Seattle City Council 5/26/2020

Good afternoon, colleagues.

The May 26, 2020 meeting of the Seattle City Council will come to order.

It is 2.02 p.m.

I'm Lorena Gonzalez, president of the council.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Councilmember Lewis?

Present.

Councilmember Morales?

Here.

Councilmember Mizqueda?

Here.

Councilmember Peterson?

Here.

Council Member Strauss.

Present.

Council Member Herbold.

Here.

Council President Gonzalez.

Here.

Seven present.

Thank you so much.

If there is no objection, colleagues, Council Member Salant will be excused from today's meeting.

Hearing no objection, Council Member Salon is excused from today's meeting.

Presentations, I'm not aware of any presentations, so we'll move to the approval of the minutes.

The minutes of the City Council meetings of May 11th and 18th, 2020 have been reviewed.

If there is no objection, the minutes will be signed.

Hearing no objection, the minutes are being signed.

And will the clerk please affix my signature to those minutes?

Okay, moving on to the adoption of the referral calendar.

If there is no objection, the proposed introduction and referral calendar will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the introduction and referral calendar is adopted.

If there is no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

Colleagues, at this time, we will go ahead and open the remote public comment period for items on the city council agenda, introduction and referral calendar, and the council's 2020 work program.

It remains the strong intent of the city council to have public comment regularly included on our meeting agendas.

However, the city council continues to reserve the right to end or eliminate these public comment periods.

at any point if we deem that the system is being abused or is no longer suitable to allowing us to conduct our meetings efficiently and in a manner that makes it able for us to conduct our necessary business.

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

The public comment period for this meeting is a total of 20 minutes, and each speaker will be given two minutes to speak.

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

If you have not yet registered to speak but would like to, you can sign up before the end of public comment by going to the council's website at www.seattle.gov.

The public comment link is also listed on today's pre-published agenda.

Once I call the speaker's name, staff will unmute the appropriate microphone and an automatic prompt of you have been unmuted will be the speaker's cue that it is their turn to speak.

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

As a reminder, public comment should relate to an item on today's agenda.

the introduction and referral calendar, or the council's 2020 work program.

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

Once you hear the chime, we would ask that you please begin to wrap up your public comments.

If speakers don't end their comments at the end of the allotted time provided, which is two minutes, then the speaker's microphone will be muted to allow us to call on the next speaker.

Once you've completed your public comments, I'd ask that you please disconnect from the line.

And if you plan to continue following this meeting, I'd ask that you do so via Seattle Channel or the listening options listed on the agenda.

So we will go ahead and open up a public comment for 20 minutes.

That will put us at 2.27 PM.

And we'll begin with the first speaker on the list, who is Kimberly Wolf.

I'm sorry, technical difficulties.

Can you put me to the end?

Kimberly, you would like to speak at the end?

Yeah, can you move me down to the end?

I'm having technical difficulties at the moment.

Yeah, just of course.

Thank you.

Yeah, of course.

Our next speaker is Jamal Jara.

Thank you City Council for this great opportunity to present my concern.

I'm trying to guide you why we need a hazard pay within a minute.

There are three main reasons.

One, additional risk while I'm reacting with first responders like doctors or nurses or other departmental health care providers.

For example, I met a nurse who is living from the UW Hospital and heading to her home about 30 minutes drive.

We had a great conversation between us and I am also a future medical doctor.

Unfortunately, I am so scared to death she is without mask this long trip because I have a six-year-old child when I go back home.

Number two, additional time we spend between rides of different customers, example, cleaning seats, removing trash that's left behind.

Number three, extra expenses during this pandemic to make sure everyone are safe examples, shopping, masking, and disinfectant, at least to minimize high risk.

So thank you for hearing us, both, yes, for hard-earned pay for hard-working class.

We are also an example of first responders.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

Thank you for calling in today.

Our next speaker is James Thomas.

James Thomas, 65 years old, work in Washington, pay up.

Uber Eats, Postmates, Amazon, DoorDash, and Instant Cart I've done.

I've been doing gig work since I was nine.

Hustling is what we called it.

I would help people get home with their groceries from the supermarket.

So 55 years later, this is not news to me.

A lot of newer and recent drivers don't realize how much we made only two years ago.

It is absurd to be asked to deliver someone's packages for $2 to the customers.

These companies simply need to pay out more for the jobs that we do.

These companies constantly change the terms of agreement, which always leads to the drivers working more to oblige the company while getting paid less and less to do the trips.

Drivers are throwing caution to the wind.

Every time one jumps on a delivery platform, it is a continual risk of transmitting a fatal virus to members of the home they live in.

We are essential and at risk, period.

The delivery industry is going to thrive big time, and we need proper working conditions advocated for, like yesterday.

Therefore, we need someone on our representative council to advocate for us workers and get her done getting us paid properly.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, James, for calling in today.

Our next speaker is Jake Miller.

Hello.

My name is Jake Miller, and I've been doing gig work since August of 2018 on Postmates, DoorDash, and Amazon Flex.

I'm here to comment in support of CB 119799, hazard pay for gig workers.

Right now, gig workers are being paid below the minimum wage to deliver during this pandemic.

And the companies can get away with this because many of these people doing this essential work don't have any other options.

When I started doing DoorDash in 2018, the minimum payout for a delivery was $6.50.

Over the time, it has gradually gone down.

But since the beginning of this crisis, the massive influx of new drivers has allowed DoorDash to slash their minimum payout to as little as $3 per delivery.

This is simply unacceptable.

Additionally, companies like DoorDash and Postmates have not provided personal protective equipment, meaning that we gig workers are required to purchase for ourselves.

All of this is why we need some sort of essential hazard pay for essential workers for the duration of this crisis.

Since this crisis hit, my regular employer was able to get into the PPP, and that means I don't have to depend on gig workers the way I did in the past.

But for gig workers who do depend on this income, the current pay structure means they're getting subminimum wages while having to risk their own health to provide an essential service.

If I can get paid my regular wage from my W-2 employer for doing absolutely nothing.

I think it is absolutely absurd that we cannot pay the essential workers in this city a minimum wage to risk their lives and deliver during a crisis.

Thank you for allowing me the time to speak.

And please, please, please enact this legislation, CB 119799. Thank you.

Thank you so much for calling in today.

Our next speaker is going to be Zachariah Jurato.

My name is Zachariah Jurato.

I drive for Uber, Lyft, Postmates, GoDash, GrabHub.

And I thank council members for allowing me to speak for gig workers.

As a driver, I'm not only exposing myself for my children.

Furthermore, I'm incurring additional expenses for disinfecting products and cleaning between customers.

At times, I have provided customers with a mask, and I've been dealing with customers who are not covering when they're coughing, and I'm not aware of the severity of the pandemic that's happening.

I urge the council members to consider giving gig workers a hazard pay.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for calling in today.

Our next speaker is Kidani Tekle.

Hi, my name is Kidani.

I've been working for Uber since 2015. And in the beginning, the pay was OK.

And then all of a sudden, the pay gets slashed from $6 delivery trip down to the $3 a trip.

And with the $3 per delivery on average, it's just not a living wage or a livable income to live off.

And I believe that these companies depend on the customers to tip, and they use the tip as part of the payment plan.

And that to me is not right, because the tip should be in addition to the payment that we receive for doing the delivery.

And when We are working in times like these where there's additional risk to our health and to our well-being, and our family members depend on us to come back to help them and take care of them.

I feel like we should get additional pay for hazardous, because no matter how hard we try, we can put gloves on, we can wear our masks, there's still a potential risk that we can still be sick while we're trying to complete our job.

So the companies on their own will not care about doing anything.

But if they're pushed to give us extra pay during extra additional times where we're taking additional risks, I feel It's okay.

It should be something that they should just automatically say this is what we should do for our drivers and they're not doing that and thank you.

I appreciate for you taking the time.

I want to thank all the council members and I hope this passes so that the companies know how important we are and I thank all the

Thank you so much, Kazana, for calling in.

Our next speaker is Aaron Iacolucci.

Iacolucci.

Sorry, I'm sorry about that.

Yeah, hello.

Go ahead.

Yeah, yeah, too easy.

Hello, everybody.

This is Aaron Iacolucci.

I am an Army vet.

I've embarked on this gig at Economy Works since 2014. And due to the lack of money, that we continuously have to pay out due to supplies, downtime, and other risks that we take that are subjected to other environmental factors like, for example, clients not covering their face, not providing adequate masks, or they're being supplied with adequate masks that we greatly increase our likelihood of subjecting ourselves to this risk.

I am a family, you know, not just myself, but I have a wife and two other kids.

And, you know, I greatly fear that one day that being one of the major you know providers for the family that I'm going to come home and then infect my wife and then I'm going to get out.

So not going to be able to work.

I feel that this Kobe crisis and that flux of high demand or just people really being able to sign up really, uh, you know, it's not adequately, uh, distributed, I feel.

And, um, to where we're having to get placed in these hazardous conditions of working harder, longer hours to get not even enough to really, to become self sustainable.

Uh, thank you everybody.

And in closing, God bless you and have a great day.

Thank you for calling in today.

Our next speaker is Jason.

Our next speaker is Jason Reeves.

Hello, my name is Jason Reeves.

I'm a DoorDasher and Postmates driver.

I have 3,552 deliveries as of now.

I've been doing DoorDash for three years.

And since the COVID crisis started, I've seen a complete lack of support from the companies.

That's why I'm asking for hazard pay.

As essential frontline workers, we should have our own supply line of PPE that is given to us.

But since that's not the case, I'm saying essential pay should be, our hazard pay should be given to us.

Because if we're out there exposing ourselves to 10, 20, 30, 40 people at night, and then bringing it home to our neighborhood, to our own communities and whatnot, without the proper essentials, we are only aiding COVID-19.

I'm asking Seattle City Council to show us this great leadership that I've seen and I've heard of.

Stand with us.

Work with us.

Make sure that the hardest working people that are the heroes right now are out there on the front line with the materials they need to keep themselves, the communities, and the people that we work for safe.

I like what I do.

I don't want to give sicknesses out to people.

That's not why I go to work.

I go to work to be a part of my community.

the stuff that I've seen since it's come.

Thank you for your time, Seattle City Council.

I'd like to yield the remainder of my time.

Thank you, Jason, for calling in today.

Our next speaker is Paul Veggers.

Hi, my name's Paul.

I have been delivering with Caviar and Uber Eats and Postmates and DoorDash.

And most recently, I've been delivering with Uber Eats because they've treated me better than any of those other services have.

But that being said, the pay can tend to be a little bit inconsistent, as has been mentioned by a few other speakers already.

There was a massive influx of drivers just about a week after the coronavirus pandemic started.

And there was a huge drop in pay to the point where it almost didn't feel like it was worth going out and delivering for the really, truly meager wages I was pulling in during that time.

It's ebb and flowed and it's back up to a reasonable amount again.

But I feel that as essential workers, you know, putting ourselves at risk, we deserve a reasonable level of hazard pay above minimum wage.

And then on top of that, we should be earning tips, depending on how well we interact with customers.

And I I feel that the wages that we are currently making, which often are below minimum wage, are far too low to compensate couriers for the risks that they are taking because, frankly, the risks are unavoidable.

I deliver in the U District, and a lot of the little restaurants on the app are very, very tight.

I come into a little restaurant, and there's a little hallway, and sometimes there's another courier that I have to have to jockey around, and there are three or four people behind a kitchen window, and we're all breathing the same air.

We can practically all smell each other in this space, and it's unavoidably dangerous in that way.

And because of that, I believe that we as couriers deserve hazard pay, and I hope that you can make that happen for us.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling in today.

Our next speaker is Kimberly Wolfe.

Kimberly?

Okay, I got it now.

Thank you for moving me.

Kimberly, I've been doing gig work, both TNC and delivery for over five years.

because I require scheduling flexibility that it offers.

Originally, they were my primary income, but due to the gig companies raised to the bottom, the pay dropped so low that I had to take another job just to get my basic bills covered.

I can't count on gig work alone meeting my bills because that's how these companies operate.

They're continually slashing pay at every opportunity unless they're officially made to pay better.

So these companies play tricks on their workers in order to force them to take jobs that they wouldn't normally choose.

Jobs that cannot meet a simple cost-benefit analysis.

Are we really independent contractors if we don't really have the option to refuse a job?

When they require an acceptance rate, which is being raised right now, by the way, we don't really have free choice to refuse the really low-paying jobs like the $2 deliveries they offer this, which means we don't really have much of a choice to refuse the hazardous jobs either.

During the COVID outbreak, I lost the W-2 job that I relied on for the basic bills, and now I only have the gig work to rely on, and frankly, it's way too much effort and risk for a small amount of income that it provides.

I can't count on gig work alone, because I know how these companies operate.

They're paying lip service to offering COVID assistance programs for the PR, when in reality, there's a minuscule amount of concrete assistance actually going to the gig workers.

They know they're sending workers out to vulnerable customers, potentially spreading virus.

They're not warning people.

I know of a good gig worker who has COVID, and when the company found out, they deactivated her.

And while she was at a medical facility later, she found out through just an accidental encounter with a recent passenger that the company had never warned him.

And I'm wondering if they even warned other people.

So it's creating a huge hazard We have to bear all the costs of our expenses.

We need more basic income.

Thank you, Kimberly, for calling in today.

Our last speaker signed up is William, excuse me, William Bloxham.

Sorry, we're down here in the industrial district, so you'll probably hear some trains behind me.

That's all right.

I'm calling.

Yeah, something's got to be happening.

I'm calling on proposed legislation 119796 and I just want to remind people that down here in Soto we handle food and are required to have food safety verified by third-party audit and we've had trouble in the past with people in encampments and I pick up after them and I pick up their their litter and you know I pick up their human waste as well And we're calling in their 9-11 calls.

And we're, in one instance, at least dragging one gentleman off the railroad track.

So I really want you to carefully consider that we need to be here.

We've got to be at the conflicts of I-90 and I-5 and near the piers.

And it's not as if we can move out of the area.

And it's not as if we can get a third-party audit that's already warned us about sanitation.

That's all I got.

Thanks.

Thank you so much for calling in today, William.

That is the last speaker we have on today's sign up sheet.

So I'm gonna go ahead and close out public comment at this point, and we'll go ahead and move into items of business on our agenda.

First up is payment of the bills.

Will the clerk please read the title?

Council Bill 119788, appropriating money to pay certain claims to the week of May 11th, 2020 through May 15th, 2020, and ordering the payment thereof.

I will move to pass Council Bill 119798. Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded that the bill pass.

Are there any comments?

Okay, seeing and hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Lewis.

Aye.

Morales.

Aye.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

Peterson.

Aye.

Strauss.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

President Gonzalez.

Aye.

7 in favor, none opposed.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

And I'd ask that the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf.

Next up is committee reports of the city council.

Will the clerk please read agenda item 1 into the record.

Committee report of the city council, agenda item 1. Appointment 1584, appointment of Andrea Scheel as executive director of the Civil Service Commission and of the Public Safety Civil Service Commission.

for term to January 24th, 2023.

Thank you so much.

I will move to confirm appointment 1584. Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to confirm the appointment.

Council Member Herbold, you are the sponsor of this appointment, so you are recognized in order to address this item.

Thank you.

As I explained this morning, Andrea Schill is an individual who has served in an interim capacity as Executive Director of the Public Safety Civil Service Commission and the Civil Service Commission.

She has served in an interim capacity since October of last year.

She was formally appointed by the two separate commissions in a joint committee on January 22nd.

This is a joint position and appointing authority lies with those two commissions.

The commission conducted a recruitment process and unanimously selected Ms. Shield.

Their letter of appointment states that Ms. Shield's combination of knowledge and experience have prepared her to lead the important work of the Civil Service and Public Safety Civil Service Commissions.

Through her service as the Interim Director, Andrea has demonstrated a commitment to embed equity into her work at every level, serve as a collaborative partner, and provide thoughtful and authoritative counsel.

end quote.

Both commissions themselves are impartial, quasi-judicial bodies.

The executive director makes recommendations to the commissions themselves, but it is the commissions that act on those recommendations and approve or deny them.

The director works to manage meetings and have oversight of the public safety civil service exam process.

As interim director she has managed COVID-19 related issues regarding testing and last week the public safety civil service commission voted to resolve a long-standing issue regarding veterans preference points for firefighter promotions.

Ms. Shields' background includes experience as a human resources manager in the Department of Finance and Administrative Services, directing HR investigations.

She's acted as an assistant city attorney, providing labor and employment legal representation and advice to human resources teams, as well as litigation regarding labor arbitration and other administrative proceedings.

And she's also before coming to the city works as a private attorney representing individuals in state and federal employment related matters including sex age race religious disability discrimination and other civil rights My office has confirmed with the law department at the appointment itself as other Commission related appointments meet the standards of the governor's order order 20 28 in that it is routine and necessary.

The Public Safety Civil Service Commission hears appeals of sworn police and uniformed fire employees regarding disciplinary actions.

And the Civil Service Commission hears similar appeals for non-public safety personnel.

and can submit recommendations to the mayor and council related to the city's personnel system.

Both commissions have three members, with the mayor and council both appointing members and the employees electing the third.

This appointment is through January 21st, 2023. and as I clarified in council briefings this morning, if anybody has questions regarding the appointment process and whether or not it confirms with the expectations that the council has indicated for confirmation processes, in resolution 31868. This particular appointment is not covered by that resolution.

The reason is a couple different reasons.

This role is not a department head, and this position doesn't make decisions so much as manage meetings and make recommendations to the decision-making commissions.

And finally, this is not an appointment where the mayor appoints and the council confirms.

This is an appointment where the two commissions bring forward their preferred appointment.

but the resolution referenced earlier does cover department heads.

It's sponsored by Councilman Mosqueda, enacted by the council last year, and identifies really important expectations that the council has for recruitment and selection of department heads that are recommended by the mayor's office.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold for those introductory remarks.

Are there any other comments on the appointment?

Okay, I'm not seeing any.

I've actually had the opportunity to work with Ms. Schill in the past as a private practicing attorney and have always thought very highly of her and think that she is I would like to thank the clerk for the appointment.

I want to thank the appointing authorities as described by Councilmember Herbold for advancing her as the permanent appointee for this position.

Hearing no additional comments I will ask that the clerk please call the roll on the confirmation of the appointment.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you so much.

The motion carries and the appointment is confirmed.

Will the clerk please read item two into the record?

relating to city employment, authorizing execution of a collective bargaining agreement between the City of Seattle and Seattle's Parking Enforcement Opportunities Guild and ratifying confirming search and fire act.

Thank you so much.

I move to pass Council Bill 119794. Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill.

As sponsor of the bill, I will address it first and then see if any of you colleagues have comments to add.

Council Bill 119794, as I discussed in this morning's council briefing, is related to the Seattle Parking Enforcement Officers Guild Collective Bargaining Agreement.

This council bill would authorize the execution of a negotiated union contract between the city of Seattle and that bargaining unit.

This is a three-year contract from January 1st, 2019 through December 31st, 2021, and includes approximately 105 regularly appointed city employees in the Seattle Police Department.

The financial terms of this union contract are similar to those of the city coalition's union contracts and include a retroactive 4% annual wage increase for 2019 and a 3.6% annual wage increase for 2020. The financial and non-financial terms of this collective bargaining agreement were considered and approved by the members of the Labor Relations Policy Committee and are within those previously approved parameters.

I'm happy to entertain any questions or hear any comments from any of my colleagues.

Council Member Peterson.

Thank you, Council President Gonzalez.

I appreciate the hard work of our Labor Relations Policy Committee and the difficult decisions that you have to make.

I do not serve on that particular committee of legislative and executive leaders who represent management and who negotiate the multitude of employment contracts impacting 12,000 city government workers.

I carefully consider each contract on its own terms, and at this moment in time, with the grim fiscal challenges our city government faces today, I'll be voting no on this particular contract for parking enforcement officers.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson, for those remarks.

Just really quickly want to be just responsive to the extent that I can.

We don't need to belabor the point.

but this particular contract.

based on the evaluation given to us by the city budget office, does not have dire or detrimental impacts on the projected deficit of the city of Seattle.

I think that I and the members of the Labor Relations Policy Committee, which include four other council members and members of the executive team, carefully engaged with the city budget office to make sure that this was not only a We have a high road employer contract, but also a contract that was fiscally responsible and within our existing means as a city and feel comfortable that the contract before us strikes the right balance and that in approving this contract, we will not be subjecting the city budget to further pressure or crisis as a result of the the contract.

So I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting approval of this particular contract.

Any other questions or comments, colleagues?

Councilmember Lewis.

Thank you so much, Madam President.

I do just want to signal I will be voting in favor of ratifying this contract today.

I think it's critical that as we go into what is going to be a very difficult, a lot of very difficult conversations about the budget over the summer and this fall, that we not lose sight of the fact that Some of the most essential functions of government that we serve as a city are our first responders, law enforcement, firefighters, and certainly the employees that are included under this contract that provide an essential law enforcement-based mechanism that is really essential to maintaining the social contract that holds the city of Seattle together.

These are some of the services that we need to fight more than ever to make sure that we are maintaining adequately and that these are workers that we are seeking to have measures in place to retain and encourage them to stay in our workforce.

There's never been a more appropriate time, I think, to ratify a contract like this for this group of workers.

I hope it sets a precedent that we try to make sure that we set a budget that not only delivers essential services, but really defines our values as a progressive city.

And I think it really starts by making sure that we boldly stand by some of the workers doing really essential and critical work out there that hasn't abated during this crisis.

So I will be voting in favor of this.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

Any other comments or questions on the bill?

Okay, hearing and seeing none, I would ask that the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Lewis?

Aye.

Morales?

Aye.

Mosqueda?

Aye.

Peterson?

No.

Strauss?

Aye.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it and I'd ask that the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf.

Okay, colleagues, we're going to go ahead and move to agenda item three, which is emergency legislation and will require a three quarters vote of the city council.

The next agenda item, and I'd ask that the clerk please read item 3 into the record.

A short title is fine.

Agenda item 3, Council Bill 119795, relating to city employment, authorizing the execution of a memorandum of understanding for flexibility to respond to a civil emergency declared on March 3, 2020, providing certain benefits and conditions for employees using LEAP pursuant to the Families First Coronavirus Response Act.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

I will move to pass Council Bill 119795. Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill.

Again, a sponsor of the bill, I'll address it first and then open it up for any comments.

Council Bill 119795 authorizes the execution of a memorandum of understanding between the city and the coalition regarding flexibility and other supports for the city workforce during the COVID-19 public health crisis.

The memorandum of understanding would be effective from March 3rd, 2020 through September 1st, 2020. or until the mayor's proclamation of civil emergency ends, whichever date is earlier.

This memorandum applies only to employees represented by the coalition.

However, the city will use the same approach as presented in the memorandum of understanding for non-represented employees.

Key provisions of this memorandum of understanding includes the following terms, telecommuting and alternative work schedules, new paid leave provisions dictated by the Federal Families First Coronavirus Response Act, revisions to employees' vacation accrual caps, and the maintenance of medical benefits of employees on unpaid leave.

There are additional details related to the key components of the Memorandum of Understanding in the memo that was distributed by Karina Bull last week.

And for those who would like to learn more granular detail about this Memorandum of Understanding, those details are available to you.

Executive estimates that any additional costs incurred due to this legislation would be de minimis and would be paid for by existing appropriations.

So no additional appropriations are anticipated as a result of this particular.

So again, colleagues, this was a memorandum of understanding that was found to be mutually agreeable amongst representatives of our coalition of city unions, as well as the management side, which is the city of Seattle, including the legislative department.

And we certainly appreciate the ongoing cooperation of our labor partners.

represented by the Coalition of City Unions in this period of time that really requires so many of our essential workers to be responsive and available and flexible to respond to this COVID-19 public health crisis.

So I think that this memorandum of understanding is one that we should all support and is certainly reflective of the tremendous amount of commitment that our represented staff and all of our staff have towards continuing to serve the public in this moment of crisis and really want to take an opportunity similar to what Councilmember Herbold did this morning to really thank all of our City of Seattle employees who are essential to ongoing delivery of services to the people of Seattle and for their agreement to this memorandum of understanding which will allow us as a city to continue to deliver these critical services while also making sure that we're taking care of the health and safety of our own employees.

So I would encourage all of you colleagues to join me in supporting the passage of this council bill.

Are there any comments or questions from my colleagues?

All right, hearing and seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Lewis?

Aye.

Morales?

Aye.

Let's get a.

Hi.

Peterson.

Hi.

Hi.

Purple.

Hi.

President Gonzalez.

Hi.

Seven in favor, none opposed.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

And I'd ask the clerk, please fix my signature to the legislation.

Okay, folks, we are at other business portion of our agenda.

Is there any other further business to come before the council?

Council Member Lewis, you are recognized.

Thank you so much, Madam President.

I do have just a quick thing for the consideration of the council relating to tomorrow's committee meeting.

As many members of this council are aware, we have been in conversations with a variety of different presenters for the Select Committee on Homelessness Deliberations, one of which have been our partners at King County Public Health.

Seattle King County Public Health.

I have been working since Thursday of last week, Thursday, May 21st, to secure the appearance of Patty Hayes or a designee of Director Patty Hayes from Public Health to participate as a member of the deliberation, as a panelist for the deliberations of the committee tomorrow.

I believe that a representative from King County Public Health is essential.

based on the nature of the legislation that Council Member Morales has brought forward, that one of the underlying rationales for this discussion is conforming the city's practices to public health's best practices, and it is a discussion about the guidance from the CDC, the guidance from public health, and how our offerings of shelter are squaring with that.

The participation of public health, their ability to be able to answer questions from this council, their ability to be responsive to those underlying concerns is gonna be essential to having a fair hearing for all the parties involved.

On Thursday, May 21st, my office emailed Director Patty Hayes and Susie Levy at public health to inform them of the committee They declined at that time the invitation, saying that they didn't believe that they were going to have time to present.

My office sent a follow-up email.

indicating that we would take anyone from King County Public Health, that it did not have to be Director Hayes, it could be a designee in a position to talk about the guidelines and answer the questions of council members.

They still said that it would be difficult for them to respond.

to that request.

This morning, we again reached out saying we needed someone from public health, and there was still a hurdle in being able to produce somebody.

I did receive during our council meeting a response from public health indicating that if we sent them written questions they could reply with some written responses.

I do not believe that that would be adequate for the exchange that council members expect and the information that the committee would want to have to inform our deliberations and conversations on this legislation.

Given those efforts and given that we have tried to produce by invitation witnesses from King County Public Health, I'm requesting today that the council, pursuant to our power under Article 4, Section 4, Paragraph 6 of the City Charter, issue a subpoena for Director Patty Hayes to appear at the Select Committee on Homelessness tomorrow, or to provide a designee.

And I know that that's an extreme mechanism to request, but I do want to make sure that we have someone from public health to participate in the discussion.

And I'm requesting it.

I've talked to the law department about this.

They have indicated that it is within our power pursuant to the charge to do this, but that it should be done by a vote of the council and not pursuant to a single council member.

So I definitely wanted to bring it up for discussion.

New business, I thought, was the appropriate place to do it.

And I am making that motion.

Okay, thank you, Councilmember Lewis.

It is certainly an extraordinary request, and I will give you the fact that it is also pretty extraordinary circumstances that we are living in, so appreciate your intent of making sure that this council bill has a full and effective transparent committee process.

And what I'm hearing you say is that you believe that in order to facilitate that, it's essential from your perspective to compel the attendance of somebody from public health to answer questions of the city council.

And it sounds like you have exhausted your options to gain gain compliance, i.e. somebody actually attending the meeting.

So I'm going to just really quickly ask the clerk, so Emilio, you probably want to unmute here pretty soon, because I want to ask and make sure that we are appropriately considering this motion and that we are complying with our procedural requirements.

related to the motion.

So if Amelia, you could provide us with some guidance on that particular procedural question, I'd appreciate it.

Council Member Gonzalez, this is Amelia.

If you wouldn't mind being at ease for five, I would say about at least a minute, just so I can confer.

Someone on the line who could help me with that really quickly.

Madam Clerk, would it be possible for us to engage in conversation while you have the conversations that you need to have, or would it be inappropriate for us to discuss the proposed motion before getting clarity?

You are welcome to discuss the merits of the question, and then I can let you know when I'm prepared to move out to your response.

Great.

Thank you so much.

If you could just send me an email or interject, that'd be great.

Colleagues, this has been a question that has been put on the table by Council Member Lewis.

I want to go ahead in the sake of transparency and an effort to have dialogue as a council, I want to make sure that we have an opportunity to consider the question being posed by Councilmember Lewis and would open it up now to any of my colleagues who have questions.

Any questions or comments, colleagues?

And actually, Madam President, if I could, um, uh, request a five minute recess and that might be helpful, um, for everybody to, to, uh, wrap their heads around exactly, uh, kind of what is, what has been put in front of all of us, um, and then, um, resume the conversation at that time.

Um, I, I, I'm not sure that I see.

I mean, I think if there's going to be conversations that occur that need to happen about the substance of your request, that should appropriately happen in open public session in order for us to maintain compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act.

So I want to make sure that we're not signaling to the viewing public that we're somehow going to use the five minutes in a way that would be inappropriate.

Why don't we go ahead and open up just for a quick debate now.

There'll be an opportunity for you, Council Member Lewis, to take advantage of the next few minutes to clarify questions.

I have a couple people in the queue.

The first person we saw was Council Member Herbold, and the next one is Council Member Morales.

So, Council Member Herbold.

I just wanted to know whether or not procedurally, Madam President, we should seek a second on the motion before discussing it?

It's a good point.

I specifically asked the clerk whether we needed to have a second before we discuss the question.

She indicated that that was not necessary.

We could continue to have a conversation with the understanding that there are some open questions around the process that she is working on figuring out.

I didn't understand that included a second.

So thank you.

Yeah.

Council Member Morales and then Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you.

Well, thank you, Council Member Lewis.

It is definitely a frustrating situation that we are here to talk about a public health issue and can't get an answer from the Public Health Department or their participation so far.

I would be interested to know, as you were contemplating this, what precedent you might have found.

Has the Council done this before and under what kind of circumstances?

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

I am not aware of any example of us previously using this power.

And I mean, I would defer to folks who have been on the council longer and have more institutional memory of this, but I don't have any precedent.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Madam President, and I know You and the good chair.

Everybody's working as hard as we can including sponsor of the legislation and me as a co-sponsor on issues related to public health to be in the same team.

I know that the folks at public health are extremely busy.

I would I would love to just do a huge shout out to the folks at public health including director Patty Hayes and her entire team.

Because we know that from the very beginning, they have been trying to make sure that all entities, including the county and the city, had the information they need.

For example, in mid or early February, they had asked for time at council briefing, and we had a lot of things on the calendar that day.

And I asked them, do you mind if we do it in two weeks?

And then two weeks later, there had already been the first death in Seattle.

So from the very beginning, public health has been really trying to call everyone's attention to this matter and not only talk about the threat to life, but how we can prevent illness and death.

And so I think that the folks at public health have been working overtime.

I just want to start by saying thank you to them.

And I know I see Council Member Lewis's head nodding in agreement for folks who can't see all of our faces on Zoom and are just watching us on Seattle Channel.

I think that's in sentiment that we all share a huge amount of appreciation for them.

I also think that there is a huge interest in making sure that the public health elements of any future legislation, including the ones related to the navigation team, are well coordinated.

In fact, I would posit that That is the backbone of this conversation, is making sure that our city efforts are in coordination with public health and the county so that each arm of government knows what the other one is doing and that we're creating smooth transitions and warm handoffs for people to get into the housing that they need.

Council Member Lewis, I don't know if I've spoken long enough to sort of filibuster, but I think you're probably getting similar messages that I'm getting from folks who've been watching this and eagerly trying to figure out a solution.

But I would suggest that from some of the messages I've received, folks have said, we are coming.

We will be there.

Your message has been received.

that probably a subpoena is not necessary at this point.

So I just wanted to echo those points of appreciation for Public Health.

From the get-go, they were there to support us.

I think that there's common goals, both from the chair and this entire council, that we are well-coordinated.

And I believe that that was the spirit in which you had suggested the subpoena.

But I hope in the last few minutes, you probably have received the similar message that I did, that they will, in fact, be sending a representative.

And I just wanted to echo my appreciation for why you wanted to make sure that there was somebody there, which I fully agree with.

We do want to make sure that there's coordination.

And and I think the message has been well received and they're working to get someone.

But I'll I'll I'll turn it over to the council president and to the good chair.

If you have received similar messages, council member Lewis.

So Council President, if you don't mind, if I jump in real quick.

So I believe that something can probably be worked out at this point.

I do just want to say for the record that this was absolutely not something that I did lightly or wanted to do, and it would never be a first resort.

I'm going to say this, I'm happy to withdraw my motion because I am, based on your representations, Council Member Mosqueda, confident that something can be worked out to produce somebody from King County Public Health at the committee hearing tomorrow.

And at this point, I would withdraw my motion and I don't have any other items for new business.

I don't know if anyone else wants to jump in at this point.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Thank you, Councilmember Lewis and as chair of the committee, I definitely defer to your leadership in stewarding us through not just this conversation, but with others.

I think the approach that you've taken has rightfully got a lot of good attention and I know people are stretched so thin that helping to reprioritize is something that is definitely needed so we can get some answers to these questions and to make sure that we're coordinated which is the goal.

So I just want to say thank you because I think it was definitely coming from a place of wanting to make sure that we had all of the right cooks in the kitchen and all of the right folks there to answer the questions because I understand how frustrating it is just as a member of the committee to not be able to have questions answered, but especially you as the chair, wanting to make sure that we set up a full panel so that everybody's questions could be answered.

I fully appreciate that and understand it and look forward to the conversation, not just tomorrow, but with your leadership on this issue going forward.

So just want to make sure that you heard that from me.

I appreciate the effort in which you had tried to make sure that the right folks were at the table.

And it worked.

So, so we hope, listen, colleagues, I know that this request from council member Lewis is. is and seems extraordinary.

I can't think of an opportunity or a moment in the time that I've been on the city council, which, albeit, hasn't been as long as some of my predecessors.

But I can't think of a time when we used what we are entitled to use, which is subpoena power through our charter.

And so I don't think that it's a request that is that is an inappropriate request, I do think that it is important for our partners in this space, and make no mistake that Seattle, King County Public Health has accountability not just to King County, but to the city of Seattle, that it is our expectation that when we ask for folks to participate in our conversations, We merit the same level of respect that any other legislative body would command in this particular space.

And it is frustrating to be in a position where we are legitimately and reasonably requesting participation of our public health partners to help inform a proposed policy that is being motivated by public health rationale for us to have the subject matter experts at the table and available to us for questions and answers.

And to simply brush us off as not being a priority is not something that is going to be acceptable, certainly not during a pandemic and certainly not during any other period of time.

We are serious about taking data-driven, evidence-based approaches to the work that we are doing.

And I believe that Council Member Lewis proposed this potential through that intent and that purpose.

And we have to make sure that we have the subject matter experts available to us.

And I hope that the representations that have been made to Council Member Mosqueda I do not for one moment believe that you did that lightly.

that you looked at that option as an option of last resort.

And I hope that our partners over at Seattle King County Public Health will take it seriously and will also understand your intent as it relates to wanting to have their meaningful participation at your committee meeting tomorrow.

Any other questions or comments from our colleagues?

Okay, looks like there are none.

Madam Clerk, I know that you were talking to the law department about advice on this particular procedural issue.

The motion has been withdrawn, and unless you tell me that there needs to be other formal steps on a motion that didn't receive a second, I'm going to go ahead and move along.

I believe that you took the proper step, Councilwoman Gonzalez.

Okay, thank you so much, Amelia.

I really appreciate it.

Okay, is there any other further business to come before the council?

Seeing and hearing none, colleagues, this concludes the items of business on today's agenda.

Our next city council meeting is Monday, June 1st, 2020 at 2 p.m.

I do hope that all of you have a wonderful afternoon and we'll see you tomorrow.

Bye, everybody.

We're adjourned.