Seattle City Council Human Services, Equitable Development, and Renter Rights Committee 2/20/19

Everyone, this is a special meeting of the Human Services, Equitable Development, and Renters' Rights Committee.

The time is 6.02 p.m.

This is February 20th, 2019, and we are in city council chambers.

Thank you for joining us, Council President Harrell.

And I believe we'll be joined by one or two other council members who will be here Shortly, and we also thank central staff member Jeff Sims for being with us today.

We have one important item on the agenda.

And that's the question of the appointment of the Permanent Director of the Human Services Department.

And I really, really appreciate everybody who's here despite the rescheduling that we had to do.

This meeting was originally supposed to happen last week, but we had to cancel it because of the snowstorms.

So I really appreciate everyone being flexible with the change that we had to make.

To quickly fill in everyone who may be new to this issue, And just to give a recap for everyone, over the course of last year, 2018, my office has heard from many community members interested in the leadership at the Human Services Department of the City of Seattle who have asked when and how the mayor's office planned to appoint someone to be the director of the department.

And it's not, it shouldn't be a surprise to anybody why there is so much interest about the Human Services Department, given the crisis that our city is facing, the affordable housing crisis, the escalating homelessness, and the underfunding of social services.

Needless to say, the Human Services Department does very, very important work in very constrained circumstances, and so a lot of organizations and individuals care about these issues, and so there is, you know, undoubtedly a lot of interest about this.

Just for everybody's information, my office has put together this packet that sort of has all the communication between my office and the mayor's office.

It's out there.

My staff member, Jonathan Rosenblum, can hand them out for anybody who's interested.

It sort of has a the email sort of record between my office and the mayor's office just to clarify where, you know, sort of the history behind where we are today.

So flowing from all of that, we later learned, my office later learned that human services department employees and human service providers had been independently of their own accord asking the mayor's office to be included in the search.

much like what is done normally in the search for other high-profile director appointments.

For example, in the mayor's press release last month announcing her appointment to the director position of the Seattle Department of Transportation, or SDOT, the press release, and I'm quoting a section from the press release, it says, quote, in May, Mayor Durkan announced a search committee that included nearly a dozen business transportation, labor, and community leaders.

The search for a new director of SDOT also included an extensive community outreach process.

After conducting interviews with applicants, the search committee submitted their recommendations for finalists to Mayor Durkin, who interviewed the finalists earlier this month, unquote.

So I think what's standing out to a lot of people is the complete contrast between the search methods that we used for other big departments like the Department of Transportation in contrast with the Human Services Department.

Unfortunately, what happened in the Human Services case is the mayor did not consult the workers of the department or community members or human service providers in this appointment as far as I know.

In a mid-December press release from the mayor's office, so actually just stepping back a little bit, in the packet you'll see an email from my staff member Ted Verdon, who's right there, to the mayor's staff on March 23rd last year, and another email from April of last year asking, you know, that we're hearing from community members and our constituents what's happening with the selection process.

If you have some information, let us know.

We didn't hear anything from the mayor's office throughout that year, but late last year in mid-December, a press release from the mayor's office We all later learned that the mayor was, seemed to be bypassing the usual search and was appointing Mr. Jason Johnson.

A few days after that, my office was contacted by leaders in Protech 17, the union that represents many HSD workers.

And we were also, I believe, contacted by HSD workers.

And Ted from my staff can provide more information about that when we start a discussion at the table.

We were told that many HSD employees had deep concerns about what was happening and we were, my office was invited to a meeting with the union members in early January.

At that meeting, which my staff members attended, We saw a room overflowing with HSD employees who cared deeply about having a voice in the direction of the Human Services Department, the race and social justice principles that the City of Seattle has agreed to adhere to, and the leadership of their department.

Out of that meeting, my office reached out to human service providers and heard similar concerns to what we had heard from the meeting with the workers.

And then flowing from all of that, my office then organized a committee meeting to genuinely hear from all sections, you know, HSD workers, human service providers, community members.

This was a, again, this was a committee meeting, but it was held after work hours to enable maximum attendance from working people.

So it was in the evening at the Miller Community Center on January 24th.

Unfortunately, no other council members attended that meeting, but that meeting is recorded on Seattle Channel.

Many of you who are here were also at that meeting.

And at that meeting, when I gave the chair's remarks to open the meeting, I said that elected representatives should actually represent the needs of regular people who will be impacted by this policy decisions, including decisions on appointments, and that It's our obligation to listen to HSD employees, human service providers, and the clients of the department first and foremost.

So what I mean, and I opened the meeting on that note saying that if we hear overwhelmingly that people want an alternative in terms of conducting a search and who should be included in that search, then that's the way we will go.

Or else, if we overwhelmingly hear that people are satisfied with what's happening here, then we will go forward with the appointment.

That's how I presented it.

What happened at that meeting was, of course, And I hope that council members have watched that testimony from that meeting.

What happened was that speaker after speaker asked the council to send the nomination back to the mayor's office to conduct an inclusive director search.

HSD employees, I believe it was 34 out of 35 people who spoke, who spoke along those lines.

One person was satisfied with the nomination that the mayor's office had presented.

And we had over 100 people attending that meeting.

HSD employees also presented us with a petition signed by 130 employees of the Human Services Department.

I won't repeat all the powerful testimony now.

There are many people here who can speak again for themselves, both in public testimony and, I mean, in the public comment period and also at the table.

As a result of that testimony, as I had committed to before the meeting started that night, I committed to introduce a resolution outlining steps for the mayor to genuinely involve community members in this decision.

With the help of Jeff Sims from Council Central Staff, my office put together a draft resolution that was refined with the input of some HSD workers and their union.

So today, we are in another subsequent committee meeting discussing that resolution.

But the question for the members of the public is still the same.

How can the council represent you best in this appointment that we know, regardless of who's appointed, is going to have a great impact on your lives?

And how can we show that commitment?

So I urge as many of you as you, you know, like you can sign up for public comment.

There's a sign-up sheet.

If you haven't signed up already, you are free to sign up.

This is the law in the city.

You can speak.

And then after public comment, we will assemble the people who have agreed to be at the table, and then we'll have contributions from them, and then, of course, we're happy for a discussion to happen at the table.

Hopefully that's all clear to everyone.

So, Ted, do you want to read out the names?

Sure.

First three speakers, David Haines, Alex Zimmerman, Ralph Nicholson.

And everybody has two minutes each, so please try to stick to time so that we can do everything in a timely manner.

And also, I just want to let everyone know that there is free childcare on this floor.

And if you need childcare for your children, just let my staff know and we'll take care of it.

This city council, my name is David Ains.

We need a second amendment to once and for all hold the entire social welfare industry of government and non-government employees accountable.

What about the homeless voices that never have been heard from over the last 20 years about inept, unqualified, self-appointed, politically connected non-profits hustling the federal grant book while buying off politicians with taxpayer money and paying organizers, operators, excuse me, Operatives and race-baiting activists who conduct a charade of grassroots support for the very city council, who refuses to keep them accountable in a trade of taxpayer money for political support, deceiving district voting constituents as if something is being done.

Yet all this for one person's job is another deceptive guarantee that the corrupt social welfare industry is getting off the hook.

while conspiring to have another corrupt government official put in position to guarantee that they can get a salary raise at the next budget cycle, acting like they need more money to actually solve the homeless emergency crisis, while the whole time oppressing the poor, keeping them desperate so there is always a demand for more money with the same unaccountable $90 million government and non-government contractors.

Sharon Lee of Low Income Housing, squandered over $350 million while demanding a replacement for all of her rundown slums because she skims too much and doesn't know or won't build proper homes.

Allhome.com, who thought they could change their name from the King County Committee on Homelessness and never be held accountable.

All Home does not offer any homeless services or housing at all.

If you're homeless in Seattle and you seek help from All Home, they only have a contact number.

We need a second amendment to ensure that those paid to decide the fate of another life is trustworthy and not dishonest, sloth, racist, or scorned with horrible experiences that make them a threat.

We need a second amendment to hold the government and non-government accountable for their egregious failures and ongoing rights violating subhuman mistreatment of service and housing provided by corrupt, unqualified criminals in social welfare who paid people to be here and lie about more racism, to trick and intimidate without any accountability for their failures in community, problem-solving other than their own personal lifestyle, financed by taxpayers that are expensive, forsaken homeless.

Alex Emmerman, followed by Ralph Nicholson, followed by Alex Fincy.

Thank you.

Hi, my...

Fuhrer, a Nazi garbage rat, a pure anti-Semite, crook, criminal, and killer.

My name is Alex Zimmerman.

Today, I'm supposed to be appointing a director.

So, for my understanding, Mayor Durkan when come talk about change status quo and I spoke, I see many director because I come to her every day.

It's nothing changed, nothing will be changed.

So for many years, hundred times I told you, it's only one way what is we can make these people be responsible for this group who work for you and for government is to make every month Q&A.

from every director, from every council.

By definition, this council is a pure crook.

I never see this nice crook.

You know what I mean?

What is half Q&A every month?

And I'm talking about this.

I'm talking about open Bertha room in City Hall down every week for free conversation.

for candidate forum so we can speak without limitation.

In this situation, when every month crook like you, director, or Durkan, who for one half year never have one Q&A, will be asked to ask question, maybe will be changed.

Guys, it's a simple political prostitution mentality what is you have here.

It's nothing surprise me.

So far, out, five to go.

And I spoke right now to everybody, to 700,000 emerald degenerate freaking ship who live in the city.

We need to clean this chamber totally.

They're supposed to be responsible for us every week, like all business is doing, every week Q&A, every week responsibility, only after this, when every bosses talk to people every week, Every month, like a post to be with Q&A, maybe we can bring Seattle back to America.

It's exactly what is happening right now.

Stand up, America!

Clean this dirty chamber!

Ralph Nicholson, followed by Alex Fincy, followed by Camille Monson Richards.

I'm aware that what I have to say over the next few minutes, many of you will find incendiary.

With that said, I want you to know that I understand the gravity I now accuse Jason Johnson of malfeasance and or incompetence or for that matter both.

The blatant disregard of a section of the project services agreement signed by Mr. Johnson states the agency shall maintain client grievance procedures which include how participants will be informed of their rights to resolve grievances.

The agency shall maintain documentation of all grievances filed against the program, including the outcome of the grievance and date of resolution.

Jason Johnson was fully apprised of a situation where a vulnerable woman living at Licton Springs Tiny House Village was sexually harassed by a case manager employed by Lehigh, who was tasked with placing this woman in permanent housing.

To everyone's shock, HSD sided with Lehigh in deciding that Cher was interfering with the case manager's efforts.

However, in an email sent by Councilwoman Lisa Urboldt to Sharon Lee, Lehigh's executive director, Ms. Urboldt stated, in one case you explained how Sher was interfering with case manager's presence at Licton Springs, but you didn't once mention that there was a sexual assault complaint against Richard Horn, the case manager in question.

Jason Johnson's solution to this insidious incident was to turn a blind eye when this man was simply transferred to Camp Second Chance.

Nothing was done by HSD.

If a city councilwoman knows of this gross injustice, then Jason Johnson can plead ignorance all he wants, but the reality is that this happened on his watch.

If this shameful disregard of the sexual assault of a homeless woman doesn't convince you that Jason Johnson is unqualified to be the Director of Human Services, maybe this will.

In another section of the Project Services Agreement, it states that there will be a commitment to neighborhood health and safety standards.

I realize my time is up.

I'd like to concede my time to him if that's possible.

All right.

After an incident was shared, the city authorized operating partner of Lehigh 10th City 5 held the camp leaders accountable for not reporting a very drunk man terrorizing the Magnolia neighborhood as well as the camp.

Ms. Lee, with HSD support, overturned the bars that were issued for failure to protect the neighborhood and the residents of the camp.

Because of HSD's support of Lehigh in this matter, and because Lehigh held the purse strings for this camp, with profound reluctance, Scherr was forced to cede day-to-day operations to Lehigh.

Subsequently, Mr. Johnson ignored Scherr's plea for remedy, and more importantly, blatantly ignored the Magnolia Community and Ecumenical Advisors Group letters of concern about their safety.

In the same email that Councilwoman Erbold sent to Ms. Lee, she stated, you didn't mention that this individual had a loaded gun.

I can only surmise that the section in the project services agreement that says good neighbor plans will include a process for communicating with neighboring businesses and residents policies procedures to address neighborhood concern is meaningless to Jason.

Under Jason Johnson's leadership, HSD has demonstrated that only the HMIS numbers are of import, not the safety and security of the city and the homeless population.

Moreover, what I am concerned about is the perpetuation of half-truths that HSD under Jason Johnson uses to show positive results.

In reality, these skewed metrics are a benefit to no one.

Instead, they produce untenable consequences above and beyond the wasted millions of dollars of taxpayers' money.

I have only scratched the surface and my time is up, but if you would like to discuss the state of homelessness in this city, with people who are on the ground rather than accepting the word of a man who is only concerned about contrived and meaningless numbers and to see the proof of what I have said, I'll be happy to give you my time and will provide you with copies of the supporting documents.

I implore you to block the hiring of Jason Johnson.

So that was both Ralph and Alex on the list, is that right?

Okay.

So next up is Camille, followed by Betty Patu, followed by Jim Fasas.

Do we have Camille here?

And also, just a suggestion, when Ted reads out the names in advance, please make sure you come up here so that we spend less time between the speakers.

Madam Chair, I'm going to forfeit my two minutes and allow Camille to speak on behalf of the board.

What's your name?

James A. Fossis.

I'm a board member with the Seattle Indian Center.

OK.

The position of the Human Services Director is very important for the nonprofits in this city.

Here is an example of the importance.

In 2012, Catherine Lester was Director of Human Services for the city.

That is when the city took control of the Seattle Indian Services Commission, our PDA, and appointed as its puppet, Fred Podesta, to chair the Seattle Indian Services Commission.

Fred Podesta was the director of finance for the city at that time.

All this was done with the help of Kenny Pittman, of Intergovernmental Relations, Tony Kilda of Seattle City Central Staff, and Tom Byers of the Cedar River Group and who is also a former Deputy Mayor.

During testimony, of the at the City Council.

Both Catherine Lester and Fred Podesta misrepresented the Seattle Indian Center's financial stake at the Leschi Center.

They failed to share that the SIC's initial $200,000 contribution to the building fund of the Leschi Center, as well as the $5.75 million that was paid from May of 1988 to June of 2013, over 25 years of occupancy.

And it was at this time that Both occupants of the Leschi Center would then own its share of the property for the American Indian and Alaska Native communities.

Catherine Lester's failure to provide the information had grave consequences for the Seattle Indian Center.

Due to the loss of that property, money or that building.

That was our forever home.

And because of the actions of Human Services Director Lester and Fred Podesta and Tom Byers and council members Nick Licata, Sally Bagshaw, Mike O'Brien, Bruce Harrell, And et al., the Seattle Indian Center was kicked out from its forever home in June of 2013 by the Seattle City Council and the Mayor's Office.

This illustrates the power and influence of the Director of the Human Services Department.

We don't want a repeat of Jacob Johnson's predecessor.

Was he groomed to destroy human service agencies that get in the way of Seattle, the city of Seattle's greed?

It is just untenable that this man do that because he is very dismissive when he deals with the community.

I know because I saw what he did here at the Seattle Indian Center just about a year ago.

This unacceptable scenario must be remedied by the mayor and the city council now, starting with reopening the position of human services director so that a more qualified individual or more qualified individuals may apply.

We want the new human services director to work with the Seattle Indian Center so that we can continue to provide services for the next 60 years for the people of Seattle, and not just American Indians and Alaska Natives, because we've been around for over 60 years, and we want to continue to do that, but you guys took away our building.

Thank you.

My name is Betty.

Sorry, before you go, Betty, can Ted read out some more names?

So after Betty will be Joe Young, followed by Anitra Freeman, followed by Bob Parcel.

Go ahead.

My name is Betty Patu.

I'm actually here to represent, say, on behalf of Seattle Indian Center.

I've actually volunteered at the Seattle Indian Center for many years and find to be a place where provides various services for many needy people in Seattle.

And a lot of times people go in that agency goes above and beyond.

And I really feel that the city or places that actually has power to provide opportunities should be given to agency that actually goes all the way out to serve to human kindness.

And we have too many homeless people already on the street and having agency like Seattle Indian Center to provide those services to help alleviate more people out in the streets really is something that the city should be able to help support.

So I'm here on behalf of the Seattle Indian Center and say that they've done great work.

I volunteer there for many years and really believe that if we have many agency that actually provides those opportunity for all the people that are either homeless or don't have any place to go.

I think that there is a city's responsibility to provide support to those agency so we can be able to continue to help those who are homeless and those who are the most neediest.

Thank you.

The farmer does not look to the locust to tend the fields.

any promissory contract where the personal professional demands that both parties strive to honor their commitments in a timely and equitable manner.

The repeated missed deadlines, mishandling of relevant reports and data, and the fumbled commitments pale in comparison to the inability of Jason Johnson's Human Service Department to acknowledge and validate the very demographic they serve.

Jason Johnson's apathy resonates, the people have spoken, the reports have spoken, short term rapid rehousing is only equitable for landlords.

Every behavior modification model supports that the catalyst for lasting change is propagated by self accountability, community, and stability.

Jason Johnson, HSD and the Mayor Durkin ignore this basic truth and continue to endorse the homeless industrial complex.

Treating houseless citizens of this city like a virus that must be contained and controlled.

Using services to indebt a vulnerable populace under direct rule is an abuse of power.

The mission of HSD can be.

to give the people the freedom and the resources to choose to be better within society.

We at Nicholsville already do what Jason Johnson can't, or his department.

We deliver lasting progress through a concise, democratic, self-managed model fortified with integrity, accountability, compassion, and dedication cultivated by those we have effectively worked to grow with for 20 years.

Progress without hypocrisy.

We encourage those negatively impacted by the perverse gentrification and the embezzlement of hopes and dreams to face your oppressors with courage and dignity.

To ask the city's mayor and her human service department, who continues to acknowledge and endorse a non-profit, low income housing institute, who is subversive and ineffective, and was cited by the University of Washington to have the highest eviction rate for any housing non-profit in this state.

Finally, I challenge the mayor, HSD, and the Chamber of Commerce to re-imagine, redirect, and revitalize the pursuit of happiness for houseless people and for homeowners alike.

Set a standard for this nation.

Thank you for sharpening our will.

Thank you for all the wet, cold, sleepless nights that have stripped us of frivolous desires and filled us with gratitude for what little we have.

Thank you for helping us evolve.

We will be better.

I have to follow that.

Good evening.

My name is Anitra Freeman.

Among other things, I am a part of Share Wheel and Women in Black.

I brought some material for you.

I brought nine copies just in case.

We have a vision of Seattle.

A Seattle that has a deep knowledge of local programs and realities on the ground.

That addresses homelessness as a structural, societal problem, not a pathology of individuals.

That treats homeless people and programs as partners.

That helps when asked and needed.

One of the best examples of cooperative work in Seattle was in 1998. Then Mayor Schell allocated $500,000 to bring all homeless women and children in off the streets by Christmas.

A room full of people, homeless women, service providers, and city officials came together to plan what to do with that money.

The result was like a stone soup.

Additional funding found to start critical new services, including a central one-stop location for finding shelter, the Women's Referral Center, with several agencies combining their efforts.

Last year, many programs besides Chair and Wheels were going to be defunded, including the Women's Referral Center.

WRC funding was restored after two HSD staff visited the center and saw what it actually does.

We have a vision of a human services department that visits the programs it serves before funding decisions are made and afterward.

We need a more collaborative process for selecting the director of the Human Services Department and a more collaborative process for the future work of the department.

We aren't the only ones saying this.

You have so many people saying the same thing.

You should be worried that so many people say you are falling so very short of what Seattle can be.

Please support the resolution.

After Bob Parcel comes Tara Buckner, followed by Patty Malone.

Good evening.

My name is Bob Purcell and I'm here tonight on behalf of SHARE, Seattle Housing Resource Authority, or ever.

Presently, I reside at SHARE Safe Haven Shelter on First Avenue in Belltown.

I'm starting our testimony, which will be completed by these speakers, to respect the time limit set down.

The text is from Scott Murrow and myself.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant, for your resolution calling for a fair, open, and community-based process to select the next Director of Seattle's Human Services Department.

I'm sure it supports your resolution.

We did suggest something similar back when the previous Director, Catherine Lester, was resigning for reasons that will be self-evident.

We think any fair and open process would have produced someone better for this sensitive job than the Mayor's President nominee, Mr. Jason Johnson.

Our dealings with him have been severely disappointing.

Beyond strong disagreements on how to solve homelessness, there are fundamental issues of respect and responsiveness.

We've repeatedly asked him to respond to difficult problems, and often he's ignored us and relatedly informed others of decisions that have harm's share in the homeless community.

An example of that would be his mishandling of Tent City 5 last spring.

When he was the division director for homeless services at HSD, Mr. Johnson made a point of ignoring our repeated calls and letters for necessary funding increases, registering shock when our shelters had to close due to the aforementioned lack of funding.

Rather than have the director meet with us, he ordered an out-of-sequence audit, which turned out nothing amiss, like the one the year before.

After months of pleading with city and county leaders, we were finally able to reopen the shelters after said funds were brokered by the county director of community services.

Yes, another year, Mr. Johnson was tasked to implement a city council budget green sheet to pay for share in Nickelville.

Trash and Honey Bucket Bill, he assured the Honey Bucket Company this would be done, but it was never fully implemented.

Mr. Johnson set standards for reimbursement that was assured.

Specifically, he claimed that HSD never allowed third party reimbursements.

On this occasion, share volunteers have been taking the trash to the dumps themselves.

It was much cheaper that way.

Mr. Johnson claimed that since the trash company didn't pick it up at the site directly, the city wouldn't reimburse share for the dump fee or mileage.

He weren't expecting a lot of things, but we didn't exactly expect that.

Two budget seasons ago, the Human Service Department embarked on a disastrous pathway home.

Rebidding of a city shelter contract, share along with many other providers, was cut in refusing to promise to meet placement goals that were laughably out of line with the actual physical availability space in which the presence of the poor would be tolerated, which could be why those goals weren't met by most of the agencies in question.

We then spent five months fighting to refunding alongside those other shelter providers, and we eventually were by special action of this council.

Now the city is expanding the number of shelter beds instead of reducing them.

In spite of this and in spite of the fact that share shelters are more cost effective, equally successful at moving people into housing, and now the shelters, Mr. Johnson's budget of last fall again recommended completely cutting shared indoor shelters after six months.

To reiterate the other shelter providers with higher overhead that were less affected by the metrics and data, Mr. Johnson's claims are so important were funded for 2019 while share was cut.

There is a discernible pattern here.

Share was retaliated against for speaking truth to power.

We did not set out to be confrontational, but we feel we must contest the widespread consumption that whoever has less money must be troublemakers.

In fact, we're generally the ones experiencing the trouble.

Mr. Johnson, for his part, certainly seems averse to having homeless people or their organizations disagreeing with him out loud.

His conduct is typical of human nature, which is often at odds with high free speech and democracy are supposed to work.

Democracy does not rain down from above, it erupts from below.

Now the City Auditor is reviewing the Human Resource Service Department records on several aspects of homeless Homeless services and sweeps.

They have found that many aspects of Seattle's homeless policies are infected and that allegedly crucial data is years behind in being complied.

These are some of the more obvious reasons why SHARE strongly recommends adoption of your proposed resolution.

Council Members Harrell and Giroir, we invite you to empower you to meet with us and to visit our shelters.

You will see that we are telling the truth and that we have things of value to impact.

We, your constituents, hope to meet with you and discuss these important matters further.

Thank you.

Was that Bob Purcell, Tara Buckner, and Patty Malone?

Then next up comes Patty Dawson, followed by Michael, I think, Mitch.

I can't read the end of that.

Followed by Eva Metz.

Please use their microphone.

That'll be easier.

Hello, I've got a little bit lengthened piece of what I'm saying right here.

I've got three, so I've got enough, I guess.

My name is Patricia Dawson, and I've worked for the City of Seattle Aging and Disabilities for 12 years.

There have been promotional hirings recently in ADS that have not seemed to have a standard process with no race and social justice lens, and with white males getting the position.

In one case, there were over 19 applicants, some of whom have more experience, seniority, and diversity.

There have been many other concerns about recent hirings.

As a white person, I and a group of white co-workers were approached by some colleagues of color and asked to stand up and speak out.

Later in a floor meeting meant to foster direct communication with Mr. Johnson, we asked him to hear our concerns.

He said no.

He said he believed in our direct managers who oversaw the process that he was current and that he did not want to hear from us.

Soon after this meeting, we learned that Mr. Johnson himself was not going to go through his own standard hiring process.

Staff worked with the union to express our concerns and 100 attended a meeting with the deputy mayor.

We expressed to him that this lack of an open and inclusive process is another reflection of the institutional racism that we have been experiencing.

In that meeting, Mr. Johnson was asked by a key member of the change team if he thought that he should go through a formal hiring process.

He said no.

He said that he was entitled to the position.

The Mayor, the Deputy Mayor, and Jason Johnson are all white people.

Is the Mayor's entitlement to make the appointment and Mr. Johnson's entitlement to accept it another reflection of institutional racism?

I believe it is.

Please vote for the resolution for an inclusive search.

So next up is the name that I had some trouble reading, Michael maybe Michiam or something.

Yeah, maybe.

Can you read out more names?

Followed by Eva Metz, followed by Kezia Howard.

Hello and good evening from Georgetown.

Organizations and any reliable democratic leadership expecting respect and forming partnerships towards progressive forward movement and pursuing goals to implement past promises, new ideas and agreements, suggestions, et cetera, can only be accomplished by setting proven examples of trackable instances of actions taken forth by its appointed heads of business.

At this point of establishing a trusted example of steadiness in words, meshing with positive, conclusive deeds by our mayor at this point, is surely lacking of any consistency.

A mayor, other than lackadaisically, oral mutterings, false appointments, promises, also far offers the needed meetings with our Georgetown camp.

Not what any would expect from a socially esteemed, more than soundly, widely heard leader of educated means, per se, who can be trusted to implant any satisfactory feelings of assurity or reliance that any further promises or views can be taken seriously, or perhaps more than temporarily.

Self-serving stances, almost as if spending time while being highly paid for results, closely resembles a multitude of lengthy, thought-out postponements till further wasteful excuses can come to play until resources meant to be helpful to homeless and otherwise designated individuals are either banished due to lengthy arguments of properly spread out use or sequestered for other unrelated city wishes or hidden agendas.

Now I've heard, I've met, I've had the honor of meeting a lot of highly educated people in this field and that since I've been there.

And people that really want to help themselves, I mean, they say one person can be one step away, one paycheck away from their homes.

If you want to help yourself, I know Georgetown, for one, is a place where that help can be found, all right?

And I've met, out of those minds that I've met, I've met a lot of people that if they had one iota of the power or the influence that the mayor has, would have had more intelligence than to slap the face, you know, just the audacity and the rudeness of fronting himself off by making so many promises that, Evidently, I just need to pay everybody for approval to accept.

Please wrap up.

Get back up.

After Eva Metz comes Kezia Howard, followed by Krista Sneller.

Hi, my name's Eva, and I'm a member of Socialist Alternative.

And I think it's very clear to everyone in this room that we have a major crisis of affordable housing and homelessness in Seattle, one of the highest rates of homelessness per capita in the entire country.

And it was over three years ago that the mayor declared a state of emergency over our homeless crisis.

But since then, what has happened?

The political establishment has completely failed to address this crisis.

They've voted against the funding that's needed for affordable housing and homeless services.

It was just last year that every city council member, except for council member Shama Sawant and Teresa Mosqueda, voted to repeal the Amazon tax, which would have been a major step forward to fund affordable housing and address the homeless crisis in the city.

And I think it's essential that we consider this context in the HSD appointment.

And that's why the mayor's process of trying to ram through this appointment is just so unacceptable and we really need to listen.

I've heard from many people tonight talking about the need for a more inclusive process.

People have come forward demanding this.

With the failure of the establishment to address this homeless crisis that's forced the HSD department and the city employees to fill the gap and provide these vital social services.

And we really need a fair and inclusive process.

Heard from many people talking about why it's so important to engage the community, have a lens of social and racial justice in this process.

And that's why I support the resolution put forward by Council Member Shama Sawant.

Thank you.

Good evening and thank you for inviting us to speak tonight.

My name is Kezia Howard and I'm a case manager for the City of Seattle Human Services Department.

I'm here to request for the council to return the nomination for the HSD director back to the mayor.

and to begin an inclusive and transparent interview process.

I admire that the city has made a commitment to the race and social justice initiative, but so far it seems to me that this pledge is at a surface level and the principles are not upheld when it really matters.

I think this appointment process or lack of process has made that very clear.

I understand that the mayor has the power to make appointments, but I believe it is time to hand the power back to the community because they will be the ones that are truly impacted by this position.

It does not make sense to me that there are competitive processes for some directors of the city, but not others, and I believe we should stop appointments altogether.

The act of appointing an individual without an inclusive process will always benefit white people and uphold a culture of white supremacy due to the bias and systemic injustices that have continued to benefit white people over people of color.

It is imperative that we are intentional with how we use our power as government employees.

I am hoping the council will recommend a transparent and competitive search process that includes voices of community and staff to find a new HSD director.

Thank you.

There's I think six more people that will speak and then after that we'll go to the So I really appreciate everyone's patience who's here for that part of the meeting, and please wait if you can.

After Krista comes Andrew Millspaugh, followed by Amanda Lyle, followed by P.J.

D'Amico.

Thank you.

My name is Krista Sneller.

I am an employee of the Human Services Department and a member of the Protech 17 union and the HSD change team.

I also urge you to take up the resolution to send back this nomination.

Following and working with the community stakeholders is all part of actually what the mayor has said that she wants.

She sent an email on January 29, and in her values, she stated that racial justice, racial equity and social justice, including when creating policies, making decisions, inclusion that takes place to include people who will be impacted by our work, learning from each other, accountability to each other, and stewardship.

This includes promoting inclusive and collaborative practices.

I understand that I have had the privilege of ignorance in looking at how other processes have happened in the past.

Sometimes we do take up a bigger piece, and sometimes, like this one for Jason Johnson, you just get appointed.

I think we need to recognize when we do see systemic racism.

It's not something that's new.

And that's why we need to be looking at the decisions that are being made and not leaving behind stakeholders and community members.

If we're not learning from what we've done in the past, we're not being accountable and inclusive.

An inclusive and transparent hiring practice is crucial for the work that we do in serving our community.

Please vote for this resolution to send back the nomination so that we can create an open, inclusive, transparent hiring practice that can take place to work against the systems of oppression.

Thank you.

So I haven't prepared a speech and actually this is my first time speaking in front of the city council.

So I'd like to ask a little grace here.

I also want to start by thanking those of you that are present and also the amazing people who have spoken tonight.

So I'm not sure that I have a lot more that I can put on top of that other than I work for HSD as a case manager in the aging and disability services.

department, and I wanted to highlight some things that were brought forth by the mayor's letter that concern me in response to your resolution.

Specifically, she states that Jason has been vetted by a 10-month process, you know, when he has been the interim director, and she also kind of puts in here that his Devotion to RSGI work comes from his being a member of the LGBT community.

I identify as gay and I'm also a person of color working at HSD and I can tell you that those two things can't be conflated.

Race and sexuality are different.

I think the subtext of her statement was basically that She thinks that he has a perspective that is the same as somebody who might be African American because he is queer, and those two things can't be conflated.

Additionally, I think that she might put forth that he could be persecuted because he is LGBT, and that is definitely not the case from my experience working at HSD.

His qualifications as a candidate for human services department director need to come directly from his experience and no other place.

Additionally, she states that in her letter, while she has had open process for other, say, departments like the Seattle Police Department, that it is within her purview, per her choice, to appoint who she likes.

And I just want to remind everybody here that she works for the people.

I work for the people.

I don't work for her.

Hi, I'm Amanda Lyle.

I'm in from Denver to speak on behalf of Nicholsville tonight.

I'm on the board of directors of the Colorado Village Collaborative, and we have Denver's first and only tiny house village for the homeless right now.

Ours will be two years old in July, so we're babies compared to Nicholsville.

Having been here and seen firsthand all four of Nicholsville's major tiny houses, I know that stripping these incredible leaders of their ability to run their own camps would be a grave mistake.

I don't think you realize just how invaluable these amazing people are.

Having met and spent time with many Nickelodeons new and old, I can say with confidence that their internal leaders save lives daily.

Their expertise and compassion cannot be bought, nor can it be taught.

In Denver, we look up to the Nickelodeons.

Love you guys.

To cut them out of their own life-saving operation is to murder it.

If you do this, you will fail.

You will fail the organization, the movement, and most of all, the countless people who rely on this to work.

I implore you to reconsider this abhorrable takeover.

Self-management is paramount.

We have learned this the hard way in Denver.

It's important.

They need this.

Taking their control takes their dignity.

And regardless of the money-making data you'll be able to force, you will fail.

You will fail yourselves, but worse, you will fail the beautiful people of your beautiful city.

Please, please hear this.

Thank you for your time.

The last two speakers are PJ D'Amico and Glenn Williamson.

So my dear fellow socialist city councilwoman, I have traveled far to see you.

I am from the city of Denver, where we thought we wanted to be like you till this week.

Homeless people are not a problem.

The problem is the problem.

And you are making a mistake by associating social workers and data counters as means to commodify people into chattel.

We don't need your social workers, we need you to take your boots off our necks.

I want to point out a pattern.

The Seattle Indian Center in the room tonight had their sovereignty stripped from white by white people, sent them into camps.

Four blocks away, Japanese people were sent into internment camps to be counted.

I am here to tell you I am not chattel.

I have been sleeping on the streets of Denver by choice.

I will be in Kenya in a week where people in Kenya, in the largest slum in the world, treat their human beings better than the way we're being treated here.

Ms. Sharon Lee makes 20 times more than the next highest paid person in this network.

That is a major problem.

I want you to know one more thing.

I promise you this, because we were bringing the mayor of Denver to your city, probably not anymore, but the world is watching, and you can count on me and a cadre of leaders from around the country to be on your streets, filling up your jails in the next month.

Count on it.

Thank you for your time.

I think everybody has spoke very well on anything that I would touch on.

There's an interesting dichotomy in this city.

I've been here for about six months.

I'm living at 10 city 3 the entire time, which is part of their share will program system.

There's an interesting dichotomy.

The rest of the country, or at least the Midwest where I'm from, view Seattle as a very forward thinking, very maybe left wing if you will forward-thinking City and a gate here and And and your presence on the council would would lend it's you know to that idea But then take a walk down third Ave on a Friday night And it's a different story.

I've never seen that many people literally in doorways and stuff like that.

So I would just implore you to just keep doing what you're doing as far as eliminating that dichotomy and moving forward in a forward thinking way.

We're going to have to.

I think this appointment is clearly indicative of not only privilege, but borderline oligarchy.

And another one of those examples is how clearly defined the 1% is here in Seattle.

I think that if people got their heads together, it would be a easily solvable problem.

If all we really need to do is throw money at it, then that's up for debate.

But thank you for your time, and I appreciate it.

Okay, so we're done with public comment.

Will the people who are going to join us for the presentation here please come up here and take a seat here and Actually, if the three of you don't mind, can you go on the other side so you're not, yeah, we're staff here, so we'll sit here.

You can take that chair.

Take that chair also.

I'm just trying to minimize the number of people who are...

Can we start with just one sentence introductions around the table just for the record and then we'll start.

Ted Rodone, SAMHSA.

Jeff Sims, Council of Central Staff.

Camille Monson Richards, Executive Director, Seattle Indian Center.

Betty Patu, Seattle Indian Center Board Director.

James A. Faustus, Board Member, Seattle Indian Center.

Steve Daschle, Executive Director of Southwest Youth and Family Services and Co-Chair of the Seattle Human Services Coalition.

Shawn Smith, Nicholsville Othello Village, and I'm also a share board member.

Tia Jones, I am with the Silence Breakers and also on the Mayor's Anti-Harassment Discrimination Task Force team.

Leslie Bowling, Human Services Department employee.

Hi, good evening.

Erin Bryant, Human Services Department employee and Change Team co-lead.

Fantastic.

And I know many of you have some short prepared testimonies and then hopefully we can have a discussion.

Council President Harrell, feel free to ask questions and all that.

But I was wondering if we could start with a quick summary.

Jeff, could you give us a quick summary of what the resolution does?

Everybody's been talking about the resolution.

Let's have a bit of understanding of what the resolution would do if passed?

Sure.

Briefly, it resolves to not take action on the nomination as it currently has been presented, and then also outlines some expectations that council members would have for how to proceed with the search committee in a full search process in order to resubmit a nomination.

And can you go over some of the, what you just talked about, what are the criteria that the resolution lays out for how the search process should go, how the committee should be composed and so on.

And it's including a range of representatives of nonprofit human services providers, individuals who have or are experiencing homelessness, and other clients of the Human Services Department, employees in the Human Services Department, representatives from Protech 17, and the Human Services Department Change Team and Caucuses.

So there'll be a representative group participating in the search process.

And then looking to identified the qualifications, skills, attributes, things like that for the director and also bringing forth recommendations for nominees based on their expertise in serving low-income populations and populations that have experienced homelessness, addressing institutional discrimination, incorporating the principles of the city's RSJI initiatives, managing a large institution, and promoting continuous improvement in a department.

Thank you, Jeff.

The floor is yours, so whoever wants to start, I'm OK with any order.

I could go.

So the Seattle Human Services Coalition members help Seattle residents reach their full potential by running hundreds of agencies and programs throughout Seattle that provide shelter, food, health care, services for people with disabilities, We do this with funding partners like United Way, Seattle Foundation, and public partners like King County, the federal government, and the city of Seattle, as well as private donors.

In January 15th, 2019, a letter from SHSC to city council members regarding the mayor's nomination of a candidate for Director of the City's Human Services Department, we let you know that the Seattle Human Services Coalition is concerned that although the Director of the Seattle Human Services Department is a critical high-impact role, there is no public process at all in the selection of the candidate proposed by Mayor Jenny Durkan.

Consequently, the Seattle Human Services Coalition urges the City Council to return the nomination to Mayor Durkan and request a full search process that includes integral participation of human services providers, program participants, HSD employees, and other public partners.

We request that such a process provide answers to questions regarding what qualifications, skills, and attributes the mayor is looking for in a director and what the mayor believes needs to change in the functioning of the human services department.

It is essential that the search process also provides opportunities for human services providers, program participants, HSD employees, and other public partners to provide answers to those questions as well as candidates for the position to answer those questions.

about the qualifications and the skills they would bring in order to meet these expectations and how they would accomplish the desired changes.

The person in this role has the opportunity to have an impact on the lives of all Seattle residents all along the income spectrum and from all races and backgrounds.

This person is charged with leading city efforts to make changes so that all of us together can move Seattle toward becoming a more just and thriving community.

Our city deserves a more in-depth, inclusive process in determining who will shoulder these responsibilities on our behalf and how they will do that.

So, thank you.

Do you know off the top of your head how many human service providers are part of the Seattle Human Services Coalition?

Yeah, we have about 180 members.

180 member organizations.

Member organizations.

We're a coalition of coalitions, so of the coalitions that participate in the Human Services Coalition, 180 have paid dues to our organization.

That's a good question.

Steve, is that the position of the Most of those organizations, I mean, was there a process and they said, yeah, let's send it out or was that sort of the leadership of the coalition?

It was discussed at a steering committee meeting and we came up with this letter in response to what we discussed at the steering committee.

And the steering committee is made up of representatives from each of the coalitions.

So, the steering committee is 5, 10, 20, 30 people?

Can you talk a little bit about that?

Typically, we have about 15 people at one of our meetings.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Representing various coalitions.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, James A. Fossis again.

Seattle Indian Center Board, we haven't met, but I think I can speak for them.

I think we are in concurrence with what Steve has presented and feel that's a fair way of selecting a director, a very, very important position in city government.

Catherine Lester, and Mr. Johnson have both let the Seattle Indian Center down in many ways.

Our journey started back in January, I mean, back in 19, or excuse me, 2013, when we were kicked out of our home and we got no support from the Director of Human Services.

I feel there was an attempt, a very strong attempt, that the city tried to collude with agents of private business to steal our home and $6 million from the Indian Center.

In my opinion, the corrupt dealings with the commission, the Seattle Indian Center Commission, It's well documented, and they didn't follow the rules that you have provided in ordinance in how to manage that particular group, in my opinion.

And because of the actions of the city, and remember, I was a Seattle firefighter for 31 years, and I wore that on my shoulder proudly.

and have a proud heritage belief that...

Chief Seattle was a an outstanding warrior, and that's why he sits up there He would he would be ashamed of what's gone on and how the Seattle Indian Center has been treated in the homeless of all colors and Greeds have been treated and it's terrible as deplorable and because of the actions I Our clients and our staff have been living in deplorable conditions.

If you haven't, and a lot of the city council members have not come down to our center.

One that did is gone now and was supposed to have supported us, but then he turned his back on us, as well as his aide, who is now a city council person, and made a bunch of promises that they didn't keep.

the Seattle City Council.

Sorry, I don't mean to interrupt you, but just in the interest of the topic we're discussing, if the Seattle Indian Center could say more about why the Seattle Indian Center feels that this resolution is important.

I mean, I don't know that we will be able to resolve all the back history, you know what I'm saying?

Because most of us don't know about it.

But in terms of making sense for people, like why the Seattle Indian Center has this, supports the resolution, maybe we could clarify that.

And also keeping in mind that there are several people to follow.

Sure.

I'll be brief, if I can.

We're on the verge of, if you were a private company, on bankruptcy.

We depend on the services of the city of Seattle for our existence and they've been a total failure You know when mr. Harrell was trying to help us through this process You know we started out with two million We were asking for two million dollars to to get us a new home, and we didn't get it so we're telling what we're trying to tell you is that if you don't act soon and and we go under, that's going to mean a lot of human beings are going to be on the street to add to your human problem with where they're going to stay and how they're going to live.

That's unacceptable.

Thank you.

Just before the next speaker goes, I just want to acknowledge Council Member Herbold has joined us.

Thank you.

The other speakers from the Seattle Indian Centers want to speak?

Or should we go?

Did you want to do the other people first?

Yeah, that's because we're far from here.

Okay, thank you to everyone, city council members, for giving us this opportunity to speak.

In my introduction, I said that I am the change team co-lead, and I just want to give a little bit of context for those that don't know what a change team is.

The city of Seattle has a race and social justice initiative that was really birthed out of the human services department over 20 years ago with the work around undoing racism.

And so we have this race and social justice initiative and within almost every department of the city is a change team.

And so change team consists of city employees who want to take time to look at many of the practices, policies, our principles, things that, the way that we make decisions.

We really take time to analyze the way we operate and the way that we conduct ourselves as city employees.

And so I just wanted to give a little bit of that context, who we are as a change team.

We are change agents.

We try to operate in a principled manner, and some of the principles are understanding that race and racism still exist, understanding and respecting history, celebrating our different cultures, and one thing that one of the members always says, Crystal Duke, is you bring who you are to what you do, so making space for people to be able to bring who they are to this work and folks not feeling like they have to turn off who they are when it comes to working for city government.

And so that's just in a nutshell some of the things that we do as a change team.

We also identify opportunities to address institutionalized racist practices within the Human Services Department and within the city through our programs and our policies.

As shared from many people in this space tonight, we are funders within the Human Services Department over, I would say, millions of dollars.

We fund organizations to provide services to the community, and more than just homelessness.

We provide services around childcare nutrition, summer youth employment, upward-bound employment opportunities, I'm in the domestic violence and sexual assault human trafficking unit.

And so advocacy services, legal services, community mobilization, and we provide an array of services within human service department.

And so I didn't want that to be missed.

I really wanted to lift that up and highlight that.

Even aging, and you heard many folks from the aging and disability services.

Division speak tonight.

So they provide case management services to our elderly and disabled community members.

And so just wanted to lift that up.

I think it's critical for us to be at this table having this conversation.

And I really wanna encourage folks to understand we are doing our job and we're in a very tricky place as city employees.

But we've been tasked, to do this very job, which is asking for a transparent and inclusive process.

So I'll probably say a little more once I give others an opportunity.

Thank you.

Thanks, Erin.

When I offered my introduction, one of the key pieces I forgot to mention is that I am a change team member for the Human Services Department.

And as Erin mentioned, the Human Services Department change team is asking for a transparent and inclusive process for the Human Services Department director.

I do an environmental scan or do some context setting with regard to where the ask comes from.

And in November of 2017, when Mayor Durkan came into office, she issued an executive order affirming the city of Seattle's commitment to race and social justice.

In January of 2018, city employees, all, I want to say roughly 13,000 of us, participated in a new performance management system where there were competencies that really discuss how we do our work.

And those competencies included equity and inclusion, accountability and action, communication, service, and teamwork.

In January of this year, the mayor's office sent out an email to the entire employee staff informing us of workplace expectations, and those included racial equity and social justice, learning, inclusion, stewardship, and accountability.

In addition to all of that, the employees of the Human Services Department also have workplace expectations.

Those include ethics and integrity, collaboration, critical thinking and leadership, interpersonal abilities, having a customer focus, using cultural competency, and exercising adaptability and flexibility.

That's the context with which the change team is asking for an open and transparent process.

I've made observations on how a lack of a transparent process is harmful and how a transparent process is helpful.

Without a transparent process, I see city officials and employees perpetuating white supremacy by focusing on individual and individual acts.

I see how communities of color are being pitted against each other.

I see city officials and city employees not living or acting in accordance to our proposed values.

If we have a transparent, open, and inclusive process, I see how city officials and employees have the opportunity to practice through our action what our written commitment is to racial and social justice.

I see how this body, city council, and the mayor's office can work to develop legislation that addresses structural racism through the use of appointments.

Members of this very body exercised this in changing the city charter after having an open, transparent process when there was a council member needed to step up in the fall of 2017. I also see how there's an opportunity to strengthen relationship and stewardship by having transparent governance.

Thank you for the opportunity to be at this table.

I also want to acknowledge and thank everyone who has come here to speak out tonight.

Thank you and hopefully we can move forward in this discussion.

Hi, again, I'm Tia Jones with the Silence Breakers, and just echoing off of what you had just said, it's very powerful to see so many people show up in a room on the same mission, right?

I definitely, as we do, as Silence Breakers, definitely support this proposal for salons with Resolution 31862.

I think...

Sorry, sorry.

I'm really sorry to interrupt you, but before you talk about why the silence breakers support the resolution, can you please give everybody in the public a little bit of a description of who the silence breakers are, how you got formed, and what work you do?

Absolutely.

So, the silence breakers came out of some employees fighting racial, social, and discrimination and harassment within the workplace.

We've kind of made the paper with Seattle City Light at the end of, I think it was the beginning of 2017. There were allegations that came out throughout that department highlighting a lot of sexual harassment and discrimination that was taking place.

And we banded together as a strong body of people and workers.

to bring our voices to the table and to be heard.

And so through that, you've probably either seen us in passing, you've probably seen me in passing.

We have had some conversations before with some council members, and I was one of the lucky ones, or I was honored to be the voice of the group when we decided to get into the anti-harassment discrimination work Council Member Mosqueda and Mayor Durkin to try to change the culture within the city of Seattle and make some lasting impacts.

So that's the silence breakers and my journey to this table.

So we definitely support this resolution.

And I think as I sat here and I listened to everybody courageously get up there and speak your truths, I heard an underlining senses of a lack of humanity.

That's the importance of when you give someone who feels that they're entitled a position that obviously the people don't want them in.

It's enough to say that 100 pennies equal a dollar, but how many complaints do you need to hear for people to seem valued?

if you continue to put people in their place that stifle or oppress their ability to do their job, we therefore impact our community.

And it goes without saying that there's so many people in this room that are hurt today, and it's so apparent because we're sitting here talking about a combination of issues that all connect, and they all are connected by people.

And we're having a conversation about one man, right?

One man that's supposed to represent thousands, if not millions, and can impact him with his job, with his decision-making.

I think it's very important that we recognize that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

And that's MLK, if nobody remembers.

point, I think the value should still be that this is a due process.

This is not due process.

You have so many people that it sounds like could step in and fill this role, voluntary or not.

that has more passion and has more connection to the human spirit and being a human person than the person you, not you, but the mayor, has decided to overgo and put forth in this position.

And I will tell you, being a part of the IDT, I'm ashamed.

Because I don't know how I'm going to speak to my constituents and my fellow peers saying, oh, we were fighting for your rights, but guess what?

Not in this case.

That's not inclusivity at all.

And that's not a respect to humanity in any regard.

That's a good question.

Thanks for sharing.

One of the challenges I have with this conversation, I know people are speaking from the heart and I believe that what they're saying is truthful.

There's no question of intent here.

I do have a challenge when I'm talking about either a person or a process and there's no one on the other side of the issue.

and those that either made the decision to put forth Mr. Johnson's resume, those that played any role in that process, including the mayor or the mayor, deputy mayors, whoever else was involved in that process, to, again, to have that side of the argument made.

My concern in talking to some members of the race and social justice change team, the change agents, that had that kind of analysis taken place, what are the issues that surface?

What would have the issues have been?

I mean, just sort of cut to the chase.

I have no interest or appetite to support a person that is against what I believe in personally.

And I just, before I make rational decisions or even support this resolution or oppose it, I just like getting all my facts together.

And so what I've, been trying to do, and I'll continue to try to do in the next week or two or three, however long it takes, to continue to have these conversations with everyone in the room.

That just allows me to be, I think, better informed and to make sure that wherever I stand on an issue is not just based strictly on emotion, but on some level of the due process you spoke about.

Just to clarify on one of the questions you asked, President Harrell, we have repeatedly urged the mayor's office to have representatives at our meetings, including this one.

I specifically asked for one of the deputy mayors to be at the table.

They have declined it.

I mean, it's unfortunate that they have chosen to do that.

We would be happy for them, if they're watching this meeting and they want to join us, we would be happy to have them here.

But short of that, it's really their decision.

What I would suggest is that, We can have it openly and with the cameras rolling on channel 21, and we can also try to develop relationships with the department to have some working relationships and with the human service providers.

I'm not trying to solve all this in one day, but at the end of the day, I think we're trying to get to the same place.

I think everyone's trying to get to the same place, which is not only a great process, but a great leader.

And I've been very silent on listening to the Indian centers concerns.

I think they're very well placed.

As you well know, I've tried to do my best in trying to help you over the years.

I don't think this is the appropriate forum to hear about the center's concerns per se, but it is appropriate, I think, to hear about the center's concerns as it relates to this process.

Because I think some of your facts were a little different than my version of the facts.

In fact, one of the companies you, I think that the organization you're talking to is the Indian Health Board.

I think when you said there was a private entity that was favored, I think, but I wasn't sure.

I didn't want to have that dialogue, but I'm just hoping that we can segregate the center's concerns, which again are well placed, with this process.

Because then I have to talk to I don't know how many hundreds of providers about their concerns.

And so I thought what we're really looking at is the process.

that resulted in Mr. Johnson being the department head.

So I just think this is right for the nomination.

And I do, just on that, I also, I do agree that if possible, if we can find, yeah, if we can find a way for the representatives from the Seattle Indian Center to maybe focus their comments tonight on how, I mean, what your thoughts are on the resolution and the nomination of the director itself.

And there are larger issues that you're bringing forward.

I do agree with President Harrell that maybe we should have another discussion about, separate discussion about that.

And actually, my staff and I, we were just talking about that we should do it, we should schedule another committee hearing on just on that topic separately.

from anything to do with the director appointment and we do have a meeting scheduled tentatively for February 26. We could do it then too, but let's have that discussion offline in terms of when to schedule that and if you could try and direct your comments towards this particular nomination.

Council members Sawant and council member Harrell.

I will say this, that we have worked very hard in this city.

We've been here for over 60 years.

And the way we were treated was really bad.

And a lot of that is because of the city council and the mayor.

And I'm not going to shut up.

I'm not asking you to.

Let me finish.

Mr. Harrell, you were talking about, what was that now?

You know you said that what we're doing is The facts were wrong, that's not what I said, but go ahead You were saying that?

Was the director of human services at that time and I said it's because of her that and Fred Podesta, the puppet, that this all came about.

Yeah, we were $150,000 in the rear, but you guys kept $5.8 million of our money for over 25 years that we shelled out.

That was our PDA.

You want to go on from that, that's fine.

We've had it with them.

I'm not going to shut up anymore, because I've shut up ever since Nicola Cotta and all the other groups were here.

You were the aid.

There were promises made that were never kept.

You promised to find us a home.

So we went up and we went up to the 23rd.

Yes, sir.

Let's take this time to talk about that issue.

That's fine with me.

I'll stay here all night.

No, I don't want to talk about it.

We could talk about the issue.

No, if the chair wants to table this, that's fine.

Because again, what I said was your facts that you're alleging are a little inconsistent with some of the things that I recall.

We don't want to take away from the homeless issue.

That's the $200,000 investment.

You're part of it.

You know that.

So your opponent in this was the Indian Health Board, right?

It was the Indian Health Board, correct?

Safe Haven.

No.

Safe Haven.

Please, let me finish.

Safe Haven.

The Indian Health Board bought the building that did not allow you to stay inside the tennis court.

The Seattle Indian Center housed Safe Haven for two years.

We didn't get any money, none.

The city didn't help them.

They came to us at that time when we were at the Leschi Center.

Scott was there and all the people.

We had about 50 people a night just from Safe Haven doing the city's job for nothing.

I, as the chair of the committee, may I say that clearly there are serious issues to discuss in relation to the history of what happened with Seattle Indian Center.

I'm in no way suggesting that we not talk about it.

All I'm saying is can we have another committee meeting separately just on that issue?

at a near future date and just because everybody's here to talk about the question of how the next director of the Human Services Department should be appointed, can we?

He was under the tutelage of Catherine Lester.

I'll point back to that.

Okay.

And he's playing the same game she did.

I don't care.

Ms. Betty Bedoo, did you want to?

Well, I actually wanted to say that, you know, getting back to what's happening, it's really important that we find a director of human services that actually cares for everyone and not pick and choose who they want and who is it that they support.

Because the work that they do, that, for instance, the Seattle Indian Center does and many of the other nonprofit organizations, very important.

Because if they weren't there, a lot of people would be on the streets.

And what they do is to provide services for many needy people.

And we all know that the homeless in Seattle is getting higher and higher.

And unless we support our agency, just like the Seattle Indian Center, to help be able to alleviate some of those problems that we're having in terms of homelessness in Seattle, it's going to get worse.

And I say that because I've actually been there volunteering, you know, I've been around for a long time and realized that just one agency is not going to make it.

We need to provide opportunities to all the agency that actually that helps people to get back on their feet and be able to provide them opportunity to be decent people again because it just cannot happen.

Our homeless is getting worse.

And we as providers or agency that actually are there to try to make things happen, we can't do it by ourself unless we work together as a team.

And I really believe that that's the city's responsibility to be able to help support the nonprofit agency that actually are trying to alleviate the problem because the problem gets worse instead of better.

And- Yeah, and our concern is that this man has been under the tutelage of his predecessor.

And it's going to be just MOS.

And I don't want that.

So just so I understand, the next steps on the Indian Center's concern, primary concern in addition to the resolution, is we'll have, it sounds like a follow-up meeting to talk specifically about the Center's

I mean, that definitely predates me, so I want to learn about the issue as well.

Let me say this about that man.

He came to the Indian Center and he was so dismissive.

It's like...

I'm sorry, are you talking about Mr. Johnson?

Mr. Johnson.

So we're going to have a follow-up meeting on the center's issue.

Are any of the HSD employees familiar with this issue, by chance?

This represents Mr. Harrell and Ms. Sawant and Ms. Herbold.

This represents the work that the Seattle Indian Center does.

We did 129,000 units of service in 2018. We served 29,000 people.

And here it is.

It's all on your HMIS.

We're busy.

We ain't got time to fart around.

Steve and I work together.

I'm part of the coalition.

I'm a straight talker.

And I do appreciate you trying to bring it back to the issue here.

That is very useful.

And all your comments are very useful and well taken.

Even the part one?

Sorry?

I was just trying to reassure you that in my mind, this is not the end of this discussion.

I do want to promise you that we will do the discussion again.

I don't care anymore.

Well, you clearly do care.

Can I make one more last comment?

I just want to...

Well, you can talk after I'm done.

What I would like to say is that the city really needs to back these nonprofit agencies that actually help getting people off the streets.

There's, you know, there's quite a few of them that are really going above and beyond.

And I think that if you're going to spend any money in community, that would be the best way to spend your money is to help support these agency, because they are the one that are actually taking people off the street and providing them roof over their heads and making sure that they're fed.

Now, that's the city's responsibility, but if the city's not doing it, then they need to give that support to these agency that are actually doing their job for them.

Thank you.

And I want to say one other thing.

One of the really big programs we have right now involves sex trafficking of American Indian and Alaska Native girls and boys.

And that is very, very critical.

We have a grant from the federal government to work with this group, and we're housing them with no help from the city.

We do a lot.

And this agency has done a lot for the last damn 61 years.

And this is how you treat us.

You and Nick Licata and all that group.

And the mayor at that time.

And the next mayor.

And the next mayor.

Is that McGinn?

Who are you talking about?

We're throwing names out there.

Let's throw them out there.

Is that McGinn?

I'm sorry?

Who are you talking about?

Okay, so McGinn, Nick Licata, Michael Brandt.

Okay, that's fine.

Thank you.

I do thank you all from the Seattle Indians.

I did highlight one important point, which is that And I think that I wanted to bring that back to the issue is, and as many HSD employees themselves, human service providers, have repeatedly told me and my staff, and also as you testified publicly, many of you at the committee on January 24th, is that For you, you didn't want to make this about any one person who was the nomination, although obviously there are concerns related to the individual as well.

But primarily, what your comments from the Seattle Indian Center are highlighting is that there are endemic problems because of chronic underfunding.

And because of the chronic underfunding, automatically the department's role becomes that they are funding some programs, not funding the other programs.

And a lot of those decisions then ends up falling in the hands of a few individuals.

And when Mr. Johnson comes here to our agency, he was there for not more than 90 seconds.

That's what he gave us.

90 seconds and he smelled, he acted like he smelled garbage.

That's what I meant when I said he was very dismissive.

And that is insulting.

Madam Chair, the one thing that we didn't say is we need a place where we can help people.

The place we have now is not that place.

And the city has not been helpful.

And it's about money.

It's all about greed and money.

Our old home is extremely valuable in real estate, and that's why all those folks jumped on board.

And so who gets hurt?

The homeless, the American Indians and Alaskan natives and the people that depend on our services.

I mean, we're their lifeblood.

And you don't just serve indigenous community members, you serve everybody.

Look at your stats.

Look at your HMIS.

I know that.

I'm just trying to highlight.

Anybody that comes to our door.

We do not discriminate.

Our staff is wonderful and they work under some bad conditions.

Absolutely.

I mean, our floors were covered with human I mean, it's just one of many things.

I mean, it's just been horrendous as to what our staff has had to go through.

But anyway, we just wanted to give you a flavor of that and tell you it's because of these people that have been in those positions, in the director's positions.

Yes.

And what I was trying to say was that those issues are actually important even though we have to have a separate discussion because it will take much longer to discuss all the things that you're talking about.

I do appreciate you bringing this forward because it is helping us to highlight that it is not about any one individual.

There is overall we have to insist on accountability and transparency in the department.

And that everything is related to that question and so Sean So I have to say that this discussion really relates to the same discussion That we've been having since we heard the nomination of Jason Johnson Our issue is trust Have you as you have heard a public testimony tonight and in the past We have no reason to trust Jason Johnson He has refused to sit down and meet with us, either at Sheridan or Nicholsville.

He's thrown out the director's rules as far as the authorized encampments go.

He has tried to defund us under pontificating data collection.

We have no reason to trust.

Our community has been discussing this for about six weeks now.

And the underlying thing that I get is trust.

We think that there needs to be a public process and nomination at any head of city department.

Appointments don't work.

Our preference would be somebody who's been homeless at the head of that department.

Someone that knows what we go through on a day-to-day basis.

Yes, John, a question.

John, thanks for sharing that with you.

The lack of trust that you're describing between Mr. Johnson and both you and your organization, you personally and the residents, was there a drop off from the preceding directors going back to Miss Lester and Miss Smith and even before her or Was there always sort of that void of trust if you're in a position to answer that?

I don't know if you are or not.

I would say that there's always been some mistrust.

It's gotten more pointed with Mr. Johnson since he's been the interim director.

We've watched the director's rules get tossed out the window.

We've had numerous promises from him to uphold green sheets passed by the city council in helping our organization with needed funding.

Every step of the way, he's done nothing to help us.

He's done exactly the opposite.

Every time that we speak out, we get retaliated against.

So why would we trust him?

Sean, in the packet of letters with the mayor, there's the letters from March and April of 2018, almost a year ago, when we were asking the mayor's office what their plan was for this nomination.

And in both of those letters, We mentioned that community members have been calling us asking, hey, what's going to be the plan?

What's going to be the process?

And I think I remember that you might have been one of the ones that called and was asking about the process for the last year.

Did you, in the last year, did the mayor's office ever talk to you in any way about that, about what they were planning on doing?

I have not heard anything either on the share side of things.

or in Nicholsville about the mayor's office contacting us regarding the nomination of head of HSD.

And then actually, if I can, I was remembering the When the IDT was mentioned, I was also remembering that in the deputy mayor's latest letter, it talks about the outreach that the mayor did, and it says that she, the sentence on the back page, it's all in these letters with the mayor, the back page says, she personally met with the silence breakers and the anti-harassment IDT.

Did the mayor meet with you?

If she did,

What was the feedback to her?

You know, I'll say this, you know, she makes herself available in some regard.

I think there would be a lot more personal time, a lot more time be allotted instead of short brief moments.

Because you can't really have a good, fruitful conversation in 30 minutes.

So yes and no.

I mean, have I met with her?

Absolutely.

Would I like more time?

Absolutely.

I mean, I'm a coalition of a lot of women and people for this city, so as I'm doing the IDT work, I'm not always privileged to the same sessions of meetings as my other silence breakers.

I see you.

that showed up out here.

Specifically, the silence breakers sent a letter to the council and the mayor last week, I believe, in preparation for the meeting we were supposed to have last week, which got canceled because of the snowstorms, and we're meeting tonight.

Did you all hear from the mayor's office in response to the letter that you sent?

No.

Go ahead, Erin.

I wanted to say another interaction with Mr. Johnston occurred when the city council magnanimously gave us money to get out of our forever home.

That man bird-dogged us, although the money had been set aside already for moving.

And he was very difficult to work with.

And my staff, our resource developer, Deb Donathan at the time, had a terrible time with him.

It took six months to get the money back that was due us, that had been promised by Mr. Harrell and company.

So it's like he wants to irritate.

That's what the Seattle Indian Center's experience was with this man.

And maybe he learned that from Catherine Lester.

I don't know.

Can I clarify something really quickly here?

So I understand that there's a flow of power, right?

And I just want to highlight that the mayor might put forth a proposal, but what's more powerful to me is the fact that we're sitting at this table right now.

And I think if we're gonna talk about due process, that the highlighting process of us coming together at this moment has so much value and more weight than trying to force blame on one person.

This is a collective problem.

This is a Seattle problem.

It's not just a mayor's problem.

It's all of our problem.

And as we come forth and we sit at this table, we're taking and doing our due diligence and our part to be held accountable and to change the culture.

So, I just want to say, you know, again, I'm happy to be here.

I'm happy that you guys are, everybody here at this table is having this discussion and this dialogue, but it's not a one-person problem.

I guess one thing that I wanted to make sure I said before I stepped out, for one, thank you for allowing us the opportunity to be heard.

Thank you for allowing the opportunity for us to have child care.

And my boys are outside, so my time is up.

But I just wanna say that, you know, and I don't feel like we've been off topic at all.

Folks may feel like we've been off topic, but that very history, we need to know.

And I know that history.

I don't know every piece of it, but I remember when y'all moved.

I was a contract specialist at that time, and I came, and I was coming to do a visit, and you guys had boxes and was still getting settled.

So thank you for bringing that, and I wanna recognize and honor our elder in the room, but also recognize the emotion behind that impact.

That was a real situation, no matter how and who and what, they still are feeling the impacts of that decision.

And so one thing that I really wanted to lift up tonight is we have a large body of people who wanna help to turn the race of social justice initiative from rhetoric to action.

truly living out the principles of the Race and Social Justice Initiative.

We need leaders that will understand the harms and the helps of our decisions, who understand how we, Human Services Department, are foots of oppression and how we can be windows of opportunity.

We need to treat the community as partners.

That's been a charge of our change team this year, is identifying our constituents and getting serious about connecting with people.

We work in the tower across the street, many of us.

We got to come down to the ground and engage with people who actually have lived experience, but not only live, but living.

And so we look forward to doing that, and we look forward to being held accountable as a change team and as a collective.

So again, my name is Erin Bryan.

I work for the Human Services Department, and I am one of the change team co-leads, and I appreciate the time tonight.

Thank you.

Your boys are making sure you're going to be in real time.

It's bath time.

We will respect that.

Thank you.

If I might just indulge just 30 seconds more of your time.

Before you leave, can you please say from based on everything that you've seen and also your role in the change team and so on, what do you think this committee can vote on the resolution today or it can wait or what do you think the committee should do tonight?

I think we've had a long conversation, and I do believe we need to pump our brakes.

And I think this resolution will give us an opportunity to really pump our brakes and really take in consideration the things that we need to consider and have the right people at the table to help us make the decision.

We all need to be a part of the decision the mayor put out explicitly around inclusion and not leaving people out.

We are, it's evident that we left people out and we have an opportunity to do the right thing.

So I would encourage folks on city council to vote to put this resolution passed.

Thank you.

And thank you, Leslie.

I'm going to say some things, but you go ahead and just watch the tape later.

So you know what we say.

We're not triangulating behind your back.

I do want to say, while you're here, that was very impactful what you said.

That was one of the strongest arguments I've heard thus far in the whole debate.

I did want to say to the Indian Center, I actually look forward to continuing our dialogue.

So I do apologize if I said anything that offended anyone.

I usually do that about once a day.

I didn't do it today, so maybe that was my first time.

But I look forward to the ongoing dialogue in all seriousness, because we know how hard you're working on your constituents and the people you serve.

So thank you very, very much.

My concern, and I'm a little pressed for time as well, my concern about the resolution, just to be totally transparent, is I'm prepared to either confirm or not confirm, thumbs up or thumbs down.

And if it were thumbs down as a council, then, well, let me say it in a more positive way.

The issues that both Aaron and others have surfaced about this process, I'm not sure a national search gets us there.

You do a national search, you hire a search firm, you do all this other work, and you get all these folks, and that's a process.

I'm very interested in actually attacking the substance of what is being said about both the process and about the issues that the process would unveil, whether it's trust, whether it's, quite frankly, people being discriminated against, whether there's all these both racist or whatever other kinds of decisions that are made, whether we didn't look at this process through a race and social justice lens.

I want to get to that.

So my method, my personal and professional method of doing that is for me to get everyone in the table, at the table or in a room and start having that dialogue.

So to jump from this conversation to, and it's not a mandate, I guess it's just a recommendation for a national search.

I'm not there yet, because I haven't had that dialogue.

I haven't even talked to Mr. Johnson himself about this issue, or even the mayor about, now walk me through the process.

I thought they were being fairly transparent when they said, Well, there really wasn't a process per se.

He's been in interim position for all this time for how many months, 10 months or so.

I have to admit that I've seen many, I've worked with many mayors and I've seen this is not the first time this kind of thing has happened.

So I think the good, my takeaway from this discussion is Let's do a deeper dive on the kinds of things that a better process would have uncovered.

I don't know Mr. Johnson well at all.

I just have to be honest with you.

I don't trust him either because I don't know him.

I don't just walk around trusting people I don't know.

My interactions with him have been quite pleasant.

And what I've asked him to deliver for me on a few HSD matters, he's been forthcoming.

So I welcome the information and I welcome some kind of process, but I'm not just going to a national search.

I'm not there.

Could I, others should respond, just to clarify, when you say, you're focusing on the national part of it, and you're saying that we should do a deeper dive, you know, get people to the table, that is what we're doing.

We have gotten people, this is why we're here.

I mean, it's not me deciding as a council member that I'm opposed to Jason Johnson's appointment.

Do you think that's an inviting forum, though, Chair?

I mean, let's just be candid.

I mean, I've been invited to a certain few meetings where I said, I'll pass on that great opportunity.

That was your choice, Council President.

That was not a setup.

Because we heard from a number of people that there were problems with the way that there was no, basically there was no process.

It was not that the objective to the process.

There was no search conducted at all.

And because my staff had a meeting with 50 people, many of them union members and employees of the department, who told us they were not happy with this nomination.

That is why we held the committee meeting.

So I do not agree with you at all that any of these meetings was any kind of political setup.

It was an official committee meeting.

Council members like yourself made a choice.

Not to come.

No, you're implying that.

Can I please finish?

So I totally reject this idea that there was anything, any personal agenda from any political office.

This was purely 100% in response to a number of people.

Look at the number of people here.

I mean, many of them have left because they have families to return to, but security staff told us there was 105 people here today.

There were over 100 people at the committee meeting on January 24th.

So I'm not sure what it is that council members are not hearing.

I mean, whether you agree or not is a different question, but you cannot possibly question that we haven't, that we have heard from a number of, we're clearly hearing loud and clear.

It's up to you whether you agree or disagree, but that's a different question.

I also want to say that, address the other point that you raised, which is that, yes, there have been many occasions where Interim directors have been appointed to the permanent position.

Yes, nobody denies that, but that is not the point here.

The point is that when the highest legislative body of the city, we are elected by voters, when we hear from hundreds of our constituents that in this particular case we have a problem, then it is completely rational and reasonable on my part as the chair of the Human Services Committee to listen to that.

That's what's happened here.

We're not disputing that there have been other cases where interim directors have been normally appointed, but in those cases there were no complaints.

There were no, there was no wide constituencies of employees, union members, human service providers, homeless people, all collectively telling us we have a problem.

When that happens, obviously we have to be accountable.

So that's, I just want to clarify that that's what's special about the situation, that people have talked to us and asked us not to do this.

So, and also just to clarify also as Jeff said earlier, I don't know if council members were here when he spoke, But he clarified that in the resolution, it says exactly what you're saying, Council President, which is that it's not, the point is not doing a national search versus a local search.

The point is having a search committee that includes the voices that were excluded.

So that's the point about it.

It's not, you know, the geographic scope.

It's more the scope of what actually needs to happen.

So that, for that process to happen, we have, in my view, that is why I thought and community members thought that we should do a resolution as opposed to voting on the specific appointment of a person because then it becomes about the person you know do you agree with that person being appointed or not as opposed to we don't agree with the way this was this process was conducted that is why the resolution as opposed to an up-and-down vote just to clarify that.

You go on and share that.

I just, I want to kind of clarify, you know, if, if, if Mr. Johnson is the qualified candidate, make him apply like everybody else.

And at the same token, acting in the position of interim doesn't grant you the working or living knowledge that you're the right fit for that position.

And on top of that, the longer we postpone this decision just to make him apply, the more harm we're creating for not only the employees that operate underneath him that are hurting, and we're devaluing their testimony and their voice, but you're leaving them unable to actually assist our community.

And most of these people love what they do, but you can't really fully come to work in your full self if you don't have someone that's actually supportive of that.

And that's what I'm concerned about, the lingering harm that could happen.

I agree.

So just make them apply.

Post it on this site and make them apply like everybody else.

I feel like I'm at home, I gotta raise my hand here.

I agree.

The rules should require that, the prior rules, prior to this resolution should require that.

It requires us within 10 weeks from the mayor's tendering of the package for us to go up or down.

And there have been people not confirmed and then we're back to the drawing board.

So I do believe time is of the essence.

And quite candidly, that's why I was a little concerned about the national search piece of it.

Not to just harp on that because then it's drawn out and my guess would be he'd still be in the interim.

But I do want to say, Chair, I wasn't trying to suggest that we're trying to just politicize this whole appointment process.

I want to get the work done.

I want to get it done quickly.

And so I'm hoping to meet with folks this week to try to do a deeper dive on the issues that have been addressed here.

It's sort of simple as that with me.

I have a sense of urgency on this as well.

Yeah, I've been quiet.

I did listen to folks at the previous meeting.

I wasn't able to attend.

I'm not a member of this committee, but I'm very interested in the work that folks do for our city and for the less fortunate in our city.

And, you know, I'm struggling with this issue.

I am finding it, one, You know, I appreciate that the council has passed legislation in the past that defines the council's roles and the mayor's roles in the nomination process.

And those are the rules that we all agree to.

I'm appreciative of the idea that the status quo isn't is unacceptable and that we need to take a look at what those rules are in the light of our stated commitment to our RSJI principles.

Because those rules don't talk about that at all.

And I really appreciate the courage that city staff and community members, many of whom do receive funding, whose organizations receive funding from the city, to have taken the courage to ask for an inclusive and transparent process.

I'm troubled by reports that a transparent and inclusive promise were promised by the mayor's office.

There's always the bet, right?

In my interest in not wanting to focus on the individual and focus on the structural need to change the status quo, I don't know how to separate those two things now that we have an appointment before us.

And so I'm inclined to support a path forward where we We have that nomination process before the council, we take the vote, and then we decide how we're going to change this process for the future.

I just, I cannot, in my mind, make this not about the individual.

wouldn't we have an individual before us?

And if the council were to vote to turn down the nomination, to reject the nomination, then as Council President Harrell said, we would be back to square one.

If we were to approve the nomination, I think we have a lot of work to do in the area of accountability.

And there are some things in our process that we've legislated that can help with some of that accountability through the question and answer process.

that is all public and transparent on the council side.

We work with members of the public to generate the questions that we then give the nominee the opportunity to answer.

Those answers are public.

You have an opportunity to disagree with those answers or to provide information that demonstrates to the decision makers whether or not That information, those answers square with their experiences.

And then, again, we have to make a decision based on all of that information.

I understand that what you're telling us is that we haven't asked the executive to provide all the information for an inclusive and transparent process.

And I'm committed to working on that.

I feel like sending this nomination, sending it back, is making it about the person.

And I just, I can't figure out how to separate that in my mind.

Can I jump in real quick?

I think what's important for the Human Services Coalition is, what we haven't heard in this entire process, is what is the mayor's interest?

in human services.

What is her vision for human services?

How does she think the department should be operated?

And had we had even some semblance of a process that led us to that understanding, I think we wouldn't be here tonight.

What is particularly irksome for us is in the 30 years I've been involved in the Human Services Coalition, this is the first mayor who has not met with the coalition in a full year and two months of her term.

And we think that it's imperative before a decision of this import is made that the chief executive of the city take the time to come and talk to one of the key constituencies that would help shape that, you know, decision.

And it wasn't done.

And we're saying that I think it is in the council's purview to send the decision back to the mayor and say, do a better process.

Because it isn't about the person, it is about the process in our minds.

And I also just want to reiterate that on the one hand, there was a promise that you referred to Council Member Herbold, that I also referenced in my letter response to the mayor And it's, I think people are, the HSD employees especially and the change team are especially not in favor of the way this happened because they were promised an inclusive process and there was actually no I just want to clarify, there wasn't a process.

When you say process, what does it imply?

It implies some sort of engagement with some section of the community or another.

That's what I'm, when I say process, that's what I mean.

And there was no such thing.

So let's be clear, there was no process if that's how you define the process, which many of you are nodding, which means that you're defining the process in the same way.

And as to the whole question of, well, shouldn't we vote on this nomination itself rather than go to resolution because there's a sense of urgency?

Well, let me talk about a sense of urgency.

Again, this is something that I said when I opened this meeting tonight.

My staff member, Ted Verdon, sent an email to the mayor's staff on March 23rd of last year saying, people are asking about the appointment process for the new HSD director.

Have you had a chance to get any information about that?

We would love to have someone from the mayor's office brief the Human Services Committee about the intended process at some point before Director Lester's last day.

Thank you, Ted Verdon.

That was the letter on March 23rd.

So we were clearly doing our due diligence, following up with the mayor's office, even before the previous director was due before her last day.

Then, second email from Ted Verdon, April 17th, 2018. Hi, Anthony.

You and I talked one or two months ago about the selection process for nominating a new director for HSD.

Is the mayor's office ready to present to the committee about what that process will look like?

Just to remind you, we are getting constituent inquiries about this and would love to have something to tell people.

If you have not planned a process yet, but have some idea of when that process will begin, we would love to know that too.

Thank you for your help.

Edward.

It was not for lack of following up from the council that we didn't hear anything.

And so I don't, again, as I said, we are here because community members and city staff have spoken, not because my office has any specific agenda on this or that appointment.

So I would say, I mean, if there was a sense of urgency, then we should have heard from the mayor's office a long time ago.

And I agree that there have been rules that have been set up, and in general, those rules are important because we don't want things to be stuck forever in sort of an endless bureaucratic discussion.

However, the rules have to be a living body, meaning when we hear from hundreds of people, we can't tell them, well, these are the rules, so we can't do what you're asking us to do.

Instead, it's our job then, as the city council, to say, well, yes, we do have the rules as the general guidelines, Clearly, we are hearing loud and clear from people that they want something different.

How can we ignore that?

That's the question here.

And if, and Council Member Hurd, will I share your feeling about you don't want to make it about an individual?

I don't either.

My fear is that if we call for a vote on the nomination of Mr. Johnson, it does become about the individual.

How can I, for example, in good conscience, vote yes on it when I've heard from hundreds of my constituents saying that they want something different?

And then if I vote no, it becomes a vote, you know, on an individual.

So, in my view, just to finish, in my view, the resolution was a way exactly out of the problem that you were talking about.

But let's not make it about an individual, let's actually have a search committee that includes all these voices so that then we can collectively decide.

And as you correctly said, Mr. Johnson is totally free to apply.

I guess what I was trying to say is that through the confirmation process, I would hope that we could work with the community in developing questions that get to additional information upon which we can base our decision-making on.

Because, you know, again, I don't disagree with you that we need to make changes to the process.

For me, it's about the sequencing of making those changes.

And, you know, I do think that there is a a limit to the council's authority to send back an appointment.

And it is the executive's prerogative to send to us their desired appointment and then the chips fall where they may.

You know, in my mind, the way we would change the process is that we make amendments to the resolution that was passed several years ago, and we make very clear to the executive that we will make our decisions as a council based on whether or not X, Y, or Z things are done.

That way, everybody is sort of in their lane according to what our role is as the council and as the executive.

Madam Chair, I agree with you.

I think this is probably one of the most important appointments that this council is going to act on.

This homeless issue has been around for a long time now, and the council has done nothing.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but the Director of Human Services deals with all of these groups that are trying to solve this problem.

This person that's in that position now hasn't done that.

And why would you be afraid as a council to have a national search?

You do it for the police department.

You do it for the fire department.

Why not go back to the mayor and say, hey, this is unacceptable.

We want somebody that will buy into the urgency of the homeless issues that we are.

These folks have talked about tonight.

They had the courage to come here and speak.

And I don't think you're listening.

I think you are.

But...

Since, perhaps you're talking about me, I don't know, but let me be very clear.

I'm not afraid of a national search.

Let me make that clear.

I'll repeat it.

I'm not afraid of a national search.

What I said was, I'm not there.

Either Mr. Johnson is right or wrong for the job.

It's as simple as that.

And I need to know the criteria with which I will make that call.

This is one of the few times the city council really weighs in on a personnel matter for a department head.

And I don't squander that, okay?

I don't rubber stamp that.

So I am interested in the process.

I'm really interested in the race and equity analysis that got us to this point.

So don't misquote what I said when I said I'm not there yet.

I'm not going to go to a national search when we haven't done that hard work with the race and equity team, and we haven't looked at the issues that can surface in that process.

So it's very simple for me.

But I think if you go back to the record, I didn't specify you.

Well, I don't really care, to be candid with you.

I'm just speaking on my impression of this conversation.

We may end up in a national search, okay?

And that might be a good thing.

You need to take care of this.

I just want to say that, again, this is all of our body of work.

And, I mean, if it came off like it was, you know, I'll be quick because I actually have to go out of here really quickly.

He's a personal friend of mine, so we could talk to each other.

No, no, no, that's fine.

I don't need to be, I don't need any justification for the reason why the discussion's happening.

I just want to talk about We talk about this process and we talk about the importance of you guys being in the positions that you're in.

This is supposed to be a conversation about resolutions and solutions.

And what I'm hearing is a lot of hesitation, which doesn't give any semblance of hope to those people that came here.

And I'm not saying that, you know, we have rules for a reason, but as times change, it's our obligation to update those.

So why can't we do both?

Because the bureaucracy and the lasting of the time just literally...

makes those that are suffering suffer longer.

So if the ask is just to, again, I don't care about a national search, I don't care about a local search, what I'm just saying is have him submit his resume and fill out the questionnaires and put that on seattle.gov and make him apply just like everybody else.

And if at that point, If you guys still feel like he's the best candidate, let the mayor do what she wants, let anybody do what they want, but being a part of the RSJI is the equity of how people are being hired.

If you're not giving the opportunity for others to also apply, how is that equitable?

I have to sneak in before you, Sean.

There's been a lot of discussion about what the council's rules are in preparation for this meeting.

With the help of Jeff, we have the resolution that states the council's rules here.

And just to be clear, it's a resolution, so it is not law.

It uses words like, in fact, everything that it says about the process, it starts with the line, the city council intends to follow these steps.

So everything in here is an intention, and I would hope that nobody would think that this intention passed in 2007 would supersede race and social justice.

That's like where the, Where the 10 weeks comes from That you know, there's been talk about council must do this in 10 weeks No, that's just from this resolution council intends to have this resolved in 10 weeks There's no requirement that that happens if council never votes on it.

That's entirely legal Council has a procedure to do what's called retiring legislation that was never voted on and it just make and it just goes away and that's something that council does every year with bills that are never voted on And this resolution from 2007 has exactly the same legal weight as this resolution that Sean has brought forward today.

So, you know, we talk about we could change the rules, you know, change the procedure.

That's exactly what this new resolution does.

And then in terms of kind of the timeline, the mayor's office promised to involve people and then didn't.

So if we then use the question and answer process and all that to get promises for next time, then all that we're saying is you don't have to follow your promises because if you do, we rubber stamp your candidate anyway.

Exactly.

I would have to say, if I had a vote, I would tell the mayor, go back to the table.

that this guy's not qualified.

Thank you.

You know, solutions come from the bottom up.

They don't come from top down.

Top down doesn't work.

We've seen that over the last year.

You know, you've got to listen to what people are telling you.

And people from all walks in this work are telling you, this is not the guy.

So I, again, I mean, it's 821. I really want to respect everybody's time.

Clearly, we have other things to get to.

But I, yes, I mean, just on the note that Sean left off, I want to reiterate one thing, which is that this has been a situation where the input that we have gotten as a council from ordinary people, from service providers, from the silence breakers who are doing very important work, from HSD employees, has not been ambiguous.

May I say that again, the input that we have gotten has in no way been ambiguous about what people want from this.

They are very clear that they don't want a situation where there was no inclusion at all, no transparency at all.

We're not even talking about some inclusion, but not other groups not being included.

There was no discussion as we have clearly shown, proven that we've been asking the mayor's office repeatedly, but there was no news.

I mean, I didn't have anything.

news to tell anybody.

And the other point I wanted to make, and I wanted to actually, I feel like we've, I as a city council member and as an elected representative, I feel like I've heard a lot from people.

I don't feel the need to wait.

Obviously, it's the prerogative of every council member here to decide what to do, but I just wanted to motivate I'm going to be calling for the resolution to a vote in committee in a second.

I just want to respond to a very important point Council Member Herbold, you did make that why not incorporate all the concerns and questions into the nomination, the appointment hearing of Mr. Johnson himself and bring all of that.

Now that is not, I mean that in itself is not I mean, I completely take that in good faith.

And if that's where we were, where hundreds of people hadn't spoken up, but they just wanted to ask questions, I hadn't said that, let's take this back to the mayor, tell the mayor to take this back and appoint a search committee.

But instead, all that people were saying is ask him hard questions.

I would totally agree with that, but that's not what people are saying.

People are saying, tell the mayor to take this back.

So, and I also have a larger concern, which is that We can incorporate all kinds of questions.

But in reality, that is not accountability in the sense that it's when people get organized and come together, that's when people win some accountability.

In my honest opinion, it will not be good enough at all to ask any nominee questions when there are such deep concerns about what is happening in relation to homelessness.

Clearly, it is not about one person.

It's about a whole thing that's happening.

So given all of that, I am, as an elected representative myself, I am fully convinced that we should bring this to a vote, and so we'll, if council members want to weigh in before I call it for a vote, yeah, please do.

May I now?

Yeah, yeah, of course.

I just want to clarify what I mean by the question and answer process.

I think we could create an inclusive question and answer process where we work on questions together And we review the answers together.

And if we don't agree with what the answers say, if people in the community have a different experience, then they tell us that that is not their experience with the answer to that question.

If we identify problems through that question and answer period, we could create some sort of an accountability process around those problems.

You as the chair could do that.

And so again, I just I want us to be creative about the moment that we're in and also address the issues that we've heard about the fact that our process cannot remain a status quo process, moving forward and accepting nominations in the future.

So I just, again, I think we could think creatively about what that question and answer process looks like and should the nomination move forward, some accountability around the things that we flag through that process as problems.

I would say in response to that, that in my view, this whole discussion that we've had in multiple committees and the resolution itself is an extremely creative approach, actually, to say that we're not making it about one person, we're making it about the fact that there was no search.

Forget an inclusive one.

There was no search conducted, there was no inclusion period.

And so I feel that when we've heard so much from so many people, what is that question and answer session going to reveal that we haven't already heard?

In reality, the way I see, if we went that route, and the reason I'm not in favor of that route, even though I do completely agree with your statement, suggesting that in good faith is that that basically implies that all these people who have families and children and have put their lives aside to come to committee after committee to engage in the process will have to do it many more times.

And they're still not going to get that because at that point then it becomes about the nomination of one individual and then that will create more hesitation.

As you said, there's already hesitation.

So before I call to vote, I would like to ask, All the people who here who are not council members or staff.

Get a word in if I can, before you call the vote.

Yes.

Nobody's preventing you from getting a word in.

I just wanted to ask all the people here who are not on the council or staff in any way, do you think that the committee should vote on this resolution?

Yes.

Yes.

Definitely.

I just wanted to hear, because if you don't and if you prefer some other route, then we would go that route.

I mean, should...

I mean, it just sounds like maybe we should talk about- I did, but I have a stack of emails from people who are also ordinary people and service providers in support.

I'm happy to make copies.

So, I mean, to the possible resolution, if you guys aren't feeling uncomfortable, is that we kind of open up the vote to the public?

That's what I did.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I mean, we heard the vote.

So yeah, Council President Harrell, you should go.

And then I feel like I don't have any option but to call it for the vote.

So what troubles me, just to be very honest with everyone in this room, is once again, this is a sort of like us versus them kind of decision when it really shouldn't be.

It feels that way.

And I understand.

I understand.

I believe we're all on the same side on this.

I flipped?

I haven't flipped at all.

I don't flip.

No one's got the power over me, baby, to flip.

Let me tell you the side I'm on.

I'm on the side of this.

I'm on the side of, if this process was wrong, if there was not the right RSJI process, then let's have that process, yes.

I haven't even had meaningful discussions with the RSGI equity team.

It was just because of the weather.

We had some things scheduled.

I haven't had meaningful discussions with people at this table.

And I think that that's quite frankly the hard work that a council does during this process.

And I've been involved in many of these confirmations where it really went sideways because the person wasn't the right person for the job and the right process wasn't used.

I don't really like one-sided conversations.

If Mr. Johnson was here, I would ask him.

I'd ask him to respond to a lot of the concerns, or even the people that were involved in that process.

So I don't know that.

I mean, I didn't ask him if he had an option to be here.

So one of my concerns, again, is we still have time, even according to our own rules.

I think we're midway through it or something like that, our 10-week process.

So there's still a lot of work to be done in a short period of time.

And I agree that looking at this process, this is a good test case, if you will, for looking at the process.

Now, you have to understand something.

You're talking to someone who's actually sued the city of Seattle for employment processes.

I'm no stranger to challenging on legal grounds hiring processes.

cross-examine many department heads on these issues.

And so we'll do the hard work.

Let's do the hard work to see how this decision was made, how this resume is brought forward, get everyone at the table and move forward.

And let's do it in a short order.

That's just where I come out on this.

I want to, for my part, say that I want to respect all the hard work that hundreds of people have done.

already and I do agree council member some people did speak in favor of the existing nomination and this meeting was open to everybody there's no there's no there's no attempt to you know In fact, we urged actually several people to come even to the table, but they declined.

So, you know, I'm sorry, we have no control over that.

Again, has anybody's mind changed?

Should I call this for a vote?

Who are you asking?

I'm asking members of the public because that's whom I'm accountable to.

Okay.

It's going to go the way it's going to go.

I move resolution 31862 for a vote.

I'm going to abstain.

All in favor?

Aye.

I do need a second.

It's been seconded.

It's been moved and seconded.

All in favor of the resolution, please say aye.

Aye.

All opposed?

All abstaining.

Okay, so it's now in the hands of everybody here and everybody who has left.

It's for the movement to figure out where we want to go from here.

Thank you all very much for not only coming tonight, but for all the work that you've been doing.