Well, hello, everyone.
Good afternoon.
It is April 11th, 2024, and we're here to meet with the Governance, Accountability and Economic Development Committee.
It will now come to order.
It is two oh one.
I'm Sarah Nelson, chair of the committee.
Council members Saka and Rivera are excused from this committee meeting, and I apologize for joining remotely on Zoom due to a unnecessary trip back to the East Coast.
So will the clerk please call the roll?
Council Member Kettle?
Here.
Council Member Hollingsworth?
Here.
Chair Nelson?
Present.
Three present, two excused.
All right.
Thank you very much.
So we've got seven items on the agenda for briefing and discussion and possible vote, although only, well, six of those are for briefing, discussion and possible vote, and one is a discussion.
The first five items are reappointments to the Domestic Worker Standards Board, and then we'll discuss and possibly vote on the Seattle Department of Human Resources first quarter 2024 employment ordinance.
So let me just note that I will speak more to that, to why we're having that in our committee.
But for right now, I just wanted to say that I'm very excited to discuss these pieces of legislation and particularly the last item, which contemplates changes to our police hiring and recruitment processes.
So with that, if there's no objection, the agenda will be adopted.
hearing no objection the agenda is adopted so uh given the continued focus on the uh the app based worker um minimum wage standard i just want to say for i think the third time on on the record this week that this is not on the the agenda today for discussion or um for advancement and so i will not be considering or i will not be allowing comment on that item because this committee takes comment on items that are on the agenda so if uh if you're listening and considering signing up please do not we will be addressing that at the next committee meeting on april 25th all right so uh with net with that we'll move into the public comment period on the items listed on the agenda with the clerk please let me know how many people are signed up in person and remotely
Council President, we have two in-person public commenters and then we have two virtual commenters as well.
All right.
I will give each person two minutes and we'll start with the in-person commenters.
Thank you very much.
Could you please read the instructions and then call on the names?
Yes.
The Council President will call on speakers in the order in which they have signed up to speak, starting with the in-person commenters.
As Council President mentioned, speakers will have two minutes.
When you hear the chime, you will have 10 seconds left.
If you exceed that time, your microphone may be cut off so we can move on to the next speaker.
If you're offering remote comment, make sure to press star six to unmute yourself.
And then as Council President mentioned, we'll be starting with the first two in-person public commenters.
The first will be Alex Zimmerman, followed by Colleen Fontana.
Alex.
Thank you.
Hi.
My name is Alex Zimmerman.
Could you please stop the clock?
Mr. Zimmerman, I ask that you not engage in this abusive language which constitutes a disruption to our proceedings.
I am not in chambers right now to look you in the eye directly and deal with any security concerns, so I am asking that you please refrain from such language and speak to an item on the agenda.
Go ahead.
Everything what is I speak approve by nine circle.
You possibly know local law.
It's only show how low quality you are.
Yeah, so I want to speak about agenda numbers.
Seven about police department.
We have problem with police department for many years.
US Supreme Court involved in this.
For last three year, for last three, mayor, you know what this mean?
It's come to nightmare.
So I have couple proposition, you know what this mean?
How we can fix this problem?
Because today comes statistic.
Seattle right now have standard of living four from 10. They look like a bug bug.
Banana Republic, you know what is meaning?
80% of people talking about police because police is one from critical point what is we need.
So first what is I want delivery to is my experience for 40 year.
It's time right now make a chief of police civil man.
Classic example of this are Defend their minister, you know what this means, from government.
So this is very important.
This is exactly what I want right now.
We need change fundamentally.
Fundamentally can be changed only when we bring a civil man, a chief of police.
It's number one.
For talking about police department, we need open better room in city hall one day per week.
And I'm talking about this dozen times in all my election.
We need doing something.
We need give people chance, speak openly without limitation because console right now act with limitation.
It's not good for city.
It's not good for America.
Not good for people.
Thank you very much.
Colleen Fontana.
You're up next.
Hi, good afternoon.
My name is Colleen Fontana.
I'm the base building director at their work center.
And I'm here today to congratulate the appointments for the Domestic Worker Standards Board and to uplift the importance of continuing to protect the labor standards and enforcement of those standards in our city.
Fair Work Center has been organizing domestic workers since 2018 when Seattle passed the historic Domestic Worker Bill of Rights, bringing basic protections to thousands of domestic workers in the city who have previously been left out of labor laws due to the legacy of slavery and ongoing exploitation of the labor of people of color, women, and immigrants in the US.
According to a 2022 report from the Economic Policy Institute, domestic workers on average make 75 cents to the dollar that their peers make.
Over 90% of domestic workers in this country are women, and workers in this industry are twice as likely to be from outside the U.S.
Additionally, domestic workers are three times more likely to live in poverty than other workers.
The Domestic Workers Standards Board ensures room at the table for domestic workers and employers to make decisions that impact their industry.
Additionally, the Office of Labor Standards plays an essential role in making sure these protections are enforced.
The continued support of the Domestic Workers Standards Board will ensure that we are prioritizing this indispensable industry.
Let's continue to be the city to pioneer protections for domestic workers and all workers in the future.
Thank you.
Council President, that is the last in-person public commenter.
We will now move to remote public comment, and the same rules apply.
Indigo Nimmo?
Sorry, there are two virtual public commenters, Indigo Nimmo, following by Nat Kasich.
Indigo?
Press star six to unmute yourself.
Hi.
I think it's great that the Domestic Workers Standards Board is happening.
It's really important that these workers from an exploited industry have a voice.
And like them, gig workers have also been exploited for years.
And this year they finally received protections and a guaranteed minimum pay.
I've talked to a bunch of gig workers about this and people are saying they're now able to take every job that's offered to them.
Workers are finally making enough on each job that they don't have to rely on the generosity of customers tips to make ends meet.
I urge the city council to not undo these new protections and pay standards.
Please do the right thing by all workers in Seattle whether they're domestic workers or gig workers.
Thank you.
DIRECTOR HAMPSON- Thank you.
Thank you.
Next up is Nat Kasich.
Nat, press star six to unmute yourself.
Nat, press star six to unmute yourself.
Nat, can you hear us?
Hi, can you hear me now?
Yes.
Yes.
Sorry.
This is Nat Kasich from District 1 here to comment in support of today's appointments to the Domestic Workers Standards Board.
It's an important step given the long, ugly history of excluding domestic workers from basic labor standards like minimum wage.
That's why the National Domestic Workers Alliance has described domestic workers as the original gig workers.
And that's a really important comparison.
It's important because we know some members of this community are desperate to cut pay for gig delivery workers.
Will domestic workers be next?
After all, the people who employed them are a lot richer and more powerful than they are, a lot like gig delivery workers.
Consider also that a lot of domestic workers provide childcare, and childcare is really expensive.
Is this committee going to try to roll back the minimum wage for domestic workers in hopes it will save Uber executives some money on their nannies?
Excluding workers from labor standards has an ugly, racist, and sexist history.
That's not a history book you want to see yourselves in.
Support domestic workers with these appointments.
Support gig workers too.
Don't cut pay for any workers in Seattle.
DIRECTOR HAMPSON.
Thank you very much.
So it appears that we've come to the end of the list of people signed up for public comment.
So the public comment period is now closed and we'll proceed to our items of business.
starting with the five reappointments.
So here's how we're going to work this.
I will consider these five appointments or reappointments as a group.
First, the clerk will read items one through five into the record, and then Diana Salazar, who staffs the board for the Office of Labor Standards, will tell us about what the board does and also provide some information about the individuals who are seeking reappointment.
And then I'll field questions and comments from my colleagues about all five and then proceed to move the five pieces of legislation and call for a vote.
So clerk, can you please read the first five items into the record?
Agenda Items 1 through 5, Appointments 02828 through 02832 to the Domestic Worker Standards Boards.
Re-appointments of Bailey Freeman, Jordan N. Goldwang, and Altabena Hauser as members for terms to February 28, 2025. reappointments of Sylvia Gonzalez and Elizabeth Lay Hunter as members for terms to February 28th, 2027 briefing discussion and possible vote.
Okay, these are again five reappointments from the mayor's office.
Will the presenters please introduce yourself and begin your presentation?
I believe we only have one.
So go ahead, please.
Yes, can you hear me correct?
Okay.
Yes.
Good afternoon, Council President Nelson and members of the committee.
My name is Diana Salazar.
I am a policy analyst at the Office of Labor Standards and also serve as the board liaison for the Seattle Domestic Workers Standards Board.
I wanted to start off first by thanking you all for taking the time to consider the five mayoral reappointment recommendations today.
I am going to start off by giving a brief overview of who the Domestic Workers Standards Board are and, in particular, the five reappointment nominations that you have in front of you today.
So just a little bit of information about the Domestic Workers Standards Board.
The board was created through the Domestic Workers Ordinance that was passed by Council in 2018 and went into effect in 2019. It originally started with nine seats as the board, but per ordinance, as of 2020, it is now 13 seats.
And it is a mix of representation of domestic workers, worker organizations, hiring entities, individuals who contract domestic workers, and individuals that are part of the community, so community members at large.
The primary function of the board is to convene and discuss worker standards for domestic workers and to make recommendations to city council for any of the recommendations that they have discussed and decided are necessary for increasing labor protections and labor standards.
These can be a range from legal protections, exploring benefits, and overall working conditions.
They are also able to provide some feedback to our office around our outreach and enforcement activities.
So now I can go ahead and just give a quick overview of the five members in front of you for the consideration.
So I'm gonna start off by position number with starting off with position one, which is Silvia Gonzalez.
Silvia Gonzalez has been part of the board since the very beginning.
She has both direct experience as a domestic worker with over 15 years as a domestic worker, as well as organization experience.
She is the organizing manager at Casa Latina.
She also has tremendous leadership across the state and the country continuing to advocate for broad domestic worker policy, both at the state and national level.
And she is currently one of the co-chairs for the board.
Next, we have Bailey Freeman for position two.
Bailey is also a co-chair for the Domestic Workers Standards Board.
She has extensive community organizing experience.
Part of her background includes co-founding the Seattle Nanny Collective that continues to work today.
And she is a member of, excuse me, she is currently a union organizer at SEIU 775 in the nursing home department.
So she also brings a wealth of knowledge on organizing.
She brings excitement to the work and leadership as the co-chair.
Next for position three, we have Elizabeth Hunter Kelly or Liz.
Liz is a hiring entity.
She employs both nannies and housekeeper in her home.
with a background in communications and marketing professional, as well as her employer experience.
She brings a unique leadership to the board.
She loves to tell the story of the board, that's her communications background coming out, and excitement and recruitment efforts, and as well as mentoring to employers, providing that mentorship for new employers to the board.
For position 10, we have Jordan Goldwork.
Jordan is a domestic worker hiring entity.
He hires house cleaners in his home.
Combining both his experience as the executive director of One World Now and as an employer, Jordan brings important board development skills, oftentimes providing some leadership and policy development as well as city processes.
And then lastly, for position 11, we have Etelvina Hauser.
Etelvina is a leader for Ala Garifuna, which is an organization dedicated to building leadership among black Caribbean workers.
She has been a domestic worker for over 20 years, most recently caring for the elderly.
She has been involved also with the domestic workers ordinance since day one.
It was instrumental in building what ended up being the ordinance and continues to provide that outreach to domestic worker expertise for the board.
That concludes information about each of the board members.
Happy to take any questions.
Thank you very much.
Are these members Are these all second terms, or are they third terms?
Or how many terms do folks get to serve on the board, please?
Yeah, that's a great question.
Do the years vary per position also, as some boards do?
Yes, yeah, so it varies.
There are some that are currently doing their second term.
For example, Jordan, and you should have the roster in front of you as well, are entering into their second term.
And then positions like Liz and Sylvia, this would be going into their third term.
Thank you.
Got it.
And I recognize that there are two positions that are due for, I think, for appointment from the council.
And I believe that one of them has termed out.
So we are working on our end to produce nominations as well.
So thank you very much to the mayor's office for being on the ball here.
What is the main thrust of work of the board going forward?
You mentioned some of the issues they focus on, but are there specific policy areas that they're looking at right now?
Yes, so the board is actually planning on having a retreat at the end of this month.
It will be an all-day retreat where that will be a major component of developing their priorities for this year and their work plan for the next two years.
I can say that some of the conversations that the board has had include the PTO research, so continue to support the development of the PTO research.
as well as building relationships with you all.
As a new council, they are interested in getting to know you and for you all to also get to know members of the board.
Got it.
Okay.
Well, I look forward to learning more about what's coming forward.
I did indicate that there is one policy area, which is the creation of a mobile benefits program that was initiated by, I believe it was Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda, but it could have been Lorena Gonzalez.
Anyway, that has been ongoing for a long time and there is a significant budget impact to that.
So I have had initial conversations with OLS leadership about the fact that we might not be continuing with that, but that's a separate discussion because it appears that the board has other items on their agenda and will further refine those in their retreat.
So are there any questions from my colleagues?
for our presenters before we proceed.
Go ahead and raise your hand on the screen because I can see that easier.
Go ahead.
No questions from me, Chair.
Thank you.
Okay.
All right.
I am not seeing any other questions.
Questions are hands up.
So if there is no further discussion, I move that the committee recommend confirmation of appointment 02828 through 02832. Is there a second?
Second.
Thank you very much.
It's been moved and seconded to confirm these reappointments.
Are there any further comments?
Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the confirmation of the appointments?
Council Member Kettle.
Aye.
Council Member Hollingsworth.
Aye.
Chair Nelson.
Aye.
Three in favor, none opposed.
All right, the appointments have been recommended for approval and we'll be talking about these in full council, not this coming Tuesday, but the following one, because that is the way things work with Thursday afternoon legislation.
So with that, we will move to the next item on the agenda.
Thank you very much, Diana.
And will the clerk please read the agenda item six into the record.
Agenda item number six, Council Bill 120763, an ordinance relating to city employment commonly referred to as the first quarter 2024 employment ordinance, exempting positions from the civil service system and returning positions to the civil service system.
all by a two third vote of the city council briefing discussion and possible vote.
Thank you.
So just by way of explanation for the first two years in office, the quarterly employment ordinance went straight to full council and it was treated as a procedural matter.
And it wasn't until I inherited governance as council president and started digging into to this piece of legislation when I was briefed on all of the functions performed by the Seattle Department of Human Resources, that I became aware, I dug a little bit deeper into these quarterly ordinances.
And I started asking questions about whether or not they have fiscal impact, et cetera.
And so behind what you're going to be hearing today, there is a lot more information that I have and I believe central staff has on the processes that get these appointments before us and also potential fiscal impacts, if not the current year, then later on as part of the base ongoing.
And we might or might not have time to talk about that a little bit today, but I thank you very much for being here to speak on this on Karina's behalf because she has been mostly work in this issue.
So thank you very much, Allie.
Please introduce yourself and begin your presentation.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chair Nelson and members of the Governance Committee.
I'm Allie Panucci of your central staff.
I'm going to share my screen here.
I'm here today to brief you, as the chair mentioned, on Council Bill 120763, the first quarter employment ordinance.
And I'll just...
reiterate what the chair just said, which is typically this would be presented by my colleague, Karina Bull, who did the bulk of the work in reviewing this legislation and preparing the memo, and really is your policy subject matter expertise on your central staff.
Let's see.
So the council authorizes certain personnel actions, changes to civil service status for reclassified positions, creation of new job titles through quarterly employment ordinances.
The legislation before you today is the first of the series for 2024. Before describing what's in the proposed bill, I thought I would just provide a little bit of background on civil service status and creating new job titles.
So the city charter requires civil service membership for all city employees, except for those positions specifically exempt from civil service that are listed in the charter.
And there are additional positions identified in the Seattle Municipal Code Section 4.13.
Civil service status provides a range of job protections for city employees.
This includes things like merit-based hiring and promotions or for cause benefits.
for cause termination, that is like termination based only on unsatisfactory job performance.
Employees that are exempt from civil service can be appointed without a competitive hiring process and are subject to at-will employment, which means they can be terminated at any time for any reason not prohibited by law.
Any position may be exempted from the classified service by state law, the city charter, the code, or by a two-thirds vote of the city council.
Typically, the council relies on the review and recommendation of the Seattle Human Resources Director in determining civil service status for positions.
And then increasing the number of positions with civil service status supports some of the city's commitments to eliminating racial disparities and achieving workforce equity.
There've been previous study that have looked at our workforce and found that black indigenous and people of color and especially BIPOC women are underrepresented at the top levels of city employment and compared to the general population.
So increasing the number of positions with civil service protections can achieve more equity by requiring a competitive hiring process and removing some of the barriers that create risk and uncertainty for employees seeking that career growth.
Exempting positions does create greater risk for employees.
And with that in mind, in recognition of this, the Department of Human Resources has been working and in partnership with the city budget office and finance managers for departments across the city are really prioritizing civil service status for when they're creating new positions and have really focused on decreasing the number of exemptions.
They are also, that department is also initiating a comprehensive review of the city's classification and compensation program that includes looking at ways to ensure equity.
The other action that might be included in a quarterly employment ordinance relates to the creation of new job titles and pay schedules.
This occurs when there is a body of work that does not fit within a current job title.
So for example, if your job title is a widget washer today and over time your job has become a widget fixer, we might create a new job classification.
but it's not necessarily about reclassifying an individual position, but rather a change in the overall program.
The bill before you today does not include the creation of any new job titles, but future legislation may include that type of change.
So what does Council Bill 120763 do?
It would return two positions to civil service system and exempt one position from the system.
The HR director determined that the body of work for two positions, one in the Office of Economic Development and one in the Office of Inspector General no longer meet the criteria for civil service exemption and recommended returning those positions to civil service.
And then for one position in the city attorney's office, the director determined that they meet the criteria for civil service exemption due to a broad exemption included in the municipal code for all positions in the city attorney's office, except for those that are in the administrative support and accounting support classification series.
Central staff did not identify any issues with these proposed recommendations.
However, As part of our review and in response to questions from the Council President, we did engage in a detailed discussion with the Department of Human Resources and the City Budget Office about the fiscal impacts of this legislation.
The decision before you today has no direct fiscal impact or cost, However, there are associated administrative actions related to these positions that could in the future have a fiscal impact that is described in more detail in the memo.
So I won't go into all of that today, but I will just flag that as a result of those conversations, we've had good conversations with the city budget office and the Department of Human Resources, and they have begun ongoing work.
to better detail associated fiscal impact impacts on quarterly related to quarterly employment ordinances and the administrative reclassification section.
Excuse me.
And so moving forward, there'll be more information provided to the council as these decisions are in front of you.
With that, I'm happy to take questions.
I have a question.
So on that slide previous, when you said the director determined that there were no impacts I just want to make sure that we understand which director we're talking about, because these were recommendations from department directors, right, that the Seattle Department of HR reviewed and agreed to.
Is that correct?
That is correct.
So let me just clarify.
I think what I may have misspoke, it is the director of the Department of Human Resources who makes a recommendation to the council about a change in the civil service status.
I had meant to say central staff didn't have identified issues with that recommendation.
But the review by the Department of Human Resources does come out of a request from the department to review the positions.
And through that review, like it both looks at the civil service status as well as the body of work.
So these positions were part of an administrative reclassification review.
And through that review, the director of human resources determined that two of those positions no longer met the criteria to be exempt.
Got it.
Councilmember Kettle, please go ahead.
Chair, thank you.
I was curious as, you know, with the new council and all new council members on apparently day 100 of our new council, how often is this part of a systematic review or does it bubble up from, like you were saying, the departments to SDHR to the director of HR and then But is there a, you know, a regularly scheduled kind of review that, you know, catches things that need to be changed, or does it rely solely on the department's self-reporting?
Well, so it can happen in a number of ways.
This does happen regularly.
So throughout the year, the compensation and classification unit in the Human Resources Department might review a position based on a, because a new position is added, like the council may, through legislation, add a position.
That position will need to be reviewed.
A position's body of work gradually changes over a period of time.
And so a department or an employee may request a change.
or a department wants to change the body of work and ask for reclassification.
So it does happen sort of periodically throughout the year, and it comes before you about four times a year if through that review it results in a change in civil service status or a new job title.
I will say that is part of why they've also initiated that overall review of the whole classification system to try to better...
match our employment needs to our classification system so that that process is meant to be a more thorough overhaul and i think it ideally will result in fewer requests for reclassifications but i that's just me speculating thank you and um your point about you know positions by ordinance is a great segue to the next agenda item
And to the extent that these purely moving people into or out of civil service may have a very small fiscal impact, it's my understanding that the departments are accommodating for that, if it's an increase, for that change during the existing fiscal year, but that there are impacts that are ongoing and that's what we were trying to talk with the CBO about because if it's an increase, it gets built into the base going forward.
And so there is an ongoing fiscal impact and it's within the role and responsibility of council to understand every change in our budget because we are the oversight body and we usually address fiscal impacts and budgetary changes within the mid-year supplemental and the fall budget deliberations.
It's small, but there are sometimes the December, the fourth quarter employment ordinance did have positions that were not just moving into or out of civil service.
There were some classification changes to pay scale, and so that's what led us on this examination.
Now, could you talk about the other changes that are made to classifications throughout the year that do not appear at all in the quarterly employment ordinance?
It's my understanding that last year departments requested a total of about 570 classification changes and 530 of those were approved.
Not all had budget impacts, but just talk a little bit about that and make a difference between what we're dealing with in this legislation and all the other ones.
Yeah, so for the potential fiscal impact is really more related to the administrative reclassification piece.
The decision to whether it is or is not in civil service isn't really material to whether or not the position will cost more.
However, like you said, there are associated decisions that have some potential costs.
In 2023, SDHR completed about 570 requests for classification reviews that resulted in about 246 classification changes.
Only seven of those positions required council approval to change the position civil service status.
So there are a large number of requests and decisions made that don't require legislative action.
However, we have been, again, working with the budget office and the department to better understand those potential impacts.
It is generally the expectation of the budget office and the mayor's office that when a department requests a reclassification for a position or the employee does, that if there are associated increased costs, like if the new position or reclassification will include a raise or in the long term, that position could cost the city more.
The department is expected to absorb those costs within their existing budget authority.
However, over time, you know, that might be fine for the first year or two of the position through, you know, natural attrition and some vacancy savings throughout the year.
The department may be able to absorb those costs, but eventually they will come to you their personnel budget.
And so through the conversations with you and the budget office and others in the executive branch, we are looking at ways, and really this is the work of CBO and the Department of Human Resources to more systematically look at the potential, not just the immediate, but potential future fiscal impacts of all reclassification effects.
Because my goal would be that when you received the budget in the fall and their request to increase the personnel costs due to reclassifications, that it's not a surprise, that it was based on decisions that you understand and it responds to the needs of the city in those positions, but just to provide more information upfront.
So CBO and HR are taking that seriously and that work is underway to make that more systematic change.
thank you and what we're talking about are very small changes but they sure do add up and when in this year when we're looking at an operating deficit is as as significant as we are uh that's why we're paying attention to this and plus i'm new in this role and we've got a lot of other new council members and so it behooves everyone to have a good understanding of what the system is right now and what possible improvements could um keep us out of operating deficit jail going forward so anyway um thank you very much for that and i wish that karina were perhaps she's listening but thank you very much for her work uh teeing this all up today and for you um in the background constantly working on this for years and years ali so thank you very much for that all right it's with that i move that the committee recommend passage of council bill 120763 is there a second second
Thank you.
It's been moved and seconded to recommend passage of the bill.
And if there are no further comments, not seeing any hands up, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill, Council Bill 120763.
Council Member Kettle.
Aye.
Council Member Hollingsworth.
Aye.
Chair Nelson.
Aye.
Three in favor, none opposed.
Thank you.
The motion carries and the recommendation that the bill pass will be sent to the April 30th City Council meeting.
And so with no further ado, we will proceed to the seventh item on our agenda.
Will the clerk please read that item into the record?
Seattle Police, my apologies, Seattle Police Department recruitment and retention ordinance pre-introduction discussion, briefing and discussion.
All right, this might require a bit of a lengthy preamble, so please indulge me on that.
So, I'll talk about the introduction schedule later, but just so everybody knows, Chapter 6, Section 1 of the Seattle City Charter says, there shall be maintained adequate police presence in every district of our city.
I learned that early on in my first term and it was because it was written in a letter that was sent by Reverend Harriet Walden as founder of Mothers for Police Accountability to the members of the Public Safety and Human Services Committee in February 2022. And she brought it, she sent it because she was very concerned about the devastating impacts of not having enough officers on the black community.
And I just want to quote what she said in this letter.
SPD lost almost 350 officers in 2020, and the recruiting since then has replaced only a small percentage.
Not enough trained officers are available to adequately respond to 911 calls for help.
When patrol officer counts are too low, SPD is forced to resort to emergency mobilizations requiring sworn trained investigators, such as homicide detectives, to respond to 911 calls.
This means that even more homicide cases will remain unsolved, a category that includes far more black victims than any other racial group.
That translates into less healing and less justice for the many families of black victims whose cases remain unsolved.
We need more trained police investigators on the job full time, not less.
So I mentioned this because this legislation we're going to discuss is actually the second piece of legislation I've sponsored since I've been in office aimed at accelerating the hiring of new officers.
And the first was Resolution 32050. And that was in response to Reverend Waldman's letter and the ensuing discussion in Public Safety and Human Services Committee.
And this resolution called for the creation of a staffing incentive program or hiring bonuses and to pay for it called for the lifting of the budget proviso that council had imposed on the salary savings for officers because there were vacant positions and so that money could be used for these bonuses that legislation passed and it was followed by executive generated council bill 1206654 which lifted that proviso and also funded three recruiting positions within the Seattle Department of Human Resources.
And we'll hear more about that.
Unfortunately, the hiring bonuses, it took a year for the word to get out that we even had hiring bonuses.
And that was a point of frustration because when you have the money to do it, you might as well get the word out.
In any case, it has been almost two years to the day since that resolution 32050 was introduced how do i know well i looked it up and in fact the date was april 12th 20 uh 2022 and very little has changed since then spd continues to lose more officers than it's able to hire and uh 23 2023 was no exception 97 sworn officers left the force and out of 1948 applicants only 61 or three percent were were hired and that's a net negative of 36 officers.
So on March 12th, Council Member Kettle, who is chair of the Public Safety Committee, held a meeting on SPD staffing and recruitment with presenters from the mayor's office, SPD, Seattle Department of Human Resources, and the director of the Public Safety Civil Service Commission, and I believe one of her staff members.
That meeting was held in part as a follow-up on information that I received in January and shared with council member Kettle that sheds light on some of the reasons why we're not making the progress that was anticipated in the mayor's recruitment and retention plan that was put forward in the summer of, I think it was July or August of 2022. And we learned that there were, that there were, that despite the fact that those positions were staffed and housed in HR and that they had come up with changes or innovative strategies for recruitment and also recommendations for low-hanging fruit for the hiring process, they were never implemented.
And so this legislation seeks to get at solving for that.
And I have to say that since that meeting, We've been in close, my office and also Council Member Kettle's office and Central Staff Greg Doss has been in close contact with the Mayor's office.
And I would say we're 90% aligned on what you'll see today, but there may be still some differences of opinion when it comes to some restructuring items in this legislation.
Long story short, In 2023, there were, as I said, 97 separations.
But the real problem is in hiring.
So we've got, when we talk about staffing of SPD, there's retention and then there's hiring of new officers.
And my approach is to fix what is not working.
Data show that we're making progress on retention and less so on hiring.
In 2022, there were 159 separations.
and 58 hires with a net total negative of 101 officers.
So we were down 101 officers at the end of 22. It's better now.
In 2023, there were 97 separations, far fewer, but only 61 hires, despite the goals of the plan that I've already mentioned.
And so this is why this legislation focuses on the hiring piece and also makes some structural changes so that the uh the recruitment team will be able to better uh present and surface the innovations that they're hoping that the city might be able to adopt so that we can outreach to more people and and get those people um excited about applying to spd so anyway that's a long way of sort of giving you the uh the background of what led to this this piece of legislation which again is a draft piece of legislation and there could be some changes but it focuses on um on hiring practices and uh they include for example perhaps allowing for the ability to use a second or a different test for entry-level officers making it possible to have more direct contact with the people that apply to the department.
Industry standards is that applicants get a personalized response within 48 hours of applying.
We're a big department, we've got a lot more people applying, so it might be difficult and we're attempting to solve for those difficulties so that we can compete with neighboring jurisdictions for high qualified recruits.
to work for the Seattle Police Department.
All right, with that long preamble, Greg, would you please introduce yourself and begin your presentation?
Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members.
Greg Doss, for the record, your council central staff.
And I'm joined behind me today with my colleague, Ann Gorman, who's been closely working this issue with me.
And just want to thank you for the opportunity to talk about, I'm going to call it TMP 10-423, or just the bill, because as the council president noted, it is a draft bill.
that is currently being researched more and may evolve before its ultimate introduction.
And so I'm gonna launch into a bit of background that will also be probably a little lengthier than I normally do, but it'll cover some of the same points that the council president made and then some different ones.
And that is that, as she pointed out, public safety chair Kettle that you received and your committee received on March 12th, 2024, a briefing on the recruitment and retention initiative.
That briefing, as the Council President said, was provided by representatives of the Mayor's Office, the Seattle Police Department, the Seattle Department of Human Resources, and the Public Safety Civil Service Commission.
Members were given an update on the initiative, which was originally created in July of 2022 in Ordinance 126654. Among other things, the presenters talked about the marketing campaign that started in 2023, the relocation of two recruitment staff from SDHR to SPD, and steps that were being taken to make the hiring process at SPD faster, easier, and more efficient.
The mayor's office indicated that they were working to shorten the hiring process from five to nine months, which it used to take, down to three or four months, which they're hoping to achieve.
Much of their focus in this area has been on the SPD pre-employment process and the PSCSC testing process, each of which can take up to two months to complete.
Regarding the pre-employment phase, presenters talked about creating efficiencies such as allowing out-of-state candidates to take physical agility tests in their local hospitals, as well as a new system, a digital system that has sped up the backgrounding process.
Members also heard the PSCSC director, say that the commission is working to increase the speed with which it sends to SPD lists of eligible candidates.
Executive Director Shealy said that that process used to take 12 weeks and that it now takes six to eight weeks.
She went on to say that she was given another staff member on her staff the PSCSE would be able to cut down that time, certify candidates, and publish registers within two weeks of the exam.
As you are all aware, the committee was receptive to the positive changes that are underway.
At the same time, members expressed frustration that changes were happening too slowly, given the rate at which SPD is losing officers.
Among other things, committee members asked why the PSCSE isn't using the same entry-level police officer exam that is currently used by Seattle's neighboring jurisdiction around the Puget Sound area.
Members also expressed frustration that the PSC testing process takes six to eight weeks and that it took about a year before the city launched its marketing and advertising campaign.
The council president speak to most of those things.
Committee members asked the PSC executive director to report back to the committee on the resources that it would take that would be necessary to shorten the register publication deadline or process to two weeks.
That request was soon thereafter formalized in an email made by the public safety chair, Kettle, on the committee's behalf.
Director Shealy provided a response on April 8th in a memo that is attached to my staff report online.
That was responsive to the committee's questions, and I'm going to talk more about that memo later in my presentation.
That was kind of a lengthy background.
I apologize, but I'll now move into talking about the bill before you.
So as the prime sponsor, the council president indicated, the sponsors of this legislation have for a couple months now been engaged with the mayor's office and the PSC on the substance of this legislation.
Before I go into that substance.
Yes.
Is that page?
Are you advancing the pages as you speak?
This is my staff report.
I'm going to go to a table.
I can just put it up now.
With that, I'll go ahead, like I said, and say that the draft is still under research and that it's possible that it may change before introduction.
And the bill would do a number of things.
It would legally create a permanent and make permanent the Seattle Police Department recruitment and retention program.
The program would be staffed by the three positions that were originally created in Ordinance 126654. That ordinance created a three person recruitment unit that had a manager and two recruiters.
This draft bill would legally move all of those positions from SDHR, where they were originally put, into the Seattle Police Department.
The bill would also encourage the Public Safety Civil Service Commission, the PSCSC, to consider the use of an entry-level police officer exam that is used by multiple law enforcement agencies in the Puget Sound region.
It asks the PSCSC to make within two business days personal contacts with candidates who have registered for the exam or successfully completed the exam.
Finally, it requires that the PSCSC increase the frequency with which, I should say it requests that the PSCSC increase the frequency with which it creates eligibility rosters such that they are created every two weeks.
Finally, the draft bill would add to the police exams unit in SDHR, the Human Resources Department, a new personnel analyst senior position to support faster registry publication and to provide more robust candidate support.
This position is paid for in 2024 through vacancy savings that have accumulated because of vacancies within the SPD recruitment unit.
Going forward, that position would cost in the 2025 budget a general fund increase of 146,000 per year.
So I'm now gonna move to this table.
Actually, I'm gonna start with SDHR's org chart, and I'm going to talk a little bit about how this legislation fits in with what the mayor's office is doing through MOUs.
They are undergoing a reorg themselves.
The biggest difference, and in many ways these changes are similar, the biggest difference between the draft legislation and the action underway by the mayor's office is that this manager here for the police recruitment program is going to be moved out to the PSCSC to manage a new testing unit that's created in the PSCSC.
That testing unit is going to be comprised of these four police exams positions, that currently reside all of these positions within SDHR.
And so that manager will no longer serve a police recruiting function, instead it will oversee the exams unit.
And then the two recruitment positions that were created in ordinance 126654, along with this manager position, those two recruitment positions under the mayor's MOUs would be moved to SPD.
Under this legislation, the reorg with the exam unit doesn't happen.
These three positions that were originally created for recruitment and retention all moved to SPD and become part of the new SPD recruitment and retention program, new as in legally created and formalized.
So now I'm gonna move.
back to the old table here.
And this other table shows sort of a position by position description of how these reorgs are happening.
The first column here is the positions that were created in the original recruitment and retention ordinance.
The second column is the draft bill that's before you now.
And the third column is under consideration by the executive, those reorgs I talked about.
In this first position, the manager two that was created, as I said before, under the draft legislation that moves to the SPD and would manage the two recruiters, and that position would have responsibility for developing and implementing recruitment strategies in consultation with contracted marketing or media consultants.
It would ensure that a personal contact is made available to all police officer applicants for the public safety exam and would also be accountable for the continuous improvement and to encourage agency strategies that reflect best practices.
Under both plans, the recruiter positions, as I mentioned before, would move to SPD and would report to this manager position.
As I mentioned, the mayor's proposed reorg is a little different.
Under the mayor's proposed reorg, this manager position would take charge of the exams unit, would not oversee the recruitment unit.
The recruitment unit would report to SPD's human resource director.
And it's the case that it's not entirely clear if the HR director of SPD would be providing the strategic guidance for the unit or if that would be coming from the mayor's office as it is now.
So as I, oh, in both of these, the last thing I should say, in both of these reorgs, there is a position added, a new personnel analyst senior position, a new position that is added to help speed up registry publication and make more contacts with candidates during the testing process.
It's just added a little differently in reorgs.
In this draft bill, it would be added to SDHR, and in the mayor's proposed reorder, it's added to the PSCSC.
So with that, I'm going to stop and ask if there are questions, because I think some of this reorg stuff may have been, maybe I didn't do the greatest job explaining it.
I've got more later.
I have, I have, okay, yeah.
So here's the thing.
Under the 2022 retention and recruitment plan, These three positions, all supposed to be focused on improving retention and recruitment within SPD, they were located within HR.
I think it's safe to say because there was resistance on the part of the past committee and to create more positions within SPD.
So they were put in HR.
And one of the problems was that some of the recommendations, and there were a lot of recommendations that came forward, were just not taken up.
And that might have been an issue with bandwidth, or it might have been the fact that there was less subject matter expertise in HR about specific SPD best practices or less expertise around national and regional best practices in different innovative programs that were taking place elsewhere.
I believe that the mayor's office moved two of the positions over to SPD for good reason, so that they could be in communication with their colleagues within the department and with the director of HR within SPD, Mike Fields.
I strongly believe that the final position, which is the highest position, the manager two, needs to move over to SPD and lead this whole program.
So there is one person in charge and accountable for making sure that innovations are explored and have a chance of being implemented and also someone who is accountable for those results, the results in recruitment programs and also improvements in hiring practices that are processed perhaps in the in the Commission but that ultimately impact the the main mission which is staffing up SPD ranks and so the the reasoning I just wanted the public to understand the reasoning behind making sure moving that last position is so there is for lack of a better word a chain of command and a stronger system of accountability to to advance the new strategies.
I have been in contact with SPD's HR director, Mike Fields.
You have too.
He has expressed in conversations that that would be a welcome change because he's already got a lot going on.
And this is looking at improving and looking to other jurisdictions for things that are working in other places.
And so that is the rationale for keeping those three positions that were originally together, but in SPD so that there can be a coordinated effort within the department and someone that council can really look to ensure that the recommended changes are having the intended effect.
And so that's the rationale for that.
And do you have anything to add to that, Greg, or Council Member Kettle?
Just we'll add one thing more before see if anyone else has questions.
And this is an important thing, Council President.
As you know, you have been in conversations with the mayor's office, and the mayor's office has recently indicated that they're currently looking at their reorg and looking to see if it might be aligned with this legislation.
So I want to bring up that the council and the mayor's office are looking at their reorg and this reorg and seeing how they might be aligned.
Right.
And so it's a learning process for everybody involved.
That's for sure.
I wanted to return to the issue of the test, if you might.
I think that you might have another page in your presentation that you're going to talk about.
That would now be a good time to talk, or do you want to address that later?
Chair.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Go ahead, Council Member Kettle.
I'm sorry.
I invited you to speak and then didn't call.
Go ahead.
Before moving on to that topic, I think it is important to highlight the fact that we need to simplify things.
Having too many organizations actively involved, it creates its own challenges.
So simplifying the process, simplifying the organizations, I think it's important to have the public safety civil service commission engaged, it has its responsibilities, but then have SBD and have these positions within the Seattle Police Department and not increase the number of organizations directly involved from an action officer perspective.
Obviously the oversight pieces from the mayor's office, Our committee, our council, and this committee as well, in addition to the Public Safety Committee, has its responsibilities.
But we really should look to simplify.
And it brings up so many things.
The clarity pieces, you talk about accountability and the like.
I think it's the way forward.
And so I support that process.
Thank you.
Yeah.
Okay, so you mentioned the testing and I do want to make a point about this because this was robustly discussed in the March 3rd meeting in your committee, Council Member Kettle.
Here's the situation.
There are five jurisdictions within Washington state that are currently testing candidates using the NTN test.
In contrast, there are, I don't know, over 100 small, medium, and large-sized jurisdictions that are using the PST test.
Why is that important?
It's important because often applicants apply to multiple jurisdictions.
And so when they take the PST test, once it's on file and they can designate which agencies get that score.
And if they have to use another test that nobody else is using, that is you know, that's a disincentive to include Seattle in their application process.
So that is one thing.
And if anybody has kids, I've said this before, if you have, you know, the SAT score is on file in one place and you can have it sent to other wherever you want.
And so that is a benefit.
And it does, it can very well cut down on the testing time horizon because we offer our test on in, in, I think it's four cycles over the course of the year.
And if you're in, and that can slow down the exam process as well.
When we were talking about all this count the, um, Andrea Shealy, who's the director of the public safety civil service commission did express concern that using this test would lower standards.
And I have to really strongly push back on that.
In fact, I think the opposite is true.
We're not talking about using a testing service.
That's going to give us a test right out of the box.
In fact, the PST exam is customized to meet the needs of jurisdictions.
It is not one size fits all.
The questions are informed by a validity study that is conducted by staff of the parent company of PST and with participation of the Seattle Police Department and perhaps other agents can have input on that.
But this process, it's called the validity study.
It can take about two months, a little bit longer, depending on how much bandwidth our staff had to put into this process.
But the point is that the questions are designed to account for the things that we're very much concerned about, bias, ability to use judgment to deescalate, all of the things that we've been talking about since the consent decree was imposed and what we're very interested in addressing to get out from underneath the consent decree.
So when it comes to whether or not we're lowering standards, there is no evidence for that.
In fact, we have heard from a recruiter that is in SPD, part of this three-person unit, who has raised serious concerns with the NTN exam, which was developed with participation from public safety HR specialists from Bellevue, Seattle, and Aurora, Colorado in 2012. I don't know if the questions have been updated since then, but the point is that to say that a new exam cannot account for new realities that have come to our attention is just not the case.
And there are some customer service issues with the NTN exam that were brought to our I won't go into detail, but for example, when an applicant goes to register for the test, they are told that they have to fill out a pretty detailed, what is it called, personal history questionnaire.
that can take a long time five to ten hours but the spd doesn't look at that that is that is language that is on the test that because it's on the test for every jurisdiction but not every jurisdiction uses that and we are told this recruiter was told from someone in the testing unit that that cannot that language can't be um can't be removed from the the landing page of that exam So it really does depend how good is the customer service and how agile is the testing service and how are they able to modify the instructions and the questions for the needs of individual jurisdictions.
And when it comes, and we use the same testing service for the physical exam as well, and there are some differences there.
Apparently, let's see, the...
PST has 18 physical testing locations throughout Washington compared to NTN's five locations, making it easier and less expensive for an applicant to take an exam in person if they prefer.
In addition to their 18 testing locations, PST has a partnership with Anytime Fitness where applicants can take the physical agility test at any of their hundreds of locations throughout the United States.
And NTN only has four locations within Washington where an applicant can take the physical agility test.
That matters also, and that can slow things down if an applicant fails the physical test at the first round.
And so there are many advantages to using PST in addition to NTN or instead of, but we do have to, but I am belaboring this point because I have not seen any reason why using this test would result in a lowering of standards.
So I just wanted to bring that to people's attention because as Director Scheele has been doing her due diligence by questioning the leadership of PST, they did cease participation in that due diligence because there was a list of 40 questions and many of them were proprietary.
And so we should not deduce from the declining of continuing in that due diligence process that there is an unwillingness to engage with the City of Seattle and be a service provider here.
Go ahead.
That's my point on the exams.
Please continue.
Thank you, Madam President.
I don't actually have much more to add.
I would just simply say that we heard from the PSCSC Actually, we heard from the manager at SDHR last uh march on the 12th that um there are a hundred or i'm sorry that there's 27 uh cities in washington that use the ntn um and that it's used by the west coast seven and some other large cities um that is as opposed but i think the council president is you know maybe right about the five being regional uh whereas the pst uh uses 100 or or is available to 160 agencies in Washington State, and as I looked on their page, just about every single neighboring jurisdiction that Seattle has.
The advantage of using the PST or using both would be that when a candidate is applying, they can send their application to multiple jurisdictions, and then if the customer service at those jurisdictions is speedy enough, then personal recruitment could commence after they pass the test.
So that's actually, I think you covered a lot of what I had, and I'll just ask if there are any other questions.
Councilmember Kettle.
Thank you, Chair.
I think it's important to say at the top is that Accountability is very important.
You know, we consider ourselves part of the accountability partners regarding the Public Safety Committee and more generally, and the Governance Accountability and Economic Development Committee and the Council overall.
And we partner.
I've had meetings just today with the OIG.
We work with the OPA and the CPC.
And the accountability piece is really job one, and particularly for all the reasons that you've mentioned related to the consent decree and building up the best force in the nation using all those resources reforms and progress that we've made in terms of constitutional policing and moving forward.
And I hold that very seriously.
And that's one reason why I understand the development of the National Testing Network and its role, and that needs to be, in my mind, maintained.
But my understanding, Mr. Doss, is that there's multiple jurisdictions that use both tests, is that correct?
Yes, I spoke with the PST company president today, and he indicated that there are three in Washington, Kennewick, Lake Forest Park, and Snohomish County that use both exams.
He indicated that it can be a bit tricky using both exams in a merit civil service, public civil service safety environment such that you have to make sure that candidates that are brought into your system are treated equally.
And so he had mentioned that the way that jurisdictions handle it is that the test is sort of a precursor to a pre-employment process that they use, that they bring all candidates into, and that they judge the candidates based on that experience.
It may be a little legally tricky and certainly would require more research by staff to give you more information on it, but there are currently three that do it.
Thank you.
Any follow-up, Council Member Kettle?
Yes.
The fact that you said three in Washington State, the way that was said, in my understanding, there's maybe some more.
Does that say that there's potentially some outside of Washington State that use both NTN and PST?
That may be the case.
I don't have information.
I'll get back to you on it.
And doesn't the overall recruitment process, I mean, we go, you know, You know, different briefings.
Just a week or so ago that we had all the HR talent and acquisition professionals from industry that were meeting with us, the mayor, the deputy mayor, and council member Saka, myself, and others.
You know, they were talking about, you know, their pieces to this, and, you know, My understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, is that it doesn't just stop with the testing at PSCSC, but there's a number of pieces that go through that, you know, SPD and the city of Seattle go through to get to that final point.
We're making a decision on the applicant.
Is that correct?
Yeah, that is correct, Councilmember Kettle.
There are numerous phases in that multiple-month process.
Just go through the phases that have been identified for me.
You've got submitting the application, a register and completion of the exam, a physical agility test, oral board interview, backgrounding, medical evaluation, a psychological exam, and a polygraph test.
So, yes.
So there's a long list, which is not very different, I should add, from my experience in terms of joining the Navy, particularly as an intelligence officer, having that level of review being very high.
So I have my own...
equivalent experience to that process.
It strikes me that another fact, and this came up in the meeting with the mayor and the representatives from industry is that And Council President mentioned this in terms of the common application kind of aspect to it.
We were told in that meeting that one of these HR individuals and professionals knew a person who was taking the PST, but they would not do the NTN because they were taking advantage of the fact that you have that common application thing where it goes, it can be designated to go various jurisdictions, but that person didn't want to take the extra step to go and apply to Seattle.
So there's definitely apparently, you know, opportunities where, or missed opportunities in terms of, you know, having a, an applicant, you know, come into our system because we're not part of the common application process that the PST offers.
Is that correct?
Yeah, that, that, is certainly correct.
And would note that the language of the draft bill requests that the PSCSE take those issues into consideration as they do their due diligence with PST as a potential exam vendor or NTN as their evaluation of both of these companies continues.
And it's quite clear I've had numerous conversations with police officers, which, by the way, want to maintain standards.
I should say that first.
Just within the last couple weeks, I've spoken to officers, and they're keenly want to have any new officers coming on board that are of the standard that is required for the seattle police department i should say that and i know that directly but i also in these conversations with different officers know that we lose officers to neighboring jurisdictions and our competition if you will are those jurisdictions within the three counties is that your understanding in terms of like really where we're looking it's not colorado or the west coast seven it's really these three counties
You know, I'm not a recruitment expert, but I have heard the mayor's office and SPD say that the local jurisdictions are the competitors that matter.
During the March 12th committee meeting, there was discussion about pay rates in the local jurisdictions and how that was potentially driving some of the recruitment challenges that SPD has been having.
So certainly the mayor's office has been making that comparison.
understand, and we won't go into that, obviously, because we're not the labor committee.
So the last piece on that is, and to come back to your point, is that Snohomish County is able to press forward with both NTN and PST.
And I would think going through the process that you were talking about, all those levels, whether it's physical, the polygraph, whatever it may be, that there's a chance to ensure that we're leveling up and we're ensuring that the level of the standards are being maintained in terms of what we're looking for for the Seattle Police Department.
So we can go on to the next stage.
Council President.
Chair.
DIRECTOR HARRIS- All right.
So well the next stage is is to talk about the processes.
But I will say that here's what's happening.
Somebody might not apply to the to SPD because they don't want to take a wholly separate test.
The process to be hired at SPD is about six months.
And so that's an already long process.
There are many steps along the way to test for the qualities that are attractive to work here.
But the bottom line is that during this whole time, other jurisdictions are being able to make an offer before we're able to make an offer for many reasons.
And if we're not making that personal touch within 48 hours, and doing a lot of the other things that improve candidate experience, that is a disadvantage to us.
And so the test is one piece.
It's an important piece, but there are other There are other improvements to the candidate experience that this legislation also contemplates, and that will, we're assured by the director of the commission, they'll be able to do with this additional FTE, which both the mayor's office and we agree is a reasonable thing that right now is already paid for.
So continue, Greg, with your presentation.
Actually, Madam Chair, I'm done.
That was it.
all right so here's i i want to address the uh what has changed from version one to this version uh this draft version uh the first version of this legislation that we shared with the mayor's office uh and the uh the public safety civil service commission in an act of transparency did direct changes did direct that the director of the commission make changes and um that was pushed back on and we did get a decision you know we got some input from law that in fact uh council might not be able to have that and so this version does have um it has discretionary language shall consider is encouraged to consider etc however a close reading by me of the of the code it it's it's less clear who makes the decision um which test is user which body is is empowered to select the test for example the um uh let's see chapter 4.08.070 of the municipal code sections c and d give the commission the power to quote prepare and administer the examination, but says nothing about who selects it.
And I bring this up because in Bellevue, for example, the Bellevue Police Department captain in charge of recruitment and hiring selected the exam and the commission administered it.
So there are some things that we're digging in deeper when it comes to who has the authority, what language we should be using when it comes to expressing our desire for some of these changes to occur.
and we'll be uh flushing that out a little bit more deeply at in the in the next coming weeks so i uh and it's not saying that but the bottom line is that i think that we have alluded to uh the conversations that have been occurring at a breakneck pace between uh between me council member kettle uh and uh deputy mayor burgess and I believe it's safe to say that we are in alignment with what has to happen.
And I think that the way that we have presented the reorganization of the FTEs, that the executive is amenable to these things.
But we're going to make darn sure before we come out with the legislation that we do introduce.
Council Member Kettle.
Thank you, Chair.
I just wanted to add, essentially in closing, that You know, with our strategic framework coming out of the Public Safety Committee, we identified six pillars.
And we're also working in two other areas with other committees.
But within those six pillars, pillar number one is SBD staffing, meaning recruitment and retention.
And it is the...
They're all equally important in a lot of ways, but SBD staffing is first among equals.
And within this issue, there's so many things that play into SBD staffing.
And this is clearly an area where we needed to address the shortfalls and bring more clarity and purpose to this to improve our performance.
And there's been great improvement thus far, but we need to continue that improvement.
And I think moving forward with this ordinance, in partnership with the mayor's office, SBD and PSCSC will help us do that.
And this is one of the things that we need to do along with many others.
There's a number of different pieces that are in motion right now to support our efforts and our goals within SBD staffing.
And we need to continue to look at all those, but we need to look at these basic kind of functions.
And I think this is an area, so I appreciate Mr. Doss coming and briefing.
on this and his work looking at this.
And then, Council President, you were taking the lead based on your experience with the previous ordinance and essentially your two-year head start.
But the Public Safety Committee, partnering with the Governance, Accountability, and Economic Development Committee, is looking to address these from different angles, and I appreciate that effort.
Yeah, good point, because I think I'm worried about the public's eyes glazing over with all of this minutia, but it matters.
We cannot afford not to do absolutely everything.
And so when it comes to these, you know, kind of picky little details of where these FTEs go and who does what and which exam and all these things that might sound minor, but we can't not do that because every Everything matters when it comes to what I consider to be the most important thing to improving public safety, which is making sure we've got enough officers to respond to constituents' needs.
And that's clearly what our constituents expect from us.
So.
With that, I will ask if, thank you very much, Greg.
You've done amazing work.
And I also want to credit my policy director, Stephen Ellis, in my office, who's been working very closely with Greg as well.
So to be continued, thank you very much, everybody.
And I will ask if there are any items of business before we adjourn.
I am not seeing any.
Any other items?
So this concludes the April 11th meeting of the Governance, Accountability, and Economic Development Committee.
Our next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, April 25th at 2 p.m.
And since there's no further business, the time is 3, no, I'm looking at about, the time is 3.28 and this meeting is adjourned.
Thank you.
Bye-bye.