Seattle City Council Public Safety Committee Meeting 12/10/2024

Good morning.

The public safety meeting will come to order.

It's 934 January 14th, 2025. I'm Robert Kettle, chair of the Public Safety Committee.

Will the committee clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Here.

Council Member Moore.

Present.

Council President Nelson.

Present.

Council Member Saka.

Here.

Chair Kettle.

Here.

Chair, there are five members present.

Thank you.

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

Hearing and seeing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

Good morning, everyone.

Appreciate everybody being back for our first committee meeting of 2025. For the chair's report, I just wanted to start off with a couple of remarks, general on a couple of issues or topics, and then to the topic of the day.

But today, I wanted to start with transit security.

And what I wanted to do was ask for a moment of silence for King County Metro driver Sean Yim.

Our condolences are to the Yim family, to the Amalgamated Transit Union ATU 587, led by President Greg Woodfill, plus the community members that are part of his ridership and really the entire King County Metro across our entire region.

So with that, I'd just like to ask for a moment of silence.

Thank you.

I wanted to note that transit security remains center to our efforts, both in the general sense and what we're looking to do for our communities, our neighborhoods, the environment in which the transit system works, but also specifically to transit security itself, something that we've seen in our calls for support working with King County Metro, King County Sheriff last summer, and also in our budget actions from last fall.

And I will say that we will continue to work transit security during the course of 25 with committee meetings, but also reaching out to the stakeholders, those that are in this world, and to assure them that we will do what we can, working in partnership with King County and then separately.

with other government agencies as well potentially in order to create a better, safer environment for everyone to include our bus drivers in King County Metro.

Separately too, as you know, Los Angeles is going through a terrible, disastrous, catastrophic fire.

And our thoughts are with our counterparts in LA County and their communities.

I will say there are lessons to be learned from the fires and there will be numerous and some may not apply to us, but some will.

We should not have a false sense of security because in the big dark it rains often and the like.

I remind everyone that was it last year or year before we had a wildfire in our Olympic National Rainforest.

And with climate change, we're going to be increasingly at risk.

And so it's even more important to take these lessons learned now so we can take actions now.

And so clearly public safety and specifically emergency preparedness needs to be center of our planning efforts.

The idea of an ounce of prevention today is worth a pound of cure tomorrow.

And it needs to be part of our planning to include as we, to look at what we're also doing in the council with the comprehensive plan.

to ensure that we are on a positive step forward in terms of planning to be potentially ready for something similar.

And it also highlights, by the way, if you look at the reports coming out of LA County, you know, we have to do job one, two, in terms of taking care of the health of our system, particularly in terms of, in this case, you know, fire.

You know, we need to ensure that the maintenance is done.

I've been to the fire garage.

I'm probably the only council member ever to go on, you know, but the issues that relate to the fire garage, you know, the maintenance of these ladder trucks, these fire engines and the equipment are so huge.

There's training.

And then ultimately it comes down to the people.

So we have to be mindful of the op tempo that's impacting our firefighters, our paramedics, you know, from across the board.

And these are the things that we need to think about now and look to make some long-term, you know, planning decisions so that we can put that on a stronger footing so that if we do get something like what's happening to L.A.

now that we are in a position to mitigate it and respond quicker.

So again, our thoughts are with our counterparts in LA County and probably Ventura County, some of the other areas and their communities within.

So today we are looking at less lethal weapons.

This is something that's been ongoing as part of the consent decree process for a while.

There's been court actions.

There's been discussions like in the fall, the mayor had his letter on this topic in October.

And we had our first meeting in December on less lethal weapons.

And I think it's important to note some main themes.

One is the rights to free speech and assembly need to be protected.

Nonviolent protests.

And one of the things noted is that we've all taken oaths.

you know, to defend those rights here in the city, the state and the federal.

And I've done it many times previously during the course of my service in the military.

So that's the frame that we should start with is that, you know, the rights to free speech and assembly need to be protected.

Another thing that I think in terms of framing and understanding is that we cannot legislate to the perfect scenario.

We will not always get the notice of a protest to include those that may become violent, maybe a counter protest as part of that.

We may not always get that notice of that counter protest.

And scenarios can be born out of, across the political spectrum.

I think sometimes we think of from one perspective, but we need to be on the ready that these protests can come from various directions and perspectives.

And we need to, We need to avoid tailoring legislation that could have unintended consequences.

The flexibility and the ability to adjust should be an imperative so that we're ready to respond in the case of violence.

How best to respond practically means understanding the structures that are set and capable to respond.

This is an area where I think it's important to understand that there's systems you know, operationally, like with SPD, you know, the chief of police who has a deputy who has got the experience and background, or the assistant chief who has main responsibilities, you know, for being incident commander, in addition to having captains in the precincts and lieutenants that are there throughout the 24 hours of each day.

And I highlight this because I've had conversations with the mayor and others, and I'm reminded that sometimes the mayor is not here.

Last year, the mayor was in Korea.

And so what is the systems that are there from the mayor's side that may not exist with the chief of police?

As I note, if the mayor's in Korea not able to be reached, and one of us is the mayor pro tem, are we ready for that?

Also, legislation and policies are important, but crucial is training, training, and training.

from command and control to the employment of less lethal weapons.

Training and ensuring that that training is occurring is so key.

So that's another area of focus that needs to be part of as we look at this topic to ensure the proper use of less lethal weapons.

Again, in terms of those that are employing it, but also the command and control.

And finally, and this kind of goes to the training and the policies points, I just wanted to note that our accountability partners are an important piece of our public safety team, and that we need to set them up for success rather than failure.

The OIG, the Office of Inspector General, which is mentioned in the legislation, OPA, Office of Police Accountability, who has written the letter related to this legislation, and also, and importantly, the Community Police Commission, who's represented today, who also both sent a letter and some proposed edits of the legislation.

And I bring up CPC because it has a key role in terms of engaging with the police department on policies.

And, you know, this is an important piece and something I bring this up for people to think about as we listen to the amendments, as we listen to different points that are made, Council can really push, the committee and the council can really push into the policy piece.

But my fear in that is that we crowd out that space for the CPC.

And I think it's important to give that space to work policy issues with the CPC to be that voice and to be that kind of give and take with the police department too, so they hear from the community in addition to what we do as representatives of the community.

And I just say that because I think it's important, and I think it's important because this comes up in other areas too in terms of supporting the accountability partners.

You'll hear soon enough some other legislation that will be helping the OPA, the Office of Police Accountability, because sometimes by accident, we've kind of tied their hands and created a situation where they can't perform to the best of their ability.

So this kind of goes to the idea that we need to be setting up our accountability partners for success rather than failure.

So with that, I just wanted to make those notes and say those pieces in terms of framing to have that in the back of your mind as we listen to the comments from those who are here to speak and also from my colleagues as we move forward.

Um, the next thing that moving on next thing is that we will now open the hybrid public comment period.

Um, public comments should relate to items on today.

Today's agenda within the purview of the committee.

Um, one thing I wanted to be, uh, clerk can confirm how many do we have signed up today?

Currently we have 13 in-person speakers sign up and 16 remote speakers.

Okay, each speaker will have one minute, and we will start with the in-speaker, in-person speakers.

One of the things I wanted to highlight, by the way, and say this as the chair of the committee, because this has come up previously, this is a public safety committee meeting, not a public hearing.

Normally, it's 20 minutes.

Obviously, we're going to go beyond that.

But I also want to say that we cannot go for an extended, extended period of time because we don't have this room for the entire day.

We have a council meeting this afternoon.

There's some people like to eat lunch and the like.

But we will look to endeavor to get everybody the opportunity to speak, which I think today we will.

So with that, clerk.

The public comment period will be moderated in the following manner.

The public comment period is up to 60 minutes.

Speakers will be called in the order in which they registered.

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

Speakers' mics will be muted if they do not end their comments within the allotted time to allow us to call on the next speaker.

The public comment period is now open and we'll begin with the first speaker on the list.

The first in-person speaker is Gabriel Jones to be followed by Jonathan.

I'm not sure that last name.

It starts with T.

I apologize for the reading.

Gabriel, go ahead.

Good morning.

Good morning, everyone.

My name is Gabriel Jones.

Today I'm talking about less lethal option.

Let's look back at 2020 a little bit, though.

There was a $10 million settlement for police brutality during the BLM protests, $30 million to fight it.

That is $40 million total out of the city's budget.

For $40 million, we could open 133-unit property for affordable housing or tear up 20 barriers Rob Sokka doesn't like.

No police accountability let police lie and say there were armed Proud Boys when there weren't.

No police accountability let SPD purposely attack medics and arrest journalists during 2020 for trying to keep people safe and informed.

No police accountability No police accountability led to people sustaining lifelong injuries and dying.

There are medics who still go through weekly treatments to remove toxic metals from tear gas.

There are horrific injuries that aren't right that I saw firsthand as a medic and ways that I'm still not changed from having to try and keep people safe every day out there.

Instead, this council aims once again to- We give cops more and more money as crimes don't go down and things don't change.

I promise you what you will see if you unban less lethal options is more lawsuits, more money spent that could go to things we actually need.

It's more people injured.

It's more people left disabled than people dying.

I need you to make a change.

I need you to stand up for the people of the city, and I need you to vote no on less lethal options so we can keep our civilians alive.

Thank you.

Thank you, Gabriel.

As a reminder, please, when you hear that chime, you have 10 seconds remaining.

All right, Jonathan, I'm going to try Toledo.

Next up will be Valerie .

We have three microphones, if that one's better, because it's taller.

Hello, my name is Jonathan Toledo.

I am a member of the Seattle Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression.

And to start off, I want to say that the consent decree is ending, but we have not seen proof that the way that SPD conduct itself has fundamentally changed.

The last time the police were given access to these less than lethal weapons, it resulted in a $10 million lawsuit paid for by our tax dollar money.

These injuries sustained were as follows, fractures, blindness, and even heart attacks.

This is not even including the fact that children and pregnant women were among these crowds where they blindly fired with tear gas, pepper balls, and blast balls.

The fact that this is even a question after so many people have faced grievous harm calls into question whether the count even cares about public safety or where our tax and city funds are even going.

Thank you.

Morning.

Hi, Valerie Schlerett, District 2. After 12 years, let's not sacrifice free speech and human rights just to exit the consent decree in a hurry.

Judge Robart told the city to get its crowd control policies in compliance, but he also said he still has concerns about our police accountability.

The bill you're discussing today is too vague to hold officers accountable when they use weapons that blow holes in flesh, damage hearing and eyesight, or cause heart attacks.

Four years later, there has been no real accountability for SPD's most harmful policing of the George Floyd protests of 2020. Damaged settlements paid by the taxpayer are only some compensation.

They're not justice.

Some proponents assert that we've been through a public reckoning in this city.

In fact, the Sentinel event review gathered a panel of police and city staff with few community members and zero protesters.

Don't condemn us to more abuse and gaslighting.

Hold a public hearing about police conduct at demonstrations.

Thank you.

Next, we have Lindsey Burgess to be followed by Kamis Hamadeh.

Hello, I'm here to oppose the use of blast walls and other less than lethal weapons by police.

The potential for harm, misuse, and the impact on public trust are key reasons I am against their use.

Speaking of public trust, this vote should be postponed and there should be a public hearing for this bill to increase transparency.

There is still risk of death and serious injury, despite being labeled less than lethal.

For example, the blast balls release chemical irritants and shrapnel upon explosion, increasing risk of injury to bystanders and protesters.

These weapons affect everyone in the vicinity, peaceful protesters, journalists, and bystanders, including people in their own homes.

I myself was subject to respiratory distress on my eighth floor apartment during 2020 with my windows closed.

Um, these weapons can, uh, infringe on the individual's first amendment rights and for assembly.

Um, there can be a lack of training for the police officers that use them.

They might use them in or are likely to use them unnecessarily.

Um, and they can lead to long-term harm within the community already facing inequalities.

We need to invent.

Sorry.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Good morning, council.

I'm Hamis Mune.

I'm a private citizen in District 5. So I appreciate the council and staff's work to codify the prohibition of use of less lethal weapons against the citizens of Seattle.

However, I have serious concerns about the lack of clarity on the specific types of scenarios that would allow for an exception of the ban to be used by these so-called less lethal weapons by SPD.

From how I've read the bill, it lacks illustrative examples that would lead to the exceptions of the ban claimed by SPD officers and supervisors.

Would the law as written permit the chaos that was determined to be escalated by the SPD to occur again during a future protest against, say, the incoming federal administration?

I believe it would allow for such an event that occurred on Capitol Hill in 2020 all over again, which led to 13,000 citizen complaints and a $10 million settlement after a lengthy legal city.

I implore you to turn this over to more public input and ensure that the citizens of the city have more time to give input on this substantial change in the legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Ricky Cole to be followed by Howard Gale.

Howard Gale to be followed by Crystal Snow.

Morning, Howard.

Good morning, Howard Gale, District 7. The crowd control legislation before you today is severely flawed and to hear from those most at risk and with the expertise and historical knowledge of past practices.

The most important parts of this legislation along with the proposed amendments is mostly suggestive as when the phrase, when feasible, allows police to freely ignore constraints and aspirational.

Nothing wrong with aspirations, but when these aspirations have been part of police policy for decades, It seems absurd to think that rewarding them is going to somehow bring about a better result.

Councilmember Kettle, you talk about training.

Training without accountability is worthless, and we have no accountability from 2020. Lastly, I want to point out, Community Police Commission has become, in the last 10 years, the commission that polices the community.

It's one of the only, of 90 commissions in the city, it's one of the only commissions that does not allow public comment.

Not a single member of the CPC has ever been harmed in a demonstration.

So it's absurd to think that the CPC is gonna represent the community.

We need a full public hearing, not a rush to judgment.

And last, let me just say, 650 weeks of the consent decree, What is a few more weeks going to make a difference, especially when the judge usually rules in the summer or fall?

We can take time on this.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Crystal Snow to be followed by Max Doggett.

Doggett.

I'm Christelle Snow, District 3. Seattle City Council has a moral obligation to reject the legislation to allow SPD access to crowd control weapons.

The proposal to militarize our police department follows an international trend of state brutality against people's movements.

Instead of offering citizen support in the wake of increasing racism, homophobia, transphobia, and deportation, Seattle would join in on this trend.

Instead, consider the alternative.

Actual care for citizens will reduce unrest.

Spend this budgeted money on services, education, healthcare, affordable housing, actual training with accountability, and as Councilman Kettle said, fire maintenance and city infrastructure in the wake of climate change.

Affirm your commitment to actually serve the people you claim to represent, allow us to provide allow the entire city opportunity to speak and vote no on arming SPD with less lethal weapons.

I emphasize weapons.

Thank you.

Max, and then followed by Sean Isom.

I've come here this morning to ask that you please not authorize the increase in the use of more tools of violence against me and my family, my community, our children.

For our militarized police force, it's seems surreal that I would have to even come and ask you all this.

For all of the victims of that militarized Seattle Police Department, I'd like to ask us for a moment of silence.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And thank you to what I believe is a class of students that came and visited.

Are you the teacher?

Thank you.

Thank you very much for coming.

Good day to come.

Important topic.

Democracy in action.

All right, next up.

One question.

What grade?

This 11th and 12th graders were in a civics course, so I wanted to see.

And which school?

Council in action.

University Press.

OK, all right.

We have a university prep alum, I believe.

No, Seattle Prep.

Oh, Seattle Prep.

Sorry.

Sean Isom, to be followed by Greg Daverna.

OK, go ahead.

Hi, my name is Sean Isom.

I am from District 1. I am here to talk about CB120916.

It is nice to see more city council members at this particular meeting versus the last public comment.

I can see why this legislation is being rushed forward so quickly.

You are responsible for the health and safety and well-being of the citizens of this city, of our city, of your city.

What you're prioritizing now is harmful weapons to a group that has a long history of abusing them on your citizens.

This is being swept under the rug against the will of the people and will be used to suppress the will of the people.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Greg Davernot, to be followed by Daniel Grimaldi.

Good morning.

$385 million is the expected police budget this year, 10 million more than last year, and 20 million more than the year before.

While we, the working class, get cuts to our schools, rental service programs, food programs, Maybe with the extra budget, the SPD can continue to pay out $10 million lawsuits to those the arm of the rich assaults with blast balls, rubber bullets, and tear gas, a year in which we just saw an 18% increase in homelessness in this city.

We all get to take precious time out of our days to come out here and debate over whether the police can continue to assault the working people of this city.

Have we stopped to consider that maybe those exercising their First Amendment rights are screaming out, do better?

We deserve health care.

We deserve housing.

We are tired of our country's protection and funding genocide.

When it is impossible to live in the city as rents climb, as grocery bills climb, and we have an incoming inauguration proposing some of the largest tax cuts to the rich in mass deportations we've ever seen, the people are screaming out and the city is debating whether to beat them into submission.

Thank you.

Next up, Daniel Grimaldi to be followed by Curry White.

This attempt to reinstate the Seattle Police Department's use of so-called nonlethal weapons is an attempt to repeal reforms that positively benefit the working people of this country.

Frankly, it comes to no surprise because it happens no matter who's in charge, what party y'all are affiliated to.

It happens over and over again.

We understand this because these reforms were made from a militant and valiant protest movement of the people in this city.

And all while the conditions of the people in this country worsen, homelessness rises, inflation rises, wages stagnate, We know that when Trump comes in, he's gonna worsen these conditions, so it seems like this is a situation in which y'all are preparing for.

And it's surprising that this is the go-to.

Thank you.

Next up is Curry White, and our last in-person speaker is Kat Munson.

Hi, I just want to announce that for 23 years, I was a juvenile correction officer.

And I'm going to just speak to the mentality of the police that I dealt with every day.

I worked in intake, so I had to work with the police.

The worst days I had with the police were the days when they were training someone, because they would put up their chest, and they would be macho, and they would treat their kids with less respect when they're training.

The Seattle has a difficult time with training.

They can't even seem to get a decent chief of police.

And from what we've seen, from what I've dealt with, training is not working.

And it scares a senior citizen like me that wants to go out to a peaceful rally, protest, and for children and for me that has a service dog.

That right shouldn't be taken away because police departments cannot train to not kill and injure people and we give them the weapons.

You want to give them the weapons to do it.

Thank you.

Our last inter-person speaker is Kat Munson.

Good morning, my name is Kat Munson.

I'm the Policy and Advocacy Manager for Real Change and a resident of D4.

As I was reading through the amendments to this ordinance, I was struck that the parsing of how, when, and under what conditions these inherently dangerous crowd control measures can be used is simply not a discussion that centers public safety and security.

Any group of passionate protestors will, going forward, be painted as chaotic.

Each amendment outlines exceptions that are essentially providing justifications for SPD's use of these weapons.

And let's be clear, any and all of these crowd control measures are weapons, and weapons are designed to threaten and oppress those without institutional power.

They simply have no place in a public protest.

You've already heard the harmful power of these less lethal measures, and I cannot imagine that any citizen who has suffered a cardiac arrest as a result of being hit by a blast ball would categorize them as such.

If the city council put a fraction of the effort and public resource into protecting the safety and security of our unhoused neighbors, forced to sleep on downtown streets every night as council is putting into figuring out how to manage crowds during peaceful protests, we would be much, much closer to the Seattle that our most vulnerable communities and those who lift up their voices deserve.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our first online commenter is MJ Jergensen.

Reminder to please press star six when you hear the prompt, you have been unmuted.

Good morning.

My name is MJ Jurgensen.

I am the director of the Greenwood Senior Center, and I am one of the protesters who came to the streets in 2020 to confront police brutality.

Subsequently, I became one of the 50 plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit before the city.

In the summer of 2020, I was targeted with an explosive that blew up against my left thigh.

The explosive, which we can only presume was a blast ball, shattered the chapstick in my left pocket to tiny pieces and gave me an incision and bruise the size of my entire left quadricep.

The injury was the least of that of my fellow protesters.

You know we came to the streets to protest police brutality and we stayed because we witnessed it firsthand.

I ask the council to take these accounts into consideration when reflecting on what it means for a police department to protect and serve the people.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next remote speaker is Hannah Jones to be followed by Lennon Brooks.

Hi, my name is Hannah Jones, and I live in Crown Hill.

I'm seeking today to urge you to oppose the use of, quote, less lethal weapons, unquote.

This ordinance will allow indiscriminate violence by law enforcement against protesters and chill the free speech of peaceful protesters.

By repealing the bans on many of the, quote, less lethal weapons that were used We're basically going to go back to the protests of 2020 for racial justice, when SPD threw blast balls, indiscriminately pepper sprayed crowds, and unloaded rounds of rubber bullets, causing major injuries to many peaceful protesters, exercising their free speech rights.

I would like to remind you that this cost the city $10 million in lawsuits.

Protest response and lack of accountability for the Seattle police officers remain the principal reasons that the Seattle Police Department was under the consent decree and giving SPD wide discretion to determine what constitutes a threat tool a threat to escalate tensions during protests and simultaneously failing to have meaningful accountability in place to hold officers accountable for their actions is a recipe for disaster.

Thank you.

Thank you Hannah.

Thank you.

Next up we have Lennon Brooks to be followed by Sue Han.

Good morning.

My name is Lennon Brooks and I live in West Seattle.

I'm calling in because I don't believe the SPD should be allowed to use glass balls, rubber bullets, or pepper spray against members of the public.

We all know the reputation of the SPD, the largest known contingent of cops at the January 6th insurrection.

The SPD proved in 2020 that they cannot be trusted to protect the free speech of the people as they use their less lethal weapons against peaceful protesters.

These less lethal weapons can inflict lifelong injuries and it is unacceptable for our tax dollars to be used to inflict such harm on our community.

We live in increasingly unstable times and there's going to be more protests in the future.

I implore you to protect our right to free speech and oppose the use of these weapons.

You have a moral and ethical obligation to protect us.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Sue Han to be followed by Matthew Offenbacher.

I am a second year law student at the University of Washington and resident of D3.

And today I'm asking that we learn from the somber history of civil rights and human rights violations in this country.

where we can trace modern-day policing back to chattel slavery and slave patrols, and police officers killing and maiming protesters in the civil rights movement and 2020 BLM movement.

In 2020, SPD has already taught us that they cannot be trusted with less lethal weapons.

We remember Nikita Carver, a Black woman in a crowd of white protesters whose eye was mangled with film to crown, and at least 72 other residents who reported serious injuries from the protests in 2020. There is no amount of training that SPD can receive that will overcome the inherent and precise nature of less lethal weapons.

Less lethal weapons target people indiscriminately, including children and disabled folks.

Less lethal weapons can and will kill people.

The ordinance signals to the public that our safety is not being taken seriously, and we will remember this come election season in the fall.

Thank you, Sue.

Next, we have Matthew Offenbacher.

to be followed by Michael Malini.

Hello.

My name is Matthew Offenbacher.

I'm a long-time resident of Capitol Hill.

Council members, I wonder if any of you were living on Capitol Hill in 2020. It's hard to find words to describe what it's like to have police bomb your neighborhood, to have their weapons turned on you and your neighbors.

and for no better reason that they are fearful and angry at people speaking out about police brutality.

On the ground in 2020, it was clear that SPD's actions were motivated by rage and contempt and that their recourse to violence, wildly disproportionate to any threat, was the sign of a deeply troubled organization.

Nothing I've seen since 2020 suggests SPD should ever be trusted with these dangerous weapons again.

yes let's get rid of the consent decree but vote no on this bill you can send it back and require detailed non-violent crowd control de-escalating plans and methods and continue the ban on blast balls tear gas and pepper spray thank you thank you uh next up we have michael malini to be followed by bj last

Hello.

My name is Michael Molini.

I'm a renter in District 3. During the 2020 demonstrations, I lived blocks from Cal Anderson Park, and my apartment was flooded with tear gas, causing me to have to evacuate.

During this period, the only thing that made me feel unsafe was the military presence of SPD and not anything of the actual demonstration.

If the City Council is concerned with the potential uptick in demonstrations in the coming months and years, they should be seeking policies that will support the marginalized communities that are going to be impacted by the threats of the trump administration rather than trying to oppress its own citizens there is no need for this policy to be rushed do not allow spd to have these weapons thank you thank you next up we have bj last to be followed by aiden carroll

Good morning.

My name is BJ Last.

I'm a Ballard homeowner.

I'm against, honestly, reversing the ban on less lethal weapons for crowd control.

The discussion of why the ban isn't in place really skipped a big thing.

SPD objected to this ban.

When the actually democratically elected people of Council of Seattle tried to enact a ban, SPD said no.

And when they couldn't push enough, they got the consent decree monitor to come in and fight on their side because that's all that the consent decree does is help prop up SPD.

So today, SPD actually could go and adopt a policy that is completely in line with what the ordinance that council actually passed.

But they're not going to do that because we actually have no control over SPD.

And this going and repealing the ban reflects that.

Instead of this council trying to actually exert control over SPD, it is saying, nope, SPD, just whatever you want.

It's what we're going to do because we know we can't actually force you to do anything.

We saw this with when the prior council asked SPD to fire cops on the Brady List.

SPD fought it and made sure that did not happen.

We saw this with rolling out of non-police response.

SPD has fought this and prevented it from happening.

requiring it to just be a dual dispatch and where SPD gets full control over what it does and who gets to do that.

This is just another sign that we have no control over SPD.

Thank you.

All right, next up, we have Aiden Carroll to be followed by Skylar Mach.

This is Aiden in D6.

Sounds like every commenter gets it.

I hear you connecting this to the consent decree and the SPOG contract.

And I want to point out, you could actually use this, if this is the most important thing, to negotiate with SPOG to let them expand the care team.

Because as we've been saying all along, you don't have to agree with those of us who don't believe the police need to exist and anything good that the police can do, we can do better.

We can set that reality aside and expand alternative response instead of spending more and more weapons, more and more money on the police.

But meanwhile, I hear you saying that the most important reason for this is there could be an emergency.

The police need to respond to the civilians.

What about an emergency where the civilians need to respond to the government?

That happens sometimes.

We're likely to see that you're all Democrats.

Democrats have been calling Trump a fascist.

Like, connect the dots.

You might need us at some point.

Where are you going to turn when you've given the police?

Thank you, Aiden.

Thank you.

Have a good day.

Next, we have Skylar Mock, to be followed by Karen Kohler.

Hi, I'm .

It's been hard to hear you.

The fact that this is being rushed through shows that the council knows that it's not only unpopular, but dangerous as well threatening the well-being of the protesters, the environment, If you plan to approve this, I want you to look at every single constituent guy and say that he is okay with their lives Not a single person in this room has spoken to states, but listen to your constituents and don't let this happen.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Karen Kohler to be followed by Raymond Mitchell.

Good morning.

My name is Karen Kohler.

I'm from District 7. I live here.

I'm managing partner of my law firm here.

and I'm a housing provider to dozens of Seattle citizens here in District 7. My law firm and I represented many, many people against the city of Seattle in all of the biggest high-profile cases involving protests.

We were involved in WTO, which led to the consent decree.

We were involved in the Mardi Gras killing of Christopher Kime, and most recently I was the lead attorney on the Black Lives Matter protests.

I sent you a letter which I ask you to forward to all the people that are in this meeting today that detailed 23 illustrated examples of people that were injured in the protest.

I didn't give you all 50. I just thought I'd give you some of them.

They included Aubriana, two people that were hit by shrapnel.

I think that you need to talk to me for more than one minute.

I've sent years working on these cases, I have all the information and statistics and experts to help you look at all of these from a different perspective than what you're being fed by the Seattle Police Department.

So this is an invitation to you to call me.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We do have your letter that was written yesterday and which we will be entering into the record.

Actually, we have copies of it too that we can pass out.

So thank you for your call.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Raymond Mitchell.

To be followed by Tim Maronen.

I don't know if anyone considering passing this legislation is likely to be swayed by a moral argument about why you shouldn't do so.

So I won't present a moral argument here.

I'll give you a practical one.

The city had to pay many millions of dollars last year to settle a lawsuit about the use of these weapons.

It made you, as representatives of the city government, look bad.

And I'm guessing it made your jobs harder.

If you pass this legislation, it will happen again.

The Seattle Police Department cannot be trusted to not cause problems for you, as you should all be well aware of.

They don't hold their own accountable, and they don't care about whether it makes you look bad when they injure civilians.

They will not use reasonable discretion about whether to use these weapons.

They won't care if it costs the city money in lawsuits to use whatever weapons they have on hand on whoever they want to.

If you pass this, the police will misuse these weapons, and the city will end up paying more settlements for it.

It will, not might, will cause bad publicity down the road.

It will be bad for all of your careers.

If you don't want to end up with blood on your hands and egg on your face, you will not pass this legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Tim Maranin to be followed by Robert Engel.

Hi, my name is Tim Maranin.

I'm from District 3. Legislation that allows the police to use violence against people to prevent significant property damage is explicitly discriminatory.

It means that the police differentially serve those with more money and expensive properties over people whose voice is their only tool for change.

Most importantly, this legislation represents a complete lack of creativity by the city council to find actual solutions rather than recycling old policies that are expensive and have provably failed in the past.

I also find it interesting that for legislation about giving new weapons to the police, The field on racial equity analysis says not applicable.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Tim.

We have Robert Engel next to be followed by David Haynes.

Hi.

I'm Robert Engel.

I want to tell you in the strongest language possible that you can't pass this bill.

This is a clear attempt to just brush it through.

I'm ashamed.

I'm disappointed.

I really, really hate it.

You've already paid out $10 million in settlements from the protests in 2020. and it was outlawed because of that.

I don't know what's so different now.

What is so different now that makes you think this is a good idea now?

It's ridiculous.

It doesn't make sense.

All of the experts know that all these weapons are very, very dangerous.

You're having, you know, we're having city council members, you know, try them out in a testing range.

What about testing getting hit by them, right?

This is what you're supposed to represent us.

It's disgusting.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is David Haynes.

To be followed by...

Hi, thank you.

David Haynes.

Go ahead.

Seattle is overrun with evil criminals conducting uncivil war within the transit corridor and community.

Yet the city council wants to focus on blast falls so the cops can prioritize profiling protesters, almost like they're misconstruing and vicariously living through the riots of elsewhere cities and applying that as like an overwhelming amount of resource in overtime for cops to do crowd management.

Like they spend more detailed time focusing on that than all the evil criminals in their open drug markets that are protected from having the blast balls applied to them.

I think you need to get rid of the blast balls because it's no different than the tear gas where you've got a bunch of cops that need to be required to blow into a breathalyzer the day of a crowd management protest to make sure that they're not hungover and pissed off to the point where they're looking to cheap shot people with tear gas canisters and blast balls from the side instead of going into the crowd with their shields and grabbing the troublemaker or shooting them with a rubber bullet in a safe place.

Thank you, David.

Thank you, Dave.

Our second to last commenter, River Hayes, to be followed by Montserri de Castro.

River, please press star six.

Hi, I'm River Hayes, a third-year student at the University of Washington School of Law.

This legislation allows for the use of less lethal weapons when circumstances occur that create an imminent risk of physical injury to any person or significant property damage.

As somebody actively working on civil rights cases in this city, as well as across the country, I can see that the Seattle police are practiced in creating excuses for brutality after the fact.

A risk of physical injury or property damage can and will look like anything.

The passage of this legislation will allow the SPD to exercise brutality against Seattle citizens indiscriminately.

This legislation continues Seattle's increasing militarization of the police force, arming them against Seattle citizens.

The recently passed budget Along with soap and soda laws show that this city council is more interested in exercising state control over its citizens than addressing the problems that we are crying out for you to solve.

And this will show at the next election time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our last remote commenter is Montserrat de Castro.

My name is Mon Cherie, and I'm a District 7 resident, so I'm speaking to you, specifically Bob Kettle.

I'm calling today to encourage the public safety to vote no on repealing the ban on less lethal weapons and give this issue what it really deserves and listen to the people who are personally harmed by less lethal weapons.

This is an issue that will affect all of us, your constituents and yourself.

You think less lethal weapons aren't a big deal until you're the one fighting for your rights.

The actions SPD has taken against us, your constituents, have a real impact on real humans.

Hundreds of people were physically injured by the excessive use of force by SPD, and too many more have to live with the mental anguish of being harmed by the people who were sworn to protect us.

By repealing this ban, you yourself may be the ones picking up the blast ball and throwing it in the face of your neighbors.

With the return of Trump, people will be out fighting for women's rights, LGBTQ rights, immigrant rights, penal rights, and your rights.

And you'll personally be the one pepper spraying all of us.

The injury and harm to your constituents is in your hands, and you better believe we're not going to forget it come election season.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you everyone who participated in the public comment.

Those calling in and for everyone that was here that is here and some of those that have left.

Really appreciate it.

I also appreciate the snaps.

Thank you.

I hear one of the things I've said before is that public comment is important.

It's led to amendments and previous bills last year in terms of the public safety bills that we passed.

And so I hear the points regarding things like not seen proof, fair point.

There's other indicators that point to that.

Maybe that's something that could be brought out.

Some of the other comments that were made, I definitely recommend just as part of the conversation is the, what we call the CMIC matrix or the SPD calls with their, you know, the six levels.

And that's online, and that was presented at the last meeting in December.

But that's really helpful because that goes to some of the comments that were heard.

Militarization of the police, I have to say I'm 100% in agreement with you on that as a veteran, to include a veteran of the Iraq War, which is where a lot of the militarization points really go to.

I do note that interim police chief Rohr really espouses the idea of being guardians versus warriors, and soon we'll be going through the process for the nomination of our new police chief.

I also hear the various points about CS tear gas.

One of the things that's not really talked about in this is that, you know, this bill as it relates to tear gas is all about aligning the Seattle Municipal Code with the Revised Code of Washington, so basically getting the city law lined up with the state law on this.

And that's something that you see in the legislation.

I understand the $10 million point that many have made.

I will note, too, I really appreciate the points about training and that's something that we need to engage on as a council and as a committee to ensure not just for crowd management but across the board that the training piece is looked at, ensured that it's getting to the level that's needed.

So I really appreciate these comments.

I also want to thank all those that have emailed, those that have sent letters to include this one that tied to the lady who was speaking, Ms. Kohler, that was speaking from her law firm and the report that came in yesterday.

I'm just seeing it right now, so I'll look at it later.

but also the meetings, many meetings on this topic across the board that really help, you know, inform what we're doing.

And so I just wanted to, in terms of public comment, the varying types of public comment that we receive, I just want to thank everyone for participating.

And, you know, I feel I should note too that You know, again, the right to protest is very important, and I myself participated in a march and a protest eight years ago in the Women's March, which we're coming up on the anniversary of.

So these are important things that we need to look at as we go through this bill.

So with that said, we'll now move on to our first item of business.

Will the clerk please read item one into the record?

Council Bill 120916, an ordinance relating to the Seattle Police Department mandating that the police department adopt and maintain crowd management policies that prohibit the use of less lethal tools in crowd management settings unless specific facts and circumstances are occurring or about to occur.

that create an imminent risk of physical injury to any person or significant property damage and repealing section 3.28.146 of the Seattle Municipal Code and ordinance 126422. Thank you.

I move that the committee recommend passage of council bill 120916. Is there a second?

Second.

It is moved and seconded to recommend passage of the bill.

Are there any comments?

Well, before we move into the amendments, I'd like to have an opportunity to have our presenters here at the table have an opportunity to speak before we go into it.

And then we'll also have central staff participating in that as well.

So today we have Deputy Mayor Burgess, welcome.

We also have Chair Merkel from the Community Police Commission.

We have Ms. Dugard, a founding member of the Community Police Commission, now head of PDA, Purpose and Dignity in Action, the LEAD project, being the centerpiece there.

Also from SPD, we have Deputy Chief Underwood and Assistant Chief Davis, and also the Chief Operating Officer, Mr. Maxey.

So Deputy Mayor Burgess.

Good morning, council members.

I'm Deputy Mayor Tim Burgess.

Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the proposed crowd management ordinance with you again.

Perhaps this is a good time for each of my colleagues to introduce themselves and tell us why they're here, what their position is to address this.

Good morning.

Good morning.

I'm Joel Merkel.

I'm co-chair of the Seattle Community Police Commission, where I've served for almost three years.

And in my day job, I'm an assistant attorney general in the attorney general's office.

And I'm here to share the position that the CPC voted on last week with respect to the proposed ordinance.

Good morning.

I'm Lisa Dugard.

As Chair Kettle indicated, I'm co-executive director at an organization called Purpose Dignity Action, formerly the Public Defender Association.

And I'm here today because I was the inaugural co-chair with Diane Narasaki of the Community Police Commission, and I served in that role for six years from 2013 until 2018. I remained on the commission until 2019 when I stepped down.

And I was among those who led the CPC's work on SPD's response to crowd management, protest events, counter protest events, and requested regulation of less lethal weapons.

So I'm here to share some of that history.

Thank you.

Good morning.

I'm Deputy Chief Yvonne Underwood.

I've recently been appointed to that position.

I'm here with my colleagues to answer any questions that council might have about these tools.

Thank you.

Good morning.

I'm Assistant Chief Tyrone Davis.

I'm currently serving as the Assistant Chief over our Special Operations Bureau, which also contains our SWAT unit, which conducts a lot of the training for our less lethal tools.

And I also served as a member of the Sentinel Event Review, so I'm kind of familiar with some of the discussion leading up to where we're at today in terms of the work we're done with crowd management.

Thank you for having me.

Good morning, Councilmembers.

Brian Maxey, Chief Operating Officer, Seattle Police Department, here to answer any questions that I can.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mayor Harrell proposed this ordinance to harmonize city law and police department policies so that we could submit those policies to the Department of Justice for their review and then to Judge Robart for his consideration.

This is one of Judge Robart's requested final steps before we can join with the Department of Justice and seek dismissal of the consent decree.

The proposed ordinance affirms our longstanding Seattle tradition of supporting free speech and peaceful assembly.

And importantly, it recognizes that the police department has an obligation to make sure these constitutional rights exercised freely and safely.

The ordinance establishes the values and rules that govern the use of less lethal tools in crowd management situations.

Put another way, the ordinance you're considering today will establish restrictions on when those tools can be used, and these restrictions are more substantial than what is required under state law.

They can only be used when police officers can cite specific facts and circumstances indicating an imminent risk of violence to individuals or significant property damage.

I want to amplify several key factors as you consider the amendments today.

First, the ordinance restricts the use of less lethal tools rather than restricting the tools themselves.

We believe this is a much better approach because it acknowledges the volatile and often quickly changing circumstances police officers encounter in the field.

It's a principle and values based approach that can, that often more in practice.

It's also an approach that supports and reinforces the continuum of force standards that officers must follow.

When you read our police policies, you will see the phrase reasonable, necessary, and proportional used repeatedly.

Our police officers are trained to apply this standard for all uses of force, from compelling a person to be handcuffed following an arrest, all the way up the continuum to the use of deadly force.

This ordinance reinforces these continuum of force principles and practices.

Second, we need to be careful that the amendments don't have unintended consequences.

For example, restricting blast ball use or requiring time-consuming procedural steps before their use could force incident commanders to escalate higher on the force continuum.

While unintended, restricting one less lethal tool could require using another that is a higher use of force, and we want to avoid that.

What's really important here is to recognize that not all crowd management situations are the same.

When considering this ordinance, we tend to think about mass protests or demonstrations when people exercise their constitutional rights of free speech and peaceful assembly.

However, the police deal with many different types of crowds.

Think about the crowds that sometimes overwhelm Golden Gardens, Alki Beach, or Magnuson Park with loud music, alcohol violations, street racing, and even violence.

Our police department began considering using blast balls in 2001 after a horrific and deadly assault in Pioneer Square.

It was Mardi Gras.

and there were thousands of people celebrating.

Christopher Keim was there too.

He noticed a young woman lying on the ground.

She had been assaulted.

And as he bent over to assist her, Christopher himself was assaulted and beaten to death.

Nearby, police officers who were not prepared for the size of the crowd were held back by their commanders who feared that the violence playing out before them would overwhelm the limited number of officers.

This was a crowd management crisis.

Had blast balls been available, they could have dispersed the crowd and allowed officers to rescue Christopher and save his life.

That would have been a tactical decision made by an incident commander in minutes there wouldn't have been any time to consult with the chief of police or the mayor.

There certainly would not have been any time to prepare a proclamation of civil emergency.

A more recent example happened last year on Capitol Hill near Broadway and Pike Street.

One of these street takeover offense was taking place.

Vehicles were spinning donuts, revving their engines, creating havoc and endangering hundreds of people.

Then gunfire at the same intersection wounded three and killed 20-year-old Essence Green Madden.

This was also a crowd management crisis, and while it is less clear-cut than Christopher Kimes' death, it does highlight the complexity and volatile nature of some crowd management environments.

Sometimes, events demand fast, reasonable, necessary, and proportional interdiction.

I'd like to speak to the amendments that place restrictions on our mutual aid partners.

Mutual aid protocols are mandated by a countywide mutual aid agreement that establishes procedures and rules of engagement.

Almost every municipality in King County is a party to this agreement.

The agreement requires responding mutual aid officers to follow the command and authority of the requesting jurisdiction.

When our police officers request mutual aid for crowd control purposes, the responding officers from outside the city are under the control, direction, and authority of the Seattle Police on-scene incident commander.

Affirming this in the ordinance is fine, but imposing further restrictions will likely cause our mutual aid partners to decline to respond as they have since the 2021 ordinance was adopted by the previous council.

I ask you to carefully consider this reality as part of your deliberations, especially since we will require a mutual aid response beginning this summer with the Club World Cup games and then the World Cup in 2026. I'll turn now to the representatives of the Community Police Commission, but I will say we are very pleased that the Office of the Inspector General The Office of Police Accountability and the Community Police Commission are unified in their support of Mayor Harrell's ordinance.

These professional subject matter experts have reviewed this ordinance, consulted with community members, and concluded that this ordinance is reasonable and workable.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Morning again, Chair Kettle, members of the committee.

I want to start by thanking the Public Safety Committee for inviting the Seattle Community Police Commission to testify this morning on this important issue.

Engaging in policing policy with city leaders and our partners is a core function and mission of the CPC, and we are grateful for the opportunity to share our feedback and recommendations on CB120916.

I want to start by thanking CPC staff who are present behind me, EC Ame and Danny Sullivan, for their leadership and their work on this issue.

And I also want to acknowledge the work of the CPC's Police Practices Work Group for their dedication and commitment to incorporating the community's feedback to shape the CPC's recommendation and overall position on this issue.

Since receiving the draft of this ordinance, the CPC has worked diligently to ensure that our feedback balances the need to protect civilians' constitutional right to expression, free speech, and assembly while emphasizing SPD's role in protecting these rights while they're under threat from others.

And to accomplish this, the Police Practices Workgroup convened several meetings during which they developed, issued, and analyzed a community survey on crowd management They engaged in policy discussions with partners, including CPC founding commissioner Lisa Dugar to my right, Brian Maxey from SPD and several council staff, and conducted research on best practices for crowd management.

And from this work, the CPC developed three overarching principles to guide our recommendations.

And they are, number one, above all else, the protection of human life is paramount.

Number two, the use of less lethal weapons should be avoided unless there is a direct threat to someone's life or significant property damage.

And three, SPD plays an important role in facilitating safe gatherings and protecting civilians' constitutional rights to assemble.

Under these principles, along with community feedback, research, and partner discussions, the CPC voted last week to support an overall approach that does not place an outright prohibition on the use of specific tools that can have unintended consequences, not only by leaving SPD in a position to use less appropriate tools, but by also removing the tools necessary for SPD to assure freedom of speech and assembly to members of the public when counter protesters threaten those fundamental rights.

And to that end, the CPC voted to support the following recommendations.

With respect to blast ball use, the CPC advocates for restrictions on how and when they are used for crowd control and to protect life and significant property damage.

The CPC also supports a clear and timely approval process resting with the incident commander with the rank of lieutenant or higher.

Individual officers should not have the discretion to deploy blast balls for crowd dispersal, and the only exception the CPC would support would be when there is an imminent threat to life safety.

When deployed, the CPC advocates that blast balls be directed away from people, thrown underhanded, and released at least 10 yards away from the individual.

And we believe this should be written into the ordinance.

With respect to mutual aid, the CPC believes mutual aid agencies deployed in Seattle must adhere to Seattle ordinances and SPD policies, including those on less lethal tools and crowd management.

And these agencies should operate solely under the direction of an SPD incident commander who is bound by Seattle law and SPD policies.

With respect to post-deployment oversight, the CPC believes that SPD should consult with the CPC regarding the deployment of the less lethal weapons in a crowd management scenario.

And this should include gathering and incorporating public feedback on significant crowd management incidents, including those involving less lethal weapons, and integrating this information into the required annual reports by SPD and OIG.

And finally, the ordinance should emphasize SPD's responsibility to protect the exercise of free speech and assembly rights when those are under threat from others.

Finally, I want to recognize that passing this legislation is one of the final components necessary to end the consent decree and restore Seattle to self-governance on policing.

The CPC looks forward to a post consent decree era where the community has greater influence over policing policy without court intervention and relies instead on local leadership.

This is a critical opportunity to hold ourselves accountable for the progress achieved since 2012, and the CPC remains committed to engaging with the community and the council and the mayor's office and partners in this work.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Merkel.

As I said, I served on the CPC for seven years, and I hope in these brief remarks to distill the collective thinking and wisdom of my many remarkable colleagues who served on the commission throughout those years.

That period of time was characterized by really strong consensus formation process that took a lot of time and debate to create what were usually unanimous CPC positions on issues such as SPD response to public demonstrations and crowd management.

So obviously my colleagues, most of them are no longer on the commission, didn't elect me to sit here at this table today, but I will try to reflect on the collective thinking that that group produced.

I do wanna say, this may be strange kind of bona fides, but I have been harmed as a participant in direct action, and I have been falsely arrested by representatives of mutual aid agencies operating in the streets of Seattle in a post-WTO event, which the then city attorney, Tom Carr, agreed was a wrongful arrest.

And I have been OC spray, pepper spray adjacent many times.

Many of my colleagues have been pepper sprayed.

came to the CPC, among other reasons, in order to bring those experiences and concerns to the deliberations of the commission.

And just as further background, in 1999, when the WTO protests occurred as a public defender, I led the defense of protesters who were subjected to all manner of arguably unlawful use of less lethal tools.

basically successful litigation I've represented, plaintiffs arguing that they were wrongfully subjected to use of force in a crowd management context.

So this is the point of view I bring to this topic is that these are extremely serious, potentially extremely harmful situations.

And our experience is that setting, I just, I was, while listening to Public Testament, I was brought back to 2015 when Jesse Hagopian, who many of, I think probably many of the folks who testified know, many council members probably know, he was walking down the street in the Central District in a Martin Luther King Day march, and he was pepper sprayed full in the face because, as it turned out, police, there was an officer who had fallen behind a police line and officers were under deployed.

There were not very many officers.

They were concerned about his safety.

And so an officer pepper sprayed Jesse.

It was incredibly harmful and incredibly divisive.

It caused tremendous public legitimacy crisis around the use of force.

So that happened while I was on the CPC and it was one of the reasons that we continuously focused on SPD policy on crowd management as a central piece of what the accountability agencies needed to be raising to the attention of elected officials and of SPD itself.

I will say during that period, especially from 2014 with post-Ferguson when Black Lives Matter demonstrations began in Seattle, through 2019, we were almost alone in raising crowd management issues.

The consent decree process did not focus on these.

And in fact, both the Justice Department and the court were uninterested in focusing on them.

So it is really, in a way, a victory in itself to see this degree of focused attention from counsel and from the mayor's office on these issues.

it is appropriate and it was long in coming.

I will say the CPC letter is one that I respect and support.

It's very aligned with the approach that we took from 2014 to 2019. I wanted to probably, let me just make a couple of points and then conclude with discussion of blast balls.

We found that While there can be a tendency to minimize the significance of threats to property as an appropriate basis for use of force, the fact is that public expectation is that a police force will protect property against rampant damage.

A compelling example of that that I think everyone can see in retrospect was problematic, was a march through the Chinatown International District in 2020 that resulted in tremendous damage to that neighborhood from which some businesses really were never able to recover.

And SPD was not viewed as taking prompt action in response to that.

I think that there was a widespread understanding thereafter that that was problematic and there should have been more of a response.

So I just call that out connected to the legacy CPC's point of view.

that under service from a police department, failure to protect, is itself a civil rights issue.

So it was never our approach to sort of set aside property damages.

unimportant, the rules of the road around responding to property damage are where focus needs to be.

And the SPD policy that has now been evolved does place property damage, I think, in a pretty sharply circumscribed place in their continuum of force.

But it is addressed, and that is consistent with the approach that we took.

We see that also from when I was on the CPC that covered the period from 2016 to 2019 when there was a great deal of civic unrest between civil society forces.

So people in the street advancing strong views on one issue and fairly frequently being confronted and sometimes attacked by civil society forces who had a strong different point of view.

And at that point, what one could loosely say were the more progressive forces started to call for, not universally, but started to call for SPD to protect them from threats of harm from counter-protesters.

So we have to remember that the department is often placed and may in coming years be placed in a position where they must use force in order to protect individuals who are exercising the rights of speech and assembly.

And we saw that play out many times.

Also note that we all have to recall that there is no requirement to get approval, even supervisory approval, before lethal force is used.

It is assumed that that force is governed by state law, by constitutional limits.

But if an officer is in a position where she believes that she must and should use lethal force, no one pauses to go get supervisory approval or the approval of an elected official or of the chief, because the situation is understood to be quickly developing, and the threat that would cause that, that would call for that, is not something that you can push pause and wait to see.

So it is really...

It is really important to remember that less lethal weapons, I think appropriately called weapons, are called that because they are contrasted with other weapons that are not regulated to the degree that this legislation and the SPD policy contemplates regulating less lethal tools.

There are unintended consequences for many of impeding the right decision by going to others who are more removed from the situation.

And the spirit of CPC work from 2013 to 2019 was very much to invest in a policy framework, training, and continuous feedback so that those on the ground making the decisions who are ultimately responsible to the mayor, they are executive employees, are equipped to make the right decision.

And if they don't, that that lesson can be rapidly learned and publicly sort of taken on board.

We started writing to the council asking that there be a temporary suspension of use of blast balls in, I believe, 2017, based on continued incidents from 2015 and 2016, and then again occurring in 2017, 2018. of blast balls being used consistent with SPD direction.

No officer, I believe, was ever found to have used a blast ball contrary to that direction.

But the direction was to bowl underhand or occasionally throw overhand into an open space, not directly at a person, but adjacent to the person who was essentially the target whose activities were the target.

And officers would do that in chaotic crowd situations, and people were continuously hurt.

And those harms, some of them were burns and things that someone could recover from, but some of the injuries were more serious.

And in one instance, someone could easily have lost an eye.

There was a pretty deep gash right below the person's eye.

All of these impacts were unintended.

They are not the planned impact of the weapon.

They chronically happen because these weapons are very difficult to aim and very difficult to control and because they explode.

The people who got injured were not the people committing crimes or allegedly committing crimes.

in one case, police officer, several times a reporter, and bystanders, people who are clearly just exercising their rights of speech and assembly.

Observing that, it was our view that This could be expected to repeat unless there was some kind of different direction.

And in all the years that there was no response to that request, I've had the opportunity to think about what might work better and to listen to other thoughts.

It is my belief that blast balls are never appropriate to throw into a group of people because that outcome is uncontrollable by a well-intentioned officer following policy and direction.

And people are going to continue to get hurt because the tool itself is just unique in that way.

It's somewhat chaotic in its impact.

Therefore, the direction, which I would hope the council will impose, that blast balls should only be thrown away from people.

They create a noise.

They get attention.

That's the intended use by SPD, as they presented to the CPC last month.

If that is the case and they are only thrown away from people, then you get away from the need to create these sort of hierarchies of approval, which don't really match the exigent nature of the circumstances when you would want to throw a blast ball.

In conclusion, and I know I've gone on for a long time, I do appreciate the agreement, the evident agreement on Council that these are really serious questions.

It's really a matter of strategy about how best to create an environment that reduces risk and reduces unintended harm.

And if, no matter what decisions are made, it is a good thing that we are back in an environment where local officials are charged with and have the obligation to make these decisions under your own power because you can make changes if things play out in a way that is not intended.

So thank you for your concern and effort.

on behalf of those of us who raised these issues for years leading up to 2019. Thank you.

Thank you.

Deputy Chief, anything to add or?

Okay, great.

Thank you.

By the way, first as chair, I need to highlight that I've been neglectful of my duties and recognizing one of my colleagues has arrived earlier.

Council member Rink, welcome.

Thank you for being here.

ask any questions you may have, can't vote, and just be known that I always go to my vice chair first.

So, well, thank you for that.

I appreciate the background.

I really appreciate the point about being under-deployed, you know, so that's very important because when under deployment happens, that's when potentially bad things can happen.

And as you were saying that word, I'm thinking of my time in Iraq, because as you know, in detention, prisons, Abu Ghraib, a lot of bad things happened because of the under deployment, which comes to how OIF, Operation Rocky Freedom was set in place, Secretary Rensfeld and the like.

And in my unit had Camp Cropper prison, which we had all the top people, Saddam, Dr. Death, and all the rest.

And when the reports came out on the abuses, Camp Cropper and the military police battalion that worked with us was like the silver lining of that entire report.

And the reason why is because we ensured that it was well resourced.

Sadly, a lot of units were orphaned.

They were at the Baghdad airport or different locations.

Food, air conditioning, water.

It's incredible if you think back about it.

But we adopted that unit and because we were a CIA, DIA unit along with UK and Australian members as well, we were the best resource unit probably in the country.

And so that operation was done well and done ethically with great leadership.

So under deployed is a very interesting phrase and something to be thought of as it goes to this piece.

So I just meant, usually I go very last, but I just wanted the under deployed really caught my attention.

So I just wanted to add that and I appreciate the context that you added Ms. Dugard.

Any questions?

Well, I start my vice chair.

Any questions vice chair?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just one question for everyone on the panel today.

Thank you for being here.

I guess starting with the Community Police Commission pertaining to a specific technique for deployment of blast balls.

I'm hearing a few different points of view reflected in various expressive documents and words here, and so just wondering if there's a consensus view, and if there's not, that's fine too, but on your Last week, I think it was dated, you talked about the recommendation for use of blast balls being 10 feet away, but it stays silent on underhand versus overhand use.

Joel, I heard you a moment ago talk about you specifically prefer the underhand deployment.

And then I heard you a moment ago just say, talk about both and only overhand should be used more or less in a very limited, narrow set of circumstances.

So I guess I just wanna understand the position.

If there's no consensus in the commission, that's understandable, that's fine.

but just wanna understand the commission's perspective on the use of underhand versus overhand, and then also directly from the mayor's office and our police experts here on the same exact point.

Underhand versus overhead, thank you.

I'm no longer on the CPC, so I can't speak for their position.

I will say this is why, to me, the simplest solution is throw them away from people, underhand or overhand.

I don't think it matters so much.

If they are thrown away from people in order to explode and get attention through noise, then these other issues disappear or vanish.

I don't think underhand or overhand controls the chaotic path of the blast ball in a reliable enough way that it mitigates the problem of trying to insert them in an open space within a crowd, which is really too dynamic of a situation to assume that you can execute that, and that has nothing to do with the intent or skill of the officer.

It's just a very difficult weapon to control.

The discussion at the CPC was focused on ensuring that if a blast ball is used, that it's directed away from people, away from a crowd at a minimum distance of 10 yards.

Overhand, underhand wasn't the distinction that was important.

It was away from people rather than at people.

Because, you know, the chaotic nature of that weapon can cause a lot of harm.

if it's not directed away from people at a certain distance.

So that was the focus of the commission.

Underhand, overhand wasn't the focus.

Thank you.

I'll defer to police commanders on that question.

In terms of deployment, you know, our primary training, for deployment of the blast balls is to do the underhand deployment.

However, as we saw, and we saw this in 2020, there are occasions where there are tactics used maybe by some of the people doing the demonstrations, because they knew we'd deploy that way.

Or maybe there are actors in the background that are throwing frozen bottles of water or instruments that could ignite and harm somebody, we're making a deployment overhand to reach those people are important.

And so it's just got to be clear, like when we deploy those blast balls, we do that for the purposes of effecting change, making them move, stopping their behavior, are stopping the assaultive behavior from occurring.

And so we train this.

This is something we have them consider.

There is a limited time in which the blast ball will detonate.

So if it's too far of a distance, then that's maybe not the best tool.

But that is something we trust our officers to evaluate prior to making that deployment.

And it starts with our training.

Thank you.

No further questions, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Council Member Rink.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for allowing me to join today.

I'm not a member of this committee, but appreciate the ability to participate and ask some questions.

Just to get some things and make sure we're all working from the same understanding of the history behind this, and there is a long history behind this.

Ordinance 126102 was passed in 2020, and outright banned less lethal weapons.

But this got enjoined by the U.S.

District Court, so essentially stopped.

From that point in 2021, we had Ordinance 126422, which ultimately never went into effect for a myriad of reasons.

And since that point, we've been operating under SPD's interim policy.

Is that correct?

So since we've been operating under SPD's interim policy, how many times since then have we actually deployed blast balls?

Thank you for the question, Councilmember.

The answer is we have not deployed any blast balls since October 26 of 2020. Okay.

Thank you.

No further questions, Chair?

Any other questions?

No further questions, thank you.

Thank you.

Council members?

Council President, no questions?

Okay, well thank you very much.

We're gonna proceed to the next, please don't go too far though, but we'll go to the next part of the meeting.

I'd like to invite Mr. Doss from Central Staff to come to the table.

Again, thank you.

Mr. Dawes, if you could, well, first, welcome.

Second, if you can introduce yourself and I forget, do you have any remarks before moving into the amendments?

I know you're gonna be speaking to the amendments, but any general remarks prior to doing that?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and council members and council member Rink, or committee members and council member Rink.

I was just going to quickly offer some opening comments and then move right into the amendments.

Okay, so just by way of background for folks who have not been present over the last couple months, this council bill, Council Bill 120916, was first introduced in mid-October, which was during the council budget session, so there wasn't an availability for the public safety community to hear it at that time.

It was first heard on December 10th, at which time there was a discussion by many of the folks that were here today, along with the OEP and OPA.

Background on the bill, 120916 repeals all city laws that govern the use of less lethal weapons.

In its place, the bill would enact uncodified language that would require SBD to ensure that its crowd management policies are consistent with city values and expectations and compliant with state law on tear gas.

The bill outlines a series of high-level principles that SPD policies must be consistent with.

Examples are ensuring that any police use of force for crowd control is objectively reasonable, necessary, and proportionate to the threat presented.

As I said a minute ago, it makes Seattle law consistent with the RCW on tear gas.

It does go one step further on tear gas and requires a mayor proclamation before tear gas can be used.

It is the case that this bill would...

endorse, not incorporate by reference or by law, SPD policies.

SPD policies would allow for tear gas use under phase six of their C-Mix matrix.

Phase five is the first phase where a crowd may be declared illegal and may be dispersed.

Phase six is the phase where life safety comes into absolute paramount a need absolutely to intervene.

And so it's phase six that tear gas would be used.

It is regulated by this bill.

And then finally, the bill requires SPD to collaborate with the Office of the Inspector General for Public Safety to create and send to the council an annual report on the department's use of force in crowd management settings.

And that should include the use of less lethal tools.

So with that base of understanding, I'm now available to go into amendment discussions and talk about how you all would amend the bill.

Thank you.

So we'll start that process.

And as it turns out, I am the author of amendment number one.

So I move to amend Council Bill 120916 as presented on amendment one.

Second.

Second.

It is moved and seconded to adopt amendment one.

As my notes say, central staff, Mr. Doss, is recognized to describe amendment number one.

I will.

I think we're going to bring up the amendments on the screen so everyone can see the exact language.

I'm going to summarize this at a high level, but I'm going to try to hit all the points.

Before I get into summarizing it, I will say that there are 10 amendments that are before you today.

They vary in the amount of restriction that they would place on the department's crowd control policies.

They have been ordered such that For the most part, this is the least restrictive amendment on SPD, and then from there on, it becomes more restrictive as we get through the amendment process.

So that's something for council members to know as you're considering this.

Um, something else that you should consider, uh, or you may want to consider is that this amendment, uh, was worked, the chair worked on this amendment with, um, the mayor's office.

Uh, and I don't know, Mr. Chair, if you want to speak to any of that before I get into it, or I guess I should just describe it.

Yeah, describe.

I'll speak to that one after you're done.

Okay.

So the title, Expanding and Clarifying City Values and Expectations for Crowd Management.

So this amendment would incorporate into Section 2 of the bill additional city values and expectations for SPD's crowd management policy.

And the bill would prohibit use of blast balls unless crowd conditions mirror those described in phase five of the CMIX matrix as an unlawful assembly or a riot.

And then authorization would be provided by the on-scene assistant chief of police commander after consulting with the chief of police.

When a crowd When used for crowd movement or dispersal purposes, police department policy shall reflect that blast balls shall be deployed when safe and feasible, consistent with training in an open space to mitigate against the risk of injury to a person.

And this is...

In the open space to mitigate risk of injury to a person is...

Along the theme that the CPC presented today, their recommendations go a little bit further, but this is certainly reinforcing their theme of ensuring that blast balls are thrown with enough space that folks won't get hurt.

Mutual aid officers responding to the city at the request of SPD for crowd management purpose must agree to follow the command and control of the on-scene incident commander.

and they may not deploy less lethal weapons in a crowd management setting contrary to the on-scene commander's direction or contrary to state laws or standards established by the Washington State Criminal Justice Commission.

This language reinforces the current mutual aid agreement that is shared by departments in King County.

It is no more restrictive.

It is reinforcing the fact that there is a command and control that SPD will lead on that when mutual aid officers come into our jurisdiction.

There is a new Section 5 that would require that the Seattle Police Department report to the Office of Inspector General for Public Safety and the Community Police Commission any deployment of less lethal weapons in a crowd management setting as soon as feasible.

And it would require the OIG to evaluate the deployment properly for compliance with the goals and values of this ordinance.

would also require the OIG in its annual report to include information on the police department's training and use of blast balls and whether that training is consistent with the values in this ordinance.

And then finally, it would require SPD to notify the council's public safety committee before authorizing use of any less lethal weapon that is not currently in SPD policy.

So with that, I will stop and ask if there's any questions on this.

Okay, before doing it, I'll introduce as the author of the amendment prior to questions.

The genesis of this came from obviously we've had discussions throughout the fall off and on prior to budget.

And obviously we had the mayor's letter from October and then there's discussion related to consent decree.

So there was many conversations to include within the council but also with the executive, both the mayor's office and Seattle Police Department.

And then that also started conversations with others as well.

And in addition, we had the, you know, the check with legal as, you know, in addition to all the other pieces that we've had.

And there was periodic check-in as, in addition to that with the, you know, the federal monitor, you know, because obviously moving forward, what we're looking to do, for this crowd management ordinance is to work with the federal monitor, work with Judge Robarts as part of the consent decree process.

That was, you know, the genesis behind, you know, or parts of the, behind the amendment.

I look at this amendment, and I'll be up front with you.

You know, everybody brings their perspective, I will say, just as I just mentioned in terms of the under-deployed piece, that I bring it from my perspective as a naval officer retired.

and also my experience of working community police, community safety, public safety issues in community here in Seattle.

When looking at the legislation, I felt that a on-scene incident commander itself was not sufficient.

And this goes to the question, as I've described in various fora that are interviews and the like, that this comes up to the chief and the mayor question, you know, to have that kind of due to the, as described by others in terms of the impact of blast balls and the nature of the blast balls.

Another part of this, and I think it's important to highlight, this amendment brings up the CMIC matrix because I think it's really important to step through these phases and be mindful of the fact, you know, working through these phases, Each situation is different.

Some may speed up really quickly in terms of skipping through the, you know, the phases.

Some may get to being violent early.

And so that is something in terms of, you know, the mindset as you go through that and you think about the various scenarios, the various contingencies.

And that's an area where, as I highlighted, you know, the police department has that structure to respond and respond with individuals of sufficient rank and experience and training to make for better, smarter decisions.

So that is what generated, you know, my look at, you know, that part of the ordinance.

Second, as it relates to blast balls as well, like everybody here, I think we're all looking for the safe, employment of the blast balls.

In addition to all the meetings I've had and the like with all the various pieces and then also receiving the various input on this, I should be this good point to note that I did go to the range and had a briefing from SWAT on the all the less lethal weapons and that included a demonstration of blast balls along with a number of other less lethal weapons as well, is part of understanding the circumstances in terms of, you know, the employment of blast balls.

And I believe that this, which has also worked with legal, is a good way to address this issue in terms of the employment of blast balls.

And that's the reason why this is included here, building on what was in the bill initially.

The mutual aid officers piece, I highlight this because I believe we have to be practical.

If we come too restrictive, either in terms of other jurisdictions policies or they, those individuals into our policies and the like, what we'll end up having is no jurisdictions providing mutual aid to Seattle Police Department and to the city of Seattle.

And if we don't get mutual aid in some circumstances, and if we're under deployed, that creates even worse conditions.

That creates conditions for, be frank, bad things to happen.

So it is the ability to attract mutual aid, but then do it in such a way that it follows the Seattle way, the Seattle Police Department way.

And by the way, And I hear this in public comment, but we should also recognize that the police department 2025 is very different from the police department of 2012. You could just see it in a turnover first off, but then if you look at all the reforms and the pieces of that, and that's something that's not really acknowledged.

And so I wanted to acknowledge that point right here.

And building off that by emphasizing the command and control and the direction It is a way to ensure that mutual aid officers are operating in a way that is consistent with Seattle police policies and the way we do business here in Seattle.

And done and written in a way so it doesn't turn off any mutual aid from neighboring jurisdictions.

And again, I say this this way because if we don't get mutual aid, the circumstances could be worse.

And my example in Iraq goes to that.

The example in Pioneer Square, there's plenty of examples out there that when people do not have the support, I deployed out of Bremerton, we were supportive of Afghanistan operations.

those soldiers operated in a way when they knew they had the support of our air wing and the cover.

If you don't have support and you're in a very tenuous situation, that is when, again, poor decisions may be made, bad decisions may be made.

And so it's critically important to ensure that we do have that support when needed.

And that's the background related to that section.

Also very important, is the, and I cannot say enough and I keep saying this, is the, you know, supporting our accountability partners, all three, OIG, the OPA, and the CPC.

And that goes to, you know, and to ensure that communication between Seattle Police Department and our accountability partners.

And to ensure you know, to the training point, you know, that that is also reported on.

And then finally, to have that kind of dialogue required in terms of how we move forward with less lethal weapons.

So that is the driving parts behind this amendment.

It's one amendment, but it's really got six pieces to it, or five, if you kind of combine the two blast ball elements behind this amendment.

So with that, colleagues, Vice Chair, I turn over the questions for Mr. Doss, or if you'd like to direct them to me as well.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just a couple quick comments.

I guess first off, I note that all of our proposed 10 amendments effectively build upon the mayor's original proposed base bill.

And I want to thank you, Mr. Doss, for working so collaboratively and closely with me in my office in building our own amendments.

and they do a number of things to each other, treat certain elements of containing individual amendments differently, and sometimes they stay silent on it, but I guess for the publics, to understand the chronology of what these do and what they do not do in certain instances.

Would appreciate as we go through them, and I think you're no doubt already planning to do this anyway, but just highlight the areas of clear consistency and then inconsistency as well, because in some cases they completely abrogate certain elements and features contained.

In some cases they stay silent, et cetera.

So that'll be helpful from my perspective and I think really the public.

The second thing, just want to just clarify, I guess, just from my perspective, I appreciate, Mr. Doss, your characterization that the amendments go on an escalating basis from least to most restrictive.

I generally agree with that proposition with one minor exception, and that is my proposed amendment number six, all that does is incorporate by reference existing law and make crystal clear something that was already supposed to happen under law anyway, you know, must happen.

And this, you know, we'll talk more about it, but that the executive must engage with accountability partners before making any changes to the.

So in any event, I don't know if that's particularly restrictive, but I generally agree with everything else.

Friendly amendment to what you just said.

Third and final thing, Mr. Chair.

I just wanna thank you for putting forward this really thoughtful chair's amendment.

I think it's very clear to me, you've thought through the issues and talked to a lot of people and tried to incorporate as many perspectives as possible and putting together a thoughtful package.

And my amendments are intended to be consistent with that, mostly consistent with that.

uh, and build upon it.

So, but I want to thank you for your leadership and putting this, this together.

Thank you, vice chair.

Um, council member Moore.

Thank you very much, chair.

Um, my question, Greg is, since we have so many additional amendments, um, are they, if we approve, uh, amendment one, what is the impact of the other?

Are we amending amendment one with the other subsequent amendments?

Thank you, Council Member Moore.

The answer to your question is yes.

So the various parts of the chair's amendment, Amendment 1, would be amended out or changed if you adopt subsequent amendments.

So a good example here is the first paragraph of the chair's amendment.

It says that police policy shall prohibit the use of blast balls to to move or disperse a crowd, and it lays out the phase five requirement of significant property damage or imminent threat of violence against persons.

And then it says that blast balls may be authorized only through an on-scene assistant chief incident commander after consultation with the chief.

So that first paragraph of Section 5, if subsequent amendments that we get to require a higher level of approval, like, say, a mayor's authorization or a declaration of emergency, it would amend that first amendment and take out the chair's first paragraph saying that the chief of police would be required to authorize and replace it with the more strict or restrictive requirements.

So yes, this amendment will serve as a base, and then as we get to each subject, you all will have the choice to sort of raise the level of restriction or raise the bar in each of these areas.

Does that help?

Yes, thank you.

That was very helpful.

May I make a comment on the amendments?

Chair?

Okay, thank you.

So I too just wanna, obviously I have quite a number of amendments myself, but I did want to thank, thank you chair for putting forth this as a baseline chair amendment.

I do think it makes significant improvements over the legislation that was sent to us.

So I do appreciate the thoughtfulness that went into putting together the chair's package.

Again, I believe we can go further and that's why I've brought my additional amendments, but thank you nonetheless for the work that you've put into this.

Thank you.

Any other council members?

Council President.

Thank you for putting so much work into this.

I know that you've been consulting with a number of different people to perfect your amendment, Council Member Kettle.

At the very beginning of your comments, you said that you had, of course, run this amendment by legal and also, I believe, well, central staff.

Did you check in with our partners that were at the table earlier today, specifically with CPC?

Yes, there's been conversations with CPC, participation in CPC meetings, discussions with former members of the CPC and all of the above.

Thank you.

And if I add, Mr. Chair, also the mayor's office and SPD were involved.

Yes.

Okay.

So we've gotten questions and comments on amendment one.

And at this point, I was going to note basically the question that you raised council member more regarding mutually exclusive and the like.

And I think Mr. Dawson, you've addressed those points pretty clear and then walk through that aspect of these amendments.

So it is a moved and amend, well, at this point, I asked for a Oh, okay.

Further to what you noted, there are two amendments in amendment one that are mutually exclusive where only one of the two may be adopted.

I'm going to ask central staff to walk through this, these two amendments, which are amendments two and three.

Central staff, can you please walk through these two options?

Okay.

Amendment two is going to, would amend your amendment, Mr. Chair, to require a higher level of authorization for use of blast balls, one that would require a mayor proclamation.

And we'll get into discussion of that after yours.

And number three would amend your, again, your first paragraph on authorization that would require and would require mayoral authorization and a proclamation of emergency for use of blast balls.

And so, your amendment as a base can be passed, and the sponsors of Amendment 2 and Amendment 3 could vote for your amendment.

They are not mutually exclusive.

amendment two and amendment three would change your amendment to require a higher level of authorization.

So in effect, we'll go through amendments two and three as it impacts changes potentially amendment one.

And then after those two, after that process is done, then we'll vote on amendment number one.

yes sorry point of privilege yes I don't is that correct because there are portions of your amendment one that relate to mutual aid I have an amendment that relates to mutual aid you have a section that relates to how blast balls are deployed.

I also have an amendment that relates to how the blast balls are deployed.

So those would all amend your underlying amendment.

I understood your point.

Actually, if I can add, I don't know if the clerk has requested this change, but in the way that the amendments are built and structured, yours should go first.

For instance, your amendment adds a new section to the bill, Section H.

So we'll go ahead with the vote on it.

And so I'm working with, you know, in terms of what we had done with the clerks.

But to that point, we'll vote on right now Amendment 1, which addresses the point that Council Member Moore did, because it's not just, as she noted, the blast ball piece, there is the mutual aid piece.

So we'll go ahead.

And so I call for a vote on Amendment 1.

Chair, I'm pretty sure we have to, because amendment two and amendment three both amend amendment one, they have to be voted on first.

The rest of the amendments four through 10 do not amend amendment one.

They amend the bill after it has been amended by amendment one.

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

I mean, I think what your proposed amendment number one does is establish a new base.

And so therefore it should be voted on first.

Clerks.

And then from there, the following amendments.

We're contacting the clerks.

The clerks will come down here.

Okay.

Thank you.

We'll have a five minute recess.

Thank you.

We are restarting, reconvening.

We're adjusting our parliamentary process here slightly from the original script that we had.

Mr. Doss, can you speak to this?

Happy to explain.

So what we have is a situation where the Bills that were written with the code revisor and the law department have specific jingles to them.

A jingle is a headline where we discuss how a bill is amended.

And they are written in such a way that clashes with parliamentary procedure.

Parliamentary procedure are council rules that you all adopt.

And so what this means is, is that we're going to proceed as we had talked about, as I had said, where we're going to start with council or start with amendment number one.

and then we're gonna proceed two, three, et cetera.

But when we get to amendment number two, you all are going to suspend the rules so that we can reconsider the issue of authorization.

So just to walk you through it, amendment one will require the chief of police to provide authorization for blast balls.

We'll get to Amendment 2. You will suspend the rules.

Amendment 2 requires mayor proclamation for authorization for blast balls.

You'll vote on that.

You'll get to Amendment 3, suspend the rules again, and then vote on Amendment 3, which is a proclamation and mayoral approval.

So as we keep considering the same issue, you will have to suspend the rules.

And this is completely a staff error.

It has, for the members of the public, nothing to do with the council, nothing to do with the consideration of these amendments from a policy standpoint.

This is all just technical clashes between two different distinct policies.

And I apologize for that.

Mr. Dasno, No issue there, obviously legal parliamentary, sometimes things clash.

And so the key thing is that we're gonna work through it and we're gonna work through it right now.

So we'll start with one and then hoping that there's no objections, but I'll say that again after when we get to numbers two and three.

So that clerk, will you please call the roll on the adoption of amendment number one.

Council member Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council member Moore.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Council member Saka.

Aye.

Chair Kettle.

Aye.

There are five yes votes.

No, no, zero no votes and zero abstentions.

Thank you, clerk.

Um, colleagues, if there's no objections, the rules will be suspended to allow the consideration and vote on amendment two and amendment three.

Any objection?

Seeing and hearing no objection will proceed as stated by Mr. Doss.

I'd like to ask vice chair to move his amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move to amend amendment number one as presented on amendment number two.

It is moved and seconded to amend amendment number one as presented on amendment number two.

Council member Saka, you recognize in order to address it.

Mr. Chair, would you like me to describe it first?

Yes, go ahead, please.

Okay, thanks.

So amendment two, as we have discussed a bit, will amend the first amendment.

The first amendment requires the chief of police to authorize use of blast balls.

This amendment, amendment number two, would require that the mayor issue a proclamation of civil emergency pursuant to Seattle Municipal Code 10.02.

This requirement for a proclamation of emergency is the same requirement that the underlying bill has for tear gas.

So this is elevating the authorization level from uh blast balls at the incident commander to the uh mayor pro to a proclamation of emergency given by the mayor um also notable is that this does not change the causes and conditions under which uh spd may use the blast balls themselves they could still be used at level five where uh there's a threat to of violence and significant property damage it would just require the mayoral declaration of emergency.

And that's all I have.

Thank you.

Vice-Chair?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So it's no secret that the most contentious tool or technique that we are being called upon to consider as part of the broader crowd management proposed legislation is the use when the circumstances under which SPD could use blast balls or not.

Blast balls, most controversial, most sensitive.

And blast balls are dangerous.

It's no secret.

Just skimming through the letter from a public commenter earlier today, Ms. Karen Kohler.

Here we have pictures of People suffering catastrophic injuries as a direct result of blast balls.

It continues on with some more gruesome photos.

Could turn the pages here.

And these are actual people who have suffered as a result of blast balls, whether justified or not in those circumstances.

They're harmful, they're dangerous, inherently.

less than lethal or otherwise.

And we've seen various community groups say we should not use those as a city as a policy matter under any circumstances whatsoever.

That certainly seems to be the position of our own city's Office of Civil Rights, OCR.

I read their report, I think from last month now, And so it's no secret blast balls are dangerous and very dangerous.

So my proposed amendment here, you know, so blast balls are dangerous.

On the one hand, people saying they shouldn't be used under any circumstance.

Other hand, folks saying should have free will access to use them under any circumstances.

And ultimately, what my proposed amendment here, colleagues, is about balance.

This amendment is about balance.

It's true that there may be situations where blast balls are necessary for crowd disbursement purposes, specifically those circumstances where our own citizens and demonstrators are at risk because a demonstration has gotten out of hand.

But in order to use this technology, we must be sure that blast balls are being deployed in a context that warrants their specific use, which is why my proposed amendment calls on the mayor to make a declaration of civil emergency, as we heard.

There is an existing, as we know, there is an existing state ordinance that imposes a requirement for potential deployment of tear gas.

It requires the mayor to issue a proclamation of the declaration of state of emergency in order for tear gas to potentially be used.

So this proposed amendment would elevate to the standard set forth by legislature for recognizing the inherent danger associated with tear gas, elevate that same standard and say, in order for blast balls to potentially be used, the mayor must issue a state of emergency proclamation.

And however, once a declaration of civil emergency is made at that point, I believe it is crucial that we allow SPD flexibility to maintain order and safety for all, which may potentially include the use of blast balls, or it may not.

The point here being that once the mayor issues, whoever the mayor is, once the mayor issues that proclamation declaring a state of emergency, it unlocks any number of tools and techniques that the department could use or not, to potentially address the challenges on the ground.

So I view my proposed amendment here as issuing the conditions.

It's a precondition to possible deployment.

It doesn't require the mayor to weigh in one way or the other, whether blast balls in this case should be used or not.

It just as a precondition, which is as we learned, it's a heightened standard.

It's much more heightened, stringent, exacting standard for possible use of blast balls for crowd management purposes.

Let me be crystal clear, blast balls are not without risk.

I don't believe in anything, I don't think there's anything such thing as zero risk.

I myself volunteer to witness and signed up to do a blast ball demonstration amongst other crowd management tools that SPD currently has at its disposal, signed up to witness and observe that firsthand.

And I also took the extra step.

I heard someone during public comment earlier today saying, well, you all took the visual demo, none of you all signed up for to actually See it firsthand.

I did.

I tried, at least.

I tried.

I tried.

I personally, I think it's a personal choice.

For me, being a military veteran, I've seen certain impacts firsthand of weapons, tools, and technology.

And I also have been at demonstrations, protests, including in 2020, that started off peaceful and quickly devolved, where I've inhaled noxious gas, pepper spray, I don't know, whatever the heck it was.

That's when I knew it was time for me to go home to my family, personally.

I wouldn't personally authorize anything that could potentially be used in the general public that I'm not comfortable with observing firsthand.

So I tried, I tried, I signed up, I asked, I asked, wanted to.

People talk about the separation of powers.

This is a clear example.

I made the request.

This is ultimately the mayor's call.

And the executive declined my request to experience a deployment of blast balls firsthand, but I tried.

And I still, again, observe them, visually at least.

And my goal with this amendment is that we as a city come up with a policy that attempts to restrict the use of blast balls to more limited narrow circumstances providing clarity for officers, much needed clarity for officers on the ground and protections for those demonstrating in our city.

And in terms of some of the specific language, that first sentence there of my proposed amendment, again, requires the mayor to issue a proclamation of a civil emergency.

That second sentence, colleagues, as Mr. Doss noted, is entirely consistent with an element.

In fact, I just borrowed language directly from the chair's amendment.

setting forth the circumstances.

Once that happens, they should be used.

I like to think of that.

That's from one of the matrix, the CPC matrix, I believe.

That's one of their specific recommendations.

I like to think of it.

We'll learn more clarity from Mr. Dawson in a moment about the impact of that.

But I like to think of that shorthand as a minimum, as a last resort, circumstances of last resort.

But then again, colleagues, I think this bill is consistent with, it heightened with the proposed chair's amendment that we just passed, and it builds upon it in an important way by making crystal clear that blast balls are only a matter of last resort.

And once that proclamation by the mayor has been given, it unlocks any number of options.

And at that point, I personally, would defer to the mayor and the department to figure out what that, who should make the call.

But I think this is a, ultimately in the end of the day, I think this is a balanced approach that strikes the right balance between the various competing interests and needs here.

And I ask for your support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, can I clarify one thing?

Yes, Mr. Doss.

I may have misspoke earlier, and I want to make sure that if I did, this point is absolutely clear.

The state law requires that the mayor give approval of use of tear gas.

It was the mayor's office and SPD that added into this bill the additional requirement that there be a Mayor's Office proclamation for use of tear gas.

So it is true that both of those things are necessary under this bill for use of tear gas.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Doss.

Are there any comments on Amendment 2?

Council President?

This is a...

I just have a question about when we say proclamation, we who sit up here at the dais all the time, I have a certain idea of what a proclamation is.

It's in a folder and you present it to somebody, but is there a certain number of, who are the participants, or the audience, what are the requirements for the issuance of a proclamation in terms of who has to be in the audience, et cetera?

Do you know anything about the logistics?

The logistics on that, the specific details of the logistics, I would defer to Mr. Doss and the executive department.

But as a precondition, rather, for possible deployment, The mayor would be required to issue a proclamation of civil emergency pursuant to existing law, which in this case is SMC chapter 10.02.

So those specific conditions and logistics in that code would apply with equal weight and force in the blast ball context for crowd management purposes as well.

Maybe Mr. Doss has a...

Thank you, Council Member Sokka.

So everything you said is true.

SMC 10.02 would require specific facts and circumstances to that event, which is causing the emergency declaration.

It is the case that the mayor's office has indicated that such a declaration could be written between one and three hours, probably closer to the higher end of that range, it would have to go, and that's my interpretation, it would have to go through legal review with the city attorney's office to ensure that the declarations that were going into the uh, proclamation were correct and that it could be, that it could be issued.

So there's a series of procedural things that would slow it down.

Um, and, uh, the mayor's office estimates that that could take up to three hours.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

I note amendment two is relates to directly to the first paragraph of the now amended bill.

I also note it points to police department policy which goes back to the earlier point about working with you know the council but also the community policing commission to engage Seattle Police Department on policy issues to include um crowd management so with that any other questions i don't see anything with that clerk will you please call the role on the adoption of amendment two council member hollingsworth yes council member moore aye council president nelson aye council member saka aye chair kettle aye there are five in favor and none opposed Thank you, amendment two is adopted.

Now, we've already have the rules suspended, so we can move to amendment number three.

It is, Council Member Moore.

Thank you, Council President.

I move to amend Council Bill 120916 as presented on amendment three, draft version two.

Second.

It has moved a second to amend amendment number one as presented in amendment number three, draft two.

Is that the...

Amendment three, draft version two.

Draft version two.

Draft two was distributed to the committee a few moments before the committee session began.

I'd ask the clerk if he can bring up amendment...

Number three, draft two.

So this amendment would require that the mayor issue a proclamation of civil emergency pursuant to the SMC 10.02, and that's the same level of restriction that you all just adopted, but it would further require that the mayor himself or herself authorize use of blast balls.

Again, consistent with phase five of SPD's crowd management, innovation, and control policy.

And as you can see on the amendment, phase five is, as we've discussed, violent acts by four or more person or acts that pose an imminent threat of violence against persons or significant property damage.

It is the case that once these things have happened, there's a proclamation that has been issued and the mayor has given his or her authorization that there's no more restriction and SPD incident commanders ranked lieutenant or above could provide authorization to use blast balls.

that provision also the same as Councilmember Sokka's Amendment 2. So here we are layering on two additional levels of authorization, or one additional level of authorization, and that is that the mayor must give specific approval.

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

Any questions?

Well, actually, Councilmember Moore, can you speak to your amendment?

Sure, thank you.

Okay, so this amendment does two things.

Well, three things, I guess.

It requires that before the mayor is, before SPD is allowed to use blast balls, there has to be a mayoral authorization of a civil emergency, and then the mayor has to authorize the use of blast balls under the circumstances of section five of the police policy.

Based on my conversations with CPC, and I got their letter on Friday, and they're concerned that there was no mechanism for immediate risk to life, I brought forth this amendment.

I did pass it out to committee members yesterday, just so you would be aware of that it was coming.

And that's why it says these restrictions shall not apply to immediate threats to life safety that require immediate police action as established in phase six of SPD's crowd management intervention and crowd control policy.

So I know there was some discussion earlier today about, you know, unintended consequences of being somewhat prescriptive and referencing the riots at Mardi Gras that resulted, unfortunately, in the death of the individual.

I want to be clear that my amendment would allow SPD, would have allowed, if it were in place at that time, would have allowed SPD to immediately respond and utilize blast balls.

It would not have required a declaration of civil emergency or a direct authorization by the mayor.

So there is that escape clause.

If SPD is seeing somebody who's immediately in danger, if they don't act immediately, the person will suffer life-threatening injury.

I think that's important.

But to the other piece, we've heard a lot about the unintended consequences and we don't want to have this higher level of approval because we don't want unintended harm to happen through escalating to different uses, different less lethal weapons.

To that I would respond that blast balls themselves have been documented both in 2015 and 2020 in Seattle and I would say they're used throughout the nation as resulting in unintended harm.

So because blast balls by their nature are rubber and they bounce, even if an officer throws the ball per policy and appropriately, there's no way to guarantee that the ball isn't going to bounce and hit somebody where it's not supposed to or bounce off into a different direction and hit an unintended point.

because the very nature of how it deploys, they separate, and so you have the rubber piece that's flying any which way, which can also cause injury.

So this idea that somehow we have to, that by allowing sort of the unlimited use of blast balls, we are preventing unintended harm from other weapons, I think is disingenuous in talking about the unintended harm that can happen with blast balls.

The other thing that's important to keep in mind is that we continue to say less lethal versus non-lethal.

And it's important that we keep that distinction in mind.

None of these are non-lethal.

They are all less lethal.

And I very much appreciate the materials that Karen Kohler submitted to show us in rather graphic detail what happened.

And I also want to make it clear that yes, we do have a new SPD force.

We've made a lot of progress under the consent decree, but we had problems in 2015. And that was in May Day.

That wasn't a 2020 protest where the people were protesting directly against law enforcement and it was personal.

We had these kinds of problems in 2015 where people were protesting about May Day.

And to the point that Council Member Rink was able to make, we haven't deployed it yet.

I'm sure we're going to have many demonstrations that are coming forth.

To me, the use of blast balls and the potential injury and the potential risk to life is of a level of seriousness that the highest elected official in the city should approve their use.

The person, the mayor should be confident that the circumstances warrant placing the citizenry at this level of risk.

And if the mayor is unwilling to make that call, then it seems to me that it is inappropriate to authorize that degree of less lethal.

I'd also point out that overall, I have concerns about all of the less lethal weapons, but there are certainly other ones that can be utilized that are not quite so lethal as blast balls.

Looking at the blue nose, some of those are, but the blue nose are less so.

We have pepper spray that we can utilize.

I want to also note that Washington Attorney General use of physical force and crowd management best practices that came out in July of 2022 talked about a noise flash diversionary device, which is what a blast ball is.

If you go to the defense technology page, they are the manufacturers and distributors of these blast balls that we have in Seattle.

Their page says that the blast ball grenade is a maximum effect device that delivers three stimuli for psychological and physiological effects, light, sound, and OC, pepper spray.

The intent is to cause distraction, panic, disorder.

Because of that, the Attorney General...

you know, an arm of not a bleeding liberal in terms of its institutional positions has recommended against the use of noise flash diversions shall not be used for crowd management except as a last resort.

And so I think given that the professionals who have looked at this issue over the years, we even have law enforcement, agencies talking about the need to really utilize this as a last resort, that we need to create that framework for our city.

And there's some concern too that it's gonna take too much time for the mayor to make this decision or the mayor's gonna be out of town.

Well, if the mayor's out of town, that's why I have a pro tem.

And I would ask each of my colleagues if you balk at having to make, being put in a position of having to make the decision about whether to authorize the use of blast balls, I would ask you to ask yourself why.

Why would you have that hesitancy?

For me, I know it's because of the level of potential lethality that I would be exposing the citizens to and having to balance that against also the level of potential harm that could happen to people from a riot situation.

But needing to know that proportional balance.

And certainly I would look to my subject matter experts and SPD to help me make that decision.

And I would expect the mayor to do the same.

One of the things that when I talked to CPC about on Friday was their concern again that there would be too much time between things unfolding on the ground and being able to make this coming back to the mayor for a declaration relating to blast ball use.

I'm not law enforcement, so clearly I'm speaking from a position of some ignorance here, but I would imagine that if you are coming to the mayor's office for a declaration of civil emergency, that it would make sense at that time to also make the case for authorizing the use of blast balls.

and giving that as an option to be utilized by the lieutenants on the ground should they see it to be necessary in a specific circumstance.

So in my opinion, I would see that as something that happens simultaneously to the request for a civil emergency declaration.

The other thing is, well, what are the mayors out of town?

Well, if we leave it at the police chief, the chief isn't always in town either.

So then we again are down the chain of command.

And is that appropriate given the potential risks, both the physical risks as well as the legal risks?

We paid out $10 million.

because there were OPA found, confirmed quite a number of instances where policy was not complied with.

So even when you have a policy, you run the risk of there being, for whatever reason, non-compliance.

And so I think it's incredibly important that we make it very clear that these tools carry serious risk, there needs to be serious consideration, and that if things go wrong, that there is somebody directly accountable to the citizenry.

It's not enough to say, well, the police chief can be fired.

because often we see that that can be a complicated and lengthy process and doesn't always happen.

I think when somebody is exercising their First Amendment right and they receive a life-threatening or even long-term injury, that they have the right to hold their elected representatives, the council and the mayor responsible for having made that decision, should they believe that it was the wrong decision.

So that's why I believe that we need to have this amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Moore.

Mr. Chair.

I'm sorry to keep interrupting, but I need to present some some technical information that I think will affect all of your voting, and I want to make sure that you all have information.

I should have mentioned in my overview that there is, as Council Member Moore put it, an escape clause that the restriction shall not apply to immediate threats of life safety or require immediate that require immediate police action as established in phase six of SPD's crowd management intervention and control policy.

There is within SPD's CMEX policies the allowance for officers to make individual decisions to deploy blast balls when there is a threat to life.

However, that provision does not allow for crowd dispersal, and allows for more of an individual interdiction tactic.

So, in a way, this broadens their existing policy because the restrictions, or this broadens the policy from the last amendment, because The restrictions that would be put in place, the mayor's office authorization and the mayor's office proclamation would not be required in phase six of the CMIX when we have reached life safety events and...

that would allow the mayor's office to disperse a crowd at phase six, where under their current policies, they can only use them for individual interdiction.

Officers can make decisions only at the individual level for individual interdictions, not for crowd dispersal.

And I'm gonna invite Brian Maxey up.

Unless I said something wrong there.

Do you want to clarify, just to make sure that everybody's getting the right information?

So, Greg, what is the specific question, please?

The SPD's current policies allow for officers to make individual decisions if it is a matter of life safety, but they cannot make the decision to disperse a crowd.

They can only make the decision to interdict at an individual level.

That's the correct statement, yes.

So under this amendment, the mayoral proclamation and the mayoral specific permission wouldn't be required in phase six when there is to disperse the crowd, nor would a individual officer be prohibited from making a decision to interdict with individuals within a crowd if there is a life safety emergency.

It basically gives a broad exception for life safety emergencies.

Thank you, Mr. Doss.

Thank you, Mr. Maxey.

Council President.

Ms. Can you please clarify?

sort of counter-intuitively providing for more, not necessarily, for more flexibility for the use of blast balls if you're saying that the safety of the people involved is already a requirement that has been met in this situation?

So one way to think about it is when the mayor's office or the chief or an incident commander gives an order to disperse a crowd, that is using blast balls in a way that is intended to move or disperse the crowd.

Within SPD policy, there's already an exception for life safety emergencies.

If someone, if an officer sees that someone at the edge of a crowd pulls out a knife or a Molotov cocktail or something that could create life safety emergencies.

That officer can use a blast ball to individually interdict in that instance.

They couldn't disperse a crowd, but they could interdict with that one individual.

And that remains true under the last amendment that you just passed.

But to disperse a crowd, you need the higher level of authorization, the mayor's office.

Or in this case, it would be the proclamation from the mayor and the...

MAYOR'S OFFICE EMERGENCY DECLARATION.

THIS AMENDMENT ALSO ALLOWS CROWD DISBERSAL AT LEVEL 6. SO, NOT ONLY DOES THE OFFICER HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE INDIVIDUAL INTERDICTIONS DECISIONS AT LEVEL...

TO USE A BLAST BALL, Under this amendment, the police department could use crowd control as a method.

They could, when it gets to life safety, they could disperse the crowd, and they could do so without having to contact the mayor's office.

Does that help?

Again, it's the difference between individual interdiction and crowd dispersal.

Individual interdiction allowed under all the amendments that you have passed so far.

This one would allow individual interdiction for life safety, and the mayor's office would not have to be contacted if it's a life safety emergency to disperse a crowd.

If it's a lower level property damage, the mayor's office needs to be contacted and they need to issue a proclamation and give their permission.

Thank you, that's clear.

Thank you, Mr. Doss.

Any other questions?

Vice chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you, council member Moore for bringing this forward.

Really appreciate your leadership on this and any number of issues.

And this among the remaining items, amendments that we're gonna be considering this one, I was the closest on the fence for potentially supporting.

I'm ultimately not going to be supporting it today.

But I wanna thank you for, again, your leadership and thoughtfulness and bringing it forward.

I can say something great about all of our colleagues, and I do regularly, publicly, and behind the scenes, but for you, you are probably the most thoughtful, diligent colleague that I've had the pleasure of working with on this dais, and it's reflected here in part of your work.

Ultimately, why I'm gonna decline to support it today is because, on the one hand, it is consistent with the earlier one, that we just passed, the proclamation.

In my view, the next step in terms of requiring, so it's consistent in so far as it requires the mayor to issue a proclamation.

But it builds upon that by requiring the mayor also to provide specific authorization for the use of blast balls.

And in my view, that is a bit too prescriptive.

And leaves things less flexible.

And I don't want to put any, I think that kind of specific decision is not best for an elected official to be making.

I think that's best for the department to be making.

And I also believe that there is sufficient accountability baked into the system if the mayor issues the original proclamation of a civil emergency, which in and of itself unlocks any number of potential tools being deployed, tear gas, blast balls now, and any number of things.

And I think there is sufficient accountability from voters that they are accountable, that the mayor would be directly accountable to voters, and I think that is sufficient in this case.

So for those reasons, I'm not going to be supporting this, but I do appreciate your thoughtfulness and the diligence at which you show up and do this work every day, and I'm honored to work alongside you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Any other questions, comments, colleagues?

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Moore, for your amendments.

Regards to my views, I did look at life safety in my original draft of Amendment 1, but hold it because this bill was regarding crowd management and life safety in those individual circumstances is already addressed, and so did not intermingle the two and pulled that out of my chair amendment.

Separately, the approval for each day could create its own challenges and also it says SBD incident commanders must request you know, that's skip echelons, if you will, to use the military term, you know, the chief of police.

And I would add the assistant, the deputy chief of police oftentimes has more experience and, you know, has the, you know, substantial training and experience so that if the deputy is acting chief, that you have that covered.

I just wanted to note that.

So for those reasons, and this is similar to the amendment number two, And I respect the points made, but I will not be supporting this amendment.

Okay.

Clerk, please call the roll on the adoption of amendment number three.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Aye.

Council Member Moore.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Nay.

Council Member Saka.

Nay.

Chair Kettle.

No.

There are two in favor and three opposed.

Thank you.

So this is the finishing that section that we had related to amendment number one.

Yes, it does.

We have now, you all have now amended number one in terms of mutually exclusive topics.

From now on, there will either be additions to amendment number one or additions to SPD policy, but there won't be anything that is exclusive.

So would you like me to describe number four?

Yes, just to confirm, we do not...

Amendment two is now amended amendment number one, and that is set.

We don't have to reconfirm amendment one as amended number two.

No, and you don't need to suspend the rules again.

Thank you.

Okay, yes, let's move to amendment number four.

So this amendment, Amendment 4, is brought by Council Member Moore.

It would amend the bill to require that the police department, its policy on less lethal weapons, require that blast balls are deployed only when directed away from people, underhanded, and at a distance of at least 10 yards.

It would also incorporate two new recitals that were suggested by the Community Police Commission, and they are above you or above me on the amendment, the whereas clauses.

The Community Police Commission letter suggested the language of directed away from people underhand and at a distance of 10 yards.

That language is mirrored here.

And as I said, the two recitals are from the community police commission letter.

Council member Moore.

Thank you, chair.

Again, I know there's been a lot of discussion about what is the appropriate way to deploy blast balls and are we being too prescriptive?

Oh, I'm sorry, thank you.

I move to amend Council Bill 120916 as presented on amendment four.

Second.

It is moved and seconded to adopt amendment number four.

Central Staff, we've already done that.

Council Member Moore, you're recognized to address amendment number four.

Okay, thank you.

Sorry for missing that critical step.

So again, this is also based on conversations with CPC.

And additionally, I was able to look at the SPD policies, and they do state that the preferred method of blast ball deployment is low deployment, which is bowling style.

Absence of threat of serious imminent physical harm, sworn employees will avoid deploying a blast ball in a manner that would have significant likelihood of striking a person directly.

Again, that's that exemption.

And again, will avoid directing blast balls towards persons who are not posing a risk to public safety or property.

They do allow for the overhand throw when the need for farther deployment or the need to get around an obstruction outweighs the risk created by the separating munition.

I still believe though that we need to limit it to the underhand throw.

Again, in looking at the OPA findings, many of them related to violation of policy relating to the overthrowing of blast balls.

This is in the materials that were submitted to us by Karen Kohler.

In three cases, SPD officers deployed tear cast canisters of blast balls overhand without being fully aware of their surroundings and hitting people who were not posing a risk to public safety or property.

OPA found that the methods used to deploy these munitions were inconsistent with policy and training.

So again, I think even there was some mentioned by Lisa Dugard that underhand or overhand made really no significant difference.

I beg to differ.

Again, given the nature of the instrument itself being rubber, bouncing, it being itself an unpredictable there is a significant difference in terms of risk posed by how it is deployed overhand or underhand.

So that's why I'm bringing this amendment.

Thank you, council member Moore.

Vice chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And I, again, wanna thank council member Moore for bringing this forward.

I generally, so with respect, so there's a lot of thoughtful ideas contained in this proposed amendment and you know, with respect to the recitals piece, recitals, colleagues, as we know, they're value statements, and it's a good opportunity to state and make clear values, set council direction and expectations, short of actually putting it in the underlying code, because that's the best way to do it.

So I like, I generally like the, the recitals here, ultimately where I am not going to be able to support the whole proposed amendment in its entirety is because of one and only one word, underhand.

CPC, we learned, that's why I asked that question earlier, what's the position on underhand use or not?

It sounds like even CPC itself recognizes...

I don't think the focus of their analysis was on underhand versus overhand, but I think as a general proposition, I heard that there is even recognition that there are circumstances, limited circumstances, where overhand is appropriate, and I think this gets just a little too prescriptive for my personal liking and comfort.

I do like the...

Again, recitals, you know, if those weren't all, there's a lot going on in this thoughtful amendment, so I would be inclined to just support the recitals alone, but because it all stands together and hangs together in one singular document, in one amendment, I'm not going to be able to support it today, but I want to thank you for bringing it forward.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Colleagues, anybody else?

Okay.

Yes, thank you, Council Member Moore.

I appreciate and obviously read the CPC's letter and suggestions and considering them.

Related to this and related to the whereas clauses, the recitals, my concern is the, it goes to prescribing over, you know, being too specific, you know, regarding the manner of deployment relates to, you know, some legal considerations.

And for those, I will not be supporting those, this amendment today.

And I will also look to engage in terms of possibilities with the CPC letter at a later time.

So I will be voting no on this.

Okay, will the clerk, oh, council president, sorry.

I just wanted to note that I value the role of the Community Police Commission whose job in the SMC, it specifies that the job of the PCC is to develop policy and consultation with the community.

And that's a unique responsibility of our whole accountability apparatus and so I do, I would, I guess I agree that we should listen to them and I have no issues with adding the recitals and I would consider if you wanted to bring this forward again and add the recitals if this amendment does not pass.

you know, at full council, but I am, I do understand that underhand is very specific and as someone who is perhaps shorter than a lot of other people who might be employing this particular tool, perhaps.

I can understand that in certain circumstances, it overhand could be better.

But in any case, I just wanted to recognize that the value of these recitals.

And thank you very much for putting them before our attention for discussion.

Mr. Thank you, Council President.

Will the clerk please call the roll on adoption of amendment four.

Council member Hollingsworth.

Aye.

Council member Moore.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Abstain.

Council member Saka.

No.

Chair Kettle.

No.

There are two in favor, two opposed, and one abstention.

Amendment four is not adopted.

Okay, moving on to amendment number five, and Mr. Doss will have her enter it before you speak to it this time.

Council member Moore, can you move your amendment please?

Thank you, Chair.

I move to amend Council Bill 120916 as presented on draft one, amendment five.

Excuse me, as presented on amendment five, draft one.

Thank you.

Um, second, anyone?

Second.

It is moved and seconded to adopt amendment number five.

Mr. Doss, you're recognized to describe amendment number five.

Thank you.

So this amendment is, um, somewhat straightforward.

It, simply says that the police department's mutual aid policy and interim crowd management policy shall prohibit the department's incident commanders from deploying to a crowd management control role any mutual aid officer who is unable or unwilling to comply with SPD's crowd management policies.

SPD may deploy mutual aid officers to non-crowd control management roles during a crowd management event.

So as this amendment is consistent with recommendations from perf or cpe the national policing organizations that say that mutual aid officers should abide by the uh by the department the the policies of the department that they're assisting however it has been noted uh by the police department and the mayor's office that and this and the cpc that It is the case that there are some practical considerations around having mutual aid officers follow SPD policy.

So this particular situation, this particular amendment would allow mutual aid to come help.

They just couldn't be in a role that would be responsible for deploying less lethal weapons or dispersing a crowd or any kind of crowd management activity.

If mutual aid officers came to the SPD's assistance, they would have to go into roles like traffic control or backfilling 911 if that's an appropriate place for them, but not into crowd management roles unless they could comply with SPD's policies.

Thank you, Mr. Doss.

Council Member Moore, you recognize to speak to your amendment?

Thank you again.

I know that there's been some concern and statements made that if we require them to sign on the dotted line and agree to comply with the Seattle crowd management policies that include restrictions around the use of blast balls that nobody will show up to the call.

I guess My response to that is A, I think it's a little bit of hyperbole.

B, this does not prohibit officers from showing up and being utilized in a manner in which they don't have to be put in a position to utilize less lethal weapons.

And C, we had a finding from OPA that in 2020, mutual aid officers also were...

Protesters were injured by mutual aid officers using less lethal weapons, not in compliance with their own policies.

So if they're unwilling to comply, there is the possibility that they can be in compliance with their policy and yet, engage in actions that will result in harm or injury to our citizenry.

And lastly, if they're unwilling to comply, that causes me serious concern, and I don't believe that they should be coming to the city.

We can always look for other ways, and we can utilize their services in a way that doesn't compromise their independence, but also doesn't potentially place our residents at risk.

Thank you, council member Moore.

Colleagues, vice chair, others, nothing?

OK.

Councilmember Rank?

I'll very briefly chime in on this one.

Thank you, Chair.

Very briefly, just to chime in on this one, I know there's been a fair amount of discussion just about concerns about whether or not mutual aid would come when called upon, but would just, again, reaffirm that perhaps this is to some degree hyperbole.

would further state that I think there is more intended risk posed to the city by the liability of having mutual aid come and display excessive force or deployment of other kinds of weapons and would open up the city, of course, to additional liability for having to pay out due to egregious injuries cost to the public.

And so would just state and urge the committee to seriously consider this amendment and would state my support for it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

May I make one last comment?

Yes, Council Member Moore.

So I did want to just note that this is recommended by, this amendment is recommended by CPC.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Obviously, I've spoken to this already.

One of the points I want to make, and it kind of goes back to life safety too, this is a crowd management ordinance.

To Mr. Doss' point, if we had officers from other jurisdictions coming doing non-crowd management issues.

That's a separate circumstance, essentially.

The bill is now amended, says mutual aid officers responding to the city at the request of SPD for crowd management purposes must agree to follow the command and control of the on-scene SPD incident commander.

Mutual aid officers may not deploy any less lethal weapons in a crowd management setting, contrary to the on-scene incident commander's direction, and any applicable state laws or standards established by the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission.

My position is that this gets us to where we are because And I understand the point and I understand the policies, but we're getting to the same place.

And the issue is, again, if you're in another jurisdiction and you have your city attorney coming to you, that city attorney would likely recommend for legal considerations, legal exposure to not comply with the request for mutual aid.

And at the end, I don't consider it hyperbole to say that officers, whether police officers, law enforcement, or in other settings, if they know they have backup, if they know how they have support, they're in a position to even better, you know, carry out their duties and crowd managements in a way consistent with our policies and our laws.

And so with that point, Again, I understand and generally there's a lot of overlap between the two.

It's just that specific point and my belief that another jurisdiction with their legal counsel would basically get to a situation where we don't get anybody.

So with that, I will not be supporting this amendment.

Thank you.

Will the clerk please call the roll in the adoption of amendment number five?

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Aye.

Council Member Moore.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

No.

Council member Saka.

No.

Chair Kettle.

No.

There are two in favor and three opposed.

Amendment five is not adopted.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the, sorry, my paper.

This is what happens, many amendments.

Vice chair, will you please address, move actually amendment number six.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move to amend Council Bill 120916 as specifically presented on amendment number six.

Second.

It is moved and seconded to adopt amendment number six.

Central staff, Mr. Doss, you're recognized to describe amendment number six.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Councilmember Sanka, in his comments earlier, was absolutely right.

These amendments do tend to escalate in terms of the restrictions put on the department.

However, this one is an exception.

This particular amendment just requires that SPD comply with the accountability ordinance requirement that Seattle's Accountability agencies are provided with an opportunity for regular timely review of proposed revisions to the SPD policy manual.

That language regular timely review and specifically a schedule for review of revisions to the policy manual is in the accountability ordinance already and SPD should be complying with that.

This is underscoring the point that they should be complying with that and obviously in the context of of crowd control weapons as well as any other changes to their policy manual.

Thank you.

Council member, Vice Chair Osaki, you're recognized to address amendment number six.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, I'll be brief.

This amendment would reinforce the council's belief that SPD needs to consult with accountability partners before authorizing new policies in the policy manual here, specifically pertaining to crowd management policies.

SPD needs flexibility in adjusting its policies, but our communities need to know that they have done so in consultation, direct consultation with those critically accountable partners, accountability partners.

And yeah, enough said.

This should be happening already under current law, namely the accountability ordinance.

And so this makes crystal clear and captures this requirement into a single legislative instrument.

In this case, the ordinance that we hope to pass.

Thank you.

I ask for your support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Vice Chair Saka.

Colleagues?

Colleagues?

Okay.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Clearly this is already addressed, so what you're looking to do is to re-emphasize, basically, and that doesn't get into some of the considerations that we've been discussing already, so yes, I support this amendment.

Okay, will the clerk please call a roll on adoption of amendment number six?

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council Member Moore.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Chair Kettle.

Aye.

There are five in favor and none opposed.

Amendment number six is adopted.

And thank you for being brief, Vice Chair, because we are obviously running late.

I have a note, Council Member Moore, regarding Amendment seven.

Are you proceeding or not proceeding with it?

No, I just wanted to make people aware of it.

Okay.

Yes, okay.

So amendment number seven will not be considered today.

So we're going to move, we're going to skip amendment number seven in terms of the documents that we have with this bill and then move to amendment number eight also.

So eight is being not.

No, all the rest are going forward.

So the rest are going forward.

Yes, okay.

So Council Member Moore, would you like to move your amendment number eight?

Thank you.

I move to amend Council Bill 120916 as presented on amendment eight.

Second.

It is moved and seconded to adopt amendment number eight.

Mr. Doss, you're recognized to describe amendment number eight.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Amendment number eight is sponsored by Council Member Moore, but it is authored by Council Member Rink.

The role of SPD in a crowd management setting.

The amendment would require SPD to revise the purpose statement for its CMICS, Crowd Management Intervention and Control Policy, such that the purpose statement would say A fundamental function of the role of police in crowd management settings is to identify and clearly communicate entry and exit points for individuals assembled in the crowd as well as individuals passing by, living in the area, or working in the area.

So that statement would be needed to add to SPD's crowd management policy.

There is a purpose statement that this would go into that is about four or five paragraphs long.

I'll ask the clerk to bring it up.

As you can see there, the purpose statement emphasizes the right to free speech.

It emphasizes SPD's role in crowd management.

So this would add that statement I just made into the purpose statement.

I would also note by way of background that SPD's policy, not in its purpose statement but elsewhere, does require that incident commanders ensure that there is an avenue of egress sufficient to allow a crowd to depart an assembly that has been declared unlawful in stage five of the CMIX.

So while this requirement is in SPD's policies already, it's not in the purpose statement.

It doesn't serve as a guideline for how SPD should manage crowds.

And I believe the intent of the council member who's offering this is to ensure that this is part of the purpose statement and does provide guidance to SPD on how they should handle all crowd management events.

Thank you.

I guess we'll have two, but Council Member Moore to be official, start with you and then I suspect that you will then lateral to Council Member Rink.

Thank you.

I will cede my time to Council Member Rink.

Thank you, and thank you to Councilmember Moore for being willing to sponsor these amendments today.

And thank you, Greg, for your work on this as well and for explaining a bit behind our intentions here.

So this amendment adds language consistent with the current CMIX policy to overarching code.

It does not intend to require specific procedures for SPD to personally contact every individual in the vicinity of exit points, but it does intend to ensure that the expectation is explicit that SPD personnel must recognize non-participants in the vicinity of any crowd situation in which less lethal weapons are considered.

and consider the impact of use of less lethal weapons in all of the vicinity and ensure that all in the vicinity are given information about safe points of entry and egress, et cetera.

Currently, there is language in policy requiring SPD to identify dispersal routes to crowds, but nothing about the residents or local businesses that are also impacted by crowds that could be injured by less lethal weapons deployment as collateral damage.

We need to ensure that SPD is affirmatively considering the impact of the deployment of these kinds of weapons on not just folks who are in a crowd peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights, but also on the folks who just happen to live and work in the vicinity.

And I think we can see this also best exemplified, seeing the events that occurred throughout 2020. And that concludes my comments.

I'm happy to see the rest of my time.

Thank you.

Thank you, council member Rink, vice chair, committee colleagues.

Hearing and seeing them.

Thank you, council member Rink and council member Moore for this amendment.

I believe a lot of the things that are included in this amendment, I could see the value of them.

There's two things that I raise.

One is, and I said this at the beginning, this is kind of like in terms of empowering the Community Police Commission and the CPC in terms of its role in engaging SPD on its policies.

And I'm looking for opportunities and I think it's important to support the CPC in terms of its lane and its work and not crowded out by doing this with, you know, council action.

The other thing too is, some legal concerns were raised on this amendment from the city attorney's office.

And I think this would be best, you know, maybe working with city attorney's office and working through that process of the community police commission.

And of course, you know, with us as well to look to attain what you're looking to do with this amendment.

So for those legal concern questions and my desire to work with the Community Police Commission on SPD policy issues, while understanding what's going behind this amendment, we'll be voting no on this amendment.

Any other questions?

Okay.

And this is number chair.

I had my hand up.

Oh, sorry.

That's okay.

Council member Moore.

Thank you.

Um, I just wanted to speak in support of this.

Um, I understand the advice that we got from law, uh, just to, you know, and then it's our, it's our role to decide what, um, how we interpret and execute that advice.

Um, I think it doesn't hurt to restate, um, what, what we're looking for.

Um, and I don't think that this use by any way, including this language in any way, usurps the role of CPC.

Um, we are all working here in partnership.

And so for those reasons, I will be supporting it.

Thank you.

Uh, thank you, council member Moore and council member Rink.

And just to respond to that point and just emphasize, it is not our primary job as city council members to just solely empower the CPC, but rather we are put here to serve the people and ensure their safety.

This language has already been reviewed by law.

I understand some additional feedback came in this morning, but it has already been reviewed by law as it exists in SPD policy currently.

Thank you.

Thank you, council member Rink.

fair points on both, particularly council member Moore, your point, the legal counsel that we received.

My position remains the same.

Clerk, please call the roll on the adoption of amendment number eight.

Council member Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council member Moore.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Nay.

Council Member Saka.

Nay.

Chair Kettle.

No.

There are two in favor and three opposed.

Amendment 8 is not adopted.

Council Member Moore on Amendment 9. Over to you, please, to move.

Thank you.

I move to amend Council Bill 120916 as presented on Amendment 9, Draft 1A.

Second.

It is moved and seconded to adopt amendment number nine.

Mr. Doss, you're recognized to describe amendment number nine.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment is brought by Council Member Moore as the sponsor and as authored by Council Member Rink.

This amendment would require SPD to again change the purpose statement or to add to the purpose statement for its crowd management intervention and control policy.

The purpose statement would be modified to say that less lethal weapon use should be necessary and proportionate to affect crowd dispersal and that the use of less lethal weapons or tactics that may cause serious physical injury or fatal harm should be proportional to the threat or physical injury or harm that would otherwise result from crowd violence.

And so, This would, again, serve as a guideline for the department when they are developing less lethal weapon and crowd management rules and policies.

What this says specifically, the operative effect, is that less lethal weapons or tactics that may cause physical injury should not be used unless the risk of said injury is proportionate to the risk that might otherwise result from crowd violence.

And so where this really comes into effect is the CMIX matrix.

The CMIX matrix at level five allows a SPD incident commander to disperse a crowd and to use less lethal weapons to do so.

However, the threshold is one of imminent risk to safety or significant property damage.

Under this amendment, there would be a second consideration that SPD officers would have to make, and that is, if less lethal weapons are deployed that could cause physical injury, should they be deployed if there's no risk of physical injury in the crowd at that moment?

So, for instance, if there is significant property damage occurring, if there are, as was given earlier, the example of the Chinatown International District, if there is a march and all the businesses are being affected, there's significant property damage.

That would be enough under the current threshold for SPD to disperse the crowd.

Under this language, SPD would have to consider whether or not there was acts of violence in the crowd towards people.

And if there was no physical threat towards individuals in the crowd, any less lethal weapon that might create physical injury should not be used.

So it really gets to the point where there is a threshold such that property damage alone is unlikely, even if significant, to allow the use of any less lethal weapon that could potentially injure someone.

Thank you, Mr. Doss.

Councilmember Moore, you're recognized to address Amendment No. 9 and, of course, our colleague.

Thank you, I cede my time to Council Member Rank.

Thank you.

So this amendment adds language consistent with elements that are current in the CMIC policy to overarching code of the entire policy.

Currently proportionality is addressed in CMIC for phases five and six and response descriptions, but not addressed in the overarching purpose statement.

We have heard that our language assumes or implies that less lethal weapons are to cause serious physical injury or fatal harm.

This is a misread.

We said that they may cause serious injury and fatal harm, and that is absolutely true.

We've also heard that conditional use of less lethal weapons potentially elevates the limitation of less lethal weapons, possibly above lethal force.

We would say this is a bit of a stretch and relies on the argument that calling for proportionality with less lethal weapons is a higher standard than for firearms, which we permit if there is a risk of serious injury or death.

Certainly, maybe we should ensure that our law enforcement officers should think through the impacts of deploying any weapon in a crowd and deploy them with proportionality in all situations.

To that end, I think it's important to note in all of these discussions, just to chime in, We're in a state right now where we have a flux in leadership between having an interim chief within SPD as well as having interim leadership at OPA and CPC.

I just wanna take a moment to also note that right now we have a real responsibility given the flux in leadership across those roles to make sure that we have a greater amount of oversight at this time.

And that concludes my comments on this particular amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, council member Rink, vice chair, colleagues.

Nothing.

Okay.

The first thing I wanted to say was, and this goes back to the last amendment, and that is I do recognize that there's times when we have to engage on policy.

You know, my point has been a general point regarding, you know, allowing our accountability partners to operate in their lane.

But that does, I'm not saying that we're not engaged on policy.

I didn't mean to have that be the impression that one may receive.

Regarding this, there's some questions in terms of how I see this, but most concerning is that we still have the same legal considerations as presented by the city attorney's office in terms of some of the phrasing and that could create some legal challenges for us and for that reason.

I understand and I think both The last one and this one could be worked in a different way, but because of the legal concerns, I will not be voting in favor of this amendment.

I don't see any hands raised up, so I will go to the clerk to please call the roll on the adoption of amendment number nine.

Council member Hollingsworth.

Abstain.

Council member Moore.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Nay.

Council Member Saka.

Nay.

Chair Kettle.

No.

There are one in favor, three opposed, and one abstention.

Thank you.

Amendment nine is not adopted.

And now we're, thank you, by the way, for everyone who's been in attendance today.

I recognize this meeting is basically a double meeting, but we are now on our last amendment.

And again, I will go to Council Member Moore.

Thank you.

I move to amend Council Bill 120916 as presented on amendment 10, draft 1A.

Second.

It is moved and seconded to adopt amendment number 10. Mr. Doss, you're recognized to describe number 10.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment is brought by Councilmember Moore and again authored by Councilmember Rink.

It would create a private right of action against the city when a person incurs physical injuries approximately caused by the use of less lethal weapons in violation of SPD's crowd management intervention and control policy.

It would go on to say that a person who, in the judgment of a reasonable person, commits a criminal offense at or immediately prior to the use of a less lethal weapon use of force may not recover under this section.

Absent evidence establishing a greater amount of damage, the damage is payable to an individual for injuries approximately caused in violation of the SPD Less Lethal Weapon Policy shall be $10,000 added to attorney and court fees.

This does not preclude from any other legal recovery process available to a person under federal or state law.

Thank you, Mr. Doss.

Council Member Moore, you're recognized to address Amendment 10 as, once again, a colleague to.

Thank you very much.

I will turn it over to Council Member Rank.

Thank you so much.

So Amendment 10 brings back the right of private action that was in the previous ordinance, which the current SPD interim policy supplanted.

As Greg explained, this amendment would create a right of private action against the city when a person incurs physical injuries approximately caused by the use of less lethal weapons in violation of SPD's crowd management, intervention, and control policy.

This was included by the previous legislation, as said, this would only apply if less lethal weapons are used in violation of SPD policy.

While some have discussed financial risk, there is also the component that we should really make sure that we are strongly incentivizing that city employees are not injuring our community members again we can create this cause of action and create a known risk for the city and as was discussed extensively today throughout public comment the city has historically paid out at the to the tune of 10 million dollars we can create known risk rather than leave it up to chance in the courts for whatever subsequent lawsuits may may occur when these kinds of weapons are deployed um we could just take our chances on that front um and again this kind of money and the money that unfortunately has been spent to pay out for egregious injuries and harm that has been a cause to our community members that money could have been much better better spent on other things that make our communities healthy and whole so i would urge the committee support for this amendment thank you thank you council member rink vice chair colleagues

Council President?

Oh, okay.

All right.

Well, thank you.

Thank you for this amendment.

It's interesting, you note, Council Member Rink, you noted the previous two ordinances passed previously that as you noted were also were held up and I think others have spoken to that as well and that that bill which I have here did speak to the private right of action for physical and and others reasons.

One of the things here is There is many ways to address this in terms of seeking redress that already exist.

And the idea of incentivizing, you know, city side, I note that, but we have other ways and other manners and this bill in itself will do that.

I'm concerned in terms of its influencing on the overall environment and, you know, with a dollar amount in terms of using the word that you use incentivize.

And that's a great concern.

So again, private right of action, I don't think is necessary, particularly because we already have a means to address this.

So I will be voting no on this amendment.

Any other comments?

Okay.

Will the clerk please call the roll and adoption of amendment number 10.

Council member Hollingsworth.

Abstain.

Council member Moore.

Abstain.

Council president Nelson.

No.

Council member Saka.

Abstain.

Chair Kettle.

No.

There are none in favor.

Three abstentions and two opposed.

Thank you.

The amendment is not adopted.

All right, we're going to move now to the amended bill.

Are there any final comments on the bill as amended?

Vice chair.

Okay.

I'm asking this just a standard.

So I just wanted to ask.

I just want to thank everyone who's been participating in this process over the months and particularly over the last number of weeks.

And there will be more to come as well, no doubt.

And that will be extended too, because I believe that this will not be coming on January 28th to full council due to the absence of some council members.

which in turn will allow some time for our new district two representative council member to also get up to speed on this, on this bill.

Again, I believe that this amended bill really goes to the issues that we spoke about throughout today, you know, starting off reaffirming the rights to free speech, but then also doing so in such a way that in trying to solve one problem, we're not creating others in terms of being overly prescriptive.

And I think the amended bill improves the original bill and gets to all the issues that we got to, maybe not as far as we may want in some certain circumstances.

But in terms of allowing the city to better respond to these circumstances, I think this bill does that.

And we will continue our work in this area throughout.

This is not a one and done situation.

This is something that we are engaging because I recognize the comments made through public comment regarding training and all the other points that were made and that we need to continually work this and work this with our accountability partners, the OIG and the CPC primarily in this, but also through OPA.

So with that, I look up at my screen and I see council member Moore.

Thank you, Chair Kittle.

I know I've said a lot today, so I'll keep my remarks short.

I did want to thank all of my colleagues for the thoughtful work that you've done on this, on the bill.

And thank you, Council Member Osaka, for your really very lovely comments.

Appreciate that.

Again, based on the amendments that I put forth, I think that there's a lot of room for additional improvement.

And so given the gravity of what we have before us, the fact that we're going from essentially having a policy, even though it wasn't implemented because of the consent decree that said no blast balls to one that kind of turns it over to the discretion of the department, is troublesome, and I think the fact that a lot of this is being driven by the desire to be out of the consent degree, which I fully support.

I think it's important that we conclude that chapter in our history.

I also think it's important that we don't rush something as critical as this.

So I'm going to keep working with my colleagues before we get back to full council on this, because I think there is some room for moving some additional common ground that can be found.

But I did want to say, again, thank you for the work that you've done.

Again, I think we can do better, and so I will not be supporting this today.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Moore.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll be brief, because I know that we are, I know you love to run long public safety meetings.

I fully support our Seattle Police Department.

I think we as a council have voted on ordinances, budgets, and most importantly, we've changed the tone of this council with the relationship with our precinct and officers.

And I'm also very aware in my district, the actions that were taken during 2020 and the history that that has.

And we've had public commenters come and speak today and online, and we've received emails from folks.

And I'll be super frank, I have shared this privately and publicly that this was not a priority of mine.

I think as the general public, people are asking very important questions on why is the council taking up non-lethal weapons bill when it's hard for us to get response to break-ins, vandalisms, and robberies.

And I know that we are severely understaffed and I know that we are making significant progress on recruitment and enforcement and arresting people for violent crimes, robberies, gun violence, et cetera.

I think we're making incredible strides towards our public safety efforts, and I'm thankful to SPD and our first responders for the continued improvements they have made to help respond to the crime in our city, and I am so grateful for that.

So grateful for them.

And I also want to echo Councilmember Moore's comments regarding, I do believe that we need to be out of the consent decree and understand that.

So for this, I will be abstaining for this because I know there's some work to do.

LEADING FROM NOW INTO THE FULL COUNCIL VOTE, BUT I APPRECIATE THE CHAIR'S WORK ON THIS AND THE REST OF MY COLLEAGUES FOR YOUR CONTINUED EFFORTS TO STRENGTHEN THIS BILL.

YOU KNOW, IT'S VERY THOUGHTFUL OF YOU ALL AND JUST WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR CITY IS SAFE.

SO THANK YOU TO MY COLLEAGUES AND EVERYTHING.

THIS IS NOT A NO FOR ME.

THIS IS JUST UBSTANDING AND LOOKING FORWARD TO THE FULL COUNCIL VOTE.

SO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH.

Thank you again for letting me be a part of today's discussion, and thank you to all of the folks that turned out for public comment and folks that have written in.

When Seattle residents go out to exercise their First Amendment rights of speech and assemble, they should be able to have the peace of mind that they will not be injured by their own by their law enforcement they should also trust that the law enforcement that may be on the ground is also abiding by the laws within the city laws and policies I think it's important to note that as evidenced by the many emails we've received from the public on this topic as well as public comment today and I know from my conversations in community at that that even so, there is concern that SPD will follow or abide by whatever may be passed by this council.

Even if we have made improvements above our baseline from what we had before going into 2020. And I think that's a critical data point.

for the executive branch and the legislative branch.

We simply have not addressed police accountability to the degree that we have needed to truly remedy the harms that have happened across the city and to Seattle residents to truly give our community peace of mind.

So I just wanted to chime in with that piece, and I look forward to continuing to work on this as it comes before full council.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

And again, I do appreciate all the work.

I appreciate the positions.

Sometimes it's a matter of degree.

And I also appreciate the input that may be worked that we've received between now and the full council has noted.

My recommendation is to approve this.

And with that, will the clerk please call?

Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Okay, when I look up at the screen, I don't see anything.

Okay, I'm going to final.

But Vice Chair, over to you.

Thank you.

For clarity, I will be supporting this today.

But, you know, I am definitely open to the additional ideas.

And I think the current version as amended, specifically amended here today, in this body, in this chamber, at this moment, in this time, builds upon and makes the mayor's original proposed legislation even better but that said I am open to hearing you know we've kind of all shared how we approach and think about these various issues I'm open to additional ideas for my colleagues to potentially make it even better and also want to just want to just clarify a hundred percent agree Councilmember Moore made a comment earlier as it pertains to one of the amendments towards the end about you know it is our job we need to be mindful and understand the guidance, the advice that we get from our experts, in this case, legal experts.

But it is up to us individually, individually, to interpret the impact of that advice, it's advice, and make decisions and be potentially willing to override it, based off wherever we land.

In that particular circumstance, I just so happen to disagree with the legal advice for that particular issue, whatever it was at the time.

But that is exactly our job.

Our job is to listen to the advice and guidance of experts, whether it's legal, policy experts, department expertise, but we are not in a position, nor should we ever be in a position to rubber stamp everything that's put in front of us, every single recommendation put in front of us.

So, excellent point.

I just happen to disagree with you on the conclusion here in this particular case, but you're absolutely right.

And I do want to call out, Mr. Chair, what I view as great behavior by one of our colleagues in particular, Council Member Rink.

I want to thank you for bringing forward your proposed amendments at this body through a sponsor.

And I think we need to do more of that for those committees that we don't sit on individually.

For me, that shows collaboration and efforts to resolve things as much as possible.

We can't always do it at the committee level rather than the full council level.

So I just wanna say kudos, hats off, excellent.

showing of collaborative behavior, I think we should all emulate that.

And I offer myself, you know, I clearly, you know, gun on record, I'm open to doing that kind of thing, even if I won't ultimately support it.

But, you know, talk to me, I'll listen, I might even support it.

In any event, great behavior.

Just want to thank you, Mr. Chair, for leading this whole process.

It's clear, you know, that there might be some more work to do.

And again, I'm open to hearing other additional specific feedback from my colleagues.

I want to thank the mayor's office, folks within SPD for that tour last week.

Let's see, Brian Maxey left the room, but apologies to Mr. Maxey for putting him on the spot, sprung up on him.

A request last minute at that site visit to personally get that demo and see what the blast balls are like.

I put him in an uncomfortable, unattainable position when that is something.

I ultimately came to my census and was like, you know, you're right, let's do this the right way, and we escalated up the chain.

And, you know, we've seen an exercise of authority and powers, and separation of powers, the branches.

I made, as a legislative branch, I made the request personally, and then the executive department said, hey, executive branch said, hey, yeah, thank you for your request.

No, thanks.

And that's fine.

That's, you know, how things work.

And it's a, and I, We can agree and disagree without being disagreeable.

But all that notwithstanding, I do appreciate the collaboration and partnership of the mayor's office throughout this.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

I'm not looking at my screen anymore, so no other comments.

Again, I just want to thank all those who participated.

And with that, will the clerk please call the roll on the committee recommendation to pass Council Bill 120916 as amended.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Abstain.

Council Member Moore.

Nay.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Sacca.

Aye.

Chair Kettle.

Aye.

There are three in favor, one opposed and one abstention.

Thank you.

The motion carries and the committee recommendation that the bill pass as amended will be sent.

Originally for January 28th, City Council meeting, but I believe that will be probably shifted to February 4th.

We have reached the end of today's meeting agenda.

Is there any further business to come before the committee before we adjourn?

I'm suspecting not.

Thank you very much.

Hearing no further business to come before the committee, we are adjourned.