Seattle City Council 6152020

2020 meeting of the Seattle City Council will come to order.

It is 2.04 p.m.

I'm Lorena Gonzalez, president of the council.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Councilmember Peterson?

Here.

Councilmember Sawant?

Here.

Councilmember Strauss?

Present.

Councilmember Herbold?

Here.

Councilmember Strauss?

Present.

Thank you, Jodi.

Councilmember Juarez?

Here.

Council Member Lewis.

Council Member Morales.

Here.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Here.

Council President Gonzalez.

Here.

Eight present.

Thank you so much.

Presentations.

I'm not aware of any presentations for today's full council.

The minutes of the city council meeting of June 8th, 2020 have been reviewed.

If there's no objection, the minutes will be signed.

Hearing no objection, the minutes are being signed, and I'd ask that the clerk please affix my signature to the minutes.

Adoption of the referral calendar.

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

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

Approval of the agenda.

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

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

We will go ahead and open up the remote public comment period for items on the City Council agenda, introduction and referral calendar and the Council's 2020 work program.

We are continuing to fine-tune this issues of action on our afternoon agenda as well as the introduction referral calendar and things that are part of our 2020 work program.

We are continuously looking for ways to fine-tune this process and adding new features that will allow us and the public for We have not had a full participation in our council meetings through remote public comment period.

Again, it remains strong intent of the City Council to have public comment regularly included on our meeting agendas.

However, the City Council reserves the right to end or eliminate these public comment periods at any point if we deem that the system is being abused or is no longer suitable for that allows us to conduct our necessary business.

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

The public comment period for this meeting will be 60 minutes.

Normally, it is only 20 minutes, but we continue to have a strong interest from members of the public in testifying.

Today's list, as of a few moments ago, had 116 members.

We have about 100 people signed up to provide us with public comment.

Last week, I believe we had 160. And the prior week, we were also in the hundreds.

So again, bear with me.

I will note that I believe within the first five minutes, we had about 100 people signed up.

So it is definitely a tool that the public has taken advantage of, and we appreciate that.

But it does put limitations on how many people we can accept So again, we'll have a public comment period that will last exactly 60 minutes.

Each speaker will be given one minute, that's 60 seconds, to provide us with public comment.

That is for purposes of making sure that we can hear from as many people as possible.

Normally we have two minutes, but unfortunately with this many folks, and again, I think council members have a strong interest in hearing from as many people as possible, we're gonna reduce that time to one minutes for each speaker to provide us with their public testimony.

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

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

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

Once I call the speaker's name, staff will unmute the appropriate microphone.

And an automatic prompt of, you have been unmuted, will be the speaker's cue that it is their turn to speak.

Again, folks, for those of you who are giving public comment, please be aware that we do do closed captioning.

And in order to get accurate transcription, we ask that you make sure that you modulate your speech so that the software is able to pick up on what you're saying so that hearing impaired folks who are viewing today are able to get an accurate reflection of what your public comment is.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

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

If speakers do not end their comment at the end of the allotted time provided, the speaker's microphone will be muted to allow us to call on the next speaker.

Once you've completed your public comment, we ask that you please disconnect from the line, and if you plan to continue following this meeting, you can do so via seattlechannel.org or on channel 21 or any one of the listening options listed on the pre-published agenda.

Again for those of you who we may not get to who took the time to sign up for public comment today I do apologize if we don't get to you in the 60 minutes that we have allotted here.

We're going to try to get to as many folks as we can out of the at least 116. folks that have signed up.

Your public comment is still important to us, and public comment period isn't the only way that you can get your public comment and opinion to us.

You can also email us at council, c-o-u-n-c-i-l, at Seattle.gov, or you can call any one of us or submit your public comment to us via any one of our social media channels, either individually or as a collective.

So that being said, the public comment period is now open, and we'll begin with the first speaker on the list.

And the first person on the list is Joe Kunzler.

Thank you, Council President.

I want to be mindful of everyone's time and speak as quickly as I can.

I want to thank you for the great news this morning that you broke, that you are going to have online meetings throughout the rest of the year.

This is a great way to have more diverse voices heard.

This is a great patriotic leadership by you.

You are a great American, President Gonzalez.

President Gonzalez, your leadership on this issue is so, so important to make sure we continue to have more open government and will hopefully be an example to Olympia on the 50th anniversary of the Open Public Meetings Act next year to modernize the Open Public Meetings Act so we can have these online tools to have more people give input.

I just hope people are nice to you and grateful.

And if I've ever said an unkind word, I do retract those words and apologize to you, Council President.

I don't know how much time I've got, but I know there's a lot of people lined up.

Thank you, Joe, for calling in today.

Next up is Mariah Mitchell, followed by Aisling Cooney.

My name is Mariah Mitchell.

I work for Uber Eats and Postmates, and I'm here for the CB 119799. I want to advocate for hazard pay for gig workers, but I'd also like to defund the police.

And so I want to say to Kshama Sawat, good job and keep fighting.

And on that note, I want you to know that I'm African American.

I have two bachelors.

and I'm doing big work instead of what I'm destined to do.

And I don't need you guys to fund police to abuse me.

And I would like to be paid minimum wage for the work that I do at least along with healthcare and also PPE equipment.

So those are my issues.

And again, Kshama, I think you're doing a great job and keep it up and everybody on the council should be more like Kshama a lot.

Thank you.

Okay, next up is Aisling Cooney followed by Megan Murphy.

Hi, I'm Aisling Cooney.

I'm calling to demand that you vote for a ban on crowd control weapons as proposed by council members to launch.

Do not delay this vote.

Do not add amendments that will weaken this measure.

We're watching and we don't accept your devious actions.

The ACLU want a restraining order on these weapons because they violate our rights to protest.

You should be taking permanent action right now.

I plan the removal of Chief Bess and Mayor Durkin.

If you vote against or delay this plan, I will be calling for your resignation as well.

The King County Equity Now demands are very clear.

Have you even read them?

You work for us, so get to work and do not let us down.

I would like to specifically demand that you defund FPD and drop all charges against the protesters.

Yes, Chief Bess, this information is staying under control.

She's spreading lies about crime, including rapes in the protest zone.

These rumors have been picked up by conservative media and broadcast to white supremacists across the nation.

Protesters are facing the threat of armed men coming to harm us.

Chemicals we've already seen.

It's dangerous.

You should be protecting us, not intentionally putting us in danger.

We've lost respect for the police, for the chief, for the mayor, and we are quickly losing respect for you all on the council.

Start listening.

I yield my time.

Next up is Megan Murphy, followed by Howard Gale.

Hi, I'm calling from the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone.

I'm sitting in Cal Anderson Park right now.

There was tear gas here after the mayor said there would be no tear gas within yards of where I'm at.

Two weeks ago, maybe it was, or a week, I'm not sure, but it was, I think it was totally inappropriate, and it went in people's windows that weren't even at the protest.

So what I'm saying is that the prison population used to be way way left and the capitalists uh...

drawing on police and i'm present extract well and we are rethinking the way you extract well we wanted to be it too defund the police i thought i went to the police station thinking i would think stock and they escalated it way higher than what i ever imagined at the point where i lost custody of my son and i haven't seen him in nearly ten years because the police escalated it way beyond what was necessary.

I just, I've had some really good counseling and it's so de-escalating.

Okay, next up is Howard Gale followed by Logan Swan.

This is Howard Gale.

Hi, this is Howard Gale from Queen Anne.

Well, I appreciate the issues that the city council is taking up today on ending the use of chemical weapons and projectile weapons by the police, and banning chokeholds.

I think this is really missing the mark.

We have not been killing people with chokeholds in Seattle.

We've been killing people with guns, as we did just a couple, a few weeks ago on the 19th of May.

We killed a black homeless man on Elliott Bay.

And I'm also a little concerned about why, again, we're addressing chemical weapons and projectiles when I'm not as concerned about the method with which I'm abused by the police.

I'm concerned about being abused by the police.

If I'm not tear gassed, that's great.

I don't want to be abused and beat by bikes or clubs.

So again, I think this late in the game, the city council is missing the mark.

I think we need to figure out how to bring about real police reform and how to stop the abuse by police and not simply quibble over how it is.

Thank you.

Next up is just a moment is Logan Swan followed by Mark Taylor Canfield.

My name is Logan Swan.

I'm a rank and file union iron worker who works in Seattle.

I'm calling today to reject her bold attempt to kick the can down the road and water down the significance the demand to ban the use of so-called less lethal less lethal weapons that are being used by the police against people demanding justice and an end to police violence.

Sisters and brothers in my union and others have been tear gassed and terrorized by the police with these weapons just for standing up in defensive communities that are under attack.

We've got politicians saying weapons of war don't belong on our streets, while they allow police to deploy not only military hardware, but weapons banned for use in war like tear gas and mace.

Deploy, though, is the term inaccurate and it's a neutrality, however.

Any council member joining Herbold in this maneuver will be directly responsible for any future attacks by SPD against peaceful protesters.

Keep up your shenanigans and the people will add your name to Durkin's in the banning that you get out.

Next up is Mark Taylor Canfield, followed by Robert Cruz.

Hi, this is Jessica Scalzo, but it said I was unmuted.

Are we having technical issues?

Here we go.

Is this Mark?

This is Mark Taylor Canfield.

I'm executive director for Democracy Watch News, an international news organization.

We specialize in covering pro-democracy movements around the world.

I'm a founding member of the Committee for Local Government Accountability, which formed to provide a citizens oversight group to the city of Seattle's investigation into allegations of police violence.

during the WTO demonstrations, and I wrote an article for the National Lawyers Guild report on militarization of police.

As a journalist, while covering protests, I've been subjected to tear gas many times.

The videos of these events are on my YouTube channel.

These chemical weapons are major threats to public health and safety.

I've been pepper sprayed in the face while trying to film a violent arrest.

I've had flashbang grenades blow up at my feet and been hit by pepper balls and rubber bullets.

Many of the issues currently being addressed here today should have been addressed 20 years ago after the ACLU, National Lawyers Guild, and lawyers for trial and trial lawyers of public justice recommended to the city recommendations that were never adopted.

Look at those reports.

Covering badge numbers was a major issue during those demonstrations.

And finally, we need to come together to protect public safety by banning the use of these weapons as crowd control.

Thank you.

Next up is Robert Cruz, followed by Thomas Meeks.

Thank you, Council President.

This is the Herbold's delay of ordinances involving police use of force, but particularly to Deborah Juarez of District 5 as my council member.

I live in Lake City and I represent a business in North Wedgwood, both in District 5. I'm disgusted to hear that you and your peers are delaying the vote on a bill to demilitarize the SPD, starting with chemical and crowd control weapons and chokeholds.

These weapons are indiscriminate accessory to biological warfare during a respiratory pandemic.

to allow the use of these weapons against your citizens who only have umbrellas and each other is disgusting.

On June 8th, you tweeted, Seattle police must immediately discontinue militaristic operations against peaceful protesters, including rubber bullets, tear gas, flashbangs, et cetera.

So then why are you claiming that these changes are needed and then a week later refusing to support an immediately presented legislation that would make these changes?

Why do you continue to deny the safety of your constituents simply for asking for their rights?

The police guild is not a reliable narrator of citizen safety and should be removed from their board seat.

And if Dirk is in the way, she should be removed from her office.

And if you don't act on that, you should be removed from yours.

My neighbors co-workers and friends will also be voicing these issues.

We'll tell you more of the failures each day as your complacency persists.

Black and Indigenous blood is on your hands.

The world is watching.

Black lives matter and I cede my time.

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is going to be Thomas Meeks followed by Mari Delaney.

Hello I'm Thomas Meeks.

I'm calling about crowd control weapons.

I know that you all deal with a really complicated bureaucracy but we need to collectively realize that our bureaucracy is a source of systemic racism in Seattle regardless of our intentionality around it.

The very fact that the OPA is currently overwhelmed is itself an example of systemic racism and we are supporting that racism if we let it slow us down.

Black lives matter more than red tape.

If the SPD utilizes a loophole in bad faith, our recourse as citizens is to lodge another complaint with an overwhelmed department or engage in a protracted legal battle with the city of Seattle.

That's not reasonable.

I'm not scared of a terrorist attack in Seattle.

I am scared of the SPD calling me a terrorist so they can attack me.

I feel abandoned by my mayor, my chief of police, and I am looking to you, Councilmember Herbold, to have my back.

Take away the weapons today.

I cede my time.

Thank you.

Next up is Mari Delaney, followed by Deepa Sivarajan.

Hi there.

My name is Mari Delaney.

I am calling about a specific incident involving an SPD police officer this past Friday, June 12th.

I got off of bus 60 in front of Harborview, and the cop was blocking the crosswalk.

I walked up to him and politely asked him if he could move back.

And he drew his firearm and pointed at me and told me to leave.

I went around the corner and collected myself and came back with my camera going and requested several bystanders to also record.

And I came up to him and got his license plate number and I got his, got him to tell me his badge number and his name.

This was Sergeant Peterson badge number 6880. I would like to request that y'all do something about this asshole and have him removed from the police force and charged with brandishing a firearm.

I yield my time.

Thank you for calling in, Mr. Delaney.

We have your contact information here.

We will certainly make sure that our Office of Police Accountability is able to hear your testimony and to follow up accordingly.

And I'm really sorry that you had that recent experience.

Next up is Deepa Sivarajan, followed by Elizabeth Slabao.

My name is Deepa Sivarajan, and I'm a member of the Seattle LGBTQ Commission and the Parks District Oversight Committee.

But today I'm speaking on behalf of the Coalition of Seattle Indian American.

We demand that you pass these bills today and without councilmember Herbold's amendment that will make them essentially ineffective.

We also demand that council cut the police budget and abolish the police entirely.

You need to follow the lead of the King County Equity Now Coalition, who have concrete demands on cutting SPD's budget and using it to halt gentrification in the Central District, to build affordable housing, and to develop community services to increase true public safety.

Listen to the Black community leaders who have been doing the work for years to support and protect their communities that have been ravaged by city-sponsored displacement, violence, and injustice.

Abolish the police.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling in today.

Our next speaker is Elizabeth Slabaugh, followed by Aubrey Marks-Johnson.

I'm Slabaugh, speaking in regard to ban of crowd control action.

I live in District 4. I worked as a project manager and emergency planner for WSDOT Aviation.

I'm also a U.S.

Army veteran.

As a veteran, I can't fathom the complacency on these weapons that we allow police to use on our own people.

Stop perpetuating violence and war on our own soil.

Tear gas is used by soldiers to incapacitate enemies before a ban under Geneva Convention 95 years ago.

The only message that this sends is that the public is an enemy to the police that needs to be incapacitated.

If you want to keep people safe, you take away the tools that people, that police use to not keep people safe.

The actions of Seattle police go far beyond the law and consistently disproportionate to the issue at hand.

Police don't need crowd control tools, chemical weapons, or chokeholds to protect people.

They need to be defunded and trained to stay in their lane.

The threats that police will use to use lethal weapons since they don't have chemical weapons just goes to show that police force is obsolete.

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Aubrey Marks-Johnson, followed by Amin Amos.

Hi, I'm Aubrey Marks-Johnson.

I'm calling today to support the immediate passage with no amendments of Sharma Sawant's two bills to ban chemical weapons and chokeholds.

But I want to make clear that this is not enough and I will not end the protest or meet the demands of the protesters.

Chokeholds have been banned in New York City since before I was born, but that didn't stop New York City police from killing Eric Garner with one.

And these amendments that Council Member Herbold is trying to introduce at best assume the police are going to act in good faith.

And we have seen abundant evidence over the past three weeks that they're not acting in good faith.

We've seen retaliatory arrests.

We've seen the police chief spreading false information.

They got picked up by right-wing media and ultimately President Trump.

And we need to demilitarize and defund the police immediately and ultimately work towards abolishing them entirely.

And I also demand that we drop all charges against anyone arrested on.

Okay, next up is Amin followed by Emily MacArthur.

Hello, my name is Amin Amos.

Thank you for your time today.

First, I'd like to voice my support for the gig worker ordinance that was mentioned earlier.

Second, I'd like to voice my support for Council Member Sawant's legislation banning the use of chokeholds, crowd control weapons, and badge covering without amendments that weaken that legislation.

I'm a Black member of District 3, and I'm deeply concerned about SPD's actions.

They make me feel like I can't voice my First Amendment rights without backlash, a feeling that was given weight by the comments regarding decreased domestic violence servings and the 911 response by Chief Best this morning.

Thank you.

I yield my time.

Okay, next up is Emily MacArthur, followed by Robert Kalik.

Hi, my name is Emily MacArthur.

I'm a District 2 renter, and I'm calling in support not only of the gig workers getting hazard pay, which is just absolutely necessary, but also to support Councilmember Sawant's bill to ban chemical weapons with no amendments.

Council Member Herbold, you pride yourself on attending the WTO protest and getting tear gas there as a badge of honor.

You should now, from your position of power, make sure that that happens to no one else.

The amendment essentially means that you believe that the police can police themselves, and that's quite clear that it's not true.

Just last year, we had to overturn the malicious intent, a proposal where we somehow were supposed to prove what was going on inside of a police officer's mind, but what in concrete meant that no police officer was ever charged for murder.

This is essentially what you want us to replicate again, is that we win some token victory and then the movement has to come back again and again to win any modicum of justice.

I reject this and so to all of your constituents, stand with the movement and ban these dangerous chemical weapons for real, not for 30 days and not in some tokenized way with a major hole in it.

Thank you.

Next up is Robert Kulik followed by Aspen Blain.

My name is Dr. Robert Kulick, and I am addressing agenda item one.

I'm an associate director at Nira Economic Consulting and an adjunct professor at George Mason University Law School.

Much of my research focuses on the labor market impact of entrepreneurship and innovation.

I've conducted extensive research on Instacart's impact on the retail grocery industry.

While the gig worker bill is well-intentioned, the effects will ultimately be economically harmful for residents of Though passage of the bill will also harm consumers, I won't focus on the threat it poses to the grocery industry and its workers.

I estimate that in 2018, the most recent year for which I have data, Instacart increased grocery employment in Seattle by over 1,700 jobs.

From 2014 to 2018, all net job creation in the Seattle grocery industry would have disappeared in the absence of Instacart.

These losses would fall disproportionately on vulnerable populations and populations that typically experience difficulty finding new jobs, including women, older people, and people with a high school education or less.

Instacart has also created substantial benefits for grocery stores in Seattle.

I estimate that in 2018, Instacart created incremental revenue for Seattle grocery stores of over $1 billion.

Over half of the retailers served by Instacart are regional or local businesses.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is Aspen Blaine followed by Andy Nguyen.

Hi, my name is Austin Blaine.

I'm a constituent in District 5 and a small business owner in North Seattle.

I'm here to urge the council to support CB 119803, 119804, and 119805. But I'm especially passionate for 119805. Myself, my loved ones, and my community have found that SPD are currently trying to terrorize us and other protesters, and as such, silence our voices.

We all know that the weapons outlined in CD 119805 are not allowed to be used in foreign settings, and using them is considered a war crime.

The people of Seattle do not need to be attacked by their officers.

These protests are against police brutality and violence, and as our representatives, you need to hear that.

There is no circumstance in which these weapons should be allowed.

We also want you to defund and redistribute the funds from SPD.

I hope you all can stand by and protect the citizens of Seattle today without exceptions or Herbold's Amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is Andy when followed by Sophie Taylor.

Hi, my name is Andy when and I'm here to address the agenda related to police violence.

I just graduated yesterday from obtaining a master's in public health.

Having engaged in coursework on police violence, I'm able to strongly support the American Public Health Association recognition of police violence as a critical public health issue.

The police budget, including funds for militarization and chemical weapons, sequestered significant funding from public health initiatives and community-led solutions.

Lack of significant accountability intensifies violence toward marginalized populations.

We can no longer rely on carceral safety, a form of safety that depends on mass criminalization, policing, and state-organized banishment in the form of jails, prisons, and deportation.

This type of safety meant to protect people from violence ignores the fact that the institution of policing, prisons, and courts are sites of violence disproportionately for Black and Indigenous and other POC communities.

As public health professionals, we support the call to defund the police and invest in programs that strengthen communities, meet human needs, and dismantle structural racism.

And we'll be working with community toward these ends.

Thank you.

Next up is Sophie Taylor, followed by Shania Burkle.

Hi.

Hi I'm Sophie Taylor calling from District 6. I first support the resolutions to ban the use of chokeholds and violent crowd control weapons but like many others feel that those are not nearly enough.

I spent several hours this weekend trying to help a friend facing impending homelessness find resources.

They are pathetically scarce.

We need to defund the police and reinvest those resources in that serious social good in housing, education, public health, public mental health.

Thank you and I yield the rest of my time.

Thank you.

The next up is Shania Burkle followed by CJ Williamson.

Bill 119. Hello, my name is Hello, my name is Shania and I am advocating for Bill 119799 to vote in a vote for HACCP in Seattle.

The pay is low and the delivery zones are huge.

The average batch in my area pays between $10 to $20 for about an hour and a half of work.

But more often than not, I get sent to Seattle and that would be going all the way south around Tacoma and back north often for $10 to $20 batches.

Often the customer tip is bigger compensation than Instacart's base pay, and that says a lot about how little they are willing to pay per hour, since customer tips often look like the base pay, and Instacart's compensation seems more like a tip.

Then factoring that we as Instacart workers have to use our cars as our main tool, we are required to financially cover our own wear and tear and gas, and a day's work can result sometimes in making change or breaking even.

And it's not like they can't afford to implement hazard pay, which is the message they are trying A program that openly stated in an interview every day, we would see a lot of it was a day and a day later.

We were ahead of our 2021 goals in a few days.

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is C.

J. Williamson, followed by G.

Laster.

Good afternoon.

My name is C.

J. Williamson.

I'm a resident of District six.

I've been in attendance during the peaceful protest in which the police threw explosives into a crowd, some landing underneath a woman's wheelchair.

They continued to be thrown while we tried to get her to safety.

Since then, I've been back and seen the organized protest remain peaceful despite what the media is portraying.

I implore you to vote on the bills proposed by Councilman Sawant to ban chokeholds and to ban chemical weapons without amendments ruining the bills.

These bills would be a great first step, and I'm glad you're voting on them.

Councilman Sawant, I have immense respect for you and your leadership you're showing.

Other council members, please follow suit.

I also want you to ask the council to defund the SPD by at least 50% and consider putting it into local communities and restorative justice.

I know you are contemplating removing the Seattle Police Officers Guild on June 17th.

Enough is enough.

They have not and will not reform.

Jane Hopkins asked Mike Solon to say Black Lives Matter as he responds by blaming peaceful protesters for the war crimes he committed.

Defund SPD, remove SPOG.

Thank you, and I yield my time.

Thank you.

Next up is G.

Laster, followed by Kevin Bryan.

Hi there.

My name is G.

Laster.

I'm a white, non-binary resident of District 7. Please listen and act and review.

I want to reiterate the demands of Councilmember Sawant as they are written, and also voice my support for the gig worker support measures.

This Council must end police use of brutal weapons and chokeholds, release immediately and drop all charges for arrested protesters, defund the police by at least 50% to fund restorative justice, support the demands of King County equity now.

Each council is missing the point of an obvious need for structural change.

Chemical weapons in use, of course, are heinous, but they're symptomatic of a much broader mechanism that targets black, brown, indigenous people and people of color more generally.

This requires a structural change, defunding militarized police and redistributing those funds.

Allocating 1% of our police budget for implicit bias screening each year is a joke, and it shows our city's true priorities.

I will yield my time so that BIPOC voices can be magnified today.

Please do not cut their time off.

That was not a good day.

Okay thank you.

Next up is Kevin Bryan followed by Meg Barkash.

I am Kevin Bryan.

I'm a resident of Capitol Hill.

There is a proverb that when you hold a hammer everything looks like a nail.

The SPD has shown that while wielding tear gas everything looks like a target.

Protesters press neighborhoods and children.

They cannot be trusted with chemical weapons nor seemingly any other weapons.

Use of chemical weapons should be banned without amendment.

The police department should be abolished.

The mayor should be removed.

And lastly, I also want to support, voice my support for my fellow gig workers.

Thank you.

Black Lives Matter.

I yield my time.

Okay, next up is Meg followed by Michael Wolfe.

Meg Barcatch.

And I live, I live in the District 4. Funding the Seattle Police is not enough.

SPD uses other state agencies such as the Department of Children, Youth and Families to further their corruption and brutality.

Under the instruction of state's attorney Kyle Payne, P-A-Y-N-E, the Department of Children, Youth and Families has been removing children from the homes of protesting parents who upload acts of police brutality to social media.

This was a tactic already used by Kyle Payne against families who made complaints of police misconduct.

Now it is being used against families who simply witnessed acts of police brutality.

We cannot allow this assault on Seattle families to continue.

We must defund the Seattle Police Department and limit the ability of state agencies that work in tandem with police to attack our minority communities and anyone who speaks out against this tyranny.

Thank you.

I yield my time.

Thank you for calling in today.

Next up is Michael Wolfe followed by Brandon Vela.

Hi, this is Michael Wolfe.

I'm the Executive Director of Drive Forward.

I want to first, on behalf of our nearly 2,000 gig worker members, like to thank the Council for meeting with us and including Drive Forward in the process on the gig worker bill.

We understand that premium pay legislation stems from your genuine concern for the health, safety, and well-being of the community of gig workers operating in the DNC industries.

And the city, as the city deals with ongoing COVID-19 crisis, we remain committed to pursuing a long-term, permanent minimum earning standard, not hastily conceived measures, rushed through legislative process with minimal public input, and with dubious near-term and zero long-term benefits for our members.

Even though we are encouraged by the positive direction of the changes of the current version of the premium pay legislation as taken, we continue to have reservations about the possible negative outcomes for our members if it is adopted into law.

We hope the City Council can work to better understand the economics of a delivery trip.

I believe outlawing tear gas is extremely important for several reasons.

My testimony is drastically affected by the two-minute limit, so I'll talk about what I think, in my opinion, is the most important reason to outlaw the use of tear gas.

My first reason is because not every person protesting is in perfect health.

When you get people up there that are smokers or asthmatics, like myself, I'm asthmatic, anytime we inhale any type of irritant, whether it be chemical or otherwise, the effects are dangerously enhanced.

When using tear gas against the crowd there is no way to control where the tear gas goes.

So there is a good chance that people who have no part in the protest are harmed.

Tear gas can enter homes and affect the people children and animals that reside in that home and unless properly cleaned the residue left behind by tear gas can continue to affect people for weeks.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is Richa Dube followed by Leah Moreno.

Thank you.

My name is Richa Dube.

I'm representing the Coalition of Seattle Indian-Americans Today.

Our community strongly supports and follows the lead of the Black Lives Matter movement.

It is anachronistic and tragic that we still need to support bills to ban chokeholds and crowd control weapons.

While I wholeheartedly support passing Council Member Sawant's bill without amendments, and please vote today for the love of anything you hold dear, it is not enough.

Use the opportunity to follow the lead of the Aid to Abolition movement to fully de-arm, defund, and abolish the police.

Fire police officers with excessive force complaints.

Do not hire new officers to replace them.

Suspend the use of paid administrative leave for cops under investigation.

Require police and not cities to be liable for misconduct and violent settlements.

Cut funding for SPD public relations.

Make police union contract negotiations public.

We also demand that you and other city candidates and elected officials are prohibited from taking money from police unions.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Leah followed by Jason Fields.

Hi I'm Leah Lucid from District 4.

Leah are you still there.

I'm still here.

Can you hear me.

Can you hear me.

I'm looking for Leah.

My name is Leah but I know.

I'm a District 5 resident.

In regards to the gig workers ordinance, I absolutely support providing premium pay for essential workers who bear a huge risk of COVID-19 while keeping Seattle functional, and they need our support.

Regarding the bills on police brutality, there is no justifiable reason to delay voting to ban chokeholds and crowd weapons against civilians today, and they serve as a bare minimum as a response to the police violence.

I absolutely condemn Herbold's amendment, which specifically discredits the public witness to the violence, continues to allow pepper spray on civilians not posing an immediate threat, delays actions as late as August 15, and is giving a huge loophole for police to decide to use these weapons anyway, so long as they report that they are not used for crowd dispersal.

We are all now very aware that we cannot take the police reporting as a trustworthy source on whether violence on the public is justified.

It is up to you on the council to stop their terror, not to provide ample loopholes for them to continue to make excuses.

We, as taxpayers, refuse to keep paying for these excessive shows of force.

And we're watching for your response accordingly and for your recognition that this is only a first step to curtail.

OK, next up is Jason Fields, followed by Colleen Knert.

Jason.

Hello, my name is Jason Field.

I am a homeowner in District 5, a union member, and an educator employed by Kent School District.

I am speaking to express my support of the following measures with no amendments.

The total and permanent ban of crowd control measures such as tear gas, blast balls, and rubber bullets.

The total and permanent ban of chokeholds and other dangerous restraints by Seattle Police Department.

Also, I recommend defunding the police by 50%, invest in black and brown communities, eventually abolish the police.

It is heartbreaking to see murders of black men and women at the hands of the police all over this country.

I've seen the police incite fear and grief in the black people I know and love.

This must end.

Mayor Durkin and the City Council have a responsibility to the people of Seattle.

In concert with the SPD, Mayor Durkin has violated the rights of protesters.

It is unconscionable that the Seattle Police Department would deploy chemical weapons on its residents when those same chemical weapons are banned in international warfare.

Mayor Durkin's ineffectual ban on tear gas shows us that she cannot control the SPD.

A vote to continue the current policing culture is a vote for violence against your constituents.

Next up is Colleen Knirk, followed by Alexander Abramson.

Hi, my name is Colleen Knirk.

I'm a resident of West Seattle.

First, I want to support the the gig workers initiative.

While shoppers take the brunt of the risk and risk of heavy lifting on literally and figuratively in the middle of a pandemic, Instacart has seen profits rise exponentially and reserve none of that to care for shoppers with sick pay or hazard pay.

Shoppers work our bodies and our vehicles and now risk our health to carry out the mission of Instacart and are not cared for or compensated properly.

I know that profit above all reigns supreme in corporate America, but there needs to be a limit to how much exploitation is allowed, and that's why I'm speaking to you all today.

You are the checks and balances in Seattle.

Second, I strongly advocate for banning choke holds and crowd control weapons.

Citizens have the right to protest and not feel threatened by those charged with their safety.

We need to divest police funding and pivot those funds into community and health organizations much better prepared, if funded, to deal with many of the regular events of city life.

Finally, drop all charges against protesters who have been simply exercising their legal rights.

Black Lives Matter.

I cede my time.

Thank you so much for calling in today.

Next up is Alexander, followed by Addie Smith.

Good afternoon.

I my name's Alexander Abramson resident of Capitol Hill District 3 and I am calling in support of Shama Sawant's resolution banning crowd control devices use immediately without any amendment.

The first week of June our neighborhood was subject to blast bangs and chemical weapons four times including the most egregious example on the early morning of the 8th of June where there were explosions in tear gas for over 10 minutes and the gas got to blocks away.

I had to leave my house to get away from the tear gas and I still got hit and could not go back home for three hours.

We need to pass this ban immediately so that we can get some safety and security and so that we can trust the Seattle Police Department again.

Thank you.

I yield my time.

Next up is Addie Smith followed by Rachel Kay.

My name is Addie Smith.

I'm a registered voter, mother of three registered voters, a black woman, and a hate crime survivor.

There are a number of reasons banning chokeholds and chemical weapons with no loopholes and no delays.

I'm going to share a few.

I don't personally know the people hurt by police in Seattle, but I protest because I do know people hurt in Mercer Island.

I don't want to subject myself or my teenage daughter to chemical weapons because we want to support black women who have been hurt by police violence.

I protest in support of Black Lives Matter.

I protest because unjust police, like Mercer Island Police, who have consistently refused to write police reports for black women being attacked by racist white people.

I protest because the police chief, Ed Holmes, Mayor Benson Wong, and the city council on Mercer Island have been hiding these hate crimes for over a year.

If I don't protest, you won't know these things are happening.

The public won't know these things are happening.

Banning chemical weapons makes me feel a lot safer.

Not only must Seattle-maker Durkin resign, Mercer Island Mayor Benson Wong, City Attorney Bill Park, and Prosecutor Blakely Warbenton.

Thank you.

Next up is Rachel Kaye, followed by Savannah Slye.

Hello.

My name is Rachel Kaye.

I am speaking in support of the amendment for gig workers.

I think the Seattle City Council should listen to the voices of exploited workers over the testimony from that academic from George Mason University, which is funded by the billionaire Koch brothers.

Secondly, I've witnessed firsthand the SPD using chemical weapons against people in wheelchairs, against people who are asthmatics, often in confined spaces like highway underpasses where people could easily get trampled.

These people presented no immediate threat.

There was no reason for them to do this.

And also using rubber bullets.

in these combined spaces as well.

And and then also we need to investigate the death of Sherlene.

Okay next up is Savannah followed by Jill Muscatel.

Hello my name is Savannah Slye and I'm speaking today on behalf of the Sex Workers Outreach Project of Seattle in favor of the police reform measures to ban SPD's use of chemical weapons and chokeholds.

We thank Councilmembers Sawant for introducing this legislation.

These reforms represent bare minimum steps towards what we hope will be sweeping police reform.

As a criminalized population, people in the sex trade are frequently on the receiving end of law enforcement.

In the interest of sex worker welfare and as an act of solidarity with protesters of police violence, we are voicing our support for banning police use of chemical weapons and chokeholds.

Tear gas is banned in use of war, so why should we tolerate its use on the public in Seattle?

The use of tear gas by SPD is a form of police violence, and this tactic must be banned.

Chokeholds can be lethal, and SPD does not have the type of track record that suggests that they can responsibly use this brutal and dangerous method of control.

The use of chokeholds by SPD must be banned.

We urge the council to listen to the protesters, listen to the people of Seattle, and pass these necessary police reform measures now.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is Jill Muscatel followed by Kate Simpson.

Hi this is Jill Muscatel.

I'm calling from District 3 Central District and I'm calling in support of Shamba Sawant's bill to ban crowd control weapons chemical chemical weapons chokeholds ball blasts.

I'd also like to voice my support for defunding SPD I'm turning the East Precinct over to community control for social programs.

Putting money in Black indigenous people of color communities and dropping all charges for arrested protesters.

I yield my time.

Thank you.

Next up is excuse me it is Kate Simpson.

and then following Kate will be Amanda Harvey.

My name is Kate Simpson and I am calling in support of Council Member Sawant's bill to ban crowd control weapons and chokeholds used by the police.

Banning these weapons and practices are the least the city council can do to begin healing the communities that have been terrorized by the police for decades.

However, this is not enough.

I also demand the city council defund the SPD by at least 50% and use the money to invest in community and restorative justice.

As well, protesters must all be released and all charges against them must be dropped.

Thank you.

I yield my time.

Amanda Harvey is next.

And following Amanda will be Angela Basta.

Hi, my name is Amanda Harvey.

I live in Queen Anne.

I work for HBO in an office in downtown Seattle.

I'm a mother, a wife, and an active member of my community, and I'm calling in favor of the ordinances presented by Shamaswant, specifically on chokeholds and banning crowd control weapons.

I've attended protests almost daily for the last two weeks.

They've been overwhelmingly peaceful on the part of the protesters themselves, and I've been completely shocked and horrified by the behavior of the police.

I've been tear gassed.

I've had to run away to avoid getting hit by projectiles.

It has made me fearful to continue to protest.

It has made me fearful to use my First Amendment right.

And we should be absolutely ashamed of that.

And I think probably most of you were disappointed in how Donald Trump responded to the coronavirus epidemic, the lack of response, the slow response, the lack of taking care of our people.

We're seeing the same thing here.

We need response.

We need action now, not tomorrow.

Okay, next up is Angela Basta, and then following Angela will be Erin Whitlatch.

Hi, my name is Angela Basta.

I have lived in Seattle for nearly 70 years.

I currently live in the Central District.

I'm here to support the resolution to ban the use of chokeholds and chemical weapons.

The police are public servants, and their job is to serve and protect the citizens of this city.

There is no reason whatsoever for them to be carrying weapons to be used against the very people who they are responsible for serving.

The police, the mayor, and the police chief all have one job, and that is to serve the people, not to work against us.

The police chief, the police believe that we must do what they want, and if we don't, then they will attack us.

But just the opposite is true.

The police must do what we want.

Unfortunately, the police have been trained to kill and torture those who don't comply with their orders.

They are of no value to the people of Seattle.

Like well-trained attack dogs, they are extremely dangerous.

The SPD must be disbanded and replaced with an agency that actually serves the people of this city.

The fact that we are even discussing this is repulsive.

And please, release the protesters.

Next up is Aaron Whitlatch, followed by Sriandas Adidas.

Hi, my name is Aaron Whitlatch and I'm a member of District 6. I wanted to call firstly to show my support for the full ban on tear gas without any amendments.

Following up on that, I wanted to, you know, bring to light that while there are two stations available for drive-through testing for COVID testing, and that initially the recommendation was that everyone that attended the protest and presumably is attending CHAZ and taking part in civic discourse, which is much needed, you know, to get the full consensus of our community, specifically to elevate black and brown voices.

that these two testing sites are just really inaccessible for most people because they're, you know, kind of far away.

For the most part, you really need a car to access them.

So it's impossible for people who are attending protests.

And, you know, Chas, basically, it's just perpetuating the fact that people that are disadvantaged do not have access to testing.

Okay, next up is Srian Das, followed by Sam Moggs.

My name is Srian, and I'm part of the Coalition of Seattle Indian Americans.

I oppose any amendments to Council Member Sawant's resolution on banning the use of chemical weapons by the SPD.

I outrightly support the defunding of the police and reinvesting in the communities of color.

Please do not water down the vote using the Herbals Amendment.

We want to stop lacks of brutality right now.

So we also want to outrightly ban the use of less lethal weapons like tear gas and the use of chokeholds.

We do not want half-baked solutions like banning the use of chemical weapons for crowd dispersal, which can easily be a loophole, because even if one of the protesters throws even one anti-bottle at the police's Kevlar suits and bulletproof helmets, it gives them legal reason to use those weapons on the entire crowd of citizens once again.

So I support the Council Member Sawant's resolution and reject the Herbal Amendment.

Thank you.

Next up is Sam Moggs, followed by Prashant Nema.

Indian Americans today.

Hi there.

I'm representing the coalition of Seattle Indian Americans today.

Our community strongly supports the Black Lives Matter movement and is opposed to the militarization of SPD.

I support Council Member Sawant's legislation to ban the SPD's use of chokehold and so-called crowd control methods such as chemical weapons like tear gas and more.

Please pass the legislation today and ensure that the vote to ban chemical weapons is not diluted by amendment to enable loopholes again.

If tear gas is banned on the battlefield, why then can law enforcement use tear gas on civilians at home?

A few years after the World War I, world leaders convened in Switzerland and agreed to prohibit use of such chemical weapons according to Geneva Protocol of 1925. Does it take 100 years to ban tear gas?

I hope not.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Prashant Nima followed by Holly Chisa.

My name is Prashant.

I am a member of Coalition of Seattle Indian Americans.

I support Council Member Shama's bill without any kind of dilution and I urge you to vote today.

The conduct by the Seattle Police Department to ongoing protests is just horrific.

I support today's legislation to ban the use of chokeholds, rubber bullets, and chemical weapons like tear gas and pepper spray.

I further think that Seattle should take steps toward disbanding the police entirely.

I see the above request as aligned with goals of housing justice and universal health care and urge the city council to tax big businesses like Amazon to pay for it.

Racism, capitalism, and militarism in this society are the triple interrelated evils.

To quote Martin Luther King.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is Holly Chisa, followed by Brendan McGovern.

Good afternoon, members of the council.

My name is Holly Chisa, and I'm calling on behalf of the Northwest Grocery Association.

Over the weekend, you received a letter from us stating our opposition to 119799, the fees being charged on grocery delivery.

Unfortunately, we do have to oppose the fee proposed by the Seattle ordinance.

In November of 2018, Washington voters approved initiative 1634, which in part prohibits the additions of taxes, fees, or other assessments on groceries by local government.

In the legal analysis you were provided, we do explain that we do believe the Seattle ordinance does violate that statewide initiative and preemption, in part because it does put a fee for transfer or transportation of groceries which is expressly prohibited by for the imposition by local governments under the initiative 1634. I'd be happy to take any questions at a later time and appreciate the chance to speak today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is Brendan followed by Tealshawn Turner.

Hello.

Hello my name is Brendan.

I'm a renter in District 4. I substitute music teacher with Seattle Public Schools.

A member of Socialist Alternative.

And I am demanding that you not only support Council Bill 11979 for gig workers and hazard pay, but also to unequivocally pass Council Member Sawant's legislation with no watering down or amendments to ban all chokehold chemical weapons and to free all protesters and to defund SPD by at least 50% Eventually I believe that the police department needs to be abolished and replaced with humane community first responders responders excuse me such as social workers mental health professionals people who are trained to respond to people in a safe way.

But in the meantime defunding by 50 percent and using that money to fund those services as well as funding our schools adequately to will in the long term decrease crime.

And I will yield the rest of my time.

Thank you so much.

Next up is Teal Sean Turner, followed by David Johnson.

So I'm calling.

My name is Teal Sean Turner.

I'm a member of Local 242, and I'm calling as a supporter, council member.

So I want a bill to ban chemical weapons such as tear gas, frag grenades, you know.

And I was not even asking for it.

I was out there with those guys.

I'm one of the people that was out there with those guys.

And we got hit so many times in a matter of minutes with so many fire bangs and so much tear gas and so much pepper spray.

Like you would have thought we was in Iraq.

Like, I don't understand.

The Geneva convention banned that stuff.

Why is it so hard for Seattle to?

It's banned internationally.

Why is it so hard for one city in America to do that?

To protect the people in the city.

So I'm calling in support of the banning of chemical weapons use in Seattle.

Yield the rest of my time.

Next up is David Johnson followed by Ava Metz.

I'm a member of SCIU Local 925. I'm a PCO in the 32nd LD.

and I am in Debra Wars' district.

I am for restricting police arsenals without any further amendment.

If cops have weapons that suffocate, maim, and torture people, they will use those weapons.

Police cannot be restrained by Democratic governments because they don't respect democracy.

Seattle police have a history of malicious abuse and lying, and they deserve no public trust.

If they have weapons, they will use them.

We are going to have a budget crunch coming up.

No money should go to handing police weapons to further maim, torture, and terrify us, like tear gas, like explosives, or like noise cannons.

Police are the danger.

Police are the crime.

Defund police.

If they have the weapons, they will use them.

Okay, next up is Eva Metz, followed by Adriana Maestas.

Hi, my name is Eva Metz.

I'm a member of Socialist Alternative, and I live in District 2. I think it should be an absolute no-brainer for politicians to pass Councilmember Solange's legislation without Councilmember Herbold's amendment, which is a completely shameful proposal.

From today's comments from tens of thousands of people protesting who've experienced brutal attacks from the police, there's an urgent need for this legislation as a start to supporting the demands of the movement, which include immediately release and drop the charges against all arrested protesters, immediately defund the police by at least half and fund restorative justice, turn the East Precinct over to community control for social programs, get the Seattle Police out of our labor council and establish an an independently elected community oversight board with full powers over the police, and address the racist gentrification by massively expanding social health funded by taxing Amazon and big corporations.

Finally, political institutions rely on police brutality to enforce oppression and defend the interests of the capitalist ruling class for the interests of working people.

We need a new system, a socialist system, to overcome centuries of racism.

Next up is Adriana Maestas, followed by Karen Winter.

Can you repeat the name again, Council President?

Yes, that is Adriana Maestas, speaker number 63, followed by Karen Winter, speaker number 64.

Hi, my name is Adriana Maestas, and I'm a Latino attorney, and I split my time between Seattle and New York.

I'm calling them because I want to express my support on the ban of chemical weapons and chokeholds by the Seattle Police Department.

I think this should be passed without delay and without amendments.

I think any delays will be visibly known to be what they are, which is a delay tactic, rather than taking immediate action, which the community clearly is demanding.

It's been interesting listening to the comments over the course of this call.

They're overwhelmingly in support of this legislation.

So it's becoming more and more clear that if the Seattle City Council doesn't act, there'll be certain advantages of the police state rather than the will of the people.

I feel as my message is that the world is watching.

The Seattle City Council has a chance to lead because police state is a difficult decision.

These weapons on protesters has a deeply chilling effect on our First Amendment rights.

And I would ask you to rise to the occasion and pass bold legislation.

Thank you.

Next up is, and I'm sorry, I think I took a little bit out of order here.

We had a little bit of a confusion on some of the listing of the names, and I apologize to those folks.

So I'm going to go back really quickly to Leah Lucid, followed by Karen Winter.

So Leah Lucid, speaker number 62, followed by Karen Winter, speaker number 64.

Okay, I'm Leah Lucid from District 4, and I'm calling in support of the agenda items to immediately end SPD use of crowd control weapons, ban police use of chokeholds and all excessive force against the people they are hired to protect, and to demand officers never cover their badge numbers or identifying information.

I have personally witnessed SPD instigating violence against peaceful protesters such as myself, all with their badges covered, avoiding accountability.

Thank you to my representative, Alex Peterson, for already voicing your support for these actions and for marching silently with us on Friday.

Furthermore, I hope the city council members will support the reasonable and necessary demands to release and drop all charges against peaceful protesters, demilitarize and defund the SPD, and reallocate funds to social services, restorative justice for black and indigenous people of color, and meeting the basic needs of our community members.

Thank you for listening.

I hope you will all stand on the right side of our local and national history.

Black Lives Matter.

Black Trans Lives Matter.

Thank you.

I yield my time.

OK.

Thank you.

Next up is Karen Winter followed by Andrew Brady.

My name is Karen Winter.

I'm from West Seattle.

I'm a white woman 45 years old.

I have talked down a panicked rookie police officer.

I have tasted tear gas.

I'd held a friend while she sobbed and shook in terror because she had been tortured by the police.

I did safety drills with my children on how to soothe cops so they don't attack out of fear.

And this all happened before George Floyd was murdered.

Some of it even happened before the WTO protests.

I shouldn't have to live this way.

My friends and neighbors of color have it far worse.

If good cops could address this problem, the problem would have been resolved.

Instead, it's getting worse.

The system is fundamentally broken and must be redesigned from the ground up.

Until that happens, we need immediate restrictions on Seattle police.

Chemical weapons banned from war zones should be banned in Seattle.

These are not crowd control devices.

They are riot inciting devices.

They do serious damage to both people and property.

Chokeholds are appropriate in a jujitsu match where everyone's healthy and the person being choked can tap out.

Not for police.

The proposed ordinances are not going to solve the problems, but they are a good start.

Vote yes.

Thank you.

Next up is Andrew Brady, followed by Marjorie Hendricks.

My name is Andrew Brady.

I live in Seattle's second district, Beacon Hill.

Just the fact that any sitting city council member needs to be convincing to ban the use of chemical weapons is proof that you are failing your jobs as city council members.

If it is truly your job to represent the interests of your people, if it is truly your job to ratify laws and ordinances to keep Seattle people safe, then a ban on the use of chemical weapons without amendments is the bare minimum you could do.

This is long overdue and must lead towards defunding and abolishing the Seattle Police Department and the forced resignation of Mayor Jenny Durkan.

If these steps do not start happening today, the people of Seattle will be in your ears every day until you do.

And that is not a threat, that is a promise.

Seattle is seen as a liberal haven, but in reality, it is a city plagued with racism, gentrification, and ultimately inaction in the face of tension.

This is not a political issue.

If you are with the police, then you are against Black Lives, you are against queer lives, and you are against the people of Seattle.

Thank you.

Next up is Marjorie Hendricks followed by Bettina McKelvey.

Hi, my name is Marjorie Hendricks and I urge you to pass Councilmember Sawant's ordinances to ban police chokeholds, chemical weapons, other so-called crowd control weapons and additionally the use of lethal force by police which violates our right to due process.

These are not sustainable techniques and we deserve better.

I urge you to absolutely reject Herbal's proposed amendment, and any amendment that continues to propose these weapons are used in any capacity.

As citizens, we deserve humane, civil, nonlethal, and safe treatment from our public servants.

And I tell you now, people will not continue to be repeatedly made subject to punishment and abuse that forgoes our constitutional rights.

We deserve better.

The recent use of tear gas clearly demonstrated that the substance cannot be controlled by SPD and has directly impacted people even within their homes outside of the protest.

Continuing to use this after this clear demonstration of loss of containment makes any police officer and council member who condones it directly responsible for the harm it causes the community.

We deserve better.

More so now than ever, the police have been demonstrated that they do not use de-escalation tactics.

Instead, they use weapons more forcefully than necessary.

Okay, thank you so much for calling in.

Next up is Bettina McKelvey followed by Eric Ackerman.

Hello, this is Bettina McKelvey from District 3 on Capitol Hill.

I'm calling to support the ban on the use of tear gas and chokeholds and also call for the defunding of SPD by at least 50%.

After the events of the past few weeks, during which police repeatedly brutalized the citizens of Seattle in my neighborhood, nearly taking the life of a young woman after she was hit in the chest with a flashbang grenade, saturated residential streets with dangerous chemical weapons and shrapnel, deliberately tossed flashbang devices into medic stations where people were administering aid, and in countless other ways endanger the lives and health of the people they are paid to protect, it is abundantly clear to me that we fund the police at our own peril.

SPD has single-handedly radicalized me and completely decimated my faith, any faith I had in the integrity, humanity, or necessity of law enforcement.

It is an institution that thrives on and reinforces systemic racism and poverty and must be defunded if we are to have any hope for a more just and equitable city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is Eric Ackerman, speaker number 69, followed by Nicholas Pondberg.

Hello, my name is Eric Ackerman.

I live in District 3. I am a state worker and a union member of the International Organization of Masters, Mates, and Pilots.

We've had many eloquent speakers already about the use of chemical weapons.

and sugar-coated bullets.

I find it truly amazing that the city council has already moved so slow that this is all we're talking about.

The use of war, war tactics, war weapons in Seattle against Seattle is your responsibility.

The mayor ordered it.

The chief of police ordered it.

But you've done nothing to check it.

That's your job.

It's time for you to do your job.

I'll give you the rest of my time.

OK, folks, we are going to take a few more speakers here.

It is 315 p.m.

We've been going for just about an hour, but I'm going to I'm going to take a few more folks if there's no objection, and then we will go ahead and be ready to transition into items of business on our agenda.

So we're going to go ahead and take Speaker 70, Nicholas Ponvert, and then we'll take Speaker 71, Daniel Wang, followed by Speaker 72, Amanda Aquino.

So Nicholas Ponvert, Speaker 70.

Hello, my name is Nicholas Ponvert.

I'm a resident of District 4. I support the passage today without amendment of the bills banning chokeholds, banning covering badge numbers, and banning use of crowd-control weaponry.

These weapons are not safe.

Rubber bullets have caused multiple protesters across the U.S. to lose eyes when they're fired into the protesters' faces.

Tear gas and other chemical agents are especially dangerous during a pandemic of a respiratory virus.

And in general, we have seen these less-than-lethal weapons used against peaceful protesters in an extremely reckless manner.

probably because they're labeled as less than lethal.

We must not continue to allow the police to use them.

Pass these ordinances today without amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is Daniel Wang followed by Amanda Aquino.

Hi, my name.

Hi, my name is Daniel.

I'm a student in District 4 and a volunteer with the Tax Amazon movement.

I'll quickly start by voicing my support for gig workers and any legislation that establishes compensation standards and worker protections for them, such as hazard pay and PPE.

I'm also here to speak in favor of the proposals to ban crowd control weapons and chokeholds by police officers and requirement that officers not cover their serial number engraved on their badge.

I'd also like to voice my opposition to the proposed amendment from Council Member Herbold that would allow the use of kinetic impact projectiles, chemical irritants, acoustic weapons, directed energy weapons, water cannons, disorientation devices, and ultrasonic cannons in cases other than so-called crowd control.

This is a comedically easy loophole to exploit.

We've all seen how willing the SPD is to exploit loopholes, considering how they used tear gas on protesters in Capitol Hill just a few days after a supposed 30-day ban was placed on that.

This is not the time to be hesitant about reducing police powers and implementing basic common-sense accountability measures.

Pass these proposals now without watering them down, defund the police by 50%, and reinvest in our communities.

Thank you.

Okay, next up is Amanda Aquino, and folks, we have time for two more speakers after her, so I do want to apologize to those who took the time to sign up and were waiting patiently on the line, but unfortunately, we will only have time to take the next three speakers, and that is speaker 72, Amanda Aquino, speaker number 74, Laurel Chandelmere, and speaker number 75, Allison Grant.

Hello, my name is Amanda Aquino, and I live in District 7. I'm calling to demand Council Members Gonzalez, Herbold, and Juarez do not delay the vote on Council Members Cervantes-Ban to ban FPU, bills to ban FPU from using chemical weapons and chokeholds, nor allow shameless loopholes to them, such as Herbold's amendment.

Anything other than an immediate vote yes on these bills will show to your constituents that you are just as tone deaf to the situation as Mayor Durkan and Chief Best.

They both have shown that they will do all that they can to resist meeting the needs of protesters and that they do not think that Black Lives Matter.

It is up to the council to protect us.

We are dying.

And with the knee of the SPD on our necks, we are watching you.

Please help us.

Total and permanent ban on the use of chemical weapons and chokeholds from the SPD.

Release all protesters and do not prosecute them.

Defund SPD at least 50% with the goal to disband and fund restorative justice.

Turn the East Precinct over to the Community Control.

Remove the police from our Labor Council.

Float the Amazon tax into place and independently elect a Community Oversight Board with full powers over the police.

We are counting on you.

Black Lives Matter and Black Trans Lives Matter.

Thank you.

I yield my time.

Next up is Laurel followed by Allison Grant.

Hello my name is Laurel Schandelmeyer and I'm a citizen in District 6. I'm calling to encourage the council to vote to restrict the use of force by the Seattle Police Department by banning chokeholds and the use of quote unquote crowd control weapons and to ensure police accountability by not allowing badge numbers to be covered up during these and all active duty situations.

The use of these weapons of warfare on our own citizens is ridiculous and horrifying and has no place in a civilized society.

I'll go a step further and encourage the council to seriously consider completely de-arming police as part of a comprehensive defunding and demilitarization effort on the road to abolishing the police entirely.

There is no justification at all for arming officers with lethal weapons.

Thank you.

I yield my time.

OK.

Let's see.

And our last speaker for today is speaker number 75, Allison grant.

Hi I would I'm calling today to make my recommendation my voice heard to ban the necessary for chokeholds and also chemical weapons and to defend the police by or reduce them by 50 percent.

I do not think these chokeholds are necessary and extreme use of force and the chemical weapons are hurting the people in the community and their extreme use of these chemical weapons are a detriment to the health of the people.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling in today.

Okay folks that concludes our public comment period for today.

I want to thank you all for And I know that there was a lot of folks who were on the list who weren't able to give us public comment today, but we did take public comment for a little over an hour today and made it through a little bit more than half of the list.

So really, again, appreciate folks taking the time to call in and for their interest in these.

in these subjects.

I think we got a good flavor from the public comment about where the public sentiment is in terms of those who called in.

So really, again, appreciate the fact that folks called in today.

Let's go ahead and move into the items of business for today.

So we'll go ahead and start with payment of the bills.

And I would ask that the clerk please read the title into the record.

Council Bill 119806, appropriating money to pay started claims to the week of June 1st, 2020 through June 5th, 2020 and ordering the payment thereof.

Thank you.

I will move to pass Council Bill 119806. Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded that the bill pass.

Are there any comments?

Hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Peterson.

Aye.

Sawant.

Aye.

Aye.

Strauss.

Aye.

Herbold.

Herbold.

Aye.

Juarez.

Aye.

Lewis.

Aye.

Morales.

Aye.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

President Gonzalez.

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

The bill passes, and the chair will sign it.

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

Committee reports of the city council.

Will the clerk please read agenda item one into the record?

Agenda item one, Council Bill 119789, relating to gig workers in Seattle, establishing labor standards requirements for premium pay for gig workers working in Seattle.

Amending section 3.02.125 and 6.208.

020 of the Seattle Municipal Code, declaring an emergency and establishing an immediate effective date, all by three-fourths vote of the City Council.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

I will move to pass Council Bill 119799. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you so much.

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

Council Member Lewis, as co-sponsor of this bill, you are recognized in order to address this item.

And I believe you have a substitute version of the bill to move for our consideration before we take comment on the underlying bill.

So let's go through the procedural motion first, and before we get to the substantive bill, which will be the substitute.

So I'll hand it over to you to put the substitute before us.

Um, thank you so much, Madam President for queuing that up.

Uh, so I would ask, um, then if, uh, item one, uh, from council bill one, one, nine, seven, nine, nine could be read into the record.

So item one has been read into the record.

It starts earlier.

I was like, I think we did just do that.

Oh, okay.

Sorry.

I moved to pass council bill.

Um, 11, I think you already did that.

I'm sorry.

You need to let me, let me, it starts a little, um, uh, further along for me.

I'm sorry for, um, uh, that's okay.

You need to move to amend council bill 119799 by substituting version four for version two way.

Yes, sorry, I'm down there now.

So yes, I move to amend Council Bill 119799 by substituting version four for version 2.a.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded to substitute the bill.

Council Member Lewis, again, you are recognized in order to address the substitute version of the, or the procedural fact of the substitute bill.

Yes, so thank you so much for the opportunity to address this.

I know we've talked about this bill a couple of times over the last few weeks.

This substitute version lowers the initial price that Councilmember Herbold and I had considered in terms of the premium pay number, which originally was $5 per delivery.

Having consulted with our labor partners as well as the platforms in this space, we determined that a $2.50 per delivery still accomplished the goals of the premium pay in terms of compensating for time spent cleaning vehicles and acquiring PPE and sanitizer, as well as also making sure there was some consideration for the unique hazards that folks are facing during COVID.

So for that reason, we made some of these changes.

So there are substantive changes in the bill.

There are also some technical changes that do not otherwise make considerable changes.

There's going to be other amendments addressing the fact that the substitute does not have a provision like some other versions of the bill had had, where the cost could potentially be partially passed through to consumers.

So this substitute bill would allow folks to partially pass through I think that is a good point.

I think that is a good point.

I think that is a good point.

I think that is a good point.

I think that is a good point.

I think that is a good point.

I think that is a good point.

I think that is a good point.

I think that is a good point.

I think that is a good point.

I think that is a good point.

I think that is a good point.

I think that is a good point.

I think that is a good point.

Councilmember Herbold, anything to add on the motion to consider the substitute?

No, I think Councilmember Lewis handled it well.

I have nothing further to add.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Colleagues, any questions on the substitute version being proposed for consideration?

Councilmember Sawant?

Thank you.

Needless to say that I support the legislation itself to require additional hazard pay to gig workers who self-sacrifice and labor.

It is really one of the only things that has allowed many people to continue to have access to food and mobility during this COVID crisis.

And these workers are doing so at great personal risk of infection and often with very little compensation from the multinational corporations that hire them.

which have even been extremely stingy in giving them very basic protective equipment as well.

However, what we are discussing now in this motion to place an amended version of the original bill is whether to substitute a new draft of the bill for the original.

And I wanted to say that I strongly prefer the original bill to this substitution because the original bill is significantly stronger in many respects.

First, the original bill protects both food delivery gig workers and TNC drivers, like those who drive for Uber and Lyft.

The substitute, however, only protects food delivery workers.

And I will, of course, be opposing any amendment that excludes any workers from these protections.

I understand that some council members are arguing that this change is reasonable because they believe the mayor will draft legislation in the future to cover TNC drivers, but that reason is totally insufficient.

This is emergency legislation that already only requires hazard pay during the legally declared emergency.

That ends when the emergency ends.

So again, we're talking about the bare minimum.

If the mayor does generate this legislation in time to go into effect on October 1st, which the Teamsters have told my office is the current schedule, It's very possible that these hazard pay restrictions would have expired by then anyway, so that would leave TNC drivers with having had no hazard pay protections through the entire public health emergency, the official emergency.

Even if the official COVID emergency has not legally expired, this amendment would still leave TNC drivers without hazard pay for at least three and a half months.

Additionally, I mean, that's based on the timeline we've heard.

There's no guarantee that even that timeline will be adhered to.

Additionally, the substitute bill majorly reduces the hazard pay benefit available to gig workers.

The original bill provided gig workers with $5 hazard pay per delivery plus $5 for each additional stop.

This substitute cuts that more than in half to $2.50 per delivery and only $1.25 for additional stops.

We should also remember that this legislation is in response to nationwide – the base legislation is in response to nationwide organizing of gig workers, including a courageous strike called by Instacart workers demanding $5 per delivery premium pay.

Who opposes that?

Who is demanding it to be reduced?

I can only guess that the big delivery businesses have been putting pressure in the back rooms because we have not seen that in public comment.

I support the strongest possible hazard pay.

the overall bill when we do that later.

Okay.

Thank you so much, Councilmember Sawant.

I see Councilmember Herbold has raised her hand, so I'm going to go ahead and recognize Councilmember Herbold.

Thank you.

I just want to note that as it relates to removing TNC drivers from the bill in the substitute that Councilmember Lewis just spoke to, that was actually a request that we do that from the Teamsters.

They requested that we remove the authorization of the hazard pay for their drivers.

And then as it relates specifically to the different price point that was negotiated with Working Washington, they recognize that there is a balance that is necessary to strike, and they do not want to see a reduction in use of the food delivery services in response to a price point that is too high.

And so that is really the foundational thinking around, again, trying to hit that sweet spot between what the price point should be to compensate drivers for the time it takes to maintain the vehicles in a way that's consistent with public health standards and the products necessary to do so.

And also recognizing that working during this period of time is indeed a hazard.

So again, I really appreciate having the opportunity to work with Working Washington throughout this we're going to continue to work with the city to make sure that we have a plan for this process and leading up to the substitution.

Thank you for that additional information, Councilmember Herbold.

Any other comments or questions on the substitute bill?

Hearing and seeing none, I

I do not, Madam President.

Okay, great.

Let's go ahead and I will have the clerk call the roll on the adoption of the substitute.

Peterson.

Aye.

DeWant.

No.

Strauss.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

Juarez.

Aye.

Lewis.

Aye.

Morales.

Aye.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

Aye.

President Gonzalez?

Aye.

Eight in favor, one opposed.

Thank you so much.

The substitute is adopted and version four of the bill is now before the council.

So I will go ahead and now open up the floor for additional debate and comments on the bill as amended.

Colleagues, are there any other amendments?

I know that Council Member Morales, you have a particular amendment.

So perhaps what we should do is consider your amendment first, and then we can have a conversation on the bill as amended.

How does that sound?

Sure.

Okay, great.

So I will hand it over to you, Council Member Morales, to make your motion to put Amendment 1 before the Council.

So I move that we amend Council Bill 119799 as presented on Amendment 1 on the agenda.

Great.

Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill, and I will hand it over to Council Member Morales to describe Amendment 1.

Thank you, Council President Gonzalez.

So this amendment would prohibit the hiring entity from passing on charges or increasing grocery charges to consumers.

We all know that the economic impact of COVID are having really drastic effects on our families.

And food security in particular was a problem in the city already.

And we know that food insecurity is increasing, especially during this crisis.

So this is really an attempt to decrease the risk of having customers who are relying on grocery delivery from having that charge passed on to them.

We want to make sure that we are protecting our vulnerable neighbors, our seniors especially, families with children, and anybody who is really at risk of food insecurity so that they are, so that this assessment or this charge does not get passed on to them.

And that's what we're doing here.

Thank you so much for that description, Council Member Morales.

Any questions or comments on Amendment 1?

Okay, hearing none, we will go ahead and take a vote on Amendment 1. So will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 1?

Peterson?

Aye.

Sawant?

Aye.

Sawant?

Aye.

Thank you.

Strauss?

Aye.

Carbold.

Aye.

Juarez.

Aye.

Lewis.

Aye.

Morales.

Aye.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

President Gonzalez.

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries.

The amendment is adopted, and the bill as amended is now before the council.

Are there any further comments on the bill as amended?

Council Member Mosqueda, followed by Council Member Lewis.

Thank you so much, Madam President, and thanks to the sponsors of this legislation, Council Member Herbold and Council Member Lewis.

Really exciting day for gig workers and actually just for our entire economy.

As we know, gig workers have been left out of the basic protections that we have been so proud of here in Washington state and in the city of Seattle to offer to W-2 employees.

But basic labor standards for those who are classified as independent contractors are hard to legislate, especially for gig workers, as the sponsors and this entire council knows.

I'm really excited about the piece of legislation in front of us.

I think that there's much more work to be done for sure.

Conversations of issues of misclassification and long-term solutions for gig workers continue.

But I know that we have to act with urgency right now.

This crisis of COVID has been telling us that we need to step up in an immediate way to provide these protections for gig workers.

And looking forward to working with all of you on those next steps.

I know also that we are well aware that gig workers need additional protections, especially because of COVID.

We get our groceries delivered.

We get food delivered.

We are, I think, in a crisis where many of us are depending on this portion of the economy even more heavily now.

So I really think it's important that we're stepping up in an essential way for these essential workers to make sure that they're treated with the basic protections like premium pay and making sure that they have safety equipment being told that the unemployment rate is as high.

Oh, I'm sorry, workers are being told that given how high the unemployment rate is that, you know, some people are being told if you don't like it, then you don't have a job and you don't have any other recourse.

That's absolutely unacceptable.

We want to make sure that All workers have these basic protections that we've provided to other sectors of our communities.

So as workers are putting themselves, their life at risk, their families' lives at risk by coming to work, they serve our communities.

We need to lift them up and to make sure that these workers get the basic protections they need.

Thank you again to all of the folks who worked on this legislation.

And thanks to the gig workers who every day take a risk to go to work.

I appreciate the time and I'm grateful that through this legislation, we're again making labor history and passing this legislation into law.

Great, thank you so much Council Member Mosqueda for those remarks.

Council Member Lewis.

Thank you, Madam President.

I'll be really brief, and I think Councilmember Sawant actually cued this up rather nicely, so I think I'm following on a theme that's already been introduced, but this truly does have to be a first step, and as Councilmember Mosqueda also alluded to as well, it is a temporary measure.

you know, COVID someday will pass, and this measure will pass, but we are still going to have massive inequities in this app-based economy that has been mischaracterized as a gig economy, but really increasingly is the economy.

This is increasingly a way that commerce and business is transacted in our society.

It's increasingly a space where we are going to need to do more work and I look forward I know that a lot of our stakeholders in the community who I really had the pleasure of working with through this, Rachel Louder at Working Washington and everyone over at Working Washington, Sage and the whole team there were great.

I want to thank Camille Brown on my staff.

I want to thank councilmember Lewis and councilmember Sawant who did an excellent job working with councilmember Kerbalt's office to really shepherd this through over the course of a month with lots of back-to-back meetings and making sure we were reaching out to all the stakeholders.

So I just wanted to extend those thanks and look forward to voting to get it over the finish line today.

And thank you all for everything you did to make this a success.

Thank you.

As I mentioned before, I'm happy to vote yes on this bill requiring big businesses to pay hazard pay to gig workers during the COVID crisis.

And I agree with Council Member Lewis that this has increasingly become the norms.

It's not like we're talking about one small section of the economy.

So many workers, especially younger workers, are getting pushed into what's called the gig economy, those kinds of jobs where they're not recognized as employees.

gig workers deliver groceries, drive for Uber and Lyft, and do many other essential jobs to our society.

These are jobs like any other, except they are marked with the legal fiction that they are a one-person small business rather than a worker at a corporation.

The result of this legal fiction is that workers are suddenly no longer protected as gig workers by being classified as gig workers.

In fact, big business even avoids Seattle's minimum wage by classifying its workers as gig workers, which is particularly important for the hazard pay bill we're voting on now.

It is totally unjust, and it is a clear example of how, under capitalism, the working class must continually organize and struggle to avoid falling even further behind.

As I mentioned two weeks ago when council was voting on extending the paid sick and safe leave to gig workers, a hundred years ago when workers could legally form, no workers could legally form unions in this country, but courageously they did it anyway, often having to defend their picket lines against physical attack, in fact, by the police and by private forces.

In the 1920s, the U.S. military was even deployed to bomb the picket lines of striking miners.

It was through these courageous struggles that workers won the decent contracts that formed the so-called middle class for at least a section of American society for two generations.

They won labor law protections and they won the right to organize a union.

Since then, however, for decades, big business has been attempting to claw back every gain workers had fought for and won.

Wealth inequality has ballooned, and an estimated one out of five workers in the U.S. is now classified as an independent contractor, a.k.a. gig worker.

Ultimately, gig workers will need to unionize with or without the legal permission to do so.

just like workers in the past, because we only have the power in the workplace when we get organized to fight for it.

We will need to rebuild the fighting labor movement that overcame legal, physical, and political obstacles in the last century to establish the unions that workers can rely on today.

Today's premium pay legislation is extremely temporary, but in approving it, the city council is making an important statement and I'm happy to support the legislation to extend paid sick and safe time to gig workers also.

And finally, I want to raise the caution around enforcement.

that I had spoken to when this legislation was first discussed in briefing, council briefing, I think, a week ago.

Seattle's Office of Labor Standards is empowered to enforce these workers' rights.

But because so many big businesses engage in wage theft, the Office of Labor Standards has a serious backlog.

If your boss steals from you, it takes many months to even get the money you're owed.

And we've seen how ruthless giant corporations like Uber can be in disregarding workers' rights.

The office of labor standards is currently understaffed.

The mayor has instituted a hiring freeze, claiming that there is not the budget to adequately staff the department because of COVID-related budget shortfalls.

This is an example of austerity.

But like any other austerity, these budget shortfalls are not automatic.

If Mayor Durkan and if the political establishment were willing to tax big business, The city could raise the revenue to stop this austerity and to create a public jobs program, not only to build social housing and on Green New Deal programs, but also to enhance the staff that we would need to actually fully enforce labor law.

Gig workers deserve to be protected with their rights, and that means this legislation is an important part of it.

And we also need to end the austerity and the inadequate staffing at the Office of Labor Standards.

Thank you.

that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Sawant.

Are there any other Councilmembers who wish to make comments on the bill?

Councilmember Herbold, please.

Thank you.

I just want to flag that like we have a process and a product keyed up for the TNC drivers for minimum compensation, I think it's really I think there was a lot of the worker advocates and workers could get to a place with the apps where they had some agreement on not only what those conversations might look like, but what the product might be.

But unfortunately, we didn't get there.

But I am confident that those conversations will continue, and we'll do everything I can I think it's critical that folks who are doing this work in my role as a council member to support those conversations because it is critically important that folks who are doing this work that we can see right now in this state of emergency, how critical it is.

It's critically important that these folks receive some form of minimum compensation as well.

Okay, hearing none, I will ask that the clerk call the roll on the passage of the bill as amended.

Peterson?

Aye.

DeWatt?

Aye.

Strauss?

Aye.

Herbel?

Aye.

Juarez?

Aye.

Lewis?

Aye.

Morales?

Aye.

Mosqueda?

Aye.

President Gonzalez?

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The bill passes as amended, and the chair will sign it.

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

Okay, colleagues, let's move into agenda item two.

Will the clerk please read agenda item two into the record?

Agenda item two, Council Bill 119804, relating to the Seattle Police Department prohibiting the use of chokeholds by officers amending section 12A.04.200 Of and adding a new section 3.28.145 to get on this for code Thank you, I will move to pass council bill 119804.

Is there a second?

Second It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill council member swan as sponsor of the bill You are recognized in order to address this item first

Thank you.

Sorry, I was a little torn off because I thought there was a technical amendment that needed to be done before, or maybe that's going to come after I speak.

Yeah, so there's a, that's a good, good flag.

Why don't, why don't I just sort of give folks a preview here really quickly.

So this is on the ordinance related to prohibiting use of chokeholds in the city.

The chemical weapons bill is coming next.

So this is just on the chokeholds.

and there will be an amendment that will be moved by Councilmember Herbold.

That was published on the agenda as amendment one.

And then there will be a second amendment by Councilmember Herbold, which was published on the agenda as amendment two.

And then we will have a amended bill for consideration.

That's just on agenda item two related to chokeholds.

So I think the technical amendment that you're referring to, Council Member Sawant, might be in the context of agenda item three.

No, I was talking about the two amendments you mentioned, but yeah, for a moment I forgot that it's going to come after I speak, so thank you.

Why don't you go ahead, absolutely, why don't you, there's a lot going on this morning, so why don't you go ahead and address the underlying motion first, I'm sorry, the underlying bill first, and then we will And, you know, you probably, I imagine, want to have some substantive comments here.

But if you want to just sort of introduce the bill initially, just to give Councilmember Herbold's amendment some context, then we'll do the amendments.

And, of course, as customary, you as the primary sponsor will have the last word on the bill as amended.

Thank you.

This bill bans chokeholds in Seattle from Eric Garner to Emmanuel Ellis to George Floyd.

We have all seen the devastating consequences of chokeholds, use of chokeholds by the police.

As I mentioned last week and also this morning, similar restrictions have been put in place by other cities, most recently in Minneapolis, where George Floyd was murdered by the police using a chokehold.

This legislation is absolutely the least that the Seattle City Council can do, and I hope that We can pass it and move on to the ban on crowd control weapons also without loopholes and many of the other measures that we need to put in place in order to really even begin to have accountability on the police.

I do want to reiterate a sobering word of caution.

Passing this legislation is absolutely important, but it will not be enough by itself.

Joke holes were banned in New York City when Eric Garner was killed, and that obviously was insufficient to save him.

Legislation like this is critical, especially because it shows the power of a grassroots movement overcoming an entrenched establishment for so many decades, but it needs to be paired with more structural changes in society, and that is why I will be, my office will be pushing for most of the other demands that we have from our movement.

One most immediately is to release all protest arrestees and drop all charges against them, to defund the police by 50% so that we can begin to fund restorative justice and really community organizing as opposed to policing, organized by workers who are unionized and paid a living wage.

especially to respond to non-criminal emergency calls, as has been called for by the police accountability organization, the Bay Area, but we also need, urgently need an independently elected community oversight board.

So I hope council members will support this and I will say a few words more towards the end.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Sawant.

I'm going to go ahead and hand it over to Councilmember Herbold who has a couple of amendments, but let's start with your amendment number one, please.

Thank you.

I move to amend Council Bill 119804 as presented on Amendment 1 on the agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill with Amendment 1. Council Member Herbold is sponsor of the amendment.

I will hand it over to you to address it.

Thank you.

So this amendment is responsive to concerns raised and shared with council members from the law department.

It addresses two separate issues in the single amendment.

The first is to clarify that the private right of action applies to violations of the prohibition that occur after the ordinance takes effect.

And the second requests that the notice of the the chokehold prohibition be given to the Department of Justice, the court, and the monitor in accordance with the consent decree, United States of America versus City of Seattle.

This use of force is at the heart of the consent decree and changes to city policies need to be submitted to the court.

The city sent a draft version of the 2017 accountability legislation to the court in advance.

And similarly, this amendment indicates that council recognizes the role of the court.

Thank you Councilmember Herbold for that description.

Are there any comments on Amendment 1?

Okay, I'm not hearing any comments on Amendment 1. And again, Council Member Herbold, I appreciate you bringing forward this amendment.

I would say that it sort of models the approach that we took with the 2017 Police Accountability Ordinance in which we legislated some of the policy issues first, recognizing that those policy changes would be subject to court review under the consent decree.

And I think that your amendment in this space is consistent with what the council has done in the past, sort of knowing that we're changing policies that fall under the purview of the consent decree and not abdicating the need to submit for review under the consent decree.

So I appreciate your work on this amendment.

So if there are no other questions or comments, we'll go ahead and move along.

Okay, seeing and hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of amendment one?

Peterson?

Aye.

DeWant?

Aye.

Drouse?

Aye.

Herpel?

Aye.

Juarez?

Aye.

Lewis?

Aye.

Morales?

Aye.

Mosqueda?

Aye.

President Gonzalez?

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Excellent.

Thank you so much.

The motion carries.

The amendment is adopted and the bill as amended is now before the council.

I understand that we have another amendment, Amendment 2. So I would hand it back over to Council Member Herbold to walk us through Amendment 2.

Amendment 2 simply expresses the council's intent to engage with labor relations in the implementation of the chokehold prohibition.

Thank you so much.

Any, let's see, Council, did you actually make your motion?

Oh, good call.

Sorry.

I move to amend Council Bill 119804 as presented on Amendment 2 on the agenda.

Thank you so much.

Is there a second?

second.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as described in Amendment 2. And then Council Member Herbold, you gave us a very succinct description of what that was.

Did you want to repeat that?

Absolutely.

So we have the context of the amendment itself before us, before I describe it.

The amendment expresses the Council's intent to engage with our Labor Relations Department in the implementation of the chokehold ban or prohibition.

Thank you so much.

So we are now going to hear comments on Amendment 2. Are there any comments on Council Member Herbold's Amendment 2?

Hearing and seeing none, I will ask that the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 2. Peterson.

Aye.

Sawant.

Aye.

Strauss.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

Aye.

Juarez?

Aye.

Lewis?

Aye.

Morales?

Aye.

Mosqueda?

Aye.

President Gonzalez?

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries.

The amendment is adopted and we now have a further amended bill before the council.

Are there any further comments on the bill as amended?

I'm not seeing anybody raise their hand, but I will, as promised, give Council Member Salant the last word on this bill as the primary sponsor.

Council Member Salant.

Thank you.

I think it's really important that this bill is being passed.

It's also important that the bill that's coming up on the chemical weapons be passed without loopholes.

But as members of the public have said, and I completely agree with them, this is the absolute bare minimum that the highest legislative body of the city should be doing, especially after we have seen such unbelievable violence being targeted at peaceful protesters, but also in the wake of the fact that eight black and brown community members have been murdered by the Seattle police under Mayor Durkin's reign, and not a single police officer has been prosecuted.

So the larger context is extremely important for us to remember that while these bills are critical, and they will indeed be historic, actually, because it is in some ways quite absurd that we are having to do this, that we have a city that does not have already a law that bans chokeholds and chemical weapons.

But it is important that we're doing this today.

But we have to go much, much farther.

The police officers who have committed such horrific crimes need to be brought to justice, and they will not happen as long as the establishment is overseeing it, because we saw what happened under Mayor Durkan and what has happened in the past years.

And so the city and the people of this city needs an independently elected civilian oversight board with full powers of the police, including hiring, firing, and subpoena powers, and the ability to bring the police officers to justice and have prosecution.

But we also need to urgently defund the police by at least 50 percent and make sure that the establishment doesn't just take on the vocabulary of the movement but actually responds to it with real action.

And most immediately, we need to make sure that all the protest arrestees are released without charges.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

For those final remarks, I'm going to go ahead and close out debate on this bill as amended.

So I would ask that the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill as amended.

Peterson.

Aye.

Sawant.

Aye.

Strauss.

Aye.

Herbal.

Aye.

Juarez.

Aye.

Lewis.

Aye.

Morales.

Aye.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

President Gonzales.

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it.

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

Okay, agenda item three.

I would ask that the clerk please read item three into the record.

Agenda item three.

Council Bill 119805, relating to the Seattle Police Department banning the ownership, purchase, rent, storage, and use of crowd control weapons, and adding a new section 3.28.146 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

Thank you, Amelia.

So I am going to go ahead and put the bill before us.

I'm going to move to pass Council Bill 119805. Is there a second?

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

Council Member Sawant, you are the sponsor of the bill, so you are, once again, recognized to, in order to address the underlying bill.

And then we have several amendments to walk through.

Council Member Sawant.

I actually want to, I want to speak to the bill, but I also want to move to amend council bill 119805 as presented on amendment three.

So I want to know the order in which I should do that.

Should I speak to the base amendment and then move the amendment?

So I think we're going to take the amendments in the order that they were published.

So that's two amendments from Councilmember Herbold.

And I know that you circulated your office, excuse me, your office circulated an amendment three after the noon meeting.

I would ask that we go through the amendments as they were published on the agenda, and then consider amendment three if it's needed.

It's a little bit of a jenga puzzle that we're going through here, because there are portions of your amendment, Council Member Solano, amendment three.

that would incorporate components of Councilmember Herbold's amendments as represented in both Amendment 1 and Amendment 2. So depending on how Amendment 1 and Amendment 2 shake out, we may not need Amendment 3 or we may need all of Amendment 3 if Councilmember Herbold's amendments do not pass.

I think what we should do, what we should do in fairness here, because it's very confusing, and there's been a lot of back and forth in email, and I want to make sure that all of our colleagues in the public have a full understanding of the suite of amendments before us.

I think before calling anything to a vote, I think it would be prudent for us to have a conversation of all three amendments.

And so that we can get an understanding of Amendment 1, Amendment 2, and Amendment 3. But I will be planning on calling for a vote on the amendments in the order that they were presented on the agenda.

I'm happy to have a conversation about all of them, but just in terms of the order, I just wanted to clarify, I don't agree with your description of the order in the sense that the bill that came from my office has been there long before Councilmember Herbold brought her amendments.

I just want to clarify to the members of the public that what my office published afternoon incorporates components of councilmember Herbold's amendment that I don't object to.

So it's a hybrid bill except for the amendment that I deeply object to.

So it's not accurate to say that my bill came after hers.

And as a matter of fact, this bill, this amendment that Council Member Herbold has, which will really be a real attack on the bill, was sent out by her at 11, 12 a.m.

this morning giving the public about two hours and 45 minutes to see it.

So I just wanted to clarify that.

And I would say that the fair way to do it is to consider amendment three, because it's basically my bill with the amendments from Councilmember Herbold that I don't have an objection to.

And because my bill came before everything else, I think that should be considered.

So amendment three should be considered in my view.

But And if you wanted to respond to that, I'll stop or I'll continue with my description.

Yeah, I think you've made your record.

I don't think I said anything inconsistent.

If I used the word bill, that was an inadvertent use of the word bill.

What I'm saying is that your amendment three was not published on the agenda, at least on the version of the agenda that I have, was not published on the agenda.

Am I wrong that your amendment three was published on the agenda?

I don't believe it should be passed by the city council.

I'm not trying to make any sort of, I'm not trying to imply anything.

I just want to make sure that we have the sequence of how we got the amendments.

So there were two amendments that were published on Friday, uh, to the public and to council members.

Amendment three, uh, um, uh, came to us, um, at noon and I understand that there's nothing necessarily new in there because you're incorporating portions of things that were already published.

And I think that's, Maybe we're getting our semantics crossed and I'm following now.

I'm following now.

So thank you for.

Thank you for your patience and your understanding on that.

So I think just so that we have a holistic conversation about it instead of, I think it would be prudent for us to go through each of the motions, but I'm not going to call for a vote on the motions.

I want to sort of hear how conversation goes before we I'm going to start calling for motions.

But why don't we go ahead and start at this point, Councilmember Sawant, since you are the prime sponsor of the bill and I need you to address the underlying bill, I will hand the floor over to you.

to as the prime sponsor of the bill to address the substantive bill, and in doing so, you are free to describe your amendment, your proposed amendment three.

Again, not asking you to make a formal motion yet, just describe and talk to us about your proposed amendment three, and then we will hear from Council Member Herbold accordingly.

So Council Member Salant, the floor is yours.

Thank you, President Gonzalez.

I appreciate that.

The bill that's under consideration now from our movement and from my office bans the city from owning and the police from using crowd-controlled weapons like tear gas, mace, blast balls, flashbangs, plastic bullets, and other weapons that are typically used indiscriminately on gatherings of protesters.

Some of these weapons, like tear gas, have been banned for decades from use in war by the Geneva Convention.

And yet, the mayor of Seattle, Jenny Durkan, and Seattle police under her control have repeatedly, on a daily basis, used them since the George Floyd protests began on May 30th against the people of Seattle.

As we've discussed before, many of us have witnessed it.

Many of us have experienced it in the members of the public.

And for days, the Seattle Police Department used these weapons on the streets of Capitol Hill.

They falsely claimed that the protesters were violent rioters and that they had no alternative.

That is absolutely untrue.

I mean, it could not be more untrue.

They have even attempted to maintain those lives in the face of video evidence showing us that the police were the source and the sole source of violence, and that they were not, quote unquote, responding to any situation, but that they were there with the intention of inflicting violence.

We have evidence that the police were source of the violence.

Even further now, because after the mounting public outrage eventually forced Mayor Jenny Durkan to pull the police back from the streets of Capitol Hill, the violence has left with them.

There is nobody there with riot gear, armed to the hilt, with all kinds of equipment and chemical weapons.

There is no such thing.

Only the police have them.

Here in Seattle and around the country, demonstrators have been grievously injured by these weapons, and an open letter signed by over a thousand medical professionals has explained that weapons like tear gas and mace significantly increase the danger of COVID.

We need to ban these weapons, which have been misused against protests for decades.

The police and the political establishment simply cannot be trusted with them.

Seattle police might argue that without tear gas, rubber bullets, and blast walls, they will use even more lethal weapons against the demonstrators.

We have to completely reject this dangerous argument.

The purpose of this legislation is to prevent the police from meeting protests with any violence whatsoever.

If the Seattle police instead show up with more lethal weaponry, that would be absolutely devastating and disastrous, but that would only, and I hope that doesn't happen, but that would only prove the point that this Black Lives Matter movement is making, which is that it does not work for us to have a police state.

We need our community to be organized for us to keep ourselves safe and for public safety for all.

If Seattle passes this legislation, it will be historic and it will be an inspiration for what movements around the country can win.

But we also need to remember that this won't be enough.

We will need to go much farther with all the steps that I was outlining earlier, which I will reiterate once again later before passage of this bill.

I just wanted to quickly say that in terms of making sure that the public is on the same page as us in terms of understanding the process, at some point Council Member Herbold's amendment will be considered, which on the face of it claims that all it's doing is clarifying what is crowd control, that it is simply intended to say that the legislation does not apply to non-crowd control situations.

But what it will actually do is create giant truck-sized loopholes that will allow the use of these weapons in virtually any situation.

The problem is that Seattle police will abuse those loopholes.

Look at what happened after the mayor's much-publicized 30-day OC ban.

Seattle police, to quote one of the public commenters, simply do not have the track record that should lead us to believe that we can trust them to not use weapons on peaceful protests.

We heard testimony from Bettina who said, a woman took a flashbang grenade in the chest and almost died and had to be revived with multiple CPR routines.

That's a really important example of why In my view, it would be horrific to pass councilmember Herbold's amendment because it brings up the question of what kind of society do we want to be?

We absolutely, you know, it will be sending a message to the people of Seattle, whether that amendment is passed or not, which side the council is actually on.

and whether the Council is actually doing everything in its power to prevent such occurrences and to prevent such violence.

I have more points on the amendment that Councilmember Herbold has, which I hope that she just withdraws.

Honestly, I'm being very honest.

I hope that Councilmember Herbold has taken to heart the intent incredibly powerful public testimony that we have heard, and that she puts that in front of her, and understands that we cannot have politicians co-opt the language, the vocabulary of movement, and say, we're going to reimagine the police, and we're going to dismantle the police, and then refuse to do the bare minimum.

I really hope Councilmember Herbold withdraws her amendment, and that we are able to, as a city council, unanimously pass this legislation.

Sorry for my delay.

Thank you, Councilmember Sawant.

Can you specifically, just before we open it up for more comment and consideration of the amendments, because I want to be really clear as to what language in the amendments you see as being a loophole, in large part because your Amendment 3 incorporates of the language in Councilmember Herbold's amendments, but does not incorporate other parts.

So could you walk us through what portions of Councilmember Herbold's amendment one and two you favor and what specific language you believe is problematic to the underlying intent of your council bill?

Yes, to do it in a brief summary, I will say, just to keep it short, I will say that I don't necessarily think the other amendments are that great, but I don't object to them.

I'm glad that Councilmember Herbold has withdrawn her intention to delay the vote on the bill, so that's no longer a question.

What I am objecting to and what we all heard powerful public testimony on is on page 2 of what is titled as amendment number 2, and that shows sponsor councilmember her bold, and that is section D in the amendment.

I just want to read that out and explain it a little bit.

that is designed to be used on multiple individuals for crowd control and is designed to cause pain or discomfort is not a crowd control weapon for the purpose of owning, purchasing, renting, or storing under the subsection if the device is used for a purpose other than crowd dispersal.

The problem with this amendment is that It leaves up to the police to decide what they were actually doing and claim that it was not for crowd dispersal or for so-called crowd control.

Because, I mean, just to explain, this amendment from Council Member Herbold would create an exception that says that any of these weapons, the number of weapons that I mentioned, including direct energy weapons and tear gas and flashbangs and ultrasonic cannons, can be used if, and I quote, the device is used for a purpose other than crowd dispersal, unquote.

What this means is that the ban on owning all these weapons would be somewhat meaningless by itself because the police can say that they are owning them to use for other purposes.

It could, you know, it wouldn't stop them from buying them.

You also mean that they could be used anywhere if, as long as the police claim that they are, that they didn't, that specific incident of use of that weapon was not for crowd dispersal.

For example, if the police and say that there is a person in the middle of the protest, and they just don't like that because the person is saying something, or because they threw an empty water bottle at the police, then, and if the police respond to that person by spraying the crowd, supposedly to stop that person from throwing a water bottle, then suddenly, under this amendment, if this amendment passes, then this would be allowed.

under Councilmember Herbold's bill, which is basically for the police to respond to somebody throwing a water bottle by spraying the entire crowd, including children, with mace or pepper spray or tear gas.

And I use this example because this is not a hypothetical situation.

This is exactly what we saw again and again on the streets of Seattle with police officers using the fiction that they were somehow in danger.

And I've seen Chief Best making the same arguments that sometimes the police were hurt.

How is it possible that the police were hurt I mean, let me be clear.

Let's contrast the water bottle with the police who have been – they don't come just by themselves as police officers.

They come as riot police.

They come there to start a riot, which means that they are armed to the teeth.

with riot gear, protected with helmets, face shields, body shields, shoulder, arm, cough, and shin pads, batons.

I mean, it's absolute gaslighting for the police to even remotely claim that we need to allow them any leeway to use these weapons.

On Sunday, when the SPD, you know, Sunday, a week and a half ago, when the SPD used flashbang, tear gas, and pepper spray on myself and other protesters, they, at that point also, they claimed it was to get people to back up, not to disperse.

And we were doing nothing.

We were peacefully protesting.

Those are our streets.

We were demanding the right to walk on those streets.

That's all we did, is walk forward.

So anytime we make a restriction on police brutality depending on the purpose or the intent of the officers, that creates a loophole that can then encompass the whole world, because then you can never prove intent.

That was the whole point behind the whole campaign of Not This Time, is to go after this insidious idea that unless you can prove the police had malicious intent, you can't hold them responsible.

This situation is not the same, but it's analogous to that situation where it comes down to the police claiming that it was not for crowd dispersal.

So I would really urge council members to reject this loophole.

I mean, this whole protest movement, this whole uprising is against police violence and brutality.

I mean, you cannot have politicians saying Black Lives Matter and that you stand with the protest movement.

and then turn around and then pass loopholes that hand the power back to the police.

I second the person who said in public comment that the fact that we're even having to discuss this is repulsive.

And I will say this, if this amendment passes, it will be a continuation of the past pro-police policies of the democratic politicians on the city council, and it will be nothing less, and I don't say this lightly, it will be nothing less than a racist amendment and it would be a betrayal of the movement and of the black community.

This is not a small thing.

I really hope that this amendment does not pass, and better yet, I would urge Council Member Herbold to withdraw this amendment.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

So what I heard from you in particular, that in terms of the full breadth of Amendment 2, you read directly from Amendment 2, the language that you think creates the loophole in the way that you have described it.

In other words, if the police department is allowed to continue to purchase chemical weapons that are used for crowd dispersal, currently allowed to be used for crowd dispersal, but prohibited from being used from crowd dispersal in the future, sort of allowing them to continue to have possession of these types of weapons undermines the broader goal of being able to control how they use it.

And sort of your argument I'm hearing is, you know, we should have a policy position of not allowing the police department to own these chemical weapons for any purpose, but in particular for crowd.

dispersal use, and it's too hard for us to figure out how to control the legitimacy of the position that might be taken by the police department that they were using it for, quote, crowd dispersal, close quote.

So I just, because I really want to sort of zero in on the part of the amendment.

too, that you find most problematic.

And I'm hearing that that is the language and those are the, in general, a summary of the reasons why you think it is problematic.

Generally I agree, but I would of course put it in very strong terms as I did before, but also just to clarify, absolutely it is about not allowing the police to have possession of these weapons, but that is related to the fact that we cannot trust them and if anything's been established about the police without any doubt, is that they cannot be trusted because they have broken that trust every single time.

And as I said, a concrete example, as I used, was something that I personally experienced and witnessed, where the police did say, this is not for crowd dispersal.

The next thing you know, they were dispersing the crowd with tear gas.

They said it was not for crowd dispersal only because we were moving forward.

That's my point.

It's already happened.

We have examples that show that if we pass this loophole, what happened on Sunday night, what happened on the nights before, will continue to happen even under that law.

That's why we have to reject that amendment.

Got it.

Okay.

That's very helpful, I think, to me and to members of the public to hear a little bit more clearly about where the difference lies between Amendment 3 and some of the language of this amendment that you included there, but not this particular language.

I do want to go ahead and provide Councilmember Herbold an opportunity to address both that specific language in amendment I'm going to go ahead and shift over to Councilmember Herbold to respond to your concerns related to amendment two, to describe other aspects of amendment two, and to also walk us

Thank you so much.

So Amendment 1 does several things.

It amends the recital clause as it relates specifically to the actions of SPD over the last few weeks around escalation of crowd violence.

It adds a new recital reflecting the findings from the June 12, 2020 Office of the Inspector General report, Less Lethal Weapons in Protests.

It makes some changes to Section 1. One is to exempt from the prohibition of crowd control weapons any device that meets the definition of the crowd control weapon but is not used for crowd dispersal purposes.

And also in Section 1, there are some other technical and legal changes.

It requests that the police accountability agencies provide by August 15, 2020, a recommendation on the use of crowd control weapons for crowd dispersal to include suggested policy revisions to the SPD manual, identification of a crowd dispersal authorization process that requires the executive and reflects best practices in policing to minimize harm to protesters.

And it is, of course, the statutory authority of the OPA, CPC, and OIG to do this in the 2017 accountability ordinance that council approved.

And I really want to lift up their authority I'm not sure where people are getting the information, but maybe it's just because it's the short turnaround.

The amendment, like the bill before it, requests that there be notice of the prohibition against crowd control weapons to the Department of Justice, the court, and the monitor in accordance with the consent decree.

Use of force is at the heart of the consent decree and changes to city policies must be submitted to the court.

And the amendment indicates that the council recognizes the role of court there.

And then also, similarly to what we just did in the earlier bill, the amendment expresses the council's intent to support labor relations in the implementation of the prohibition.

against crowd control weapon use.

And then finally, it adds as an attachment, the less lethal weapons in protest report from the Office of the Inspector General for Public Safety, jointly issued with the OPA on June 12th, 2020. At this time, I would like to offer or invite, I should say, amendment to my amendment one, as it relates specifically to the section where we exempt the prohibition of crowd control weapons when a device that meets that definition is not used for crowd dispersal purposes.

This has become, I think, a distraction around the intent of the amendment.

And from my perspective, offering this was just merely consistent with the title of the bill itself, which talks about and recognizes that there are some circumstances where the police department has things to do besides crowd dispersal where a less lethal tool like these I am not aware of any other language that might be useful.

Again, I invite any councilmember to amend council, I'm sorry, amendment one to remove the new language under section D, which says directed energy weapons, water cannons, disorientation devices, ultrasonic cannons, or any other device that is designed to be used on multiple individuals for crowd control and is designed to cause pain or discomfort is not a crowd control weapon for the purpose of owning, purchasing, renting, or storing under subsection 3.28.1.

amendment to that would remove that language as I just read and re-insert the old section D language.

Okay, so let me confer.

Let me confer with our clerk, Emilia Sanchez, who is on the line.

There has been expressed interest from Council Member Juarez to strike subsection D from Amendment 2, which is the Herbold Amendment.

Can you please advise the Council on the procedural rules related to such an amendment?

Council members, this is Amelia Sanchez.

At this point, this motion has not been made or it's also not before the council.

This is just for discussion.

So therefore, the sponsor can actually modify this amendment before it's even presented or after she moves the amendment.

So therefore, you have a couple of options.

One, when the motion is made, we can consider a modified amendment, which would be with the exception of that section D.

if that is the only amendment that we would, that the student proposed to be removed at this point.

So, Council President, for clarification to Madam Clerk, do I withdraw my motion to strike and allow Council Member Herbold to reintroduce her amended amendment?

Council Member Juarez, at this point, you are welcome to withdraw your amendment.

At this point, it has not been seconded.

And at that point, after Council Member Herbold can then move her modified amendment without that section D.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

So, Amelia, if I understand you correctly, are you saying that the only member that is allowed to make a motion to strike subsection D is the prime sponsor, which in this case would be Council Member Herbold?

at this point because this amendment is still not before the city council, has not been moved nor has it been seconded.

Got it, okay.

Can I ask a question and hopefully that might also help?

I will take all the help I can get.

we could take amendment three which incorporates all of councilmember Herbold's amendments except that one and all my technical amendments which were on the advice of the city attorney.

So is that essentially going to be agreeable for everyone?

Councilmember Herbold?

Thank you.

Unfortunately, your amendment three does not include the language lifting up the role of the OPA, OIG, and CPC.

So I would prefer to move forward as proposed where we move on amendment one as I propose to modify.

Councilmember Salant?

That's fine with me.

I have an amelioration, correct me if I'm wrong, but I have a feeling that will be a longer process.

Wouldn't it be shorter if we take amendment three, put that on the table, and then have Council Member Herbold move an amendment to include that language, which I'm not opposed to, and then have a vote on that?

I think the process is going to be about I don't think one is more expeditious than the other, but nice try.

I appreciate the effort.

I don't know if you have additional technical amendments beyond the technical amendments that I have in mind and that you have included yours.

So – Okay.

Okay.

Thank you for clarifying that.

My understanding is that you have incorporated the technical amendments that I proposed in my original Amendment 1 in yours.

Yes, I just wanted to, I just clarified with my staff that the technical amendments that were suggested by the city attorney's office are also in that latest version from you, which they are.

Great, okay.

So why don't we go ahead and take amendment one first.

I think we have sort of a landscape of what the different versions are.

I appreciate the discussion and the debate here and appreciate that you all were flexible enough to hear about all three amendments as three potential routes here before we made formal motions.

I think that the ultimate goal here is to I do believe that we will, you know, have the court weigh in on the appropriateness of the policy choice that the City Council has made.

I certainly continue to support this bill and its underlying intent as introduced by Councilmember Sawant.

We will be better served as a city without the language in subsection.

D, and really do sincerely appreciate your willingness and your flexibility in considering making an amendment to your own amendment to strike that language so that we can move forward on this really important policy and so that we can follow through on the city's obligation to submit this council bill to the court for review by both Judge Robar, the federal monitor, and the DOJ.

So I think the sooner we get that clock started and get that review going, the better served we will all be.

And hopefully they will agree with our strong and clear policy position that we just don't believe these weapons have a place in our department.

So Council Member Hovland, I'm gonna hand it back over to you to walk us through Amendment 1.

Thank you.

Um, so, uh, I, uh, I'm ha I'm happy to, uh, walk us through it again, but, um, I, in the, in the short term, I just like to move to amend council bill 11 98 0 5 as presented on amendment one on the agenda, accepting the language in amendment one, uh, related to new section D and restoring the, um, old section D as in the proposed legislation.

Okay, Amelia, before I invite a second, I want to make sure that that motion was properly raised.

I understood it from Parliamentarian procedure.

It would be to reinstate the shrunken subsection D language and to completely remove the new subsection D language as proposed by Councilmember Burble.

Perfect.

Okay.

So the end result of that would be elimination of new proposed subsection D as reflected in Amendment 2. Okay.

So is there a second?

Second.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded to amend Amendment 1 as described by Council Member Herbold.

Is there any further discussion?

Okay, hearing none, would the clerk please call the roll on the amendment to Amendment 1. Peterson.

Aye.

Sawant.

Aye.

Strauss.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

Juarez.

Aye.

Lewis.

Aye.

Morales.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

amendment two is councilmember Herbold, is that your amendment?

No, okay.

So amendment two is councilmember Sawant's amendment?

I believe after the steps we've just taken, amendments two and three are not necessary to go through.

Okay, great.

Councilmember Herbold, do you have any other amendments to put forward?

Excellent.

Well, we have resolved a lot of issues in just, I think, being able to have the conversation that we did was really helpful.

So thank you again, colleagues for that.

That exhausts our amendments on this particular bill.

So we now have an amended bill before us.

And let's see here.

Let me get back in line on my And then, Madam Clerk, is there any formal language that needs to be done besides Councilmember Sawant's language around withdrawing Amendment 2 and 3?

I am double-checking really quickly the amendment we just passed, and it looks like the actual subsections are numbered correctly, so we are good to go at this point if you want to consider it to be billed as amended.

Excellent.

Thank you so much.

Music to my ears.

So, colleagues, we now have an amended bill before us.

Now is the time where we can take further comment on the underlying bill as amended.

Council Member Sawant, you will have the last word as the prime sponsor of the bill.

Are there any other council members who would like to address the substance of the bill as amended before us?

Council Member Peterson, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Council President.

I just want to thank Council Member Sawant for introducing this bill.

I was an early supporter of it and also wanted to thank our Public Safety Chair, Lisa Herbold, for reviewing it carefully, thinking it through from additional lenses so that we could have these additional amendments.

And thank you, Council President and the City Clerk for guiding us through all the amendments.

I appreciate it.

I hope the public can see that we're trying to be unified here and work together on these serious issues.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Any other comments on the bill?

Okay, I also want to signal my thanks to Council Member Solant, who quickly introduced this bill, as well as the previous bill that we just looked at around chokehold.

So I just really want to Thank you, Council Member Solant, for introducing this bill.

Many of us had made public statements before the introduction of this bill about the need to ban the use of chemical weapons that were intended for foreign wars and to address terrorism in the aftermath of 9-11.

The fact that those types of weapons were being used domestically on our own residents is just abhorrent.

And so I was an early supporter of trying to use the levers that were available to me as a council member in the background to use the power of persuasion to stop the use of those weapons and those tactics on our people who were peacefully protesting, and unfortunately, Those calls for action and for a pivot were not answered.

And when we had a moment, a small brief moment of thinking that it was going to be answered, that the call was answered to stop using those chemical weapons, we saw that within approximately 24 hours, that same tear gas was being used once again.

on peaceful protesters and within one of the densest neighborhoods, not just in the city, but the densest neighborhood in the state, where we kept hearing reports from families.

and from other residents who weren't even protesting, who were just existing on Capitol Hill, who were suffering the consequences of this non-discriminate use of tear gas.

So I absolutely support this legislation.

I look forward to submitting it to the court for further review, again, following on our model that we used in 2017 when we considered the police accountability ordinance and then submitted it to the court for review.

We understand that we have a to do that, and know that our city attorney's office will pursue that path, and hopefully we will get affirmation from the court as it relates to the policy choice that we've made here today.

And, again, really appreciate the commitment to bringing this forward, to doing it quickly, because we do have a sense of urgency around making sure that this is addressed quickly.

Of course, we still have the issue of all of the chemical weapons that are currently owned by Seattle Police Department that are in the inventory.

The language of the bill does not necessarily require them to dispose of those, that existing inventory, so we will have to have a conversation about how we effectuate the disposal of those items without the unintended consequence of having to send those weapons to other cities where they will be used in ways that will have negative impact and harm there as well.

So looking forward to having that conversation.

I did see Council Member Mosqueda as I was talking.

Raise her hand.

She's feeling inspired now, so we're excited about that.

So I'm going to go ahead and hand it over to Council Member Mosqueda.

If any other council members have comments to make, please do raise your hand or shoot me a quick text message to let me know that you have to make, and again, Council Member Salant will have the last word on this bill.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you very much, Council Member Sawant, for introducing this bill, and Council President, I think you did inspire me to want to chime in on a few more pieces.

We talked a lot this morning and in the last week and a half about the type of situations that we've seen, and I want to give you a list of how I think that this piece of legislation will immediately help protect the health and safety and save lives of residents throughout the city.

This is not just coming out of a desire to deescalate the strategies police are using.

This is actually coming from a direct result within the last two weeks of people calling us, emailing us, grabbing us while we're in the street to tell us what they've seen.

From the inspector general, the list of claims that we've heard are people who have experienced having a thumb amputated because of a flashbang device, a protester who is now partially blind due to rubber bullets being used.

We heard stories of a woman who had to be resuscitated after getting hit in the chest with a flashbang device.

We know the story repeatedly of a young boy, seven years old, getting sprayed in the face with pepper spray.

And this is in addition to all of the other stories that we're hearing just about excessive force, officers kneeling on the neck of two-day detainees in our area, officers punching a youth on the ground the Friday night before the main Saturday night protest.

an officer punching a person on Saturday night, failure to secure the rifles in their cars.

These are the type of complaints that we're hearing from across the city.

So at least taking away these weapons of war and to the good points that were made earlier today, the weapons that have been deemed illegal in actual course of war, getting those off of our streets and having those not used against our residents is critical.

I thank you for putting forward this bill and I just think it shows a strong show of solidarity across this entire council that every single person was wanting to act quickly last week and today to move forward with this legislation.

It was probably past due before this week and I appreciate the urgency in which it's been brought forward to respond to the calls for action from the community.

Thanks all.

Okay, Council Member Herbold, please.

I just wanna underscore how much I appreciate the fact that all council members voted for my amendment one, particularly as it related to lifting up the role and the importance of our accountability partners.

Again, in 2017, under Council President Gonzalez's leadership, we voted for our accountability ordinance.

which gives the OPA, the OIG, and the CPC and a very, very important role in consulting with the council as it relates specifically to policies like the ones that we are about to vote on.

And the amendment that council member Council Member Sawant was proposing her version of Amendment 3, did not include that language.

And I think it's really important that we as a council not do anything to undermine the role of those bodies as we continue to have these conversations around use of force and changes to police practices.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Herbold for those remarks.

I also agree that we can take a strong position on this particular policy issue while also continuing to lift up the role, the importance of the role of the OPA, the IG, and the CPC in sort of we continue to move forward.

I think it is really important for us to continue to do that.

We have not, to my knowledge, received any recommendations from the Community Police Commission about needing to completely redo our three-legged stool around accountability system, and I think they have still, at least as far as I know, We are working with the community police commission to support the model that was originally proposed in 2017 through our police accountability ordinance and I intend to I think that's a good point.

Thank you again for pointing that particular issue out, and I do think that we have found a nice balance now where we have, are going to be able to achieve the underlying goals that councilmember Solano originally had while also still creating a clear pathway and signal for the three accountability organizations to still clearly through directive of the ordinance have an the underlying goals of the council bill.

So with that being said, are there any other comments?

Councilmember Strauss, do you have comments, please?

Thank you, Council President.

I'll keep this short.

I know that I've said many times that weapons of war have no place on our streets here in Seattle and used against the residents of our community.

I realize that I've said that so many times.

I do need to let the record reflect here in this moment as well.

Hearing from the veteran from North Seattle during public comment today was very important to me to hear about how weapons of war used on our, that are not even allowed to be used on our enemies on foreign soil, have been used on our residents here in Seattle.

The residents of Seattle are not our enemy.

They are the ones that we are here duty-bound to protect, as well as your words, Council President, about using these weapons in the densest neighborhood in the entire state.

So thank you to the sponsor for bringing this bill forward as quickly as possible, and thank you, everyone, for your diligent work.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you so much, Council Member Strauss.

All right.

I think we have exhausted folks who want to make comments.

Looks like we are ready.

So, Council Member Sawant, you want to take us home on this bill?

Unless, Council Member Juarez, I see that you just lit up.

Do you have comments you want to make?

I was just saying, going to do my famous line for the love of God, but go ahead.

Well, now you said it.

you are on the record.

Okay, Council Member Sawant, you get the last word on this bill.

Take us home so we can take a vote on this and get the law on the books.

Thank you, President Gonzalez.

I really must congratulate everybody who has fought for this.

These are major victories.

Undoubtedly, as many have said, we have a long way to go in terms of police accountability.

let alone really eliminating police violence and brutality and addressing the long-standing racism and oppression in our society.

But still, these are major victories.

They're historic, and the movement must celebrate its victories, both this bill that is about to be voted on and the bill that we just passed on banning chokeholds.

I thank all council members.

I'm assuming this is going to be unanimous from all the comments that we've heard.

I really appreciate that we are going to have a unanimous vote on both these important bills.

I congratulate everyone who spoke in public comment and who have been speaking up in the last two days because it was through your intervention, through your getting organized that this bill that's going to be passed is now going to be a strong bill with no loopholes.

Needless to say, and as we have said lots of times before, passing legislation is not going to be enough, but yet it is crucially important for the movement to hold its elected officials accountable to make sure that the strongest possible legislation is passed at all times.

So I wanted to thank the movement.

This victory belongs to you.

If you faced chokeholds, chemical weapons, and rubber bullets, if you marched, rallied, organized, testified, if you weren't able to rally and organize but you made a phone call to an elected official, you held up a sign, you talked to a neighbor, Or if you did anything to stand up for the Black Lives Matter movement and the movement of all working people against police violence, then today's victories are your victories.

I especially wanted to congratulate all the hundreds of young people who faced down just unbelievable, unspeakable violence right in our district, in District 3 on Capitol Hill.

whom it was my honor to meet and have lots of political conversations with.

In fact, we were sprayed with mace and tear gas when we were in the middle of very exciting political conversations.

So I wanted to thank many of them.

I obviously won't be able to name everybody, but I specifically wanted to name Teal Sean Turner, who's been on the front lines of this struggle and who's also a member of Laborers 242. She's been a union member.

I also wanted to thank Payday Payton, Tristan Spears, Joey Weiser, who's been documenting the struggle for days.

And this victory belongs to everybody who was there on Capitol Hill, everybody who has been marching, and especially wanted to make a mention of all the families and friends who have lost their loved ones because of police murder, like the family of Charlene Alliles, the family of Jay Taylor, the family of John T. Williams, And indeed, there are too many, because at least 30 black and brown people have been murdered by Seattle police since 2011. And I've read their names before, but I won't be able to read them now.

But this victory belongs to the families of all of those community members whose lives were lost at the hands of the police.

I completely agree with the council members who've said that we do have to discuss the disposal of the weapons that are in the hands of Seattle police right now.

We absolutely do not want them to sell them to another jurisdiction, whether it's another city, another state, or another country, because this is about international solidarity against police violence and racism.

So absolutely, we will not let that happen.

But we do need to figure out what happens to that.

And I welcome input from scientists if they know if there is any socially constructive use at all for those weapons, then we should direct it there.

So I welcome your input to my office.

And in terms of next steps, I think it's important that, just like we had a strong showing of the community today at the meeting for these two bills, Let's hope that we have a strong showing for the budget committee on Wednesday.

There's going to be a public comment sign-up that opens at 8 a.m.

The committee meeting will start at 10 a.m.

As you know, you can easily find out how to sign up.

Just Google Seattle City Council public comment and you'll find the online sheet.

But you'll have to sign up at 8 a.m.

on Wednesday, June 17. As you know, there are important tasks ahead of us.

We need to fight to defund Seattle police by at least 50% and make sure that this city is not controlled by police repression, but by community organizers and through social justice and restorative justice.

And we are also discussing the tax Amazon legislation to tax big businesses in order to fund a major expansion of social housing, to address homelessness, to fund Green New Deal programs, and most importantly to fund jobs that will be union jobs, union, good-paying union jobs with priority hire and pre-apprenticeship programs to address the inequities faced by our marginalized communities.

Another next step I wanted to mention is on the same day, Wednesday, June 17th at 4.30 p.m.

at Cal Anderson Park, I hope everybody who's fighting in the Black Lives Matter movement will join us, because there is a rally being organized by the rank and file of Seattle's labor movement, and they will be demanding that the local labor movement leaders, the labor council, the King County Labor Council, remove the Seattle Police Officers Guild out of labor council.

And so this is the rally titled Seattle Police Out of Our Labor Council, because this is our labor movement, and there is no room in our labor movement or police brutality, because an injury to one is an injury to all.

So please join us in public comment.

Sign up at 8 a.m.

on Wednesday, June 17. And also join us on the same day, Wednesday, June 17, at Cal Anderson Park at 4.30 for a rally alongside the rank and file of the labor movement.

And then last but not least, I'll say that all of this is extremely important and it's historic, but it's also minimal.

So we need to go forward in making the real kind of change that we need to do to defund the police by 50 percent, to raise progressive revenues by taxing big business, to fund housing, and most immediately we need to make sure that those who have been arrested in the protest movement, in the peaceful protest movement, should be released and no charges filed against them.

I hope all council members will support these next steps.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

So I think I'm going to go ahead and close out debate so that we can go ahead and call the roll on this bill.

So I am now going to ask that the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill as amended.

Peterson.

Aye.

Sawant.

Aye.

Strauss.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

Juarez.

Aye.

Lewis.

Aye.

Morales.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

all are contributing to a better ecosystem here.

And, of course, we have a lot more to do, but this is a good place for us to start.

So congratulations, everyone.

Will the clerk please read into the record agenda item 4?

Agenda item 4, Council Bill 119803, requiring that certain uniformed peace officers do not cover with a morning ban the serial number that is engraved on our badge amending section 3.28.130 of the code declaring an emergency and establishing an immediate effective date all by the city council.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

I will move to pass Council Bill 119803. Is there a second?

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

Council Member Herbold, you are the prime sponsor of this bill, so I am going to recognize you in order to address this item.

Thank you so much.

So today we're voting on Council Bill 119803, which will require officers to display their badge numbers while allowing warning bands to observe the death of officers on a different part of the badge.

Many, many constituents have contacted the council alarmed that badge numbers were not visible in the two weeks following the murder of George Floyd.

After I announced that I was drafting legislation, Chief Best issued a directive to all officers to display their badge numbers while wearing morning bands.

I, of course, appreciate that order, but believe that this policy must be adopted into state city law.

The legislation amends section 3.28130 of the Seattle Municipal Code which was created after the 1999 WTO protests when people noted at that time that they could not view the name tags of officers.

So then former City Council member Peter Steinbrook sponsored legislation to create a new section of the Municipal Code to require display of name tag.

This legislation is emergency legislation, so it will go into effect immediately upon signature of the mayor within the next 10 days.

It would not have the additional 30-day waiting period for non-emergency legislation.

The bill also requests that the Seattle Police Department work with all other law enforcement agencies whose peace officers reasonably may be anticipated to enforce traffic or criminal laws in Seattle pursuant to Chapter 10. to develop a policy that would require these peace officers when enforcing these laws to conform with requirements concerning badges, identification devices, departmental identification on uniforms, and oral identification that is consistent with Seattle Municipal Code Section 3.28.130.

The Seattle Police Department is requesting a report to the Seattle City Council with a proposal for the policy by January 2021. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Herbold for that description and for introducing this important bill.

Are there any comments or questions on this bill?

I'm not hearing or seeing any.

Again, I want to thank you, Councilmember Herbold.

I think we have all discussed this bill quite a bit before today and do agree with the approach that you've described, which is about not just allowing this kind of policy to exist at the discretion of whomever might be the chief, but to actually make sure that this is made concrete and long-lasting through legislation.

Of course, a future council could disagree with our policy position and change that, but I think it's pretty clear that this council agrees very strongly that this should be the policy and that it should be codified in law and not just exist in in a police manual or in a directive from the chief.

So appreciate the wisdom in nonetheless moving forward this legislation and appreciate you bringing this for our consideration.

Customer in Ruscata, I see that you've raised your hand, please.

Thank you very much.

Council Member Herbold, thank you for bringing forward this legislation.

I just wanted to ask you a question both as the sponsor of this legislation and as Chair of Public Safety.

We know that even after the Chief issued that directive, we heard reports of individuals who are still covering badge numbers.

Can you remind folks what to do if they see that happen after this ordinance has passed and what the process should be?

It would be a violation of both SPD policy and city law.

The Office of Professional Accountability has a complaint process to investigate complaints of violation of city policy, and there's also the ability of I know that there is an investigation of the violation of city law to go along the investigation of a violation of city policy.

I do want to note that badge numbers are in different places on different people's badges.

Sometimes they are in the center and sometimes they are at the bottom.

had badges, had the tape through the middle, and there was actually a badge number at the bottom of the badge.

In some instances, I of course have not seen every example of every complaint.

There are, this issue is one of the sort of the top 10 issues that the Office of Professional Accountability is looking at as it relates specifically to the volume of complaints that they've received.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

All right.

Hearing none, I'm going to ask that the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Peterson.

Aye.

DeWant.

Aye.

Strauss.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

Juarez.

Aye.

Lewis.

Aye.

Morales.

Aye.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

Ms. Guetta?

Aye.

President Gonzales?

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Thank you so much.

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

Okay, folks, we are now in the other business category of city council.

I know of our agenda, excuse me, I know that Councilmember Strauss, as you mentioned during council briefing this morning, has one item for other business to come before the council.

So I'm going to go ahead and hand it over to Councilmember Strauss to walk us through that.

And then we will take action.

Thank you, Council President.

It is a great honor that I get to bring a proclamation today honoring Thomas Whittemore for his service to the city of Seattle.

I have known Thomas for a very long time, from the time that I served on the Ballard District Council and throughout the neighborhood.

I've always found him to be an exceptional public servant and steward of our city.

So it's a loss for our city family to lose him.

He's retiring, so he's getting his life.

And for all of us here in the city, it's gonna be a loss.

This Thursday is his retirement party.

This proclamation is honoring Thursday, June 18th as Thomas Whittemore Day.

And if you would please allow me to read this proclamation, I would love to share with you these great words.

So whereas Thomas Whittemore is known for his storytelling and world travels, his life includes tales from working all over the globe and once almost getting his hair cut by Jane Goodall.

Despite all of his traveling, he has invested over three decades to support communities in Seattle.

Thomas has a strong commitment to political and social inclusion and broadening the scope of who is able to access city government.

Beyond his work with involving all neighborhoods initiative, He has volunteered with the ACLU and to support people with disabilities.

His work will continue.

He will continue this effort into his retirement.

As a political cartoonist, Thomas has a tradition of drawing his interpretations of current events and people who retire from the Department of Neighborhoods.

Beyond his city duty, Thomas has demonstrated his commitment to community by serving as the board chair of the Ballard District Council and even running for a seat on the Seattle City Council in 1999. neighborhoods throughout Seattle have benefited from Thomas' work, including his own, where he organizes his annual block party.

Thomas also has worked alongside communities in the greater Duwamish area, Ballard, Capitol Hill, the Central District, and all around North Seattle.

Thomas has helped us start both the Small Sparks Fund and the People's Academy for Community Engagement to provide opportunities for people to become leaders in their community and to better navigate the city government.

Over the course of his distinguished career, Thomas has held the titles including Neighborhood Matching Fund Project Manager, Neighborhood District Coordinator, and finally, Community Engagement Coordinator for North Seattle.

Thomas is retiring after nearly 19 years of service at the Department of Neighborhoods, and our city wouldn't be the city it is today without his service.

So I look forward to presenting this on Thursday, marking June 18th as Thomas Whittemore Day.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss for walking us through that.

So colleagues, we have before us an opportunity to sign a proclamation honoring Thomas Whitmore as described by Council Member Strauss.

I'm going to go ahead and have the clerk call the roll on adding Council Member signatures to the proclamation.

Peterson.

Aye.

Sawant.

Aye.

Strauss.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

Flores.

Aye.

Aye.

Lewis.

Aye.

Morales.

Aye.

Musqueda.

Aye.

President Gonzalez.

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Thank you so much.

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

Okay, hearing and seeing none.

Colleagues, that concludes the items of business on today's agenda.

I want to thank you all for hanging in there as we were working through some parliamentary exercises.

My daughter Nadia absolutely agrees that we are now adjourning this meeting.

Our next city council meeting is Monday, June 22nd, 2020 at 2 p.m.

I hope that you all have a wonderful afternoon.

We are now adjourned.

See you all on Wednesday.

Thank you.

Bye.

Bye, Nadia.