastructure.

So we have a short PowerPoint outlining the City of Bothell project, the impact on the City Light, and the reason for an agreement between the two jurisdictions.

So Twan and Claire will present the PowerPoint and answer any questions you have for us.

Excellent.

Well, welcome to the table, I think, for your first time officially in your new role.

Happy to have you and looking forward to having you in January as well to address some of the comments we heard earlier about the report and just overall how the first few weeks at that point will be a few months are going.

Before we start with the PowerPoint, can we just have folks introduce themselves for the record?

Wontran, Seattle City Light Director of Engineering.

Claire Lloyd, Seattle City Light Substation and Communication Engineering Manager.

I'm Eric McConaghy, I'm the Council of Central Staff.

And Eric, it's exciting to have you.

Also your first time at the table in your official capacity helping this committee out, especially on Seattle City Light related issues.

Thank you for your work now and in the future on this.

Go ahead, Eric.

I was all done.

I was just going to note that Claire and Twan too are people who have been really involved in the Denny's Substation Project.

So that's a, you know, a huge thing and a huge accomplishment.

So yeah, just wanted to.

Thank you, and that Denny substation is in my district, and I've been working with your colleagues for a long time on this.

And I just especially want to say thank you on the community benefits and the connections that you've made to green up the streets and make the pedestrian corridor nicer.

So thank you for that.

Thank you.

OK, shall we go ahead with the PowerPoint?

Please.

All right.

The City of Seattle is requesting authorization to enter into a joint utility trench agreement with the City of Bothell to underground 4,750 feet, which is approximately 0.87 miles of communication cable from aerial to underground.

This cable, which is, let's see if I can get it on here.

Oh, I guess we can't see the, it's shown in green up there.

Sorry, I was going to use the pointer to show you where it is.

But the piece of, the portion of cable that we're talking about is shown in green on the vicinity map.

And it is part of a 24-mile long cable that runs between the Bothell and North substations.

Bothell and North substations are both owned and operated by Seattle City Light.

The cable is needed to transport communications for Seattle substations and the Skagit generation plants.

This path is critical for operations and is used to control substation and generation facilities.

The City of Bothell Beautification Project, which runs along State Route 522, requires all the utilities with overhead infrastructure to relocate to underground.

This undergrounding is part of a larger project to provide road improvements, business access, and transit lanes.

The cost to underground the section will be shared with multiple utilities.

The overall cost estimate for the utility trench, vault, and the conduits.

For the seven utilities is estimated at 2.2 million dollars in Seattle's portion is is estimated at 282,000 and we will actually be The the cost we will actually pay will be prorated based on the length of the conduit I We're actually paying less.

I think it's more like six.

Even though there's seven utilities, we're paying a little bit less because some of the other utilities have requested to have additional features, faults, and things that we don't need.

The city of Baja will manage the work, and the Seattle City Light is responsible for installing the fiber once the conduit infrastructure is in place.

We're working closely with the city of Bothell to provide Seattle City Lights requirements for the design and the funding is available in our communication budget for 2019. Let's see.

That was it.

Pretty easy.

So the section of cable shown in green, as I said before, is the part that we're talking about.

The portion shown up there in yellow is the only work that we are anticipating in the future for this 24-mile cable.

route and is associated with the city of Kenmore's bridge widening project.

And the bridge widening project is currently under development, and that will impact 500 feet of this cable.

I'll have to come back for that.

Yes.

You'll come back to do that?

Yes.

Yeah.

So a question that I love to ask when you bring me beautiful engineering drawings, is there any reason not to do this?

No, actually, it's a requirement for maintainer or major fiber infrastructure to actually control all substation generation facilities.

So without it, it's going to be very tough to operate efficiently.

Do we have anything in writing requiring us to do this?

I mean, you said it's a requirement because it's it's a physical requirement.

But do we have a contractual relationship that we're honoring here?

There's not really a contractual agreement between Bothell and the city of Seattle here.

We're just on their right-of-way, and so they're doing the road work, and we just have to relocate our facility.

That's typical.

Whenever you're on a right-of-way and there's a project, and that's one of the ongoing projects that we have, is responding to the need to move, or underground in this case.

Eric, did you have anything you wanted to add?

I know you were looking into a few questions as well.

Council Member, in advance of this meeting, working with City Light and with you and your staff, you had a few questions that I think have been addressed today.

So unless you have anything that remains unanswered, I think we're all set.

One of the questions I had asked Council Member Bagshaw was just in terms of the proportion of payment.

It does sound like we're paying a small portion, 6% of the overall cost.

Part of my question was, how much is the City of Bothell paying versus us, versus Kennewick?

So some of those questions have been answered, and we do expect them to pick up the majority of the cost and the management of it, correct?

Yeah, to that, the answer that was provided is that the amount is...

The amount of payment sort of scales with the length of the work.

And so...

This is generally standard allocations based on...

And as Claire pointed out, and then individuals who are in the shared space will sometimes have specific needs and then they'll cover those costs.

And in this case, because this is just communication for us, we have fewer needs.

Excellent.

Okay.

Yeah, so we're paying for our infrastructure and the other utilities will be paying for their infrastructure, so.

That sounds fair.

Go ahead.

Mutual indemnification.

So the, and the benefit is by using the shared trench that it does significantly decrease our cost.

One of the things I know we're concerned about and we'll be looking at going forward is over cost overrides and this is an issue that pervades you.

So I appreciate your interest in making sure that we're reining that in.

Do we have checks and balances put into place to make sure that this total amount is really the total amount?

The estimate was provided and we reviewed the estimate and we will also be supporting the project in regular meetings to make sure that we're, you know, we're part of monitoring the cost associated with the project.

Excellent.

And we'd like updates prior to that being published in the news if it is over budget.

Yeah, if there's a problem, let us know before we read it in the paper.

And the thing about this project is this isn't really our, I mean, so again, this is the City of Bothell's project.

So our role as project managers is we'll supply, I'm assuming, we supply our infrastructure that's going in.

We share costs and we have a role in helping to manage the project, but it is a City of Bothell project.

I think that's clear in the contract documents.

It's just that we have enough problems of our own making that it's good if we know ahead of time.

And we've included sales tax this time in the total amount.

Good, thank you, but we are and we are installing the fiber and that's a separate cost for this project But that's also in the communication budget the existing budget our existence So you're not coming back to me as finance chair asking for money.

Thank you

Well, let's see if I can get this right.

Okay, if there's no more questions, I'd like to go ahead and move that the committee recommends passage of Council Bill 119359. Second.

Are there any further comments?

Okay, thank you for that robust presentation.

All those in favor, vote aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

No.

Unanimous.

Thank you so much.

We will be bringing this motion forward to full council as well on December 10th for a possible vote then.

Very good.

Thank you for coming and we look forward to seeing you in January.

Appreciate all of your time and willingness to get us caught up to speed on this issue.

And Eric, we're looking forward to working with you on all of the City Light issues in addition to our new director, especially related to Seattle City Light rates and the work that the review panel is doing.

There's a lot for me to catch up on.

It's completely fascinating and engrossing and I'm really enthusiastic about being involved in it and more to come.

Excellent, thank you.

We can learn together.

That's right.

I love that idea.

So at this point, are there any other items that you'd like to discuss?

No.

Okay.

Thanks to Farideh for staffing us for this entire year.

We are coming to the close of having this committee now meet for a full year, and this is the last committee of our Housing, Health, Energy, and Worker Rights Committee for 2018. The first meeting of 2019 is going to be on the 17th of January.

I'm going to cancel the January 3rd meeting because I assume many people will still be on holiday.

And there we will hear from Deborah Smith, report back on Seattle City Light, CEO, General Manager, first few months in office, reporting back to us as well as you heard on the report that we heard We will also have a presentation by enterprise on the map they were compiling for us.

We saw the interactive map.

Every parcel of public land in the city is now going to be online.

tax credits are available, how high the zoning goes, what options exist for creating housing there.

And we'll also have a presentation, I think, by economics.

Economics?

Yeah, economics.

Economics, yes.

Yes, so we'll reach out to them as well.

And thank you for all of your incredible service with us this year as I got my feet underneath me.

You are amazing.

This committee and council as a whole, really appreciate it.

Good.

So thank you for everything today.

With nothing else, this committee meeting is adjourned for 2018.

Thank you all.