.
>>> COMMITTEE MEETING WILL
COME
TO ORDER. IT'S 9:34 A.M.
FEBRUARY
THAT DON'T COMMUNICATE
NECESSARILY AS
WELL AS THEY SHOULD.
WE NEED TO BE LOOKING TO IMPROVE
THAT COMMUNICATION,
THE UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE
CITY, CITY GOVERNMENT, AND OUR
CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT.
SOMETHING WE NEED TO
EXPANDEXPAND ON WORK WE'VE BEEN
DOING THUS
FAR.
RELATED TO PUBLIC SAFETY THAT
MAKES A DIFFERENCE.
WE HAVE TO BE HAVING THAT
COMMON UNDERSTANDING AT THE
SCHOOL
DISTRICT LEVEL AND HERE WITH THE
CITY AND THE COUNTY.
THOSE THREE PIECES NEED TO BE
WORKING TOGETHER AND IT'S SO
IMPORTANT.
AND THAT
COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIP CAN
HELP MAKE A
DIFFERENCE. AND THEN LASTLY, WE
HAVE A NEW
PILLAR, GUN VIOLENCE
AND PREVENTION AND COMMUNITY
SAFETY.
LAST YEAR WE HAD BILLS
ON AFTER- HOURS ESTABLISHMENTS
THAT MADE A BIG DIFFERENCE IN
TERMS OF GUN VIOLENCE N
COMBINATION
WITH THE CHRONIC
NUISANCE PROPERTIES BILL WE
UPDATED.
THAT'S MAKING A DIFFERENCE.
WHAT ELSE CAN WE DO PARTICULARLY
FOR THIS CHALLENGE THAT
WE'RE FACING WITH, YOU KNOW,
OUR
STUDENTS, YOUNG
PEOPLE BEING KILLED?BEING
YOU KNOW, THE PREVENTION AND
REDUCTION, BUT ALSO
THE COMMUNITY SAFETY PIECES.
I'M MEETING SOON WITH
COMMUNITY PASSAGE WAYS.
WHAT CAN WE DO THERE AS WELL?
IT HAS TO BE A PARTNERSHIP.
I TALK ABOUT, ANOTHER
PILLAR, THE SEAM BETWEEN PUBLIC
SAFETY AND HUMAN
SERVICES THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF
THAT.
WHERE CAN WE BE
DOING WORK ON THE HUMAN SERVICES
SIDE IN
TERMS OF COMMUNITY SAFETY AND
HOW
DOES IT PARTNER WITH OUR
TRADITIONAL
PUBLIC SAFETY PIECES.
WHEN I LOOK AT THE
QUESTION, YOU KNOW, WHAT CAN WE
DO TO
RESPOND TO THE SITUATION?
THOSE ARE THREE AREAS WE NEED TO
PRESS FORWARD ON AND BE ENGAGED
AND WORK WITH COMMUNITY AS A
BASELINE, AS A
FOUNDATION, AT THE END OF THE
DAY FROM THE
QUOTE FROM OUR MAYOR, THIS
COMMUNITY DESERVES JUSTICE.
THEY DESERVE JUSTICE AND THEY
DESERVE PEACE AND THEY VERY
CERTAINLY DESERVE A SAFE
BASE FOR THEIR KIDS AND FOR
THEIR
FAMILIES.
THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT.
WE'LL NOW OPEN THE HYBRID
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD PUBLIC
COMMENT SHOULD RELATE TO THE
PURVIEW OF
THE COMMITTEE. HOW MANY SPEAKERS
ARE SIGNED UP
TODAY?
>> CURRENTLY TWO
IN-PERSON SPEAKERS SIGNED UP AND
TWO REMOTE SPEAKERS.
>> EACH WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES.
WE'LL START WITH IN PERSON.
CAN YOU READ THE
INSTRUCTIONS.
>> THE PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD WILL BE MODERATED IN THE
FOLLOWING
MANNER. THE PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD IS
UP TO 60 MINUTES.
SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED IN
THE ORDER IN WHICH THEY
REGISTERED.
SPEAKERS WILL HEAR A CHIME
WHEN TEN SECONDS ARE LEFT OF
THEIR
TIME.
SPEAKERS' MICS WILL BE MUTED
IF THEY DO NOT END THEIR
COMMENTS
WITHIN THE ALLOTTED TIME.
THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IS
NOW OPEN AND WE WILL BEGIN WITH
THE
FIRST SPEAKER ON THE LIST.
THE FIRST IN- PERSON
SPEAKER IS JONATHAN MOORE.
>> HELLO.
MY NAME IS JONATHAN MOORE.
I WAS A BOARD OF IMMIGRATION --
I'M HERE TO ADDRESS THE -- I
THINK IT'S THE COUNCILMAN
RIVERA'S PROPOSAL TO REVISE THE
PROVISION ABOUT COOPERATING
WITH IMMIGRATION.
I WAS A BOARD OF IMMIGRATION
APPEALS REPRESENTATIVE FOR
30 YEARS AND WORKED IN
NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS
PROJECT FOR
15
YEARS. I WAS ON THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL
IMMIGRATION PROJECT FOR SEVEN
YEARS.
I COMMEND YOU FOR THIS
REALLY SHAMEFUL THAT THIS
LANGUAGE IS
STILL IN THE SEATTLE MUNICIPAL
CODE AND COMMEND YOU
FOR STARTING THE PROCESS OF
REVISING IT.
I THINK, THOUGH, THERE NEED TO
BE SOME OTHER CHANGES
IN ADDITION TO THE ONES YOU
PROPOSE.
IT NEEDS TO BE STRENGTHENED.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE -- I THINK
IT'S
SECTION 4. 815 D, WELL, I
THINK THE WHOLE PROVISION HAS
BEEN BASICALLY SUPER SEEDED.
THIS IS 2003.
KEEP WASHINGTON WORKING ACT
1093160 PASSED IN 2019, FOR
NO OTHER REASON THAN TO MAKE
IT COHERENT WITH STATE LAW,
THOSE PROVISIONS NEED TO BE
ELIMINATED.
IN PARTICULAR SECTION B, WHICH
HAS POLICE OFFICERS HAVING A
REASONABLE SUSPICION OF
WHETHER SOMEONE HAS BEEN
DEPORTED.
THAT'S BEYOND THE PURVIEW
OF WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO
UNDER THE KEEP
WASHINGTON WORKING ACT.
HOW ARE
THEY GOING TO KNOW WHETHER
SOMEONE HAS BEEN
DEPORTED?
DO THEY KNOW WHAT A VOLUNTARY
DEPARTURE?
THE DIFFERENCE BEFORE OR AFTER
PROCEEDINGS, WHETHER SOMEONE HAS
RETURNED AFTER REMOVAL BUT
WITHIN HOLDING PROCEEDINGS AND
SO FORTH.
IT'S NOT THEIR JOB AND IF
YOU TAKE OUT THE PARTS THAT ARE
EXTRANEOUS YOU GET THEY
CAN ARREST SOMEONE FOR A FELONY.
WE HAVE SOME OTHER
IDEAS WE WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT IN
WRITING.
I ONLY FOUND OUT ABOUT --
[ INAUDIBLE ] SO I DON'T
KNOW [ INAUDIBLE ] SUGGEST TO
STRENGTHEN.
THANK
YOU.
>> THANK
YOU.
>> OUR SECOND IN- PERSON
SPEAKER IS HOWARD
GAYLE.
>> I'M ALSO HEAR TO SPEAK
AND I'VE SENT ALL
THE COUNCIL MEMBERS A LONG MEMO
ABOUT THE
INADEQUACIES AND THE FACT
THAT THIS SIX YEARS NOW, SEVEN
YEARS, AFTER KEEP WASHINGTON
WORKING, THIS STILL DOES NOT
BRING
US INTO COMPLIANCE.
THIS IS A 23-YEAR- OLD LAW AND
IT CAN'T BE SORT OF PATCHED
BACK INTO COMPLIANCE.
THE BIGGEST CONCERNS I HAVE
IS THE REPEATED USE OF THE
WORDWORD
WITHOUT SPECIFYING LOCAL AND
STATE LAW AND I ELABORATED
THAT IN MY E-MAIL.
THERE'S A WHOLE SECTION 18 --
4015 B ENTIRELY
UNNECESSARY, WHICH MR. MOORE
SPOKE ABOUT
REASONABLE SUSPICION
AN OFFICER MIGHT HAVE.
THIRD, THERE'S A -- 418016
TALKS ABOUT NOT GIVING UP -- --
NONPUBLICLY
AVAILABLE INFORMATION FOR PEOPLE
DOING IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT.
PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE GIVING
OUT INFORMATION PERIOD.
IT SHOULDN'T BE LEFT UP TO A
CITY WORKER TO DECIDE.
FOURTH, THE UNLIKE THE
STATE MODEL LAW IT FAILS TO
CREATE
A DOCUMENT THAT AUDIT TRAIL.
FIFTH, THERE'S NO PROCEDURAL
CHECK FOR DEPARTMENT HEADS
SO THAT
A CITY EMPLOYEE IS NOT LEFT TO
THEIR OWN DEVICES TO
MAKE THAT DECISION.
FINALLY, I THINK ONE OF
THE MORE -- ONE OF THE -- ONE OF
THE GREATEST CONCERNS IS THAT
THISTHIS PROVIDES NO CAUSE OF
ACTION AND NO PUNISHMENT.
SO IF A CITY EMPLOYEE EMPLOYEE
SOMETHING WRONG, THERE'S
ABSOLUTELY NO CAUSE OF ACTION.
SO IF I'M TAKEN AWAY BECAUSE
OF INFORMATION GIVEN BY A
CITY EMPLOYEE I HAVE NO CAUSE OF
ACTION.
THAT IS WRONG.
AND IT'S -- IT -- I THINK
PEOPLE
DO NOT FAIL TO NOTICE THAT
WHEN IT COMES TO PROPERTY CRIMES
AND
OTHER CRIMES, FOR PEOPLE
THAT HAVE POWER AND MONEY, WE
ALWAYS [ INAUDIBLE ].
BUT WITH THE PEOPLE
MOST IMPACTED BY THE [ INAUDIBLE
] TO
SEATTLE SOMEHOW [ INAUDIBLE ].
I SUGGEST --
>> THANK YOU.
>> SHOULD HAVE [ INAUDIBLE ].
>> THANK YOU, MR. GAYLE.
THANK YOU, MR. GAYLE.
>> THE FIRST REMOTE SPEAKER
IS [ INAUDIBLE ]
MORGAN. IF I
MISPRONOUNCED YOUR NAME CORRECT
ME.
PLEASE PRESS STAR 6 NOW THAT YOU
HAVE HEARD YOU HAVE BEEN
UNMUTED.
>> HI.
GOOD MORNING COUNCIL MEMBERS.
I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR
GIVING ME AN OPPORTUNITY
TO SPEAK TODAY.
MY NAME IS FAT TIA MORGAN I
LIVE IN CAPITOL HILL HILL AND GO
TO SEATTLE UNIVERSITY AS A
SOCIAL WORK GRADUATE STUDENT AND
HERE TO VOICE MY SUPPORT FOR
COUNCIL BILL 121158 WHICH WAS
INTRODUCED BY COUNCILMAN RIVERA
TO AMEND
SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE.
AS A SOCIAL WORK STUDENT I'M
TRAINED TO ADVOCATE FOR
JUSTICE AND CONFIDENTIALITY
AND THIS BILL THIS
PROTECTIONS FOR THE PRESERVATION
OF THE RIGHT
TO PRIVACY.
AS A SOCIAL WORK INTERN
WORKING CLIENTS OF VARIOUS
STATUSES
THE FEAR
THAT PERSONAL INFORMATION COULD
BE SHARED WITH IMMIGRATION
ENFORCEMENT IS A BARRIER
TO PEOPLE SEEKING SERVICES.
I'M CURRENTLY WORKING THE
CHILDREN'S HEALTH CARE
CLINIC MAINTAINING [ INAUDIBLE ]
TO SAFE MENTAL AND PHYSICAL
HEALTH CENTRAL FOR MY CLIENT AND
THE
CONTINUITY OF CARE.
[ INAUDIBLE ]
TO ESSENTIAL CARE LEAVING
IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES
VULNERABLE, CONFIDENTIALITY
AND TRUST ARE FOUNDATIONS
OF PRACTICE AND THIS BILL
ENSURES PERSONAL INFORMATION
REMAINS
PERSONAL. I BELIEVE ALL SEATTLE
RESIDENTS ARE OBSERVING SERVICES
AND
CARE REGARDLESS OF IMMIGRATION
STATUS AND THEY SHOULD BE
ABLE TO RECEIVE THEM WITHOUT
FEAR
OF BEING ARRESTED BY I.C.E.
I AGREE WITH COUNCILWOMAN
RIVERA AND HER STATEMENT THE
BEHAVIOR OF I.C.E. IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
CLIENTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO
TRUST US AND OTHER CITY
EMPLOYEES AND
WE NEED LEGISLATION THAT
HELPS US PROTECT THEM.
THIS BILL COULD DO BETTER
TO DEFINE CAUSE OF ACTION
FOR EMPLOYEES THAT DO SHARE
PERSONAL
INFORMATION. I THINK THAT NEEDS
TO BE MORE
CLEARER AND ENFORCE
MBL CONSEQUENCES FOR EMPLOYEES
THAT BREAK THIS LAW.
FAILURE TO PASS THIS BILL
COULD LEAVE MEMBERS VULNERABLE
AND FAIL TO UPHOLD THE ETHICAL
PRINCIPLES OF
AUTONOMY [ INAUDIBLE ] AND
JUSTICE.
COOPERATING [ INAUDIBLE ] AND
SHARING PERSONAL INFORMATION
IS NOT ALIGNED WITH MY ETHICS
AND CANNOT BE PART OF MY
PRACTICE AS
A SOCIAL WORKER.
THIS BILL IS
IMPERATIVE IN PROTECTING THE
RIGHTS OF ALL.
>> THANK YOU.
>> OUR NEXT REMOTE SPEAKER IS
DAVID HAINES.
PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX NOW THAT
YOU HAVE BEEN UNMUTED.
>> THANK YOU.
DAVID HAINES.
SPARE US THE STAFFING
EXCUSES FROM THE POLICE CHIEF
WHEN THEY HAVE PLENTY OF COPS IN
ONE PLACE
TO MAKE OVERTIME AT A
LAW ABIDING EVENT YET WHEN IT
COMES TO FIGHTING CRIME PROPERLY
THEY ALWAYS COME UP WITH A
STAFFING
EXCUSE.
AND NOBODY HAS KEPT
THE CHIEF HONEST ABOUT THE FACT
THAT HE
HAS DISPERSED THE WICKED
CURSE OPERATING IN THOSE
ALLEYWAYS
BEHIND ROSS AND
ELSEWHERE. A LOT OF THEM WENT UP
TO
BELL TOWN AND MADE LIFE A LIVING
HELL FROM PEOPLE FROM COLUMBIA
CITY, QUEEN ANNE, BALLARD AND
FURTHER ELSEWHERE PLACES USING
THE LINK
LIGHT RAIL.
YET, WE HAVE VIRTUE SIGNALING
DISTRACTIONS FROM THE NEW
MEMBER OF PUBLIC SAFETY WHO
SEEMS TO
NEED TO DISTRACT FROM
CERTAIN CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
AND SELF- FEELING ON
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SABOTAGED
AND UNDERMINED YET SEATTLE HAS
BEEN RUNNING INTERFERENCE FOR
EVIL
LOW LEVEL DRUG PUSHERS SINCE
JENNY DIRKEN, U.S. ATTORNEY AND
THE PEDOPHILE ED MURPHY
SHIFTED THE PARADIGM AWAY FROM
IMPROVING THE WAR ON DRUG
PUSHERS BY
LEGALIZING ORGANIC MARIJUANA AND
PROACTIVELY TRAINING PROPER
TO SHUT DOWN THESE EVIL
PREDATORS.
WE GOT PEOPLE
WHO ARE GIVING LEAD LISTS TO
TAKE OVER THE
CAPACITY AND THEY'RE
NEVER FORCED TO BREAK THEIR
ADDICTION IN AN AUTHORIZED
ENCAMPMENT.
THERE'S A REAL CONCERN ABOUT
THE
EFFORTS TO SHUT DOWN THE
BLACK AND BROWN DRUG PUSHERS
AND TRAFFICKERS BECAUSE THEY
JUST WANT TO LIKE DISPERSE THEM
AND THEN CLAIM CREDIT IN THE
MEDIA THEY'VE HAD SUCCESS IN
DIALING DOWN THE AMOUNT OF
CRIMES IN
THE 911 CALL CENTERS THAT HAVE
BEEN SENT IN.
YET, AMY BARDEN IS SETTING
ASIDE CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
BECAUSE THEY'RE LISTED
MISDEMEANOR
WITH A NONPRIORITY BECAUSE
THEY'RE --
>> THANK YOU.
>> CHAIR, THAT WAS THE LAST
SPEAKER.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I DO WANT TO THANK EVERYONE WHO
MADE PUBLIC COMMENT AND
MR. MOORE, MR. GAYLE, AND MS.
MORGAN. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
INPUT.
I -- TWO THINGS.
WELL A FEW THINGS.
ONE IS, COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA, SHE HAS A VERY TAILORED
BRIEF SHE'S BEEN WORKING AND
WE'LL HEAR THAT COMING UP IN
THIS
MEETING.
BUT ALSO RELATED TO FEDERAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT, WE HAVE A
NUMBER OF BILLS THAT ARE
ESSENTIALLY IN THE PIPELINE.
ONES RELATED TO ALPR.
ONE IS RELATED TO STAGING.
ANOTHER ONE IS RELATED TO
PROFESSIONALISM AND
STANDARDS. AND SEPARATELY, AND
I'VE HAD
CONVERSATIONS WITH
COUNCILMEMBER LIN AND
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA,
TO DO SOME ADDITIONAL WORK IN
THE AREAS THAT MR. MOORE YOU
WERE SPEAKING TO SO I WOULD ASK
FOR YOU TO CONNECT
WITH COUNCILMEMBER LIN AND HIS
TEAM. AS CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE,
I
WORK WITH OUR IN- HOUSE
LEGAL COUNCIL AND THE CITY
ATTORNEY AND HER TEAM AND
THAT'S
DRIVES IN TERMS OF WHAT WE'RE
DOING
AND THE ADVICE WE GET, THE
LEGAL ADVICE WITH YOU GET.
I DO APPRECIATE THE INPUT.
PROBABLY BEST TO WORK
THROUGH SOME OF OUR INDIVIDUAL
OFFICES, PARTICULARLY THOSE THAT
HAVE EXPRESSED AN INTEREST IN
THIS
AREA AND THE AREA OF LAW WHICH,
AS I NOTED IN THE LAST
MEETING, I'M THE ONLY PERSON
WITHOUT A
J.D. ON THIS COMMITTEE NOW.
I HAVE A LOT OFOF ON
THIS COMMITTEE FROM A STAFFING
PERSPECTIVE.
BUT I THINK IT'S
REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE KNOW
THE PEOPLE KNOW THAT WE ARE
WORKING
A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT AREAS AND
WE'RE WORKING AT A MEETING
YESTERDAY, THAT
RELATED TO SOME COORDINATION
WITH THE
EXECUTIVE ON THE -- RELATED TO
FEDERAL
LAW
ENFORCEMENT. THESE BILLS WILL BE
COMING DOWN AND THEY'LL BE
POPPING UP
ININ LEGISLATION AND INTO OUR
SYSTEM.
BUT WE'RE GOING TO DO IT VERY
METHODICAL, WE'RE GOING TO DO
IT WITH THE DEVICE OF, YOU KNOW,
THE CITY ATTORNEY AND HER
TEAM PLUS OUR INHOUSE LEGAL
COUNCIL, BUT I VALUE THE INPUTS
BECAUSE
I BOUNCE IT OFF VARIOUS
MEMBERS AND VARIOUS PLAYERS
WITHIN THE
SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE HERE.
AND I WOULD ADD
SEPARATELY, WITHOUT
ACKNOWLEDGING THE VARIOUS POINTS
MADE, WE'RE ALSO
WORKING, PUBLIC DRUG USE AND
POSSESSION AND
ALTERNATIVE RESPONSE COMING UP
AS WELL AS
ADDITIONAL TOPICS SEPARATE
FROM FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.
IT COMES UP WE'VE HEARD IT THIS
MORNING, AND I BRING
THIS UP BECAUSE THIS IS ALSO
VERY IMPORTANT AND SO THIS
IS SOMEWHAT OF A TRANSITION TO
OUR
FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS.
I WILL ADD THAT PUBLIC
COMMENT HAS EXPIRED AND WE'LL
NOW
PROCEED TO OUR ITEMS OF BUSINESS
AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ARE
ENCOURAGED TO EITHER
SUBMIT WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT ON
THE SIGN UP CARDS AVAILABLE AT
THE PODIUM OR COUNCIL AT
SEATTLE.
GOV AND GIVEN WHAT I JUST SAID
YOU
CAN ENGAGE
INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO
ARE -- YOU CAN
BE FOUND ONLINE.
SO WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE ON
TO OUR FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS.
WOULD THE CLERK READ
ITEM ONE INTO THE
RECORD.
>>> 126896 ON PUBLIC DRUG
USE
AND POSSESSION.
>> THANK YOU.
WE HAVE INSPECTOR GENERAL JUDGE
AND MISS MORLEY JOINING
US AT THE TABLE.
CAN YOU PLEASE THE
QUESTION SETTLED AND INTRODUCE
YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD AND THEN
YOU CAN
PROCEED.
I BELIEVE
THE PRESENTATION WILL BE RUN
THROUGH THIS COMPUTER SO
IF YOU COULD LET OUR CLERK
KNOW WHEN YOU NEED TO ADVANCE.
>> [ INAUDIBLE
].
>> WE HAD A TECHNICAL HANGUP
THIS MORNING.
>> GOOD MORNING, CHAIR
KETTLE AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO
BE HERE TO TALK ABOUT OUR
REPORT ON THE EVALUATION OF
SEATTLE MUNICIPAL COAT 3.28.141.
I'M LISA JUDGE INSPECTOR
GENERAL.
>>
I'M EMILY MORLEY, PERFORMANCE
AUDITOR.
>> THANK YOU. WELCOME.
>> THANK YOU.
SO WE DON'T HAVE I THINK
A LOT OF TIME HERE AND I
ANTICIPATE
A
NUMBER OF QUESTIONS SO I'M JUST
GOING TO GIVE A COUPLE BRIEF
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS AND TURN
IT OVER TO EMILY AND HER CAPABLE
HANDS TO ANSWER PROBABLY ALL OF
YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS.
THE ORDINANCE WAS PASSED IN
OCTOBER OF 2023.
SO OUR EVALUATION
PERIOD WAS REQUIRED BY THE
ORDINANCE FOR --
IN 2025.
SO WE BEGAN IDENTIFYING AN
ACADEMIC PARTNER IN 2024 AND THE
CONTRACTING PERIOD FOR
US STARTED PRETTY EARLY IN THE
YEAR IN 2025.
IT TOOK ALMOST
TEN MONTHS TO BE ABLE TO GET
ACCESS TO ALL OF THE
DATA THAT WE NEEDED TO DO
THE ANALYSIS REQUIRED BY
THE ORDINANCE, SO WHAT YOU'RE
GOING TO SEE HERE IS OUR BEST
FIRST
ATTEMPT TO ANSWER THE
QUESTIONS THAT ARE POSITED BY
THE ORDINANCE AND, YOU KNOW,
THAT GIVING WAY TO WAYS
THAT WE CAN -- THAT SPD AND
OTHERS
HAVE WORKED TO BEGIN COLLECTING
AND KEEPING DATA IN A WAY TO
MAKE
ANSWERING THESE QUESTIONS
MUCH EASIER AND MORE COMPLETE
AND STREAMLINE OUR REVIEW.
I FEEL TURN IT OVER TO EMILY
MORLEY.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I WANT TO TAKE
THIS OPPORTUNITY TO THANK DR.
OWENS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
WASHINGTON'S ADDICTIONS DRUG
AND
ALCOHOL INSTITUTE WHO LED OUR
RESEARCH TEAM FOR THIS WITH MY
SUPPORT. AS LISA INDICATED,
THIS ORDINANCE WAS PASSED IN THE
FALL OF 2023.
THERE WAS A NUMBER OF TO THIS
LAW, WASHINGTON STATE LAW,
THAT CHANGED AS A RESULT OF
A WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME
COURT DECISION IN 2021
AND COUNCIL WILL RECALL THAT WAS
PASSED
IN OCTOBER OR SEPTEMBER AND WENT
INTO EFFECT IN OCTOBER.
WHAT IT PRIMARILY DIDDID ADOPT
SECTIONS OF RCW 6950413 WHICH
HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN IN ITS
ORIGINAL ITERATION WAS DEEMED
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
THE SIGNIFICANT CHANGE WAS
ABOUT KNOWING POSSESSION IN
PUBLIC.
SO A LOT OF WHAT OIG
EXAMINED WITH THE RESEARCH
AROUND THE
DECISION MAKING DEFINED IN
THE ORDINANCE KNOWN AS THE
THREAT
OF HARM ASSESSMENTS.
UNDERSTANDING EXACTLY WHAT
THREAT HARM ASSESSMENT MEANS.
IF WE COULD ADVANCE TO THE NEXT
SLIDE.
THANK YOU. SO THE ORDINANCE
DEFINES
THREAT OF HARM IN AN ABSTRACT
WAY WITH
A VISION OF ITS GOAL.
ARREST IN THE CASE OF
KNOWING POSSESSION OR USE IN A
PUBLIC PLACE OF A CONTROLLED
SUBSTANCE SHOULD ONLY OCCUR WHEN
THERE IS
A THREAT TO THE PEACE AND
WELLBEING OF THE COMMUNITY OR
A THREAT OF HARM TO OTHERS.
IMPORTANTLY, THE LAW
ALSO EMPHASIZES THAT DIVERSION,
TREATMENT AND OTHER ALTERNATIVES
TO BOOKING ARE THE PREFERRED
APPROACH, SO THIS
ABSTRACT LANGUAGE HAD TO BE
IMPLEMENTED
BY SPD, WHICH WAS THEN
IMPLEMENTED
IN SPD POLICY 15.150.
AND SO THE WAY THAT
THEY IMPLEMENTED THE SPECIFIC
CRITERIA OF WHAT IT MEANS TO
BE A THREAT TO PUBLIC HARM IS
BASED ON THE TOTALITY OF THE
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT AN OFFICER
ENCOUNTERS WHEN THEY ARE
CALLED TO A SCENE INVOLVING
KNOWING USE, KNOWING POSSESSION
OR USE
OF CONTROLLED
SUBSTANCE. THOSE FACTORS MIGHT
INCLUDE
BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO THREATS
OF
VIOLENCE, ESCALATING DEMEANOR,
CO-OCCURRING
CRIMES, THE LOCATION OF PUBLIC
USE, THE TYPE
OF NARCOTIC OR NARCOTICS
USED, PRESENCE OF COMMUNITY
MEMBERS AND BUSINESSES NEARBY
AND
THE PHYSICAL CONDITION OF THE
SUBJECT.
IMPORTANTLY, THE -- AS
THE POLICY PRESUMES PUBLIC
HARM IN THE EVENT KNOWING
POSSESSION
OR USE TAKE PLACE NEAR A SCHOOL,
PARK, BUS STOP, RAIL STATION.
THE REST OF THE POLICY
ALSO IDENTIFIES THE THREAT OF
HARM
TO SELF.
SPD POLICY STATES WHEN A SWORN
EMPLOYEE DETERMINES THERE
IS PROBABLE CAUSE THAT A
PUBLIC POSSESSION OR
PUBLICPUBLIC OF
A CONTROLLED SUBSTANTIAL
HAS OCCURRED BUT THE SUBJECT
DOES NOT POSE A THREAT TO
OTHERS, THIS EMPLOYEE WILL MAKE
A REASONABLE ATTEMPT TO
CONTACT AND COORDINATE EFFORTS
FOR COMMUNITY CARE RESOURCES.
SO THIS PART OF A GRAPHGRAPH
PUBLIC POSSESSION
AND/OR CONSUMPTION
OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE
INCIDENTS
AND THE DIAMOND AT THE
CENTER THE THREAT OF HARM
ASSESSMENTS, THAT'S
THE DECISION MAKING A LOT OF
OUR REVIEW EXAMINED.
TWO OF THE OUTCOMES COULD BE A
THREAT OF HARM TO SELF IN WHICH
CASE ARREST SHOULD NOT OCCUR.
THE PRIORITIZATION THERE IS
DIVERSION.
THE OTHER INSTANCE WHERE
THERE'S A THREAT OF PUBLIC
HARM,
ARREST CAN OCCUR, BUT THE
POLICY EMPHASIZES DIVERSION IS
THE PREFERRED METHOD
FOR DEALING WITH THAT.
IT DOESN'T PRECLUDE DIVERSION
TO HAVE AN ARREST, JUST THAT IT
IS ELIGIBLE FOR AN ARREST.
THE NEXT SLIDE SHOWS THE REST
OF THIS SYSTEM.
THIS IS, OBVIOUSLY, A SIMPLIFIED
SYSTEM, AA TRACK INCIDENTS
ENCOUNTER OR OFFICERS
ENCOUNTER --
>> CAN I ASK A QUICK
QUESTION. IS THIS YOUR DEPICTION
OF
THE THING OR COMING FROM THIS
WORK THIS LIKE DIAGRAM IS THIS
COMING FROM SPD OR SOME OTHER
LOCATION OR IS THIS YOU HELP YOU
EXPLAIN
THE
PROCESS?
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION.
THAT IS OUR DEPICTION OF IT.
SO THAT'S WHY I SAY IT'S A
SIMPLIFIED DIAGRAM.
IN REALITY THERE WOULD BE
ARROWS ACROSS ALL OF THESE.
THERE'S NO -- THERE ARE FEW
INSTANCES OF WHERE ONE
TRACK PRECLUDES ANOTHER.
IN REALITY, A THREAT OF HARM
ASSESSMENT COULD RESULT IN THESE
TWO EITHER IN EITHER CASE,
DIVERSION COULD OCCUR,
SOMEONE WHO IS OFFERED DIVERSION
MAY
NOT TAKE IT CALLED CONVERSION,
IN CASES WHERE THERE IS
A THREAT OF HARM TO SELF THEY
MAY BE TRANSPORTED TO A MEDICAL
FACILITY. THIS IS KIND OF A
SIMPLIFICATION FOR UNDERSTANDING
THE
MAJOR AREAS
OF ANALYSIS THAT THE ORDINANCE
REQUESTS OF OIG.
SO THE KIND OF GENERAL TREND
OROR PATH WOULD
BE, YOU KNOW, IN THE CASE OF AN
ARREST, EVEN
AN ATTEMPTED DIVERSION IN
ADDITION
TO THAT THEY MAY BE REFERRED
TO CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, SOME
NUMBER OF THOSE MAY BE
ACCEPTED OR DECLINED, SOME
NUMBER
OF THOSE MAY BE -- MAY HAVE
PREFILING DIVERSIONS OF THOSE
THAT ARE ACCEPTED.
THEY'LL MAKE IT TO
SEATTLE MUNICIPAL COURT, STILL
MORE MAY
BE DISMISSED.
THERE'S MANY OTHER OUTCOMES
NOT DEPICTED HERE AND MORE
COMPLEX THAN THIS.
SO ON TO OUR FINDINGS.
AS LISA MENTIONED THERE WAS SOME
SIGNIFICANT DELAYS TO
GETTING ACCESS TO DATA.
WE MADE OUR BEST ATTEMPTS
TO ANSWER AS MANY OF THESE AREAS
AS POSSIBLE.
THE ORDINANCE DEFINES 11 AREAS
AND THEY FALL INTO GENERAL
TRENDS, INTERACTIONS WITH THE
PUBLIC, PROSECUTION ANDAND THEN
INTERVIEWS.
SO THE FIRST ONE GENERAL
TRENDS, THERE ARE THREE MAJOR
AREAS.
WHICH INCLUDE THE NUMBER OF --
>> [ INAUDIBLE ] THE SLIDE,
PLEASE.
>> NUMBER OF DRUG OVERDOSES
IN SEATTLE ON A QUARTERLY BASIS.
THESE DATA ARE
PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE WITH KING
COUNTY,
SO THE NEXT SLIDE WILL SHOW A
GRAPH
OF THOSE DATA.
THEY SHOW IN GENERAL A TREND
BOTH INCREASING NUMBER OF
DRUG RELATED OVERDOSE DEATHS,
OVER THIS PERIOD THERE WERE
1,871 DRUG OVERDOSE DEATHS.
IT ROSE FROM AN AVERAGE OF
ABOUT ONE OVERDOSE DEATH EVERY
OTHER DAY IN
2019 TO TWO DEATHS A DAY BY
2023.
ANOTHER AREA IN THE
GENERAL TRENDS WAS THE NUMBER
OF SHOOTINGS IN WHICH DRUGS
WERE PRESENT OR AN INDIVIDUAL
WAS
UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS.
WE WERE UNABLE TO ANSWER THIS
QUESTION.
AGAIN, DUE TO THE DELAY
IN GETTING ACCESS TO DATA, IT
WOULD HAVE REQUIRED A VERY IN
DEPTH,
QUALITATIVE REVIEW OF EVERY
POLICE NARRATIVE RELATED
TO SHOOTINGS WHICH WE HAD NOT
THE
TIME TO DO.
BUT IS ONE OF OUR GOALS FOR THIS
YEAR TO EXAMEN.
THE LAST IS THE NUMBER OF
911 CALLS ABOUT THE USE
OF CONTROLLED
SUBSTANCE. THESE ARE ALSO
PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATA AND THE
NEXT
SLIDE SHOWS THE TRENDS OF
911 CALLS RELATED TO IT.
IT SHOWS 12,270
CALLS OVER THIS -- ABOUT FIVE-
YEAR PERIOD.
WHERE ON AVERAGE THERE WAS ABOUT
650 CALLS FOR ANY GIVEN QUARTER.
AND YOU CAN SEE THERE'S KIND
OF A GENERAL TREND AFTER 2020,
AN EXCEPTIONAL YEAR, WHERE
QUARTERS
ONE, TWO, AND THREE OF
2021, 2022 AND 2023
INCREASEDINCREASED IN
NUMBER OF CALLS COULD BE
A RESULT OF WEATHER PATTERNS
AND PEOPLE BEING OUTSIDE MORE OR
OUR FACTORS.
YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE.
NEXT AREA THAT WE LOOKED
AT REALLY DIVED MORE INTO
THE THREAT OF HARM ASSESSMENT.
AND POLICE NARRATIVES ABOUT THE
ACCOUNTS. THESE THREE AREAS
INCLUDED
THE NUMBER OF CONTACTS
BETWEEN POLICE OFFICERS
AND INDIVIDUALS, AND THE NUMBER
OF ATTEMPTS OF
EFFORTS OF DIVERSION AND
THEN THE NUMBER OF ARRESTS.
THE NEXT SLIDE WILL SHOW A GRAPH
DEPICTING THE TRENDS OF
THESE THREE AREAS, AGAIN THOSE
IT WERE
OFFENSES SO THE INCIDENTS, THE
GREEN LINE, THE ONLY LINE
SHOWS THE ARRESTS TREND LINE AND
THEN THE PURPLE SHOWED DIVERSION
EFFORTS.
NOW YOU'LL SEE THERE IS A
NOTE ON THERE, DIVERSION COUNTS
ARE LIKELY INACCURATE.
WHEN WE RECEIVED ACCESS TO
SPD DATA WE WORKED WITH LET
EVERYONE ADVANCE WITH DIGNITY,
FORMERLY KNOWN AS LAW
ENFORCEMENT
ASSISTED DIVERSION LEAD AND WE
TRIED TO CORROBORATE
TRENDS BETWEEN THEM.
UNFORTUNATELY WE SAW THAT THE
DATA STRUCTURES WERE NOT
IN PLACE TO CAPTURE DIVERSIONS
AS ACCURATELY AS WOULD HAVE BEEN
DESIRED TO MAKE A CAUSAL
TEST FOR THIS.
WE FOUND THERE WERE MORE THAN
200 DIVERSIONS BETWEEN SPD
AND LEAD THAT EACH ONLY REPORTED
AND
WE COULD NOT FIND ANY OTHER.
PUT DIFFERENTLY, THERE WERE
160 REPORTED DIVERSIONS AMONG
SPDSPD
DATA.
WE COULDN'T CORROBORATE THE
LEAD
DATA.
AND THEN ABOUT 100 VICE VERSA
THAT WE ALSO
COULDN'T CORROBORATE.
THE NEXT SLIDE GETS INTO
THE KIND OF OUR INTERPRETATION
OF
THE PURPOSE OF ALL OF OUR
REPORTING.
AS A QUESTION WAS THE
ORDINANCE EFFECTIVE AS INTENDED
IN INCREASING THE NUMBER AND
RATE
OF PREBOOKING DIVERSIONS
AND WHILE WE CAN SEE THERE'S
LIKELY
AN INCREASE IN THE VOLUME
THAT THE NUMBER IT'S VERY
DIFFICULT TO PERHAPS EVEN
IMPOSSIBLE
TO DETERMINE IF THE -- IF
PASSAGE OF THE ORDINANCE CAUSED
THAT.
AGAIN, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE
ACCURATE COUNTS OF DIVISIONS SO
OUR INTERPRETATION WOULD BE
BASED ON DATA THAT
HAVE QUESTIONABLE ACCURACY.
WE DID REPORT
THOSE.
>> THANK YOU.
YOU KNOW, THIS IS LIKE A
GOOD BREAK POINT.
THIS IS LIKE -- STAY ON
THE SLIDE PLEASE.
FOOT STOMPING SLIDE BUT A
GOOD NATURAL BREAK.
COLLEAGUES, ANY --
>> CAN YOU GO BACK TO THAT
SLIDE, PLEASE?
>> BACK TO THE PREVIOUS SLIDE.
>> THE GRAPH.
DID YOU WANT TO BE ON THE GRAPH?
>> I WANTED TO STAY ON
THE BASICALLY THE BULLET THERE.
THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT BULLET.
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
NICE TO SEE YOU.
OIG
JUDGE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I.G.
NOT O.I.G.
YOU'RE NOT THE OFFICE.
YOU'RE HUMAN.
>> CALL HER GENERAL.
>> GENERAL.
QUICK QUESTION, SO I
UNDERSTAND YOU HAD INSUFFICIENT
DATA
BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN SPD AND
LEAD.
THEN THERE'S THIS
OTHER COMPONENT BECAUSE I KNOW
THAT
SOME COMMUNITY REFERRALS AT SOME
POINT ENTERED THIS
EQUATION, MEANING THAT REFERRAL,
DIVERSION REFERRALS ARE NOT ONLY
FROM
SPD, IS MY UNDERSTANDING,
THERE'S
ALSO SOME
COMMUNITY REFERRALS, SO I SAY
THAT TO SAY IN TERMS
OF GATHERING ADULT OF HOW
MANY DIVISIONS, ET CETERA, I
DIDN'T HEAR YOU MENTION THAT
BUT I BELIEVE THAT'S ALSO,
PLEASE CORRECT NE I'M WRONG,
ANOTHER SOURCE WHERE REFERRALS
ARE BEING
MADE?
>> YEAH. I FEEL DEFER TO EMILY
ABOUT THE
DATA SETS THEY WERE ABLE TO GET
AND, YOU KNOW, MOVING
FORWARD, I THINK THIS KIND OF
INFORMATION IS HELPFUL TO MAKE
SURE WE'RE
LOOKING AT ALL OF THE POTENTIAL
SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT
DIVERSIONS.
DO YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC --
>> I DO. THANK YOU.
>> I
KNEW SHE WOULD.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION.
IT'S A GREAT ONE.
THE SPECIFIC QUESTION IN
THE ORDINANCE FOR US RELATED TO
THE NUMBER OF DIVERSION
EFFORTS COORDINATED BY OFFICERS,
SO THAT'S WHY WE DID NOT
EXPLICITLY
COME COMMUNITY REFERRALS.
ADDITIONALLY, THE QUALITY
OF DATA WE RECEIVED MEANT IT WAS
DIFFICULT TO PARSE WHETHER IT
HAD COME FROM SPD OR THE
COMMUNITY FOR THE MOST PART.
WE HAVE REASON TO
BELIEVE THEY WERE THE SUBSET
THAT WERE
THE RESULT OF POLICE
INTERACTIONS.
WITHOUT PROMISING TOO MUCH
OF OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS I'M
AWARE LEAD AND SPD HAVE BEEN
WORKING I BELIEVE MORE THAN YEAR
NOW ON
INTEGRATING THEIR DATA
SYSTEMS SO WE EXPECT TO SEE
ACCURACY AND
DIVERSIONS TO INCREASE WITH THAT
COLLABORATION.
>> CHAIR, ONE MORE QUESTION IF
I MAY.
>> YES.
>> JUST ON THE -- THANK YOU FOR
THAT. I DID NOTICE THE DATA GOES
TO --
IT'S JUST 2023, BUT THE
ORDINANCE DIDN'T GO INTO
EFFECT UNTIL '24, AND REALLY
LATER IN
'24, SO REALLY THE -- WE
DON'T HAVE DATA PAST '23 I
GUESS IS
MY QUESTION?
BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE
HERE, IS UP TO 2023.
SO WE STILL WOULD NEED TO
GET DATA FROM '24 AND '25?
NOT AVAILABLE YET?
>> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION AS
WELL.
FOR THE GENERAL TRENDS
SECTIONS, THOSE REQUESTED
SPECIFIC
ORDERS, SO THAT WAS WHY WE
DEFINED IT
IN THAT
WAY. GOING FORWARD, OUR
INTENTIONINTENTION
TO INCLUDE ALL YEARS THAT HAVE
LAPSED, SO DURING 2025 WAS NOT
POSSIBLE TO ALSO REPORT ON
2025 SINCE THOSE DATA WERE NOT
YET
AVAILABLE.
HOWEVER WE ARE WORKING
AGAIN WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF
WASHINGTON'S ALCOHOL ADDICTION
DRUG AND ALCOHOL
INSTITUTE RESEARCHERS SO WE'VE
RENEWED THAT CONTRACT AND WE'LL
BE EXAMINING THE YEARS
REPRESENTING HERE.
>> THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES
ANNUAL REPORTING FROM OIG
UNTIL 2030 SO WE'VE GOT A
NUMBER OF YEARS
TO CONTINUE TO REFINE THESE
DATA AND HOPEFULLY ANSWER ALL OF
THE
QUESTIONS YOU ALL WILL HAVE.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT
THE PIECE ABOUT WE'RE
MISSING INFORMATION HERE, POST
THE
ORDINANCE, SO IT'S GOOD TO
SHOW OUR WORK, I ALWAYS SAY
THAT,
AND IT'S A BIT INCOMPLETE JUST
THROUGH NO FAULT OF YOUR OWN.
YOU'RE COLLECTING THE DATA.
THAT IS MISSING AND I THINK
IT'S IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT
BECAUSE
IT'S NOT PAINTING AS CLEAR
A PICTURE AS WE WOULD LIKE IF
WE HAD HAD THE '24 EVEN
BECAUSE WE'RE IN '26 AND
THEN, OBVIOUSLY, IT TAKES SOME
TIME
TO GET THE YEAR BEFORE WHICH
WOULD
BE '25. THANK YOU, CHAIR. YES.
I AGREE.
THIS WHY WE'RE HAVING THIS
GENERAL, IN TERMS OF
HELPING OUT IN THE OUT YEARS.
>> I WAS TOLD I WOULDN'T BE
HAZED TODAY.
>> OKAY.
>> PLEASE CONTINUE.
>> THANK YOU.
THE REMAINING SLIDES WILL
BE RATHER QUICK.
AS A RESULT OF SOME DELAYS
WITH ACCESS TO DATA, IT
WAS CHALLENGING TO THEN IDENTIFY
THE POPULATION OF INDIVIDUALS
WITH
WHOM WE COULD TRACK THEIR
OUTCOMES OR THEIR CASES
AS THEY WERE REFERRED TO CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND THE
SEATTLE MUNICIPAL
COURT.
SO THE NEXT FEW SLIDES SHOW
THE REST OF THE PROSECUTION
AREAS THAT WE WERE UNABLE TO
EXAMEN BUT ARE CONFIDENT WE WILL
EXAMEN WITH THIS YEAR'S REPORT.
THAT INCLUDED NUMBER
OF INDIVIDUALS TRANSPORTED
FOR BOOKING AT JAIL OR MEDICAL
FACILITY, NUMBER OF POSSESSION
OR PUBLIC USE CASES REFERRED
TO CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR
PROSECUTION, NUMBER OF
PREFILING DIVERSION CASES AND
DISMISSALS
AND LAST, THE NUMBER OF -- THE
REASONS FOR THE DISMISSAL
IN THOSE REFERRED CASES.
SO WE WERE ABLE TO IDENTIFY
AND WORK WITH OUR OTHER CITY
PARTNERS, CITY ATTORNEYS
OFFICE, SEATTLE MUNICIPAL COURT,
BOTH
OF WHICH HAVE ALREADY COMMITTED
TO
PROVIDING US THESE DATA THIS
YEAR FOR OUR NEXT REPORT.
SO WE DO
ANTICIPATE HAVING
THOSE.
>> THOSE DATA SETS ARE COMING
FROM ALL THE VARIOUS
STAKEHOLDERS THE PLAYERS IN
THIS LIKE INDIVIDUALS
TRANSPORTED
FOR BOOKING AT JAIL, THAT IS
COMING
FROM SPD?
>> YES.
THAT WOULD BE -- THERE ISN'T A
SPECIFIC DATA FIELD IN SPD
REPORTS FOR THIS. WE WOULD HAVE
TO EXAMEN THE
NARRATIVES FOR KEY WORDS .
THAT WOULD TAKE
TIME THAT WE HAVE THIS
YEAR.
>> I BRING
THAT UP BECAUSE THAT'S
IMPORTANT RELATED TO
AND INTERESTING BOTH KING COUNTY
ENTITIES. WE'VE HAD KING COUNTY
JAIL HEALTH HERE TO THIS
COMMITTEE, BUT WE ALSO NEED
INDEPENDENT
REPORTING AND NUMBERS
IN ADDITION TO ON THE ACADEMIC
SIDE.
VERY IMPORTANT.
OKAY.
SORRY. GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT.
THE LAST AREA IS INTERVIEWS.
THE RESULTS OF ANY INTERVIEWS
OF SPD PERSONNEL HAVE
EXPERIENCED IN
THE FIELD IMPLEMENTING THIS LAW.
WE WERE ABLE TO SCHEDULE
SOME INTERVIEWS WITH OFFICERS
IN SEPTEMBER BEFORE SOME DELAYS
IN
GETTING APPROVAL FOR
INTERVIEWINTERVIEW
QUESTIONS.
THERE HAD TO BE A
INVESTIGATE WITH SPD MANAGEMENT
AND
THE SEATTLE POLICE OFFICER'S
GUILD AND THAT TOOK TIME.
ONCE WE WERE ABLE TO SCHEDULE
WITH OFFICERS THAT WAS THE
POINT AT WHICH A D.O.
BECAME AVAILABLE TO US, AND WE
MADE THE CALL TO
MORE CLOSELY EXAMINE
THOSE RATHER THAN SCHEDULING
ADDITIONAL INTERVIEWS.
OUR INTENTION AGAIN IS TO
PURSUE THIS AREA AS BEST AS WE
CAN WITH
INTERVIEWS OF OFFICERS THIS
YEAR.
WE'RE ALMOST DONE.
IN CONCLUSION, THERE WERE SOME
ISSUES WITH GETTING ACCESS,
BUT WE'RE CONFIDENT WE
HAVE RESOLVED MANY OF THOSE
HINDRANCES AND
OPTIMISTIC ABOUT OUR
WORK FOR THIS YEAR AND INTO THE
FUTURE.
AGAIN, IT WAS -- IT'S LIKELY
NOT POSSIBLE TO NOW OR IN THE
FUTURE MAKE A CAUSAL CLAIM ABOUT
THE
PASSAGE OF THE
ORDINANCE DUE TO THE QUALITY AND
ACCURACY OF THETHE
RATE THE NUMBER OF
DIVERSIONS BUT WE ARE COMMITTED
TO
EXAMINING THESE AND WORK AGAIN
WITH RESEARCHERS FROM THE
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON ON
THIS.
>> OKAY.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO CLOSE BY
THANKING ALL OF THE FOLKS
THAT COLLABORATED WITH US TO
PUT TOGETHER THIS FIRST REPORT.
THE RESEARCHERS FROM
THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON,
THE SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
MEMBERS OF LEAD, CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND OTHER
CITY
DEPARTMENTS THAT HELPED.
SO MUCH
APPRECIATION.
>> I REALLY APPRECIATE
THIS BRIEFING AND AS I NOTED
THIS IS
THE FIRST OF A NUMBER
THAT WE'RE
GOING TO BE HAVING ON THIS
TOPIC.
I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS, BUT AS ALWAYS I
REFER TO MY VICE CHAIR SAKA.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
THANK YOU INSPECTOR GENERAL
JUDGE OR LISA AND YOUR TEAM HERE
FOR PRESENTING THIS
IMPORTANT BRIEFING AND GIVING US
AN
UPDATE ON SUCH A IMPORTANT
AND IMPACTFUL TOPIC.
IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND
FLIPPING TO -- I DON'T KNOW IF
IT'S
-- IT'S PAGE 10 ON THE BROADER
PACK OPTISED -- PACKET.
IT BEGINS WITH THE
HEADING THREAT OF PUBLIC HARM
CALLING OUT THE SPD
IMPLEMENTATION POLICY AND
GUIDANCE THAT
LAST BULLET THERE, SO JUST
FOR CRYSTAL CLARITY, SO NONE OF
THESE ITEMS HERE
OF WHAT THAT KIND OF DEFINING
WHAT
THAT STANDARD IS, NONE OF THEM
ARE
CURRENTLY CODIFIED IN THE CODE,
RIGHT.
THE 2023 ORDINANCE DOES
NOT INCLUDE THESE EXPRESSED
THINGS.
THESE ARE JUST IMPLEMENTATION
GUIDANCE THAT THE DEPARTMENT
IN THIS CASE SPD CHOSE TO SET
FORTH
AND ARTICULATE.
>> EXACTLY, YES.
>> BUT THESE ALSO STRIKE ME AS
BEING FAIRLY RATIONALE, MAKE
SENSE.
I WANT TO DOUBLE CLICK
A LITTLE BIT ON THE LAST BULLET
THERE,
PUBLIC HARM, ON THE PRESUMED
INSTANCES OF PUBLIC HARM OF --
FOR USE AND POSSESSION WHEN
IT OCCURS NEAR A SCHOOL, PARK,
BUS
STOP, RAIL STATION, OR
OTHER TRANSPORTATION STRUCTURE,
SO JUST AS CONTEXT AND REMINDER
FOR
MOST, I AM CHAIR OF OUR
CITY SAFETY AND
TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS AND
SPORTS
COMMITTEE STEPS AND ONE OF THE
COMMITTEE'S
PRIORITIES IS CONTINUES TO BE
AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN IMPROVING
TRANSIT SAFETY FOR
ALL,
IMPROVING THAT EXPERIENCE FOR
RIDERS AND OPERATORS.
WE'VE DONE A LOT OF THINGS TO
DIRECTLY ADVANCE THAT
AND HAVEN'T -- NEED TO CHECK
IN WITH -- I RIDE TRANSIT
ALMOST EVERY DAY AND SO I'VE
SEEN MY
FAIR SHARE AS JUST A
RIDER, COMMUTER, TAKE IT
REGULARLY
TO BIG EVENTS, AND JUST AS AN
ASIDE PLUG TO EVERYONE WHO IS
GOING TO
THE SUPER BOWL VICTORY PARADE
TOMORROW, TAKE TRANSIT!
TAKE TRANSIT!
PLEASE.
THE MAYOR'S OFFICE IS HARD
AT WORK IN COORDINATING
EXTRAEXTRA
SERVICE, INCLUDING EXTRA
METRO BUS SERVICE AND CAPACITY
AND SOUND TRANSIT TRAIN
CAPACITY.
LET'S USE THIS GREAT,
WONDERFUL, VIBRANT TRANSIT
SYSTEM WE HAVE HERE IN OUR
REGION.
IN ANY EVENT, NEED TO CHECK IN
WITH SOME OF THE -- SOME OF
THE BROTHERS AT ATU WHO SEE THIS
EVERY DAY AND EXPERIENCE THE
POSSIBLE INCIDENTS OF
PUBLIC DRUG USE AND POSSESSION
ON THEIR
BUSSES, IN THEIR TRAINS EVERY
DAY. I CERTAINLY AS A CASUAL
OR REGULAR RIGHTER, MORE THAN
CASUAL, I'VE SEEN IT MYSELF.
WE ALL HAVE ANECDOTES.
WHERE I'M GOING IS, IF REPORTS
TO THIS SPD IMPLEMENTATION
POLICY PURPORTS TO COVER BUS
STOPS, RAIL STATIONS
AND, QUOTE, UNQUOTE, OTHER
TRANSPORTATION
STRUCTURES, FIRST
QUESTION PERTAINING TO THAT
IS, DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS
INTENDED SPECIFICALLY WITH
THE, QUOTE, UNQUOTE, OTHER
TRANSPORTATION
STRUCTURES?
>> WE WEREN'T
INVOLVED IN THE POLICY
DISCUSSIONS AT SPD
AND THE ADOPTION OF THEIR POLICY
GUIDANCE. I ASSUME THAT IT'S A
CATCH-
ALL SO THAT IF THERE'S SOME
SORT
OF PLACE WHERE PEOPLE ARE
WAITING FOR A TRANSIT -- MODE OF
TRANSIT, THAT WOULD BE
COVERED BY THIS ORDINANCE.
I CAN'T SPEAK TO THEIR
THOUGHT PROCESS BUT IT FEELS
LIKE A
CATCH-ALL TO
ME.
>> SURE.
THAT MAKES SENSE.
WHERE I'M GOING IS THAT SEEMS
TO
CONTEMPLATE A PHYSICAL
STRUCTURE AND LIKE LOCATION
STATIONARY
LOCATION ONLY.
DOES THE CURRENT POLICY TO
THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, WITH
THE
UNDERSTANDING YOU
WEREN'T INVOLVED IN DRAFTING
IT,
DOES THE CURRENT POLICY
CONTEMPLATE OR COVER USE OR
POSSESSION
WHILE RIDING TRANSIT, WHILE
RIDING
THE BUS, WHILE RIDING THE TRAIN?
DOES IT DO THAT AT ALL?
BECAUSE I DON'T SEE IT IN THIS.
>>
YEAH. I GUESS, YOU KNOW, IT
DEPENDS ON
THE INTERPRETATION OF THE WORD
STRUCTURE.
I DON'T THINK A BUS IS A
STRUCTURE,
SO I THINK THIS IS GOOD FEEDBACK
FOR SPD.
TO CONSIDER FOR THIS POLICY.
>> YEAH.
THANK YOU.
IT JUST IN MY MIND HIGHLIGHTS A
GAP IN SORT OF LIKE THE LANGUAGE
AND LANGUAGE DOES
MATTER AND THE CONTEXT DOES
MATTER.
WE SHOULDN'T BE IN A SCENARIO
WHERE WE'RE APPLYING
THIS STANDARD AND THIS RUBRIC
SOLELY TO PHYSICAL STATIONARY
LOCATIONS, MEANWHILE, YOU
KNOW, THE EXPERIENCE FOR RIDERS
RIDERS
OPERATORS THERE'S A
DIFFERENTIAL EXPERIENCE FOR
RIDERS AND
OPERATORS, RIGHT.
IN MY MIND -- THANK YOU
FOR CLARIFYING WHAT A PLAIN
READING OF THIS LANGUAGE SEEMS
TO INFER.
BUT IT SOUNDS
LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
CLARIFICATION
ON SPD'S END OR ANYONE'S END,
YOU
KNOW, WHEN -- IF THIS GETS
TAKEN UP AGAIN.
IN ANY
EVENT.
>> I THINK ONE MORE TIDBIT
TO ADD TO THAT CONVERSATION.
THAT'S A GREAT POINT.
THANKS FOR RAISING IT.
I THINK THE CHALLENGE
WITH IDENTIFYING INSTANCES THAT
TAKE PLACE ON TRANSIT IS IT HAS
TO DO
WITH JURISDICTION AND WHETHER OR
NOT SPD HAS JURISDICTION IN
THOSE CASES OF COUNTY-RUN
FACILITIES AND WHAT NOT.
BUT I'VE MADE A NOTE TO
MORE CLOSELY EXAMINE THAT WITH
REGARD TO THE GEOGRAPHY OF
TRANSPORTATION
STRUCTURES AS WELL AND WHETHER
THAT
CHANGED.
SO --
>> THANK YOU.
THAT MAKES SENSE.
JUST SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS
RIGHT, TO THE BEST OF YOUR
KNOWLEDGE, IS IT TRUE THAT
COUNTY RULES AND LAWS WOULD
APPLY IN INSTANCES WHERE
THE CONDUCT OCCURS ON THE
TRANSIT
BUS OR TRAIN ITSELF?
WOULD THAT BE TRUE?
OR WOULD IT MATTER IF LIKE
A TRAIN THAT'S OR A, SURE, A
TRAIN THAT STARTS IN SOUTH KING
COUNTY, AS IT'S
TRAVERSING THROUGH SEATTLE, THEN
THE SEATTLE RULES WOULD APPLY.
IF THE CONDUCT WOULD -- CAN
YOU HELP UNPACK THAT CONSTRUCT A
LITTLE BIT TO THE BEST
OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE?
>> I THINK THAT WOULD
BE SOMETHING WE WOULD LIKE TO
SPEAK
WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY ABOUT,
JUST, YOU KNOW, I DON'T
KNOW THAT WE SHOULD OPINE
ON PARTICULAR JURISDICTION
ISSUES.
BUT IT STRIKES ME, IF THERE
WAS AN EVENT ON A BUS AND
SOMEONE CALLED SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT AND IT HAD OCCURRED
WITHIN
SEATTLE JURISDICTION, IT
FEELS LIKE THEY WOULD HAVE MAYBE
CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WITH
OTHERS, BUT I
CAN'T SPECIFICALLY SPEAK TO
THAT.
>> GOT IT.
ALL GOOD.
THANK YOU FOR THAT
FINAL QUESTION ON THE UNDERLYING
ORDINANCE ITSELF.
TOOK AN OPPORTUNITY TO RE-
REVIEW
HERE, THE SIGNED, FINAL, ADOPTED
ORDINANCE FROM 2023.
AND JUST NOTING THERE ON SECTION
2, WHERE THE ADOPTION OF
RCW SECTIONS PURPORTS TO
INCORPORATE
BY REFERENCE, YOU
KNOW, APPLICABLE STATE STATUTE
PROVISIONS, INCLUDING CALLING
OUT THE, YOU KNOW, THE
FEDERAL SCHEDULING AND
WHAT'S PERMISSIBLE VERSUS NOT
AND CARVES OUT SPECIFICALLY
CANNABIS FROM SCHEDULE 1 WHICH
MAKES
SENSE JUST CURIOUS, ISN'T
THERE AN EFFORT TO DESCHEDULE
CANNABIS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL TO
YOUR
KNOWLEDGE?
>> YOU KNOW, I FEEL LIKE
I'VE READ
SOMETHING, BUT I DON'T HAVE
SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE.
>> OKAY.
>> OF THAT.
>> YEAH.
I THINK THERE IS AN EFFORT OR
WAS.
I DON'T KNOW. BUT REGARDLESS,
TO THE EXTENT
THAT'S TRUE MIGHT
WARRANT FURTHER CLEANUP ON A
GOING
BASIS.
THANK YOU.
APPRECIATE YOU AND YOUR
GUIDANCE HERE AND ENTERTAINING
MY
PESKY BUT VERY THOUGHTFUL
QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, MR.
CHAIR.
>> ALWAYS
THOUGHTFUL. ALWAYS THOUGHTFUL.
COUNCILMEMBER
LIN.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR KETTLE.
THANK YOU TO OUR PRESENTERS.
SO THIS ORDINANCE WAS PASSED IN
2023.
I DON'T THINK ANY OF US WERE
INVOLVED IN PASSING THAT
ORDINANCE.
AND I THINK PART OF THE --
I'M STRUGGLING A LITTLE BIT
JUST
BECAUSE IT SOUNDS
LIKE SOME OF THE DATA WAS HARD
TO COLLECT.
SPECIFICALLY AROUND
THE DIVERSION ACCOUNTS.
WHAT I HEARD WAS THAT THERE WERE
QUITE A FEW DIVERSIONS THAT ARE
NOT IN THIS CHART.
IS THAT JUST -- JUST TO
CONFIRM, IS THAT
ACCURATE, THAT THERE'S --
>> I MEAN, DIVERSIONS THAT
MAY HAVE GENERATED FROM
OTHER SOURCES THAN SPD AND LEAD?
>> YEAH.
I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU
SAY THERE WERE POTENTIALLY OVER
100 DIVERSIONS OR MAYBE I
MISHEARD, THAT WERE NOT -- THAT
YOU COULD
NOT CONFIRM BECAUSE THERE
ARE DIFFERENT DATA SETS BETWEEN
SPD AND
LEAD.
>> YEAH.
THANK YOU.
>> OKAY.
>> THESE FIGURES WERE ALL
THE CASES THAT WE COULD FIND.
IN SOME CASES WE COULDN'T
CORROBORATE IF THEY -- IF IT
WAS A CASE WITH SPD, FOR
EXAMPLE, IN
THE CASE OF A LEAD EMPLOYEE
KEEPING RECORD, THEY MAY
MISHEAR A REPORT NUMBER OR IT'S
THE
SAME ONE OR IT WASN'T ACTUALLY
WITH
SPD.
THOSE KIND OF THINGS HAPPEN.
IT'S A COMMON DATA GENERATING
PROCESS ISSUE.
SO THE GRAPH REPRESENTS ALL THAT
WERE DESCRIBED TO US
AS POTENTIAL DIVERSIONS.
IT MAY BE THAT IT'S AN
OVERCOUNT IN THAT CASE.
IT COULD ALSO BE CLOSE TO BEING
ACCURATE IN THE SENSE IF
THOSE WERE ALL BONA FIDE
DIVERSIONS, IF YOU WILL.
IT'S HARD TO KNOW WITH
CERTAINTY BECAUSE SO MANY OF
THEM COULD
BE VERIFIED AND WE HAD HOPED TO
BE
ABLE TO IDENTIFY 90s OR 95% IN
BOTH DATA
SETS.
>> AND I THINK THE NUMBER THAT
YOU WERE HEARING 100 WAS
EMILY'S USED THE WORD
CORROBORATE,
THEY APPEARED IN LEAD AND AND
DATA
SETS.
YOU COULD USE THE WORD
DISCREPANCY, ALTHOUGH IT WASN'T
A REQUIREMENT OF EITHER OF THESE
ORGANIZATIONS TO KEEP THIS, BUT
DIFFERENCES IN COUNTS
THAT COULDN'T BE
RECONCILED AS BETWEEN THETHE
SETS.
BUT SPD AND LEAD ARE WORKING
TOGETHER TO TRY TO RESOLVE
THAT SO THEY WILL HAVE MORE OF
A SHARED UNDERSTANDING OF
THE NUMBER OF
DIVERSIONS.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
AND THERE IS -- I'M
SORRY THERE'S NO PAGE NUMBERS,
BUT THERE WAS ONE CHART THAT
SHOWED THE SORT OF DIVERSION
COUNTS WITH THE QUALIFIER
DIVERSION COUNTS ARE LIKELY
INACCURATE
AND SHOWS ZERO DIVERSIONS FROM
TO 2022 TO END OF 2023.
THERE WERE ZERO DIVERSIONS
OR JUST BECAUSE OF A DATA
SET WAS -- CAN'T
CORROBORATE?
>> RIGHT.
SO THE NUMBER OF DIVERSIONS
OF THAT PERIOD WOULD BE MUCH
GREATER THAN THOSE
REPRESENTED HERE.
THESE ARE JUST THE SUBSET
OF THOSE RELATED TO RCW
69504013.
SO THOSE THAT WERE EXPLICIT.
IN THE CASE OF ANY OTHER
DRUG RELATED OFFENSES THAT
AREN'T EXACTLY THE RESULT OF
THAT PARTICULAR RCW, THOSE
WOULDN'T BE COUNTED HERE.
>> YEAH.
>> LEAD HAD MANY
DIVERSIONS DURING THIS PERIOD.
THEY'RE NOT REPRESENTED
HERE SINCE THEY AREN'T
IMMEDIATELY RELATED TO THE
ORDINANCE OR THE
FUNCTIONING OF THE THREAT
OF HARM
ASSESSMENTS.
>> GOT IT.
OKAY.
THANK YOU.
AND GOING BACK TO THE THREAT
OF PUBLIC HARM AND PRESUMPTION
OF HARM IF IT OCCURS NEARNEAR
SCHOOL, TRANSIT STOP, DO WE HAVE
ANY
IDEA WHAT NEAR MEANS?
AND JUST BECAUSE AS I LOOK AT
THAT LANGUAGE, NEAR AND I
THINK OF WHERE PUBLIC SPACES
ARE, I
THINK MOST PUBLIC SPACES ARE
PROBABLY NEAR ONE OF THOSE,
PARK, SCHOOL, TRANSIT STOP.
SO I'M STRUGGLING TO
UNDERSTAND SORT OF HOW THAT'S A
MEANINGFUL
CRITERIA FOR OUR OFFICERS IF
MOST OF OUR PUBLIC SPACES
ARE NEAR THOSE THINGS?
>> YEAH.
THIS MAY BE -- OFTEN WHEN
SPD IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THERE'S
A TRAINING COMPONENT.
THERE MAY BE SOMETHING
IN TRAINING THAT
EXPANDSEXPANDS ON WHAT
INTERPRETATION OF NEAR IS.
IT MAY BE A COMMON UNDERSTANDING
THAT SPD IS RELYING ON
THE OFFICERS TO USE DISCRETION,
SO WE'RE HAPPY TO GO BACK TO
THEM AND SEEK SOME CLARIFICATION
ON ANY GUIDANCE GIVEN TO
OFFICERS
IN THE INTERPRETATION OF WHAT
NEAR MEANS AND COME BACK TO
YOU.
>> OKAY.
KIND OF LAST AND THIS IS SORT OF
A BIG PICTURE QUESTION,
I'M STILL JUST TRYING TO WRAP
MY HEAD AROUND SORT OF THE WE
NEED
TO DO TO INCREASE SORT OF THE
ACCURACY OF THE DATA OR TO MAKE
THIS, YOU KNOW, THE MOST
MEANINGFUL SORT OF EXERCISE
POSSIBLE.
IT SEEMS LIKE I THINK THERE'S A
COMMONALTY IN THE POLICY OF
WANTING TO HAVE DIVERSION,
UNDERSTAND THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
DIVERSION, THE IMPACT OF SORT OF
THE CHANGE IN OUR LAWS AND
SO I GUESS I WOULD SORT OF ASK
YOU ARE THERE ANY
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM YOU IN
TERMS OF HOW
TO BETTER COLLECT THIS DATA OR
IF THERE'S A MORE
MEANINGFUL QUESTION THAT YOU
THINK WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT IN
TERMS OF
LOOKING AT DIVISION AND THE
IMPACTS OF THIS ORDINANCE?
>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
WE OPTED NOT TO ISSUE
ANY RECOMMENDATIONS ON THIS
REPORT ON THE BASIS THAT WE HAD
SO LITTLE TIME TO EVALUATE AS
MUCH AS WE
WOULD HAVE LIKED. DATA TRENDS
AND THE
EVIDENCE THAT WE DID HAVE ACCESS
TO.
IN THE FUTURE,
HOWEVER, RECOMMENDATIONS ARE
COMMON
PRACTICE FOR US.
WE MAY HAVE OPTED TO DO
A RECOMMENDATION HAD WE NOT
ALSO LEARNED OF THE I THINK
YEARS
OF EFFORT BETWEEN LEAD AND SPD
TO INTEGRATE THEIR SYSTEMS.
BY THE TIME WE IDENTIFIED
THIS, THAT WAS A PROBLEM THEY
HAD ALREADY ESTABLISHED AND
TAKEN
STEPS TO RECTIFY.
WE FELT NO RECOMMENDATION WOULD
BE NECESSARY SINCE THAT WORK
WAS UNDER
WAY.
>> WITH THIS UNDER OUR
BELT HAVING AN UNDERSTANDING OF
THE
FACTORS THAT IMPACTED
THE ABILITY TO DO DEEP ANALYSES
OF SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS,
WE'LL
BE IN A BETTER PLACE TO
IDENTIFY ONGOING GAPS AND,
PERHAPS, THINGS THAT
COULD FURTHER
INCREASE OUR ABILITY TO DO THE
ANALYSIS.
BUT I THINK THE NEXT
REPORT WILL BE THE ONE THAT'S
REALLY ILLUMINATING ON THAT.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
AND CHAIR, APPRECIATE THIS
PRESENTATION.
I THINK THE OTHER PART THAT
IS DIFFICULT FOR ME, WE HAVE
SO MANY MOVING PARTS WE NOW HAVE
A NEW CITY
ATTORNEY. WE HAVE A DIFFERENT
RESOURCES THAT LIKE DESE WITH
THE POST
OVERDOSE RECOVERY CENTER SO
UNDERSTANDING, YOU KNOW,
WITH ALL THESE MOVING
PARTS WHAT IS HAVING AN IMPACT
OR NOT AND
JUST SO LOOK FORWARD TO YOU
COMING BACK AND PROVIDING MORE
ANALYSIS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR US.
>> COUNCILMEMBER LIN THIS IS
WHY WE WERE DOING THIS, ACCURACY
OF
DATA.
PILLAR TWO.
FUNCTIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE
SYSTEM ANDAND YOUR POINT, ONE OF
MY MAIN BULLETS WE NEED TO FIX
OIG'S ABILITY TO WORK
THE REQUIREMENT TO YOUR POINT
ABOUT THE ACCURACY, COLLECTION
AND
ACCURACY OF THE DATA.
SO APPRECIATE OIG BEING HERE
FOR THAT REASON.
IT IS MORE COMPLEX, IF YOU
WILL. THERE IS MORE MOVING
PIECES.
YOU KNOW, FOR
EXAMPLE, ONE OF THE SLIDES, BY
THE
WAY, COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ WAS
HERE SHE WOULD BE LIKE WHERE IS
YOUR
SLIDE NUMBERS.
THERE'S A REASON SHE SAYS
THAT AND SHE'S RIGHT.
EASY TO REFER BACK TO WHATEVER
SLIDE WE'RE GOING TO.
SHE'S NOT HERE BUT WANTED TO
BRING HER INTO THE MEETING.
THE POINT MADE IN THERE,
AND THAT RELATES TO PUBLIC DRUG
USE
AND POSSESSION BUT ALSO RELATES
TO ALTERNATIVE RESPONSE.
SO GOING TO THE POINT ABOUT
MORE COMPLICATED OR
MORE PLAYERS OR ARE MORE FACTORS
YOU HAVE
CSO AND CCR IN CARE DEPARTMENT
NOBODY MENTIONED CARE
DEPARTMENT AND GUESS WHAT?
TO THE POINT THAT
COUNCILMEMBER LIN WE'VE
IDENTIFIED THESE
THINGS.
LIKE PEELING THE ONION AND
FIND THE HICCUPS IN THE BOTTLE
NECKS AND SO FORTH.
THAT'S THE REASON WHY PDA AND
THE LEAD PROGRAM ARE NO
LONGER WITH HSD, THEY'RE WITH
THE CARE
DEPARTMENT. THEY FALL UNDER THIS
COMMITTEE.
BECAUSE WE NEED TO ADDRESS THESE
PIECES.
IT'S SO IMPORTANT.
AND SO WE NEED TO BRING THAT IN.
AT THE END OF THE DAY
THE BILL IS ABOUT EITHER AN
ARREST, GO
TO JAIL OR ARREST AND GET
DIVERTED.
THAT'S A KEY POINT, TOO, BUT
THERE'S DIFFERENT WAYS TO
DO THAT DIVERSION.
THERE'S DIFFERENT WAYS TO
HAVE THAT
CONTACT. AND KEY HERE AND THIS
IS SOMETHING NOT SPOKEN, THESE
ARE THE TWO OPTIONS.
WE CAN'T HAVE ANYMORE THE
LOOK THE OTHER WAY, MOVE
ALONG, YOU KNOW, THOSE KINDS OF
PIECES.
WE NEED TO HAVE DIVERSION, THE
PRIMARY, THE PREFERRED, BUT FOR
THOSE THAT NEED TO BE IN
KING COUNTY JAIL THEY NEED TO BE
IN
KING COUNTY JAIL WHICH BRINGS UP
OTHER ISSUES.
ONE REASONS OFFICER NAY NOT WANT
TO IS BECAUSE OF THE MEDICAL
DECLINES AND THOSE FACTORS.
THOSE ARE PIECES WE NEED TO
ADDRESS. WE HAVE TO GET TO THE
POINT
PEOPLE ARE BEING DIVERTED OUT
OF TEN, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, BUT
THEN THAT REMAINING THREE NEED
TO
GO TO JAIL.
AND BECAUSE -- I'M SAYING
THIS PUBLICLY BECAUSE IT'S
COMING UP
IN CONVERSATIONS, FOR THOSE
ON OUR STREETS THAT ARE
IN, YOU KNOW, IN DIFFICULTY OR
CRISIS, IF WE DON'T HAVE THEM
IN THE
SYSTEM DIVERSION OR OTHERWISE,
WE DON'T ACCOUNT FOR THEIR
STATUS WHETHER MENTAL
HEALTH, BEHAVIORAL HEALTH,
SUBSTANCE
USE DISORDER, ADDICTION, WHEN
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COMES
DOWN WITH WORK REQUIREMENTS FOR
MEDICAID, THAT MONEY IS NOT
GOING TO BE THERE IF WE
CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR THOSE
INDIVIDUALS
AND THEIR STATUS AND ABILITY TO
WORK.
FOR LIKE ALL MY COLLEAGUES UP
HERE, AND I'M SURE A LOT
OF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN ON THE
STREETS
KNOW, MOST OF THOSE PEOPLE
ARE NOT REALLY WORK ELIGIBLE.
BUT IF WE DON'T ACCOUNT FOR
IT THROUGH ONE OF THESE
PROCESSES,
THEN THE DOLLARS
GO AWAY. THE MEDICAID DOLLARS GO
AWAY.
I'VE SAID WITH OTHER FOLKS
HERE IN OTHER COMMITTEES OVER
THE LAST YEAR, THAT WOULD
BE CATASTROPHIC TO WHAT WE'RE
SEEING ON OUR STREETS IF THAT
MEDICAID SYSTEM
BECAUSE THESE INDIVIDUALS COULD
NOT
GET MEDICAID BECAUSE WE
COULDN'T ADDRESS THEIR
SITUATION.
THIS IS VERY COMPLICATED AND
WE NEED TO KEEP WORKING
THROUGH THESE PIECES.
WE WILL DO THIS, WE WILL DO
THIS FOR A COUPLE REASONS.
WE'LL HAVE PDA LEAD COME IN
INDEPENDENTLY.
WE'LL LOOK TO SPD, CARE, CITY
ATTORNEY, DIFFERENT PIECES
COME IN AND THEN LOOK TO WHAT DO
WE
NEED TO DO IN TERMS
OF THE OVERALL ARCHITECTURE BUT
ALSO THIS LAW THAT WE AS NOTED
WE WEREN'T ON THE COUNCIL IN
'23, ALTHOUGH THE THREE OF US
WERE ENGAGED ON THIS LAW, TRUST
ME,
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ WHEN SHE
COMES BACK WAS THERE, BECAUSE AT
THE END OF THE DAY, YOU
KNOW, WHEN THERE'S A THREAT OF
PEACE AND WELL
BEING OF THE COMMUNITY, I THINK
AFTER TWO YEARS,
IT'S WELL ESTABLISHED, YOU
KNOW,
THE THREAT OF -- TO THE PEACE
AND
WELL BEING OF THE COMMUNITY AND
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
SECOND BULLET THERE OF, YOU
KNOW, REALLY DOING THE DIVERSION
TREATMENT OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO
BOOKING THAT IS DONE RIGHT.
AND SO WITH THAT, CONCLUSION, I
WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY HERE.
WAS THAT AN OLD
HAND? OKAY.
AND THANK VICE
CHAIR.
>> YEAH.
THANK YOU, CHAIR.
APPRECIATE YOU, THIS
PRESENTATION. JUST TO -- AN
EPILOG TO
MY COMMENTS PLEASE REALLY FOR
PEOPLE TO TAKE PUBLIC TRANSIT TO
TOMORROW'S SUPER BOWL VICTORY
PARADE.
I FEEL ADD I JUST SAW A
HEADLINE, HAVEN'T READ
THE ARTICLE LET IN THE SEATTLE
BIKE BLOG SAYS TRUST ME
YOU'RE GOING TO WANT TO BIKE TO
THE SEAHAWKS
PARADE WEDNESDAY.
SO I FEEL ADD THAT AS ANOTHER
ALTERNATIVE OPTION.
JUST GET OUT OF OUR CARS, GET ON
OUR VIBRANT TRANSIT. BIKE IF
YOU'RE SO ABLE AND FOR
ME I'M A FAIR WEATHER BIKER,
BUT
I GUESS THAT DOESN'T
APPLY BECAUSE THE WEATHER IS
SUPPOSED TO BE
GOOD TOMORROW. I'M GOING TO GET
ON A BUS.
TAKE OTHER THINGS THAN CARS.
THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT PUBLIC
SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT VICE CHAIR
SAKA AND WE'RE NO LONGER IN
THE MILITARY I THINK YOUR CALL
SIGN WOULD BE GUS PLAYING OFF A
PAUL SIMON SONG.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
INSPECTOR GENERAL AND MS.
MORLEY.
APPRECIATE IT.
YOU WILL BE BACK AT SOME
POINT AND HOPEFULLY GIVEN THE
TOOLS AND THE INFORMATION IN
ORDER TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS
RIGHT BECAUSE
THIS IS WHAT WE'RE
HIGH LITE WHY WE'RE USING THIS
OIG REPORT
TO KICK OFF HIGHLIGHT
THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE THAT
EACH OF
MY COLLEAGUES HAVE NOTED.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTNERSHIP.
>> OKAY.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR SECOND
ITEM
OF BUSINESS.
CLERK PLEASE READ 2 INTO THE
RECORD.
>> C B121158.
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO
INFORMATION SHARING
FOR ENFORCEMENT OF CIVIL
IMMIGRATION
LAWS PROHIBITING CITY
PROVISION OF NONPUBLICLY
AVAILABLE PERSONAL INFORMATION
FOR USE
IN CIVIL IMMIGRATION
ENFORCEMENT, CLARIFYING THE
CITY'S
POSITION ON IMMIGRATION
ENFORCEMENT
BEING A FEDERAL MATTER,
MAKING TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS,
ADDING
A NEW SECTION
4.18.016 TO THE SEATTLE
MUNICIPAL CODE,
AMENDING SECTION 4.18. 015 OF
THE
SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE AND
REPEALING
SECTION
4.18.010 OF THE SEATTLE
MUNICIPAL CODE.
>> THANK YOU, CLERK.
THANK YOU, MR. JOHNSON,
OF CENTRAL STAFF FOR JOINING US.
BEFORE GOING INTO YOURYOUR
REMARKS, THIS PIECE OF
LEGISLATION HAS
COME FROM OUR COLLEAGUE
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA.
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA IS POINT
OF PRIVILEGE SPEAK TO YOUR
LEGISLATION.
>> YES.
THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I APPRECIATE THAT.
COLLEAGUES, WE ARE IN AN
ALARMING AND CHAOTIC POINT IN
TIME AS WE ALL KNOW AND
I KNOW WE ARE ALL STRUGGLING
WITH WHAT
WE CAN DO IT KEEP OUR IMMIGRANT
RESIDENTS SAFE AND MAINTAIN
CALM AS FEDERAL OFFICIALS
CONTINUE
THEIR UNPRECEDENTED
AND EGREGIOUS ACTIONS ACROSS
THE COUNTRY AND IN OUR CITY.
WHAT I AND WE CAN ALL DO IS TO
ENSURE THE CITY'S OF SEATTLE'S
POLICIES AROUND
INFORMATION SHARING
ARE CLEAR. THEY REFLECT OUR
VALUES AND
ARE IN ALIGNMENT WITH STATE LAW.
THIS LEGISLATION PROVIDES
THAT MUCH-NEEDED
CLARITY. MY BILL DOES TWO
THINGS.
FIRST, IT STRIKES OUT EXISTING
CODE THAT DIRECTS CITY
EMPLOYEES TO COOPERATE WITH THE
ENFORCEMENT OF
FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAOS.
SECONDLY IT PROHIBITS
CITY EMPLOYEES FROM SHARING
ANY NONPUBLIC INFORMATION
OUTSIDE THE CITY INCLUDING FOR
USE ON IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
ABSENT A JUDICIAL WARRANT.
THE BRUTAL DEHUMANIZING AND I
BELIEVE TO BE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BEHAVIOR BY
I.C.E. OFFICIALS
IN OUR CITY AND IN OTHER CITIES
IS JUST SIMPLY UNACCEPTABLE.
WHATEVER ACTIONS WE CAN TAKE
SUCH AS CLARIFYING
AND STRENGTHENING SEATTLE'S
LAWS WE
MUST TAKE.
THIS IS WHAT I'VE DONE WITH
THIS
LEGISLATION. I WANT TO SAY
COLLEAGUES
RELATED TO 4.18. 015 B TO
CLARIFY, THIS IS NOT LANGUAGE
THAT I ADDED TO
THE SMC.
THIS IS LANGUAGE PART OF THE
SMC.
IT ONLY APPEARS IN THE BILL
BECAUSE WE NEED IT TO CHANGE
A CODE NUMBER THAT APPEARS IN
THIS SECTION.
MY BILL DOES NOT PRECLUDE
FURTHER ACTIONS AND AS YOU
HEARD THE CHAIR, THERE ARE
OTHER POTENTIAL BILLS BEING
CONSIDERED, I WILL SAY THAT AS I
RECENTLY CONFIRMED SECTION
4.18. 015 B IS NARROWER IN SCOPE
THAN CURRENT STATE LAW CALLS
FOR, WHICH MEANS BOTH THAT
STATE LAW, WHICH PREVAILS OVER
LOCAL LAWS, IS WHAT THE -- IS
THE
LAW THAT GOVERNS AND IS
LIKELY BROADER THAN THE SMC IN
THIS
SECTION. I SAY LIKELY BROADER,
COLLEAGUES, BECAUSE ON
ITS FACE IT IS BROADER AND THERE
ARE OTHER FACTORS TO BE
CONSIDERED IN ITS
IMPLEMENTATION.
THIS BEING THE CASE ANY
CHANGE TO THIS SECTION MERITS
FURTHER DISCUSSION AND, OF
COURSE, LEGAL
ANALYSIS AND DOES NOT PRECLUDE
OUR PASSING MY BILL TODAY WHICH
TAKES A MUCH NEEDED
AND IMPORTANT STEP IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION. I HOPE I HAVE YOUR
SUPPORT
IN PROTECTING ALL OF OUR SEATTLE
RESIDENTS, NOT JUST SOME,
AND MOVING THIS BILL OUT OF
COMMITTEE
TODAY. I'M HAPPY, COLLEAGUES,
TO
TAKE QUESTIONS AND THEN,
OBVIOUSLY, WANT TO THANK OUR
CENTRAL
STAFFER TOMMASO JOHNSON FOR
HIS HELP WHO IS HERE TODAY
IN CHAMBERS BUT ALSO WANT TO
THANK LAUREN HENRY OUR LEGAL
COUNSEL,
WHO IS INSTRUMENTAL IN
HELPING ME PUT THIS BILL
TOGETHER.
THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA. MR. JOHNSON, CAN YOU
STEP THROUGH FROM THE CENTRAL
STAFF THE WORK YOU'VE DONE IN
ADDITION
TO OUR IN- HOUSE COUNSEL ON THIS
BILL?
>> YES.
THANK YOU,
CHAIR. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR
KETTLE, MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE.
FOR THE RECORD TOMMASO
JOHNSON, CENTRAL COUNSEL STAFF
HERE
TO DISCUSS 121158.
GOING TO PROVIDE JUST A
BRIEF BIT OF BACKGROUND ON
EXISTING LAW IN THIS SUBJECT
MATTER AND
WALK YOU THROUGH WHAT THIS BILL
DOES.
SO FOR STARTERS, JUST AS
A GENERAL MATTER OF
COURSE IMMIGRATION LAW IN THE
UNITED
STATES IS EXCLUSIVELY A
FUNCTION OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.
FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW WITH
FEW EXCEPTIONS A SYSTEM
OF CIVIL LAW CIVIL VIOLATIONS OF
IMMIGRATION LAW CAN BE
CONSIDERED FEDERAL
CRIMES BUT THE MAJORITY OF
VIOLATIONS ARE
CIVIL VIOLATIONS.
ONE THING TO NOTE FEDERAL LAW
PROHIBITS STATES AND
LOCALITIES FROM ENACTING ANY
POLICY
THAT WOULD RESTRICT THE SHARING
OF INFORMATION
REGARDING CITIZENSHIP OR
IMMIGRATION STATUS WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY SO THAT IS
ONE REASON WHY THIS BILL DOES
NOT PROHIBIT SHARING OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
STATUS
BUT PROHIBITS ANOTHER
BROADER CATEGORY OF INFORMATION
THAT I WILL DESCRIBE WHICH COULD
BE
USED IN THOSE ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS.
FORECLOSED FROM DOING THAT
LEGALLY.
SO THAT IS THE REASON
WHY THIS BILL DOES NOT ADDRESS
THAT.
WASHINGTON STATE LAW, WASHINGTON
STATE HAS PASSED A NUMBER OF
BILLS TWO NOTABLE ONES IN
RECENT HISTORY GOVERNING
IMMIGRATION
ENFORCEMENT, KEEP WASHINGTON
WORKING ACT IN 2019 AND THE
COURT'S OPEN TO ALL ACT IN 2020.
AS APPLIED TO WASHINGTON CITIES,
KEEP WASHINGTON
WORKING GENERALLY SPEAKING
PROHIBITS
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT FROM
PERFORMING CERTAIN ACTIONS
NAMELY COLLECTING
INFORMATION ABOUT A PERSON'S
IMMIGRATION STATUS OR PLACE OF
BIRTH AND
EXCEPTIONS TO THAT PROVIDING
NONPUBLICLY AVAILABLE PERSONAL
INFORMATION ABOUT ANY
PERSON AT THE FEDERAL
IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES IN A
NONCRIMINAL
MATTER.
COURT OPEN TO ALL ACT
IMPOSES RESTRICTIONS FOR JUDGES,
COURT
PERSONNEL AND PROSECUTORS.
SO WHAT'S NOTABLE AMONG
OTHER THINGS ABOUT THESE TWO
RELATIVELY RECENT STATE LAW
CHANGES IS THAT WHILE THESE
LAWS AND KEEP WASHINGTON WORKING
IN PARTICULAR PROHIBITS
INFORMATION
SHARING BY STATE
AGENCIES, BEYOND THE CONTEXT OF
THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM AND LOCAL
LAW
ENFORCEMENT, THE STATE LAWS
GENERALLY DON'T
IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS ON SHARING
FOR LOCAL AGENCIES AND
NONLAW ENFORCEMENT CORE
AGENCIES.
IN TERMS OF CITY OF SEATTLE
LAW IN THIS AREA, THE
CITY REGULATION OF MATTERS
RELATED
TO IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
DATES BACK TO 1986, ORDINANCE
PASSED TO CARRY OUT A LOCAL BALL
LOCAL
MEASURE LOCAL INITIATIVE TO
THE CITY COUNCIL CREATED OUR
CURRENT MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER
4.18.
4.18. 10 DIRECTS TO,
QUOTE, COOPERATE WITH AND NOT
HINDER
FEDERAL IMMIGRATION
ENFORCEMENT THIS CODE SECTION
CHAPTER
WAS CONSTITUENTLY REVISED IN
20032003
ANOTHER ORDINANCE. THAT WAS THE
ORDINANCE THAT
GAVE US THE GENERAL SO- CALLED
DON'T ASK RESTRICTION WHICH
MEANS
THAT CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
WILL NOT INQUIRE ABOUT
SOMEONE'S
IMMIGRATION STATUS AND AS
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA NOTED
IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE EXCEPTIONS
TO THAT FOR
SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT WHICH
I'M NOT
GOING TO GET INTO THE LEGAL
ANALYSIS OR OFFER AN OPINION,
LEGAL OPINION ABOUT IT, BUT YOU
ARE CORRECT IN STATING THAT
KEEP WASHINGTON WORKING ACT AS A
MATTER OF GENERAL PRINCIPLE
WHEN A STATE LAW AND MUNICIPAL
CODE
SECTION IN THE SAME
AREA THE STATE LAW WILL CONTROL.
IN ADDITION TO THE 1986 AND 2003
ORDINANCES, THE CITY HAS
ENACTED A NUMBER OF RESOLUTIONS
AND
ISSUED VARIOUS EXECUTIVE
ORDERS AND MAYORAL
PROCLAMATIONS.
IN 2018, THERE WAS A
DIRECTIVE FROM THE MAYOR WHICH
WAS
REAFFIRMED REVISED SOMEWHAT AND
REAFFIRMED IN 2025 THAT DIRECTED
ALL CITY DEPARTMENT HEADS TO
REFER, REQUEST FOR
INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT
TO THE MAYOR'S OFFICE FOR
LEGAL REVIEW.
AS I MENTIONED EARLIER
WE'VE HAD -- WE HAVE THE
RESTRICTION ON -- THAT
APPLIES TO LAW ENFORCEMENT BY
THE COURTS AT THE
STATES. CITY POLICY ABOUT NOT
INQUIRING.
WHAT WE DON'T HAVE UP TO THIS
POINT IS A SEATTLE
MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION THAT
RESTRICT THE
SHARING OF NONLAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS.
SO COMING AROUND TO THE
BILL BEFORE US TODAY, CBSPACE
121158 WOULD DO SEVERAL THINGS
WOULD CREATE A NEW CODE
SECTION SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE
418016 PROHIBIT THE
DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN
INFORMATION FOR
THE PURPOSES OF CIVIL
IMMIGRATION
ENFORCEMENT.
UNDER THIS BILL ALL CITIES
OF SEATTLE OFFICERS AND
EMPLOYEES WOULD BE BARRED FROM
PROVIDING
NONPUBLICLY AVAILABLE
PERSONAL INFORMATION TO ANYONE
OUTSIDE
OF SEATTLE GOVERNMENT FOR
USE IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF
CIVIL IMMIGRATION LAWS.
THAT TERM NONPUBLICLY
AVAILABLE PERSONAL INFORMATION
IS NOT
A TERM THAT IS IN MUNICIPAL
CODE AT THIS POINT BUT LARGELY
MIRRORS LANGUAGE USED IN STATE
LAW.
REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON THAT
AS REFERENCED BY BOTH KEEP
WASHINGTON WORKING ACT AND
THE COURTS OPEN TO ALL ACT.
THIS BILL WOULD CREATE TWO
EXCEPTIONS TO THE INFORMATION
SHARING PROHIBITION.
NUMBER ONE AN INFORMED CONSENT
EXCEPTION DESIGNED TO ADDRESS
SITUATIONS WHERE THE INDIVIDUAL
WHOSE INFORMATION IS BEING
INQUIRED ABOUT, THE PERSON
MAY DESIRE TO HAVE THAT
INFORMATION SHARED FOR THE
PURPOSES OF
WORK AUTHORIZATION OR RENEWAL
OF IMMIGRATION STATUS OR
SITUATIONS IN WHICH THATTHAT
MIGHT
WANTED AND PREFERABLE FOR A
PERSON SO
THERE'S AN EXCEPTION.
A GENERAL EXCEPTION IF
THE DISCLOSURE IS REQUIRED BY
LAW
OR COURT ORDER WHICH IS JUST
AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE
FACT CERTAIN THINGS OUTSIDE OF
OUR POWER AS A CITY TO LEGISLATE
AND
COURT ORDERS OR OTHER FEDERAL
LAWS OR OTHERWISE MAY EXCEED OUR
ABILITY TO RESTRICT THE SHARING.
I WANTED TO MAKE A NOTE
TO TALK ABOUT ENFORCEMENT.
SEETHE MUNICIPAL CODE THIS
CHAPTER 418 HAS AN ENFORCEMENT
PROVISION. THE ENFORCEMENT IS
NOT ADDRESSED
IN THIS BILL BECAUSE WE ARE
NOT ADDING AN ENTIRELY NEW
CHAPTER TO THE CODE.
WE ARE MODIFYING 4. 18 SO THE
EXISTING CODE SPECIFIES THE
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS THE
ABILITY TO ENFORCE THIS
ANY SECTIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE.
TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE
HAVEN'T BEEN OTHER ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS
UNDER CHAPTER 4. 18
TO DATE, AND THE CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS
DESCRIBED POTENTIAL ENFORCEMENT
SCHEME THAT WOULD INVOLVE
INJUNCTIONS OR WRITS TO COMPEL
COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ORDINANCE.
FINALLY, THE BILL WOULD
MAKE SOME LARGELY MAKE ONE
TECHNICAL CHANGE AND ONE
CONFORMING CHANGE
THAT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER.
SO THIS BILL WOULD REPEAL
SMC 418010 IN ITS ENTIRETY THE
1986
SECTION THAT PURPORTEDLY
DIRECT EMPLOYEES CITY OF
SEATTLE EMPLOYEES
TO COOPERATE NOT HINDER FEDERAL
IMMIGRATION
ENFORCEMENT.
REMOVAL OF THIS LANGUAGE WOULD
NOT, OF COURSE, ALTER
THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY OR
CITY EMPLOYEES TO COMPLY
WITH FEDERAL LAW GENERALLY
SPEAKING BUT
THIS WOULD STRIKING THIS SECTION
WOULD BRING THE MUNICIPAL
CODE INTO LINE WITH POLICY
DECISIONS
AND STATEMENTS BOTH AT THE
STATE AND CITY LEVEL OVER THE
LAST 20
PLUS YEARS. PURSUANT TO THAT
REMOVAL
OR REFERENCE TO THE REMOVED
SECTION
WOULD BE STRUCK AS WELL IN SMU
4.18051A.
AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU.
AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR STAFF
MEMO.
APPRECIATE THE PIECES YOU'VE
OUTLINED IN YOUR REMARKS.
NORMALLY I WOULD GO TO
MY VICE CHAIR, VICE CHAIR,
ANYTHING?
NO.
COUNCILMEMBER LIN?
>> THANK YOU.
FIRST OF ALL, THANK
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA
FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD.
I THINK WE ALL SHARE
THE CONCERNS AND VALUES OF
WANTING TO PROTECT OUR COMMUNITY
FROM WHAT WE SEE HAPPENING AND I
AGREE WITH YOU COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA.
I BELIEVE THESE ACTIONS
ARE LIKELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL
AND CERTAINLY CRUEL AND
INHUMANE. I APPRECIATE YOU
BRINGING THIS
FORWARD TO UPDATE WHAT
WAS CERTAINLY PROBLEMATIC
LANGUAGE THAT IS NO LONGER, I
BELIEVE,
IN LINE WITH OUR VALUES OR IN
LINELINE WITH KEEP WASHINGTON
WORKING ACT.
I DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE
4.18. 015 B.
WHICH WE'VE RECEIVED
SOME PUBLIC COMMENT
ON. AND I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM
WHAT
I HEARD EARLIER THAT FEDERAL
LAW AND CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES
REQUIRES DISCLOSURE
OF
INFORMATION THAT WE MIGHT HAVE
ABOUT
SOMEBODY'S IMMIGRATION STATUS.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> IT CAN REQUIRE.
I THINK
THE SECTION THAT I WAS REFERRING
TO IT RESTRICTS
OUR ABILITY TO PROHIBIT.
>> RIGHT.
THANK YOU FOR THAT
CLARIFICATION.
PART OF MY POINT IS THAT ONCE WE
COLLECT THAT INFORMATION,
OUR ABILITY TO PROHIBIT
DISCLOSURE IS MORE LIMITED.
SOME WAYS IF WE DON'T COLLECT
IT
IN THE FIRST PLACE, THEN
THEORETICALLY, YOU KNOW,
THAT PROTECTS THAT BECAUSE WE
DON'T -- PROTECTS IT BECAUSE
WE DON'T HAVE
THAT INFORMATION IN
THE FIRST PLACE. WOULD THAT BE
KIND OF CORRECT?
>> YES.
I THINK THAT'S CORRECT AS
A GENERAL MATTER AND COULD
APPLY TO ANY NUMBER OF PIECES
OF INFORMATION WE MIGHT COLLECT.
>> RIGHT.
IF WE LOOK AT 418015A SAYS
NO CITY OFFICER, EMPLOYEE
SHALL UNLESS OTHERWISE REQUIRED
BY LAW OR COURT ORDER INQUIRE
INTO
THE IMMIGRATION STATUS AND,
AGAIN,
IF WE DON'T INQUIRE WE'RE
NOT GOING TO HAVE THAT
INFORMATION AND IT PROVIDES A
LEVEL OF
INFORMATION BECAUSE WE
DON'T HOLD THAT INFORMATION.
WOULD THAT BE ACCURATE?
>> YES.
4. 18015A THE PROHIBITION ON NOT
INQUIRING.
>> 4.18015 B IS AN EXCEPTION TO
A, WHICH ALLOWS POLICE OFFICERS
TO INQUIRE IF THOSE THREE
PRONGS ARE MET.
IF THEY HAVE REASONABLE
SUSPICION TO BELIEVE SOMEBODY
HAS BEEN DEPORTED PRESENT
AND COMMITTING A FELONY, IS THAT
CORRECT?
>> YEAH.
THAT'S CORRECT.
THAT'S WHAT'S CURRENTLY IN
THE SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE.
I WANT TO BE CAREFUL
HERE BECAUSE IT'S PROBABLY NOT
APPROPRIATE FOR US TO GET INTO
A LEGAL ANALYSIS WHILE WE'RE
HERE
AT THE MEETING AT THE ABLE,
BUT AS IT WAS NOTED EARLIER,
REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON 10.
93160 SPECIFICALLY 164A, IS
THE SECTION THAT WAS ADDED BY
KEEP WASHINGTON WORKING.
IT WAS ADDED, YOU KNOW,
AFTER ALMOST 20 YEARS AFTER
THE MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION WAS
ADDED
AND IT PURPORTS TO GOVERN
THE SAME QUESTION OF WHEN
INQUIRIES
CAN HAPPEN AND DIFFERS WHAT
IS CURRENTLY IN SEATTLE
MUNICIPAL
CODE.
ONE OTHER THING I WOULD
BRING INTO THIS CONVERSATION IS
CURRENT SPD POLICY.
SO WE HAVE SOME MAYBE SOME
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
MUNICIPAL CODE AND WHAT
WASHINGTON
STATE LAW IS.
I THINK WE'RE -- PEOPLE WILL
BE FAMILIAR WITH THE FACT THAT
WHEN THERE IS A DIFFERENCE LIKE
THAT
THE STATE LAWS GENERALLY
SUPERSEDES.
I'M NOT GOING TO DO A DETAILED
ANALYSIS OF HOW THAT APPLIES
HERE.
BUT BEYOND THAT,
OPERATIONALLY AND ON THE GROUND
GOVERNS
OFFICERS' ACTIONS AS POLICY
AND THE POLICY, RELEVANT POLICY
HERE, SPD POLICY 6. 020 AND
I'LL QUOTE THAT.
IT SAYS, OFFICERS WILL
NOT INQUIRE ABOUT ANY
PERSON'S CITIZENSHIP OR
IMMIGRATION
STATUS. THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS
TO THIS
POLICY.
>> WONDERFUL.
>> ALSO THE POLICY IS CLEAR, IT
CONTEMPLATES EXCEPTIONS THAT CAN
BE SPECIFICALLY CARVED OUT BY
THE CHIEF TO MY KNOWLEDGE
THERE ARE CURRENTLY NO SUCH
EXCEPTIONS. I JUST WANT TO POINT
OUT THAT
OUR THE STATE LAW AND OUR
MUNICIPAL CODE OPERATE IN A
RELATIONSHIP TO
CREATE, YOU KNOW, THE BOUNDED
BOX BY
WHICH POLICY MUST BE WRITTEN AND
SPD
POLICY IN THIS CASE GOES GOES
A BIT BEYOND THOSE TO BE MORE
PREDESCRIPTIVE ABOUT WILL NOT
INQUIRE.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
TO CLARIFY, SO SPD POLICY
PROHIBITS CLOCKING
THAT INFORMATION GENERALLY
SOUNDS LIKE THERE MIGHT BE SOME
EXCEPTION THAT THE CHIEF COULD
MAKE.
SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S
PROTECTIONS UNDER THE KEEP
WASHINGTON WORKING ACT AS WELL.
AND NOTHING UNDER 4. 18015 B
WOULD REQUIRE A POLICE OFFICER
TO COLLECT THAT INFORMATION.
IT'S AN EXCEPTION TO THE
GENERAL PROHIBITION UNDER A, BUT
SOUNDS LIKE THERE ARE
ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS BOTH IN
POLICY
AND THE KEEP WASHINGTON WORKING
ACT.
>> YES.
I THINK THAT'S
ACCURATE. THE STATUTORY
FRAMEWORK A
FRAMEWORK MAY MAKE POLICY OR
DECISIONS. THEY HAVE CHOSEN TO
ENACT
A POLICY GOVERNING
OFFICERS IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE
THAT
IS QUITE A BIT NARROWER AND DOES
NOT CONTEMPLATE ANY OF THE
CRITERIA
DESCRIBED IN CURRENT SMC OR IN
RCW FOR THAT MATTER.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
I FEEL JUST PROVIDE A
QUICK COMMENT WHICH IS, JUST IN
MY
OPINION, I THINK 4. 18015
B PROBABLY COULD BE CLEANED UP
AND UPDATED.
I DON'T WANT TO HOLD UP THE
IMPORTANT BILL AND THE GOOD
WORK YOU BROUGHT
FORWARD COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA,
BUT
IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S STILL
A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION IN
MY MIND UNDER 418015 B AND
KEEP WASHINGTON WORKING ACT
AND CURRENT SPD POLICY.
APPRECIATE YOU CLARIFYING
THAT FOR US, FOR ME AT LEAST
TODAY, AND APPRECIATE AGAIN
YOU BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER LIN.
AS STATED AT THE
BEGINNING FOLLOWING THE COMMENTS
FROM MR. MOORE, GAYLE AND
MORGAN, YOU CAN FOLLOW UP ON
THAT
POINT.
>> IF I
MAY, CHIEF?
>>
RESPOND.
>> ADDITIONAL.
>> THIS CONVERSATION.
I WANT TO SAY, THERE'S LAW,
WHAT'S ON THE BOOKS AS LAW AND
THEN THERE'S PRACTICE.
SO MR. JOHNSON WAS TALKING
ABOUT WHAT SPD PRACTICE IS,
WHICH
IS REALLY BASED ON OUR
SHARED VALUES AND THEN WHAT IS
LAW.
THIS IS WHY THIS MERITS
A FURTHER CONVERSATION AND
LEGAL ANALYSIS BECAUSE STATE LAW
DOES
PREVAIL AND STATE LAW IS LIKELY
BROADER ON SECTION B.
THIS IS WHY I THINK, YOU KNOW,
AGAIN, DOESN'T PRECLUDE MOVING
FORWARD WITH THIS BULL
BUT DOES DOES FURTHER
CONVERSATION IF
WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THAT
POLICY DECISION TO MAKE CHANGES
TO
THAT.
THAT'S IMPORTANT.
WE NEED A LEGAL ANALYSIS THAT
WE CANNOT HAVE IN CHAMBERS.
I ALSO DON'T WANT TO -- WE CAN
MOVE THIS FORWARD.
AS CHAIR KETTLE SAID
EARLIER, THERE ARE A LOT OF
THINGS
BEING CONSIDERED IN THIS
IMMIGRATION
SPACE, SO ONE DOESN'T
PRECLUDE THE OTHER.
SO WE CAN MOVE THIS BILL
FORWARD.
WE CAN DO THIS.
TAKE THIS IMPORTANT WHAT I
DEEM TO BE AN IMPORTANT STEP ALL
THE WHILE THEN HAVING
THE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHAT
ELSE BECAUSE I KNOW THAT MANY OF
OUR
COLLEAGUES ARE LOOKING AT OTHER
THINGS, YOU KNOW, SUCH AS
THE STAGING PIECE THAT
COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE TALKED
ABOUT EARLIER.
I WANTED TO SAY THAT, IS
THAT THERE IS STATE
LAW, THERE IS WHAT'S IN
PRACTICE AND THERE ARE
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS AND I
DON'T
WANT TO -- I WANT TO MAKE
SURE THOSE ARE VERY CLEAR.
THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU.
VICE CHAIR SAKA.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
FIRST I WANT TO THANK
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA FOR
YOUR LEADERSHIP IN BRINGING
THIS FORTH VERY IMPORTANT PIECE
OF
LEGISLATION IN MY VIEW, THIS
IS A TRANSFORMATIONAL PIECE
OF LEGISLATION THAT'S
CRITICALLY
NEEDED TO HELP US AS A
CITY BETTER PROTECT OUR
IMMIGRANT
AND REFUGEE NEIGHBORS.
IS IT THE END ALL BE ALL
SOLUTION?
NO. PROBABLY NOT.
IS IT AN IMPORTANT TOOL
AND ACTION THAT WE CAN UNDERTAKE
NOW IN COMBINATION WITH OTHER
THINGS
AS THE CHAIR NOTED OTHER
EFFORTS UNDER WAY AND OUR
EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND ACTIONS
THAT I'VE
SEEN, IS THIS ANOTHER
THING AMONG BROADER POLICY
SOLUTIONS,
YES. GREAT QUESTIONS.
THIS IS AN EXCELLENT BASE
POLICY BUT SOME OF THE
DISCUSSION MAKES
CLEAR, YOU KNOW, AT THE
END OF THE DAY ISN'T PERFECT.
I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD LET
PERFECTION BE THE ENEMY OF GOOD.
WE'RE AT A POINT WE NEED
TO
CONTINUE ACTING AND THIS HELPS
US DO THAT.
THERE ARE, OBVIOUSLY, SOME VERY
NONTRIVIAL LEGAL
CONSIDERATIONS AND AS
POLICYMAKERS, WE
MUST LISTEN TO THE ADVICE OF OUR
LAWYERS,
INCLUDING, YOU KNOW, CITY
ATTORNEY EVANS AND
HER ENTIRE TEAM THAT ADVISES
ON THESE AND ANY NUMBER OF
THINGS.
AS POLICYMAKERS, WE ARE ALSO --
WE SHOULD AND MUST LISTEN TO
THEIR SAGE LEGAL GUIDANCE WE
MUST BE WILLING TO OVERRULE THEM
FROM TIME TO TIME IF THERE'S A
SUFFICIENTLY COMPELLING
ENOUGH POLICY JUSTIFICATION.
IN MY MIND, IF IT FLAUTSS
FEDERAL LAW THAT'S LITIGATION I
WOULD LIKE OUR CITY TO HAVE.
THAT'S A COURTROOM FIGHT I
WOULD LIKE OUR CITY TO HAVE.
I KNOW CITY ATTORNEY EVANS IS
A HIGHLY SKILLED LITIGATOR AND
HER TEAM.
AGAIN, FOR THOSE POLICY
CHANGES OR PROPOSALS THAT WOULD
PURPORT TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH
FEDERAL
LAW, ESPECIALLY ON THE ISSUE
OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION
ENFORCEMENT, I TAKE THE WINSTON
CHURCHILL
POSITION.
WE SHALL FIGHT THEM ON THE
BEACHES. FIGHT ON THE FIELDS AND
IN THE
STREETS. FIGHT IN THE HILLS.
ANYWHERE AND
EVERYWHERE WE'LL DEFEND OUR
VALUES IN THE CITY OF
SEATTLE. FOR ME PERSONALLY I
WANT TO
MAKE SURE WE'RE DIRECTLY
CONSISTENT,
WE'RE NOT AT LEAST
INCONSISTENT, WITH STATE LAW.
I'M OPEN TO, YOU KNOW, OTHER
TWEAKING, TWEAKS AROUND
THE EDGES OF THIS AND OTHER,
BUT IT IS NEEDED NOW AND WE MUST
ACT
AND, THEREFORE, WANT TO THANK,
AGAIN, COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA
FOR YOUR STEDFAST LEADERSHIP ON
THIS
AND MORE TO COME, OF COURSE.
THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR
SAKA, AS THE GRANDSON OF
SOMEBODY WHO SURVIVED DUNKIRK, I
APPRECIATE YOUR
REFERENCE. I WASN'T EXPECTING
THAT.
TO CLOSE BECAUSE I WILL
BRING THIS UP FOR A VOTE,
AGAIN, THIS IS JUST -- WOULD YOU
LIKE TO
CONCLUDE?
OKAY. I FEEL LET
COUNCILMEMBER DO A CLOSING BUT
BEFORE SHE SPEAKS,
THIS IS STEP ONE OF A
MULTISTEP PROCESS AND GENERALLY
WE DO
TWO MEETINGS PER TOPIC
EVERY YEAR THERE'S ALWAYS THE
EXCEPTION
TO THE RULE, AND GENERALLY THIS
YEAR, FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
WILL BE THAT EXCEPTION.
IF THEY'RE CLEAN BILLS LIKE
THIS ONE.
I WILL SAY THE STAGING BILL WILL
BE A TWO- STEP PROCESS.
BUT WE'LL BE BRINGING THOSE
FORWARD. AND THEN I WILL WORK
WITH
OUR LEAST AS MENTIONED EARLIER
WITH COUNCILMEMBER LIN IN TERMS
OF
THE REFERENCE TO
THE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND THE
VARIOUS
PIECES THAT WE GET IN WITH
CENTRAL
STAFF TO INCLUDE OUR ATTORNEY
AND CITY ATTORNEY EVANS' TEAM.
WITH THAT
SAID, COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA YOU
HAVE THE LAST WORD
FOR THIS.
GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
THANK YOU COLLEAGUES.
I WANT TO SAY THAT MY
IMPETUS FOR THIS BILL, I WANTED
TO
DO SOMETHING, I WANTED TO DO
SOMETHING NOW.
I WANTED TO DO SOMETHING I
KNEW WOULD BE LEGALLY
DEFENSIBLE.
I KNEW THAT WE
HAD THE SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE
ON OUR
BECOMES THAT WAS OUTDATED FROM
THE
KEEP WASHINGTON
WORKING. I KNOW THAT THERE ARE A
LOT OF
THINGS THAT DO NEED TO BE
LITIGATED IF THERE ARE TO BE
CHANGES TO BE MADE AND I
WANTED TO FIND SOMETHING THAT I
KNEW WE COULD DO TODAY.
THAT'S JUST THE BOTTOM LINE.
AND SO THIS ISN'T MEANT TO BE
--
THIS IS NOT THE END AS
CHAIR KETTLE SAID.
THIS IS ONE THING THAT I KNEW I
COULD DO, WE COULD DO TODAY, AND
IT'S IMPORTANT.
THE REASON WHY I FEEL SO
STRONGLY ABOUT IT IS BECAUSE
THERE IS SOMETHING NEW HERE.
THERE IS TWO PIECES.
COD FIG STATE LAWS AS OUR
SMC SHOULD SO WHEN PEOPLE LOOK
AT THE SMC THEY KNOW WHAT IS
LEGAL
OR NOT, WHAT OUR CODES ARE.
SOMETIMES IF OUR SMC IS
OUTDATED OR SILENT, PEOPLE
DON'T
ALWAYS KNOW WHETHER OUR SMC IS
UPDATED OR NOT, STATE LAW
PREVAILS.
SO WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO
HAVE OR I DON'T WANT SOMETHING
ON OUR
SMC THAT'S NOT CLEAR TO OUR
PUBLIC AND
IMPORTANTLY TO OUR CITY
EMPLOYEES, WHETHER THEY
BE LAW ENFORCEMENT OR OTHERWISE.
AND SO I THINK IT IS
IMPORTANT FOR US TO HAVE THE
MOST UPDATED
SMC AS WE CAN.
AND THIS IS WHY KEEP
WASHINGTON WORKING WAS NOT
CODIFIED IN
HERE I THOUGHT THIS WAS AN
IMPORTANT OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO.
THEN IN THE CONTEXT OF
THAT, KNOWING THAT WHEN THE
STATE PASSED KEEP WASHINGTON
WORKING THEY TALKED ABOUT
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AND NOT
SHARING OF
INFORMATION, BUT THEY
DIDN'T TALK ABOUT LOCAL
AGENCIES
OUTSIDE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT.
THEY TALKED ABOUT THE COURTS.
THEY TALKED ABOUT SCHOOLS.
BUT WE HAVE A LOT OF CITY
DEPARTMENTS BEYOND SPD AND SOME
OF THE OTHER LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AT THE
CITY.
THE NEW IS I WANTED TO MAKE
SURE THESE OTHER SISTER
DEPARTMENTS LIKE THE HUMAN
SERVICES
DEPARTMENT OR THE, YOU KNOW,
OFFICE OF IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE
AFFAIRS HAD THE SAME DIRECTIVE
BECAUSE THE LAW AT THE
STATE LEVEL IS SILENT, WE'RE
ACTUALLY ABLE TO PUT THIS IN OUR
SMC
AND GUIDE OUR EMPLOYEES ON WHAT
THEY
CAN AND CAN'T
DO REGARDING PUBLIC INFORMATION.
LET ME SAY THIS, I FEEL
REALLY FORTUNATE TO LIVE IN
SEATTLE.
OUR EMPLOYEES SHARE OUR VALUES.
AM I WORRIED SOMEONE IS GOING TO
GIVE INFORMATION PURPOSEFULLY?
NO.
ALSO, YOU KNOW, WHEN FOLKS
REACH OUT, REACH OUTS FROM THE
FEDS,
WE KNOW, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T
WANT THERE TO BE A LACK OF
CLARITY TO
OUR CITY EMPLOYEES ON WHAT TO
DO.
SO NOW THEY ARE
CLEAR. THE SMC WILL NOW MAKE IT
CLEAR
THAT YOU GLEE AT HSD OR IRA
OR OFFICE OF HOUSING YOU'RE NOT
TO SHARE INFORMATION AND
THEN, OF COURSE, THAT WARRANT
PIECE, BUT
THAT IS SOMETHING AND THAT IS
SOMETHING THEY SHOULD KNOW.
SO THIS IS REALLY
ABOUT PROVIDING THAT CLARITY TO
THE --
OUR EMPLOYEES ACROSS THE
BOARD NOT JUST OUR LAW
ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEES.
WE CAN DO THIS.
WE CAN DO THIS
TODAY.
I FELT LIKE I SAID EARLIER I
FELT PASSIONATE AS YOU CAN HEAR
ME THIS IS AN IMPORTANT
AND SOMETHING WE HAVE TO DO.
THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT
ARE GOING TO REQUIRE MORE
TIME BECAUSE THERE ARE LEGAL
ANALYSES THAT HAVE TO BE DONE,
BUT
THIS IS NOT THAT.
I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE THIS STEP
BECAUSE WE KNOW WE CAN DO IT.
WE KNOW IT DOES NOT NOT --
IT IS THOUGH A SIMPLER STEP, A
REALLY IMPORTANT ONE.
AND SO THIS IS WHY I
FEEL STRONGLY WE SHOULD PASS
TODAY.
IT IS NOT ONE THING DOESN'T
PRECLUDE ANOTHER.
AND WE KNOW THAT WE COULD
DO THIS TODAY.
IT IS LEGAL TO DO SO.
IT IS CODIFYING STATE
LAW, ADDING TO STATE LAW IN
PARTS WHERE IT IS SILENT FOR OUR
OTHER NON-LAW ENFORCEMENT CITY
EMPLOYEES.
THAT'S WHAT THIS DOES.
WE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH
THIS AND THEN CONTINUE THE FIGHT
AND THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
SAKA, FOR THOSE WORDS ON
FIGHTING.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING.
WE'RE FIGHTING FOR OUR
RESIDENTS
IN THE CITY, INCLUDING OUR
IMMIGRANT RESIDENTS.
I WANT TO DO WHAT WE CAN DO
TODAY.
WE CAN DO THIS TODAY.
LET'S MAKE IT HAPPEN.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA.
WILL THE CLERK CALL THE ROLL
TO PASS 121158.
>> COUNCILMEMBER LIN.
>>
ABSTAIN.
>> COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ.
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA.
>> YEA.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA.
>>
YEA.
>> CHAIR KETTLE.
>> YEA.
>> THERE ARE THREE IN
FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED AND ONE
ABSTENTION.
>> THANK YOU. THE MOTION CARRIES
AND THE
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE
BILL PASS WILL BE SENT TO
THE FEBRUARY 17th CITY COUNCIL
MEETING.
OKAY. WE HAVE REACHED THE END
OF TODAY'S MEETING AGENDA.
ANY FURTHER BUSINESS TO
COME BEFORE THE COMMITTEE BEFORE
WE
ADJOURNED?
SEEING NONE,
HEARIN