Good morning.
Thank you for being here everybody here for the governance equity and technology committee today is September 18 2018 and I am the chair We have two items.
We're going to go over it go over this morning.
The first one is the actually a third meeting on the The second item is the surveillance technology ordinance, and a lot of people have done a lot of work on that, so we look forward to hearing that matter as well.
We did have a note that Councilmember Muscata is just running a few minutes late and should be here, and I think one or two other Councilmembers will be here fairly shortly.
And let's see who we have here.
We have one, two, three, four, about five folks here.
So let's take all two minutes of it.
We'll start off with Alex Zimmerman, and then followed by Shankar Narayan.
Alex Zimmerman, you're up, sir.
Thank you, sir.
Hi.
Hi, my.
My nice and lovely Fuhrer.
A crook, a criminal, anti-Semite, tax sucker, and killer.
My name is Alex Zimmerman.
I once spoke about Soda, and I spoke about this almost 2,000 times from Tacoma to Everett, including Seattle, too.
We need to stop and spend money for government corporations anyway.
The situation right now in Seattle is absolutely critical.
It's got worse and worse every day.
Right now, we're looking like we're more expensive city in United States of America, maybe on planet.
We need more money for people.
We spend a billion and billion in dollars for project, but it's absolutely not changed life.
And 50 percentage people go poorer and poorer and poorer in Seattle every day.
In good classic example, this freaking idiot, a Fuhrer, Business give a two billion dollars ever this cretina after six year understand something new doing We are American.
You know what this mean?
It's not 50 percentage people who make 200 grand and 50 percentage who make 2,000 grand 2 grand or $700 how make Senior citizen, when we're not stopping, when Consul's not stopping acting like a business is supposed to be, first, will be for the people, and second, for machine, nothing will be changed.
This will be nightmare.
We need to stop this now.
Situation absolutely critical.
Is this $2 billion?
What is this business idiot give?
It shows every this cretin, I understand.
Situation in Seattle right now, critical.
Because you crooks, together with corporation like Bezos, or Microsoft, or Sound Transistry, make us life miserable.
We need clean this dirty chamber from this crook.
Say hi, my Fuhrer.
Thank you very much.
Our next speaker is Shankar, followed by Anila Afzati, and then Miguel Maestas.
Good morning, President Harrell, members of the committee, Shankar Narayan for ACLU.
I want to commend the committee for moving forward on the surveillance ordinance and also for creating the working group that will allow communities impacted by surveillance to have a direct route of input into the process.
Having said that, I want to emphasize two points in support of the amendment that Councilmember O'Brien is bringing.
The first is that the timeline that's contemplated needs to be a reasonable and quick timeline compared to the proposal on the table, which is to stretch out the timeline to 2021. You know, what I'd like to emphasize is a lot of work has already happened.
Many of these surveillance impact reports already exist.
It's really time now after a year plus has passed since the passage of the ordinance originally, to start the implementation.
And of course, it's always possible on the back end to extend the timeline, but an 18-month timeline seems very reasonable given the amount of work that's happened, and we shouldn't assume that it can't be met.
The second piece is interim reporting.
So even before the council considers these 28 surveillance technologies, we think it's important for the public to have some way to have transparency around how these technologies are being used now.
They're all in use already.
The ordinance contains two mechanisms for transparency and reporting, and we think those reports should actually cover technologies even before they are submitted to the Council.
They're being used now.
Agencies should be keeping records of how they use these technologies, and that information should go to the public through the usage reports and the equity impact reports.
So, looking forward to the discussion today, and again, thank this committee for the work on this issue.
Thanks for those points.
Anila, followed by Miguel, and then Masya Fuval, or something, I'm sorry.
Good morning President Harrell and Council Member Mosqueda.
My name is Anila Abzali and I am the Executive Director of the American Muslim Empowerment Network at the Muslim Association of Puget Sound, the largest Islamic organization in the state of Washington.
And I am here to support what Shankar was saying about this ordinance.
We appreciate the City Council passing this ordinance that is the first in the nation in a lot of ways, and we want to maintain Seattle at the forefront of these kinds of ordinances, especially at this time when surveillance technology is something that is creating fear and allowing for a way for lack of accountability and government to really intrude in the personal lives of individuals and especially the most marginalized communities.
And specifically, the concerns that we have about the amendments that have been put forward, we support Councilmember O'Brien's amendment, specifically because it addresses the two concerns about timing and reporting, as Shankar mentioned.
Specifically, we want to have speedy implementation, and we want to make sure that we have at least interim reporting for accountability, for the City Council to be playing its role, for government to be playing its role to make sure that there is transparency and accountability.
Even in the one year since the ordinance has passed, It's become increasingly clear how important it is to bring transparency and accountability around these kinds of surveillance technologies.
And even in the one year that it has passed, we have already found out about 28 different surveillance technologies that have been acquired without public oversight.
And we really ask the city council to play its role in asking for sort of the reporting to be able to have public accountability.
And pushing the timeline back to 2021, as contemplated in President Harrell's amendment, would result in nearly four years of unregulated usage.
And during that time, we know, especially in this current climate of fear, where communities, marginalized communities, like the Muslim community, like the immigrant communities, are directly impacted, we want to make sure there is accountability and reporting during that time, instead of waiting for four years without any kind of accountability.
and the data that could be collected by surveillance during this time would directly harm the most marginalized in our city.
And given Seattle City Council's commitment to having a sanctuary city and a place where we care about the most marginalized voices, we should make sure that this is regulated and that there is a public accountability, transparency, interim reporting, and a speedy implementation.
Thank you.
I think I've already got the names in order, so they should know.
Good morning.
My name is Miguel Maestas.
I am with El Centro de la Raza, and I'm here this morning to also stand and ask for your support in Councilmember O'Brien's amendment to the surveillance ordinance that supports accountability and a quicker timeline.
First, we want to thank and commend the Council for creating the working group and allowing the community a direct avenue to advise the Council.
As we have seen, immigrant communities are under attack in our country.
We have all witnessed families coming to our country fleeing horrific violence and misery, only to have children ripped away and separated from their parents.
These immigrant families who are fleeing violence and misery are now being charged and labeled as criminals by our federal government.
These surveillance tools put everyone in danger of powerful authoritarian surveillance.
For immigrant communities and individuals in particular, it will severely increase the level of fear and lack of trust in authorities at all levels, making these community members less likely to report crimes as victims or witnesses and push people further into the shadows of society.
As a welcoming city to immigrants and refugees, our city must stand up for civil rights and do everything in its power to ensure that these surveillance tools will not be used against immigrant communities and communities of color.
There's an incredible amount of fear in immigrant communities in our country that continues to be fueled by the current presidential administration.
We cannot stress enough the importance of this ordinance and the amendments and the engagement of communities on the ground with these issues is a very critical part of how our city must respond to the potential threats from this technology.
We are living in times where any delay of action can have dire consequences for the most vulnerable people in our community.
It's becoming increasingly clear how important it is to bring transparency and accountability around surveillance technologies, and it has also become more clear how data collected by surveillance technologies can impact lives.
From data, automated license plate readers have been used elsewhere by federal immigration enforcement agencies to target immigrant communities.
Please support the amendment to this ordinance.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Good morning.
My name is Masih Fuladi.
I'm the Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Washington.
Again, thank you for having us this morning, and I would like to commend the Council's initiative on putting policies in place to govern surveillance locally, and the leadership that you've shown really has an impact throughout CARE chapters nationally.
Timing is of the essence.
With this administration, with the attack on Muslim, brown, and black communities, we've seen DHS, the FBI, and so many other law enforcement agencies target minorities.
This has been clear from the administration.
This has been happening for years now, being in a hub where technology, It's constantly being made and it's constantly being improved.
It's important for the City Council to acknowledge that timing is of the essence.
And that's why I'm here speaking in support of Council O'Brien's amendment.
Pushing this back further would have significant impacts on the Muslim community.
With increases in hate crimes and increases in bullying, the community already feels under attack.
And what we've seen is your leadership has really given our community hope.
We've seen that in local protests against newer technologies that have come out in companies located in this area, and we've seen that our community continues to seek your leadership.
What you do here and the timeline that you're able to impact and making sure the leadership that you display is current will go a long way, not only for local communities of color, but will do great benefit for our country as a whole.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, we're joined by Council Members Herbold and Mosqueda.
Thank you for being here.
That concludes our public comment section.
I'm going to hand this back to you.
And why don't we read the first agenda item into the record.
I appreciate all those comments.
Short title?
No, long title.
Council Bill 119297, an ordinance establishing a new Soto parking and business improvement area levying special assessments upon owners and business multifamily residential and mixed-use properties within the area.
All right, so this is the third time for this item, but Ali, why don't you walk us through for the viewing public who's just seeing this for the first time and I think is ready to vote.
I think we have a technical amendment we have to go through.
Go ahead.
Correct.
Thank you.
Good morning, council members.
Council Bill 119297 would establish a business improvement area in South Downtown.
BIAs are economic development funding mechanisms that allow property and business owners to assess themselves to fund enhanced services, programming, and management for a business district.
The current SOTO BIA was established by Ordinance 124-306 in 2013 with a five-year life.
The revenues collected through that BIA supported enhanced services in transportation, security, cleaning, advocacy, marketing, communications, and networking for business development.
The SOTO BIA proposed in Council Bill 119297 that's before you today would continue those existing services currently supported by the BIA and would expand the service area.
The expanded service area is shown in Attachment A to the Central Staff Memo with today's date as well as Exhibit A to the ordinance.
In order to implement a new BIA, there are multiple pieces of legislation and many procedural steps.
In July 2018, the council started the process to consider the Soto BIA by introducing three pieces of legislation.
That was Resolution 31823, which initiated the process.
Resolution 31825, which established the intent to establish a BIA and set the public hearing date for August 7th.
and then the council bill that's before you today.
On July 16th, the council adopted both of those resolutions and then that was followed by an initial discussion and briefing on the proposal at the July 17th get committee meeting.
This was followed by a public hearing and second discussion at the August 7th meeting.
before you today is the ordinance that would actually enact the new SOTO BIA and before moving forward with that there's just one technical amendment before you that would just correct the expiration date that's expressed in the recitals to the bill that states that it would expire at the beginning of November and it actually expires at the end of the year so this is just a housekeeping amendment.
Unless council members have questions that's all I have for you today.
Okay and I should have had you introduce yourself.
I apologize for that.
No worries.
My name is Philip Sit.
I am the Business Improvement Area Advisor Advocate for the Office of Economic Development.
And throughout the last several weeks or several months we've been talking about this.
Has anything changed out there in the field or any new information we need to think about?
I think OID and the city's done a pretty effective job of socializing the idea, talking about the idea, listening to the community and meeting their needs through this legislation.
I need to make sure everything is good.
Yeah, nothing has changed with the proposal for the renewal.
Okay.
I'm going to do the technical amendment first, and then if you have any questions or concerns, then let's do the technical amendment.
Where is the tech, how am I describing that?
It is described on the second page of the memo, and it is just a correction to the recital, so it would just be amending the recital to modify November 7th to December 30th.
So I'm going to make a technical amendment.
I'll call it Amendment 1. I'll move that Amendment 1, which changes the date that it was November 8th, is going to be stricken in a new date, and the whereas recital will be December 31st, 2018. All those, any questions?
All those in favor say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
The ayes have it.
So that one whereas is changed.
Thanks, Allie.
Okay, any questions or concerns or, Council Member Herbold?
In addition to thanking both the staff and the rate payers that are part of the BIA for their participation, I want to signal a concern that Director Goodman brought to my attention that I've been aware of because of the work that I do overseeing SPU.
garbage collection approach, both for litter, as well as unlawful dumping, as well as garbage associated with And I know this is something that has come up within the context of our new select committee, but I really want to signal my interest in working both with OED, the BIAs, and SPU in coming up with a an approach that can hopefully do more with the same amount of resources that we're putting into this function.
We are, the city is putting a lot of funds into it as are the BIA rate payers.
Good point.
Commissioner Mosqueda?
Thank you Mr. President and Chair of the committee.
I was really taken by the unanimous testimony that we heard in previous committees of yours where individual business owners, community residents came forward and expressed desire to see this go forward across the board.
I continue to wonder if there was other residents out there who had concerns and didn't bring them forward and encourage them to come forward as this moves forward.
But I'm extremely hopeful, given the unanimous support that we heard and saw for this in the last few meetings, and happy to support this effort to make sure that residents and businesses in our community at large feel like they have the investments they need.
Very good.
Well, it sounds like it's ready to vote.
So I will move to approve Council Bill 119297 as amended.
All those in favor say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
The ayes have it.
And we will move forward to the full council.
Thanks, Sally, for your great work on this.
Thank you.
OK, let's move to the surveillance ordinance and read it as Council Member Bryant does a mad dash to get out here.
I'll talk, I'll filibuster for him.
Sure.
Council Bill 119218, an ordinance relating to surveillance technology implementation.
amending Ordinance 125-376 and Chapter 14.18 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
Okay, why don't we start with some introductions first and I'll sort of tee it up with you, Greg.
Greg Doss, Council Central Staff.
Jim Loder, Seattle IT.
Kate Garman, Technology Policy Advisor to the Mayor.
Okay, so I don't know how closely everyone at the table is following this.
There's been a lot of discussions been working on for some time, so I think Greg maybe we could do an overview and then just let's just dive right into the areas of sort of concern there was some actually some I think Misunderstandings that was said advanced during public testimony We've gotten information on the timing of that I just want to sort of air out publicly so we could reach an understanding.
I am all for a much earlier date and a shorter window if we can do that and that is feasible.
But I need to know and the public needs to know why there's been great pushback on this.
As many may recall, because of the surveillance issues.
And because of privacy concerns, I'd sponsor this legislation as a basis.
I mean, I was, there are some situations happened that caused me incredible alarm.
And then since then it's been modified a few times.
And so it's been a work in progress.
So this is not new legislation by any stretch of the word.
So this notion is somehow now we are erring on the side of violating people's constitutional rights.
We need to clean that up because quite frankly, we're trying to hit in the, the, quite the other direction at a rapid pace.
So I just need to, when we go through these deadlines, just tell us the concerns and see where we are because I'm all for a sense of urgency, quite candidly.
I think my staff has reflected that.
So we'll, let's just get through it.
So let's start off with an overview and then let's just dive into where, and by the way, I do want to thank the ACLU and members of the community and everyone for really, the working group for working together, the mayor's office, IT, I mean, quite candidly, given the seriousness of these issues, we're almost there.
So we only have a few little things we're working on, and that's caused the delay.
So this notion that the city has been dragging its feet is, let's clear that up.
The city has been trying to come up with an agreement that meets the community needs and the department's needs.
And so the delay thus far, through no negligence, has been because we've been trying to roll up our sleeves and get this done.
So we're almost there, so let's get there today.
And Greg, having said that, why don't you walk us through some of the stuff.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I'm going to go ahead and give a high-level overview.
By way of background, the City Council on August 2, 2017, passed a comprehensive surveillance ordinance.
This required departments to obtain Council ordinance approval before acquiring new technologies that can be used for surveillance purposes.
It also established a process by which the Council could review those technologies that are already in use by city departments.
This committee on March 20th of this year held a hearing on Council Bill 119218, which would have updated the dates in the surveillance ordinance and made other minor changes to the process.
At this hearing, Council Member O'Brien introduced an amendment that would create a community surveillance advisory board that would review and comment on any technology that came before the council.
The board would primarily consist of members from communities of groups and groups that are historically subject to disproportionate surveillance, including Seattle's communities of color, immigrant communities, religious minorities, and groups that are concerned with privacy and protest.
The amendments that are before you today would adjust deadlines in the surveillance ordinance and would also establish a community surveillance working group which performs all of the same functions as the group that Council Member O'Brien originally envisioned.
I'm sorry, did I hear you say the amendments plural or are you speaking to one amendment at a time?
I'm speaking to just giving a high-level overview of both of them and then I'll go over this table that shows the differences.
Very good, thank you.
I can go into duties of the working group or I can go right to the table if the committee has a preference.
the table that describes the differences between the amendments?
I'm sort of quite candidly game to do that, because we've already established the working group.
That's been an agreed upon.
So why don't you just describe it?
Everyone's not following our notes.
They might have saw where we stole it.
So, as I mentioned, the community group is made up of members that are equity focused organizations serving and protecting the rights of communities that are subject to disproportionate surveillance.
The working group would create a privacy and civil liberties impact assessment for each technology that comes before the city council.
These impact assessments would be incorporated as part of a larger surveillance impact report which is a collection of documents that describe how the technology is used, how the data is stored, and the safeguards that ensure that the technology is not being used for surveillance.
The working group would be afforded six weeks to prepare the privacy impact statement that would be included, as I said, as part of this larger surveillance impact report package.
From now on, I'm just going to call that surveillance impact report a SIR.
If the working group does not prepare the impact assessment in six weeks, then it can ask the council for a two-week extension.
The working group would be appointed no later than December of this year, four members appointed by the mayor and three by the council.
At least five of the members would have to represent those equity-focused organizations.
The group would be evaluated 18 months after its first meeting to review its effectiveness.
And finally, it would provide recommendations to the city's chief technology officer for inclusion in the annual equity impact assessment, which I'll talk about in a moment.
And all those things I said are true of both amendments.
And then from this point forward, we can talk about the table that shows the differences.
Very good.
And Greg, thank you.
I should have led with my thanks for you.
You've really been working well on this.
And so thanks for helping us get through the working group.
Any questions on just the working group?
I know we have the deadlines go over, so we're good there.
So let's go right into the to the differences in amendments and all that stuff.
Okay, so does everyone have the table with the, okay, great.
So I'm going to start out with row one, and row one concerns the equity impact assessment.
This report is created by the chief technology officer and evaluates whether the surveillance ordinance is effectively meeting the goals of the city's race and social justice initiative, including whether any communities or groups in the city are disproportionately impacted by the use of surveillance technology.
It also identifies what adjustments to the laws and policies should be made to remedy any disproportionate impacts.
And then finally, it identifies adjustment or approaches that the council should bring when reviewing technology in the future.
And so I'll move right to the table here with row one.
The first item in row one, that's a difference between amendment one and amendment two, has to do with when the annual equity impact assessment is filed.
In both amendments, that requirement is by September 15th of 2019. In amendment two, it requires that it be filed by September in all future years that it's produced.
September.
September, yes.
Thank you.
Can I ask a question, since it seems like there's competing amendments?
because I don't really think they are.
So the thought on page five was, was it that you weren't going to do it every year?
Why, why was that?
Were you going to do it every year anyway?
Okay.
So that's, that's a no brainer.
And then on the last technical fix, technical fix.
And then on the second paragraph on, on O'Brien's amendment, Explain to me, is there a pushback on that issue, or what's going on there?
Yeah, I can speak to that.
Mr. Chair, we wanted to focus on the surveillance impact reports that have been released rather than just, it would be more or less an estimate of surveillance technologies without providing the council the structured information that is required in the surveillance ordinance, and that's why we had the language of the First Amendment.
in support with all those at the table, including the ACLU, who has since felt that it should include all surveillance technologies, but we just liked it for the purpose of a holistic view to have it only on the SIRs that have been released, so you have a full picture.
I'm not following you, I'm sorry.
I'm probably the only one at the table.
Sure, so to clarify.
So are you agreeing with what they're asking for or disagreeing?
We would prefer Amendment 1 to have a clearer conversation on the reports that have been released thus far through the year.
This report that would happen in 2019, September 15, would reflect much of this year as well.
Because we are now starting to release the CSRS, it would be on fewer technologies that you have seen the details.
So on the technology that is recent, that would not be covered but for this language, you do have information on it.
There's a reason why it's in play.
Is it just you don't have the resources to prepare some kind of information on this?
We just don't have the full analysis that the surveillance impact report would provide.
We don't have CSRS on every single identified surveillance technology right now.
And so we just feel it's premature to include those technologies that haven't been assessed.
But we're talking about the equity impact assessment, not a SUR.
So these are technologies.
There's no SUR, but O'Brien wants to just include it in the assessment.
Correct.
But shouldn't there be some description of it?
I would think that the city would want, even if it's not fully baked, just some descriptions on what we're doing now with the understanding It's more recent technology, but quite candidly, the more recent technologies, it's very alarming as well, so.
And I should know as this ordinance has been worked on, we haven't had any newly acquired technologies purchased.
So there are everything that we're working on the retroactive currently used technologies, but we are certainly willing to work with the working group if the council so chooses that this report should include it.
Go ahead Councilmember I know you.
Councilmember Harrell I really appreciate you framing this up because I think where I think you're going is kind of where I would like to go to.
I understand on the one hand which I think is your concern is that you know until we have the detailed report it's really hard for us to do an assessment on that and you want a little breathing room and And my interest in this, and I think what I hear you saying too, is like, yeah, but there's a lot of technology out there that it may take a little while to get their report on, and we want to get some information on that too.
Because that technology is currently being used, it may have some impacts.
And I don't think anyone's suggesting this, but there could be a fear that by simply delaying the report, then we don't even have to talk about anything publicly.
And again, I'm not questioning your intent, because I really appreciate your work on that.
But I understand a public who needs to be skeptical.
And so my hope is there's a path to say, no, what I would like to see is, I would like to see a report on all of them with an understanding that Those technologies for which there hasn't been a SIR, that report may not be as robust, but there should still be some reporting.
And Greg, I'm going to look at you, and I also want to share my thanks for your dedication to this complex issue for so long.
But maybe there's some language that we can craft that distinguishes between a comprehensive equity report and an interim equity report.
that will get generally the information that we want to have and out to the public in the interim.
Hopefully stuff that analysis that we're doing anyway, so it's hopefully not a ton of work.
So that would be my hope.
Yeah.
When I read the language must address all surveillance technology, to me that was vague enough to give us a little room understanding that you're really going to be more thorough for those where there's a sir.
But at least to sort of give us a snapshot of sort of what so I sort of leaning toward that side, of course Go ahead.
I was just gonna say mr. Thank you I think the mayor's office is very committed to transparency and the timeliness issue so we could work with that certainly Be happy to work with all parties to put something together that achieves your goals
Okay, so we'll keep going through this.
Council President Harrell, I'm not sure how we navigate that at committee versus full council, but we'll figure that out when we get to the end of all these discussions I assume.
So number two, I apologize.
In the last minute flurry of amendments, I made a mistake.
On row number two, the underlying section where it talks about the working group failing to submit an impact statement within weeks eight weeks and the council being able to move forward without it, Council Member O'Brien's staff informed me that that is also true of Amendment 2. So the only difference between the two is where the SIR report goes in Amendment 1, it goes to the executive, and in Amendment 2, it's executive and city council.
It's a rather minor distinction, as they ultimately come to the council anyways.
So unless there's...
No, so we're in agreement on that one.
Yeah.
Similar.
We'd like it to come to the council too.
Right.
I assume that's not a problem.
The only concern that I would have is that that would come in advance of the SIR or really any other information you'd have about the surveillance technology.
And so the report would come from the working group out of context.
And so I don't know if that was the intent, that the report would come before any kind of filing from the executive.
to package that together to respond to the comments and to include the full analysis.
Because that, as I'm reading that, that's what that would result in.
That you would get a report from the working group about something that had not previously come before council in any other form.
And is that true?
Mr. President, would that be seen as almost like a progress report, an indication of potentially what's to come?
I mean, I feel like just keeping the council and the executive informed as issues evolve from the workgroup, we can sort of take it in context.
It reminds me a little bit of what happens with the city auditor.
The council gets an advanced copy of the city auditor's report before the individual departments get back to the auditor with their responses to the auditor's report.
Then the auditor then integrates those responses in the final report.
So the way I sort of looked at where we're trying to head with this is that at the The conclusion of six weeks, there's still a pretty good work product out there.
There's been work, but quite candidly, maybe the working group just couldn't come up with a completely final product.
So that would be more the case.
And so I would assume that before the counselor executive even reviews it, they're going to say, let's see, let's see the final work product, get central staff involved to sort of summarize, see where we are, where the log jam is, et cetera.
So that's, I wasn't assuming the executive or the counselors were starting from scratch, quite candidly.
So is that sort of how this should play out if need be?
Because the other alternative is for us to do nothing and just, it's like a jury going back into deliberation and saying, keep coming up with something.
But I think we want to play our role as legislators and policy decision makers to intervene.
So that's how I'm looking at it.
Now, we don't have language in there to say that, that give us what you have at the end of six weeks.
But that's implicit.
And Greg, I don't know if I need to do that quite yet.
I think from a practice standpoint, that's how it's going to play out.
I think so.
I think that after six weeks, they may ask for a two-week extension.
But if not, yeah, they'll send you what they have.
Oh, I was going to ask about the two-week extension.
So is that still part?
we are not changing that.
The way it plays out is working group studies it.
They have a lot of work to do.
They need two more weeks.
Do we have to decide that?
I think that wasn't an issue.
The council would have to authorize that, but it's silent on how that might happen.
I don't think that's going to be a big deal.
So two weeks are granted, and then if there's still a logjam, we're going to take a look at it with the executive, but we're going to get every work product to date.
That's the way it should play out.
OK.
OK, so this is a record.
We're recording this, and so that's the way it should play out.
And if we have to clarify that with additional language down the road, we will, but I think that should be the way it should work out.
So we're good on this section.
So we're basically seven months into the process.
partner tell me why Councilmember Brian's deadline is unreasonable or what where the pushback is and why I'm carrying someone's water on this October date Well, so the the October date that is in is in your amendment was arrived at after a comprehensive analysis of the time that's necessary to meet all of the requirements outlined in the ordinance including the inclusion of the new working group and the time it takes to conduct a a truly meaningful session coordinating that function in addition to the public engagement requirement, which I think, as we all know, is also not something you can just sort of toss off in a couple of days.
So the timeline that's presented in Council President Harrell's amendment represents, in our view, and we have done a lot of work on this, I appreciate your acknowledgement of the work that we've all been doing.
I also want to call out that the departments, police, fire, transportation, those who have serves in progress have also been incredibly cooperative and helpful with this process.
But we believe that the October date represents the absolute quickest and most efficient timeline that's possible under current staffing levels, given the reality of the research, the logistics, the notification periods, the analysis, and all the other schedules that we have to meet.
It represents, in fact, the best case scenario and does not even incorporate a two-week extension, for example, that the working group might request, or any other delays or unforeseen circumstances.
So to be blunt, we're sweating it, even looking at October 1st to complete all the retroactive reviews.
So the date in the amendment number two
understand would be extremely difficult and I do apologize if I Spoke politely that I was having I think all of you have this from Kate a good document Kate It talks about some of the time requirements for drafting.
There's 45 days.
Do you all see this document?
So what we seem to be getting from from the mayor's office and from sit is just an overwhelming need to say, look, we will comply with the surveillance ordinance.
We're taking it extremely seriously, serious, but they just need a little additional time.
That's what I'm hearing.
So that's why I asked my staff to draft that.
And I asked, well, what's the earliest if we're really, really pushed?
We knew the community were concerned.
There's all kinds of scary stuff out there.
So I understand the sense of urgency.
But that's.
We want to do a good job on this.
OK.
I'll go Customer Herbold, then Customer Brown.
I still have my clarification question that I had at the beginning.
Oh, I'm sorry.
But it applies for both the issue one as well as issue three.
You know, given that this ordinance was passed in August of last year, and presumably went into effect in September of last year, I'd like a sense of how many SIRS have been already transmitted to council, as well as a sense of how many retroactive technologies have been identified.
from my reading of the old ordinance that we're now amending, some of this work should have happened already, and I understand it hasn't because of the questions around the working group, but presumably you've at least done some initial work on this and just trying to get a sense of how much initial works, because maybe that'll affect some of these timelines that you've created for work that you're starting from ground one, and I'm assuming you're not starting from ground one.
Yeah, absolutely, and that's a good point.
So we've identified 28 surveillance technologies on the master list that was transmitted to Council.
We have six surveillance impact reviews that are complete from the point of view of the report is done.
Public engagement has not taken place.
That's scheduled for the first four CIRS to take place in October.
And you're right that we held back on certain aspects of executing on this because of the changes that were in play and the uncertainty on when these amendments would be finalized.
And so is everything a retroactive technology at this point?
Yes.
No new technologies have been acquired since the previous ordinance had been passed.
So could we knock off the 45 days for the 28 retroactive CSRS?
Well, no, because only six have been, six of the 28 that were identified have completed SIRs and only four are currently slated for public engagement.
So SIR development still needs to take place on 22 of those technologies.
I would have hoped that more had been accomplished over the course of the last year.
I would have at least hoped that everything leading up to the public review and the impact of the working group step of the process be
And I can certainly get more information about what's been happening over those last 12 years and get that back to you.
12 months.
12 months.
Thank you.
Feels like 12 years.
And I agree with you that there's no reason, but there's been a lot of turnover, a lot of change, and so we understand a lot of moving chairs.
Council Member Bryant.
So I appreciate, I mean what I'm hearing from the executive and I appreciate it is a desire to be able to make sure that you can do the quality of work you want to do, the thoroughness, and that we're not setting something that's unreasonable and it costs you to kind of cut corners and all.
And I respect that.
At the same time, I'm weighing that at the timeline that, you know, I'm almost embarrassed with my amendment because it's still 18 months from now in a process that's been, you know, in theory at least being discussed for over a year.
And I just feel like that's, you know, Who knows who will be sitting on this side of the table by the time that even comes back.
It's just a long time.
And I also want to just acknowledge that the 28 different surveillance technologies, they're all different and unique, and so they all have you know, different challenges with them.
And as you've identified, six of those SIRs are complete.
That doesn't mean the process is complete, but, you know, those should be well in advance, hopefully, of 18 or 24 months where we'd see those.
And there may be certain technologies that just may be complex enough or the process complex enough or personnel issues or other things that just come up that we may not get it.
My strong preference here, Council President, would be to set an 18-month deadline, which I think still gives, I'm watching Council Member Scata do a lot of math adding these days up.
I don't know what the result of that math is, but gives a lot of leeway with an understanding that and maybe we want to get explicit that you know if you know 90 days before the deadline you have a couple that you say hey these are taking a little longer and you can justify why that is and we can say you know we do this all the time with our you know statements of legislative intents and stuff you know.
Generally, we're reasonable people on this side of the table.
But give a process that says, look, if you have a couple that aren't going to make that, let us know, and we can negotiate that.
But in general, we'd really like to aim for the bulk of these being delivered within 18 months.
And so, Council President, that would be my preference to move forward.
And I'd be happy to put a little language in to explain that kind of flexibility, if that's helpful.
18 months is the March 1 date, correct?
When you're saying 18 months?
Yes, exactly.
There's another way of saying it, by the way.
Yeah, thank you.
This is what I'm hearing that I actually agree with is that and We hear the limitation of resources that you have and as we go through the budget Let's take a look at that as well.
Okay?
But what he's also saying is First of all, I don't know, I'd have to go into executive session and understand what kinds of liability we have to anyone if we don't meet certain headlines.
And so I would like a little wiggle room on this.
If there's...
I don't know, I'll just be arbitrary and say five or eight serves that aren't ready, that you let us know, and not at the last minute.
It's like my kids say that the homework's due tomorrow, and they say, I'm late.
Well, let me know.
Let us know ahead of time we're running, and then we could socialize the idea.
So Greg, I'm going to turn to you.
See, the intent is to still try to have an earlier time, but to give the department some time understanding they have limitations and resources.
Quite candidly, I was just going to split the baby and start talking about June or July, but quite candidly, I think the date, while important, and I heard some public testimony talk about it looked like we were like miles apart.
We're just seven months apart.
But what's most important for me is that I think we need to get it done as quickly as possible.
I think we need to get it done as quickly as possible.
I think we need to get it done as quickly as possible.
I think we need to get it done as quickly as possible.
I think we need to get it done as quickly as possible.
I think we need to get it done as quickly as possible.
I think we need to get it done as quickly as possible.
I think we need to get it done as quickly as possible.
I think we need to get it done as quickly as possible.
I think we need to get it done as quickly as possible.
I think we need to get it done as quickly as possible.
As we're looking at using, and this is probably more going forward than retroactively, but as we're looking at using surveillance technology, we're often doing that because we think that is a more efficient way to run government.
And part of the cost of surveillance technology needs to be all this work.
You know, looking at the equity, looking at the SIR, so making sure we understand the impacts of it.
And if it turns out that It's no longer effective to do that, then maybe we don't use it.
And I get that we're changing a little bit mid-game here.
But it just needs to be incorporated from it.
And I think as Council President Harrell said, for us to do thorough work, if we don't have the resources to do it, that is on us.
I mean, the mayor proposes the budget.
We need to be made aware of that, so we're providing the resources.
And if we can't provide the resources, I don't think it's...
What I'm not comfortable with is we're going to continue doing the surveillance until we get the resources.
I think we need to talk about, well, let's suspend using that until we actually can do it the way we want to do it.
And that's what I think a lot of this legislation is about, is about getting that part right.
And in fairness to the council, Back in 2013, when we first created the surveillance ordinance, it was because, quite candidly, there just wasn't the transparency that we wanted.
So we still have battle scars from how a wire mesh system in West Seattle was installed, and we didn't realize it had rotating cameras that were I mean, this was not a transparent process.
Now, we're light years from that now.
So here's what we're, the language we're trying to, we're trying to keep a March 1st deadline, but still allow for, I'll call it an appeal process for lack of a better term.
But, and, and I'm just going to trust that the department doesn't abuse that, but there'll be some check-in.
I would like to ask you prior to that to let us know, perhaps you can meet the March deadline.
Perhaps you can.
But if you can't, then we have to get early notice and see what we have to do there.
Does that seem like a reasonable approach?
Not an ideal approach I understand.
It does.
I think when we reviewed it, Council President, I think that was a ambitious date, but we understand the timeliness factor too, so we will try to meet it.
We would appreciate that language that at least we could give notice that there's an issue with the date.
But we are willing to go with the March 1st date.
But it sounds like we're now dealing with 22 CSRS.
That would still be, there is still some process to go with the six SIRs that have been drafted, including for public engagement.
So it would still be tight with those six SIRs included.
Yeah, we're on a timeline that I believe to deliver the first batch to council by the end of January at this point.
And that includes the public engagement, that includes the working group, that includes all of the processes.
And I think what makes us a little bit more nervous is there's a number of elements in this process that are really highly variable and outside of our control.
So that factored into some of the estimates that we that we can help with.
What would be an example of that, Jim?
Simply not really knowing how to anticipate the level of public response or public feedback that is generated by the public engagement sessions and knowing that that is going to represent the specific risks that the community feels that then the executive and the departments need to respond and assure how that's going to be mitigated, determine the technology changes that need to take place in order to mitigate those risks, The working group, I'm very happy to see the working group has some timelines of their own in here.
But like I said, our estimates didn't factor in, for example, that two-week extension.
We also don't know what product we're going to get from the working group at this point because we've never done one.
And that requires a body of work that's difficult to estimate.
So I just think, you know, once we go through this a few times, we'll probably get it down and we'll understand better what the reality is in meeting the March 1st deadline.
So, you know, I would be comfortable if there was an intermediate date by which we could come back and report to council on how the process is working, just on the process itself, and then possibly discuss some adjustments at that time.
Let's do that.
Okay.
We hear you, and I'm certainly amenable to that.
And I think it's totally fair with a process and a work group that doesn't exist yet to say, like, there's just a lot of uncertainty.
And I think it's totally fair to be like, we're just going to assume, you know, kind of worst case scenario, if you will.
And so I think the check-in makes a lot of sense.
Because I actually think that when we get this up and running, we're going to learn a lot.
And I think, my hope is that it moves probably quicker than anticipated.
And there may be a couple that stand out.
It's like, whoa, this one's going to be something we have to dig into.
It's like, great, let's have that conversation soon.
Okay.
Are we down to item four?
Is that what we're discussing now?
I think we're seven.
We were on three.
I mean, we sort of agreed.
This is what we're trying.
We're agreeing to March 1, but we're also looking for language to allow the departments to make a case if they need to go beyond March 1 for certain technologies.
But they're going to give us a status report on that and why.
OK.
We'll work that out.
But I just want to be clear.
If in fact they do need an extension, I don't want to have to go through the ordinance process.
There has to be a- An out.
Got it.
I got to think about how we do that because that could be abused quite candidly.
Maybe it should go through the legislative process.
Let me think offline about how we do that.
Because quite candidly, I want to have a good March 1st deadline.
But I'll tell you what, we'll schedule a committee wait six months before that.
And we'll do a hard check in.
Because I actually think, I'm the eternal optimist, that we get our rhythm on this.
We look at some of these technologies after you've done some of the tough ones.
There's going to be similarity in how it's used, and it may not be as tough as some of the earlier ones.
And I was going to ask this question that the six that you've completed, were the departments, how are they going about their work?
Are they looking at the, are they trying to take the easier, low-hanging fruit ones, or do they sort of say, let's take the toughest one and really get it out there?
Or is it, they're not, what is their sequential thing on how they're going to go about these serves?
You've read the CSRS.
Yes.
So the first six, they're from three different departments.
And it was, I believe, and Jim, correct me if I'm wrong, it was staggering between departments.
So we didn't overwhelm them with work to complete a report.
As you'll see in the memo, each report on average without public comment is 35 pages.
So it's an extensive report that they're filling out.
And the first group was six.
I think the second group is substantially more.
hopes that we would get, as Jim referred to, a pattern down.
And then they're just divided out by departments evenly.
I believe there is substantially more police department technologies on here, so we accommodate for that as well.
Okay.
So just so I'm clear, a check-in six months before March 1st, 2020, do you also want to consider an appeal process, or do you want to do that sort of at that time if necessary?
I'd soon just do it.
Well, let me ask you a question.
So would I put an appeal process in the bill now so that if they're not making the deadline, they have a way to ask for more time?
Or would you like to see how they're doing six months beforehand and then make that decision at that time, say if everything's going great, they won't need it?
The latter, as you described it.
That makes sense.
And so six months before would be September 2019, the check-in?
of the March 1st year from now.
Yep, I want that.
Going for.
Yeah, and this one is a little easier.
This is when the departments need to start submitting the SIRs to council.
And I want to be really clear here, under the either amendment, they can fulfill this requirement by even turning in one.
But the one that they turn in would have to have gone through community engagement, the working group, and fulfilled all the other requirements of the SIR.
And so as you can see, the Amendment 1 is January 31st, 2019, and Amendment 2 is October 31st, 2018.
So again, two or three months apart, the department wants just additional time for the reasons you've already described.
Based on, I think, my understanding of what was going to happen and what you just described, Greg, are slightly different.
And you were saying that four of these are ready to go out for public comment.
And then the work group, you said the work group doesn't exist yet.
So my deadline of next month is going to be a little tight, I recognize.
So maybe talk about a little bit the timeline that you're planning to do with those four that it sounds like are the most advanced and what that looks like.
Yeah, so public engagement for those four will take place throughout the month of October.
And like you said, the working group isn't yet formed.
So when that happens, we would need time to engage the working group in their part of the process.
Because the SIR is not just the document, it's the package that encompasses all of that feedback and input.
So that's I mean at this point we don't anticipate the working group to be formed and capable of performing their functions before October 31st.
So the the when you start public engagement next month at that point the the draft will be public, right?
October 8th, yes, when it's scheduled to go publish on the website.
So Councilmember Harrell, I think your date makes more sense, and I think that date is still even an aggressive date, so I appreciate that.
The language that I would consider adding, and it may not even be necessary, is just that the, you know, the first draft will be made public, but I'm okay.
We don't need to codify that if you're saying that it's going to happen.
I think it may actually be codified in the ordinance already, yeah.
that we will publish everything.
Okay, so we'll keep the January 31st deadline, which is still tight, but we'll get that done.
And then we have number five.
So number five has a little bit of background to it.
Necessary to probably read this so that you all understand while making the decision.
This item is on a surveillance usage review report, and that report is created by the auditor for all departments that aren't public safety and by the IG for the police department.
And that report would look at how surveillance technology has been used, how often the data is managed and whether it is, or how the data is managed and whether it's shared with other entities.
the deployment of the surveillance technologies and how that deployment could impact civil liberties or create disproportionate impacts and then all the costs for the surveillance technology.
So that report would be done once a year and the amendments differ in when it would start.
Amendment 1 would have that report starting in 2020 and would look at the The CSRS that had been created in 18 and 19 look at their public engagement process and the data management plans, everything that's gone into them, and then do that review at that time.
Amendment 2 would make the first report due in 2019. It would also cover data for 2018. And this is sort of the same issue as with the equity impact report.
It's a matter of whether the the report is done on sort of the CSRS that have been created.
And I think the idea here was that under the First Amendment, all CSRS would be created by that time.
Under the Second Amendment, all the CSRS may not be created, but here again, as Council Member O'Brien says, there may be some desire to do some initial assessment before all the CSRS are created.
OK, let me just sort of backtrack.
The survey, this usage review document is done by the auditor.
Yeah, it's done by the city auditor for all non-police and then the IG for police.
How many of the 28 are police department of the 20 technologies?
19. Thank you.
OK.
So the auditor would be doing nine of them and the inspector general would be doing the other 19. Yeah.
OK.
The auditor is doing how many?
Nine?
Nine.
Nine.
But this document applies to both the IG work and the deadlines apply to both the IG and the auditor.
Yeah, the deadlines would apply to both.
Okay, so obviously there's, I think what you're hearing from at least Council Member Bryan or perhaps others is they want something done.
By 2019, are you talking about the end of 2019 or where, it just says 2019?
Yeah, there's no months specified, so.
Yeah.
I mean, I'm flexible on when it happens.
You know, so 2018 will end, and then you'll have up to a year to assemble, the auditor will have up to a year to assemble all the information and report it.
The reason I'm asking is if Council Member Bryan said December of 2019. It just says 2019-2020.
Mine could have been January of 2020. His could have been December of 2019.
We're like a day apart.
I think you're right, Council Member.
If it was December, then obviously you would have had a whole year by which the department could create CSRS.
And they may not have created all of them, but they would have created quite a few, given the deadline that we just talked about a few minutes ago.
So I mean at this point because I really do want to have this ready for vote Monday so what can councilmember and I or Brian I come up with a date on this one and I understand I think we hear you loudly and clearly the auditor and IG may need a little more time but I I hope you're hearing as a sort of a counterpoint is We're trying to get something.
And we realize this is evolving work.
But this usage review is pretty critical stuff.
So rather than the appearance that we're waiting way down the road for this robot, give us something and a good one.
But we understand there needs to be some time as well.
So we'll hopefully come up with a date here and stick it in.
I appreciate that path and want to work with you on that.
I think for me, it's going to be pretty important that within the next year or so, we start publishing this.
And I get that that first year, I haven't sat down with the auditor and talked about their capacity.
Inspector General, I know they're getting set up too, so this is a body of work that they're probably not contemplating a ton at the moment.
And so, you know, in that first year, it may be that it's, you know, the first iteration of something that needs to go through some revision to be useful, but I really want to get that started.
And I think, you know, it's hard for me to tell at this point which pieces of this are going to be the most important to the public, but a survey of all of the data we're collecting through surveillance, on an annual basis, I think it's gonna be really important for folks to see.
Can you, are you comfortable sharing, when you said filed on 2019, sort of what you had in mind, just so I sort of know where to put it?
I was thinking September, but, you know.
Okay.
I think the fact that there's no month named gives some flexibility.
If there's no month, it can go as late as December.
And so, my fear would be, Council President, would be that if 2020 meant December also.
So, you know, if you were talking January,
I think in the following years.
In the subsequent years, I would hope that it would be, you know, less than a year to do it after you've done the first one.
Just because, you know, sometimes we get reports that come out and they're a year and a half old and it feels like the data you're getting is like, it's not even useful now by the time we got it.
So.
Okay.
I don't think we're far apart on this.
And so we'll work with you on this one.
And we agree.
It's just a point of order.
In the ordinance, the original ordinance, I think part of this audit is two of the three are reflecting on the effectiveness of the ordinance itself.
So again, just we are willing to work as fast as possible, but it is reflective also in the ordinance.
So I think fall would be good.
So we've gone through several of these.
And with the further caveat, similarly to row one, that some of the information that the auditor and the IG will be reviewing is not going to be a full SIR.
It will be whatever we have at the time.
Yeah, I think especially around whether or not the technologies have a civil liberty impact.
If the public engagement and outreach hasn't happened or the work group hasn't met yet, then that would be information that they wouldn't have yet.
So that that's one potential factor in the in the date Well, just so I could save a little work off the record if it were January of 2020 Revert covering for years 18 and 19 do any of you have any big heartburn on that?
Well, I my suspicion is January 2020 might be a little tight to get data for 19 19 2019. Yeah, so I What I would suggest is let's pick a date.
It could be, you know, January 15, 2020 for 2018. And then in subsequent years, I would like to see maybe a September date for 2019 and then, you know, going forward.
So maybe give a, you know, give an extra three or four months in that first year to just get things organized and then shorten that timeline up a little bit.
That sounds reasonable.
So let's go for that.
All right.
And that's it.
OK, so we can't vote on it because it's all meshy right now.
But Greg, you have this.
And then we'll just explain the substitute on the dais Monday.
But it'll be 100% consistent with what we just agreed on.
I think you have enough clarity on what we agreed on.
I do.
Yeah, thank you.
OK.
All right.
Thank you.
Thank you, community.
Shankar, thank you for your work.
So your plan would be to vote on the base legislation today, unamended, to get it out of council?
Oh, I guess we should.
Why don't we do that?
Thank you for suggesting that.
And then Council President Harrell set a tight timeline for you.
The language we know in this, the words matter to a lot of folks, so getting a compromise amendment or a consensus amendment between us with a day or two so folks can actually have a chance to read through it and make sure everything that we discussed here, which I think we agree with, that we're not missing something would be great.
Good point.
So taking that approach, you could substitute in either Amendment 1 or Amendment 2, and we will work it to make sure it reflects the committee's priorities.
So in other words, I could take, just go down, okay, so let's try to do that.
Let's see how that works right now.
Let's go through the amendments and see if we could vote on them.
Okay, so I'm gonna go with amendment.
I'm sorry, you wouldn't have to vote on all the different pieces.
You would just pick an amendment, either one or two, and vote on that to move forward to the full council.
And then in between, I would tweak that amendment so that it reflects what we've talked about today.
That's what I just thought I was going to suggest going through each one.
But no, it's one amendment for all six points.
Gotcha.
OK.
OK.
So I'm going to move Amendment 1 as reflected on this document.
That's sort of weird because you have I'm moving.
How do I do that?
I don't understand Amendment 1 and and that will that will amend the bill.
I understand that.
But then I'll tweak it between now and council.
But there's no amendment.
The document I'm sort of referencing to has Amendment 1 and Amendment 2, and there's different sides on each one.
So it's a little confusing for me to say Amendment 1, and each one has a...
Just trying to get a new base.
Council President, my...
Well...
One has my name on it, so that might be my case.
But I was going to suggest that we do Amendment 2, because I think that is most of the changes.
No, I thought we were calling all of this Amendment 1, regardless of whether.
So let me muddle through it.
I think I know where we're trying to head.
OK.
I'm going to move Amendment 1 to the base legislation, which describes on a document Amendment Number 2 in this first section dealing with the equity impact assessment and whether it encompasses even those technologies where the SIR hasn't been created.
I think we're in agreement on that one.
Also in this Amendment 1, we are in agreement that after six weeks and a two-week extension, It goes to the Council and the Executive.
Correct.
And also in Amendment 1, we've agreed on a March 1st deadline for the serves with some additional language that Central Staff will provide.
A check-in.
A check-in, which allows the Department to make their case as to why perhaps some work is not quite done.
And also in Amendment 1, My amendment one will be January 31st 2019 and also an amendment one I Remember it I said This one you were having me work out the language January to do 2000 and January
January 2020 to do 2018 data.
September to do 2019 with the expectation that the September date would be in perpetuity.
That is amendment one.
Is there a second?
That is a great amendment.
I would second that.
All those in favor, say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
The ayes have it.
So now I'm going to vote on the base legislation as amended.
OK, so I will move Council Bill 119218 as amended.
All those in favor, say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
The ayes have it.
So now you're going to draft N1 Amendment 1.
So I just want to, because committees were a little less formal than we are at full council, I think a lot of the things we talked about, in language are already in there.
I'm curious what we need to change at full council from your perspective, Greg.
If we adopted, if we adopted Amendment 1, which we just did, which you all just did.
The Amendment 1 is modified by Council President.
I need to go in and make the changes, the check-in that we discussed, the dates that we discussed.
So will that require another amendment or did we just do all that kind of informally here?
I think we just did it informally.
I was told that that would be okay by the clerk to do this.
We change dates and add language.
My sense is what you described is simple and straightforward enough that it's good, but I think getting that published so we can all look at it and make sure we got it right and we may have additional amendments, but hopefully not.
Okay, so thanks Greg.
A little work to do here, but we'll get it checked.
We'll get right on it.
Get it to Shankar.
We'll get it to you first, Shankar.
How's that?
All right.
Before it even gets to Councilman O'Brien, maybe we'll give it to you.
OK.
Thanks for your work.
Thanks for your patience.
And with that, we'll stand adjourned.