Seattle City Council Public Safety & Human Services Committee 9222020

We're live?

Live on wherever you are.

All right, great.

Thank you so much.

Welcome to the September 22nd, 2020 meeting of the Public Safety and Human Services Committee.

Please, let's call the meeting to order.

It is 9.35 AM.

I'm Lisa Herbold, chair of the committee.

And will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Gonzalez?

Here.

Council Member Lewis.

Present.

Council Member Morales.

Here.

Council Member Sawant.

Council Member Herbold.

Here.

So today's agenda, we'll be covering appointments to each the Public Safety Civil Service Commission and the Seattle Municipal Court.

We'll hear amendments to the Seattle Whistleblower Protection Code, as well as reports regarding court-imposed monetary sanctions in Seattle Municipal Court, the Seattle Police Department's Community Service Officer Program, the Code Lead Program, and we'll also get an update on efforts to implement safe consumption programs.

And moving on to approval of our agenda, there's no objection to today's agenda.

It will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, today's agenda is adopted.

So at this time, we'll transition over to public comment.

We have 15 minutes of public comment on the agenda.

Before we open the public comment period, as we always do, ask that everybody be patient as we learn to operate this new system in real time.

I'll be moderating the public comment period in the following manner.

Each speaker will be given two minutes to speak.

I will call on each speaker by name and in the order 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 the public hearing by going to the council's website.

The link is also listed on today's agenda.

Once I call a speaker's name, you will need to press star six to unmute yourself.

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

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

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

If speakers do not end their comments at the end of the allotted time provided speakers will have their mic muted after 10 seconds to allow us to take the next speaker.

Once you've completed your public comment, we ask that you please disconnect from the line.

And of course, if you want to continue following the meeting, you can do so via the Seattle channel or the listening options listed on the agenda.

So with that, we will move over to public comment.

And I'm going to read names into the record.

We will start with Judge Adam Eisenberg, followed by Judge Faye Chess.

Good morning, Councilmember Herbold.

This is Adam Eisenberg.

I'm one of the judges in Seattle Civil Court, and I'm very excited and pleased by the Mayor's nomination of Catherine McDowell to become our latest, our newest benchmate.

I'm still confused by the technology, so I apologize.

But anyway, council members, I wanted you to know that Catherine McDowell has been working at the Pro Tem in our court for the last seven years.

She's super smart.

She's very committed to changing the court system to make it more fair.

She and I work together on a regular basis.

We frequently discuss cases together.

I've always been super impressed by her knowledge of the law, as well as her compassion and empathy for the people that come in front of her.

We've also discussed the Domestic Violence Intervention Project and other programs that we're doing in the court that are designed to, you know, enforce harm reduction concepts and also help people so they don't return to our court system.

I know she's very committed to the changes that the Vera report has suggested and I'm just super, super excited that she will hopefully be joining our bench.

So I want to thank you very much for considering her nomination and encourage you to please support it.

Thank you very much and have a great day.

Thank you.

Next, we have Judge Faye Chess followed by Rel Be Free.

Judge Chess, are you with us?

You want to hit star six.

I think you're mute.

Hello?

Judge Chess?

She's still muted.

So she needs to get reminded about the star six.

Judge Chess, you have to hit star six to unmute yourself.

Judge Chess, I don't know if you can hear me, but you need to hit star six to unmute.

Are you there?

Eric, is it possible to move on while somebody is still trying to?

Yes, it is.

In the past, I think we could come back to them, maybe a couple or three, and then try to come back to that person.

They're on now.

She's super smart.

She's very committed.

That's Adam.

That's Judge Eisenberg.

It's not working.

She and I work together on a regular basis.

That's a replay.

If you turn off your live stream in the back.

Looks like we lost you now.

We lost the caller.

OK.

All right.

Let's move on to Ella Kaplan.

Hello, can you hear me?

We can.

Thank you so much.

Yeah, of course.

My name is Ella Kaplan, and I'm speaking for the funding of Yes to SDS today.

I'm a student at University of Washington, where I'm studying the comparative history of ideas and microbiology.

And I'm also a member of UW's new chapter of the Students for Sensible Drug Policy.

SSDP is a national student group that aims to reform local drug policies, and we are here today to communicate our support with Yes to SDS.

Making drug policy better is critical at all times, and never so important as during COVID.

The work SDS does to ameliorate and reform drug policy is incredibly notable, not only to SSDP, but to me personally, because of my familial background.

My grandparents made the very conscientious decision to foster and adopt seven children, frequently from households that use drugs problematically.

The drug epidemic has impacted all of us, and SDS is one public health approach to address that epidemic and a compassionate response to reversing criminalization.

This council has not only led on SDS through allocating funding, but has been bold and involved with approaches to public safety and a critical strategy of such undertaking is the creation of an SDS.

Today, I'm urging you as city council members to transmit the SDS funding to the city's public health contracts to resource agencies for implementing an SDS.

Your leadership on SDS has been extremely appreciated, and we urge you to make one last push for yes to SDS.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next we have Rana Amjadi, followed by Jaslyn Huerta.

Rana?

Hello.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Thank you.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Rana Amjadi and I'm calling to comment on the investments in public health in our community.

Council members, I would like you all to really think about the lesson you want to teach Seattle youth today.

You're telling them that we can raise our voice.

Practice our constitutional right to protest.

Think creatively.

Execute strategically.

Strengthen existing community ties and establish new ones but somehow none of that will matter.

That we can gather the numbers and shake hands with our council to form a pact for a better tomorrow but that you'll crumble.

Like all others before you you'll fold in the face of racism corporate greed and political complacency.

This really doesn't have to be our story.

This doesn't have to be our reality.

You have an opportunity today to pivot our collective journey in a new direction, even just slightly.

I urge you to take this opportunity.

I urge you to invest in the true public health and safety for all communities.

I urge you to stand firmly for Black lives and override the mayor's veto.

Thank you.

I yield my time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Jazlyn Huerta, followed by Lucas Metzner.

Hello I'm Jocelyn Huerta.

I live in District 3 and I'd like to echo what the previous caller just said so beautifully.

I'm calling to request that you uphold your commitment to defunding the Seattle Police Department's 2020 budget and reinvest that money into community-led solutions.

Over the summer Seattle community came together to fight for Black lives and create better systems for public safety for all of us.

I'm calling to remind the council of the promises you made your constituents last month and in the months leading up to this.

Please override the mayor's veto.

Please uphold your promises.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak.

I yield my time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Lucas Metzner followed by Mara Dungo.

Lucas if you haven't hit star six you need to do so to unmute yourself.

Lucas, it shows that you're talking, but that you're muted.

Can you hear?

I'm unmuted now.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Hi.

OK.

Good morning.

My name is Lucas Metzner, and I'm a student at the University of Washington studying neuroscience.

Like Ella, I'm also a member of the UW's chapter of students for sensible drug policy.

Making drug policy better is critical.

Supervised consumption services and drug policy are important to me because as a resident of the U district, I've seen how current drug policy has failed the most vulnerable members of our community.

For my admittedly privileged position as a student planning to start a life in Seattle, I want to live in a city that takes care of all of its residents in order to ensure a safer and healthier life for all.

Partnering with organizations that are already taking strides to make this a reality, the new plan for SCS just needs one more push from city council to begin to implement this groundbreaking project that will build a better community for all of us.

The council has not only led on SCS by allocating funding, but has also been bold to evolve our approaches to public safety.

One of the largest intersections of policy and public safety are drug policies.

And to make our public safety more equitable and to support vulnerable members of our community, SCS is one critical strategy.

Our evolved approach to SCS that would introduce safer consumption services at places where people that use drugs already receive services is a logical and efficient public health approach to public safety issues.

By co-locating supervised consumption services, we can make unsafe consumption more safe and work towards drug use being less impactful to communities and neighborhoods.

Today I'm urging you as city council members to transmit the SCS funding to the city's public health contract for research agencies for implementing supervised consumption services.

Your leadership on SCS has been extremely appreciated and we urge one last push for guests to SCS.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Mara Dungo followed by Cindy Pierce.

Hi, my name is Mara Dungo.

I'm a longtime Seattle resident.

I went to undergrad and law school at the University of Washington.

I'm a principal at Alaia Consulting and I specialize in civil rights protection.

I support the work of King County Equity Now and Decriminalize Seattle and their efforts to build a new normal rooted in equity without policing.

I'm calling specifically on all of you and particularly the White Council members who are listening who have seemingly lost all courage to do what's right in this critical moment.

to redress the years of anti-Black individual policy decisions that you have all made that you have contributed to and that you now have the minimum responsibility to provide redress for.

Override the mayor's anti-Black veto to stand on the right side of history.

It's important to correctly frame these overwhelmingly supported calls to divest from policing and reinvest in community-led public health and safety solutions.

The Black and White wealth gap in Seattle is $433,000.

That is not an over-exaggeration.

That is a fact.

Black and Indigenous communities are owed quite literally trillions for exploited labor police violence economic exclusion discriminatory housing practices and more.

After facing COVID-19's economic fallout conditions for Seattle's Black and Indigenous communities are on a trajectory to only worsen.

And against that backdrop these communities mobilize tremendous support.

to demand true investment in public safety solutions that work for all of us and at minimum don't kill us with our own money.

And in the face of that an entirely non-Black Seattle City Council has seemingly crumbled to a wealthy White mayor.

This is not a normal vote.

This is not a normal time period.

This is the opportunity that you have right now to show your Seattle constituents that you will stand on the right side of history.

And if you don't, we're going to come at you with the pack and all y'all going to get out.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Cindy Pierce followed by Tara Regan.

Good morning.

My name is Cindy Pierce and as a Seattle resident for over 40 years, I've watched this city change and not for the better.

As a city where we raised our children, enjoyed our parks and other outside activities, it's embarrassing to call this place home.

As an associate of the Neighborhood Safety Alliance, we've been active in the homeless crisis and other safety and health issues.

We used to go out and speak with the addicts.

We no longer can.

It's too dangerous.

You as a council have decided to listen to a loud minority when it comes to police funding.

We want to live in a safe city and we don't feel safe now.

With all the shouting looting and property destruction that we've experienced over the last few months it's unacceptable.

We need law and order here and we need it now.

Utilize our trained police.

Don't replicate it with social workers and bigger budgets.

The current nonprofits you currently fund have not shown that they can succeed in their current duties much less take on more.

Where is that data that the LEAD program hasn't provided us.

DESD and the REACH individuals who go out and work with the homeless.

Where is the data.

Be smart.

Don't make Seattle a laughing example of failure.

Keep funding our police.

Do not defund.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Tara Regan followed by Tilshawn Turner.

Hi my name is Dr. Tara Regan.

I work in pediatric I'm in district three.

I'm calling, talking to city council members about the rebalancing of the 2020 budget.

I'm asking you to hold the line and override the mayor's veto to ensure divesting from SPD starts now, alongside crucial reinvestments in black community.

The Seattle people have taken to the streets and asked city council members to please represent our our needs of more safety, more community mind, and SPD has shown that they cannot do that.

They cannot keep us safe.

They cannot support community members that are vulnerable.

I've talked to all, I've called in and talked to these meetings so many times, and I've, you know, the Seattle City Council, you know, you've all kind of expressed support for reinvesting in black and brown communities, but it sounds like that's not happening.

I really encourage all of you to listen to your constituents.

We need to support our Black and Brown communities.

We've been asking for this for over 100 days now.

And as someone who works in pediatrics, I care about our future.

And I want all of you to care too.

We've been working so hard to cause these changes.

Please don't go back on what you promised us.

Please be aware that you're working for us.

You're working for our future.

I'm asking you to listen to your heart and consider the future and see that SPD has brutalized children on the streets.

A neighbor of mine, they tear-gassed their baby.

They pepper-sprayed a child.

This is not safe Seattle.

Something needs to change.

Please override the mayor's veto.

Please invest in our future.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Till Sean Turner will be followed by Don Lucas.

Hello, it's Till Sean Turner, TK from the Everyday March.

But I'm gonna tell you guys something.

Here's one thing first and foremost.

Why is the city taking the Black Lives Matter mural off of the street up on Capitol Hill to redo it?

That was for the people by the people.

So the city needs to stop trying to hijack stuff.

The city, if you redo it as a city, it means nothing because that was for the people by the people.

This is for the city by the city.

We all know by the city.

They ain't doing nothing for us.

Let's be real.

Nothing at all.

Oh, by the way, I'm on your zoom call too.

So I can see you guys too.

So, you know, why are we, why are we still in these positions though?

I ended up with 13 stitches in my head for what?

In the interest of public safety, huh?

I bet in the interest of public safety, I ended up with 13 stitches in my head, right?

Okay.

Well, in the process of me getting those 13 stitches, I sat in the hospital with a kid next to me who had his hand blown up by SPD in one of their flashbangs.

Hand literally blown up.

So who's really protecting who here?

What is, what is SPD doing here for us?

What are they really doing besides victimizing and brutalizing us?

I can't name one time they've actually done anything good over the past hundred days or ever to be that for that matter.

Why do we keep constantly giving them the power to do this?

You guys have as a council are public fricking servants and we are the public.

So serve us dead ass.

I think doing this over the past two weeks, I think that this happened to maybe two of the council members have reached out since what's happened.

And that's sad because a lot, I know a lot of you guys on this council, and that's fair, but that's neither here nor there.

Hunker down.

Don't let Durkin, Diaz or anybody else punk you guys or intimidate you guys into doing what they want.

Do what the city needs you to do.

Do what the citizens need you to do and defund SPD.

Thank you.

We have Don Lucas next, followed by Howard Gale.

Can you guys hear me okay?

Yes, thank you.

Great.

Hello, council.

My name is Dawn Lucas, and I live in District 2. My council person is Tammy Morales.

I'd like to speak on defunding the police department.

Personally, I think this is a bad idea.

I live at the beginning of the International District, and a block from me is Union Gospel Mission.

Across the street from the mission, there are tents lined up on the sidewalk.

I used a wheelchair to get around.

And if I want to go down that side of the street, I have to go out into the bus lane to get by.

This is very dangerous.

And I'd also like to see the navigation team stay.

I've tried reaching out to the mayor and also to my city council person, but there has been no response.

I'm asking you, please, do not defund the Seattle Police Department.

We need the police on our side, not only for violent crimes, but also for the crimes that are happening inside this encampment across the street from Union Gospel Mission.

They are selling alcohol.

They are also selling drugs.

So please, do not defund the police department.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Don.

Howard Gale will be followed by Griffin Bird.

Hi, this is Howard Gale from Lower Queen Anne, District 7, speaking on police accountability, or actually the lack thereof.

uh...

this friday last friday the offices of police accountability released its first major report on a very tiny fraction of a hundred seventeen days and counting of police abuse the opa has ignored and absolved the sdp of its most egregious abuses it was just determined that the pepper spray response of the is that the pepper spraying of the child in response to a protester grabbing a riot stick was appropriate uh...

in the case of the child getting pepper sprayed director myer berg determined not only that it was with in policy but he also made no management recommendations something you can do when policies at disastrous outcomes he made no management recommendation this is despite the fact that this assault by police follows the same pattern as a vast majority of dangerous police interactions a failure to do that the escalate and unnecessary confrontation, unnecessary attempts to control crowds.

At the last meeting of the Public Safety Committee, Council Member Gonzalez claimed that people are somehow disparaging Seattle's police accountability system for political reasons.

When the facts on the ground, day after day for 170 days, indicate the failure of these accountability systems, the only person hiding behind politics is the Council Member.

During WTO, we held over 18 hours of community meetings to address four days of police abuse.

Now, 21 years later, we hold no public hearings and have no plans despite the continuing abuse.

Please, I beg you, council members, recognize the severe failures of the system.

Just as we need community-based safety initiatives, we need community-based accountability initiatives.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Griffin Bird will be followed by Tusebi Reinhart.

Hi, this is Griffin Bird.

I'm an economics major at the University of Washington.

I'm also a member of Students for Sensible Drug Policy and a strong supporter of Yes to SDS.

As a city that often leads the country in forward-thinking policy and initiatives, it makes sense that City Council has overwhelmingly supported SDS implementation so far.

Today I ask you to continue that support.

SDS makes sense.

Literature review shows overwhelmingly that SDS makes drug use safer, reducing STD transmission and overdose, makes treatment and recovery more likely, and makes communities healthier.

Living on the ave, I know that our community would see immediate benefits from easy access to supportive, supervised consumption sites.

Additionally, despite the upfront cost, we know that the savings in the immediate and long term as a direct result of SDS implementation will be a net positive for Seattle and the greater King County area.

The idea makes economic sense.

And that is why the people of Seattle have largely supported this idea and why City Council has supported SDS so far.

The funding is allocated, the evidence is there, the people support it, and we know it works.

Please take the logical step and approve the funds for SDS.

Additionally, I would like to add on my unequivocal support for those who have called in to ask for you to hold up your promise of defunding SDS.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Tispi Reinhart will be followed by Jennifer Asp.

Good morning.

My name is Tispi Reinhart and I am studying Ecological Restoration and Human Rights at the University of Washington.

I am a member of the Students for Sensible Drug Policy UW chapter and I am here today to cast support for Yes to SES.

There is a long line of addiction in my family and with that a long line of grief.

I am blessed that I have never lost a family member to an overdose but I cannot express the anguish of seeing my sister grow thinner and weaker with each visit home from college until I worry that each time I hugged her goodbye would be the last.

My father lost his career and family in part because of his addiction and all of my step-siblings have had to drop out of college at one point to attend rehabilitation.

The members of my family are some of the luckier ones.

They had people to rely on even when at their worst.

This is why I strongly urge you to say yes to SDS because not all of the members of our communities have homes to return to resources to provide for rehabilitation or loved ones to support them.

Safe consumption sites provide a refuge for the people who have nowhere else to turn.

There is no budget to put on human lives which is why you should not waver in your support for yes to SDS.

Thank you, and our last speaker is Jennifer Ask.

Hello, my name is Jennifer.

You cannot and must not allow FCS safe consumption spaces or sites to be implemented either standalone or blended into our existing provider system.

Instead, the appropriate use of funds should be substance abuse and mental health treatments and services.

Ask yourself, did Travis Berge, one of the most prolific repeat offenders, need a safe space?

Besides a legal challenge of which is guaranteed to be filed, I implore you to use these funds to stop the human suffering.

As it is now, first responders, business owners, and citizens across this city carry the life-saving drug Narcan.

The need in this city is not to fund drug consumption sites.

The absolute need is substance abuse and mental health treatment services.

And in closing I would ask that you defend not defund the Seattle Police Department and please allow the navigation team to come back and do their job.

Thank you.

Thank you.

It looks like we have Judge Faye Chase back on the, I'm sorry, Judge Faye Chess back on the line for public comment and another person who is present who wasn't earlier, Alicia Crawley.

Judge Chess, can you join us?

Yes, can you hear me?

Yes.

Yes, I don't know what happened.

My phone went completely off and the call got dropped.

Okay.

So hi, I'm Judge Fay Chess, and I'm with Seattle Municipal Court.

And I'm here to speak on behalf of the mayor's appointment.

I'm sorry, I'm speaking today of Catherine McDowell.

I just wanted to take a few moments just to say that I look forward to her being an ally in Seattle Municipal Court.

Our court is on the move and do some fundamental and some dynamic changes in the way we handle cases, especially in light of the fact that our court and many courts around the country have been seen as institutions where discrimination has occurred.

She is excited about the work we're doing, such as community court.

Since I've known her, when I joined the court as a pro temp judge, I have found her to be aligned with the work, enthusiastic and committed to justice, not just justice, but equal and fair justice.

So I hope that you all support her nomination of her name to the BIC and I look forward to her being my colleague.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

And then our last speaker, truly our last speaker is Alicia Crowley.

Hello.

Good morning, council members.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Great.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

I had a technical issue earlier.

My name is Alicia Crowley, and I'm a longtime Seattle resident.

I was born here, and I've lived here for almost my entire life, currently a District 1 resident in West Seattle.

And I want to echo the people who have spoke earlier about encouraging you and urging you to override, vote to override the mayor's veto this afternoon.

The public safety matter I'm here mostly concerned about is our overfunded, ineffective, and completely out of control police department that I've witnessed harassing, brutalizing, terrorizing, and erroneously arresting innocent peaceful protesters increasingly over the last four months, which is an absolutely obscene waste of our budget and our grossly imbalanced budget.

We have an opportunity today to start the work with a crumb, a tiny fraction of what this council promised to support and vote for in defunding our SPD and reinvesting those funds into black and brown communities moving forward.

And that work, yes, it can start next year with more planning, but it needs to start now.

And right now, without overriding dirkins bill it would take this council's previous commitment to defunding and investing in community into a bill that does not actually reduce the size of fpd does not take away any funding from fpd right now even the three million three point five million dollars would be a significant start in the right direction uh...

we cannot keep the navigation team in place please override that I support decriminalized Seattle and King County equity now.

Please vote this afternoon to invest in public safety solutions that work for all of our communities.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

That is our last speaker for public comment.

And we can move on.

Excuse me, Council Member.

There is one more speaker that just popped on.

And I've closed I'm Can you read the person's name and I close my sheet so yes rain goes here And remember to press star six to allow yourself to speak Rain push star six I

You're very quiet.

Hello?

Yes, there you go.

Can I speak now?

Yes, please.

Rain, go ahead.

Okay.

Thank you very much for taking this time to listen to me.

I wanted to speak about a couple of things here.

First of all, not only defunding police isn't just a negative, it's also a positive.

It will provide money to do a community research project, which I think is very important as we begin a participatory budget process.

And also, it will help engage community in prioritizing needs.

I'm a sociologist, and I'm really excited about the possibility of this program.

Um, but also I want to speak personally.

I live on Capitol Hill and I was assaulted a couple of months ago here by a severely mentally ill person in front of my house on 17th.

And, um, it was hard for me to call the police.

I did because I felt he could actually kill somebody.

Um, but when they heard I wouldn't press charges, they just hung up and never showed up.

The point I'm making here though, is my first thought, uh, before I went to urgent care was why don't we have supportive housing?

Why isn't there a team I can call when someone's having a mental health crisis?

We need to allocate far more money to this sort of issue that is helping support severely mentally ill people, people with addictions.

The police are not the people to do that.

So I'm urging you to override the mayor's veto because we need this money for more positive approaches to public safety.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you, Ray.

All right, now moving over to the agenda.

Alex, can you please read the first item into the agenda?

And item number one appointment 01638 appointment of Dorothy E. Legger as member of Public Safety Civil Service Commission for a term to December 31, 2022.

Thank you, Alex.

We're joined by Andrea Scheel, Director of the Public Safety Civil Service Commission.

And Director Scheel will speak to the purpose of the Public Safety Civil Service Commission.

And then after she's done giving an overview of the commission, Noel Aldrich from my office will introduce the appointment.

This is a council appointment.

Thank you.

Dr. Schill.

I'm sorry, Director Schill.

Thank you.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Good morning, council members.

Hello, my name is Andrea Schilly and I am the Executive Director of the Public Safety Civil Service Commission and the Civil Service Commission.

I'm here to introduce the Public Safety Civil Service Commission in advance of the city's consideration of Dorothy Yee Leggett for appointment to commissioner.

The Public Safety Civil Service Commission, or the PSCSC, is a three-member impartial quasi-judicial body to which the mayor and the city council each appoint a member, and the employees elect the third member.

Commissioners serve for three years.

The Washington law and the Seattle Municipal Code require the city to maintain a public safety civil service system and a commission to oversee classification and merit-based civil service systems for police and firefighters.

The PSCSC is also responsible for directing the administration of entry level and promotional exams for fire and police, maintaining promotional and hiring registers for those employees.

They also hear appeals regarding the administration of the public safety civil service ordinance.

They make recommendations to the mayor and city council regarding the ordinance or its administration.

And they preside as a neutral panel over quasi-judicial hearings on appeals of serious disciplinary actions.

I want to thank this committee for considering the appointment of Ms. Leggett today.

If she is appointed, I believe she will be a benefit to the commission, the city, and the employees in the Public Safety Civil Service.

Thank you.

Thank you, Director Shealy.

Noel, do you want to give a quick overview, and then we'll turn it over to Ms. Leggett to talk about her interest in serving on the commission?

Yes.

Dorothy Yee Leggett has a wide variety of legal and policy experience at the federal, state, and local levels in areas including workers' compensation law, family law, and nonprofit governance.

She serves as staff attorney for the Eastside Legal Assistance and assists survivors of domestic violence, hosts legal clinics, and advises clients on issues including employment, housing, public benefits, immigration, and family law.

As staff counsel to the California State Compensation Insurance Fund, she conducted investigations and legal research of state regulations and case law and made over 500 appearances before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board.

She served as a policy analyst in the United States Government Accountability Office on a number of issues, including best practice case studies and performance measurement standards.

She has a JD from Loyola Law School and a Master of Public Policy degree from the College of William and Mary.

She has volunteered for the Center for Children and Youth Justice, HIV and AIDS Legal Services Alliance, the Children's Rights Project, Families of Color Seattle, and the King County Bar Association.

Thank you.

Thank you, Noel.

Dorothy, you want to just give us a fill-in-the-blanks what we haven't heard yet and why you're so interested in playing this really important role at this really important time?

Thank you, Council Members, for the opportunity to speak with before you today.

I've lived in Seattle for the last nine years, and this is my first public service appointment.

I've always had an interest in public service, and as Noel mentioned, I first spent the first decade of my career working as a policy analyst.

both at the state and federal level.

And for the first several years of my practice as an attorney, I also worked in a quasi-governmental agency that was subject to civil service rules.

So I'm very familiar with the rules and procedures that you have to abide by in hiring, firing, and promotion within a civil service system.

I did become an attorney because I wanted to work with individuals directly and help people resolve their problems.

That's why I am a civil legal aid attorney working with both domestic violence survivors and low income individuals throughout King County.

I'm interested in working for the commission because I do strongly believe in fairness and the administration of due process and employment.

I'm committed to making sure that the rules and policies are fairly applied appropriately for all police and fire personnel and As you see by my resume, I do have a lot of experience appearing before judicial and administrative boards, and I do understand the hearing and appeals process.

I do believe that I can be fair and impartial in the appeals that come before me and interpret and apply the rules and regulations consistent with commission policies, personnel rules, municipal codes, and the RCWs.

Thank you for your time and for considering my appointment.

Thank you for your willingness to serve.

I'm just looking to see whether or not any of my council colleagues have any questions.

Seeing none, let's just.

move on to the appointment.

I do want to just again highlight that this particular commission is important not just within the context of the disciplinary process and the role that the Public Safety Civil Service Commission plays in that process, but it is a body that the efforts on the part of this council to look at ways of reducing the number of police officers in the police department, particularly police officers who might have a history of disciplinary violations that make them less able to fulfill the roles of their job as police officers because of their presence on a Brady list, and the applicability of the rule that allows for out of line, out of order vetoes, that this is something that I'm, really looking forward to working more closely with Director Scheele, as well as the commission, and looking forward to the assistance that the commission and you, in particular, Dorothy, can offer in navigating these issues moving forward.

So with that, seeing no questions from my colleagues, I will move to pass appointment of 01638 and send it to full council on Tuesday, September 29th.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Roll call.

I. Council President Gonzales.

Council President Gonzales.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Three in favor, zero opposed, one absent.

Thank you.

And congratulations.

Again, we'll be moving this on to full council on Tuesday, September 29th.

Really, again, looking forward to working more closely with you as the months continue.

I think that is a really good point.

I think it is related to our efforts around reimagining policing and the role that the commission can play in helping us navigate that.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

So first we'll receive from Michelle Chin some background on the process that led to the selection of Catherine.

And we'll also hear from presiding judge Willie Gregory, who will share with us a few words of support as well.

But I believe we are kicking it off with Michelle, is that correct?

Good morning.

My name is Michelle Chen.

I'm the mayor's office legal counsel, and I was responsible for leading the judicial appointment process.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold, for taking up this very important appointment.

We really appreciate your leadership and Council Member Lewis's leadership for helping to shepherd this critical important appointment to fill the current vacancy, position one on the Seattle Municipal Court.

I will make some brief remarks explaining the appointment process and speak briefly to the qualifications of the mayor's appointee, Pro Tem Judge Catherine McDowell.

Per city ordinance 121698, The mayor invited and convened members of several local minority bar associations, the city attorney's office, and the Public Defender Association.

The Judicial Evaluation Committee was comprised of the following representatives, and the city owes a debt of gratitude for their time and their public service in evaluating the judicial applicants.

I want to thank James Johnson, president of the Lauren Miller Bar, Adrian Watt, board member of the Asian Bar Association of Washington, Shayna Israel, board member of Q Law, the LGBTQ Bar Association of Washington, Betsy Crum, board member of Washington Women Lawyers, Cheryl Lee, past president of the Korean American Bar Association, Stephanie Diakos, assistant city attorney, Prachi Dayev, legal director of the Public Defenders Association and co-chair of the Community Police Commission.

The city received 14 applications total and the Judicial Evaluation Committee interviewed six candidates and forwarded three finalists for the mayor to consider.

The mayor has appointed Pro Tem Judge Catherine McDowell to the Seattle Municipal Court.

Pro Tem Judge Catherine McDowell is no stranger to the bench.

In fact, Pro Tem Judge McDowell has served the Muni Court for seven years and has presided over all the specialty courts and the various calendars.

Pro Tem Judge McDowell is so respected for her keen legal mind and her ability to manage the courtroom that even as Pro Tem, the sitting judges have assigned her to some of the most complex jury trials conducted in Muni Court.

As you know, the Seattle Municipal Court is the people's court with a high volume of cases.

And for many people, it is their only interaction with the court system.

Pro Tem Judge McDowell has a reputation for the highest integrity, and she brings to the court demonstrated empathy and respect for all those who enter her courtroom.

The ordinance I cited earlier explicitly requests that the mayor and city council consider the local bar ratings.

Pro Tem Judge McDowell was rated by the King County Bar Association as well qualified.

The Washington Women Lawyers rated her exceptionally well qualified, and the Lauren Miller Bar Association rated her qualified.

In addition, all members of the Judicial Evaluation Committee signed a letter in support of Pro Tem Judge McDowell's appointment to the bench.

which you should have in your packet because she demonstrated to the committee that she would serve the court and the public well with her judicial experience, open mindedness, impartiality and willingness to learn and innovate reforms of the court's processes and address systemic racism in our criminal justice system.

Finally, we are fortunate that our current Seattle Municipal Court bench is diverse, both in experience and demographics.

There are three African American judges, one Asian American judge, one judge who identifies as LGBTQ, one judge of Middle Eastern descent.

Diversity matters on the bench because we want judges who are the community they serve.

Pro Tem Judge McDowell's appointment will make the bench for the first time in recent history, majority women jurists with four women and three men.

Given the moment we are in history and the fact that our Seattle Municipal Court is implementing reforms and dealing with a severe backlog from the COVID closures, we believe Pro Tem Judge McDowell is eminently qualified and we look forward to City Council's speedy confirmation of Pro Tem Judge Catherine McDowell.

Thank you for your support, and I will turn it over to Presiding Judge Willie Gregory.

Thank you so much, Michelle.

Presiding Judge Gregory, thank you for taking time to join us.

You're welcome.

Good morning, Council Member Herbold.

Good morning, Council Member Morales, Lewis, and Gonzalez.

I'm also very excited about welcoming my friend, Catherine McDowell, to the bench.

We've actually known each other before she was a pro tem judge.

And before she decided to become a judge, she came and we spoke at the Columbia Center about her wanting to be a judge.

And basically, she told me the reason she wanted to be a judge because she was a prosecutor before and she wanted to be not an advocate, but she wanted to have a spot on the bench where she could see things from both sides and use her intelligence and her knowledge to help people out.

She's done nothing but do that as a judge on our bench.

Um, and she has served as a pro team judge.

Now what approach him judges approaching judges, a judge that covers for a judgment where sick or when we're on vacation.

And actually, Judge McDowell is covering right now because Judge Eisenberg and Judge Chester on vacation.

Judge McDowell, I spoke to our staff who calls up the pro tems, and she says that when Judge McDowell has been called, she frequently answers the call to serve us and to serve the city of Seattle.

So at this time, I'm here in support of pro tem Judge Catherine McDowell.

And if I lax and call her cat, forgive me.

We've been friends for a long time.

So I'm gonna try to call you pro tem Judge Catherine McDowell.

However, you should know you're gonna be joining this court in a period of profound change.

Let me have some remarks here for you.

and for the city.

The COVID-19 crisis has been a huge challenge for our court.

Throughout this pandemic, we have prioritized health and safety of all court participants and worked collaboratively with our justice system partners to adapt court processes.

However, this extended court closure has resulted in a significant case and hearing backlogs.

We continue at this court to adapt and think differently about our work in order to serve community in new ways.

As you all know, we've witnessed one death after another replayed over the news.

I'm talking about Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and George Floyd, to name just a few.

And it calls for racial equality, equity, excuse me, and immediate and profound change around criminal justice systems.

Seattle Municipal Court has a deep commitment to accessibility, equity, and impartiality.

However, We do, and I acknowledge, that we too have contributed to the harmful impacts levied on Black, Indigenous, and people of color.

As Seattle Municipal Court presiding judge, I challenge the judges and our staff to transform ourselves into an equitable court where individuals leave better than when they entered, and to assure that all people who enter our courthouse are treated with dignity and feel they were heard.

Our transformation begins with listening to those who have been harmed and including them in our court process.

We have adopted three guiding principles to drive us forward.

One, engage the community to guide court programs.

Two, eliminate disproportional impacts upon black, indigenous and people of color.

Three, collaborate with our stakeholders to transform the system and improve outcomes.

We're actually taking action now, including convening restorative healing circles with local community groups to build relationships and create transformative change.

Implementing Seattle Community Court, a transformative harm reduction approach to pretrial justice where individuals with low-level misdemeanor cases are immediately released from custody and connect to community-based services.

We're gonna eliminate all criminal fines and fees such as the probation supervision fee that we are not statutorily obligated to impose.

And the court will implement my order that current and future warrants are all non DV, non DUI cases be eligible for personal recognizance release so that people will not sit in jail for low level misdemeanor warrants.

I believe there is a path forward to transform ourselves, with Pro Tem Catherine McDowell and build a legal system that equitably protects the rights of all communities.

As we move forward in a new era of Seattle Municipal Court, Judge Pro Tem McDowell will be an excellent addition to the bench.

She has served in our court for seven years, and she's an exceptional judge.

She's very knowledgeable about the law, and she has demonstrated on a daily basis compassion and empathy to the people that appear before her.

I and my benchmakes look forward to working with her.

So again, I support Judge, Pro Tem Judge, Catherine McGow for the Seattle Municipal Court bench.

Thank you all.

Thank you, Judge Gregory and Pro Tem Judge McDowell.

Before we move on to you, I just want to thank you, Judge Gregory, for the announcement that you made last week.

And this is news breaking stuff, so I really appreciate you using the appointment of Pro Tem Judge McDowell to the Seattle Music Court as an opportunity To highlight the commitments that you that you have made, not only the commitments related to a new community court.

apparently the only community court in the nation that allows individuals to maintain their constitutional rights and doesn't screen people out because of criminal history.

And also your announcements that you intend to eliminate all criminal fines and fees, such as the probation supervision fee, that you're not statutorily obligated to impose.

And then finally, a significant, I think, policy change for the court, recognizing that current and future warrants on nearly all non DV, non DUI cases be eligible for personal recognizance release, so that people will not sit in jail for low level misdemeanor warrants.

So really want to lift up that commitment from the court.

I think this is, again, news breaking stuff and just want to hear you say it once and I want to say it twice in the hopes that this transformation or step towards transformation is embraced and recognized by the broader community.

So thank you.

And with that, let's hand it over to Pro Tem Judge McDowell.

Well, thank you.

Thank you to Ms. Chen and Judge Gregory for your very kind remarks.

I'd also like to thank Mayor Durkin for the honor of this appointment.

And to all the council members who are here today, I know it's a very busy week for everyone, and I really consider the time that you're taking for the thoughtful consideration of my nomination.

By way of personal background, I was born in a suburb of Cleveland, Ohio, and lived in the Midwest and on the East Coast until attending law school at the University of Virginia.

It was there that I met my now husband, John, who is a lifelong Seattle resident.

After law school, I worked in a law firm in Washington, D.C.

in private practice doing large corporate litigation.

But after about two years, John convinced me that this was the better Washington, and I moved here at the end of 1997. Although I felt challenged and interested in my work in private practice, I found myself feeling unfulfilled.

So when I moved to Seattle, I chose to enter public service and began work at the King County Prosecutor's Office.

After 11 years of serving the people of King County, I took time away from the law to focus on family and on my community.

During that time, my public service continued through charity work and community involvement.

After about four years, I returned to work part-time, serving as a pro tem in Seattle Municipal Court and in King County District Court, as well as occasionally at Juvenile Court.

For the past seven years as a pro tem, I have worked hard to build my base of legal knowledge and to improve my skills as a fair and impartial jurist.

I strive to consistently listen to people who appear before me with an open mind.

The events of this year have forced courts in our state to handle two public health crises.

The first, obviously, are the logistical challenges of handling court business during a global health crisis.

The second is, of course, the consistent and persistent problem of systemic racism.

These crises have created an environment for change and also provided the momentum for change.

As you heard from Judge Gregory, the judges that serve on this court have already demonstrated a willingness to evaluate court procedures and develop new procedures to address these issues.

These events of this year, along with the progressive optimism of the judges that serve on the court, inspired me to return to work full time and to apply for this open position on Seattle Municipal Court.

I can commit to you that if I'm confirmed by the full committee, I will work diligently with my colleagues on the bench to affect meaningful reform and to begin to dismantle systemic racism in our legal system.

Away from the law, I'm involved, still involved in my community and I'm committed to public service.

If I'm confirmed as judge, I intend to build on these connections and conduct outreach in order to educate our community about these important changes that are happening at municipal court.

My hope is that this outreach, along with the real changes that have already started, will help rebuild public confidence in our court system across all communities in our city.

So thank you, and I'm happy to take any questions from the committee.

Thank you so much.

Council members, do you have questions that you'd like to ask the nominee?

Before moving on, I do want to underscore that the appointment process, as described by Michelle Chen earlier, is designed to promote maximum independence from the appointing authority.

And so that's why there is this requirement for there to be an evaluation committee that makes recommendations of the most highly rated individuals being interviewed.

And that evaluation committee makes recommendations to the mayor of the top three individuals that they've rated and as Michelle mentioned earlier, we do have a letter in the record signed by representatives from the Washington Women Lawyers, the Asian Bar Association of Washington, the Lauren Miller Bar Association, Kew Law of Washington, the Korean American Bar Association of Washington, The public defender association.

Well, an individual writing on behalf of both the public defender association and the community police commission, as well as the Seattle city attorney's office.

And so this.

The appointee, Pro Tem McDowell, comes very highly recommended and was vetted through the process that is, again, intended to promote independence and the transparency in the process itself.

So with that, if there are no further questions, seeing none, I will go ahead and move to pass appointment 01639. I move.

Can I have a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Can you call the roll, please?

Councilmember Herbold?

Aye.

Councilmember Lewis?

Aye.

Councilmember Morales?

Yes.

Council President Gonzalez?

Council President Gonzalez.

Again, three in favor, no opposed, one absent.

Thank you.

Council President Gonzalez, is that you?

No, sorry, this is Councilmember Lewis, not Council President Lewis.

I did just want to briefly congratulate Judge McDowell on the successful vote to put her nomination forward.

I wanted to Just personally share that as an attorney, I've appeared in front of Judge McDowell and I know where to be a conscientious, diligent and impartial jurist and a great leader in the municipal court.

I really look forward to working with her on the future of community court on diversion.

on making sure that we aspire to have a court with the most progressive practices in the country.

And now that we have officially sent her forward to full counsel, I just wanted to make those brief comments.

And I look forward to working with her in this new capacity and really just appreciate her service and her willingness to be nominated and take on this new role.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Lewis.

This appointment will move on to full council on Tuesday, September 29th.

And yes, I absolutely echo Councilmember Lewis's gratitude for your willingness to serve as well as congratulations to you for this new role.

Well, thank you so much for your time and consideration.

I really appreciate it.

All right.

Alex, can you read item three into the record, please?

Agenda item number three, Council Bill 119893, an ordinance relating to Seattle Whistleblower Protection Code, expanding the definition of, quote, report in the City of Seattle's Whistleblower Protection Ordinance to include reporting to the Office of Inspector General for Public Safety and amending section 420805 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

Thank you very much, Alex.

So this bill before us amends the Whistleblower Protection Code to provide whistleblower protection to employees who report improper government actions to the Inspector General.

It does so by amending the definition of report in the Whistleblower Protection Code.

And I'm not sure who wants to kick it off, but I think maybe I will default to Lish Wish I'm going to turn it over to Lish Whitson of Council Central staff to present.

Great.

Said what I was going to say, the bill is fairly simple.

It just adds reports of improper governmental action by the Seattle Police Department to the Office of the Inspector General for Public Safety.

If retaliation against an employee for a report to the OIG occurs, they would have recourse to the whistleblower protection process managed by the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission.

We have with us Amy Tsai and Mary Dory of the Office of Inspector General and Wayne Barnett from the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission to provide more background on the OIG process and the whistleblower protection process.

Great.

Thank you so much.

So for our friends from the Office of the Inspector General, can you speak a little bit to the need for this change in the whistleblower protection code?

Yes, thank you.

Madam Chair, this is Amy side Deputy Inspector General for the Office of Inspector General.

So, one we'd like to say that we express support for the legislation, we are here to answer questions and we thank you for your consideration of it in regards to the need.

The OIG, in the course of its duties, will conduct audits of the Seattle Police Department and also has oversight over the Office of Police Accountability.

And so we will, in the course of that, interview people.

People will want to tell us things.

These are employees of these departments and they want to come forward.

And one barrier to them coming forward is the fact that we are not covered under the whistleblower protection code.

There are many other protections and mechanisms that need to be in place to support them in coming forward.

But this is a critical piece.

So that's the quick answer.

And then if you have any further follow up for that, we also have Mary Dory from our auditing staff here to answer questions about situations and anything else that you might have questions about.

Thank you, Amy.

Mary, just, I guess, open-ended question.

Do you have anything to add about the kinds of situations that may have arisen in previous work of the OIG office that maybe in the past might have given rise to the need for this kind of legislation or that you see looking forward, instances where this kind of protection would be useful?

Thank you, Councilmember.

Yes, so in our audits, we do a lot of different things.

We look at documentation, we look at data, but particularly when we're trying to figure out where things may have gone wrong, having people come forward and talk to us about things that may have happened some time ago or things that are not captured in the written public record is really critical for our work, and it's been helpful in the past.

If you look at our canine report, so much of the information we found there, it was really critical to have employees feel comfortable, honestly sharing their feelings about what was going on in the unit.

And we have had issues in the past.

I can think of one particular one in which we had an employee who had alleged that the particular issue we were looking into had occurred before and had occurred before more severely.

They said that they had a box of documentation in their personal possession at home that would provide evidence that they felt very uncomfortable coming forward without whistleblower protections.

because their personal situation was precarious enough that they felt they couldn't endure retaliation.

And because we couldn't offer them that formal whistleblower protection, they ended up not feeling comfortable sharing that documentation with us.

So in many cases, we are able to establish a relationship where people feel comfortable sharing with us, but for those edge cases in which people really do want that additional protection, it would help our work greatly.

It's really helpful to understand sort of the real world implications of these really important protections that we offer public servants who.

serve on behalf of taxpayers in our city.

And I think in order for us to be able to expect from them behavior of the highest integrity, we have to also make sure that we are offering protections to them as well.

And I think maybe that might be, if not seeing any questions from my council member or my colleagues on the council, turn it over to Director Barnett for any additional comments that he may have as the head of the agency that works to enforce our whistleblower protection code.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just would make two brief comments.

The first is to explain that the reason OIG is not covered in the law right now is because the agency was created after the last time we amended the law.

So this is simply more of a technical change than anything to update the law to take into account a new agency.

And I just want to echo that the purpose of the whistleblower protection code is to encourage employees to come forward with information that they have.

about improper governmental actions, and OIG is an agency that is created to root out improper governmental actions in SPD, so it makes all the sense in the world to add them to this ordinance.

That's it.

Thank you so much, Director Barnett.

Council members, does anybody have a question that they would like to ask regarding the impact of the bill?

All right, seeing no questions, I move to pass Council Bill 1198-93.

May I have a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Alex, can you please call the roll?

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council President Gonzalez?

Yes.

Thank you so much.

This council bill will go on to full council on Tuesday, September 29th.

Thank you all for bringing this important reform forward and really appreciate all the work that everybody is doing in this time to make sure that our city employees are empowered to act with integrity and ethics.

So really, again, appreciate you identifying this small but important change that we all can make together.

All right, Alex, can you read item number four into the agenda, please?

And item number four, an analysis of court-imposed monetary sanctions in Seattle Municipal Courts.

Great.

So who do we have joining us today for item number four?

Can we just do a quick round of introductions for presenters on this item?

Good morning.

Good morning, counsel.

I'm Cadman Cahill.

I'm from the Seattle Office of Civil Rights.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning.

I'm Professor Alexis Harris from the University of Washington Department of Sociology.

Great.

I'm Professor Frank Edwards from the Rutgers School of Criminal Justice.

Fantastic, thank you.

And so this was a report that I know the Office of Civil Rights worked with Dr. Harris and Seattle Municipal Court in moving forward.

I don't know, Cahill, if you have additional background that you want to provide before we jump in.

Thank you.

So I can really briefly.

The report was generated in response to a 2016 council resolution that established the Reentry Work Group, and it also requested an inventory and assessment of the city's imposition and collections of fines and fees for criminal violations and infractions and their impact.

So in 2017, OCR reached out to Dr. Harris as she's a local and national expert in researching and evaluating sanctions within the criminal legal system.

Dr. Harris is also the author of A Pound of Flesh, Monetary Sanctions as Punishment for the Poor.

The report was co-authored by Dr. Alexis Harris and Dr. Frank Edwards and data was provided by Seattle Municipal Courts Research Planning and Evaluation Group.

And OCR wants to acknowledge all the work that SMC did to support this process and the work of Dr. Harris and Dr. Edwards in this in creating this report and throughout this process.

So I'll pass it on to Dr. Harris and Dr. Edwards to present the report and their findings.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for inviting us to present the report.

And thank you, Cayman, for all of your support on developing this project.

We're going to just jump in really sort of quickly and do a quick run through our findings and talk about a summary of the findings and talk about the policy implications.

So the research questions we set out to analyze were the extent and characteristics of unpaid debt related to Seattle Municipal Court.

and to look at the impact of SMC fines and fees on people who cannot afford them.

Third, we wanted to explore racial disparities in traffic and non-traffic infractions, and then do a broader comparison of the city of Seattle legal financial obligation LFO process with other cities in Washington state.

Monetary sanctions, we are defining or treating them at LFOs as all-inclusive of all financial debt imposed by the court because of some type of charge or infraction.

We include here traffic citations and court sentence fines and fees in our analysis, and Frank will show how we broke them down.

The data that we used were cited or convicted cases between 2000 and 2017 from SMC via the Judicial Information System, the JIS.

Frank Edwards conducted the statistical analysis using our statistical programming language and did comparisons to other jurisdictions using data from Washington State Administrative Office of the Court data of LFO sentencing in Washington municipalities between 2000 and 2014. Frank will run us through now through the characteristics of SMC-DAD.

Great.

Thanks, Alexis, and I appreciate you all having us here to share these findings today.

So I'll start by talking through the changes over time in the caseload of SMC.

So we see here that cases have been trending downward over time in terms of both the volume of cases, which is the bottom plot, and the count of cases per capita, which is the top plot.

The overwhelming majority are traffic infractions.

In 2017, about 83% of the cases with a sentenced LFO came from traffic, 8% from non-traffic infractions, 6% from criminal non-traffic, 2% from criminal traffic, and 1% from DUIs.

And we see both, as the city's population has increased, the trend line has continued to go down.

Do you mind giving me the next slide, Alexis?

And here we look at, so frequently after sentencing, the debt load is adjusted downwards.

So we can kind of think about measuring debt loads in terms of the original order, in terms of the original, in terms of the order after the SMC court, after SMC adjusted the total amount owed, and then what was actually paid by the debtor.

And so for traffic infractions, we see that the majority of ordered debt is for traffic infractions.

About half of the ordered amount was paid by the time of data collection.

And so we see a pretty big adjustment downward on infraction traffic, but then you can see for the criminal non-traffic and other infractions, the adjusted amount from SMC dips quite a bit more than it does for traffic infractions.

So SMC is adjusting all forms of debt downward typically, but for cases other than infraction traffic cases, they tend to be adjusting it down quite a bit more.

Next slide, please.

And here we look at the average amounts ordered, adjusted, and paid for various categories of LFOs within criminal traffic cases.

So the largest amount of adjustment comes on the fines, right?

The initial, so this is the average amount for a criminal traffic case in SMC.

And a huge downward adjustment in the initial sentence amount for fines, but lower reductions in the initial sentence amount for other categories of LFOs.

Next slide, please.

Similar for criminal non-traffic cases, we see dramatic reductions by SMC for the initial fine ordered, but we see smaller reductions in the initial order for other categories of LFOs.

And the amount that's actually collected from that adjusted order is typically a fraction of the adjusted amount, in most cases above about 50%.

Okay, so here's the average amounts ordered, adjusted, and paid for non-traffic infractions, again, by category of LFO.

And we see much lower levels of reduction for these non-traffic infractions than we did in the criminal cases.

So we see much lower levels of adjustment to LFO orders in infractions.

Next slide.

Similarly for traffic infractions.

So both non-traffic and traffic infractions typically have lower levels of adjustment relative to the criminal cases.

So we see higher initial orders in the criminal cases, but much steeper reductions in the initial order amount, where those traffic infractions and non-traffic infractions are typically reduced by less.

And again, these are data that were current through 2017. So the recent changes in sentencing practices certainly would impact these.

Next slide.

Here we look at the age of accounts by closing date.

So we think about from the date of opening, how long did a case take to close?

And unsurprisingly, the infraction cases closed far quicker than did criminal cases.

Criminal cases tended to remain open for quite some time, with some cases remaining open for as long as 10 years, whereas infraction cases typically had a relatively short age.

Next slide.

Next we're going to look at inequalities in SMC debt by race and ethnicity across Seattle.

So here we look at the number of cases that had any monetary sanctions sentenced in Seattle Municipal Court as a function of the size of Seattle's population.

by race and ethnicity for 2017. So the pink bar represents the total population, the kind of yellow greenish bar represents the American Indian Alaska Native population, green for Asia Pacific Islanders, blue for black, this kind of purple for Latinx populations and the magenta for white.

And across the board we can see that per capita black residents in Seattle are sentenced to LFOs at much higher rates than white residents, right?

So this is how many cases per thousand people are there in the city and black people have far higher levels of debt holding from SMC than do other groups.

American Indians, Alaska Natives also have high levels of debt burden for both criminal non-traffic, infraction non-traffic, and DUI cases.

Next slide, thank you.

So, but this is a kind of interesting function of how the court is handling these cases, right?

When we look at sentencing across racial groups, we don't see dramatic differences in terms of the initial orders and adjusted amounts that SMC is sentencing across groups.

And what this suggests that what is driving a lot of the disparities that we're seeing in the court is the front door, right?

And so it's enforcement decisions by the SPD and other agencies in terms of who comes into contact court.

Once they come into the court, we see largely equitable sentencing across racial groups by case type.

Next slide, please.

And if we convert this into a ratio of adjusted SMC LFO debt, so we're going to take the total debt load for each of these groups, divide those by the size of the population in the city of Seattle, and then compare the ratio of each group to the debt load held by white Seattle residents, we see really clear racial inequalities.

So the debt load for black Seattle residents for, for example, driving with a license suspended in third degree is six times higher than it is for white Seattle residents, right?

But we see these inequalities across the board for all categories of violations that SMC handles.

We have higher levels of debt load for black Seattle residents than we do for white Seattle residents.

and higher levels of debt load for DWLS-3, infraction, non-traffic, and criminal non-traffic cases for American Indians, Alaska Natives, and higher levels for Latinx residents in many categories as well.

Next, we turned our attention to thinking about the long-term consequences of potential debt holding.

So we merged the SMC data onto data from the Administrative Office of the Courts to match people who were sentenced to debt through the SMC to records for superior court sentencing to see who was later incarcerated through a superior court sentence.

So here, the left column here is women's probability of being incarcerated after a paid and unpaid traffic infraction or criminal non-traffic offense.

And we set those to be $175 arbitrarily.

These are based on a regression prediction.

and on the right hand column we have Ned.

So the basic question here is what proportion of debtors were later sentenced to incarceration through a superior court after they were touched by the Seattle Municipal Court?

Now this isn't saying this is a cause of the Seattle Municipal Court debt, it's just asking what proportion of people who initially owed debt, paid or unpaid, later ended up incarcerated.

And we find that for traffic infractions, black people, black men in Seattle who had a traffic infraction that was paid in full had a 3.2% probability of later incarceration.

And black men who had an unpaid traffic infraction in SMC had a 10.3% proportion, 10.3% of black men in Seattle were later incarcerated when they had an unpaid traffic infraction.

For criminal non-traffic, if it was paid in full for black men, we had a 9.6, 9% probability of later incarceration for unpaid, and LFOs for criminal non-traffic cases, a 25.7% rate of later incarceration.

So we see much higher levels of later incarceration for black men than we do for white men from these data.

Next slide, please.

Next, we look at DWLS-3.

So the DWLS in the third degree is a key vector through which these low-level sanctions like traffic infractions can turn into criminal charges, right?

If you have unpaid tickets, those can eventually lead to license suspension.

And if you are pulled over and ticketed for driving with a license suspended, that is now a criminal offense.

So we have about 2.3% similar analysis to the last one.

These are based on predictions from a regression.

So we see that about 2.3% of all black men who receive traffic infraction LFOs in SMC can expect to be charged with DWLS-3 at some point, compared to about 0.4% of white men.

Latinx and American Indian Alaska Native men are charged with traffic infractions are also more likely than the white drivers to be charged with DWLS-3 following an LFO.

About 0.8% of Latinx men and 1% of American Indian Alaska Native men.

And this is one of the key vectors through which those low-level contacts with the court can turn into upstream criminal contacts with the court based on ability to pay.

Next slide, please.

We're going to compare Seattle to other jurisdictions in the state now briefly.

So here we have the map, these plots kind of grouped into types of cities in Seattle by population size.

So the top left corner is cities with population less than 10,000 and the bottom right corner is Seattle.

The most comparable cities to Seattle are going to be those just next to it on the left.

Those are the cities with a population between 100 and 250,000 in the state.

And so here what we're doing is we're comparing the adjusted debt, so that's after the court adjusts it, for municipal courts across types of city by population size in the state to get a sense of variation in municipal court sentencing.

And Seattle is far lower in terms of the adjusted debt load held by its residents than other cities in the state, with the exception of traffic infractions.

Traffic infractions for Seattle are similar to levels of traffic infraction for other parts of the state, with the exception of an upward trend in other parts of the state being very obvious, particularly for those mid-sized and small cities.

Seattle's typically ordering lower levels of debt for criminal cases hurt in Superior Court than are other municipal courts.

Next slide, please.

And here we look at this as cases per 1,000 by type, right?

For 2014, this is the latest year in the data.

We have comparable information for both Seattle and the rest of the state.

And we can see that the, so we can think of this as how many cases are out there in the, relative to the population size.

Seattle does look in the same range as other jurisdictions for traffic infractions and non-traffic infractions, but we see far lower cases per 1,000 for criminal cases through SMC than we do in other municipal courts.

Next slide, please.

And here we look at sentencing.

So we ask what is the average LFO that was sentenced to an individual who came through SMC relative to other municipal courts for various classes of offenses to get an apples-to-apples comparison of how much debt is being ordered across these different court types.

My apologies, knocking my whiteboard over here.

So we see for traffic infractions, Seattle looks similar to other jurisdictions.

For non-traffic infractions, slightly lower, but we see large differences on DUI orders, and we see large difference on criminal non-traffic orders.

Seattle is ordering far lower debt after adjustment on criminal non-traffic and DUI cases than our other jurisdictions.

Criminal traffic and infractions traffic appear relatively similar.

Next slide, please.

Frank just did a master class on presenting different figures and tables.

Thank you for that, Frank.

We have five main sort of take-home points.

One is that there's been a remarkable decline in cases filed in SMC between 2000 and 2017. Second, people sentenced to criminal traffic cases tended to have LFO accounts open for longer periods of time compared to other types of cases.

For each class of case, black men and women are significantly more likely than their peers to be sentenced to incarceration through Washington State Superior Courts following a paid Seattle Municipal Court LFO.

Similarly, for each class of men and for each class of case, black men and women are significantly more likely than their peers to be sentenced to incarceration through a Washington Superior Court following an unpaid SMC LFO.

And fifth, people of color have a higher likelihood than white people to be charged with DWLS-3 following an SMC LFO sentence.

This is especially pronounced for black drivers in Seattle.

We have several policy recommendations that sort of map onto what Judge Gregory has outlined.

SMC judges should continue to assess individuals' ability to pay in all circumstances.

We suggest that judges should continue to waive discretionary costs when people indicate they have little to no ability to pay, current ability to pay.

Policies of the state and local government should interrogate the necessity for add-on financial penalties as interest.

time payment setup fees, JIS fee, default penalties, deferring finding administrative fees.

State policy should decouple nonpayment from criminal manners and the suspension of driver's license.

This is key and this is happening nationally at this moment.

State and local jurisdictions should conduct regular monitoring and analysis for LFO sentencing and collections.

I just wanted to sort of address really quickly Judge Gregory's policy suggestions.

They're very, very powerful, but I think there's two important caveats that we need to recognize.

One is that there's a mandatory $250 VPA for misdemeanors, and so only that can be addressed, I think, by the state legislature changing the RCW, mandating those.

And so that's still a key barrier, even with going away with all the other ticky-tack types of fees that are added on.

And also, as Frank sort of illustrated with, it appears that Seattle SMC judges are addressing the inability to pay and lowering initial sentencing amounts.

But what we're seeing here is really what's happening in the community with police citation around traffic.

And that needs to be addressed.

So there needs to be sort of both a conversation with SMC and with SPD with how the citations are being distributed and given predominantly or disproportionately to black drivers in Seattle.

Thank you both Doctors Harris and Edwards for that concise and thorough presentation.

Can you speak to the follow up as it relates to what appears to be a necessary convening of state courts and legislators as it relates to some of the findings that this report makes around DWLS-3 and just generally around required fines that local governments can't waive because of state law.

Right in 2018 Washington State Legislature passed 1783 which did dramatically alter the landscape of LFOs across Washington State.

So it gave judges the discretion to not impose, or they could not impose, non-mandatory fines and fees to people who were deemed indigent.

And so that was crucial.

But I think, given the data, the analysis, and the disparities that we're seeing, that those same type of indigency standards should be applied to the mandatory 250 VPA for misdemeanor and 500 VPA for felony.

Either it applies and judges will have discretion with those costs, or the legislature do away with calling them mandatory in total.

And further, discussions around decoupling any non-payment of court-imposed fines and fees with the loss of a driver's license.

It makes absolutely no sense for people to lose their driver's licenses when they need to get to the work so that they can pay their fines and fees.

And that's evident across the nation with how legislatures are amending their statutes.

Thank you.

Maybe I'll direct the follow-up question to Cadman Cahill.

Is this an issue that SOCR has flagged for the Office of Intergovernmental Relations for our upcoming legislative session?

We have not yet.

Can I suggest that we do so?

Yes.

And I would be very, very happy to participate in any way that would be useful.

And maybe work to do some follow-up to the report, maybe joined by the court in asking for their leadership to help maybe convene some sort of a roundtable to talk about continuing some of our best practices that we have in Seattle throughout the state at local government and also making the necessary legislative changes to to further drive down these high debt ratios in BIPOC communities resulting from our criminal justice system.

Council members, does anybody have any, Council Member Morales, thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, everyone.

Thank you for this report.

I'm going to ask Well, maybe I don't need to ask you to go back to the data charts, but I do want to talk about this issue of the front door that you mentioned.

I mean, it is clearly a big contributor to the problem here.

And I'm interested particularly in understanding again, the frequency of citations for black drivers and.

I mean, it leads me to the next question, which is, you know, how many of those encounters don't end with a citation but end in, you know, much more traumatic and harrowing experience.

And so I guess part of my question is also, do you have suggestions?

Dr. Harris, you mentioned talking with SPD about, you know, why is it that there is a clear disproportionality to who they cite?

So do you have suggestions?

And maybe this is another conversation for us to have about what kind of, is that a policy change?

Is that a conversation with SPD about practice and how we address this problem, which is creating creating problems for our community.

Right.

It appears, at least from our data analysis here, that policing in the community leads in a way, you know, if you will, a gateway drug for certain people to get into the criminal justice system and to to jail and to incarceration and to long term debt.

But Frank has done a national analysis on police stops and outcomes.

So I'll let him address that.

Well, I mean, so I think there's a lot of good questions here, and I think the evidence for SMC is relatively clear that the inequity that we're seeing is not a function of court decision making necessarily in terms of the sentence and the adjusted sentence.

It's in terms of activities by SPD and other enforcement in terms of the cases that are coming through the door.

That said, debt loads are felt unevenly.

So a $250 debt to one person feels very different than a $250 debt to another person.

So despite the fact that we might have equitable sentencing, they might still have an inequitable outcomes in terms of these later TWS3 charges.

So there are still sort of processing points to think about.

But yeah, I think that there are really good questions in terms of police contacts and citations.

Unfortunately, we don't have great data on these things.

So SPD, we would certainly be happy to have conversations with them about the kinds of data we would need in order to conduct those analyses.

But oftentimes when a stop occurs where a citation isn't issued, those are routinely not the sorts of things that we have information on as researchers.

And so those kinds of cases where police are seeing someone and choosing not to have an interaction or having an interaction with someone and not registering a citation or some other kind of encounter, we don't see those.

And this is a sort of known problem in policing data.

in a very serious way.

So there's big complicated questions in terms of how we accurately measure the bias in policing, but this data is showing that there is clearly such a bias at play in Seattle.

Frank is being humble because he just recently had a paper that was published that looks at national data on mortality and police encounters.

Do you want to summarize that?

Yeah, sure.

So along with my colleagues, Hedwig Lee and Michael Esposito, we published a recent paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that showed that black and indigenous men and women are at much higher risk of being killed by police than are their white peers.

And this is largely clear functions of racial inequality across the country, but there's also distinct sub-national regional patterns.

The West Coast in particular has higher levels of police violence toward black indigenous people than do other parts of the country.

And so the data problem with thinking about LFOs and fines and fees is a larger data problem that That also applies to thinking about use of force and thinking about encounter rates and thinking about ways that we could reduce levels of use of force, and I think broadly considerations to think about reducing police civilian interaction fall into the category of things that we think would reduce both debt load and levels of violence right so.

kind of broadly thinking in terms of ways to limit the interaction of the police with the community, both through routine traffic enforcement and other kinds of enforcement activities would, in this case, I think, have pretty clear effects on debt load and also have likely effects on levels of police civilian violence.

Right?

So the citations, the ability of police to give these citations and over surveillance of black and brown communities leads to these contacts that could ultimately lead to negative and sort of maiming and murdering of people.

But also the warrants related, connected to inability to pay that are given to people, right?

Set up these encounters as well.

Council Member Morales, do you have a follow-up?

Yes, thank you.

Thank you for that information.

I'm going to bet you $10 that the City Council does not have a subscription to this particular journal.

Is it possible for us to get a copy of this paper?

Thank you.

And I would appreciate a follow-up conversation around the data piece that you referenced, and whether or not there's a way that we can work with the police department to get more of that information that would be helpful to both analysis and policy reform efforts that we could work together collaboratively on with the police department.

I think that would be a really positive forward step.

But I am, again, also interested in seeing what the city and the court can do about spearheading the state conversation as well.

There are no further questions.

I wanna thank you guys for providing a very concise report.

You covered a lot of ground, really appreciate it.

And well, it's great to see everybody.

And we'll move on to the next item on our agenda.

Alex, could you please read in the next item on the agenda?

Agenda item number five, community service officer program implementation.

Fantastic.

Thank you.

All right.

Shifting over to the Seattle Police Department's Community Service Officer Program implementation.

We're going to be hearing from Assistant Chief Herjack.

And this is just a quick bit of background in the 2017 budget process.

enacted by the council in 2016. I, among other council members, co-sponsored a proposal to bring back the community service officer program, which had been in operation for 33 years until 2004, when it was eliminated due to budget cuts.

It was great to have the opportunity to co-sponsor legislation to bring back the CSOs with this 2016 vote.

And really excited of the department's use of unsworn officers to prioritize response to non-emergency services associated with law enforcement needs.

that can free up police officers to better respond to 911 calls.

As we know, CSOs can assist with mediating disputes, doing follow-up calls for non-emergency services, help residents navigate services and support Programming for at risk youth as well as attending community hosted events and helping to mediate civil issues such as landlord tenant issues.

Last year, the police department announced the plan to enact.

the council's 2016 legislation and relaunched the community service officer program.

When that happened, the council adopted a statement of legislative intent requesting an implementation update, and we're here to get that implementation update.

I'm really happy to have SPD present.

Apologies for not being able to do so earlier in the year.

Like many things it was delayed due to the pandemic and the need to revisit the 2020 budget.

And I'm really glad to have Assistant Chief Herjack here with us today to present this long awaited report.

So with that I'll pass it over to Assistant Chief Herjack.

Thank you, Chairwoman Herbold.

Good morning, everyone.

I want to thank, as well as Councilmember Herbold, the other committee members here for having me here to discuss the status of our Community Service Officer Program, more commonly known as the CSO Program.

My name is Steve Herjack.

As Councilmember Herbold had I'll let you know I'm the Assistant Chief of Police for the Collaborative Policing Bureau.

The CSO unit actually falls underneath my Bureau of Policing.

I want to thank the committee, as well as the prior incarnation of the committee, along with the entire council for the support of the CSO program.

I came on SPD in 1993. So as someone who served the city with SPD for 27 years, I fondly remember the assistance of the former CSOs and a couple of friendships with those that formerly served as CSOs for the city.

But the assistance the former CSOs supplied to the city and to the department back then as a brand new patrol officer, I was very appreciative of the CSOs assistance with such things as landlord-tenant disputes, landlord-tenant training, assisting with police calls involving Child Protective Services, and numerous other types of interactions in which they proved invaluable in assisting me as a patrol officer.

Having said that, times have changed, and what we need them for has changed as well, but the need for them as a resource has not.

So thank you again very much for bringing them back.

As you know, as Councilmember Herbold mentioned, beginning in 2017, SPD worked with the Office of Civil Rights to conduct a racial equity analysis and extensive community engagement.

And we heard very clearly from almost every corner of our community what people hope for in the new CSO program.

So before I make myself available for questions to the council here, I wanted to make sure that some common questions or an FAQ was addressed here on the front end.

The CSOs report to two civilian supervisors and one SPD sergeant.

We currently have 12 CSOs, not counting the supervisors mentioned earlier.

They wear a soft uniform.

This is basically a polo and polo shirt.

in baby blue to differentiate them from sworn police officers.

We want to make sure to the public that it's very clear that they're not approaching a sworn police officer, but rather a community service officer.

The uniform choice of a polo shirt is also, it's very approachable as opposed to, you know, more formalized, more military style or paramilitary style uniform.

We had over 1,000 applicants for the program, and we hired these applicants from a very diverse pool and very pleased with the group of personnel that we have hired.

Unfortunately, COVID has impacted our ability to completely fill the program.

We have three vacancies caused by the hiring freeze.

when COVID struck us with the hiring freeze earlier this year.

So they officially began work or employment on April 15th of this year.

Before going out in public, they received extensive training in things such as social work, de-escalation, conflict resolution, conflict mediation, crisis intervention, Classes on institutional racism and cultural competency.

We submitted a report I believe last week to the council that has a more comprehensive list of the training.

It was a pretty extensive list of training.

Unfortunately, COVID has interfered with a few of those points that we wanted to have due to restrictions on in-person group training.

So that's something we're still trying to work on and be flexible with.

In the meantime, we want to get value out of the program.

So they've been serving the city currently out in public, on foot or in vehicles going out.

And the majority of their time is spent out of the vehicle where they can interact with members of the public.

So they have ongoing projects that they're working on as well as being dispatched by our 911 system to be sent to radio calls.

or sometimes they receive direct calls straight to their office to assist with community problems.

They've been working very closely with our civilian crime prevention coordinators to help implement crime prevention strategies and information sharing.

One of the points that, you know, when I spoke to the supervisors about some of the progress they've made They do have training in crime prevention through environmental design.

And for example, they would go out and talk to a grocery store owner with a high level of theft or calls for service and kind of get eyes on, build that community engagement and trust, which is one of the primary goals of the Community Service Officer Program.

Establish what they perceive as patterns based on their training and then connect the say business owner or neighborhood group leader with our crime prevention coordinator in order to get a more robust crime prevention through environmental design assessment.

So we see integration and synergy in the way we deploy the CSOs.

Currently, they staff two shifts from seven in the morning till eight at night.

The coverage has been expanded to seven days a week with the recent implementation of shifts.

We had previously, I believe, notified you that we were going to do six days a week.

So I do need to update the council that we're able to get some CSOs deployed seven days a week now.

So they do not work holidays.

They are currently working at the SPD headquarters here on the fifth floor.

They have three primary categories of work that they're currently working on.

that being resource action and guidance for members of the public, youth diversion and youth services, and community engagement and education.

As I mentioned previously, the COVID-19 pandemic, as it has with everything, has impacted our planned deployment.

As I mentioned earlier, that 15 of the plan 18 were hired, but we couldn't fill out the remaining spots Currently, we plan to leave those positions unfilled due to the hiring freeze and the budget concerns at the moment.

Additionally, the COVID pandemic has also impacted some of the delivery of some of our supplies.

There was impacts to some of, for example, the uniforms or a delayed delivery of their vehicles because the Ford factory had slowed down production of the vehicles.

completely unexpected impacts from the pandemic.

We could not initially complete all the training.

So the name of the game currently is to be adaptive.

We're currently working with the employees who have proven to be exceptionally adaptable and flexible.

We're trying to find current value before we can get through this pandemic and see the results of redeploying this resource from history.

Currently, some of the things that they've done is they found through community meetings that there was a great logistical problem with some of the food banks getting food to some of the most vulnerable members, especially during the shutdown and when people were ordered to stay at home.

And, you know, some of the transit services became fear points for people not wanting to expose themselves to COVID-19 on, say, public transit, such as buses.

So the CSO saw an opportunity to assist the food banks with delivering food weekly.

They check in to see what kind of need and if there's any high need areas where they can get the food out.

They've been doing that weekly since they've been on the street, assisting with that.

They've been working heavily in community engagement.

They're participating with the fire department's Friday night lights program, where they go out on Friday nights and engage members of the community with the drive-bys for the social engagement emphasizing places such as nursing homes or places where people have less mobility to get out and have social interaction.

I know that they have made numerous contacts in city parks, trying to both engage the community and get feedback, but also reminding people of social distancing and in many cases, I believe our numbers are at least 80 members of the public that they provided masks to, to assist with the social distancing guidelines.

They have attended virtual meetings.

For example, I believe they had met with the CIDBIA virtual Zoom meeting to get some more public engagement with the police department.

I know they've provided transport for people in vulnerable situations such as traffic accident with a disabled vehicle where a family couldn't get home, they've proven invaluable in that rather than having an officer with a marked patrol car in a prisoner compartment transport someone home.

So moving forward, I know that Chief Diaz and I both see the CSOs as an important part in re-envisioning policing.

To that end, the CSOs have even providing handouts and links to our re-imagining policing survey, as well as trying to engage the public to increase BIPOC participation in the Seattle University Public Safety Survey.

So at this point, that's really what I have for you, and I could be available for questions now.

Thank you so much.

I really appreciate this overview.

Quick question while my colleagues in the council are...

determining whether or not they have questions.

One of the items that has been a high priority for me as it relates to the reestablishment of the CSO program relates to the Seattle Municipal Code prohibition against landlord lockouts outside of a court order or utility shutoffs.

And for many years, there's been sort of many years, as long as I've been at City Hall and before that, when I was at the Tenants Union, there's been this volleying back and forth between the Code Enforcement Department, now SDCI, many iterations over the last 25 years and the police department over who enforces that prohibition against lockouts and utility shutoffs.

The code enforcement office has done it on occasion and frankly the time when, in my opinion, it functioned best was when we were able to refer these to CSOs when the old CSO program was up and running.

And so I just want to confirm, and we don't have to do it now, but I just want to confirm that there's a clear line for tenants or tenant advocacy organizations who are aware of unlawful lockouts or utility shutoffs to the CSOs to be able to respond to a civil issue such as that.

When I had mentioned the landlord-tenant disputes, I was speaking historically to, as you mentioned, how they used to work so brilliantly in that field.

However, that's not currently implemented because of the COVID impacts with getting this deployed and up and running and up to speed.

So that's definitely something that is up for discussion, but is currently not implemented.

Okay, well, again, it's high priority for me, high priority for the council when we provided the funding.

I think this function was called out in our budget action as a high priority action for the CSO.

So look forward to talking to you more about that.

Council colleagues, does anybody else have any questions?

I have one more question.

Can you just talk a little bit about the geographic deployment of CSOs?

There was some talk prior to implementation of the program of whether or not this was going to be a central deployment or a by-precinct deployment.

And my understanding is, is though the CSOs are centrally located at the Seattle Justice Center, they are evenly deployed to the precincts throughout the city.

Is that more or less correct?

They are centralized.

That part is correct.

We wanted to remain flexible in their ability to respond to areas of need.

So they're currently not limited by geography, for example, assigned permanently to a north precinct or a southwest precinct.

But they are liaising with the precincts geographically to find out what their issues are.

and attempting to assist them and find opportunities to assist with gaps with the patrol resources at each of the precincts.

But they are not permanently assigned.

For example, if we knew that there was going to be something big, say at Alki, we maintain the flexibility by being centralized in order to deploy more resources towards something that's going on or something that's acute at the time.

Thank you.

Council Member Morales.

Thank you.

Good still morning.

Good morning, officer.

I have a question.

Part of the report response discusses the kind of routine patrols that the CSOs go through in community and specifically talks about having conversations with businesses that are expressing their concern about crime in the area and how to report crime.

Can you just walk us through?

I'm trying to understand what the process is for our neighbors, particularly these kind of neighborhood business districts to report when something's happening.

And if they, if they're speaking with a community service officer first, what is the.

What is the handoff maybe to another officer and what is the process they can expect for follow through?

And I'm asking because I've had conversations with constituents throughout my district in Chinatown International District, in the Mount Baker light rail area, in Rainier Beach.

who have been calling to ask for some support because there are car break-ins, there's shootings happening, there's a lot of tagging going on.

Some of this I understand is not something that there can be an immediate response to, but I'm just trying to understand because they're getting not getting very far with getting some assistance, understanding what's happening in their community and how to resolve it.

So can you just walk us through the process of what neighbors can expect whether they're talking to a CSO officer or to a regular officer and how that response is supposed to happen?

Thank you.

Yes, thank you for the question Council Member Morales.

It's an interesting that you added there between a foreign officer and a CSO.

I'll start with CSO.

For example, a community where you have small business owners that may be less familiar with the 911 system and interacting with police.

When we have the community engagement from a CSO, we could have a situation, for example, where the CSO could explain where a threshold for a crime is versus a nuisance.

What the obligation of the business owner is, for example, the municipal code that requires that they clean up tagging versus expecting the city to clean up the tagging, which I know in some cases the city has supported, but that type of differentiation.

How the system works, for example, they can explain the flow of a patrol officer taking a report that is then forwarded to, for example, a precinct detective that follows up on property crimes.

liaising as far as between the precinct operations commander, as well as the detective supervisor, to talk about where the case is going to go and how the court system works and, you know, following up on leads like that, what to expect from the detective contact, what type of things they can do to prevent recurrence, such as lighting or, you know, some of the environmental design issues, so they can expect some of that.

We are, to put a fine point on it, we are trying to make sure that they understand the environmental design issues while actually referring those to the crime prevention coordinators who are actually certified in environmental design issues for crime prevention.

So they can do some of those things, get a feel for the neighborhood and create a constant point of contact.

Whereas with the 911 call, you get the available officer that can make it out.

So you may see a difference in Today I got Officer X, and then on Officer X's weekend, I now get Officer Y, who's a relief officer for that district because Officer X is normally gone.

They are working towards, we are working towards getting them fully engaged with the precincts to have ultimate responsibility for crime and response to crime in that geographical precinct, but supplementing that with the CSOs with their ability follow up and spend more time.

One of the examples I can think of is a grocery store in the South End where there's frequent 911 calls and officers due to call load may or may not be able to invest the time with that store manager where the CSO can sit for a couple hours, engage and monitor.

For a great difference between them would be An officer may have a duty to act when they witness something in front of them where the CSO, not being a sworn officer, can continue to watch for the pattern and engage and get the citizen perspective of what's happening rather than the police 911 officer perspective.

Whereas to round out the answer, when a 911 call comes in, it's going to be triaged based on you know, the current call load at the time based on the emergency level of the call, for example, a shooting above a tagging call.

And the resources may or may not get there immediately.

They may, you know, get this separate from another officer that's going to a different one and not immediately be able to see that there may be a tie in between issues until further down the chain where a CSO with the constant engagement should be able to see the ongoing issues in the community as opposed to three different sets of officers going to three different property crimes that may have been committed by the same person but discovered at different times.

You know, a common thing you might see at a Seahawks game where 100 people got a car broken into during a Seahawks game out of the 70,000 people.

Thank you.

I'm sorry.

I appreciate your thorough answer.

We do need to wrap up.

We're quickly running out of time.

We have two more items on our agenda.

Really appreciate you, Assistant Chief, for taking the time to come.

and present to us about this really important public safety program that the council is very, very supportive of, and do come and speak with us again.

Thank you so much for your time.

All right.

Item number six.

Alex, can you please read item number six into the record?

Item number six, supervised consumption presentation.

Thank you.

All right, let's just kick it off with a quick round of introduction from our presenters.

So Chair Herbold, I think it would be great if, my name is Jesse Rollins.

I'll be leading the presentation today.

I was wondering if Brad Feingood from Public Health could go first.

Absolutely.

You kind of ground us in some of our overdose rates here in Seattle and King County.

Sounds like a sound place to begin.

Good afternoon.

This is Brad Feingood.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold and members of the committee.

I am with Public Health Seattle-King County.

I was one of the co-chairs of the Heroin and Opiate Task Force with Seattle-King County that was co-convened in 2016. I'm just going to briefly share some data points with council today, if I can get my technology working right.

Let's see here.

News.

My apologies.

Sorry.

Can everyone see my screen now?

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay.

So Brad Feingold, Public Health Seattle King County.

Just a little bit of the general overdose numbers in King County.

Overdoses continue to rise and they've continued to rise year over year since we held our task force in 2015. They've, the biggest, the biggest, category that has continued to rise is the people who individuals who have died of overdoses that have multiple drugs in their system.

What we're seeing is a continuing complexity of overdose overdose numbers, overdose deaths, and people who are using drugs that have negative consequences.

So you will see that there are two numbers that are going up drastically in our community.

This is where certain drugs are involved in people's system.

And I'm happy to come back at a later time to talk more about that.

But the two most prominent drugs that are on the rise in people's system that have led to overdose deaths are both methamphetamine and fentanyl.

Fentanyl, very much so county-wide, heroin and methamphetamine much more has been an issue in overdose deaths in the city, in the city of Seattle.

So here's a little bit of numbers of geographic impacts of overdose deaths.

So you'll see that fentanyl overdose deaths are more predominant in the rest of, in the outlying cities of the county, where 40% of, of fentanyl-involved deaths are in the city of Seattle, not so much in the urban core, but spread throughout Seattle, and almost 60% is through the rest of the county.

When you look at non-fentanyl-involved overdose deaths, and those are primarily with heroin and methamphetamine, those continue to see significant impacts, the most significant impacts in the city of Seattle, and that continues to be very much clustered in the urban core.

That is my quick update, and I want to make sure to share time with everybody else.

Thank you, Brad.

So what's the proposal?

I understand that the recommended model has shifted over the last several months, and that's what we're here to talk about is what's new in the campaign.

and in the proposal that we are seeking to support funding with the funding that the city has put aside for this purpose.

Thank you, Chair Herbold, and thank you, Brad, for giving us that information on local statistics around our overdose crisis.

So I wanted to start off with introductions.

So we are going to have a presentation today from Yes to SES, so Yes to Safe Consumption Spaces, Seattle-King County.

So we're presenting on local strategies for implementing SES here in Seattle.

So I wanted to first just introduce myself.

Again, my name is Jesse Rollins.

Thank you, Chair Herbold, for having us today.

And thank you other council members for being here as well.

My name is Jesse Rollins again, and I'm the public policy manager at the Public Defender Association.

And I will let Mark introduce himself next.

Good morning.

Thank you, council members.

My name is Mark Cook.

I'm an attorney with the ACLU of Washington, which is a member of the SCS campaign.

And then if we could have Dr. Waters introduce himself.

Yeah.

Hello, my name is Richard Waters.

I'm a primary care physician with Neighbor Care speaking on my own today and work with people who use drugs and those experiencing homelessness.

Thank you, Dr. Waters.

Thank you, Dr. Waters.

And then Michael.

Good morning, Michael Lindberg.

I'm the executive director of HEP, a nonprofit that has been working in Seattle for almost 30 years, primarily with underserved and marginalized populations.

And then last but not least, Lisa.

Hi, everyone.

I'm a long-term North Seattle resident, a mother, a homeowner, and co-founder of Aurora Commons here in North Seattle.

Hey, thank you everyone for introducing yourself.

So we're going to be very efficient with our presentation today and just hit high levels and try to leave some time at the end for questions.

So we're kind of going to give a brief description of our Yes to SES timeline, what we're talking about for local strategy for SES implementation, a legal landscape, some perspectives with health care folks and social service providers, and then questions and comments.

So I'm going to turn it over to Mark to start us off with our timeline of SES here in Seattle, King County.

Thank you, Jesse, and apologies if there's some dog barking noise.

So we actually just hit the four year anniversary last week for when the Seattle King County Opiate Task Force released its findings, which seems like a really long time ago.

But as you just saw, the need is still there.

And we are still committed to trying to get this public health intervention implemented.

But shortly after the report came out, The King County Board of Health endorsed this practice via a resolution in 2017, which really put this on a very strong legal footing, which then led into some budgetary decisions, which I think Jesse was going to give a little more detail on.

Yeah, so just we wanted to recognize that this legislative body has shown a lot of leadership around SDS in particular in 2018 through y'all's budget authority allocated 1.3 million and then in 2019 allocated an additional 100,000 to total 1.4 million.

And then in 2020, Chair Herbold and being a very brilliant in the legislative details and process caught that the $100,000 that was allocated in 2019 was actually not included in the city's finance general.

So again, I appreciate Chair Herbold for marrying the 1.3 million with the $100,000.

And all credit goes to Christina cooks in my office for finding that oversight is great as well.

So, moving along.

So, as you know.

The, what we have been pushing for, yes, the SCS, is we have historically talked about implementing two pilot SCSs, one in Seattle and one in King County, is what the recommendations, the Heroin and Prescription Opiate Addiction Task Force recommended.

And much of that advocacy was around a standalone site.

And what we're here today is to discuss an involved strategy for implementing SCS.

So our evolved strategy would be implementing SCS, so supervised or safer consumption services at existing low barrier social service locations that serve people who use drugs.

So What we know actually is that unsafe or unsupervised consumption already occurs at many of these social service locations.

And so what we're here today is to advocate for support and implementation for SES at existing social service locations.

In addition to, you know, unsafe and unsupervised consumptions already happening at these locations, 80% of survey respondents in the most recent syringe program survey, 80% again, talked about how they would use SES.

They would use supervised consumption services.

In 2016, 15 months after the city started its needle collection pilot, over 5,000 needles were removed from public space.

And I just wanted to highlight that there have been, since the task force made its recommendation, 754 people inside Seattle have died from fatal overdoses.

What's super fascinating is that 14% of countywide overdose rates are affected by people experiencing homelessness.

And comparing that to the total population, only 0.5% of King County's population is experiencing homelessness.

So that's 14% versus 0.5%.

0.5%.

So again, just highlighting the disproportionality around overdoses, and how SESs would really be a beneficial public health approach for vulnerable folks that use drugs.

So now I'm going to turn it over to Mark to talk just a little bit about the kind of legal landscape of SES.

Thank you, Justin.

Thank you, Jesse.

Thank you.

Council members.

I'll be very brief.

Just wanted to kind of point back to the 2016 task force report, which really did try to delve into some of the legal questions that would come with opening up this type of public health intervention.

But I think the big thing to remember is that.

When it comes to public health and public safety regulation, that legally speaking, those are local and state issues and not federal issues.

And the law is quite clear that, you know, local governments and states don't need to be in lockstep with federal law.

And, you know, examples of that would be things like needle exchanges or marijuana laws.

You know, there are much more clear-cut federal drug crimes happening in Seattle every day, thousands of times when people are purchasing marijuana, which continues to be an illegal federal crime.

So when it comes to implementing something that is arguably not even a federal drug crime at all, based on this federal crack house statute, it's very unfortunate when people raise the specter of federal law enforcement as a reason not to move forward with this.

So really just wanted to remind this body that you have great authority when it comes to regulating issues of public health and public safety and feel strongly that a consumption space and consumption services fit squarely within that.

And if you're looking for a really good example of how that law plays out, I would point to the Seattle city attorneys.

Amicus brief that was filed recently in the case out of Philadelphia that was looking at these exact issues.

And in that case, which is still ongoing, and it's not binding on Seattle, the judge made quite clear that this notion that A consumption space violates federal law is not correct.

The intent of these facilities is public health and to connect people with treatment and services.

It is not to facilitate drug crimes.

So I would just reiterate that there is very strong legal ground for these facilities and city of Seattle should should move forward.

It's been much too long.

These money has been sitting there for years.

Please put it to good use.

And just to put a finer point on, Mark, thanks again, is that the city of Seattle has kind of continuously and historically advanced policies in definement with federal government.

And so we would continue to ask that such policies be pushed for vulnerable folks that use drugs as well.

So now I'm gonna turn it over to Dr. Waters to give his perspective around healthcare components with SES.

Thanks, Jesse, and thanks, Mark, and thanks to the council members for having us.

So from a healthcare provider perspective, I fully support this.

This makes a lot of sense for individual health, for public health, and should also be conceptualized as a strategy to reduce drug use overall.

Certainly for individual health, We've got needle exchanges that are kind of a proven intervention to reduce things like the transmission of viral hepatitis or HIV.

And especially for folks who are the most vulnerable, who don't have safe places to use, SES has kind of continues this continuum and can reduce those risks further.

So certainly reducing fatal overdoses, but also further reducing viral hepatitis spread, HIV, but also kind of both costly to human health and to healthcare costs dangerous bacterial infections, the heart valve infections has potential to improve those.

Most notably, the idea of pairing this in existing sites where there can be pathways readily available to access drug treatment programs is very exciting and I think will be be potentially very effective at reducing overall drug use in the long term.

Some may lament this idea and say, why don't we just go all in on drug treatment programs and skip this idea of a safe consumption site?

And I think that perspective misses the idea that especially for the most marginalized, building trust and relationships over the long term is key and essential to for kind of durable engagement into drug reduction programs and to kind of decrease harm.

So I think these complement each other completely.

And then certainly the kind of other benefits, just bringing existing drug use that is already happening in safe ad hoc drug consumption spaces, or unsafe and ad hoc drug consumption spaces.

Indoors, out of the public eye, to places that are safe, welcoming, non-stigmatizing, And again, can improve engagement in the long term with the clients that we already serve.

Thank you.

And while we're transitioning to our last slide, introducing Lisa and Michael, I will also just add that the city, the executive has kind of continued to label budget constraints around moving forward with SCS.

And so we don't find those budget constraints as legitimate with this evolved strategy.

We believe that the resources available would be sufficient for implementing SES at existing social service locations.

And we're going to hear from two providers very briefly about their interest in implementing SES, safer consumption practices or services at their social service locations.

So Lisa and Michael, I'm not sure who wants to go first.

Before we transition, I just wanna, because it is 11.59 and I know several of my colleagues are running off to another committee meeting, give council members an opportunity to ask questions at this particular juncture.

Just taking a pause here for a moment.

All right, hearing none.

Go ahead, thank you.

Michael or Lisa, would y'all like to talk?

Sure, I can go.

Yes, thank you, Council.

I am here to unabashedly plead with you to release the money to SES, because I know with my whole heart and 18 years of experience accompanying folks who are living unsheltered, engaging in survival, street-based sex work, and consuming drugs, that this is absolutely the moral thing to do.

What I witnessed every day are 60 to 125 unique, resilient citizens of your city who do not want to die, but rather want desperately to live and to make meaning of their lives.

And I'm here to tell you that what is behind our own walls, each and every one of us on this call, is hurting at times and is lonely at times.

Only we have the privilege of hiding how we cope behind four walls and the precious folks who need SES do not have that privilege.

They're outdoors and they're pushed more and more away from our society and absolutely told and treated as though they are expendable.

What we are saying to you now, Council, is that safe consumption spaces are among us already.

They are places like Aurora Commons, like HEP, that engage in contextualized, decolonized community, story-driven care.

Folks are met where they're at and treated as if they matter.

It's within these spaces that precious folks can come out of the shadows and access comprehensive care in a way and at places where they feel safe and not condemned.

I want to be really clear, safe consumption spaces co-located in people's communities is not only a kindness, but it is the right public health response that we need.

I have seen this work firsthand.

Funding this will not only prevent hundreds of unnecessary preventable deaths of precious people, it will also make our communities safer, my own young children's parks safer, And this is absolutely the kindness that we need right now.

Thank you.

Thank you, Lisa.

Thanks so much, Lisa.

Michael, do you want to briefly talk about your perspective around SES and how you could possibly incorporate using this funding at your hepatitis education project?

Yes, I would love to.

And thank you, Lisa, for your eloquent words there and everyone else.

I think there's unanimity in understanding that We have a problem that needs to be addressed.

We have monies that have been set aside that have not been allocated, and organizations like ours, like Aurora Commons, where we do things like provide naloxone.

We distributed more than 2,300 doses of naloxone last year at HEP, and our participants, 75% of whom report living homeless in the last year, reversed 650 overdoses in 2019. So we have the tools to really make this problem better.

And it's not just about the supervised consumption.

It's about, as Dr. Waters said, getting people other services that they want or need.

We provide a low barrier buprenorphine program at HEP in conjunction with the country doctor federally qualified health center.

We do testing and links to care for hepatitis and HIV.

And we get people who are not getting these services anywhere else, the services that they need.

So I would also strongly urge you, Chair Herbold, to do what you can to release these funds to organizations that can actually put them to work and prevent some of those 754 overdose deaths that have occurred since these monies were originally allocated.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

So I just want to clarify for the viewing public that the council has allocated these resources.

We do not have the authority as under our current allocation as it has been structured, we don't have the authority to release them.

I do want to clarify that the recent program proposal has been sent to human services director, Jason Johnson, with a request for HSD's feedback.

I've also requested that the law department provide some written feedback as well.

But I want to just clarify that, you know, I can try to facilitate a a willingness on the part of the human services director to release this funding, but absent another strategy, the ability, the decision-making will be with the human services director and the mayor's office.

Now, if there is another approach that you think that the council should be considering, in order to get these dollars that we have already allocated out the door.

I think it's really important for us to hear that as well.

Chair Herbold, you're the legislative genius here, but my understanding is that further legislative action would be required to move the funds from finance general to the BCL, where the public health contract is.

That's my understanding.

And so there could be some necessary further legislative action, but you are correct.

We do need urgently need the mayor to actually spend the dollars.

All right, well, thank you.

Again, as mentioned, we have shared the proposal with the Human Services Department and have offered an opportunity for a representative from the human services department to talk with us about how to move forward this budgetary priority of the council.

You know, given that I think the recommendations for allowing agencies who already provide these types of services, treatment services, to also do supervised consumption is a really smart way to go given the the difficulties around pursuing sort of a bricks and mortar strategy.

So appreciate understanding.

I don't know if we, I think I tended to have somebody from public health with us.

I don't know, do we?

That was Brad Feingood who spoke.

Oh, fantastic.

Brad Feingood.

Brad's still with us?

Yes, ma'am.

So appreciate the background on, On overdoses, can you just speak to whether or not the supervised consumption services proposal is, in fact, aligned with the task force recommendations?

Yeah, Council Member, thank you.

And as one of the co-chairs of the task force, we recommended supervised consumption spaces in a minimum of two places within King County.

So the proposal that's been put forth today is aligned with what the task force recommended.

Great.

All right.

Well, thank you.

I'm just going to look to see whether or not if you could, I'm sorry, Jesse, if you don't mind taking down the slide so I can see my colleagues.

Great.

I don't know if other council members have any closing thoughts or questions.

I do know that many of us have a competing meeting that started seven minutes ago.

And so I just want to say publicly, I don't know if my staff have reached the presenters for the co-lead presentation.

I fear that we have not been able to reach everybody because I do see the icons for some folks still on the Zoom call.

But we are going to have to adjourn the meeting And I'm going to work to see if I can find some other time for co-lead presenters to bring back their presentation.

I think it's really important for council members to hear it before we move into the budget cycle.

And so I'm looking and hoping for maybe some time on a Monday morning briefing agenda sometime soon.

And if I'm successful, you will then have the audience of nine city council members rather than four.

So fingers crossed and my apologies for running long.

Thanks, Council Member Herbold.

We'll be happy to do that and would love the audience of all nine.

There you go.

Thank you so much for your flexibility.

And if there are no other comments from my colleagues, then it is now, 12.09 PM and we are adjourned.

Thank you so much.