Seattle City Council Public Safety and Human Services Committee 51121

We are recording.

Good morning, and welcome to the May 11th meeting of the Public Safety and Human Services Committee agenda.

The meeting will come to order.

It is 9.32 a.m.

I'm Lisa Herbold, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council President Gonzalez?

Here.

Council Member Lewis?

Present.

Council Member Morales?

Here.

Council Member Sawant?

Present.

Chair Herbold?

Here.

Five present.

Thank you very much.

So on today's agenda, we'll discuss two bills.

The first is Council Bill 120065, which would transfer 911 call center positions and parking enforcement officer positions from the Seattle Police Department to the new Community Safety and Communication Center.

We will also discuss Council Bill 119981, regarding the Seattle Police Department's budget.

And we'll move into approval of the agenda.

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

Hearing no objection, today's agenda is adopted.

At this time, we will transition into public comment and I will moderate the public comment period in the following manner.

Each speaker will be given one minute to speak I will call on each speaker by name and in the order in which they registered on the council's website.

We right now have about 40 people signed up to speak, which is why we are compressing the time to one minute to speak.

If you have not yet registered, but would like to do so, you can sign up before the end of the public hearing by going to the council's website.

The link is also listed on today's agenda.

Once I call a speaker's name, you'll hear a prompt.

And once you've heard that prompt, you need to press star six to unmute yourself.

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

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

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

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

Once you've completed, Your public comment, please disconnect from the line.

And if you plan to continue following this meeting, please do so via the Seattle Channel or the listening options on the agenda.

In order to allow as many speakers as possible to speak, if there are no objections, I will amend the agenda to allow an additional 20 minutes of time for public comment, extending public comment from 20 minutes to 40 minutes.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is amended for 40 minutes of public comment.

With that, I will move into the speakers.

And again, I will be calling on speakers, your name, and allow you to speak when you do so as present.

The first speaker I have that is present is Shamir Tana, followed by Cody Zalewski.

Shamir?

Hi, my name is Shamir Tana.

I'm a District 7 resident.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Thank you.

Okay, great, sorry.

My name is Shamir Tan.

I'm a District 7 resident.

I'm calling to ask City Council to amend 119981 to transfer 5.4 million from SPD to participatory budgeting and restore the $5 million per visa to its original form.

SPD's funding has nothing to do with the consent decree.

Seattle is still under the decree despite SPD's budget growing by over 150 million since Seattle entered into it.

SPD for eight years has been trying to follow the decrees potential course of action for use of force to be consistent with the requirements of the Constitution, but alongside their ballooning budgets and staff levels, they've still failed to meet the decree's goal of ensuring SPD's use of force is constitutional.

Just one example, SPD's data shows that SPD is still more likely to frisk and use force against persons of color than white people.

I urge you to follow through on your original commitments.

Hold SPD accountable for the overtime abuse by allocating the full $5.4 million towards participatory budgeting and transfer the full $5 million of the proviso to the community.

Thank you.

I yield my time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Cody Nowitzki, called by Nanette Toyoshima.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Okay.

All right.

My name is Cody Zaleski.

I'm a resident of District 4 and a medical researcher here in Seattle.

I'm here representing the organization Decriminalize Nature Seattle.

Our group seeks to have entheogenic psychedelic plant medicine be listed as the lowest law enforcement priority with protections for medical practitioners.

but the bill recently passed by the state senate sb fifty four seventy six another regressive continuation of the drug war city of seattle acts now and that's the resolution decriminalizing pathogens protecting medical practitioners to prescribe them it can demonstrate there the public appetite for a change in status quo our organization has won the endorsement of dozens of local medical practitioners drug law reform groups and indigenous healers Personally, I think the efficacy of these plant medicines in treating substance abuse, depression, PTSD, amongst others, is unparalleled, even relative to modern pharmaceutical medicine.

The city of Seattle should join almost a dozen other municipalities, such as Washington, D.C., Oakland, and Denver, in passing these reforms.

Thank you, and I cede my time.

Thank you.

Internet Yoshinoff will be followed by Donna Thompson-Wiley.

Nanette, if you haven't already, can you hit star six, please?

Good morning.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Thank you so much.

Okay.

Thank you.

Good morning.

My name is Nanette Toyoshima.

I have been a Park Enforcement Officer for nearly 15 years.

I'm also the President of the Seattle Park Enforcement Officers Guild.

I am calling today to support the legislation to transfer Park Enforcement to the Community Safety and Communication Center.

Civilianization of certain police functions is the wave of the future.

Cities such as Los Angeles, Denver, San Francisco, Eugene, and Philadelphia all have programs that dispatch unarmed civilians as an alternative to armed officers.

CEOs are the ideal candidates to do this work.

We are a 60% BIPOC LGBTQ multilingual workforce that reflects the diversity of our community.

We are trained in de-escalation tactics, familiar with police procedures, and most importantly, we are public servants who are committed to serving our community.

Seattle residents have expressed a deep desire for changes in policing.

Transferring the CSCC is a real step forward to reimagine policing and a better, safer Seattle for everyone.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Trevona Thompson-Wiley, followed by Alice Marabe.

Trevona?

Hello, my name is Trayvonna.

I'm a District 5 resident and a member of Black Action Coalition in Dickson, Illini, Seattle.

I'm calling to demand City Council to amend CB 119981 to transfer $5.4 million from SPD to PB and restore $5 million provoso to its original form.

If Black Lives Matter, I need to see City Council approve it.

Black folks do not need a performative allyship.

We need investments into our community.

The quality of Black lives matter so stop investing in institutions that have historically brutalized and oppressed our community.

Stop hiding behind the consent decree.

The consent decree does not require staffing or funding levels.

It just lays out a potential course of action to meet this goal while leaving Seattle with an appropriate flexibility to find solutions suitable for this community.

I'm demanding that the City Council stand behind Black Lives and transfer the $5.4 million from SPD to PB.

It's just unfortunate that we have to continue.

I have a very unstable connection here, just letting folks know.

Next speaker is Alice Marabe, followed by Emma Knighton.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Thank you.

Great.

Hi, my name is Alice Marabe.

I'm a District 2 resident.

I am calling to ask this committee to amend CB 119981 to transfer 5.4 million from SPV to participatory budgeting and restore the $5 million proviso to its original form.

We need police budget accountability and passing this bill in its original form would be a first step.

SPV's overtime is used to inflict violence on protesters marching in defense of Black lives.

They should not be rewarded for this violent waste of resources.

SPD also has a long history of unchecked overtime abuse and council's previous attempts to stop this pattern has failed.

The substitute bill allows SPD to spend funds on whatever it wants and report back to council after the fact.

Also, the proposed budget items would add significant capacity and resources to SPD at a time when council is working to shrink the size of the department and the scope of its duties.

True civilian community safety teams must be employed outside of the police department.

What we need to get there is serious investment in community solutions through participatory budgeting.

Again, the consent decree is not about SPD staffing levels or funding, so I urge you to follow through on your original commitments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Emma Knighton, followed by Sharon Park.

Emma?

Hello, my name is Emma Knighton, and I live in District 1. I am a trauma therapist and trained psychedelic assisted therapist, and I'm here speaking to you today as a part of the Decriminalize Nature Seattle movement, in hopes that you will adopt our resolution to decriminalize psychedelics in Seattle.

As someone who specializes in working with people with complex PTSD and as a trauma survivor myself, I can personally attest to the benefits of psychedelics for mental health.

Simply put, psychedelics saved my life, and I have watched them save the lives of many of my clients.

As the legalization and medicalization efforts continue to move forward, we must acknowledge the fact that psychedelic-assisted therapy will not be accessible to many of the people who need it most due to financial barriers and implications of systemic oppression.

decriminalizing psychedelics will ensure safe and affordable access for all people who might benefit and will open the doors for increased education around harm reduction and safe use.

Council members of Seattle, I urge you to do the right thing.

Healing interpersonal and intergenerational trauma is the necessary path forward and access to psychedelics is an integral part of this evolution.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Sharon Park followed by Brian Evans.

Sharon?

Hello I'm Sharon Park resident of District 3 and I'm urging council to amend CB 119981 to put an end to SPD's unchecked overtime abuse and defund SPD by the full $5.4 million allocate those funds towards participatory budgeting and restore the original proviso that would transfer the full $5 million from SPD's salary savings to community.

There is a lot of attention on whether SPD's ability to comply with the consent decree is impacted by budget cuts.

But this overlooks the major problems of SPD's use of money and how the activities attached to those funds contribute to increases in police misconduct.

SPD proposed to use the $5.4 million for programs like CSOs and mental health co-responders.

These programs are shown to increase the likelihood of police violence against people experiencing mental health crises, effectively reversing the intended goal of the consent decree, and ultimately posing a major threat to public safety.

I'm urging council to please take an unwavering stance on public police budget accountability and set a new precedent that will support the health and vitality of our community.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Brian Evans, followed by Diane Green.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Brian Evans.

I'm a PEO in the city of Seattle and treasurer of the Seattle Parking Enforcement Officers Guild.

I'm calling in support of the legislation that moves parking enforcement to the community safety and communication center.

I support the move to the CSCC because I believe that civilian officers can be a part of the solution and the ongoing difficult challenge to reimagine policing.

In November, 2020 council recognized the unique opportunity, the chance to place a unit of dedicated trained civilian officers into a newly formed city department that will focus on public safety.

Council recognized that the bold step forward isn't the status quo, but to continue forging ahead to improve the ways the city of Seattle serves its residents.

I hope this hasn't changed.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Brian.

Our next speaker is Diane Green, followed by Des Calfon.

Diane.

Good morning, my name is Diane Green.

I'm a resident of District 3. I'm calling in support of transferring parking enforcement officers to the Public Safety Committee for Community Safety and Communication Center.

Civilization of certain police functions is the wave of the future.

Seattle residents have expressed a deep desire for changes in policing.

Transferring parking enforcement to the CSCC would be the first real steps to improving community policing and a better, safer Seattle.

The parking enforcement officers group is It's a great deal more multicultural than the regular Seattle Police Force and is more representative of the community.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Des Chaffin, followed by Rebecca Marquez.

Des?

Hello.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Thank you.

Okay.

Hi, I'm Des.

I'm from Tacoma.

Last time I spoke, I mentioned how entheogens have resurfaced my love for writing poetry, and I would love to share with y'all a poem I wrote while consuming psychedelics.

What is this feeling?

It feels right, and I never want it to end.

I can see the primordial light that is further and further from our grasp, so close if we can just break, break the chains that once bound us, Cast our fears aside and ride the storm into the mouth of the dragon.

The dragon's mouth is but another dimension that we will eventually have to break from.

Break the chains that bound us to the ground to erase us.

So jump into the dragon's mouth and fight for the destiny that awaits us.

Break the chains for the tired voice that was drowned out by the noise.

Break the chains for a new world about to emerge from the ashes like a phoenix left for dead, but again it rises.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Rebecca Marquez followed by BJ last Rebecca.

Good morning.

My name is Rebecca Marquez and I am a renter in district six calling in this morning to urge the council to hold SPD accountable and stand firm and cutting their budget by $5.4 million.

In the eight years that I have lived in this city, my belief that the police keep me safe has been completely destroyed.

I have borne witness to police brutality, political cover-ups, and constant strategic maneuvering to ensure that those in power cannot be held accountable.

However, I believe that good leadership can make a difference, that elected officials with strong principles are the key to a safe society.

I have enormous respect for many of you sitting on the council today, and I implore you to ensure that our community has the opportunity to heal and move on from the horrors SPD has inflicted on us.

not just over the last year of protests and tear gas and sweeps, but from the decades of harassment, obfuscation, and murder that came before.

We need to create community safety that is not dependent upon an armed and militarized force, and we cannot do this without funds.

Please hold SPD accountable for their actions, remove the $5.4 million in their budget, and transfer it to the community as you promised you would do.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is BJ Last, followed by Christine Menke.

And Christine is showing is not present.

So if you can hear us, um, you're coming up next.

BJ.

Hello, my name is BJ Last.

I'm a Ballard resident and a small business owner.

I'm calling to ask city council to amend CB 119981 to transfer 5.4 million from SPD to participatory budgeting and remove the $5 million provisor from the bill.

Council President Gonzalez has talked about rebuilding public trust in government after news broke of the mayor and police chief's communications disappearing.

Council following through on its commitments to hold SPD accountable for its overspending now can help restore that trust more than plans for future accountability.

The goal of the consent decree is to ensure SPD's use of force is consistent with the requirements of the US Constitution.

The rest of the decree is a potential course of action to meet that goal.

Seattle has tried to follow that course of action for years without meeting the goal.

SPD's budget has grown by over $150 million, and it still uses more force against BIPOC community members and kills people experiencing mental health crisis.

The decree gives Seattle flexibility to find solutions for this community.

It's time to take advantage of that ability to develop local solutions and accomplish the goal of the decree.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm going to call for Christine Menke again, but she is showing not present.

So the next speaker is Christopher O'Brien, and we'll come back to Christine if I show later on in the meeting that he becomes president.

Christopher O'Brien will be followed by Jake Bisley.

Christopher?

Hi there.

My name is Christopher O'Brien, former resident of Seattle, current parking enforcement officer, and I'm calling in support of the Community Safety and Communications Center and transfer of PEOs to that.

Over the last six years as a PEO, I've developed several relationships with residents in the community in multiple different areas, as well as business owners in the community.

And I think it's a good opportunity for us as PEOs to step up and meet the needs of the community.

As I've listened to people in this public comment section, they are wanting a civilianized agency to come out and help them with these issues, and that's something that I believe that PEOs can step up and do.

We have the training and the means and the will, and I believe that the City Council is in the right correct path to make this happen.

I appreciate your time and thank you very much.

Thanks, Christopher.

Our next speaker is Jake Sisley, followed by Brittany King.

Jake?

Good morning.

My name is Jake Sisley, and I am a parking enforcement officer at the city.

I wanted to express my continued support for the move of our unit to the new community safety and communication center.

When you think of public safety, you don't think of SDOT.

You think of the fire department, you think of the police department, and soon you'll think of the Department of Community Safety.

Completing the move of parking enforcement to the CSCC will enable the city to have the resources it needs to continue its mission of providing new and reimagined services to its citizens.

We see ourselves as public servants, so please let us continue to serve.

I yield the rest of my time.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jake.

Our next speaker is Brittany King, and Brittany will be followed by Bernard Bentley.

Brittany?

Hi, my name is Brittany King, and I am also a parking enforcement officer, and I have been for the last three years.

I'm also a black woman and I grew up in South Los Angeles.

I believe if City Council truly wants to reimagine policing, then supporting the move from parking enforcement to the CSCC is a step in the right direction.

The Parking Enforcement Department is one of the most diverse departments in the city.

Diversity and inclusion is something that communities are craving.

Using our department to promote change and inclusion is the first step.

PEOs have a unique advantage as we are the ears and eyes of the community.

And because we are so diverse, highly trained, we can use our variety of life experiences to relate and establish better rapport with communities.

PEOs are a powerful resource, and I hope that we can assist in any way.

Thank you, and I yield my time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Bernard Bentley, followed by Dan Otter.

Dan is showing is not present.

I will call his name again, but let's move forward with Bernard.

Hello, thanks again for the time, a lot to speak.

My name is Bernard Bentley.

I'm a parking enforcement officer, also a board member with parking enforcement.

Here to talk about the transition of the parking enforcement to the community safety and communication center.

Well, I understand that the council has outlined some duties they want to see accomplished here in the city.

And I believe parking enforcement is tailor made to take out as your responsibility.

A couple of things.

We know the city, we know the territory.

We're on the streets every day.

We basically have our finger on the pulse of the city.

Collectively, we speak over 14 different languages, and we're skilled in self-defense, and we're better able to relate to a large group of people.

I believe that we can not only hit the ground running, but transition smoother than any other group of people inside the city.

And I hope that you consider these points when making a decision.

Thanks again.

I yield my time.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is Dan Otter, followed by Peter Condit.

Dan, are you with us?

Hello, this is Dan Otter.

Good morning, council members.

Thank you for hearing my comment this morning.

I'm a resident of District 6, and I'm speaking today as a member of Decriminalize Nature Seattle, asking you to adopt our resolution to decriminalize the gifting, gathering, and growing of plant-based psychedelics in Seattle.

So my background, I'm a public health and addictions nurse, and medical uses for psychedelics are rapidly being recognized.

Recent research has shown incredible potential for psychedelics in treatment of many mental health disorders including depression, PTSD, substance use disorder, and anxiety.

And the good news is that in the next few years psilocybin and MDMA are expected to be able to be legally prescribed for certain diagnoses.

The bad news is that access will be linked, will be a privilege that's linked to having adequate insurance.

Sorry about that.

Let's move on to our next speaker.

Next speaker is Peter Condit, and Peter will be followed by Gareth Small.

Gareth is currently showing is not present, but we'll come back to him after we hear from Peter.

Hello.

Thank you for your time.

My name is Peter Condit and I live in district four.

I urge the committee not to move forward with the council bill 11, 99 81 until it has been amended to hold SPD accountable for the full $5.4 million.

It overspent being violent last summer and to reinstate at least a 5 million.

Proviso on the SPD is 2021 salary savings.

If you move forward with this bill in its current form, you are contributing to a culture of non-accountability where police can fudge their timesheets, where police can use tear gas after it's prohibited by city council, and where police can murder black and indigenous people like Charlene Liles and John T. Williams.

Don't think SBD won't notice.

They will read loud and clear if their overtime abuse and violence does not hurt their bottom line.

The purpose of the consent decree for its part is to address patterns of violence.

It would therefore be a violation of the consent decree not to defund SPD by at least $5.4 million in reinstated proviso on their ongoing salary savings as a consequence for their overtime abuses.

Ultimately, shifting priorities such that SPD complies with the consent decree is up to them.

Our next speaker is Gareth Small, but Gareth is showing is not present.

I'll come back to Gareth if he shows present later.

So, we'll move on to Tatiana Quintana, and Tatiana will be followed by Emma McVeigh.

Tatiana?

Good morning.

Can you hear me?

Sorry.

Good morning.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Thank you.

Okay.

My name is Tatiana Quintana and I live in district two and I'm asking for Seattle city council to adopt decriminalized nature Seattle's resolution to decriminalize psychedelics in Seattle.

And also that I stand in solidarity with reinvesting the $5.4 million that was brought up earlier today by decriminalized Seattle back into our community.

Trauma in a person decontextualized over time looks like personality.

Trauma decontextualized in a family looks like family traits.

Trauma in a people looks like culture.

And that's a quote from my grandmother's hand by Resmaa Menakem.

Our communities are suffering from worsening mental health issues and epidemic levels of problematic substance dependency.

Psychedelics are proven, reliable, and effective alternatives to help.

And it is our responsibility to create models and frameworks that will keep these substances acceptable to all.

Our Gather, Gift, and Grow model will ensure this right, and I hope that Seattle City Council will invest in our communities and divest from harmful, traumatizing systems, hate, and racist policies.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Emma McVeigh, and Emma will be followed by Flora Wright.

Emma?

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Emma McVeigh.

I'm a District 7 resident, and I'm calling to ask City Council to amend Council Bill 119981. I want to reiterate that SPD's funding has nothing to do with the consent decree.

Seattle is still under the decree despite SPD's budget growing by over $150 million since Seattle entered into it.

The mayor and SPD are trying to use bias and use of force trainings to pressure you to go back on your commitment.

Please don't give in.

Remember that your commitment is to this community and also trainings do not work.

We cannot create safer communities by continuing to fund the police.

Council knows that the way to end violent policing is to reallocate resources to the community.

Think of all of the good we can do with this money.

I urge you to follow through on your original commitments, hold SPD accountable for their overtime abuse by allocating the full $5.4 million towards participatory budgeting and transfer the full $5 million of the proviso to community.

Thank you and I yield my time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Flora Wright.

And Flora is next, but followed by Dana Lastimato.

And Dana is not showing as present.

So I will return to Dana after hearing from Flora and see if Dana's with us.

Flora.

I'm Flora, a resident of District 3. The committee must return to the original version of CB-1199-81.

The substitute bill is not an improvement.

The mayor and SPD were the primary people consulted, not constituents.

They reversed $8.4 million back to SPD that had been earmarked for participatory budgeting and guts council's only mechanisms to force justification for SPD spending.

making promises to defund the police and statements about commitments to justice, and channeling protest demands into policy on April 20th, then backtracking with a substitution is performative.

I urge you to follow through in your original promise and I join everyone who calls today to say, amend 119981 to return to the original version that reduces SPD's 2021 budget by $5.4 million and transfers it to participatory budgeting, and reinstate the $5 million per visa that would transfer SPD's salary savings to participatory budgeting.

which must be designed and held by community, not by the city.

Your constituencies are clear.

You reject the substitute bill because there is no substitute to police budget accountability.

I yield my time.

Thank you.

Still showing Dana last motto, not present.

I will come back to Dana if Dana joins us at a later time during public comment.

So our next speaker is Naveen Jassi and Naveen will be followed by Coco Weber.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, we can, Naveen.

Thank you.

I'm Naveen.

I live in District 5. I'm calling to ask you to return to the original version of Council Bill 11-9981.

Please follow through on your original commitment to hold OPD accountable for their overtime abuse by allocating the full $5.4 million towards participatory budgeting and transferring the full $5 million of the proceeds to community.

I'm a student and I know a lot of other young people who don't vote because it feels like our political process is not set up to actually listen to us.

Putting the additional $8.4 million into participatory budgeting shows that the city is serious about listening to our needs and holding SPD accountable.

Participatory budgeting is exciting because it allows us to participate in collectively deciding Seattle's priorities.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Cocoa will be followed by Kyle Adams.

Cocoa?

Hello, this is Cocoa, a District 4 resident.

The police are engaged in a bullying campaign with the city's civilian organizers and the council to maintain their grip of power over the city.

The original CB 119981 was made by the council in a commitment to the civilians to address SPD's pattern of violence and overtime abuse, which was used to brutalize protesters in the fight for black lives in our city.

The consent decree has proven itself ineffectuous, yet it gives the city flexibility.

Structure of the consent agreement states in item one, the parties intend the agreements to provide clear measurable obligations while at the same time leaving Seattle with appropriate flexibility to find solutions suitable for the community.

The requirements of the agreements identify the goals that must be achieved, mechanisms to achieve them, and specific elements that must be addressed.

However, within the requirements of the agreements, quote, Seattle will have the ability to develop local and cost-effective solutions.

That's with people's participatory budget, and I ask you to maintain your commitment to the people and stand strong and not give in to police bullying.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Kyle Adams, and Kyle will be followed by Shane Millhouse.

Kyle?

Good morning, council members.

My name is Kyle Adams.

I'm a parking enforcement officer in the city of Seattle.

I'm calling in support of the legislation that moves parking enforcement to the community safety and communication center.

I support the move to the CSCC because I'm excited for the opportunity to explore other ways PEOs can serve their residents in the city of Seattle.

The original legislation is a step forward in reimagining how civilian officers can make an impact, and it's promised to the residents of Seattle to do the hard work that serves them better.

In addition, this is truly taking a step forward in leading the way this important national conversation about community safety goes.

Thank you for your time, and I yield the rest of my time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Shane Milhouse.

And Shane will be followed by Iris McComb if Iris becomes present on the next speaker.

Go ahead, Shane.

Remember to press star six, Shane.

Thank you, Alex.

All right, can you hear me now?

Yes, we can.

Thank you.

All right.

Hi, my name is Shane Millhouse.

I'm with District 3 and Decriminalize Nature, encouraging a city council to pass a resolution similar to the one in Oregon.

I'm in support of microdosing psychedelics.

I found that it keeps me humble, mindful, and positive.

and stops me from slipping back into a treatment-resistant depression.

I don't think anyone should be legally penalized for using natural medicines or their restriction of their cultivation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Iris McComb, but Iris is still not showing as present, so we'll move down to Emma Lauer, and Emma will be followed by Ben Sircombe.

Emma?

Hi, Council.

This is Emma Lauer.

I'm a resident in West Seattle, and I'm calling today to restore Council's Council Bill 119981 to its original form.

As discussed in the March 10th Council meeting, this issue is really not about staffing.

And I'd like to quote a statement from Council Member Lewis directly when he said, there is widespread confusion amongst members of the public and amongst certain editorial boards that what we are debating right now is going to have a tangible impact on patrol members And it won't.

So this is not about staffing.

The consent decree, in fact, is about accountability for SPD.

And that's exactly what the original council bill is about.

It's really, it's about making sure that the extra overtime spent by SPD will not be, will not be, we won't hold, you won't give them that ability to

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Ben Thurcombe, and Ben will be followed by Eric Fallenger.

Ben?

Hello, my name is Ben Thurcombe.

I'm from District 3, and I'm speaking today as part of Decriminalize Seattle, in the hopes that the city adopts our resolution and decriminalizes psychedelics.

I'm also speaking in support of CB 119981. We have lost the war on drugs.

Drug criminalization has ruined lives, filled prisons, has been used as an excuse to ostracize and discriminate against minority populations.

Here in Seattle, the median wage, including overtime for our police, is $164,000 a year.

Do you think putting more money into this is going to fix anything?

We need to rethink our justice system.

We also need to rethink how we can treat mental health.

I've benefited significantly in eliminating my depression and helping with my anxiety for small uses of psilocybin.

Right now, through the eyes of the city and the state, I'm a criminal for using this therapy and overcoming my weaknesses.

Something that has benefited my life so greatly could land me in jail, where I would lose my job and I would probably not be able to financially recover.

Instead of putting more money into a failed campaign and drug enforcement, we need to strengthen our community and use the money for mental health treatment that works.

We can't put shiny new rims on a...

Thank you.

Next speaker is Eric Fallinger and Eric will be followed by Julia Buck.

Uh, hello, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Hi.

So my name is Eric Salinger.

I live in district 7 and I'm calling the task.

The council passed the original version of CB 119981. The court monitor has told you that a funding cut may impact the department's compliance with the consent decree, but SPG is choosing to hold that compliance hostage by tying consent decree initiatives to that specific chunk of funding.

That choice demonstrates why we should cut their funding in the first place, and that is the police department doesn't care about the residents of Seattle.

They've demonstrated this indifference in how they handle their protests, and how they handle gassing residential neighborhoods and people in their homes, how it handles wellness checks, and how it would rather arrest protesters for chalk than go after someone who put a two-year-old in a hospital.

Still at large, by the way.

Officers can't even wear masks during a pandemic because they don't feel like it.

Just a couple of weeks ago, SPD had to backtrack and cancel an officer benefit hosted by an anti-LGBT organization.

And when they were re-tasked for comment on that event, the department's PR spokesperson had a lot more to say about the person who leaked the details of that event to the council than the content of the organization.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Julia Buck.

Julia, you'll be followed by Lynn Judge if Lynn becomes present, showing currently un-present.

Go ahead, Leah.

Hello, my name is Julia Buck.

I'm a resident of District 6 and a member of Seattle DSA, and I'm calling to encourage the Council to send the $8.4 million from SBD and send it back to the participatory budgeting process, including the $5 million proviso.

The consent decree was designed to bring SPD into compliance with the U.S.

Constitution.

The consent decree has not been complied with for eight years.

We have attempted to follow the course of action laid out, but the consent decree does allow us, quote, appropriate flexibility to find solutions suitable for this community.

I would encourage council to divest from SPD.

The crisis intervention training has not worked.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is Lynn Judge, and still seeing Lynn not present, so we'll move on to Alice Lockhart.

And following Alice Lockhart is Stephanie Karakofay.

Alice?

Good morning, Council.

I'm Alice Lockhart.

I usually speak for 350 Seattle.

350 Seattle stands in solidarity with demands to defund Seattle police.

But I'm here today as an elder in District 5. Recent testimony to this committee asking for increased police presence downtown and elsewhere is problematic when so many suffer so much at the hands of SPD.

We elders can trust in our community to keep an eye out for us.

Yesterday, I took a bad fall from my bike.

It wasn't the first time and as always, a helpful citizen rushed to see if I was okay.

My only thought laying on the ground was that I hope no one would call 911 because he was a black man and the last thing I wanted was for the police to come and him to suffer trauma or even harm.

In my 30 years in Seattle, I've witnessed countless instances of SPD harm caused to people of color, homeless neighbors, neighbors in mental health crises, and peaceful protesters.

True safety for elders and others will never come from the hands of SPD.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Stephanie Karakofe, followed by Aidan Carroll.

Stephanie.

Hello, my name is Stephanie Kirkoff and I'm a District 3 resident.

I'm calling to ask City Council to amend CD 119981 to transfer $5.4 million from SPD to participatory budgeting and to restore the $5 million proviso to its original form.

SPD's funding has nothing to do with the consent decree.

Seattle is still under the decree despite SPD's budget growing over $150 million since Seattle entered it.

The decree came from the Department of Justice finding SPD engages in a pattern or practice of using unnecessary or excessive force in violation of the Constitution.

The goal of the decree is to ensure SPD's use of force is consistent with the requirements of the U.S.

Constitution.

The consent decree does not require any staffing or funding levels.

It just lays out a potential course of action.

to meet the goal while leaving Seattle with appropriate flexibility to find solutions suitable for the community.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Aiden Carroll, followed by Katie Kendery.

Aiden?

Thank you.

My name is Aiden Carroll.

I am a District 6 resident, and I'm calling to our City Council to amend cd one one nine eight one to transfer five or four million from fp a pretty great budgeting restore the five nine dot read it with ritual because in this case fpd is actively defying what you told them and daring you to follow through on on what you said it's as if you went to a restaurant with a friend and I don't know, a friend said, oh, I only have 20 bucks in cash.

And you said, well, I'm sorry, I don't have the capacity to pay for anything more than that.

But they said, like, they went in order to release my letter on a stake or something.

And then they said, well, can't you please, can you please pay for it?

And he said, I told you not to.

And then you start thinking, what if I

Thank you, Aiden.

Our next speaker is Katie Gendry, followed by Ilana Lessing.

And Ilana will be our last speaker.

Katie?

My name is Katie Gendry.

I live in District 6. I'm calling to transfer $5.4 million out of SPD's 2021 overtime allocation and into participatory budgeting.

Also decriminalize psychedelics in Seattle.

We cannot permit SPD to spend more on overtime than allowed in its budget.

If Black Lives Matter to you, then you would be defunding SPD.

Increasing SPD's budget and overtime spending has been cited by the ACLU as a public safety issue in just 12 days.

SPD's overtime costs totaled $6.3 million, and there were 15,000 complaints of misconduct in a joint lawsuit.

How are you holding SPD accountable for misconduct by this recent proposal?

Why are you giving SPD this blank check as it relates to overtime?

It is clear by allowing SPD to keep majority of its overtime spending that you are not holding police accountable to their violence and the police accountable to the human rights violations and you're okaying SPD unleashing hell on protesters and that you really do not care about holding police.

Thank you.

Anna Lessing.

Alana Lessing.

Here's Alana.

Star six, Alana?

Alana is not present now.

Okay.

Well, you have a couple who weren't present before, but they are now present prior to the list.

And I believe we did exhaust our speaking time, our extended speaking time.

And so with that, Thank you, Alex.

With that, we will move into closed public comment and move into the rest of our agenda for today.

Thank you.

Clerk, will you please read the next item into the agenda?

Agenda Item 1, Council Bill 12065, an ordinance relating to emergency communications, amending Ordinance 126237, which adopted the 2021 budget, transferring positions from the Seattle Police Department to the Community Safety and Communication Center, and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

Thank you so much.

So just a little bit of background first.

I want to thank everyone who called in this morning, especially the parking enforcement officers who've consistently pushed the council along with other members of the community that we've heard from advocating on behalf of the parking enforcement officers' workforce-driven vision for reimagining public safety.

and allow a civilianized workforce to take a greater role, a civilianized workforce that is 60% BIPOC.

So the bill before us would do two things.

It would transfer 911 call center positions and PEOs from the police department to the community safety and communication center.

In the budget process, we unanimously passed Ordinance 1262.33, and that was the ordinance that established the new Community Safety and Communication Center and included both 901 Dispatch and PEOs.

The creation of the community safety communication center is intended to help reframe how the city provides for community safety and respond to the council's interests and exploring expanded duties for the PEOs.

And with that, I think I will hand it over to, um, to Central Staff to walk us through other elements of the bill.

And I will maybe pepper you with some questions or some additional background.

Lisa, will you please introduce yourself?

Sure.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Lisa Kay, Central Staff.

I'm going to go ahead and share my screen to show the council bill here in case people have specific questions about the the text in specifically.

So council member, I think you gave a good overview of what the bill would do.

I would emphasize again that this bill is consistent with ordinance 126233, which council passed last fall that created this new center and with the adopted 2021 budget, which anticipated today's legislation that transfers these positions by June 1st, 2021. I would note that the executive has appointed an interim director to the center and expects to request additional administrative support in the proposed 2022 budget.

I'll just advance the bill to show you a couple of the pertinent sections.

This is on page six of your agenda packet.

I would also note that my staff report is on page 50 of your agenda materials.

So looking at the bill itself, Section 1 makes a technical change which adds a purpose statement to the budget summary level that authorizes expenditures that align with the 9-1-1 and PEO functions.

It's a bookkeeping function that needs to be in place to be able to spend the money.

Section two then is about 39 pages of transferring of the positions.

So there's 140 911 call center positions and 120 positions from the parking enforcement officers unit.

Section three is a ratify and confirm clause that would allow the executive to take actions consistent with this legislation prior to its effective date, which will be after the June 1st, 2021 deadline in the budget proviso.

Because as you'll see in Section 4, the bill is effective 30 days after the mayor's approval.

That basically completes my report, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Lisa.

Can you talk a little bit about the importance of the June 1st date?

So the June 1st deadline was anticipated because the, well, let me start back a little bit of history.

When the mayor originally proposed creating a new center, she had a June 1st start or January 1st start date, which was found to not be feasible.

When you're moving the 911 center, you need to have a particular number designation that the federal government provides.

It takes a long time to get that paperwork in place.

So Ordinance 126233 provided the time, said that the 911 transfer could start 30 days after that number was obtained, but that the June 1 date would be the transfer for the parking enforcement officers just to give time to get everything organized.

Thank you.

And so that was a change that the council made when we acted during the budget process.

We changed it to June 1st from what the mayor had proposed in January because it was not determined to be feasible.

We also at that time changed the mayor's proposal from what was being called the Seattle Emergency Communication Center, because at that point it was envisioned only to house 911. And we changed the name from the sort of narrowly focused Seattle Emergency Communication Center to the community safety communication center to incorporate the council's sort of a broader vision of what this new department could do as part of the reimagining public safety.

And let's see here.

I'm just...

to see if there are any important points that we need to make about this that have not already been made by so many of the folks who have been, who've joined us today to speak.

And I'm also looking to see if any of my colleagues on the council have any questions.

And I'm not seeing any raised hands here.

Council Member, Council President Gonzalez.

Thank you so much, Chair Herbold.

I just wanted to flag a couple of concerns that I have about this legislation.

So the legislation is originally transmitted, included the council's desire and wishes to move the 911 call center employees to the new Community Safety and Communication Center.

It did not include also moving parking enforcement officers to the Community Safety and Communications Center.

So there was another bill that proposed moving the parking enforcement officers to the Seattle Department of Transportation rather than the Community Safety and Communications Center.

And now we have before us a bill that merges these two bills into one.

transfers all of these functions that we're discussing, including the PEOs to the new Community Safety and Communications Center.

So I'm just flagging that, you know, based on my conversations with folks at SDOT and other folks within, you know, the city coalition, that I continue to think that that the original two bills as proposed by the mayor were headed in the right direction and continue to think that the PEOs should go to SDOT as individuals whose functions are primarily designed currently to manage the right of way.

And I think it just makes a lot more sense from an administration and operations perspective to have those functions go to SDOT rather than to the community safety and communications center.

So, you know, unfortunately I just can't, while I support the underlying legislation of moving the 911 call center employees to the community safety communications center, I'm, I'm, I'm, not currently supportive of the shift of the PEOs to the CFCC and, and, you know, would be interested in, in sort of resolving that particular concern before the full council has an opportunity to consider this, this council bill.

Thank you, and if I could just take a quick minute to respond to that.

The reason why we introduced this bill to replace the bills that were referred by the executive is that the bills that were referred to the executive, the second bill that transferred the PEOs to SDOT was just simply not in alignment with the vote that we took unanimously during the budget process.

voted on the ordinance that not only changed the name from a very narrowly focused department that was only going to house 9-1-1, we changed the name from only a communication center to a community safety and communication center.

And the ordinance itself included the intent to transfer both 9-1-1 dispatch and PEOs as well.

And so I worked to have Lisa develop a replacement bill that reflected the council's already established intent.

And again, and it's not just the council's intent, it is a large workforce of over 100 PEOs who are telling us that their preference is to go from SPD to this new division.

Without PEOs going to this new division, the new division will only hold 911. It will be that narrow, narrowly focused department.

And it will not be, again, capturing the leadership and the direction that we are hearing from a workforce-driven vision.

I'm, uh, I'm, I'm hoping that we can move this forward today.

And, um, there are, there is some urgency as it relates to the June, June 1st date, but, uh, look forward to having ongoing, ongoing conversations.

There are other, um, comments.

Council Member Lewis.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for bringing this forward.

This overall project of the future role of our parking enforcement officers and some kind of heightened civil enforcement officer position is something that I remain extremely interested in, and I appreciate this next step.

To move this conversation forward to that next phase.

2 years ago, the city of Philadelphia voted to essentially put the same concept into their charter.

To elevate their equivalent of parking enforcement officers into.

A position that would take on a bigger civil enforcement role.

To.

to better serve the people of Philadelphia and take care of some of those issues that are citable but not criminal in nature.

You know, one of my concerns here is that there continues to be some disagreement in the workforce.

Because it is true that the Rank and File Parking Enforcement Guild, which I have been talking to and I'm very supportive of, has a divergent view from the unit that represents the supervisors.

And, you know, that, that to me indicates that there is, there is still division despite the rank and files position, which, you know, as a, as a rank and file union member, I feel really deeply about, but you know, it is not a United workplace.

So I would appreciate more time to sort that out.

I saw the email from, um, Sean Van Eyck this morning.

You know, Sean, who was unable to make it for public comment, but represents the supervisors through Protech 17, who just indicated some lingering concerns.

And I would like to see, before we go forward with this move, what we can do to reconcile some of the concerns where there's division in this workplace.

Um, because I do want to see it go to this new department.

I want to see it form a nucleus of this new department.

I want to see a future where.

A lot of the things that are that are currently being done that are non criminal in nature by sworn uniformed and armed officers can instead be done by this diverse.

I want to make sure we do it in a way that is not dividing the management of this unit.

a difficult transition.

So, you know, maybe that can be worked out with a little bit more time to figure out more of Protech's concerns in this.

Because I do think it would be a shame if this unit simply went to SDOT where their future role was more foreordained and more constrained implicitly by their placement in that unit.

But I also don't want to move them forward when there is not a unanimity among the workforce in question in taking on this, a trail not, you know, blazing a new trail in a department that we are creating from scratch.

So, you know, I think that that's a request similar to council member Gonzalez to maybe hold this a little bit to have some of those conversations with pro-tech.

rather than take action today?

I believe there are some implications that we should consider as it relates to holding the legislation.

I've mentioned the June 1st date that the council moved from the mayor's proposed January 1st date.

And so we are striving to meet that goal and want to just talk about a little bit if there are unintended consequences of a delay.

Lisa?

Yes, so I, you'll see on my staff memo that I did identify some consequences should the council not take any action.

Basically, that will mean that either the executive and or the council will need to pass some legislation that would provide for an ongoing cash flow so that the executive could pay the salaries.

of the PEOs if they stay in SPD.

Because right now the council's proviso would have that funding stream cut off June 1 and transferred to the CSCC.

So I had reached out.

As designed by the council, right?

I mean, that we were anticipating this as a next step that we need to take and we wanted to ensure that we could take it.

Um, by by by June again, instead of by January, as as previously proposed by the by the mayor.

And I did.

I did reach out to the to CBO to find out if they had a provisionary plan and they didn't have anything in place yet.

But there would need to be some action taken.

And I also want to add, Lisa, I believe that the payment issue also affects 9-1-1 dispatch as well, not just the parking enforcement officers.

If the 9-1-1 was not transferred by June 1, yes, that would be true.

Correct.

Thank you.

So with that in mind, I would, I mean, we've got some time between now and, I'm inclined to want to move this forward.

Councilmember Lewis and Council President Gonzalez, I see both of your hands up.

In this discussion, which I appreciate the opportunity to be able to have it in this committee.

The 1st thing I wanted to say is in terms of the argument that the council unanimously supported a position before to move out of the Seattle Police Department and into a community safety.

department.

I don't dispute that that occurred.

I will say, however, that in, you know, sort of the subsequent months of which many have passed by, I've had an opportunity to more deeply engage both on some of the operations and management concerns being expressed by SDOT, but also in terms of having ongoing conversations with representatives from pro-tech and also getting a better understanding of SPEOG's position.

Now, I will say that as a reminder, even when we were taking this particular issue into and under consideration, my memory is that even then, there were expressions of concerns by the two bargaining unit representatives within the Parking Enforcement Unit about where this that this function should be placed.

And so I think that that unfortunately those concerns haven't been reconciled or resolved.

And in this case, you know, it feels like we are moving this forward in a manner that isn't allowing us a better opportunity to just I just want to remind us that this is sort of a first step in And certainly, right now, the division would include the 911 communications center.

But it also could, in order to fulfill the community safety component of the title of this division, we could also transfer, and I think the intent is to transfer other functions into the division.

It's just gonna take us a little bit of time to do that.

So things like the community service officers, which I believe should be transferred over to this department, you know, crisis intervention teams, mental health providers.

I think those are other functions that can and will likely find their way to this division.

So I don't wanna, I don't wanna, you know, leave the public with the understanding that if the public, sorry, if the parking enforcement officer function isn't transferred into this division, that it's effectively just an I-11 communication center.

I don't think that that is, The vision, and I don't think that's what where will we will end up with this division ultimately and and then lastly on the on the June 1st, 2021 deadline.

I appreciate Lisa, you offering a little bit more information as it relates to that to that deadline.

I mean, I think.

You know, I think these PO's would have to be paid regardless of which division they're in, so I don't understand what the problem is.

What is that?

What are you trying to flag?

I mean, is right?

Were we planning on not paying them if we put them out of SPD?

I don't understand what the concern is.

It's not like we're just not going to pay them after June 1st.

So what's the what's the what's the issue?

There was a relatively complicated budget proviso adopted by Council in the 2021 budget that recognized, that basically set up appropriation authority to pay positions out of the CSCC, but then provided temporary authority for SPD to pay for these positions up until June 1. That temporary authority expires June 1, unless Council passes legislation to some other effect.

So that would mean that the appropriation authority remains with the CSCC, but the positions remain in SPD, which presents a problem.

And so that's where the executive would need to, or the council would need to, the executive could propose a fix.

Council would likely need to pass legislation to make a temporary patch.

it would be to extend the temporary authorization.

That would be one of the ways to do it, yeah.

Yeah, OK.

And OK, so that's that's helpful to to to know.

So I I just continue to be very Very concerned about sort of this division between the parking enforcement officers and the parking enforcement officer supervisors and really think that we gain a lot by having a unified effort here.

I don't know if we're going to be able to accomplish that.

I know that we have all been collectively in our own rights, working on trying to figure out how to reconcile the differences between those 2 units.

I do.

You know, I do see Sean Van Ike's email to us today talking about how, from Protech's perspective, SDOT, he writes, quote, SDOT is the natural fit for the PEO unit.

And in fact, every single example provided by SPEOG of a similar move by other metropolitan cities in the U.S. have had their respective PEO units transitioned to their cities' departments of transportation.

And so I just want to make sure that we are you know, doing something that is consistent with what the models are across the country.

And again, I am persuaded by the arguments that I've heard from ProTech and SDOT about needing to place the PO unit and the function within SDOT and was just sort of hopeful that we'd be able to end up in that place.

but I understand Council Member Herbold, do you have an interest in moving this forward?

And if you want to move out of committee today, I would plan on voting no on this bill, unfortunately, at this point, but would be as a result of a divided report, give us a couple more weeks to sort of see if we can sort this out, but it would effectively get it out of your committee.

Council Member Lewis.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And this is just a question for central staff.

Could you, Lisa, maybe go over a little bit?

Are there any practical implications in terms of, depending on the department, what the day-to-day of the parking enforcement officers is going to be, where their equipment is stored, how they're dispatched?

you know, HR, I mean, just all those kinds of considerations of a workplace.

Is there any relevant consideration between the choices that we're making?

Because I do think it would be good to just hear, practically speaking, what the, you know, what the bottom line is.

I think one of the bigger factors that has come into play in terms of practicality is the question of whether the PEO's roles could be expanded.

And I think that question is the same regardless of where the, frankly, regardless of where the unit ends up, because a lot of those, the duties that the officers are requesting authority for are subject to bargaining.

And that bargaining is gonna take a long time, very likely.

So I think those changes are not something that are likely to happen quickly.

In terms of an administration, I've heard SDOT argue that they have the administrative structure set up and they're a functioning department with divisions and back of house support for HR and finance.

they're arguing they're ready to go right away to absorb a new unit.

At the same time, Acting Interim Director Lombard for the Community Safety and Communication Center is working on setting up that structure also and has retained some temporary personnel to help get things going.

That's as much.

I don't know that much more in terms of what it takes to set up a whole new department.

Um, but the council's intent has been apparent in setting up this new community safety center since, you know, December of last year.

So there has been time for the executive to get the pieces in in play.

Did that answer your question, Council Member?

Yes, I mean, it sounds like, just to rephrase to make sure, I mean, it sounds like, you know, there's an argument that SDOT is just better situated because it's an existing department to kind of absorb this unit, but it doesn't really, it doesn't sound like the day-to-day of the parking enforcement officers will be all that affected regardless of the choice.

I mean, it doesn't really sound like there's gonna be an issue and gap of service or anything like that based on the decision we make here.

It's kind of hearing.

I mean, I totally stipulate to the expanded role and duty of the officers.

Like, yeah, I appreciate that that's gonna take a considerable amount of additional work regardless of where they go.

But in terms of the immediate implications, it doesn't really sound like there's that big of a difference.

Both entities would have to come up with a new working agreement on how they are going to interact with the police department, because the parking enforcement functions do overlap with the patrol functions.

And so there would need to be some new agreements, regardless of where the department ends up.

Go ahead, Alex.

I don't want to speak for the executive, but in my conversations with executive staff, they have indicated that those day-to-day operations, Council Member Lewis, would remain the same regardless if the unit was transferred to SDOT or CSCC.

For example, like the offices they operate out of would be maintained regardless of department.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alex.

Much appreciated.

Let's see what else I think that's relevant here.

I also believe, Lisa, we allocated some additional funding beyond what was proposed for HR functions for the new department.

Is that correct?

Those had been intended to be as part of that appropriation, but that was not the case.

That's part of what the executive will be asking for more support in the next budget.

All right, I'm just looking to see if there are any more hand-raising.

I think that this is very clearly going to be a divided report.

That hopefully will give us a little time to have some continued conversations before full council on May 24th, I believe it is.

Thank you.

And so with that, if there's no further discussion.

That would be May 19th, I think Council Member.

Two weeks from today.

No, it'd be, is that a holiday?

Yeah, there's a holiday.

And it's, I think it's two Mondays.

Okay, right, so I'm looking at, so May 24th, it looks like.

I'm sorry, I only heard the fourth part.

Council rules provide that unless otherwise authorized by the president and the committee chair, the committee report shall be reported to the second regular city council meeting after the date of the recommendation.

Okay, so that would be May 24th.

With that, I will move Council Bill 120065 as listed on the agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion?

Seeing no further discussion, will the clerk please call the roll?

Council President Gonzalez?

No.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

I'm going to abstain.

Council Member Swann?

Abstain.

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Two in favor, one opposed, two abstained.

Thank you.

And let's move forward.

Oh, go ahead.

I want to be clear that this does move forward with 2 yeses.

The abstentions don't count against the.

The vote, it turns out it would move forward even if it failed.

That's right.

Okay, there we go.

It would just in that case, we just move forward with a do not pass recommendation.

In this case, it does move forward.

And we will hold it until May.

May 24th and have some ongoing conversations until then.

Will the court please read item number two into the record?

Item agenda number two, council bill 119981, an ordinance amending ordinance 126237, which adopted the 2021 budget, including the 2021-2026 capital improvement program, changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, and from various funds in the budget, and adding or modifying provisos.

Thank you, Alec.

So just some quick introductory comments before I turn it over to Greg Doss of Council of County Staff.

We like to start the conversation around this particular bill by recognizing that the Seattle Police Department's 2021 hiring budget is and has always been fully funded.

This legislation would not impact that.

The legislation is scheduled for discussion and possible vote.

And there's some background that has brought us to this moment.

We've heard this bill in committee a couple times now.

I believe this might actually be our third or fourth time.

But in March, the monitor overseeing the consent decree sent some specific questions to the police department.

The police department recently sent answers to those questions to the monitor.

And as I've noted on a few occasions now, the committee delayed additional considerations of the legislation in order to allow the the police department to respond to the monitor because the monitor let us know in no uncertain terms that that was the expectation.

The monitor has now responded to the police department's feedback on the bill, and that email was shared with committee members last Friday.

As far as just orienting us about the bill that we have in front of us now, the legislation before the committee provides a $5.4 million investment.

to ameliorate the reduced number of officers, including funding for community service officers, crime prevention coordinators, fulfilling public information staffing requests recommended by the city auditor, funding for evidence storage as recommended by the inspector general, and some funding for civilian crisis response positions in the human services department.

It cuts $2 million from the police department budget and puts those dollars towards participatory budgeting.

It makes available additional funding to the police department.

through the release of Proviso related to the salary savings that SPD is experiencing because of higher than anticipated attritions.

The fact that the monitor's email states that the court and the monitor are concerned about the reduction of funding to the police department.

It goes on to say in particular, SPD is at risk at not being able to deliver key management and operational requirements as personnel have been allocated to fulfill critical patrol duties due to separations of officers.

And the monitor goes on to emphasize that the consent decree is a legal agreement.

So in recognition of that feedback, we are allowing for additional funding for SPD to use its salary savings to the tune of an additional $5 million in addition to funding the priority items that SPD has themselves identified for us.

in previous meetings in this bill.

So the legislation before the committee, it's worth noting that the $2 million cut that is still part of this bill, even though there's a $2 million cut, there is an allowance of release of a proviso that allows SPD to use $5 million in salary savings.

This is all in the context of a $360 million budget.

And so those are my introductory remarks.

I think I'll hand it over to Greg to sort of walk us through maybe a little bit more detail.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning and good morning members of the committee.

Madam Chair, as always, you make my job very easy because you know the legislation really well.

So I'm going to share my screen here and share a PowerPoint that I think will just more or less provide a visual for the changes you were talking about.

Okay, so ask if everyone can can someone tell me verbally you can see it I can't see anyone.

We can see it.

Okay, great.

So, start out with an overview of what the substitute.

That is before the committee today does.

The original bill, as you know, was introduced months ago in January.

In the last Public Safety Committee meeting where this bill was heard, there was a substitution where the investments that Councilmember Herbold talked about were were weaved into the amendment, weaved into the original bill.

And so now we have a substitute bill that does many things.

And so I'm going to provide a quick overview of those things and then tell you what today's proposed amendment would further.

Just by way of background, the investments that Council Member Herbold talked about are listed here on this table.

What you can see on that top line, projected salary savings available, $13 million.

That is actually an estimate made by central staff on April 27th.

It is an up-to estimate and it's an annual figure.

Given the separations that have happened so far this year, If we, if the department continues to see separations, but it levels out at some rate, then it's possible that SPD could see up to $13 million of savings in salary savings.

If it does not level out, if it continues at the trends that are, that have been seen in the last several months, there will be more than 13,000.

But just for the conservative central staff estimate, we're saying up to 13,000 and hoping that trends return to something more normal.

I'll stop right there because there may be questions on that and I want to make sure I'm saying that in a way that's understandable.

I am looking to see if there's any hand raised.

I'm not seeing any just yet.

Chair, Greg, you've said $13,000 a couple times.

I just want to make sure everybody knows it was $13 million.

Yes, $13 million.

In my conservative estimate, there would be up to $13 million in savings.

If we continue to see the kinds of separations that we've seen in the last few months, there would be more.

That's how I would summarize it.

So moving into the investments.

Just before we do that, I just want to restate something that I think Council Member Morales made in a previous meeting.

That's not $13 million that is floating around in SPD's budget now.

That is your assessment of how much would be available.

over the course of a year?

That's correct.

So that takes their current separations, which through the first quarter were 58, and their current hires, which through the first quarter were 30, and sort of projects out that they would have somewhere around nine more separations per month, and somewhere around eight more hires per month.

And if it worked out that way, at the end of the year, they would have $13 million in salary savings.

And so just very high level, what this bill does, this substitute bill that we voted to have before us in our last meeting, very high level.

uses about $5.4 million to pay for a bunch of things, many of which SPD asked us to help them fund rather than doing the full $5.4 million cut.

It funds $2 million for participatory budgeting instead of $5.4 million for participatory budgeting.

But it also frees up $5 million in what is projected to be $13 million in salary savings to give SPD the flexibility that they have been requesting.

That is a good summary.

I am not going to go too much into detail unless members have questions on these specific investments.

I know we've been talking about it for several months, but let me know if you want me to go into detail on any of these specific investments.

Okay, so the other major change in the substitute that currently sits before the committee is that it revised one of the provisos in the adopted budget, SPD 11B002.

That proviso was holding $5 million in authority and requiring that the department not spend that money until a future appropriation had been made.

That particular proviso is intended to capture salary savings that SPD accrues throughout the year.

The substitute that is before you more or less eliminates that proviso and replaces it with a new proviso that would allow SPD access to that funding as long as they complied with some reporting requirements specifically around staffing so that the council could continue to watch the staffing situation at SPD.

I'll stop and ask if there's any questions on that.

Greg?

Yeah.

Is there a concern that SPD potentially wouldn't comply with those reporting requirements unless we lifted the proviso or did the phased in lifting of it?

I guess I'm just trying to understand, do we have other ways as a council to compel that reporting rather than through as we get those reports releasing the proviso?

Thank you, Councilmember.

The other way that you have to compel that reporting is through statement of legislative intent.

And you did that.

You adopted a statement of legislative intent that asked them for regular monthly reports, reports that have historically been provided.

On a monthly basis or periodically, they go back and forth, but the department generally keeps the council up to date with detailed reports.

Starting in January, the department stopped providing projections as part of those reports.

And so no longer do those reports contain any information or any data on how many folks they expect to hire or how many folks they expect will leave.

And so you have already asked them for that via the statement of legislative intent.

And they are saying that they are not going to be sending it.

So this proviso is a step in a in a further direction to try to compel them to provide that information.

I'd say that in absolute fairness, there's really no way that anyone could have predicted what would have happened in the last six months in terms of separations.

And it is understandable that they are hesitant to provide that data going forward.

However, they do have access to information, specifically folks who have submitted their retirement paperwork or the number of recruits that they're planning to hire as they gather eligible folks out of the testing pool and as they interview them.

So they have some capacity to do some projections, certainly more than the council does without that information.

So this would ask them to continue sort of to do the best job that they could and provide that information to the council.

Again, taking a step forward in requiring that information to be sent.

On a related question, Greg, has SP indicated what they would use the salary savings for in the event that they were released per these conditions here.

SBD has said that they would use their salary savings for many of the items in this table.

They have, indeed, the items in this table largely came from them, many of them did anyways, the separation pay, the IT needs, the civilian staffing.

additional resources for public disclosure, although not necessarily in this configuration.

They have requested, they have indicated that they need to have evidence storage enhancements done.

And so in a lot of ways, these are already SPD requests and would be used for, they would use their salary savings, at least on the separation pay, the IT needs and the civilian staffing.

Okay, thank you.

All right, I'm going to move forward.

So now I'm going to move into the amendment that is proposed today that is before you.

Before you move into that, I just want to state that I have worked with you to develop this amendment.

We were seeking law department review, which we got last night.

This amendment has not been posted publicly.

And so I am inclined, it is virtually the same as the version that my colleagues on this committee received on Friday, but I am inclined to hold the amendment to whole council unless I hear otherwise from my colleagues, just out of an interest to make sure that the public has access to the amendment, which because of the late law department review, they were unable to get it posted.

to the agenda.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Would you like me to go over it or would you like to have me step back?

Very much.

Thank you.

Okay.

Yes, I still do want you to go over it because I, you know, if colleagues feel strongly that we should act on it now, I want to hear that.

And I want to have the benefit of the discussion around the amendment hearing committee.

Okay, thank you.

I'll move forward then.

The most significant change that your amendment would make, Madam Chair, is that it would eliminate another proviso, another restriction on the department.

There was $2.5 million proviso in the 2021 adopted budget that would require future ordinance, future authorization.

And along with that proviso, a request that SPD and Labor Relations petition the Public Safety Civil Service Committee to authorize 35 out-of-order layoffs in accordance with the principles that the Council identified in Resolution 31962 that was passed last year.

You'll recall that many of the principles that are in that resolution have to do with officer misconduct, specifically around sustained complaints.

And so this was a hold on authority to see if there would be a way that layoffs could be focused on officers who had sustained miscomplaints and as part are sustained.

misconduct complaints, sorry, tongue-tied, and included in that would be officers that are part of what is called the Brady List.

The Brady List is a disclosure of law enforcement officers whose involvement in a case as an arresting officer, investigator, or witness is in question because of a history of dishonesty or misconduct.

And so the goal of this particular 2.5 million out of order layoff proviso was to identify those officers and see if they could be prioritized for layoff.

It over the last few months has become clear that that is not possible for several reasons.

The two most significant reasons are because the public safety civil service rules would allow any officer that was laid off, regardless of the reason, whether it was misconduct or or other, to be placed on a reinstatement register and rehired when SPD is hiring new officers.

As the chair has indicated, SPD is fully funded for their hiring plan.

So any and they are hiring as quickly and as much as they can.

So placing an officer, a laid off officer on a reinstatement register would just simply mean that they would be rehired.

Additionally, the RCW precludes any adverse personnel action to be taken against a police officer solely because they're on the Brady list.

And for these reasons, it becomes somewhat impractical to seek out-of-order layoffs specifically on the misconduct issue.

So this amendment would eliminate that proviso, free up the $2.5 million for the department to be able to use, And then as you can see in number two, it adds some intent language to explain why that proviso is being dropped.

And I have just gone over that.

So again, I'll stop and ask if there are any questions.

Not hearing anything.

Also, colleagues, any questions?

OK.

All right, so a couple more things that this.

I'm sorry, Council Member Herbold.

I'm sorry, I was a little delayed.

Go ahead.

Go ahead.

It was my fault.

I was a little delayed.

You know, I think not necessarily wanting to speak to the specific proposal here.

I wanted to to respond to your inquiry about whether or not the committee should hold on this amendment or take action now.

I think several of us on this committee in a different context have had an opportunity to really wrestle with the underlying issue.

presented by the out-of-order layoff proviso that was originally adopted by the city council.

I would be prepared to vote on this particular amendment if you as the chair decided to I just wanted to call it to a vote during committee today, and I just wanted to signal that preparedness for you as you think about how you want to manage this particular issue.

It would be, as Council President, I'll just sort of say that it would be my preference that we resolve this policy debate related to Amendment 1 in the context of your committee, as opposed to saving debate on this particular amendment for for a full council.

That's exactly the kind of feedback I was looking for.

Any other strong feelings about that issue here from other council members?

All right.

Madam Chair.

Yes.

I would just say I agree with Council Member Gonzalez's comments for the same reasons that Council Member Gonzalez stated and the thorough study of this particular proposal around lifting this proviso.

And I would be prepared to vote on it today as well.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

All right.

Greg, do you have anything further for us?

Just a couple quick things, and then I'll step back.

So there were findings changes made to Section K, and these acknowledge the release of the $5 million salary savings proviso, the $2.5 million out of order proviso, with the intention to allow SPD more flexibility in its budget to plan for emerging fiscal issues, as well as staffing due to the short shortage of officers, as well as training needs.

And then there are some technical corrections and changes that are made that I'm not going to go into now.

And I can if anybody has any questions, but they're relatively insignificant relative to the other changes.

And now I'm going to ask if Ledge IT can stop sharing my screen, because I seem to have

PB, Lupita D Montoya PB, she-her, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she-hers, she

Yes, that's the one that we talked about a little bit earlier.

It more or less eliminates the $5 million salary savings proviso and then creates a new proviso that requires the staffing reports.

And technically in the bill, it's an amendment, but it's a rather confusing thing.

So I'm just going to simplify it by saying that the $5 million salary savings proviso that the council president had added in the 2021 adopted budget is eliminated effectively.

By this amendment or by the fuller?

Actually, by the substitute that the committee has already adopted.

OK.

Thank you.

Nothing more.

All right, thank you so much.

If there's no further discussion about whether or not we should move the amendment, I move Amendment 1 to Council Bill 119981. Is there a second?

Second.

OK, and is there any discussion?

Senator Sawant.

Thank you, Chair Herbold.

And I had points on both the amendment and the bill.

And if you are OK with it, I'll just make all my points at once.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

So as I said, I will speak to the amendment and the bill and it won't be any surprise to any members of the public that I am opposing the substitute amendment to essentially increase the police budget by an additional The original proviso effectively said that the police could not access $2.5 million of their budget because the city council would look into.

Out of order layoffs.

I will be voting no on the bill as a whole.

And in fact, even without the amendment, it is a bill that has a net effect of increasing police funding.

During the Justice for George Floyd movement, ordinary people filled the streets to demand the end of police violence and repression of peaceful protests.

Thousands demanded Seattle defund the police by 50 percent.

to reduce the number of officers harassing communities of color and abusing peaceful protesters.

Council members who initially claimed to support that demand then began to use more and more Orwellian language to justify doing the opposite.

Do council members remember their promises to the Justice for George Floyd movement?

Do council members remember saying they support defunding the police by 50% last summer?

Then do council members remember saying that they cannot defund by 50% in 2020 because reducing the number of police officers would take up to four months, but they promised to do so in 2021?

Then do council members remember saying that they cannot reduce the number of officers in 2021 because they first need to research out-of-order layoffs?

And as a side note, I would also note that doing police layoffs out of order was never a demand of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Now council members are saying that out of order layoffs of police are not possible.

And so please forget that council members ever promised to reduce the size of the police force.

Frankly, in my view, this has become a farce.

The first draft of the bill reduced the police department's budget by $5.4 million to compensate for the $5.4 million by which they illegally overspent their budget last year.

Then the majority of this committee amended that original bill to make the police department budget reduction to $2 to $3 million instead of $5.4 million, and at the same time, to lift the $5 million proviso.

As I explained last time when I voted no on that amendment, I'll quote my own points.

Quote, that means that the substitute bill as a whole cuts $2 to $3 million from the police and then gives the police access to $5 million.

So on balance, It increases the available police budget by over $2 million.

As Malcolm X famously said, if you stick a knife in my back nine inches and pull it out six inches, that's not progress, end quote.

So now today's new substitute would release an additional $2.5 million to the police by lifting another proviso.

If this amendment passes, then the net result of this bill will be to increase the police funding by a total of $4.5 million rather than cutting the police budget by $5.4 million.

Essentially, the consequence for going over budget last year, the police department going over the budget last year is for them to get extra money this year.

This is what police accountability looks like to the political establishment.

As I said, I'm voting no on the substitution and also on the bill as a whole because it is no longer a bill to reduce the police budget and has instead become a bill to increase the police budget.

In the public comment, many people urged the council to amend this bill to return it to its original form of cutting $5.4 million.

I would be happy to support an amendment like that.

As a matter of parliamentary procedures, I am not permitted to make that motion because it would count as reconsidering the vote last time this bill was before the committee.

and I was on the losing side of that vote, so I cannot propose reconsideration, but I do want to stress that if another council member made that motion, I would vote yes on it.

I would also like to respond to the excuse that has been circulated that the city council cannot defund the police without the agreement of the federal monitor.

I want to be clear, council members vote on the budget, not the federal monitor.

And council members are responsible for their own votes.

If council members agree with the federal monitor or any agree with any other part of the political establishment, that is their decision.

But I do not agree with the federal monitor or the political establishment and my vote will reflect that.

If council members were serious about defunding the police, they would pass a budget that actually defunds the police.

What would Judge Roberts do?

Place an injunction on the city budget as a whole in response to that?

That is simply not a plausible or realistic scenario.

So instead we get letters from the federal monitor expressing concerns And council members are pretending those concerns are legally binding, which they are not.

Of course, if council members were serious about defunding the police, they would not be increasing the police budget in the first place.

And in the last committee discussion I quoted from my comments from the council meeting on December 14 of last year when I was the only council member to vote no on the bill to give the Seattle Police Department an additional $5.4 million to essentially cover the millions they illegally spent on overtime they were not authorized to spend when they fill the streets with riot cops to abuse Black Lives Matter protesters.

And at this point, I'm, you know, I'm quoting myself from past meetings because this is happening again and again.

At that time, I said, I'm voting no on this supplemental budget, which gives the Seattle Police Department additional 5.4 million to fund the extra overtime they used abusing and intimidating the Black Lives Matter movement.

Every city department is allocated a budget at the beginning of the year.

And those are the funds they have available to do with whatever they want to do.

Here we are in the last council meeting of the year.

This is my comments from the December meeting.

The same year that we had a historic Black Lives Matter movement, a year in which under pressure from the street heat, the democratic establishment made sweeping promises to defund the police by 50%.

We now hear the police have spent $5.4 million more than their budget.

money that didn't belong to them and are requesting retroactive permission for the millions in taxpayer money that they have stolen.

They have taken this money in order to abuse the BLM movement, spending millions in overtime to fill the streets of Seattle with tear gas and other weapons.

And they have taken this money for personal enrichment with individual officers amassing hundreds of thousands of dollars in overtime pay.

Imagine a car thief who tells you that if you just retroactively give them your car, then they will not have stolen it.

And the Seattle Police Department does this almost every year to the point where the council even passed a resolution in the summer, so this was last summer, pledging to say no if the police make this request at the end of the year.

Now is the test.

Will council members hold the line or yet again backfill the already bloated police budget with renewed pledges to hold the line next year?

Unfortunately, in the Finance and Housing Committee last week, again, this is from next year, council members on the committee unanimously voted to approve this police funding this year while pledging to take it from next year's budget.

But what did it mean at that time for council members to say that they will take the money from next year's budget if council members prove they have no intention of holding the police to that budget?

What if the police go over their budget by $5.4 million again in 2021?

Was a question I had asked then.

Will the council hold the line then or push it back another year?

What if they go over by 20 million?

or 50 million in the years, in the coming years.

So we can see that this is happening again and again.

And in committee public comment, community organizers have demanded that the council hold the line.

But at this point, and this is, again, these are points I had already made in previous committees, but they're needing to be made again.

This is not even holding the line.

The line has been moved back.

with no guarantee that it will not move again and again and again.

In fact, there is everything to indicate all the evidence statistically indicates that it will be actually moved back in favor of the police again and again.

Of course, the reality is this is not about lines or promises or resolutions or even the goodwill of elected officials.

It is about the power of grassroots social movements on the streets.

It was not a coincidence that at the height of tens of thousands of Seattleites being on the streets, that is when Democratic Council members made promises to defund.

It was not a coincidence that a couple months later when the protests had reduced, the promises were also reneged on.

The lesson for our movements is that we must depend on our own strength.

And last but not least, I think it is crucial for working people to get organized and fight for an elected community oversight board with full powers over the police, including hiring and firing subpoena powers and policies and procedures.

My observation from having talked to hundreds of people in a politically broad spectrum is that even the working people who are not sure about defunding also strongly support an elected community oversight with full powers of the police.

And it's a demand that will not only help bring real accountability.

Obviously, it's not going to be a panacea, but it is an important step.

It will be an important step forward for police accountability, and it will unite working people.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Swann.

Any other comments on the amendment?

I have just a few words I want to share.

You know, there's been a lot of conversation about the role of the consent decree, and I think reasonable people can disagree, but I think what is clear is that we do have a monitor, and that monitor's role is to monitor our compliance with the consent decree.

And that monitor, when he wrote to us last week, said in order to sustain compliance, the city is responsible for providing necessary support and resources to SPD in order to fulfill its obligations under the settlement agreement.

Now is the time to allocate resources to SPD at levels that will enable the city to close out the consent decree efficiently, effectively, and sustainably.

So the monitor's position seems to be that a $2 million budget cut in the context of this $360 million police department budget could somehow put SPD in the position of not being able to deliver key management and operational requirements, even given that the version of the bill that the that the monitor reviewed included this lift of the $5 million proviso.

It is a lift of the $5 million proviso in a way that is scaled, and so that is why I'm proposing to lift this additional $2.5 million proviso, knowing that we cannot fulfill the objectives of the proviso.

Even though I'm struggling to understand how the monitor can suggest that funding can solve SPD's training and patrol staffing challenges, right?

These are the items that the monitor says that he's concerned about relate to staffing and training.

And specifically that supervisors are being moved from training to fill patrol staffing challenges.

These are all not.

problems that can be solved with dollars, they are problems that can be solved with additional staffing, and the council has fully funded the 2021 staffing plan.

Nevertheless, I do feel that the monitor's role in this instance is a role that must be considered by this council.

The monitor speaks to the court on a weekly, regular basis.

And I do not want to have the city be found to not be in compliance with the consent decree.

And so that's why I'm reluctantly bringing forward this additional proviso.

And seeing no further comment, will the clerk please call the roll?

I'm sorry.

I had my hand raised.

Sorry.

Oh, you certainly did.

Council President Gonzalez.

Thanks.

That's OK.

So I wanted to just add a little bit about the consent decree.

comments as well.

And I just want to say that, you know, sort of the consent decree is a legal reality and it is a legal obligation for the city of Seattle.

This is, it is subject to a settlement agreement, which is a legally binding document on the city of Seattle as it relates to ongoing efforts to reform and make sure that this police department continues to be and enhances its accountability in the area of police reform and misconduct.

And so that is a reality of the context and the environment in which we are being asked to make ongoing decisions within our charter-mandated duties and responsibilities to also consider budget appropriations for each of the departments.

But there is no question that in the context of exercising our authority as budget appropriators in the City of Seattle, we have to in this context also exercise that obligation within the context of knowing that we are subject to a legally binding document that requires us to consult with and be supervised by and ordered under threat of contempt of court orders.

We have to make these decisions within that context.

I wanted to emphasize that point that you made, Chair Herbold, because I do think it's getting lost in the debate and the discussion here, both in the public and perhaps within our virtual chambers.

I am concerned about this particular proviso specifically because I think I have a slightly different reading of the federal court monitors email to us that came to us last week.

I think that he continues to be concerned about any kind of budget reductions and.

And while I disagree, perhaps, with his perspective that we shouldn't be making any budget decisions at all, I still am concerned that lifting this $5 million proviso now will create a disadvantage to us in the fall budget process.

And so my preference on the $5 million proviso that I sponsored during the budget process would be that we consider lifting it in the context of understanding sort of at the end of the year what the salary savings were.

And I think that also positions the city council to identify how we would want to spend these unused dollars outside of the police department.

My recollection is that that is how we have done it in the past in terms of the process and the timing.

And so for those reasons, I have concerns about the $5 million, lifting of the $5 million proviso as part of Amendment 1.

Thanks, President Gonzalez.

The lifting of the 5,000,000 dollar provides that is not in amendment 1. it's in the base bill.

It's right.

And then 1 is just about the provide is just about the prizes around the out of order layoffs.

Correct.

Okay.

So.

On the out of order layoffs.

So now I've spoken to the underlying bill, so.

Sneak peek the the over the is a release to the out of order layoffs.

I want I think it's really important to share with members of the viewing public.

that at the time that I was supportive of the out of order layoffs proviso, I truly believe we were going to be able to accomplish it.

We had some indication within the public safety civil service rules that indicated that out of order layoffs were possible to achieve if the chief of police, would advocate to that body the desire and the wish to do so.

Unfortunately, I feel like I have exhausted every avenue possible to evaluate whether or not we could effectuate the intent behind the proviso and accomplish the goal of out-of-order layoffs.

And in that exercise, every single time I thought we found an answer and a way to do it, we would open up yet another Pandora's box of yet another layer built into our legal framework from decades before any of us were here struggling with these questions that have effectively shielded and protected even those officers laid off for.

for lying or biased policing or being convicted of a crime, even if we were able to lay off those specific officers who have been found of significant misconduct in the past, even if we were able to lay those individuals off, the moment there was an opportunity to hire new officers back to the police force, those officers in that pool have the right of first refusal.

I think that effectively frustrates our entire policy goal of focusing our efforts on out-of-order layoffs on those who, frankly, do not meet the high standards that we expect of those individuals who do serve as officers within the Seattle Police Department.

So as a result, unfortunately, that means to me that we will not be able to effectuate the goal of out-of-order layoffs.

That, however, should not be translated into saying that layoffs would or should never occur It simply means that the concept of doing out of order layoffs in order to prioritize identifying individuals who cannot fulfill their full functions as a police officer because of prior misconduct is not achievable.

And so I just want to make sure that folks understand that that doesn't mean that layoffs can't occur.

The proviso is really about how layoffs might occur.

And I think we have run the course of evaluation and realizing that the out of order mechanism for achieving any layoffs is not feasible, nor will it fulfill the original policy goals that were fueling the support of that proviso.

you, Madam President.

Yes.

In addition to our own public safety, uh, Civil Service Commission rules, there's actually a prohibition that we that we discovered earlier this year in state law passed in 2018 for taking any adverse action against an officer that is on the Brady list.

So I myself, uh, there was there was some Brady list related bills in the state legislature this year.

I testified that have that language changed, and that is not one of the reforms that moved forward.

I saw Council Member Lewis, I see your hand up, yes.

Yes, thank you, Council Member Herbold.

I just similarly wanted to, as someone who went on that similar journey with some of the other members of this committee in looking into the out-of-order layoffs for people, officers that are on the Brady List, Just to dovetail on your last comment, Council Member Herbold, I think this is a really prime issue for Interim to work with our legislative delegation in the run up to the next session to really, really put an emphasis on this.

You know, we kind of found these revelations of some of the issues in the state law a little bit later in the session.

So I think with the run up to the next one, this is a really prime area to really work together with our partners inside and outside City Hall for this really critical reform.

I think it is unbelievably counter to the public policy interest.

that officers on the Brady list are so insulated and protected from this kind of accountability.

And it was really discouraging to see that.

And the solution to that sits in some essential changes to state law.

And I look forward to those conversations over the interim to craft those policies and fight for them in the next session.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

All right.

Seeing none, the clerk, please call the roll.

This roll is for amendment one.

That's right.

Council President Gonzales.

Aye.

Council Member Lewis.

Aye.

Council Member Morales.

No.

Council Member Sawant.

No.

Council Member Herbold.

Yes.

Three in favor, two opposed.

Thank you.

So next we'll move into the underlying bill and move Council Bill 119981 as amended.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Any discussion of the amended version of Council Bill 119981?

Yes, please.

Thank you.

This has been a frustrating process, I will say.

I think we're all feeling a little frustrated by the things that we're learning along the way as we try to hold ourselves accountable to the changes that we want to make on behalf of community, to the way that our police department works, and the way that the city funds the department.

So I wanna say that I would support this bill if it was still following the original intent, which was to enforce budget accountability for SPD.

But this amendment doesn't just change, this new bill doesn't just change the bill, it reverses the impact of what we intended and I can't support it.

I think we need to reinstate the proviso Council President Gonzalez's proviso on the $5 million in future savings.

And I'm sort of in the same boat with Council Member Sawant in not being able to move that forward, so I'm here for somebody else to do that.

I think it's important to note that SPD has already acknowledged themselves that they could absorb the $5.4 million reduction through their salary savings.

and that the recent request is mostly for new items that weren't identified in the previous requests.

If they find later in the year or early next year that they have additional needs, they could come back to council and request those funds.

There's no reason to provide this now.

Only item in the list provided that they are legally obligated to pay is the separation pay at $1.8 million.

Again, salary savings anticipated for this year could cover that amount.

So, you know, there's $2.8 million for new technologies, including an early intervention system.

Which, by the way, SPD has been funded for already for the last 10 years, and that hasn't done anything to improve use of force violations in the department.

In fact, the department requires for an officer to have six different incidents before they're even assessed into that program.

So it doesn't do anything to prevent use of force violations.

In 2015, City Audit of SPD Public Disclosure found serious issues with departments.

They weren't keeping track of information.

The report made several recommendations to the department.

As far as we know, the department has taken no action on those.

And in fact, in the last six years, You know, there haven't been any real improvements made to that.

So I think the recent news that the texts of the former chief have gone missing is another indication that the department is not serious about fulfilling this obligation.

We also know there's a history of unchecked abuse of overtime.

A 2016 auditor's report found that SPD had significant gaps in controls.

They weren't collecting data about overtime and they didn't review their totals of overtime either.

And since then, the department has made very few changes there.

So there's just a pattern of even when the department is audited and recommendations are made of how to improve accountability, those recommendations not being followed.

SPD is choosing to prioritize their transfer of 100 officers out of specialty units into the community response group.

That is what has resulted in fewer staffing in the specialty units, and it's easily remedied by moving those officers back to their units.

The department claims that 911 response time is a priority, but these officers don't respond to 911. They respond to protests.

So even when they're counted as 911 responders, as was reported in the March 9th presentation to this committee, the response time is actually no different.

So the department has the officers it needs.

Where they choose to deploy them is up to the department, obviously, but they can't then use that as an excuse to say that they need additional funding.

for the staffing issues.

So this is a funding crisis of the department's own making.

They decided to overspend on overtime last summer.

Giving more funding won't prevent crime.

It won't address the homelessness issue in our city.

It won't reduce substance abuse.

It won't improve mental health outcomes for our community members.

Only investing in community services and solutions will do that.

And that's what community has been asking for, a shift in the way we allocate our public dollars.

Our goal should be investing in a way that changes community conditions, lead to better health and better wellbeing.

And rewarding SPD for overspending outside of its budget authority will accomplish that.

So I will be voting no on this bill.

Thank you, Morales.

Any other comments or thoughts?

Not seeing any raised hands up.

Real a real right hand.

Yes, a real one, yes.

Well, thank you so much.

I'm Councilmember Herbold.

I know this one has this bill has been really, really difficult and challenging to to deal with, and so I appreciate the position that you're in and I appreciate that you are.

working towards developing a thoughtful threading of the needle here to allow us to move forward on this.

Unfortunately, I, for different reasons than have already been stated by my colleagues on this committee, also plan to vote no on this on this bill.

Again, for slightly different reasons, some shared reasons, but slightly different reasons that are going to lead to my position to not ultimately support passing this bill.

So it had been my hope that over the last several months that we would be able to come to some consensus with the department, with stakeholders, with the mayor's office, amongst us in council as it relates to this $5.4 million proposal.

I know that at the end of the year, the position on the executive side was to oppose it and not be supportive of the bill.

I think that positions have sadly only further entrenched since we have first introduced this bill at the end of the year.

At this point, I feel like we have a a proposed piece of legislation before us that everyone is for their own reasons unhappy with.

And so I think that that unfortunately, that leaves me in a position to.

not be able to support this bill for that reason, but also because I think that the council would be better served waiting until later in the year to take action related to these proposed cuts and to the proposals related to lifting of my $5 million proviso.

We know that, excuse me, we know that the executive is going to be back before the council here pretty soon in September with proposed budget changes to the Seattle Police Department's budget.

This could take the form of grant acceptances, special events, you know, costs, staffing, overtime costs, separation pay, pay family medical leave reimbursements, you know, the list probably goes on.

And I think that these are issues that may need to be addressed Certainly through a quarter 3 supplemental ordinance, but then we will also have another opportunity to consider SPD's full holistic budget during the fall fall budget process.

And I think right now what is missing for me is that we don't know in which direction, whether it's going to be an increase or decrease in the budget that these actions will need to take and so.

you know, months from now, the council, I think, will have much more flexibility and much more accurate information about, you know, how to find some real precision around the budget and actions that might be necessary in order to thread the needle in a way that may be more satisfactory to those who we are hearing from.

So I am unfortunately not going to be able to support the bill today, but I understand that we have, I think, exhausted our debate process in committee and would support moving forward on this bill with a vote today, even if it's a divided report with a recommendation not to pass.

the bill, I still think, Chair Herbold, I think you have run the course in your committee work sessions on this bill, and if that's how the vote ends up, then the full council will have the committee's recommendation one way or the other, and we can be prepared to move forward on this budget issue in full council as needed.

Thank you, Madam President.

Before I move to Councilmember Lewis, who I see has his hand up, I do want to ask what I hope is a clarifying question.

Madam President, given your comments about the seriousness of the role of the monitor to basically supervise the city as it relates to obligations under the consent decree.

Are you not concerned that continuing to tie up $7.5 million in budget authority will not of the monitor.

I mean, we're not just hearing don't cut the police department's budget from the monitor.

We're also hearing from SPD that they are seeking that additional flexibility associated with lifting the provisos, and that is the spirit in which I thought we voted in our last committee meeting for the substitute, which included the lifting of the $5 million proviso, as well as today's amendment, was out of concern that the monitor would flag for the judge the fact that we are holding $7.5 million that the police department cannot access.

Yeah, I appreciate the question.

I mean, I do think sort of functionally there's a difference between a proviso and a budget cut.

Proviso does sort of restrict the spending of the dollars, but doesn't categorically reduce the budget further for the department.

Now, that sort of setting that definitional exercise aside, my reading of the communications I have seen from Chief Diaz to the monitor has indicated that this bill, as amended, is too restrictive.

and doesn't actually fulfill flexibility.

So I think, unfortunately, that the federal court police monitor, based on my reading of his communications, agrees with that perspective as expressed by SPD.

So I'm not sure that we are, I think we want to have that flexibility in order to fulfill the intent of the consent decree and our obligations of the consent decree.

But I don't think that the court or the federal police monitor will agree with our perspective that this bill accomplishes that flexibility goal.

And so for that reason, I think, you know, being in a status quo position of where we ended last year, which did include the proviso, is a bit of a no foul, no harm position as it relates to our relationship with the consent decree.

Council Member Lewis.

Thank you.

This is a question for Greg Doss, but I think Council Member Gonzalez just answered it.

So effectively, you know, were this matter, this bill to be ultimately not passed, uh, at full council.

So even if it comes out on a divided, um, uh, you know, minority voting in favor of it, uh, and then it went to full council and didn't pass, we would essentially be back to where we were with the budget we passed in November with everything in there unaltered is essentially what the outcome would be of not passing anything.

But I see Council Member Herbold nodding.

But you know, I just throw that over to Greg to just to clarify.

Yes, that's correct.

There would be continued restrictions on the salary savings of $5,000,000 and there would be continued restrictions on the out of order layoffs of 2.5 million.

And there would also not be.

The additional 2,000,000 for participatory budgeting that we indicate in this bill.

Yes, OK, thanks.

Just wanted to clarify that.

Now we could pull out The $2.5 million provides those relay state out-of-order layoffs, correct?

And run that as a separate bill?

That is absolutely the council's purview to do so.

But not today.

All right.

Oh, thank you.

As President Gonzalez has said, we have We've exhausted debate on this bill that was introduced back in September.

So with that, I am going to ask the clerk, please call the roll.

Council President Gonzalez?

No.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

No.

Council Member Sawant?

No.

Chair Herbold?

Yes.

Two in favor.

Three opposed.

None abstaining.

Thank you so much.

So the vote is two to three against, and the recommendation will be to not pass the bill.

This recommendation with the divided report will be sent to the full city council, and under the council rules, the legislation will not go to the immediate full city council meeting for the following Monday, and that will be May 24th.

And with that, the next Public Safety and Human Services Committee is scheduled for May 25th.

Before we adjourn, are there any other comments for the good of the order?

Seeing none, we are adjourned.