>> COUNCIL SELECT BUDGET
COMMITTEE WILL COME TO ORDER.
I AM CHAIR.
IT IS 10:37.
WILL THE CLERK CALL ROLL?
>> PAIDER SON.
>> HERE.
>> SUEANT.
>> HERE.
>> STRAUSS.
>> PRESENT.
>> GONZALEZ.
>> HERE.
>> HERBOLD.
>> HERE.
>> JUAREZ.
>> HERE.
>> LEWIS, MORALES.
>> HERE.
>> CHAIRMAN MOSQUEDA.
>> HERE.
>> EIGHT PRESENT.
>> THANK YOU.
WE HAVE A CONTINUATION OF THE
MEETING WE BEGAN LAST FRIDAY
WITH THE CONTINUATION STARTING
AT AMENDMENT 40 FOR THE
REMAINDER OF THE BUDGET
AMENDMENT CONSIDERATIONS AS IT
RELATES TO SPD'S BUDGET.
WE WILL BEGIN THE CONVERSATIONS
IMMEDIATELY AFTER PUBLIC
COMMENT AND COLLEAGUES WILL
HAVE THE CHANCE TO SIGN ON TWO
ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS, ASK
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS AND WE
WILLEN DEFER TO GET THROUGH THE
REMAINDER OF THE AMENDMENTS
TODAY WITH THE INTENTION TO
BRING AMENDMENTS BACK UP FOR
VOTE AND CONSIDERATION ON
WEDNESDAY THIS WEEK.
IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS ABOUT
THE AGENDA AS A CONTINUATION OF
FRIDAY, THE AGENDA WILL BE
ADOPTED.
NO OBJECTION?
WONDERFUL.
AGENDA ADOPTED.
WE WILL GO INTO PUBLIC COMMENT.
WE HAVE THE DESIRE TO GET
THROUGH AS MANY PEOPLE AS
POSSIBLE AND RECOGNIZE WE ARE
TRYING TO END THE MEETING SO
THERE IS A BREAK BETWEEN OUR
MEETING AND UPCOMING FULL
COUNCIL MEETING.
I HAVE ASKED FOLKS ON THE LINE
TO BE PREPARED FOR 45 SECONDS
AGAIN AS WE HAVE DONE IN A
NUMBER OF OTHER MEETINGS
RECOGNIZING THAT WE WILL AGAIN
HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT AGAIN ON
WEDNESDAY MORNING.
WE APPRECIATE ALL OF YOU
CALLING IN.
I THINK MANY OF YOU KNOW THE
SPILL BUT BRIEFLY, I WILL CALL
THREE PEOPLE AT A TIME.
YOU WILL HEAR YOU HAVE BEEN
UNMUTED.
THAT IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO
BEGIN SPEAKING.
AFTER YOU HAVE BEGUN SPEAKING,
AT 10 SECONDS BEFORE THE END OF
YOUR TIME, YOU WILL HEAR A
CHIME.
THAT IS AN INDICATION TO WRAP
IT UP.
YOU WILL BE MUTED AGAIN AT THE
END OF YOUR TIME.
PLEASE CALL IN.
IF WE DON'T GET A CHANCE TO
HEAR FROM YOU TODAY, PLEASE E-
MAIL US.
MORE OPPORTUNITIES ARE COMING
UP LATER THIS WEEK AND AGAIN
NEXT MONDAY ON TOP OF THE
PUBLIC COMMENT WE HAVE HAD
TODAY.
WE APPRECIATE ALL OF YOU
CALLING IN.
IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION WE
WILL HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR AT
LEAST 20 MINUTES.
WE WILL END BEFORE 11:00 TO GET
THROUGH FOR TWO HOURS OF
DISCUSSION.
LET'S BEGIN.
THE FIRST THREE SPEAKERS ARE
SHOSHANA WEINBERG, ERIC JACOBSON
JACOBSON.
PLEASE BEGIN.
YOU ARE GOOD TO GO SHOSHANA.
>> I AM TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF
YOUTH CARE.
WE ARE URGING YOU TO CUT SPD
BUDGET BY 50% AND REINVEST IN
THE FOUR POINT PROPOSAL.
SINCE OUR FOUNDING IN 1974,
YOUTH CARE HAS SEEN HISTORIC
FUNDING OF HOUSING BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH AND ALONGSIDE THE
CRIMINALIZATION OF
HOMELESSNESS, MENTAL ILLNESS,
ADDICTION, POVERTY.
WE HAVE SEEN MASSIVE
GENTRIFICATION AND DISPLACEMENT
OF BLACK AND BROWN COMMUNITIES.
OUR POLICIES AND INVESTMENTS
ARE BACKWARD AND WE URGE YOU TO
RIGHT THESE WRONGS AND SET THEM
STRAIGHT.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
I KNOW YOU CALLED LAST WEEK AND
WE DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO HEAR
FROM YOU.
THANK YOU FOR CALLING BACK.
>> HELLO.
MY NAME IS ERICKA JACOBSON.
I AM IN FULL SUPPORT OF KING
COUNTY EQUITIES LARGE LIST OF
DEMANDS ON CITY COUNSEL.
WE WILL NOT ACCEPT LESS THAN
50%.
IT SHOULD BE IN COMMUNITY CARE
AND EMERGENCY SERVICES.
WE DEMAND CITY COUNCIL STOP
GENTRIFICATION.
I SEE THAT THE COUNCIL IS
LISTENING AND TRYING TO CHANGE
THE SYSTEM.
I AM HOPEFUL TO AMENDMENT 54
LED BY COUNCIL WOMAN SUEANT
INVESTING IN HOUSING.
LAYINGOFF STAFF, IT SHOULD BE A
PRIORITY TO KEEP STAFF ON THE
BOOKS.
NOTE THAT IN THE FUTURE --
EARLIER THIS MONTH I SHARED THE
STORY OF MY DEAR COUSIN'S DEATH
AT THE HANDS OF POLICE.
HE DESERVED BETTER FROM THE
COUNTRY THAT HE GREW UP IN.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU ERICKA.
ALEX.
>> I AM ALEX, A HOMEOWNER IN
DISTRICT 2. THERE HAVE BEEN
NUMBERS AND TERMS FLYING
AROUND.
IT'S EASY TO GET CONFUSED.
I WANTED TO TAKE MY TIME TO
CLARIFY.
WE DEMAND YOU DEFUND 50% AT
LEAST AND INVEST IN BLACK AND
BROWN COMMUNITIES.
$85MILLION MINIMUM.
NOT THE 2.6 MILLION DISCUSSED
FRIDAY.
THAT'S 3% WHICH IS LESS THAN
50.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?
AT LEAST 50% OF SEATTLE VOTERS
SUPPORT IN DEFUNDING THE
POLICE.
I COULD SAY 64% SUPPORT YOU
TRANSFERRING MONEY FROM POLICE
TO COMMUNITIES BUT I AM
CASUALLY REFERRING TO A NUMBER
OF AT LEAST 50%.
WHEN I SAY AT LEAST 50% OF I AM
REFERRING THAT SEVEN OF NINE
HAVE PLEDGED TO DEFUND THE
POLICE.
DEFUND SPD BY 85 MILLION
IMMEDIATELY AND INVEST IN
SEATTLE'S BLACK COMMUNITIES
IMMEDIATELY.
>> THANK YOU.
THE NEXT THREE ARE KELSEY,
JAZMINE, WILLIAM.
KELSEY.
GOOD MORNING.
>> I AM A RENTER IN DISTRICT 3.
I APPALLED AND DISAPPOINTED BY
THE AMENDMENT PUT FORTH.
YOU ARE COOPTING LANGUAGE OF
THE MOVEMENT WHILE DOING LESS
THAN THE MINIMUM.
YOU COMMIT TO DEFUNDING SPD BY
50% AND OFFER A PLAN THAT
DEFUNDS BY 1.5%, DOES NOT
MENTION BLACK OR INDIGENOUS
PEOPLE ANYWHERE, AND DOES NOT
LAYOFF FULLY TRAINED OFFICERS.
YOU ARE HOLDING WHITE
SUPREMACY.
YOUR $83 MILLION DOWN PAYMENT
IS MISLEADING WHEN FUNDS COME
FROM RAINY DAY ACCOUNTS NOT
SPD.
THESE AMENDMENTS DO NOT MEET
THE DEMANDS.
YOU HAVE THE POWER TO ENACT
REAL CHANGE OR STEP DOWN.
>> ALL RIGHT.
JAZMINE.
WELCOME.
>> HELLO.
I LIVE IN DISTRICT 3 ON CAPITOL
HILL AND I AM CALLING TO
REQUEST THAT YOU DECREASE
BUDGET BY AT LEAST 50% AND
REINVEST THE MONEY INTO
COMMUNITY.
THAT SAID I HAVE A QUESTION
ABOUT HOW THE BUDGET HANDLES
LAWSUITS.
I GOT THE CHANCE TO ASK COUNCIL
MEMBER STRAUSS FRIDAY BUT DID
NOT GET AN ANSWER.
AS POLICE BRUTALITY LAWSUITS
PILE UP WHERE IS MONEY TO PAY
FOR DAMAGES GOING TO COME FROM?
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A DEFICIT
FOR 2021 BUT MY CONCERN IS
PEOPLE IN SEATTLE WILL HAVE TO
PAY FOR THE LACK OF CONTROL AND
INCREASING VIOLENCE.
THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY.
I YIELD MY TIME.
>> MY NAME IS WILLIAM AND I
SUPPORT DEFUNDING SPD BY 50% OF
THE REMAINING 2020 BUDGET.
YOU HAVE PROCLAIMED THAT BLACK
LIVES MATTER.
NOW IT IS TIME TO LISTEN TO
WHAT THE MOVEMENT IS ASKING FOR
AND SHOW THAT YOU AREN'T SIMPLY
MOUTHING SLOGANS.
THEY HAVE SHOWN THEY HAVE NO
LOYALTY TO THE PEOPLE ONLY TO
THEIR OWN ABILITY.
THEY'VE ENGAGED IN
DISINFORMATION AGAINST PEOPLE
THAT OPPOSE THEM AND ALIGN
THEMSELVES WITH TRUMP'S POLICE
WHO THEY WILL SERVE AGAIN
WITHOUT HESITATION SHOULD THEY
RETURN.
WE SHOULDN'T REWARD THEM WITH
THE ABILITY TO SET THE TERMS OF
THEIR OWN FUNDING.
UNDERSTAND THIS IS US BEGGING
YOU PLEASE DO NOT ABANDON US TO
THE THUGS.
DO NOT TEACH THEM THAT THEIR
ACTIONS HAVE NO REAL
CONSEQUENCES.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
THE NEXT THREE ARE PETER, MAYA,
CATHERINE.
PETER, GOOD MORNING.
>> GOOD MORNING.
I LIVE IN WALLING FORD SEATTLE
DISTRICT 4. I AM CALLING IN
SUPPORT OF DEFUNDING SPD BY AT
LEAST 50%.
I APPRECIATED SEEING FRIDAY'S
RESOLUTION AND AMENDMENTS
ANDAMEN ENCOURAGED THAT COUNCIL
MEMBERS ARE ALREADY WORKING TO
EXTRAPOLATE THIS YEAR'S CHANGES
TO 2021 AND '22.
URGE YOU AS YOU ARE DOING
THESE BACK OF THE ENVELOPE
CALCULATIONS AND WORKING OUT
DIVISION DON'T BE SATISFIED
WITH 42%.
WE NEED 50% AT LEAST.
POLICE VIOLENCE HAS GONE ON
LONG ENOUGH.
GET THE LAYOUT NOTICES SENT OUT
ASAP AND TO MORE THAN 100
OFFICERS.
UNTIL THOSE GO OUT, THIS IS ALL
JUST TALK.
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING.
>> MAYA, GO AHEAD.
>> I AM ATTENDANT ORGANIZER.
I AM CALLING IN SUPPORT OF
DEFUNDING SPD BY AT LEAST 50%,
INVESTING IN BLACK COMMUNITIES
AND DISMANTLING OTHER POLICE
FORCES SPECIFICALLY THE
NAVIGATION TEAM.
THE NAVIGATION TEAM HAS A LONG
HISTORY OF HARASSING AND
CRIMINALIZING THOSE
EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS
INSTEAD OF FOCUSING ON ROOT
CAUSES.
THE NAVIGATION TEAM PRIORITIZES
CONCERNS OF PROPERTY OWNERS
INSTEAD OF FOCUSING ON WHAT
COMMUNITY SAFETY AND CARE
SHOULD BE.
IT DESTROYS PEOPLE'S BELONGINGS
AND CONTRIBUTES FURTHER TO
DEPLACEMENT.
DEFUND SPD.
DEFUND NAVIGATION TEAM.
INVEST IN COMMUNITY.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
CATHERINE GOOD MORNING.
>> HI.
I AM A DISTRICT 3 RENTER
CALLING TO VOICE MY SUPPORT OF
DEFUNDING BY AT LEAST 50%.
TO BE CLEAR THE AMENDMENTS PUT
FORWARD DO NOT MEET THE
DEMANDS.
WE ASKED FOR 50%, NOT 1.5%.
WE ASKED FOR MONEY IN BLACK AND
BROWN COMMUNITIES, NOT
COLORBLIND COMPROMISES.
DEFUND THE POLICE BY AT LEAST
50% THIS YEAR AND EVERY YEAR.
YOU HAVE HEARD HUNDREDS OF
CALLS AND SEEN TENS OF
THOUSANDS OF YOUR CONSTITUENTS
MARCH.
YOU PROMISED 50% AND WE HAVE
YOUR BACK.
DEFUND THE POLICE.
SUPPORT THE AMENDMENTS AND
DISMANTLE THE NAVIGATION TEAM.
I YIELD MY TIME.
>> SARAH, GOOD MORNING.
>> I AM ASKING YOU TO PUT ASIDE
INDIVIDUAL POLITICAL AGENDAS TO
ATTEND TO THE NEEDS OF THOSE
YOU WERE ELECTED TO SERVE.
TRANSFER SPD SERVICES IS
IRRESPONSIBLE AND DANGEROUS.
IT ISN' WORKING IN MINNEAPOLIS
OR NEW YORK AND WON'T WORK
HERE.
WE CAN AND SHOULD DO BETTER.
LET'S DO THIS RIGHT BY
SOLICITING DEBATING RESPECTFUL
IN THE PROCESS AND PHASING IN A
THOUGHTFUL DETAILED PLAN.
WE NEED POLICE IN SEATTLE.
WE NEED POLICE RESPONSE TIMES
TO BE FASTER RATHER THAN
SLOWER.
OFFICERS NEED SUPPORT, NOT TO
BE VILLE NICED.
WE NEED YOU TO STAND UP AND DO
WHAT'S RIGHT.
SLOW DOWN AND PUT A THOUGHTFUL
PLAN IN PLACE.
SERVE THE PEOPLE WHO WORK,
LIVE, PLAY IN SEATTLE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
NEXT THREE ARE JESSICA, JOHN --
JESSICA, GOOD MORNING.
>> GOOD MORNING.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY
TO SPEAK.
MY NAME IS JESSICA AND I AM
CALLING AGAIN IN FULL SUPPORT
OF DEFUNDING SPD BY AT LEAST
50% AND USING ALL THE FUNDS TO
GO DIRECTLY TO BLACK AND BROWN
COMMUNITY LED RESTORE TOUCH
JUSTICE PROGRAMS, EDUCATION
THAT BENEFITS BLACK AND BROWN
YOUTH, AND ALSO HOUSING THAT
WILL DIRECTLY SUPPORT BLACK
HOUSEHOLDS THAT HAVE BEEN
PUSHED OUT OF THE CITY.
I AM CONCERNED ABOUT ONLY
DEFUNDING BY 2.6%.
THAT'S NOT ENOUGH.
I SUPPORT THE AMENDMENTS AND I
HOPE YOU WILL ALSO.
THANK YOU FOR THE TIME.
>> HELLO.
MY NAME IS JO ANN.
I AM FROM DISTRICT 7. DEAR
COUNCIL MEMBERS, I WOULD LIKE
TO REMIND YOU THAT 7 OUT OF 9
COUNCIL MEMBERS COMMITTED
PUBLICLY TO DEFUND BY 50% WHICH
WOULD BE $85 MILLION THIS YEAR.
NOW I AM HEARING REPORTS THAT
THAT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE.
WE ELECTED YOU TO COUNCIL
BECAUSE WE HOPED YOU HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO DO SIMPLE MATH
AND MOVE AROUND FUNDS.
IF BLACK LIVES MATTER, PROVE
IT.
FIND A WAY TO STAND BY YOUR
WORD AND CHOOSE THE RIGHT SIDE
OF HISTORY.
JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE
DENIED.
HERE ARE OTHER DEMANDS.
FUNDS TO BLACK COMMUNITIES
INCLUDING EDUCATION AND PUBLIC
HEALTH.
WE WANT AMNESTY FOR ALL
PROTESTERS, RECALL JENNY
DURKIN.
I YIELD MY TIME.
>> THANK YOU.
>> GOOD MORNING.
I AM A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER IN
SEATTLE.
I AM A SUPPORT AND VOLUNTEER
WITH COALITION OF SEATTLE
INDIAN AMERICANS.
THERE HAVE BEEN OBJECTIONS TO
CUT SPD BUDGET ON THE GROUND
THAT WE WILL SEE RAMPANT CRIME.
WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN RAMPANT
CRIME ON THE PART OF THE POLICE
AND PAID THEM OVER TIME FOR IT.
EVEN WITH THE 50% CUT SPD WOULD
HAVE $85 MILLION WHICH IS STILL
NEARLY FIVE TIMES THE ANNUAL
FUNDS FOR IMMIGRANTS.
YOU ARE OFFERING 1.5%?
WHY IS THIS EVEN A DEBATE?
>> NEXT THREE ARE ELIZABETH,
ANITRA, JASON.
ELIZABETH, GOOD MORNING.
>> I AM A D4 RESIDENT AND
HOMEOWNER.
I AM COFOUNDER OF THE SOCIAL
JUSTICE AND EQUITY COUNCIL.
MY WIFE AND I DELIVERED A
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF THE
DEMANDS BY DECRIMINALIZE
SEATTLE.
IN A FEW DAYS THE EFFORTS OF
OUR SMALL HOUSE GARNERED
SIGNATURES FROM RESIDENTS WHO
WANT YOU TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF
DEFUNDING BY 50% AND
REALLOCATING FUNDS.
AL, PEDERSEN IF YOU CAN STATE
BLACK LIVES MATTER, KNOW WE
HEAR YOU AND EXPECT YOU TO BE
ACCOUNTABLE.
WE URGE YOU AND THE REST OF THE
COUNCIL.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU.
ANITRA.
>> GOOD MORNING.
I AM A FORMERLY HOMELESS MEMBER
OF WHEEL AND SHARE.
DISBAND THE NAV TEAM.
PUT THE 8.5 MILLION TO BETTER
USE.
THE WOMEN'S SHELTER HAS NEVER
IN 20 YEARS TURNED A WOMAN AWAY
WITHOUT A SOLID REFERRAL.
DURING COVID HAS CAPACITY IS
CUT BY MORE THAN HALF.
WE DREAD THE TIME WE WON'T HAVE
ANY PLACE TO SEND PEOPLE TO.
A TIME COMING SOON.
WE NEED REFERRAL OPTIONS FOR
VULNERABLE WOMEN NOW.
MORE TINY HOUSE VILLAGES NOW.
FUNDING AND SPACE FOR REAL TO
CONTINUE TO OPERATE AT SHELTER
AND WALK UP SERVICES AND
FUNDING FOR SHARE SHELTERS TO
CONTINUE TO OPERATE 24 HOURS.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
JASON, GOOD MORNING.
>> HELLO.
MY NAME IS JASON FIELDS.
I AM A HOMEOWNER IN DISTRICT 5.
WE MUST DEFUND SPD BY 50%.
A FEW WEEKS AGO I WAS A AN
EVENING WALK.
I SAW A MAN BEING CHASED.
NO MORE THAN EIGHT POLICE
CRUISERS WERE LINED UP WHERE HE
WAS CAUGHT.
THE MAN WAS PINNED DOWN ON HIS
CHEST.
HE WAS POWERLESS AND CERTAINLY
AFRAID.
I WALKED AWAY CONCERNED ABOUT
THE SAFETY OF THE MAN THIS.
WAS A CRUDE REMINDER THAT WE
ARE CIVIL WE'LL BE RIGHT BACKS
IN A POLICE STATE.
THIS OCCURRED WHY?
BECAUSE THE POLICE FORCE CANNOT
AND WILL NOT CHANGE.
THEY ARE DESIGNED TO INVOKE
VIOLENCE.
WE CANNOT WAIT.
DEFUND SPD BY 50% AND INVEST IN
BLACK AND BROWN COMMUNITIES.
>> THANK YOU.
KAREN, CHRISTINA -- CHRISTIAN,
AND MADELINE.
GOOD MORNING, KAREN.
>> GOOD MORNING.
MY NAME IS KAREN GUILLEN.
I AM A DOWNTOWN RESIDENT.
WE HAVE A HISTORIC OPPORTUNITY
TO DETERMINE THE WAY PUBLIC
SAFETY IS ACCOMPLISHED.
THE COUNTRY WILL BE WATCHING TO
SEE IF WE ARE SUCCESSFUL AND
WILL EITHER USE US AS A MODEL
TO EMILATOR AS CAUTION NEAR
TALE OF WHO YOU TO FAIL.
IMMEDIATELY REDUCING THE SIZE
WITHOUT FULLY UNDERSTANDING
WHAT YOU ARE SACRIFICING AND
WITHOUT AN ALTERNATIVE TO
PUBLIC SAFETY WILL RESULT IN
DISASTER.
I URGE YOU TO SLOW DOWN AND
WORK WITH THE MAYOR, CHIEF
BEST, BLACK COMMUNITY LEADERS,
OTHER STAKEHOLDERS TO DEVELOP A
STRATEGY, DEVELOP A PLAN AND
WORK ON IMPLEMENTING IT.
CUTTING THE POLICE FORCE IS NOT
THE FIRST STEP.
IF YOU GENUINELY WANT THIS TO
BE A MODEL OF SUCCESS FOR
PEOPLE OF SEATTLE RATHER THAN
AN EXAMPLE TO BE AVOIDED BY
OTHERS.
>> THANK YOU.
CHRISTIAN.
WELCOME.
>> I AM IN DISTRICT 3. I AM
CALLING TO SUPPORT DEFUNDING
SPD BY AT LEAST 50% AND
REINVEST IN COMMUNITY BASED
SOLUTIONS.
IF SEATTLE IS TRULY SAYING
BLACK LIVES MARRY, IT'S TIME TO
PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH
IS.
SPD IS PART OF SYSTEMIC RACISM
AND OPPRESSION.
IF THE COUNCIL DOES NOT DEFUND
AND REINVEST THEY'RE COMPLACENT
TO THE RACISM AND ABUSE OF
POWER.
THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT BLACK
LIVES AND WILL UPHOLD WHITE
SUPREMACY.
DRAFT THE CHANGES NEEDED.
DEFUND BY 50% AND REINVEST.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
MADELINE.
>> HI.
I AM A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT 7.
I CANNOT EVEN BEGIN TO EXPRESS
HOW DISAPPOINTED I AM IN THE
MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL.
DESPITE PLEDGING TO DEFUND BY
50% ONLY ONE COUNCIL MEMBER HAS
PROPOSED ANYTHING SUBSTANTIAL.
FOR THE REST OF THE COUNCIL HOW
CAN YOU CLAIM TO BE FOR THE
MOVEMENT.
YET WHEN THE TIME COMES YOU
OFFER A NONBINDING SOLUTION AND
AMENDMENTS ADDING UP TO A 2%
SHORT.
MANY OF YOU CONTINUE TO SPEAK
AS IF THE AMENDMENTS MEAN
SOMETHING.
WE CAN DO MATH.
FURTHERMORE TO PREVENT LOSING
FUNDING WHETHER IT IS 2 MILLION
OR 85 MILLION.
TWO MONTHS AGO THIS COUNCIL
PASSED A BAN ON TEAR GAS
KNOWING IT COULD BE HELD IN
COURT.
YOU TOOK A STANCE AND PASSED IT
ANYWAY.
>> ASH LANE, KATE, GEE.
>> HI.
I SPENT 18 HOURS IN JAIL SLEEP
DEPRIVED AND WRONGFULLY AT 3:00
IN THE MORNING.
I WAS HIT WITH A BATON, SHOVED,
DRAGGED ACROSS THE GROUND BY
SPD.
THIS ABUSE IS NOT NEW TO PEOPLE
OF COLOR.
YOUR AMENDMENTS ARE
EMBARRASSING.
IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT WE'LL KNOW
HOW MUCH YOU VALUE.
CAN YOU DO ANYTHING MORE TO
PROTECT YOUR CONSTITUENTS WEILL
WE CONTINUE TO DEMONSTRATE
UNTIL DEMANDS HAVE BEEN MET?
I AND MANY OTHERS ARE DEALING
WITH SEVERE MENTAL HEALTH
IMPACTS.
COUNCIL KEEPS ENCOURAGING US TO
DEMONSTRATE BUT DOES NOT
PROTECT US.
>> KATE SIMPSON.
GOOD MORNING.
>> I LIVE IN CAPITOL HILL.
I AM IN FAVOR OF DEFUNDING SPD
BY 50% AND REALLOCATING MONEY
TO FUND COMMUNITY BASED PUBLIC
SAFETY AND RESTORE JUSTICE.
DRAFT BUDGET RESOLUTION PUT
FORTH FRIDAY DOES NOT GO FAR
ENOUGH.
SPD'S VIOLENT TREATMENT TOWARDS
PROTESTERS, SPECIFICALLY
PROTESTING POLICE VIOLENCE
DEMONSTRATES THIS NECESSITY.
NOTHING LESS THAN DEFUNDING BY
50% WILL BEGIN TO HEAL VIOLENCE
COMMITTED BY POLICE AGAINST THE
BLACK, BROWN, INDIGENOUS
COMMUNITIES.
POLICE UPHOLD YOUR PLEDGE TO
DEFUND BY 50%.
THANK YOU.
>> THANKS.
GOOD MORNING.
>> I AM A RENTER IN DISTRICT 7.
I AM CALLING TO SUPPORT
DEFUNDING OF THE SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT ANNUALLY BY AT LEAST
50%.
COUNCIL MEMBER SEWANT, KING
COUNTY NOW.
WE HAVE A DESPERATE NEED FOR
HOUSING, INVESTMENT IN
EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES.
WE HAVE FUNDS AND THE DESIRE TO
ACCOMPLISH DEEP STRUCTURAL
CHANGE FOR THE BENEFIT OF
PEOPLE OF COLOR.
I WANT TO SAY WHEN TALKING
ABOUT $85 MILLION TO PUT THIS
INTO PERSPECTIVE, THE 2016
BUDGET WAS NEARLY 300 MILLION.
IN 2019 IT WAS 398 MILLION.
THIS IS NOT EVEN THE BEGINNING
OF STRUCTURAL CHANGE.
>> THE NEXT THREE ARE ASHLEY,
ERIN, KIMBERLY.
THEN WE ARE DONE FOR THE DAY
FOLKS.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ALL OF
YOUR PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND FOR
FOLKS WHO DIDN'T GET A CHANCE
TO CALL IN, WE LOOK FORWARD TO
HEARING FROM YOU VIA E-MAIL OR
ON WEDNESDAY.
THANK YOU.
ASHLEY, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> I AM CALLING TO DEMAND CITY
COUNCIL NOT DEFUND SPD BY 50%.
IN THE JANUARY A POLL SHOWED
97% SUPPORTED ADDING 150 POLICE
OFFICERS BRINGING SEATTLE TO
THE NATIONAL AVERAGE OF 21
OFFICERS FOR EVERY 10,000
ADULTS.
SINCE THEN BURGLARIES ARE UP.
KNOWING THIS INFORMATION HOW IS
IT RESPONSIBLE TO DOWNSIZE OUR
POLICE FORCE?
A KNOWLEDGEABLE RESOURCE TO
RELY ON WHILE REVISUALIZING THE
ROLE IN PUBLIC SAFETY.
DEFEND NOT DEFUND SPD.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
ERIN.
GOOD MORNING.
>> HELLO.
I WANT TO URGE COUNCIL TO
CONSIDER WHAT THE CITY WILL
LOSE WITH THE DECISION TO
DEFUND THE POLICE BY 50%.
WE WILL LOSE SOME OF THE MOST
HIGHLY TRAINED OFFICERS IN THE
NATION.
OFFICERS AT THE FOREFRONT OF
POLICE REFORM AND
ACCOUNTABILITY.
I URGE YOU TO SLOW DOWN AND
CONSIDER THE CONSEQUENCES OF
LOSING THESE DEDICATED PUBLIC
SERVANTS WHO PROTECT OUR CITY.
I URGE YOU TO WORK WITH CHIEF
BEST AND DEPARTMENT LEADERS TO
CREATE CHANGE RATHER THAN
HASTILY CUTTING ONE OF THE
CITY'S MOST IMPORTANT
RESOURCES.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
LAST IS KIMBERLY.
GOOD MORNING.
>> HI.
I LIVE IN SOUTH SEATTLE.
THE LAST COMMENT WAS COMPLETELY
WRONG ON EVERY ACCOUNT BUT I
WON'T EVEN ADDRESS THAT.
FOR ANYONE WHO HASN'T BEEN
LISTENING, THE PROPOSALS MADE
ARE INSULTING TO BLACK PEOPLE
AND ALLIES WHO ARE TIRELESSLY
CALLING FOR SPECIFIC DEMANDS.
ONE IS DEFUND BY AT LEAST 50%
AND INVEST THE MONEY IN BLACK
AND BROWN COMMUNITIES.
INSTEAD OF COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE
NOWHERE NEAR 50% FOR THE CUT
AND THEY'RE ATTEMPTING WITH
RAINY DAY FUNDS AND COVID
RELIEF.
DO YOU THINK WE WOULD NOT HE
NOTICE?
DID YOU THINK WE ARE STUPID?
MAKE BOLD REAL UNCOMFORTABLE
CUTS.
BREAK THE SYSTEM.
IF BLACK LIVES MATTER USE YOUR
PRIVILEGE TO STOP HARMING BLACK
LIVES AND STAND UP FOR REAL
CHANGE.
THANK YOU.
>> THAT CONCLUDES TODAY'S
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
LET'S GET STARTED WITH THE
FIRST BUSINESS ITEM.
CLERK, WOULD YOU READ ITEM
NUMBER ONE.
>> REVIEW PROPOSED SEATTLE
POLICE DEPARTMENT, RELATED
AMENDMENTS TO FOR BRIEFING AND
DISCUSSION ONLY.
>> AS A REMINDER WE ARE
STARTING WITH AMENDMENT NUMBER
40.
COUNCIL MEMBER MORALES, WE WILL
DO THE SAME PROCESS WE USED
LAST WEEK.
I WILL ASK YOU TO MOVE FOR THE
PURPOSES -- I WILL ASK YOU TO
DESCRIBE IT FOR THE PURPOSES OF
DISCUSSION SO THAT WE CAN THEN
HAVE A DISCUSSION, ANY SIGN ONS
AND WE'LL GO TO THE NEXT.
WE HAVE TWO FULL HOURS FOR THIS
CONVERSATION.
I APPRECIATE YOUR ENGAGEMENT ON
THIS EFFORT AS WE UNDER TAKE
HISTORIC CHANGE?
COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF.
HELLO JEFF.
THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO WALK US
THROUGH AMENDMENT 40.
EXCUSE ME.
I AM SO SORRY.
I DO HAVE A NOTE THAT I WOULD
LIKE TO SHARE WITH CENTRAL
STAFF ON BEHALF OF COUNCIL
MEMBER JUAREZ.
WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE
ANYBODY WHO DIDN'T GET A CHANCE
TO ADD THEIR NAME TO THE RECORD
FOR SIGNING UP AS COSPONSOR TO
ANY AMENDMENT STILL HAS A
OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO.
CENTRAL STAFF COULD YOU MAKE
NOTE OF THE FOLLOWING FOR
COUNCIL MEMBER JUAREZ'S
COSPONSORSHIP.
AMENDMENT 18, AMENDMENT 19,
AMENDMENT 20, AMENDMENT 22,
AMENDMENT 23, AMENDMENT 24,
AMENDMENT 25, AMENDMENT 27.
AGAIN, THOSE ARE FOR COUNCIL
MEMBER JUAREZ.
18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27.
THANK YOU FOR INDICATING
COSPONSORSHIP FOR THE
AMENDMENTS.
BEFORE WE HAVE JEFF START
AGAIN, ARE THERE ADDITIONAL
COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO WOULD LIKE
TO ADD THEIR NAME TO AMENDMENTS
WE DESCRIBED FRIDAY.
COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSEN, PLEASE
GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I WANTED TO ADD MY NAME TO
AMENDMENT 31.
>> EXCELLENT.
THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER
PEDERSEN.
ANY ADDITIONAL?
I HAVE NOTED THAT COUNCIL
MEMBER PEDERSEN.
WE WILL ADD YOU AS COSPONSOR TO
AMENDMENT 31.
IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS, I AM
HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP AFTERWARDS.
I APPRECIATE YOUR FLEXIBILITY,
JEFF.
LET'S KICK IT OFF AGAIN FOR THE
VIEWING PUBLIC.
WE ARE ON AMENDMENT NUMBER 40.
>> THANK YOU.
FOR THE RECORD, JEFF SIMS,
COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF.
WE HAVE AMENDMENT 40 BUT I WILL
GIVE AN INTRODUCTION THAT NOTES
AMENDMENTS 40 WHICH IS
SPONSORED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
MORALES AND ALSO 41 AND 42
SPONSORED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
SEWANT.
AMENDMENT 40 SPONSOR I BY
COUNCIL MEMBER MORALES WILL
DISCONTINUE FUNDING FOR THE
NAVIGATION TEAM, NOT JUST
POLICE DEPARTMENT FUNDING.
THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE FUNDING
FOR THE PARKS AND RECREATION.
THE NEXT TWO BOTH SPONSORED BY
SEWANT WOULD DEFUND NAVIGATION
TEAM BY SAME AMOUNTS AND ALSO
THE AMOUNTS.
IN ADDITION TO BEING DIFFERENT,
SUBSTANTIALLY THROUGH INCLUSION
OR EXCLUSION OF PARKS FUNDING
THE THREE ALSO DIFFER IN THE
PROPOSED USE.
AMENDMENT AT HAND HERE BY
COUNCIL MEMBER MORALES PROPOSES
TO USE FUNDS SAVED BY THAT
REDUCTION TO BE LIMITED ONLY
FOR USE OF OUTREACH AND
ENGAGEMENT SERVICES FOR PEOPLE
EXPERIENCING UNSHELTERED
HOMELESS.
AMENDMENT 41 DOES NOT PROVIDE
ANY TARGETED USE FOR FUNDS,
JUST DISCONTINUES USE OF
AVAILABILITY FOR FUNDS.
42 PROVIDES FUNDS FOR THE
EXPANSION AND CREATION OF TINY
HOME VILLAGES.
NOTE THAT ALL THREE WOULD BE
EXCLUSIVE AS THEY'RE USING
INCREDIBLE' SIMILAR FUNDING
AMOUNTS AND IN ADDITION THEY
WOULD CONFLICT WITH AMENDMENT
31 WHICH WAS DISCUSSED LAST
FRIDAY BECAUSE THAT
DISCONTINUES FUNDING FOR
SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF
$216,000 REPRESENTING THE SAME
THINGS THAT CAN BE ACHIEVED BY
REMOVING POLICE FROM THE
NAVIGATION TEAM.
WITH THAT I WILL TURN IT TO
COUNCIL MEMBER MORALES TO SPEAK
TO AMENDMENT 40.
>> THANK YOU, JEFF.
COUNCIL MEMBER MORALES.
>> THANK YOU.
THANKS SO MUCH, JEFF.
COLLEAGUES THIS AMENDMENT WILL
BE UPDATED TO HAVE THE POLICE
FUNDING PORTION STRICKEN.
SINCE WE HAVE AMENDMENT 31 ON
DECK WE SUBMITTED THIS BEFORE.
ALL THE LAST PIECES WERE IN
PLACE.
WE KNOW REMOVING POLICE IS NOT
ENOUGH.
MEMBER HERBOLD WHO SPENT YEARS
WORKING TO PROTECT HUMANITY OF
HOMELESS NEIGHBORS BY
REGULATING HOW THE NAV TEAM
FUNCTIONS.
IT'S CLEAR FROM WHAT OUR
HOMELESS COMMUNITY HAS BEEN
SAYING THAT THEY ARE OUT OF
PATIENCE AND JUST WANT TO FULLY
END THE NAVIGATION TEAM.
MY STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING HARD
WITH PROVIDERS, FRONT LINE
WORKERS, WITH THE FOLKS DOING
THIS WORK TO ENSURE THIS
AMENDMENT REFLECTS WHAT THEY
ARE ASKING FOR.
HAVE SAID SEVERAL TIMES WE
NEED TO INVEST IN MODELS THAT
PRIORITIZE HEALTH AND WELL
BEING OF NEIGHBORS WHO ARE
LIVING UNSHELTERED.
THE NAV TEAM DOESN'T DO THAT.
IT WAS NEVER DESIGNED TO DO
THAT.
AS YOU KNOW WE HAVE SEEN THE
NUMBER OF 72 HOUR AND
OBSTRUCTION SWEEPS RISE.
I PERSONALLY TALKED TO PEOPLE
WHO HAVE BEEN SWEPT WITH NO
OFFER OF SHELTER AND THEY ARE
NOT PROVIDING THE OUTREACH AND
REFERRAL.
I BELIEVE IT TIME TO CUT THE
CORD.
THIS WOULD END THE CYCLICAL
PRACTICE OF FORCIBLY SWEEPING
PEOPLE AROUND THE CITY AND
INSTEAD WOULD FUND EXISTING
PROACTIVE SERVICES LIKE REACH,
CHIEF SEATTLE CLUB, DESC, AND
OTHERS WHO PRIORITIZE SOCIAL
WORK, CRISIS INTERVENTION,
DEESCALATION, MENTAL HEALTH,
OVERALL HEALTH AND WELL BEING,
SHELTER REFERRAL FOR
UNSHELTERED COMMUNITY.
WE HAVE AS JEFF SAID, A FEW
OPTIONS HERE.
MY GOAL AND THE GOAL OF THE
COMMUNITY IS TO REPLACE THE
NAVIGATION TEAM WITH SOMETHING
THAT WORKS BETTER AND WORKS
BETTER FOR EVERYONE.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE A NOTE THAT
IN CONTRAST TO THE AMENDMENT
THAT COUNCIL MEMBER SEWANT IS
OFFERING OURS DOES ALLOW ABOUT
A MONTH TO MAKE CHANGES
REQUIRED BY ARMAMENT.
I BELIEVE HERS GIVES THEM ABOUT
TWO WEEKS.
OURS PRESERVES EXISTING FUNDING
FOR PARKS DEPARTMENT.
AS I SAID AS WE WERE TALKING TO
FRONT LINE WORKERS WHAT WE
HEARD IS THAT THE FOLKS DOING
OUTREACH THINK THAT THE LITTER
PICK UP IS REALLY IMPORTANT BUT
THEY WOULD LIKE SOMEBODY ELSE
TO BE DOING IT SO THEY CAN
FOCUS ON OUTREACH AND CASE
MANAGEMENT.
THE TOTAL REAPPROPRIATION FROM
THE BILL BECAUSE WE HAVE TAKEN
THE $216,000 OUT IS ABOUT 1.6
MILLION.
COUNCIL MEMBER SEWANT IS 2.3.
I THINK IT IS WORTH SUPPORTING
BOTH BUT I THINK OURS RESPONDS
ESPECIALLY TO WHAT FRONT LINE
WORKER ARE HIS ASKING FOR.
WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT OVER
TO CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCIL
MEMBER MORALES.
COUNCIL MEMBER SEWANT.
>> SO AS WAS STATED THIS IS AN
AMENDMENT TO STOP SWEEP SIMILAR
TO THE AMENDMENT THAT MY OFFICE
HAS PROPOSED WHICH AS JEFF SAID
WILL BE DISCUSSED NEXT.
THANK YOU JEFF FOR THE SUMMARY.
I HAVE INFORMED COUNCIL MEMBER
MORALES' OFFICE, ALREADY MY
STAFF HAS INFORMED THAT MY
OFFICE IS HAPPY TO WORK
TOGETHER WITH THE OFFICE TO
CONSOLIDATE THE BUDGET
AMENDMENTS AND AS WE HAVE SAID
FOR YEARS AS PEOPLE'S BUDGET
MOVEMENT, NICHOLS VILLE, LEHI,
HUNDREDS IF NOT THOUSANDS OF
COMMUNITY ACTIVISTS SAID WE
NEED TO STOP THE SWEEPS.
THEY'RE INHUMANE AND
INEFFECTIVE.
THEY SIMPLY MOVE PEOPLE FROM
ONE CORNER TO THE NEXT
ENDANGERING MEAGER BELONGINGS
OUR HOMELESS NEIGHBORS ARE ABLE
TO HANG ONTO.
THEY DO NOTHING TO INCREASE
AVAILABLE SHELTER SPACE OR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THEY JUST MAKE HOMELESS PEOPLE
MORE DESPERATE AND LESS LIKELY
TO TRUST SOCIAL WORKERS.
THE MAYOR HAS CONDUCTED OVER
1,000 SWEEPS AND THEY HAVE NOT
HELPED.
I HAVE NEVER ONCE MET ANYONE
WHO HAS SAID I WAS SWEPT AND IT
HELPED ME FIND HOUSING OR I WAS
SWEPT AND IT IMPROVED MY LIFE
IN THIS OR THAT WAY.
WE HAVE SPOKEN TO HUNDREDS OF
PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN SWEPT,
SOME OVER TEN TIMES.
NOT ONE PERSON HAS SAID IT
WORKED FOR THEM.
ESPECIALLY DURING THE PANDEMIC
SWEEPS ARE EVEN MORE BARBARIC
AND IN FACT PUT NOT JUST
HOMELESS NEIGHBORS BUT THE
ENTIRE COMMUNITY AT HEIGHTENED
RISK FOR PUBLIC HEALTH.
CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL
ADVISES THAT CITIES ALLOW
PEOPLE LIVING UNSHELTERED OR IN
ENCAMPMENT TO REMAIN WHERE THEY
RE.
CLEARING EL NINO CAMPMENTS CAN
CAUSE PEOPLE TO DISPERSE
THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY.
THIS INCREASES POTENTIAL FOR
INFECTIOUS DISEASE SPREAD.
GIVEN THE GUIDANCE FROM CDC IT
IS APPALLING THAT THE MAYOR'S
ADMINITRATION WOULD IGNORE
SCIENCE AND INSIST ON
CONTINUING INHUMANE DANGEROUS
SWEEPS.
I HAVE POINTS FOR THE
AMENDMENTS COMING UP BY I WILL
OSERVE THEM.
>> THANK YOU.
ANY ADDITIONAL RESPONSE OR
QUESTIONS?
THANK YOU.
COUNCIL MEMBER MORALES, I
BELIEVE THAT YOU RECEIVED OR
THAT WE RECEIVED IN SUPPORT OF
THE AMENDMENT.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO
ADD FROM STAKEHOLDER
ENGAGEMENT?
>> NO.
JUST THAT WE HAVE BEEN REALLY
BUSY TALKING TO STAKEHOLDERS
INCLUDING UP TO YESTERDAY
MORNING.
I BELIEVE THAT FOLKS ARE
INTERESTED IN MAKING SURE THAT
WE PUT MONEY INTO FRONT LINE
WORKERS AND MOVE THIS OUT OF
THE CURRENT STRUCTURE.
>> ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK IS
COMPELLING IS TRYING TO FIGURE
OUT A WAY FOR US TO LIFT UP
WORKERS WHO ARE CURRENTLY
EMBEDDED INTO EXISTING SYSTEM
LIKE CASE MANAGERS, MENTAL
HEALTH COUNSELORS, THOSE
PROVIDING HOUSING COUNSELING.
WE SHOULD BE IN A POSITION
WHERE WE ARE SUPPORTING
INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THE CITY TO
NOT HAVE TO BE IN SITUATIONS
WHERE THEY NEED POLICE PRESENCE
AND I THINK REMOVING THEM FROM
SITUATIONS WHERE THEY'RE ASKED
TO REMOVE LAST BELONGINGS HELPS
MAKE SURE WE ARE ENGAGING WITH
FOLKS, GET PEOPLE INTO A MORE
STABLE HOUSING IN A MORE
TRUSTED MANNER.
ARE THERE FOLKS THAT WOULD LIKE
TO ADD THEIR NAMES RECOGNIZING
THAT EVEN IF YOU DON'T ADD YOUR
NAME, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU
DON'T SUPPORT IT.
I SEE COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD
AND SEWANT.
I WILL ADD MY NAME COUNCIL
MEMBER MORALES AND WILL BE
INTERESTED THAT WHEN HEARING
MORE ABOUT HOW THIS CAN
CONTINUE TO PROTECT THOSE IN
OTHER DEPARTMENTS AS A KEY
PRIORITY OF MINE AS WE THINK
ABOUT THOSE SEATTLE CITY
EMPLOYEES AS WELL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AMENDMENT 41.
SORRY.
I WILL SUMMARIZE.
COSPONSORS INCLUDE SEWANT,
COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD, COUNCIL
MEMBER MOSQUEDA.
>> I HAVE ALREADY SPOKEN TO
THIS BUT I HAVE A CALCULATION
METHOD.
AT THE TIME OF PUBLISHING WE
DID NOT RECEIVE INFORMATION
FROM ALL THE NECESSARY
DEPARTMENTS ON EXACT AMOUNTS.
THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS ARE REALLY
MORE A REFLECTION AND
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INCLUDING A
CUT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS
AND RECREATION WHICH IS WHAT
THE COUNCIL MEMBER'S AMENDMENTS
WILL DO WHEREAS OR NOT
INCLUDING A REDUCTION TO
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND
RECREATION AS PROPOSED BY
COUNCIL MEMBER MORALES.
WITH THAT, COUNCIL MEMBER
SEWANT.
>> PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> AS I SAID IN THE LAST
AMENDMENT, THIS IS THE STOP THE
SWEEPS AMENDMENT FROM MY
OFFICE.
THE TOTAL DOLLAR FIGURE IS
LARGER THAN THE PREVIOUS
AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT ASSUMES
THAT THE NAVIGATION TEAM THAT
CARRIES THE SWEEPS WILL BE
ELIMINATED AS A WHOLE.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN THE PEOPLE
WILL BE UNEMPLOYED, THE
WORKERS.
IT MEANS THAT THE FUNCTION THAT
THE NAVIGATION TEAM PROVIDES
WILL BE ENDED.
THIS IS WHAT THE KING COUNTY
COALITION ON HOMELESSNESS IS
DEMANDING AND THIS IS WHAT A
VAST MAJORITY OF COMMUNITY
MEMBERS ARE DEMANDING AND HAVE
BEEN FOR YEARS.
WHAT IS HAPPENING CURRENTLY HAS
NOT WORKED.
THE MANAGERS IN HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT WHOSE JOB IT IS TO
DECIDE WHICH ENCAMPMENT SHOULD
BE SWEPT AND WHEN WOULD NO
LONGER BE NEEDED FOR THE JOB IF
THE FUNCTION IS ENDED.
SO SHOULD BE MOVED INTO OTHER
OPEN ROLES IN THE DEPARTMENT AS
THE CITY COUNCIL ELIMINATES, IF
CITY COUNCIL ELIMINATES ALL THE
SWEEPS WHICH I THINK WE SHOULD.
IT'S HIGH TIME.
THIS BUDGET AMENDMENT IS TO
STOP SWEEPS AND DOES NOT
SPECIFY WHERE FUNDING SHOULD
GO.
PREVIOUS AMENDMENT STATED THAT
THE FUNDS TO BE USED FOR
HOMELESS OUTREACH THROUGH THE
REACH PROGRAM IS A GOOD USE OF
THE FUNDS AND I OF COURSE
SUPPORT THAT.
>> THANK YOU.
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS?
SEEING NONE, ADDITIONAL FOLKS
WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADD THEIR
NAME?
THANK YOU.
COUNCIL MEMBER SEWANT.
I BELIEVE YOU HAVE THE NEXT
AMENDMENT AS WELL.
ANYTHING TO ADD TO THE NEXT
AMENDMENT?
>> NOT AT THIS TIME.
THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>> .
>> PLEASE GO AHEAD FOR
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON
AMENDMENT 42.
>> I WILL BE WITHDRAWING THIS
BECAUSE THIS WAS AN ALTERNATE
VERSION OF THE STOP THE SWEEPS
AMENDMENT THAT WE DISCUSSED
THAT DIRECTS FUNDS TO SUPPORT
TINY HOUSE VILLAGES.
MY OFFICE PREPARED THIS BEFORE
THE COUNCIL PASSED OTHER
FUNDING THROUGH AMAZON TAX FOR
TINY HOUSE VILLAGES SO I AM
WITHDRAWING THIS VERSION OF THE
AMENDMENT NOW.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER
SEWANT.
SEEING NO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS,
LET'S MOVE TO AMENDMENT 43.
JEFF, I SEE YOU ARE OFF CAMERA.
I WANT TO CHECK WITH CENTRAL
STAFF.
AMENDMENT 43 BY COUNCIL MEMBER
SEWANT.
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?
>> SORRY.
I WAS GETTING MYSELF UNMUTED.
>> FOR THE VIEWING PUBLIC,
AMENDMENT43 IS WHERE WE ARE.
>> THIS COMPARES SIMILARLY TO
AN AMENDMENT PROVIDED EARLIER
THAT WOULD REDUCE, PROVIDE $3
MILLION FOR COMMUNITY WIDE
RESEARCH.
THIS WAS DISCUSSED LAST FRIDAY.
HOWEVER IN THIS CASE A FUNDING
SOURCE WAS IDENTIFIED AS $3
MILLION FROM PATROL OPERATIONS
BUDGET OF THE SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT WHEREAS LAST WEEK
THE APPROACH WAS MUCH MORE
TECHNICAL IN NATURE LOOKING AT
CONSIDERATIONS RELATED TO
LAYOFFS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
WITH THAT I WILL TURN TO
COUNCIL MEMBER SEWANT.
>> PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> AS I MENTIONED FRIDAY,
DURING A PREVIOUS AMENDMENT,
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD REDUCE
FUNDS FOR THE SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT'S PATROL OPERATIONS
BY $3 MILLION AND ADD $3
MILLION TO HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT TO CONTRACT WITH
COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS
TO DESIGN COMMUNITY SAFETY
ALTERNATIVES TO REPRESS
POLICING.
TO REMIND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
THE VERSION OF THE AMENDMENT
THAT WAS PROPOSED BY OTHER
COUNCIL MEMBERS FRIDAY DID NOT
FUND THIS COMMUNITY WORK BY
DEFUNDING POLICE BUT RATHER
WOULD DRAW MONEY FROM COVID
RELIEF BILL THE COUNCIL JUST
PASSED AND THAT WAS
INCIDENTALLY VETOED BY THE
MAYOR OVER THE WEEKEND AND ALSO
THE CITY'S ALMOST DEPLETED
RAINY DAY FUND.
THE COMMUNITY, MOVEMENT, OUR
PEOPLE'S BUDGET CAMPAIGN HAVE
BEEN CLEAR FROM THE GET GO.
THE MONEY TO FUND THE COMMUNITY
WORK MUST COME FROM THE SPD
BUDGET BECAUSE PRIMARILY POLICE
NEED TO BE DEFUNDED.
THIS IS IN THE A BUDGET CUT
AIMED AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
IT'S DEFUNDING POLICE BECAUSE
IT IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO
BRING ABOUT SOCIAL AND RACIAL
JUSTICE.
THIS AMENDMENT FROM MY OFFICE
SPECIFIES THAT THE FUNDING
SHOULD COME FROM DEFUNDING THE
POLICE.
THE AMENDMENT FROM THE OTHER
COUNCIL MEMBERS DOES NOT.
OVER THE WEEKEND I HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO SEVERAL
ACTIVISTS AND ORGANIZERS IN THE
JUSTICE FOR GEORGE FLOYD
MOVEMENT AND FOUND MANY WERE
REALLY DISAPPOINTED AND EVEN
SHOCKED THAT SO MANY COUNCIL
MEMBERS, DEMOCRATS WHO WEEKS
AGO ENTHUSIASTICALLY PLEDGED TO
DEFUND POLICE BY 50% HAVE NOT
PROPOSED ANYTHING IN THAT
BALLPARK.
MY OFFICE TOTALED THE CUTS
PROPOSED BY THE ESTABLISHMENT
AND THEY COME TO JUST UNDER
$2.6 MILLION IN THE REMAINING
2020SPD BUDGET OF THE $170
MILLION.
THIS IS EXCLUDING $16.3 MILLION
THE MAYOR HAS PROMISED AND
CONCEDED TO.
ONE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A
MATHEMETICIAN TO RECOGNIZE 2.6
MILLION IS NOT CLOSE TO 50% OF
THE 170 MILLION.
IT IS NECESSARY -- ALSO TO MAKE
THE MATHEMATICS CLEAR AND TO
COMPARE APPLES TO APPLES, IF
YOU INCLUDE THE 16.3 MILLION
THAT THE MAYOR HAS ANNOUNCED
AND CONCEDED TOR BOTH MY
PROPOSAL AND PROPOSAL FOR THE
DEMOCRATS AND IF YOU COMPARE
THE TWO SIDELY SIDE THE
PROPOSAL FROM MY OFFICE AND THE
BUDGET THE CAMPAIGN ADDS UP.
THE PROPOSAL FROM DEMOCRATS
ADDS TO 1% 1.1%.
BUT IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE
THAT WHAT CITY COUNCIL
DEMOCRATS PROPOSED ADDS UP TO
$2.6 MILLION.
IT IS NECESSARY TO ANSWER SOME
OF THE REASONS OR EXCUSES IN MY
VIEW COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE GIVEN
FOR WHY THEY CLAIM DEFUNDING BY
50% IS NOT POSSIBLE.
COUNCIL MEMBERS SAID THERE
ISN'T ENOUGH MONEY IN THE
POLICE BUDGET N REALITY THERE
IS AROUND $170 MILLION LEFT IN
THE BUDGET.
PEOPLE ALSO HAVE SEEN A NUMBER
OF 188 MILLION BUT THAT WAS
FROM A HALF MONTH AGO AND
POLICE BUDGET IS FOR A
STAGGERING $34 MILLION A MONTH
WHICH IS JUST ASTOUNDING.
IT'S FAR MORE THAN ANY OF THE
SOCIAL JUSTICE ORIENTED CITY
DEPARTMENTS GET AND EVEN FAR
MORE THAN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE SAID THAT
THE CITY CHARTER WOULD NEED TO
BE CHANGED.
ALL THE CITY CHARTER SAYS IS
THERE SHOULD BE MAINTAINED
ADEQUATE POLICE PROTECTION IN
EACH DISTRICT OF THE CITY.
LET'S BE CLEAR.
THERE IS NO AMENDMENT REQUIRED
TO DEFUND POLICE.
THISJUST A POLITICAL EXCUSE.
COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE SAID THIS
WILL TAKE TIME AND CHANGES MUST
BE NEGOTIATED WITH SEATTLE
POLICE OFFICERS' GOLD.
MY OFFICE HAS DISCUSSED WITH
CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE AND OTHER
LEGAL EXPERTS AND THIS IS
SIMPLY A WILD EXAGGERATION BY
THE POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENT
THAT THE ENTRENCHED IN THE
IDEA.
I SPOKE TO A UNIONIZED METRO
BUS DRIVER OVER THE WEEKEND WHO
WAS LAID OFF DUE TO BUDGETS
CUTS AND WAS GIVEN 25 DAYS
NOTICE.
WHY DO POLICE REQUIRE THREE
MONTHS?
IN REALITY, IT SHOULD BE
REVERSE.
BUS DRIVERS SHOULD NOT BE CUT
AND IF THEY ARE THEY SHOULD
REQUIRE FAR MORE NOTICE.
BUS DRIVERS ARE ESSENTIAL,
SUPPORT OUR COMMUNITIES, AND
ARE ESPECIALLY NEEDED DURING
THE PANDEMIC.
IT IS TRUE THAT THE CITY MUST
NEGOTIATE EFFECTS WITH THE
POLICE OFFICERS GUILD BUT CITY
COUNCIL HAS EVERY AUTHORITY TO
CHANGE THE BUDGET AND THERE IS
NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT THAT THE
NEGOTIATIONS BE PROTRACTED.
FOR COMPARISON'S SAKE LET'S
LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE
POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENT WANTS
TO GET SOMETHING DONE.
IN 2013 WHEN DEMOCRATIC
ESTABLISHMENT IN THE STATE
GOVERNMENT WANTED TO PASS A
RECORD $8.7 BILLION TAX HAND
OUT TO BOEING EXECUTIVES AND
BETRAY THE MACHINIST UNION,
THEY CALLED A SPECIAL
LEGISLATIVE SESSION, INTRODUCED
LEGISLATION, DEBATED, VOTED,
SIGNED A BILL INTO LAW IN SEVEN
DAYS.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER AS SOMEBODY
WHO ACTIVELY WORKED AGAINST
THAT HAND OUT TO BOEING I AM
WELL AWARE OF THAT.
I WILL ASK WITH THIS LINE OF
COMMENTS, IN RELATION TO EACH
OF THE AMENDMENTS YOU HAVE
TODAY BECAUSE WE ARE LOOKING AT
THE 3 MILLION.
>> I AM SORRY COUNCIL MEMBER.
YOU HAVE TO LET ME SPEAK.
>> I ASKED YOU A QUESTION.
>> I WANT TO FINISH SPEAKING.
THEN YOU CAN ASK QUESTIONS.
NO ONE WILL CREDIBLY ARGUE THAT
THIS IS SIMPLER OR LESS
IMPACTFUL AND THEY PASSED THE
BILL IN SEVEN DAYS.
TWO YEARS AGO WHEN MAYOR AND
COUNCIL ESTABLISHMENT
DETERMINED TO REPEAL FIRST
AMAZON TAX THEY DID IT IN 48
HOURS.
REPEAL BILL WAS INTRODUCED ON
MONDAY AND VOTED THE NEXT DAY.
JUST LAST MONTH, JULY 13, KING
COUNTY METRO HANDED OUT 200
LAYOFF NOTICES TO BUS DRIVERS.
THEIR LAST DAY IS FRIDAY, 25
DAYS AFTER LAYOFF NOTIFICATION.
WE HAVE TO BE CLEAR THAT IT IS
POSSIBLE TO DEFUND RIGHT NOW
AND IT IS HYPOCRITICAL GIVEN
THAT RECORD FOR OTHERS TO SAY
WE CAN'T REDUCE THE SIZE UNTIL
NOVEMBER.
THAT IS NOT TRUE LEGALLY.
WHETHER TO DO SO OR NOT IS A
QUESTION OF POLITICAL WILL AND
COUNCIL MEMBERS NEED TO DECIDE
IF THEY CHOOSE TO FALL THROUGH
ON PROMISES THEY CHOSE TO MAKE
TO THE MOVEMENT OR NOT.
IT'S NOT JUST ACTIVISTS
MARCHING SUPPORTING 50%
DEFUNDING OF THE POLICE.
AS YOU KNOW A NEW IRONICALLY
BUSINESS FUNDED POLL CAME OUT
LAST WEEK WITH THE FINDING THAT
A MAJORITY IN SEATTLE SUPPORT
50% DEFUNDING OF SPD.
I WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE THAT
THE PARTICULAR BUDGET AMENDMENT
IS FOR A TINY PORTION OF THE
POLICE BUDGET, LESS THAN 1%
OVER ALL.
EVEN IF COUNCIL MEMBERS BELIEVE
THAT THE POLICE BUDGET CANNOT
BE IMPLEMENTED BEFORE NOVEMBER,
I DO NOT AGREE BECAUSE IT IS
NOT SUPPORTED BY FACTS, THAT
WOULD LEAVE TWO MONTHS OUT OF
THE YEAR, TWO MONTHS OUT OF THE
12 MONTHS OF THE $409 MILLION
IS 68 MILLION AND THIS IS ONLY
FOR 3 MILLION OR 4.4% OF THE
TWO MONTHS OF THE POLICE
BUDGET.
TO SAY NOW THAT WE NEED MORE
TIME IS AN INSULT TO THE
COMMUNITY THAT IS DEMANDING
DEFUNDING NOW AFTER DECADES OF
SYSTEMIC POLICE VIOLENCE
DIRECTED ESPECIALLY AT BLACK
AND BROWN COMMUNITIES.
I URGE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO
COSPONSOR TO FUND COMMUNITY
ALTERNATIVES.
>> MY POINT WAS YOU HAVE A
NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR COMMENTS WERE
RELATED TO THE ENTIRE ASPECT OF
THE PROPOSAL YOU WERE PUTTING
TOGETHER.
I AM ASKING WERE YOUR COMMENTS
A FRAMING DISCUSSION FOR THE
REST OF THE AMENDMENTS?
>> THEY ARE FRAMING FOR THIS
AMENDMENT AND ALL THE
AMENDMENTS ON THE WHOLE TOPIC
AT HAND AS A WHOLE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WITH THAT IN MIND, COUNCIL
MEMBER HERBOLD PLEASE.
YOU ARE ON MUTE COUNCIL MEMBER
HERBOLD.
>> COULD THE FOLKS WHO ARE
RUNNING THE SCREEN SCROLL DOWN
SO I CAN SEE THE TOP OF THE
SCREEN?
I AM TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THIS
PARTICULAR ACTION ASSUMES FUNDS
FOR THE COMMUNITY-LED RESEARCH
PROJECT STARTING WHEN?
FOR CENTRAL STAFF.
>> DIDN'T MAKE ASSUMPTION ABOUT
THE DATA, MADE ASSUMPTION ABOUT
THE TOTAL PROVIDED.
>> OKAY.
THE PROPOSAL PROPOSES TO USE A
SOURCE OF DOLLARS AND CONTRACT
THROUGH LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
IN A WAY TO CREATE CERTAINTY SO
THAT THESE DOLLARS CAN GET OUT
THE DOOR.
GIVEN THAT THERE IS A LAG TIME
BETWEEN NOTICE OF LAYOFFS AND
LAYOFFS OCCURRING AND THE
POSSIBILITY OF APPEALING, I AM
WONDERING WHEN WOULD THE
SAVINGS BE AVAILABLE TO HSD FOR
THE RESEARCH PROCESS?
OUR PROPOSAL GETS IT OUT THE
DOOR AS SOON AS THE LEGISLATIVE
DEPARTMENT CAN CONTRACT.
THESE DOLLARS ARE DEPENDENT ON
AN ENGINE THAT THE COUNCIL DOES
NOT CONTROL.
SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THESE
DOLLARS ACTUALLY GET THE FUNDS
INTO THE COMMUNITY-LED RESEARCH
PROCESS.
>> DAN I BELIEVE IS ON THE CALL
AND IS REALLY WELL VERSED IN
HOW THESE WILL PROCEED TO
RESPOND TO THAT QUESTION.
>> THANK YOU.
>> JUST WAITING FOR DAN TO
APPEAR.
THERE YOU ARE.
THANK YOU.
>> I APOLOGIZE.
I WAS NOT TRACKING.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD,
COULD YOU PLEASE ASK YOUR
QUESTION?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
FIRST I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND
THIS BUDGET ACTION ASSUMES
SAVINGS FROM PATROL OPERATIONS
STARTING AT WHAT POINT AFTER
THE COUNCIL'S VOTE ON THE
BUDGET?
JEFF EXPLAINED THAT UNLIKE OUR
BUG PROPOSAL, IT DOESN'T MAKE
ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHEN DOLLARS
WOULD BE AVAILABLE.
SO MY QUESTION IS THAT GIVEN
THAT THERE WILL BE A LAG TIME
BETWEEN NOTICES OF LAYOFFS AND
LAYOFFS OCCURRING AND DURING
THE LAG TIME, THERE COULD BE AN
APPEAL AND REQUEST TO BARGAIN.
WITH THIS BUDGET ACTION, WHEN
WOULD THE SAVINGS BE AVAILABLE
TO HSD FOR THE RESEARCH PROJECT
AS COMPARED TO THE EARLIER
PROPOSAL WHERE WE ENDEAVOR TO
HAVE THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
CONTRACT DOLLARS THAT WE KNOW
THAT THERE IS CERTAINTY THAT WE
CAN ACCESS.
AGAIN, COUNCIL MEMBER SEWANT IS
SAYING THAT THIS PROPOSAL GETS
DOLLARS INTO THE COMMUNITY'S
HANDS FOR THIS COMMUNITY-LED
RESEARCH PROCESS, AND I AM
HAVING A HARD TIME
UNDERSTANDING HOW IT DOES THAT.
>> I BELIEVE THAT COUNCIL
MEMBER SEWANT'S ASSUMPTIONS ARE
THAT THE CITY COULD MOVE QUITE
QUICKLY OR MORE QUICKLY THAN
CENTRAL STAFF HAS BEEN ASSUMING
IN TERMS OF LAYING OFF PATROL
OFFICERS AND MAKE THE $3
MILLION AVAILABLE AS QUICKLY AS
THE OFFICERS WERE LAID OFF.
SO IF YOU WANT TO ASSUME
OFFICERS COULD BE LAID OFF IN
THREE WEEKS OR SIX WEEKS,
HOWEVER MANY WEEKS, BUT NOT
THREE MONTHS AS CENTRAL STAFF
HAS BEEN DESCRIBING IN THE
PAST.
THE QUESTION IS HOW MANY
OFFICERS NEED TO BE LAID OFF IN
ORDER TO ACHIEVE$3 MILLION IN
SAVINGS.
>> SINCE COUNCIL MEMBER SEWANT
FRAMED THE ENTIRE SLEW OF
AMENDMENTS, AND I SEE YOUR
HAND, THE 85 MILLION IS OUT
THERE AS A MARKER OF WHAT CAN
BE ACCOMPLISHED.
MY UNDERSTANDING WAS IN ORDER
TO ACCOMPLISH 85 MILLION IN
REDUCTIONS THE LAYOFFS WOULD
HAVE HAD TO BEGIN AUGUST 1. CAN
YOU COMMENT ON THAT TIME FRAME
FOR WHEN THAT SLEW OF
AMENDMENTS WOULD POTENTIALLY
HAVE TO GO INTO EFFECT TO
REALIZE THAT LEVEL OF CUT?
>> YES.
>> SORRY.
THAT WAS FOR CENTRAL STAFF.
>> I CAN WAIT.
>> THE $85 MILLION TOTAL CUT
YOU ARE REFERRING TO I BELIEVE
IS IN AMENDMENT 54.
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
BUT THE FRAMING WAS OFFERED FOR
THE SLEW OF AMENDMENTS HERE.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON
THAT.
>> YES.
I THINK THAT THE CITY'S
EXPECTATION IS THAT THERE WILL
BE LAYOFFS THAT CAN BE
ACCOMPLISHED IN 2020.
THE APPROACH, AS WE'LL DISCUSS
WHEN WE GET TO AMENDMENT 54 AND
IS ALSO INCORPORATED IN
AMENDMENT 43 IS THAT THE CITY
WILL ASSUME THAT THOSE LAYOFFS
CAN HAPPEN AND WILL HAPPEN IN
2020 AND THE PROPOSAL IS TO
SPEND, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE
PROPOSAL IS TO SPEND THE SALARY
SAVINGS FROM THE LAYOFFS FOR
DIFFERENT PURPOSES.
THERE IS SOME -- AS WE
DESCRIBED IN CONVERSATION FROM
YESTERDAY, THERE IS A QUESTION
OF WHAT RISK THE CITY IS
WILLING TO TAKE THAT THAT
ASSUMPTION WILL PAN OUT.
IF THE CITY DOES SPEND THE COST
SAVINGS AND THEN IT TURNS OUT
THE ASSUMPTION IS NOT CORRECT
AND THERE AREN'T AS MANY OR
AREN'T ANY LAYOFFS THEN THE
CITY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE ALREADY
SPENT THE MONEY ONCE AND
WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SPEND IT
TWICE.
WE WOULD HAVE TO CUT OTHER
SPENDING IN ORDER TO CONTINUE
TO PAY THE OFFICERS.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER SEWANT AND
THEN I HAVE A FOLLOW UP
QUESTION.
>> I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO
STATE AGAIN, AS I HAVE BEFORE,
THAT MAINLY THESE ARE MATTERS
OF POLITICAL JUDGMENT AND
POLITICAL WELL NOT.
THESE ARE NOT MECHANICAL OR
LEGAL QUESTIONS.
THOUGH THERE IS ONE OTHER
ASPECT OF THIS COUNCILMAN
HERBOLD RAISED WHICH I WANT TO
RESPOND TO.
úI AGREE THAT IT IS A QUESTION
OF HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT,
THE CONTRACTING IS DONE NOT
THROUGH THE COUNCIL AND COUNCIL
DOES NOT DIRECTLY CONTROL THAT
MONEY.
I AGREE WITH THAT.
THAT'S SOMETHIN THAT'S
CONSTANT THROUGHOUT ALL THE
AMENDMENTS WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE
AMENDMENTS DEMOCRATS PUT
FORWARD ON FRIDAY.
>> OH, NO.
OUR LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT.
>> I AM SORRY?
>> OUR PROPOSAL HAS FUNDS GO TO
THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT SO
WE CAN ENTER INTO THE CONTRACT.
IT DOES NOT SEND DOLLARS TO
HSD.
SORRY FOR INTERRUPTING.
>> ONLY ON THIS ONE THING.
IN ANY CASE, I JUST WANTED TO
GET THAT OUT OF THE WAY BECAUSE
I AM HAPPY TO MAKE THAT CHANGE.
WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO MAKE THAT
CHANGE.
THAT IS NOT THE MAIN QUESTION
HERE.
IF THAT'S A STICKING POINT, WE
ARE HAPPY TO MAKE THAT CHANGE
CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU RAISE.
THE MAIN QUESTION IS NOT THAT.
THE MAIN QUESTION IS DO LEGAL
CHALLENGES THAT OBJECTION TO
POLICE OFFICER GUILD NEED TO BE
RESOLVED BEFORE CONTRACTING CAN
HAPPEN?
THAT'S NOT TRUE.
OFFICERS DO NOT HAVE TO BE LAID
OFF BEFORE THE CONTRACT AND GO
OUT.
IT MAKES ZERO IMPACT ON WHEN
HOUSING HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT WOULD HAVE MONEY
AVAILABLE TO CONTRACT FUNDS.
THE QUESTION IS DOES THE
COUNCIL HAVE CONFIDENCE TO
CARRY OUT THE POLICE OFFICER
LAYOFFS?
THAT COMES DOWN TO POLITICAL
WILL.
WHETHER OR NOT LAYOFFS HAPPEN
THIS YEAR IS UP TO US.
DO YOU WANT TO MAKE IT HAPPEN?
IF YOU WANT TO MAKE IT HAPPEN,
THEN FIGHT FOR IT.
ABSOLUTELY FIGHT FOR IT AND
MAKE IT HAPPEN.
THE ASSUMPTION THAT MY
AMENDMENTS, AMENDMENTS FROM
PEOPLE'S BUDGET ARE MAKING ARE
NOT LEGALLY OR TECHNICALLY
UNSOUND, THE ASSUMPTION IT IS
MAKING IS ASSUMPTION OF
POLITICAL WILL TO ACTUALLY MAKE
IT HAPPEN.
I THINK THAT IS AN IMPORTANT
QUESTION TO KEEP IN MIND.
>> THANK YOU.
OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?
COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD.
>> I WANT TO SAY AGAIN THE
OTHER PACKAGE IS PROPOSING
LAYOFFS AND CUTS TO POSITIONS
THROUGH 70 OFFICERS, SOME
THROUGH ATTRITION AND OTHERS
FOR OFFICERS CURRENTLY ON THE
FORCE.
IT IS NOT TRUE THAT WE CONTROL
WHETHER OR NOT THE LAYOFF
NOTICES GO OUT.
THAT IS OUT OF OUR PER VIEW.
AND I THINK THE RECOGNITION OF
THAT, THAT WE DON'T CONTROL
THAT MACHINE THAT STARTS THAT
PROCESS, THE LAYOFF NOTICE
PROCESS AND THE NEGOTIATION
OVER THE PERSONNEL IMPACTS OF
THE DECISIONS MADE IT VERY,
VERY IMPORTANT TO TRY AND
IDENTIFY DOLLARS WE HAVE
CONTROL OVER AND IF WE CAN GET
OUT FOR THIS PURPOSE.
WHY THAT'S IMPORTANT IS THIS
COMMUNITY-LED RESEARCH PROJECT
IS INTEGRAL TO OUR COMMITMENT
TO CONTINUING THE DISCUSSION
AND SHIFT OUR FOCUS ON
COMMUNITY-BASED SOLUTIONS.
THE WORK THAT THE RESEARCH
PROJECT IS GOING TO DO, IT'S
GOING TO CREATE INFRASTRUCTURE
TO MAKE THAT SHIFT.
WE HAVE TO START -- JUST LIKE
IT WAS SO IMPORTANT TO MEMBERS
OF THE COUNCIL TO USE THIS
REBALANCING PROCESS TO START
THE CONVERSATION AROUND
REDUCING THE SIZE OF THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT RATHER THAN AS THE
MAYOR HAS ASKED, WAIT UNTIL
2021 BUDGET DISCUSSION, WE
THINK IT IS CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT TO GET THE DOLLARS
OUT THE DOOR NOW.
ANY DELAY WILL RESULT IN A
DELAY IN OUR CONTINUING SUPPORT
FOR THE LARGER DISCUSSION
AROUND SHIFTING POLICING
RESOURCES.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER
HERBOLD.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER SAWANT,
PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> I AM JUST FINDING IT DEEPLY
UNFORTUNATE THAT COUNCIL
MEMBERS ARE ENGAGING IN SUCH
SLIGHT OF HAND.
THE IDEA OF A DELAY IS FLATLY
UNTRUE.
IT'S A QUESTION OF WHETHER YOU
ARE WILLING TO FIGHT FOR IT TO
MAKE IT HAPPEN OR NOT.
THE BUDGET IS DEFINITELY IN THE
PER VIEW OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
SO WHAT I FAIL TO UNDERSTAND
AND WHAT COMMUNITY MEMBERS ARE
DEPLETELY BOGGLED BY IS WHY IS
CITY COUNCIL ESPECIALLY AFTER
MAKING SUCH PROMISES UNWILLING
TO USE THE POWER TO FULL
EFFECT?
WE HAVE THE POWER TO MAKE A
BUDGET THAT WILL ACTUALLY
REFLECT 50% DEFUNDING OF SPD.
WHAT IS STOPPING US?
TALKING ABOUT SLIGHT OF HAND,
THE PROPOSAL THAT DEMOCRATS
HAVE BROUGHT FORWARD ENVISIONS
LAYING OFF 70 OFFICERS OR 74.5
TO BE PRECISE WHICH IS 4% OF
THE SPD WORKFORCE.
4% OF THE WORKFORCE.
TWO YEARS AGO, MANY OF YOU
APPROVED A BAD CONTRACT THAT
THE COMMUNITY WAS SAYING PLEASE
DO NOT APPROVE THIS SPD
CONTRACT BECAUSE IT WILL ROLL
BACK POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY.
LAST YEAR MANY OF YOU APPROVED
HIRING BONUSES FOR POLICE
OFFICERS TO QUOTE UNQUOTE
ATTRACT OFFICERS.
IN OTHER WORDS YOU HAVE THE
POWER TO DO ONE THING OR THE
OTHER.
YOU CHOSE TO APPROVE A BAD
CONTRACT.
YOU CHOSE TO GIVE HIRE BONUSES
TO ALREADY BLOATED POLICE
BUDGET.
NOW YOU ARE CHOOSING NOT TO
PASS A BUDGET THAT REFLECTS 50%
FROM SPD.
MY MESSAGE IS TO MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC.
NOT TO YOU COUNCIL MEMBERS.
WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS
SLIGHT OF HAND AND WHAT IS
ACTUALLY IN THE HANDS OF CITY
COUNCIL.
IT IS WITHIN THE HANDS OF THE
CITY COUNCIL TO PASS A SUMMER
BUDGET THIS YEAR THAT REFLECTS
A 50% DEFUNDING THIS YEAR.
THE QUESTION IS WILL THEY
CHOOSE TO DO SO OR NOT?
>> THANK YOU.
I APPRECIATE THAT WE WANT TO
GET THROUGH ALL THE AMENDMENTS.
I WILL HOPE THAT SOME OF THE
CONVERSATION IS WRAPPING IN
SOME OF THE OTHER AMENDMENTS OR
QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE.
MY LAST QUESTION HERE, DAN,
PERHAPS THIS IS FOR YOU, GIVEN
THE CONVERSATION THAT WE JUST
HAD AND THE FACT THAT LAYOFF
NOTICES NEED TO GO OUT AND
PERSONNEL DECISIONS HAVE TO BE
BARGAINED MY CONCERN HERE IS
THAT WE ARE -- MY CONCERN IS
LAYOFF NOTICES WOULD HAVE HAD
TO GO OUT BASICALLY OVER THE
WEEKEND.
THAT'S THE FEEDBACK I HAVE
RECEIVED SO FAR THAT IN ORDER
TO REALIZE THE TYPE OF SAVINGS
OR REDUCTIONS, SHOULDN'T SAY
SAVINGS, THE CUTS WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT IN THE PROPOSED
PACKAGE LAYOFF NOTICES WOULD
HAVE HAD TO GO OUT OVER THE
WEEKEND.
THE AMENDMENT WOULD EFFECTIVELY
MEAN LAYING OFF ENTIRE SPD BY
NOVEMBER.
CAN YOU COMMENT ON THAT?
>> I DON'T THINK THE LAST
STATEMENT IS ANALYSIS THAT HAS
COME FROM CENTRAL STAFF.
I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE
TIMING IS OF ACTUAL LAYOFFS
AFTER CONSULTING WITH LABOR
RELATION STAFF AND WITH LAW,
CENTRAL STAFF HAS REACHED
CONCLUSION THAT FOR OUR
ESTIMATING PURPOSES WE ARE
GOING TO BE COUNTING ON A THREE
MONTH LAG BETWEEN WHENEVER THE
LAYOFF NOTICE IS GIVEN AND WHEN
WE WOULD EXPECT OFFICERS TO NO
LONGER BE EMPLOYED BY THE CITY.
IN THE THEN IT HAPPENED ON
AUGUST 1 AND IT IS NOW AUGUST
3, SO THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
OUR ESTIMATES FROM LAST WEEK
WERE THAT IN THE EVENT THERE
WAS A $3 MILLION CUT WITH
LAYOFF NOTICES ON AUGUST 1, WE
WOULD BEGIN TO ACHIEVE SALARY
SAVINGS THREE MONTHS LATER ON
NOVEMBER 1 AND IN ORDER TO
ACHIEVE A $3 MILLION COST
SAVINGS FROM THOSE LAYOFFS
PURELY FROM THE SALARIES OF
LAID OFF STATE CHAMPION OF OF
THAT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED A 180
FTE LAYOFF IN PATROL.
>> MY COMMENTS WERE RELATED TO
THE 85 MILLION REALIZE TAG BY
NOVEMBER, WOULD THAT NOT HAVE
MEANT THAT THE ENTIRE SPD WOULD
NEED TO BE LAID OFF IN
NOVEMBER.
>> EXTRAPOLATING TO A LARGER
FIGURE, YES, OUR CONCLUSION IS
THAT IN THE EVENT THAT OUR
ESTIMATES OF THE TIMING PAN
OUT, THAT THERE WOULDN'T BE
ENOUGH SALARY SAVINGS EVEN IF
ALL THE SWORN OFFICERS AT SPD
WERE LAID OFF ON NOVEMBER 1 TO
ACHIEVE $85 MILLION SAVINGS.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER SEWANT, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO MAKE COMMENTS?
>> YES, PLEASE.
IT IS TRUE THAT LABOR RELATIONS
HAVE GIVEN ESTIMATE DAN QUOTED.
I WANT TO REMIND MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC THIS IS THE SAME ONE
THAT SUPPORTED THE POLICE
CONTRACT TWO YEARS AGO THAT THE
VAST MAJORITY OPPOSED.
THIS IS THE ASSUMPTION THAT DAN
STATED, IT IS THE ASSUMPTION OF
CENTRAL STAFF.
I EMPHASIZE IT IS NOT A LEGAL
REQUIREMENT.
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE THERE.
ALSO THIS IS A QUESTION NOT FOR
STAFF BUT FOR ELECTED
OFFICIALS.
WHY ARE WE NOT DOING EVERYTHING
IN OUR POWER THAT IS LEGAL AND
WHY NOT ASSUME MAYBE 25 DAYS AS
HAPPENED TO THE UNIONIZED METRO
BUS DRIVERS?
DIFFERENT BARGAINING UNIONS,
YES.
>> THIS IS NOT A LEGAL
REQUIREMENT BUT I AM NOT SURE
WHAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO.
WHAT IS NOT A LEGAL
REQUIREMENT?
SPECIFICALLY WHAT IS NOT A
LEGAL REQUIREMENT?
>> THE AMOUNT OF TIME STATED,
THE THREE MONTH LAG.
THAT IS NOT A LEGAL
REQUIREMENT.
>> THIS IS FOR COUNCIL CENTRAL
STAFF.
SETTING ASIDE WHETHER OR NOT
THE ESTIMATE OF TWO, THREE,
FOUR, FIVE MONTHS IS ACCURATE
OR NOT ACCURATE, MY
UNDERSTANDING FROM AMENDMENT 43
AND THE HOST OF THE $85 MILLION
PACKAGE PROPOSED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER SEWANT THAT ALL THOSE
DOLLARS, MEANING ALL THE 85
PHAZE THE DOLLARS IS PROPOSED
$8,585,000,000 IS PROPOSED TO
COME FROM SAVINGS.
>> THAT'S WHAT CENTRAL STAFF'S
UNDERSTANDING IS.
BECAUSE THE REST OF THE BUDGET
HAS ALREADY EITHER BEEN SPENT
OR HAS BEEN PAIRED BACK SO THAT
THERE ARE NO OTHER REMAINING
BUDGET AUTHORITY EXCEPT FOR
STAFF SALARIES.
ANY STAFF SALARY SAVINGS ARE
THE MECHANISM FOR ACHIEVING THE
CUT.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER SEWANT SAYS
THAT THE SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT BUDGET HAS $170
MILLION LEFT FOR THE REMAINDER
OF '22.
THAT MEANS THAT SPD HAS $170
MILLION WORTH OF SALARY, A, FOR
THE REMAINDER OF THE 2020.
THAT'S THE ASSUMPTION.
>> I AM NOT SURE IF I CAN
ANSWER THE QUESTION DIRECTLY.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE IS
$188 MILLION OF REMAINING
BUDGET AUTHORITY IN SPD'S 2020
ADOPTED BUDGET BUT THE MAYOR
HAS PROPOSED TO
ADMINISTRATIVELY NOT SPEND SOME
OF THAT.
CUTTING FOR INSTANCE TRAVEL AND
TRAINING, RECRUITMENT AND
RETENTION, EQUIPMENT BUDGETS.
AND THE COUNCIL IS CONSIDERING
THROUGH AMENDMENT A TO 119825 A
ROLL BACK OF THE BUDGET
AUTHORITY TO MATCH PROPOSED
ADMINISTRATIVE SPENDING CUTS.
MY UNDERSTANDING GENERALLY
THOUGH I CAN'T BACK WITH EXACT
DOLLAR FIGURES IS THAT THE
REMAINING BUDGET AUTHORITY
WOULD BE ALL FOR SALARIES IN
SPD.
>> THAT'S HELPFUL BECAUSE I
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IN THE
SPIRIT OF TRANSPARENCY THAT THE
PUBLIC ISN'T LEFT WITH
IMPRESSION BY THE COMMENTS THAT
SOMEHOW THESE ARE DOLLARS
RELATED TO EQUIPMENT OR SOME
OTHER DISCRETIONARY FUNDS YOU
HAVE DESCRIBED, DAN, AROUND
TRAVEL COSTS OR TRAINING COSTS.
WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS
PROJECTED SALARY EXPENDITURES,
IE, PAYING PEOPLE WHO CURRENTLY
WORK FOR THE DEPARTMENT FOR
THEIR TIME.
SO THE ONLY WAY WE CAN
EFFECTUATE THE $85 MILLION
PROPOSED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
SEWANT IS BY NOT PAYING FOR
THAT TIME.
THE ONLY WAY WE CAN IS BY
FIRING ENOUGH PEOPLE WHO WORK
AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO
ALLOW US $85 MILLION WORTH OF
MONEY TO USE FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.
DAN I DON'T WANT YOU IN AN
UNCOMFORTABLE SITUATION.
I AM NOT ASKING YOU TO VALIDATE
THAT.
BUT MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE
PROPOSAL IS THAT THAT'S IN
EFFECT WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED
BY COUNCIL MEMBER SEWANT.
I THINK THE CONCERNS BEING
EXPRESSED BY OTHER COUNCIL
MEMBERS IS THAT WHETHER YOU
AGREE OR DISAGREE, THIS
PARTICULAR PART OF OUR
WORKFORCE HAS BEEN REPRESENTED
BY UNIONS LONG BEFORE OUR TIME
ON THE CITY COUNCIL, FORE
DECADES.
AND THOSE LABOR CONTRACTS CARRY
WITH THEM CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS
THAT WE AS MANAGEMENT ARE
REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH.
IF WE CHOOSE NOT TO COMPLY WITH
THEM, THEN WE JUST TOLERATE THE
SLEW OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
AND GO TO INTEREST ARBITRATION
AND SEE WHAT THE JUDGE SAYS.
BUT I THINK THAT TO SAY IT'S
NOT TRUE THAT THERE ARE LEGAL
REQUIREMENTS IS FALSE.
IT'S NOT AN ACCURATE ASSERTION
OF THE SITUATION.
WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO
IGNORE OUR ABLES UNDER LABOR
LAW IS A DIFFERENT QUESTION.
I THINK THAT SETS A DANGEROUS
PRECEDENT TO JUST SIMPLY
CATEGORICALLY IGNORE OUR
OBLIGATIONS AS MANAGEMENT TO
STATE AND CITY LABOR LAWS IN
LARGE PART BECAUSE WE ARE THE
TYPE OF CITY THAT HAS, I
BELIEVE LAST COUNT, OVER 158
BARGAINING UNITS AT THE CITY OF
SEATTLE.
AND I CAN IMAGINE HOW ANTILABOR
INTERESTS WOULD JUST JUMP AT
THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE AN
ARGUMENT, HOW WE HAVE TREATED
LABOR MANAGEMENT OBLIGATIONS IN
THIS CONTEXT SHOULD APPLY TO
OTHER BARGAINING UNITS.
I ANT US TO BE TRANSPARENT
WITH THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE FACT
THAT THE LABOR LAWS EXIST.
THEY'RE NOT FICTIONAL.
THEY'RE NOT PRETEND.
THEY'RE NOT UNIQUE TO US AS A
CITY.
THEY APPLY TO ANY PUBLIC
EMPLOYER ACROSS THE STATE.
AND I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR
US AGAIN TO REALLY BE
TRANSPARENT WITH THE PUBLIC
THAT THE LAWS ARE REAL AND THAT
WHETHER WE LIKE THE FACT OR NOT
IT IS A REALITY OF HOW WE HAVE
TO ADDRESS WHETHER OR NOT WE
WILL BE ABLE TO REALIZE ACTUAL
DOLLARS FROM THE $85 MILLION
PROPOSAL OR EVEN FROM OUR
PROPOSAL IF WE ARE NOT
SUCCESSFUL IN NEGOTIATING THE
IMPACTS OF THE DECISIONS WE ARE
MAKING VIA THE BUDGET.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
I SEE COUNCIL MEMBER SEWANT'S
HAND.
DAN, I SAW YOU NODDING.
THERE WAS A QUESTION.
DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO
ADD IN RESPONSE TO COUNCIL
MEMBER PRESIDENT'S QUESTION?
>> NO.
I HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO ADD.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER SEWANT.
WRAP US UP ON THIS ONE AND WE
WILL GO THROUGH THE REST.
>> LET ME SAY IN OPENING THIS.
I M NOT SURPRISED BUT IT'S
QUITE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW
COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE NOW
DISPLAYIG WHERE THEY ACTUALLY
STAND.
I HOPE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
ARE WATCHING.
AS FAR AS THE LAWS THAT ARE
BEING DESCRIBED, I WOULD LIKE
COUNCIL MEMBERS TO QUOTE WHICH
LAW THESE AMENDMENTS THAT OUR
MOVEMENT HAS PUT FORWARD ARE
NOT COMPLYING WITH.
WE ALL HAVE THE SAME BRIEFING
FROM THE CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE
AND AFTER PROMISED THAT YOU
WILL DEFUND BY 50% NOW YOU SEEM
TO BE DESCRIBING SOME
IMPLICATION I DID NOT ACTUALLY
GET FROM THE LAW, FROM WHAT THE
KNOWLEDGE THAT WE ARE ALL PRIVY
TO.
COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE IMPLYING
AND COUNCILMAN GONZALEZ JUST
DID THAT THESE AMENDMENTS WOULD
INTENTIONALLY VIOLATE
BARGAINING REQUIREMENTS.
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
WE ARE SAYING THAT THAT NEEDS
TO BE BARGAINED.
THAT IS THE LAW.
BUT THAT SHOULD NOT TAKE THREE
MONTHS.
A FEW MINUTES AGO COUNCIL
MEMBER MOSQUEDA THAT WHEN I
SAID KING COUNTY GAVE 25 DAYS
NOTICE FOR BUS DRIVERS IT WAS
STATED WELL THAT'S A DIFFERENT
BARGAINING UNIT.
NOW COUNCIL MEMBER GONZALEZ IS
SAYING ALL THE LABOR LAWS APPLY
TO ANY PUBLIC IN THE STATE.
AGREED.
THAT IS THE LAW.
ALL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE
LAW.
IF BUS DRIVERS CAN BE LAID OFF
WITH 25 DAYS NOTICE THEN WHY
CAN'T SEATTLE POLICE OFFICERS
BE LAID OFF WITH MAYBE SIMILAR
NOTICE?
25 DAYS.
IN OTHER WORDS BY IMPLYING WITH
THE SLIGHT OF HAND THAT THE LAW
REQUIRES YOU TO HAVE LONGER
NOTICE YOU ARE BASICALLY
ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE SEATTLE
POLICE OFFICER' GUILD GETS
SPECIAL TREATMENT.
I APPRECIATE YOU ACKNOWLEDGING
THAT EVEN THOUGH YOU DIDN'T
INTEND TO OBVIOUSLY.
TO ADDRESS OTHER POINTS, ON THE
$188 MILLION THAT DAN
MENTIONED, THAT IS ACCURATE BUT
I ALSO WANT TO SAY IT IS
MISLEADING.
I DON'T THINK CENTRAL STAFF WAS
INTENDING TO BE MISLEADING.
I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT WAS A
MID JULY FIGURE AND WE ASSUME
THERE IS A SPIN DOWN SINCE AND
THAT EXPLAINS WHY WE ARE
COUNTING 170 MILLION BECAUSE
THAT'S CALCULATED LEFT OVER FOR
THE MONTHS LEFT.
POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS $170
MILLION IN THE BUDGET LEFT
OVER.
IT IS TRUE THAT PERSONNEL IS
ABOUT 80% OF THAT.
AGAIN I AM NOT SURPRISED BUT
JUST ASTOUNDED BY NOW THE
CONCERNS BEING PUT FORWARD FOR
THE PERSONNEL OF THE POLICE
OFFICER, ARMED OFFICERS.
I AM NOT SURE WHAT YOU COUNCIL
MEMBERS THOUGHT YOU WERE
PROMISING WHEN YOU SAID YOU
WOULD DEFUND POLICE BY 50%.
THIS IS WHAT PEOPLE WANT.
PEOPLE WANT A SMALLER POLICE
DEPARTMENT.
YES THAT MEANS LAYING OFF
POLICE OFFICERS.
I AM SAYING THAT AS A RANK AND
FILE MEMBER.
-- STRONGLY SUPPORTIVE OF
CUTTING PAY AND OVER TIME.
THAT OVER TIME DOES A LOT OF
HARM.
THEY REPRESS PROTEST MOVEMENTS,
VIOLENCE AGAINST PROTESTERS,
HARASS POOR WORKING CLASS AND
HOMELESS PEOPLE.
AS FAR AS WHAT IT IS THAT WE
ARE PRESCRIBING IN THE
AMENDMENTS IN OUR MOVEMENT WE
ARE SAYING THIS IS AN ACROSS
THE BOARD CUT.
WE ARE NOT PRESCRIBING WHAT
SHOULD BE CUT IN THE SENSE THAT
IT IS UP TO THE EXECUTIVE HOW
TO CUT.
IT WILL REQUIRE CUTTING MANY
POLICE OFFICERS BECAUSE THAT'S
HOW MUCH THEY'RE SPENDING ON
OVER TIME.
THE POINT IS WE ARE SAYING CUT
85 MILLION FROM THE BUDGET AND
EXECUTIVE NEEDS TO CARRY THAT
OUT.
WE ARE OF COURSE NOT ACCEPTING
THIS IDEA THAT PEOPLE OF COLOR,
OFFICERS WILL BE LAID OFF.
THAT IS ABSOLUTE NONSENSE FROM
CHIEF BEST.
WE DON'T ACCEPT THAT.
THE POINT IS WE ARE SAYING YOU
HAVE $85 MILLION FOR THE REST
OF THE WORLD, THE REST WILL GO
TO THE COMMUNITY.
AGAIN TO REMIND PEOPLE THAT THE
85 MILLION THAT THE SEATTLE
POLICE WILL BE LEFT WITH WILL
STILL BE FAR MORE THAN MANY
OTHER DEPARTMENTS COMBINED.
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER
SEWANT. I THINK IT'S ALSO
IMPORTANT FOR US TO KNOW THAT
THE TECHNICAL ADVICE WAS THERE
IS A TREE MONTH WINDOW AT BEST
CASE SCENARIO TO NEGOTIATE.
>> THE PROPOSAL TO DO WHAT THIS
SPECIFIC AMENDMENT IS TALKING
ABOUT, I THURSDAY INTO FRIDAY
THERE IS A SHARED GOAL.
I THINK THE STRATEGIES DIFFER
IN TERMS OF WHERE THE FUNDING
IS COMING FROM BECAUSE OF THE
LEGAL AND TECHNICAL CONCERNS.
IT DOES NOT TAKE A
MATHEMETICIAN TO KNOW THAT THE
DOLLARS ARE NOT NECESSARILY
GOING TO BE IN HAND IF THESE
ARE BARRIERS IN FRONT OF US.
THE GOALS ARE THE SAME.
I WILL NOT BE ADDING MY NAME TO
THIS.
I WANTED TO SEE IF ANYBODY ELSE
WILL ADD THEIR NAME EVEN THOUGH
THE SAME GOAL OF 3 MILLION TO
FUND COMMUNITY LED RESEARCH
PROCESS IS SOMETHING I HAVE
SUPPORTED SO THAT WE CAN
ACCOMPLISH THE SAME GOAL.
ANY ADDITIONAL FOLKS WITH
SUPPRESSIONS OR ADDITIONAL
COSPONSORS?
THANK YOU FOR YOUR OPENING
COMMENTS.
I THINK THAT IS HOPEFUL FRAMING
FOR THE REST OF THE AMENDMENTS.
NEXT IS AMENDMENT 44.
COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF, PLEASE
TAKE IT AWAY.
>> AMENDMENT 44 IS SPONSORED BY
COUNCIL MEMBER SEWANT.
IT WOULD CUT 125,000 GENERAL
FUND FROM THE SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT SERVICE PATROL
OPERATIONS PSL AND THE INTENT
IS TO OFFSET LOSS OF GENERAL
FUND REVENUE FROM APPROXIMATELY
300 PARKING SPACES TO ALLOW S
DOT TO EXPAND FREE PARKING
PROGRAM FOR HOMELESS CARE
RESPONDERS.
>> ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
YOU WOULD LIKE TO SHARE?
>> THE INTENT OF THE AMENDMENT
IS TO ALLOW SEATTLE DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION TO EXPAND ITS
EXISTING FREE PARKING PROGRAM
FOR HEALTHCARE RESPONDERS TO
INCLUDE ADDITIONAL 300 PARKING
SPACES NEAR ORGANIZATIONS THAT
PROVIDE DIRECT SERVICES TO
SEATTLE RESIDENTS EXPERIENCING
HOMELESSNESS TO SUPPORT
HOMELESS SERVICE WORKERS.
HOMELESS SERVICE WORKERS HAVE
BEEN INCREASINGLY BURDENED
DURING COVID.
ONE REACHED OUT TO MY OFFICE
ABOUT THIS AND ABOUT THE IMPACT
OF NEEDING TO WORRY ABOUT
PARKING RESTRICTIONS WEILL
BEING OVERWHELMED WITH
SUPPORTING SEATTLE'S POPULATION
DURING COVID AND WE HAVE HEARD
SIMILAR CONCERNS REFLECTED BY
MANY OTHER WORKERS.
THIS BUDGET AMENDMENT WOULD
MAKE FUNDING AVAILABLE FOR THAT
EXPANSION OF THE FREE PARKING
PROGRAM BY A MINOSCULE CUT FOR
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S $147
MILLION PA THE PATROL
OPERATION'S.
>> THANK YOU.
ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS?
SEEING NONE, ARE THERE ANY
FOLKS WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADD
THEIR NAME?
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
LET'S MOVE TO AMENDMENT NUMBER
40.
>> HELLO, COUNCIL MEMBERS.
AMENDMENT 45 WOULD ADD $80,000
GENERAL FUND TO THE OFFICE OF
SUSTAINABILITY ENVIRONMENT TO
SUPPORT GREEN NEW DEAL
OVERSIGHT BOARD AND WOULD CUT
$80,000 FROM THE SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT'S PATROL OPERATIONS.
THE 2020 REBALANCING PACKAGE
WOULD USE THE APPROXIMATELY
$136,000 IN THE GENERAL FUND
THAT THE COUNCIL HAD ADDED FOR
GREEN NEW DEAL OVERSIGHT BOARD
DURING LAST YEAR'S BUDGET
DELIBERAIONS TO ADDRESS
GENERAL FUND RATHER THAN
SHORTFALL.
THE 80,000 WOULD COVER STAFF
COST FOR GREEN NEW DEAL ADVISER
BEGINNING ON SEPTEMBER 1 AND
PROVIDE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP SITE
FOR BOARD MEMBERS BEGINNING ON
OCTOBER 1. THE BOARD HAS NOT
ET BEEN APPOINT
WAS ESTABLISHED LAST YEAR DUE
TO DELAY IN HIRING THE
POSITION.
AS NOTED PREVIOUSLY, THE CUT TO
THE SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT
WOULD LIKELY RESULT IN LAYOFFS
IF THERE ARE NO OTHER
NONPERSONAL SAVINGS AVAILABLE.
ADDITIONALLY, THE AMENDMENT
CONTAINS PROVISO TO COMMIT
ADDITIONAL FUNDS FROM BEING
USED FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
>> THANK YOU YOLANDA.
GOOD TO SEE YOU.
I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO SAY
WELCOME.
COUNCIL MEMBER SEWANT.
>> THIS AMENDMENT RESTORES
FUNDING THAT THE MAYOR CUT FROM
THE GREEN NEW DEAL OVERSIGHT
BOARD.
CITY COUNCIL PASSED THE
ORDINANCE CREATING THE
RESOLUTION I BELIEVE THAT
CREATED THE NEW DEAL OVERSIGHT
BOARD LAST FALL AFTER
GRASSROOTS ORGANIZING FROM THE
SUNRISE MOVEMENT, SIERRA CLUB,
INDIGENOUS ORGANIZERS.
SINCE, THE MAYOR HAS DONE
EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO
PREVENT IT FROM BEING CREATED.
THE INTENTION OF THE GREEN NEW
DEAL OVERSIGHT BOARD IS TO BE A
BODY TO FIGHT FOR THE CITY TO
DO INVESTMENTS INTO THE GREEN
NEW DEAL.
IT WILL INCLUDE REPRESENTATIVES
FROM ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISTS,
LABOR, COMMUNITIES IMPACTED BY
CLIMATE CHANGE, LOCAL TRIBES,
SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS AND HAS
A MANDATE TO MAKE
RECOMMENDATIONS ON CITY BUDGET.
THE MAYOR REFUSED TO ADVERTISE
FOR OPEN POSITION FOR THE GREEN
IN YOU DEAL OVERSIGHT BOARD,
REFUSED TO APPOINT PEOPLE UNTIL
A STAFF PERSON TO FOCUS ON IT
CAN BE HIRED AND THEN REFUSED
TO HIRE THE PERSON INCLUDING IT
IN BUDGET CUTS.
THIS IS SIMILAR PLEA
UNACCEPTABLE.
TO RESTORE FUNDING IS A VERY
SMALL AMOUNT OF MONEY.
THE BUDGET AMENDMENT WOULD
RESTORE FUNDING TO THE GREEN
NEW DEAL OVERSIGHT BOARD TO
REMOVE EXCUSE FOR APPOINTING
PEOPLE AND ALLOWING IT TO BEGIN
ITS WORK.
IT FUNDS THE BOARD BY REDUCING
SPD'S PATROL OPERATIONS BUDGET
BY $80,000.
IT ACCOUNTS FOR TWO HUNDREDTHS
OF 1% OF THE POLICE BUDGET.
FUNDING IT WOULD HAVE NO
PRACTICAL IMPACT ON THE POLICE
BUDGET BUT IT WOULD ALLOW THE
OVERSIGHT BOARD TO BE
ESTABLISHED WHICH WOULD MAKE A
BIG IMPACT ON MOMENTUM FOR THE
WORK.
I HOPE COUNCIL MEMBERS WILL
AGREE TO COSPONSOR.
I WANTED TO CORRECT MYSELF.
IT WAS AN ORDINANCE THAT
CREATED THE OVERSIGHT BOARD
LAST FALL.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS,
COLLEAGUES?
A QUICK QUESTION I HAVE FOR
YOLANDA.
COULD YOU REMIND US HOW MUCH --
THAT INCLUDED FUNDING.
I AM WONDERING HOW THE FUNDS
MATCH UP?
>> DO YOU WANT TO TAKE THAT?
>> I WILL BE HAPPY TO.
>> SPEAK UP A LITTLE BIT IF YOU
CAN.
>> IS THAT BETTER?
>> YES.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON OR GOOD
MORNING.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT TIME IT IS.
I AM WITH COUNCIL CENTRAL
STAFF.
I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT DOLLAR
FIGURE OF HOW MUCH OF THE JUMP
START SPENDING PLAN IS
DEDICATED TO GREEN NEW DEAL BUT
5% OF THE FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE
FOR ADMINISTERING AND
IMPLEMENTING PROGRAMS AND THAT
WOULD BE I BELIEVE MORE THAN
THIS AMOUNT AND IT WOULD
SUPPORT THE PAYROLL OR STAFFING
COST AS WELL AS STIPENDS NEEDED
FOR GREEN NEW DEAL BEGINNING IN
2022.
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER
SEWANT.
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?
>> TO CLARIFY, IT'S A TEMPORAL
QUESTION.
THE AMAZON TAX CITY COUNCIL
PASSED WILL BEGIN FUNDING FOR
THIS IN 2022.
BUT PROCEEDING EIGHT MONTHS IS
WHERE THE MAYOR HAS SHOWN
INACTION.
SO THIS WOULD PROVIDE MONEY FOR
GREEN NEW DEAL OVERSIGHT BOARD
NOW AS LAST YEAR'S ORDINANCE
CALLED FOR.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCIL
MEMBER SEWANT.
NOT SEEING ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
OR QUESTIONS, ANY ADDITIONAL
COSPONSORS?
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
LET'S MOVE TO AMENDMENT 46.
>> AMENDMENT 46 IS SPONSORED BY
COUNCIL MEMBER STRAUSS.
THIS WOULD IMPOSE A PROVISO ON
THE SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S
ENTIRE BUDGET BEGINNING ON
SEPTEMBER 30 UNTIL SPD OR
MAYOR'S OFFICE PROVIDES A
REPORT TO THE COUNCIL
DESCRIBING WHICH SPD FUNCTIONS
COULD BE FULLY CIVILIAN OR
MOVED OUT OF THE SPD.
THIS PROVIDES DETAILED LIST OF
FUNCTIONS THAT SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED IN THE REPORT SUCH
AS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES,
HUMAN RESOURCES, MANY OTHERS.
THE REPORT SHOULD INCLUDE
ANALYSIS OF STAFFING AND
FUNDING NEEDED TO SUPPORT THE
FUNCTIONS IN 2020 AND
ANTICIPATED IN 2021 AND SHOULD
THE REPORT NOT BE RECEIVED ON
OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 30, SPD
WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO SPEND
ANY REMAINING FUNDS FOR 2020.
>> THANK YOU.
YOLANDA.
COUNCIL MEMBER STRAUSS.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR M ON.
SQUEDA.
THIS REQUIRES EXECUTIVE AS SAID
TO SPECIFICSLY LAYOUT A PLAN
FOR FULLY CIVILIANING AND OR
REMOVING FUNCTIONS.
THIS REPORT MUST MINIMALLY
INCLUDE STAFFING ANALYSIS WITH
REGARD TO WHAT FUNDING IS
NEEDED TO SUPPORT FUNCTIONS FOR
THE REMAINDER OF 2020 AND IN
2021 SUCH THAT IF NECESSARY
APPROPRIATE MONIES CAN FOLLOW
FUNCTIONS WHICH ARE TRANSFERRED
FROM SPD.
THE DEADLINE COINCIDES WITH
WHEN WE WILL BE MAKING CHANGES
FOR 2021 BUDGET AND ALLOWS US
TO HAVE REAL TIME TRACKING
INFORMATION IN HOW WE WILL
PROCEED BY THE BI ANNUAL BUDGET
WHICH WE ARE BEGINNING TO WRITE
AT THE END OF SEPTEMBER.
MY OFFICE LAID OUT MAJOR AREAS
OF SPD'S FUNCTION WHICH SHOULD
BE SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED,
REMOVAL TO INDEPENDENT
DEPARTMENT BY BUREAU AND
SPECIFIC UNITS.
IN ORDER TO MEANINGFULLY AND
RESPONSIBLY MOVE TO A MORE
EFFECTIVE EFFICIENT MODEL OF
COMMUNITY SAFETY WE MUST
DELIBERATELY LOOK AT AND
INCLUDE THE EXECUTIVE VISIONS
AND JUSTIFICATIONS AS WE LOOK
TO OUT SIZING.
THIS IS A STARTING, NOT ENDING
POINT FOR COMMUNITY BASED
LONGTERM APPROACH AND OUR
ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND HOW SPD
IS SPENDING DOLLARS IN REAL
TIME AND HAVING A BACK STOP TO
ENSURE WE RECEIVE THE REPORT IN
A TIMELY MANNER SO WE CAN MOVE
FORWARD TO 2021 AND BEYOND IS
INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT.
THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH COUNCIL
MEMBER STRAUSS.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS?
>> I WOULD LIKE TOBACCO
SPONSOR.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH COUNCIL
MEMBER JUAREZ.
>> ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS?
SEEING NONE, COUNCIL MEMBERS
TAKING COSPONSORSHIP.
COUNCIL MEMBER JUAREZ, HERBOLD,
PEDERSEN, LEWIS, MORALES,
GONZALEZ.
OH YOU HAVE A COMMENT COSILL
MEMBER HERBOLD.
I WILL BE ADDING MYSELF.
COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD.
APOLOGIES FOR MISCOMMUNICATION.
GO AHEAD AND ASK YOUR QUESTION.
>> I DID WANT TO BE A SPONSOR
BUT I WANTED TO ADD THAT I
THINK THIS REALLY ALIGNS WELL
WITH THE EXECUTIVES STATED
INTENTIONS IN A LETTER THAT WE
RECEIVED FROM THE MAYOR AND
CHIEF WHERE THEY TOLD US THEY
WANTED TO WORK TOGETHER WITH US
TO REALIZE BETWEEN 76 AND $86
MILLION IN REDUCTIONS TO THE
2021 BUDGET IN OUR BUDGET
DISCUSSIONS COMING UP IN
SEPTEMBER.
SO GETTING THIS INFORMATION, I
AM VERY HOPEFUL THAT WILL ALLOW
US TO REALIZE THAT SHARED GOAL
OF AT LEAST REALIZING AN
ADDITIONAL UP TO $86 MILLION IN
SAVINGS IN THE 2021 BUDGET.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT CONTEXT
COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD FOR YOUR
SUPPORT.
ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS, COLLEAGUES?
ON AMENDMENT NUMBER 46
SPONSORED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
STRAUSS, I THINK IT MAKES ALL
NINE.
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD.
LET'S MOVE TO AMENDMENT 47.
>> SPONSORED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
STRAUSS.
FISCAL REPORTING PROVISO.
THIS WOULD PROVISO ON THE
ENTIRE BUDGET UNTIL THE REPORT
TO THE CITY CLERK EVERY TWO
WEEKS REGARDING VARIETY OF
EXPENDITURES AND ALSO REPORTS
ON GRANTS IT HAS APPLIED FOR
AND/OR BEEN AWARDED.
HOW THIS WOULD WORK IS THAT THE
FIRST REPORT IS DUE ON OR
BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
LEGISLATION TO LIFT THE PROVISO
AND WOULD BE REQUIRED EVERY TWO
WEEKS UNTIL THE END OF THE
YEAR.
THIS WOULD PREVENT SPD FROM
EXPENDING ANY OF THE
DEPARTMENT'S REMAINING FUNDS
BEFORE 2020 UNTIL THE REPORT IS
SUBMITTED.
ADDITIONALLY THIS AMENDMENT
WOULD REQUIRE A REPORT DUE BY
SEPTEMBER 15 REGARDING CLAIMS,
EXPENDITURES FOR LAW FIRMS TO
DEFEND THE CITY AGAINST CLAIMS
AGAINST EITHER SPD ORANGE COLORS
PD OR INDIVIDUAL OFFICERS. I
WILL NOTE BASED ON SOME
FEEDBACK THAT WE SHOULD MAYBE
INCLUDE THIS REPORT I JUST
DESCRIBED IN THE FIRST REPORT
SO THAT IT IS WRAPPED INTO THE
PROVISO THAT WOULD BE FOR
KNOWLEDGE.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCIL MEMBER STRAUSS.
>> THANK YOU FOR SIGNING ON TO
THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENT.
I KNOW WITH SO MUCH GOING ON I
HAD INTENDED TO COSPONSOR THE
AMENDMENT BEFORE US WITH
COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD.
MY APOLOGY THAT THAT IS NOT
INCLUDED.
I KNOW THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF
MOVING PARTS.
SPECIFICALLY SPEAKING TO THE
FACT THAT WE ARE MOVING QUICKLY
AND NEED A LOT OF REAL TIME
INFORMATION, THIS IS MEANT TO
FOSTER ACCOUNTABILITY WITH
REGARDING TO SPENDING IN THE
LARGEST DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET.
GIVEN THE POTENTIAL SHORTFALL
AND POTENTIAL ISSUES WITH
POLICE DEPARTMENT'S SPENDING
YEAR, L REQUIRE EXECUTIVE TO
REPORT EVERY OTHER WEEK
REGARDING ONGOING 2020
EXPENDITURES AND KEY AREAS OF
COMMUNITY INTEREST SUCH AS
GRANTS, OVER TIMEPERSONNEL
CONTRACTS, CONSULTANTS,
INDIVIDUAL TRAINING INCLUDING
CONFERENCES.
THOUGH WE KNOW MANY PEOPLE ARE
NOT TRAVELING RIGHT NOW.
THIS REGULAR SNAPSHOT WILL HELP
INFORM DECISIONS IN REGARD TO
NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET AND are able
craft a budget for the future
that is reflected a real-time
data.
This allows us to gauge the
amount of 2020 spending and the
rate.
I will also flag, this also
flex for the Council which of
these key areas might be in
danger of being overspent
before deficit spending takes
place as we are worried about
the overtime spending.
This provides is PD so report
any expenditures since 2010.
To defend the police department
towards officers like his
losses.
The report shall contain
information regarding the types
of claims.
Whether there is a pattern of
claims made against them and
whether there's a pattern of
claims made against the same
officer.
We can only chart I course
forward if we takes that on how
SPV is performed in the past.
-- -- Finally SPD will have to
provide -- -- This provides us
for the transparency regarding
the priorities and spending of
the department.
I will note that councilmember
herbal is helpful in regarding
adding the aspects of annual
expenditures against 2010.
The dollars to defend the
department against officers and
the descriptions of federal
grants received to the present.
If I missed anything, please
let me know.
Take you.
>> Thank you very much.
>> You covered it well thank
you so much.
Good working with you.
>> Wonderful.
So I will assume councilmember
herbal is a cosponsor of this.
Thank you for that.
In its additional questions or
comments?
>> Okay hearing them, seeing
that I know councilmember
warriors is also interested in
being a cosponsor.
Any other additional cosponsors
at this point?
Councilmember Peterson and I
will add my name as well.
And councilmember Lewis.
Okay thank you.
Councilmember Gonzales.
Wonderful.
Moving onto amendment number 48.
This amendment sponsored by
Council member's allotment kept
the annual salary plus overtime
for Seattle Police Department
employees at $150,000 per year.
Some of the positions that are
eligible for overtime are
represented representative of
changes to salary and overtime
pay.
Conducting additional analysis
to inform councilmembers about
the solidity city's ability to
make changes as anticipated in
this amendment.
>> Thank you very much.
>> Seattle police officers are
some of the highest paid people
in the cilia Seattle.
Both in the city and also
employees of the city of
Seattle.
This is not an accident.
Because throughout history, of
the class society, whatever
class is in power always make
sure to pay their forces of
repression first.
A handful of officers are paid
over $300,000 a year.
And what was paid over $400,000
a year.
According to open the books,
salary plus overtime 199 out of
200 top aides
executives/employees are in the
Seattle Police Department.
Almost exclusively police
officers sergeants and
lieutenants, these 119 people
were paid an average of
$268,000 last year.
Is overwhelming the result of
overtime which we know is often
racked up with violent
repression of protests.
I have no objection to officers
making decent wages but there's
no reason why they should be
paid more than $150,000 a year.
And I mentioned city executives
because I thought I had an
amendment to cap city executive
salaries and nonunionized work
employees.
But no customer supported that
either.
Those high wages should go to
teachers, social workers, of
the workers who do so much good
for our community.
Rather than building up and
overtime the police researchers
police officers paid forget for
harming protesters.
As such as Deb noted, as of
June 2020 14 of SPV's executive
and manager positions earning
more than $150,000 are
nonrepresentative and are not
eligible for overtime pay.
Capping those positions at
$150,000 would result in a
reduction of about 1 million.
Based on June 2020 salaries.
So just those 14 salaries alone
will give the city $1 million
to reallocate immediately to
the community.
It is not a question of
negotiation.
Because these are not union
positions.
As for other SPD employees who
are above the hundred 50,000
threshold because of overtime,
I was say this amendment is
needed precisely to reign in
the out-of-control overtime.
As many of us in the movement
had noted, just as reported by
the press, -- -- The police
officers got $6.3 million of
overtime.
Which is just unacceptable.
I want to be clear that this
amendment is not just about
saving dollars, it turns out as
I have said, that many of the
officers who were wrecking up
ungodly amounts of time, also
have extensive records of
abusing members of the public.
To quote from a revealing
article in mid-press news just
out last month, titled most
overpaid cops in the country,
Seattle police rake it up to
$300,000 per year.
That is the title of the
article.
And in the article they say
many of the best pay police
officers have long histories of
violence and corruption.
The article states sites
Lieutenant Michael who in 2019
made $303,000 in the whole
year.
The article states that 10
years ago he had attempted to
suppress of police brutality
complaint when an officer
kicked a man in the head.
The officer said I am going to
kick your when I catch you.
Before the man gave up going to
the ground.
The claim was dismissed because
officers that he was in danger.
And an officer, and this is a
quote, an officer knows better
when he is in danger than even
to civilian witnesses.
A police lieutenant who was
paid $281,000 last year
according to the same article
admitted to, as an act of
revenge, sending anonymous
letters to his own department
full of false information about
fellow officers who had helped
give him discipline.
He was promoted from Sergeant
to acting Lieutenant the next
day.
There are other examples as
well which I don't have time to
see her but I wish you the
article with other counsel
offices so you can read
information directly yourselves.
This example should shock the
conscience of any member of the
publicly these officers need to
be held fully accountable for
their actions.
Something that has not happened
despite eight years of constant
degree degree.
That you wish themselves to the
actions.
They have acted with near
universal impunity because they
are Rick and recognize that the
political establishment will go
through endless contortions and
make a list of excuses to avoid
holding them accountable.
This amendment limiting
salaries plus overtime is at
least a small step in the right
direction.
And we can and must put the
savings on this amendment.
Directly into the community to
begin to repair the harm and
trauma that these and other
overpaid police have inflicted
on community members thank you.
>> Thank you.
Any questions or comments on
this?
Peter simply go ahead.
>> Thank you for bringing this
forward.
I am interested in this
amendment because I agree that
there are excessive salaries
paid.
I think one of the hesitations
I had with the of the amendment
was nothing certain department
heads to warrant salaries above
150,000.
If they are managing a large
department.
Am attracted by this amendment
interested in potentially
cosponsoring it with you.
I did not know if, would this
also apply to the chief and the
assistance each?
Is that the idea?
Would this apply to the chief
and the assistant chief?
>> It would apply yes.
>> Can we say anything to add
to that which Mark
>> I think, I think department
heads toward a higher salary
limit.
We are seeing the success of
conversation that is not
acceptable.
So I would be interested in
seeing if it could be amended
to maybe not including the
chief or certain higher-level
folks.
I really like this approach.
I think we need to look
carefully at the excessive
compensation.
So I appreciate you bringing
this forward.
>> I think that executive
salaries should also be tapped.
But this particular amendment
is still something that they
are working on.
And I would welcome
cosponsorship with the
understanding that our offices
can work to amend it.
And willing to amend it in
order to have something past.
And please, I would urge you to
cosponsor.
Also with my office.
Thank you.
It was okay.
We will reach out thank you.
>> Excellent thank you.
Councilmember herbal please go
ahead.
With thank you.
As a related to the proposal
for the citywide cap on
compensation, I requested a
policy review of weather, how
other cities have this issue.
Am asking if central staff has
any information like that.
Would be interested in learning
more.
Also, when councilmember has
this before.
I am interested in the concept.
I live the Council on
eliminating performance bonuses
for the city lights CEO.
And generally I agree with the
principle here.
But would also like to be
informed on how other cities
address this very same issue.
If it is at all possible.
To find that information out in
a short amount of time.
Thank you.
>>
>> We did include the response
to you a list of all the other
questions we responded to about
a week ago.
>> All you did, okay.
I will be happy to send it here
for you.
>> I really appreciated. I will
suggest that you hadn't gotten
back to me.
I thought I directed the
question to councilmember
Sawant.
I'm really glad to know I have
an answer.
>> Lisa thank you for that
answer.
I know that you will probably
be sharing it with all of us.
Is there anything you would
like to point to a response to
the question?
>> We only have one example.
I think it was Minnesota.
In the salary was linked to the
governors salary.
Some local officials were
linked to the percentage using
the governors salary as a
threshold.
We didn't find any others.
>> I appreciate you bringing
this forward.
I don't see any additional
hands.
I believe councilmember
Peterson just double checking,
are you interested in signing
on as a cosponsor was I'm going
to connect with councilmember
Sawant staff. Now.
Thank you.
>> It was in the spirit that it
was given, maybe not include
the top person.
>> And councilmember Sawant I
heard you say you you are open
to that considering the
question
>> absolutely and I about other
officers.
Thank you Lisa for sharing your
research.
I will say that even in the
city this is, of course, the
question to councilmembers is
do we think in the middle of
the pandemic when people are
living on the precipice, that
we should ask them to do their
part.
Especially since we will invest
excessively into socially made
programs in black and brown
communities.
I hope that will be the guiding
question and how the Sammamish
accent.
>> Think you very much.
Again, looking forward to that
picture conversation about how
the amendment may be amended.
But I am also happy to add my
name thank you.
Let's move onto amendment
number 49.
>> Good afternoon, this is
Carlos Lugo 119825 sponsored by
councilmember Lewis.
>> This is McCollister you my
speaking up a little bit?
>> Sorry about that.
For the record this is Carlos
Lugo with counsel central
staff.
Amendment 49 the Council Bill
119825 is sponsored by
Councilman Lewis.
It will $50,000 for general
contract services.
Anticipation of the potential
expansion of a waiver from King
County that were reduce Joe
Koss from October through
December.
It would add $80,000 in general
fund money to the human
services department.
It would also impose a proviso
of the development plan or
community visioning process
that will result in scaling 911
police response system.
It would incorporate culturally
relevant expertise by social
service organizations and
individuals with direct lived
experience.
To include purses and spears
and homelessness, mental
illness and substance abuse
disorders.
Estimated savings from the
waiver range from 1.7 to 2.1
million.
However, the general country
waiver is not extended from
October to December.
Cutting funds from FAS
resulting in FAS may be having
them find more funding to pay
for that portion of the cost.
>> Thank you very much. Is a
member Lewis go ahead.
>> Thank you.
In thank you's interesting for
that overview of this for visa.
So you know as I have discussed,
and very interested in new
methods of community-based low
acuity first response.
I had a town hall on this topic
. Last week.
In heard from the work that
some folks are doing.
Particularly in Denver.
In going through a similar
process right now.
Where they are about two months
into the actual performers part
úof the pilot.
Community-based low acuity
first response based on the
crisis assistance helping out
in the streets.
Pioneered by the white bird
clinic in Eugene Oregon.
This will be the first step to
contract with the community
based organization to come up
with a plan to get our own
pilot going out here in the
city of Seattle.
And then scale that up in 2021.
Once we have this plan in place.
The target unit within HSD to
deliver the funds was -- -- In
consultation with community
partners the particular unit
with the kind of appropriate.
And the work that they have
done with lead and of the
Canada version based programs.
Have been very successful in
the community.
As we heard last week, the jail
waiver has been granted to
continue in Keith County.
Or at least intends to.
I would imagine that that
waiver is going to continue to
be granted for the foreseeable
future.
Since it is based on the
intensification efforts related
to COVID.
It does not look like that is
going to change.
In the short term.
At least not for the rest of
2020.
I would anticipate that
$50,000, maybe a fairly small
about to fund an initial
planning and study session and
of this type will materialize.
So with that, I think this is
the start of developing,
scaling, building up our own
community based low acuity
response system.
Is inspiring to see how it's
taking shape in other cities.
I think this is the first step
in the process.
>> Thank you very much.
Additional comments or
questions?
Councilmember herbal please?
>> My question is, given that
community driven research
project has in his scope
process that includes
recommendations for scaling
monopolies and I will response
system, how do these funds and
value to the scope of the $3
million community research
project that includes this goal?
I'd appreciate that and I
imagine they could be combined.
I don't think they are mutually
exclusive.
But of course I was developing
this for these old isolation
from other efforts.
So I wouldn't have any problem
just rolling this in to that
process or having this be
additional money that can be
sought by the community to
augment the process.
I imagine there are
complementary efforts that
could be merged together.
>> Thank you.
>> Excellent think evil both
very much.
Additional comments or
questions?
Nothing additional hands.
Councilmember Lewis I would be
happy to sleep is a cosponsor
of this.
And the conversation you just
had about how they match.
Additional folks who are
interested in cosponsoring?
>> Madam chair I believe I
texted you the cosponsor.
>> You sure did.
I'm so sorry about that.
Councilmember Sawant,
councilmember war ask,
councilmember morale is.
Wonderful, take you for that.
Let's go on.
Amendment number 50.
>> Amendment 50 sponsored by
councilmember Sawant would cut
$700,000 from the Seattle
Police Department's budget.
And the money to the Department
of construction and inspections
to increase funding for
eviction legal defense and the
advocacy and outreach.
$200,000 will be advocated for
eviction legal defense of $500
for rental rights advocacy.
This would increase the
capacity to contract such
services.
In the cut will primarily be
taken efforts in SPD that
supports personnel costs for
patrol officers and will result
in left that could be a mixed
sworn in civilian personnel.
>> Similar to the budget
amendment, this amendment
essential community needs with
an extremely small reduction to
the budget.
This amendment would increase
funding for renters rights and
organizing by $700,000 as was
just stated.
They make responding reduction
to the police departments
patrol operations budget. In
particular, it would increase
funding for organizations like
the tenant unit and the housing
justice project to provide
support for people with
eviction.
Over 30% of renters nationwide
were unable to pay the rent on
time this month.
And parts of the country where
eviction moratoriums have been
lifted, have seen a deluge of
evictions.
Seattle the more moratorium is
a place to live in the 2020.
However, the threats of
evictions happening now
alongside any other renters
rights violations.
Organizations are working
overtime to help reduce get
organized to defend the rights.
This amendment will support
their work.
>> That you very much.
Questions or comments on this?
Not saying any questions or
comments.
In queue got some of her
Sawant.
Are there any additional
councilmembers who would like
to add the name as a cosponsor?
>> Okay take you.
Let's move on to amendment
number 51.
>> Thank you.
>> Allie if you can speak a
little bit.
With that sounds good.
>> Amendment 51 sponsored by
councilmember morale is what
$500,000 from the police
department and added to the
office for civil rights.
To support a community led
participatory budgeting process
for the 2021 budget.
SPD staff have indicated that
$500,000 of the funding that
had been dedicated in the 2020
budget to be computer aided
dispatch replacement project
has been reprogrammed by the
executive to conduct community
outreach around re-envisioning
of the role of the police in
providing public safety.
This amendment redirects that
into the office for civil
rights for the participatory
budgeting press is.
Process.
>> Thank you councilmember
morale is please go ahead.
>> Thank you, yeah so many of
our colleagues have said, there
was a parallel efforts happily
before all of this came
together in the last few weeks.
So this amendment was drafted
before we had the discussion
about the 3 million going
toward participatory budgeting
research.
That said, we are working with
central staff before the vote
on Wednesday to transfer instead
of going into OCR to transfer
the $500 into the legislative
department, align better with
the intent here of funding
through the legislative
department, the participating
budgeting work.
And I will be following up with
colleagues about that. I think
the recommendation central
staff is going to be to reduce
that 3 million that we have
already talked about by 500,000
and use this to fund that
section or that portion.
So, we will try to get this
wrapped up quickly and share
that with the colleagues as
soon as possible.
>> Thank you very much.
Are there questions on
amendment number 51?
I am not seeing any questions.
Councilmember morale is.
Are there any additional
individuals who would like to
add your name as a cosponsor?
moving on to the memo number 52.
>> Amendment 52 sponsored by
councilmember Sawant would
impose the proviso to prohibit
spending any funds to prosecute
individuals for actions taken
during the justice for joyfully
protest.
This would include any actions
that would support efforts to
bring charges or prosecute
individuals that would not
prohibit spending on actions to
release charges. Or eliminate
charges.
>> This budget amendment as was
stated will put a priviso on
the police budget stating that
none of the money appropriated
in the budget would be used to
support the prosecution of
individuals for actions taken
while participating in justice
for George Floyd protest.
Including but not limited to
collecting evidence and
providing testimony.
Except as required by court
order.
And as was stated, funds may be
used for the purpose of
dropping charges, releasing
arrestees and clearing their
records.
The Council discussed this
budget amendment in detail last
Friday when we discussed a
similar proviso.
As I said at that time, this is
perhaps the most important
amendment here.
As we discussed on Friday, when
the Seattle Police Department
arrests protest they forward
the rest of the city attorney.
Prosecution.
But also can send them to the
county prosecutor depending on
what the charges are.
And while the city attorney has
assured positive public
statements about not prosecuting
, we have not seen similar
promises from the county. Then
I stated publicly during the
discussions.
When the city has, while the
city has no authority over the
county, it is difficult to
carry out prosecutions without
the evidence and testimony of
Seattle olice Department
officers.
In those offices are under the
city purview.
I appreciate councilmember's
indicated on Friday that you
will be supporting this proviso
and I hope you stay with that.
And I ask all councilmembers to
sign on as cosponsors.
With that you very much.
Which is or comments?
Councilman Lewis please go
ahead.
>> I have a question about the
provision thing except in case
of a court order.
I just want to clarify, maybe
it is a versatile staff.
Is this basically saying that if
there is a subpoena for the
police department to appear in
court and provide testimony,
and if that evidence is in turn
subpoena, pursuant to a court
order to bring that evidence as
well, that that would be an
exemption under this proviso?
Do I read that correctly?
>> Council member Louis.
>> Is my understanding.
I would defer to counsel of her
Sawant on the intent.
If they were court order to
appear, if not for that
exception, the proviso what
restrict the city for paying
those offers to go and testify.
But again, I would turn to the
sponsor to confirm that is her
intent.
>> Yeah, I mean there is
nothing really involved in this
language in a sense that the
city Council cannot prevent
court orders.
It is just a clarification.
In any case it would not be
able to prevent that.
Though it is just clarifying
that.
>> Right, I guess I just wasted
because of practice, like the
only way that testimony or
evidence would would appear in
prosecution is if it was
subpoenaed in the court order.
I guess I am disliking that I,
which I agree, I do think it is
sort of beyond our power to
limit that unfortunately.
But just flagging it as I read
this, I don't really know to
what extent actually in
practice this would impact
SPD's ability to support those
prosecutions in the event the
King County prosecutor's order
the cooperation to show up in
court.
Provide the evidence and
provided testimony.
And I do think it is legally,
it is a necessary exemption.
I guess I just wanted to flag
with that, I don't know that
this has more -- I just wanted
to clarify that point.
Because I do think it would
limit the overall impact.
>> I would just clarify.
The evidence from the police
officers gets sent to the
prosecutors first.
Or the prosecutor decided they
are abl to or want to move
forward.
That is not a court ordered
the.
That is something the Police
Department does.
There are countless instances
of where the arrest people
false charges.
Embed that information gets
sent to the prosecutor.
And this is specifically
happening in relation to the
protesters.
There is a whole universe where
these things are happening
without any court order.
But voluntarily from the police
department.
>> Right, I appreciate the
clarification.
I guess there is nothing to say
that King County could just,
because I understand that they
do just order permissibly give
this come, -- -- There will be
nothing to stop King County
from subpoenaing the evidence
if that is sort of what the
process this proviso will
require them to do.
But yeah, I guess it will
require an added step.
I think ultimately it will
probably still get there.
But in any event, I just wanted
to clarify if that was the
case.
To my knowledge we don't have
the ability to limit the
subpoena power of any other
authority.
And I just wanted to make sure
we were not trying to do that
here.
New verse
>> without this proviso, that
would mean a lot of subpoenas.
And I that would put a
spotlight on the King County
persecutor's office.
So I don't think this amendment
will be purely symbolic.
It is within the realms of the
law.
So we don't want to pretend
that we don't have limitations
here.
But even with those limitations,
this would force the court and
the police to take further
steps.
And I don't assume that it is
automatic and it will be that
easy for them to do all that is
only cases.
The question also how many
arrests have happened.
If this proviso were in place,
then for each of those cases,
the court and the police would
have to take those further
steps.
I feel like it is our job as a
city council, in the face of
such brutal violence, that we
do everything in our power to
make it harder for them to do
that.
So no, we cannot go outside of
the law.
But within the bounds of the
law it is possible to put
roadblocks in their path from
carrying out these unjust
arrests and prosecutions of
protesters.
>> And I appreciate that nuance
is reflected.
Which is great.
So I think it does certainly
square with the law.
I guess I have one more
question to the sponsor and
central staff.
This is sort of similar to one
of my questions last week.
One the contours of this
amendment be broad enough to
include requesting that SPD not
participate in the potential
prosecution . For example, like
an assault that happened during
the demonstration that was not a
detective free-speech activity.
Like the March in my
neighborhood last Wednesday.
With someone was bludgeoned in
the head with an object.
I will say I don't know how
related that was.
I just know it happened like
during the demonstration.
I don't even know if it was a
demonstrator that did it.
It was certainly someone who
was adjacent to the crowd that
did it to someone who came out
to sort of the crowd.
And I wonder if this would be
broad enough.
Because I just want to make
sure that we are protecting
people who are getting arrested
for nonsense.
Like certainly.
And there has been a lot of
that.
But people who are getting
arrested for actually
physically assaulting community
members, that is something I
would want there to be
accountability for and I
wouldn't want to set up an
unnecessary roadblock to it.
So I just want to clarify that
here.
>> This is the point that came
up on Friday.
And I responded to that point.
The problem is that the
language is not the way it is,
then the police can and do
always find an excuse to think
that the arrest is not free-
speech related.
The police never say I am
arresting you for your free
speech.
It is often the that the
protester did not actually do.
So I think that if you look at
the number of instances where
the example you are using is
happening, and the number of
instances that I'm talking
about, it is just a day and
night difference.
The intention is not to prevent
arrest where it should happen.
What an incident like you
mentioned. As I said on Friday
absolutely the intent is not to
prevent that.
But if you don't do something
about what has happened,
hundreds of ordinary people
have been impacted, then it is
like we are saying we can't to
do anything at all.
So that is the spirit behind
this.
>> If I could get an answer
from central staff and then I
have a brief follow-up.
>> Looking for folks with such
a step.
>> Councilmember Lewis, I am
pinchhitting for my colleague.
And so I will follow up with
that question.
I do think it is, as written is
is for actions taken while
participating in justice for
George Floyd process protest.
How that gets interpreted will
matter about whether or not the
action you are describing was
an individual who would say
they were participating in
those protests.
But I will follow up with more
information.
>> Are right and I will flag
really quickly, unlike
amendment last week where with
the city attorney proviso, I
did not really think there was
a problem. I didn't really think
that changing the language
would really make material
difference.
This is one where I think there
is a huge problem.
There is a massive problem.
Where there are tons of arrests
being made that are pretextual
and resulting in horrible abuse
of people civil rights in the
city.
But there are also, you know,
and the scenario I brought up
last week, there hasn't even
been arrested in the case in my
knowledge.
But I do just want to make sure
that acts of physical violence
are things that we would still
want to have some
accountability for.
I would be happy to work with
central staff in the sponsor to
maybe see if there is a way to
clarify that.
So we get it exactly kind of
will I will be looking to do
with this.
It sounds like what
councilmember salon is is
interested in.
I will be happy to work with
the trust and to make sure that
is clear.
This is important.
And there is a massive problem
here.
With reporters being abused and
chronicling it.
So I think it does ward action.
I think it is great that
councilmember you brought this
forward and I'm happy to work
with you to make sure that
certain things dulcet the cracks
where this counsel can maybe be
characterized as being
unconcerned about the violence.
I know that is not the
sponsor's intent.
And I know that there is a way
to figure out how to
communicate that.
So I just wanted to flag that
and thank you for bringing this
forward.
>> Any additional comments or
questions?
Okay thank you.
Councilmember Sawant, I
appreciate you bringing this
forward as well.
In the same vein that
councilmember Lewis just
articulated his desire to see
this advance forward with some
additional specificity, I think
the question was raised about
how we are defining the protests
given the ongoing nature and
continued actions that we see
across the country in the world.
So I would like to maybe also
identify with you how we are
defining that as well in this
moment of uprising.
I will be adding my name as a
cosponsor with you.
Recognizing those future
conversations are coming.
And I appreciate you bringing
this forward an ongoing work.
>> Is quickly to say I am happy
to work with any of the offices
to find amenable language.
With the understanding that I
hope we are in agreement that
we told we don't want to bring
in giant loopholes which is
standing up for protesters
rights.
>> Thank you very much.
Let's move on.
We have three minutes.
Let's try to get through these
last two.
Councilmember Sawant.
Amendment number 53.
Please go ahead.
>> This amendment would move
the 911 authority from the
police department to the
Department of finance and
administrative services.
Was the entire budget and 142
staff and 911 two FAS. Because
there's not an appropriate
budget summary level in the
Department of Finance and
Administrative Services.
MN the bills you are currently
considering would amend the
escrows, this will require a
new bill to be introduced.
The same with the case of the
data-driven policing you talked
about on Friday.
That will also require a new
bill.
And that's it.
>> Thank you.
Councilmember Sawant.
>> Before I speak to this, I
just wanted to say there just
to the members left and I hope
the Council will finish the
discussion on these two members
today rather than leaving it.
Because these are two core
agreements.
Core as the core of what
movement has been demanding.
I hope we are able to extend
the meeting just for that.
So one of the demands was to
take and is to take my 11 calls
out of the police department
chain of command.
It is important because so many
911 calls do not require the
response of an armed officer.
Many 911 calls do not require
Sawant to be arrested.
And yet that is what happens.
In fact, we see community
members like people who have
lost their lives as a result of
this.
This budget amendment, does not
plan to answer the question
about which best answered by
social workers.
Those questions will be
answered by people with real
expertise and experience.
This budget amendment is Sibley
a step forward to towards
moving the 911 calls out of the
police department chain of
command.
Removing its funding from the
police department's budget.
Instead it places the funding
in the Department of medicine
and administrative services.
As a temporary measure what
community organizes design
where it ultimately should go.
They're really good presidents
is for this approach.
When the law enforcement
program was first being fun, it
was out of administer the
services.
Lead organized successfully
resisted efforts by the
political establishments to
move their budget into police
department because they
correctly warned that if the
police chain of command has
control over the budget and
most funds will be used for
more repressive policing is the
diversion program.
Ultimately lead funding was
moved to the human services
Department.
I do with the caution that this
budget amendment is only the
first step into moving I will
want from SPD's chain of
command.
If there are no the changes
that you have no practical
impact.
It will amount to a little more
than an accounting shift.
However, if we are serious
about removing the call center
from the police in a commanding
given it financial independence.
>> Questions or comments?
Seeing the thank you counsel of
the salon.
Any additional.
>> I just want to ask that
councilmember Lewis refreshed us
about what the timeline is in
the resolution that we are
sponsoring about legislation to
do just this.
Movement wants 911 services out
of SPD and into FAS and how
that go to do that, and a
reminder of when we are seeking
to do that.
Either is consistent with
physical or is in some way
allied with the goal.
>> So I appreciate the question.
And I'm going to filibuster a
little bit while I load the
resolution.
>> Sorry to put you on the
spot.
>> It is perfectly fine.
What I was stay one I'm looking
forward to so I can
specifically cite from the
resolution.
Is from my conversations with
little staff about this very
issue. Which I feel really
strongly about, mostly because
it relates closely to developing
an independent 911 call center.
I was talking to suggest that
about various different ways to
do it.
And one of the ideas that had
come up with this idea of
temporarily basically parking
them I will one call center in
FAS as sort of a place where we
could maybe speed up the
transition by moving if there
while we wait to see if there
is a more appropriate existing
department.
Or we could go through the
process of creating a new
successor department.
I think that the timeline that
we laid out in the initial
draft of the, in the
resolution, calls for a
complete transfer before the
end of 2021.
To the official new place. I
don't think this particular FAS
strategy, you know, I don't
have a strong opinion on this
at the moment.
I want to kinda look into it a
little bit more.
And I want to actually talk to
the union that represents the
dispatch is about eight also.
See if they have strong
feelings about it.
My sense is this the sort of
like a way that we can put, we
can get it out of the
department faster.
Full well knowing that
formalizes the ultimate move is
going to take a little bit
longer.
Because of a bunch of
logistical things that are
associated with it.
Like presumably we are going to
want to relocate to a new call
center for example
Because the current one is in
the West precinct.
The timeline, looking at it now,
a sickly calls for the transfer
to be completed by 2021.
But it is silent on exactly how
we get there.
So I wanted to think about this
approach a little bit more.
It is something I have talked
with central staff about.
And it is certainly one of the
offices.
>> Okay thank you very much.
Customer Bissau want to wrap
this up.
Councilmember Sawant.
>> Real changes would need to
be done.
But this would be an important
first step.
It would indicate real
commitment from the city
Council.
And I really thank you for
those of you who have made
promises in the last few weeks.
We are voting on the budget
now.
I don't understand why it is
necessary to pass a resolution
to do this in the future will
we have the power to do it now.
This is one of the core demands
of the movement.
And it cost nothing.
It is not going to lay anyone
off.
It is not even like the issue
we brought up earlier.
In my view anyway.
It is just a question of
indicating immediately through
budget action that the Council
is committed to further action.
And to make sure the 911 call
and we can process this move
out of police jurisdiction.
>> What I'm hearing is that
they is interested interested
in understanding better how to
reconcile this.
>> I will make this quick.
I agree with councilmember
Sawant that this needs to
happen now.
And I agree with is a member
Lewis stating we need to make
the transfer only once and not
twice.
With an understanding that we
need to have a public safety
organization to transfer this
to.
To assure that records are kept
within the department.
I would like to work with both
of your offices between now and
Wednesday to see if there is a
way that we can cut together
with that.
Thank you to both of you for
bringing these amendments four.
>> Agreed welfare.
Customer Bissau want thank you.
Any additional folks would like
to add their names at this
moment?
Councilmember Sawant thank you.
And we are ultimately 53.
I have councilmember herbal and
councilmember Morales.
We are on the last amendment
and I appreciate that you did
bring the slew of amendments
that you had is a package in
your earlier talking points.
Would like to make sure we get
central staff and our I.T.s and
comms folks a break as well as
our teams before the 2 p.m.
meeting.
I will turn it over to you to
wrap it up with our last
amendment.
>> As I have said before, I
support the demand to defund
the police by 50%.
And that is with this budget
amendment does.
It is important because of the
harm done by repressive
policing.
We need to in the police
violence against our
communities of cover.
And we need to and mass
incarceration.
This amendment is also important
because it supports building
affordable housing in our
communities.
And study after study shows
that reducing poverty and
inequality and housing
instability and homelessness
are the things that have the
greatest impact on reducing
crime. And a positive impact on
public safety.
Increase policing on the other
hand has been shown to have
little or no impact on reducing
crime.
The budget amendment funds
housing.
The social housing.
Affordable housing to reduce
gentrification and displacement
in our communities.
It would end defund the police
by 30 $4.7 million to fund
housing.
As my office -- Sorry, and when
taken in conjunction with other
amendments, that adds up to
defending the police by 85
million which is 50% of the
remainder of the police budget
for the year.
Because this is an amendment to
defund the police by 50%, the
reductions are divided
proportionately between the SPD
budget lines like patrol
operations, special operations
and administration.
The police budget as we know is
divided into the gigantic
budget lines.
For example ultimately it is
the responsibility of the
police chief and the mayor who
have formal authority to decide
how the police want to read the
cuts across the board.
But the Council's job is to
vote to defund the police by
50%.
The Council has the power to
reduce the police budget as a
whole.
And the mayor and police chief
have decide how they are going
to implement that without
making excuses the community
of, police officers have to go
first.
Which we don't accept.
And I want to be clear that the
funding the police is not a
budget cut.
It is because we want to begin
to and police repression and
violence. And this is in line
with the demands of the
community.
Of all defund the police by at
least 50% this year.
And I hope councilmembers will
support this.
It has been shocking to me that
after all the promises made,
that the proposal that we put
forward on Friday totally
failed.
I hope the Council will stand
with the community in support.
Thank you.
>> Thank you councilmember
Sawant.
Any additional comments or
questions?
Okay seeing them.
Any additional folks want to
add their name to the many 50
four from our last anemia?
>> Okay seeing nine seeing nine.
We do have a full Council
meeting, Council President is a
justly awaiting our break so we
can get the staff time they
need to get teed up for the 2
p.m.
meeting today.
Our meeting on Wednesday
actually began at 10 a.m..
Thank you to councilmember
Peterson who chairs the
transportation, public
utilities committee.
We will no longer have that
meeting.
They gives us an extra hour on
Wednesday.
So please note 10 a.m.
as our normal meeting time.
And to the Council President's
office for continuing to allow
for this dialogue is to happen
so we can get wrapped up.
With that are there any other
comments or questions?
Anything to announce today?
>> Just wanted to make sure that
were aware that with the change
of the select budget committee
as a result of the -- -- Public
comment will now be available
in our earlier as well.
In terms of ability to
preregister.
So for folks is that of being
able to register at 9 a.m.
you will be able to register at
8:00 a.m.
for that select committee
meeting.
And then I failed to mention
during counsel beefing, you are
aware that we did receive a
notice of veto of the covert
relief bill from Mayor Durkan.
And my office is working with
the clerks office on scheduling
a special committee meeting.
Where we can consider that issue
. In the earliest we would be
able to consider is likely
August 12.
So please stay tuned for future
communication from our counsel
central staff on a potential
special meeting of the full
Council August 12 at 2 p.m.
for the sole purpose of
considering the covert relief
bill that was vetoed by Mayor
Durkan.
That is it.
With S: thank you very much.
Appreciate your comments there.
As a reminder for folks, your
office has been working
quickly.
Appreciate you doing that.
This is not about a political
standoff.
This is about the immediate
relief to provide housing,
food, and child care assistance.
So looking forward to working
with you and all of our counsel
colleague to ensure they get
that.
Thank you very much.
We have reached the end of our
agenda.
Again, our next meeting is
Wednesday, August 5 and 10,
10:00 a.m.
We will continue our discussion
and have a possible vote on the
Sammamish.
And I really appreciate all the
work you guys are going to be
doing when our central staff to
finalize and fine-tune some of
these remaining members for our
consideration on Wednesday.
Thank you in advance and thanks
as always to our teams. I.T.s
sister staff, the clerks and
our individual offices for
making these meetings possibl.
We will see you at 2 p.m..
Thank you very much of the
body.
The meeting is adjourned.