CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLE?
>> COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE, SORRY,
EXCUSE ME, COUNCILMEMBER MOORE .
COUNCILMEMBER SAKA .
COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON.
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS.
COUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH. AND
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON. NINE
PRESENT.
>> THANK YOU, OKAY, THERE ARE NO
PRESENTATIONS TODAY SO AT THIS
TIME WE WILL OPEN THE HYBRID
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, LIMITED
TO ITEMS ON TODAY'S AGENDA AND
THE COUNCIL WORK PROGRAM. HOW
MANY PEOPLE ARE SIGNED UP TODAY?
>> WE HAVE ABOUT 11 REMOTE AND
12 IN PERSON.
>> WE WILL START WITH THE IN
PERSON PLEASE. WE WILL GIVE
ABOUT ONE MINUTE EACH.
>> SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED IN
ORDER OF WHICH THEY REGISTERED,
ALSO SPEAKERS WILL HILL -- HERE
A CHIME , THE PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD IS NOW OPEN AND WE WILL
BEGIN WITH THE FIRST SPEAKER ON
THE LIST.
>> WITH ONE MINUTE PER PERSON,
WE WILL START WITH DONALD, THEN
GABRIEL JONES, THEN PHILIP.
>> THE CASE THAT I HAVE BEFORE
YOU CONCERNING ME AND THE CASES
THAT YOU GUYS CHOOSE NOT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE, CASE 2022, I WISH
ALL OF YOU WRITE IT DOWN, CASE
2022, OPA 034, AND I NOTICED
YOUR PENS NOT MOVING, WHAT I'M
SAYING, THOSE CASES AGAINST
DIAZ, DON'T FORGET, I'M UPSET
BUT I'M TRYING TO GIVE YOU
PARKING KEYS TO, TELL YOU
SOMETHING YOU ALREADY KNOW. PICK
UP THE PHONE, THEY LIE, THEY PUT
IT ON LGA, AND LGA HAS THEIR OWN
RULES, GIVE ME MY FILE BACK SO I
CAN SUE YOU. AND I MEAN IT. I'M
NOT GOING TO GIVE UP, I'M NOT
GOING TO LET YOU BELITTLE ME OR
MAKE ME SIT IN THESE MEETINGS
UNTIL 10:30 AT NIGHT JUST TO
HAVE YOU SAY NOTHING TO ME. I
DEMAND MY RESPECT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR.
NEXT WE HAVE GABRIEL JONES, THEN
FOLLOWING IS PHILIP.
>> MY NAME IS GABRIEL JONES AND
I'M HERE TODAY TO SPEAK ON THE
LESS LETHAL ORDINANCE, I HAVE
BEEN A FEW TIMES HERE, WE HAVE
BEEN DOING A LOT OF PROTESTERS
TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE GET HOME
SAFELY AT THE END OF THE NIGHT,
I HAVE SEEN SOME PRETTY AWFUL
INJURIES. I MYSELF HAVE INJURIES
BUT I WANT TO TAKE A DIFFERENT
ROUTE TODAY, I WANT YOU TO ASK
WHAT PROTESTS, WHEN WOULD THE
SPD [INDISCERNIBLE] AND
SURROUNDED BY SO MANY PEOPLE
THEY ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE USED
AGAINST BUT WILL STILL BE
HARMED, YOU HEAR STORIES ALL THE
TIME OF PEOPLE WHO GOT PEPPER
WALLED IN THEIR APARTMENTS WHERE
THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO
PROTEST. OVER AND OVER AGAIN,
THIS IS NOT THE SOLUTION, WE
NEED MORE CARE FOR OUR COMMUNITY
NOW MORE THAN EVER AFTER THESE
AWFUL THINGS OF THIS
ADMINISTRATION, NOT TO UNLEASH A
FURTHER OPTIONAL ARSENAL TO OUR
CIVILIANS. AND I WANT TO REMIND
EVERYONE TO RETURN THEIR BALLOTS
AND VOTE YES ON 1A. THANK YOU.
>> WE HAVE PHILIP.
>> I'M ALMOST 70 AND WHEN I WAS
69, I HAD THE POLICE COME TO MY
APARTMENT BECAUSE MY WIFE HAD
GONE CRAZY. SOME OF THE THINGS
THAT HAPPENED WERE INCORRECT, I
FILED A REPORT AND THAT IS WHEN
THEY STARTED TO TAKE ME AWAY. I
WASN'T DRUNK, I WASN'T BLOODY
BUT I GOT TAKEN AWAY BECAUSE I
PUT IN A REQUEST FOR WHY THE
POLICE ACTED FOR THE WAY THEY
DID. AND TOOK MY WIFE TO JAIL
INSTEAD OF A HOSPITAL, WHERE SHE
NEEDED TO GO. AND WHEN I GET THE
REPORTS BACK, THEY HAVEN'T
TALKED TO ANYBODY, THEY HAVEN'T
LISTENED TO THE VIDEO. THEY
LISTEN TO THE TAPES, THEY SAID
THEY FOUND NOTHING WRONG. IF YOU
WANT TO HIRE ME, I WILL WRITE
THIS STUFF DOWN FOR YOU, IT
TAKES THEM SIX MONTHS FOR THEM
TO FIGURE OUT THEY HAVEN'T
DISCOVERED ANYTHING AND THEY
HAVEN'T TALKED TO ANYBODY? AND
TO HAVE MORE POWER WITHOUT
ACTUALLY HAVING SOME CONTROL
OVER THEM IS THE DEFINITION OF
--
>> THANK YOU. WE NOW HAVE VIC,
AND FOLLOWING WILL BE HENRY
KEEN.
>> HELLO, I'M HERE TODAY TO
REPRESENT THE SEATTLE ALLIANCE
AGAINST RACIST AND POLITICAL
OPPRESSION, I CAME HERE TO SPEAK
OUT IN SHOCK AND DISCUSSED
AGAINST THE POSSIBILITY OF THE
RETURN OF THE LESS LETHAL
WEAPONS WHICH ANYONE IN 2020 SAW
THE GRIEVOUS HARM CAUSED TO
PROTESTERS AND BYSTANDERS
RESULTING IN $10 MILLION OF
LAWSUITS PAID FOR OF COURSE BY
SEATTLE TAXPAYERS, BUT IN THE
TWO WEEKS SINCE THIS BOAT HAS
BEEN DELAYED, I HAVE BEEN
WITNESSED TO HORROR STORIES OF
INNOCENT PEOPLE GETTING RATED BY
I.C.E. AND I FELT COMPELLED TO
COME HERE AND SAY THAT SEATTLE
IS A SANCTUARY CITY , THERE'S
NO NEED TO BEND THE WILL OF THE
CERTAIN DEMANDS OF THIS NEW
ADMINISTRATION. I DON'T KNOW
WHAT ELSE TO SAY. WE NEED TO
STAND UP, WE HAVE NO NEED TO
BEND THE KNEE TO THE DEMANDS.
THANK YOU.
>> WE HAVE HENRY KEEN, AND THEN
HOWARD GAIL.
>> HELLO, MY NAME IS HENRY, I'M
A LOCAL PHYSICIAN, I ALSO DO
SOME OVERSEAS REALLY FORK IN
ADDITION TO MY LOCAL WORK, I
WORKED AS A VOLUNTEER MEDICAL
PROVIDER DURING THE CRISIS OF
2020. THE THING I WANTED TO
FOCUS ON TODAY, THE BIGGEST
THING I WANT TO FOCUS ON IS THAT
WHEN I WAS THERE, THERE WERE
VERY FEW PEOPLE AFTER THE FIRST
DAY OR TWO MY AGE, THE FAMILIES
AND CHILDREN ARE GONE, THAT WAS
BECAUSE IN HIS VERY FIRST DAYS,
IT WAS THE MUNITIONS THAT MADE
PEOPLE FEEL THEY COULD NOT BE
SAFE PROTESTING IN THAT SPACE.
AS WE ARE GOING INTO AN ERA
WHERE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO FEEL
MORE OF THE NEED TO FIND ROUTES
TO PEACEFULLY PROTEST AND BE
ACTIVE TO PROTECT THE MOST
VULNERABLE POPULATIONS, IF THE
ONLY LESSON WE LEARN FROM 2020
IS TO MAKE A SWATH OF PEOPLE
FEEL THAT THEY SIMPLY CANNOT BE
SAFE THAN THE GLASS BALLS WILL
HAVE DONE THEIR JOB AND THAT IS
THE ONLY JOB I SEE THEM DOING.
THANK YOU.
>> FOLLOWING HOWARD?
>> LEGISLATION BEFORE YOU TODAY
IS SIMPLY THE REWORDING OF
EXISTING RULES AND POLICIES THAT
HAVE BEEN IN EFFECT FOR 25
YEARS, WHY DO PEOPLE THINK IT IS
GOING TO MAKE ANYTHING
DIFFERENT? JUST SATURDAY, THE
DEMONSTRATION, IN THE SEATTLE
TIMES, OFFICERS THREATENED TO
USE CROWD CONTROL WEAPONS
INCLUDING TEARGAS, THIS IS WHAT
YOU ARE ENABLING. I WANT TO
POINT OUT THE IRONY AND THE
HYPOCRISY IN THIS LEGISLATION,
HAZARDS WHEREAS, WHERE IT SAYS,
LESS LETHAL TOOLS OR USE OF
FORCE DEVICES, NOT WEAPONS, NOT
INTENDED OR LIKELY TO CAUSE
DEATH OR SUBJECT TO GREAT BODILY
HARM, WE KNOW THAT IS FACTUAL.
OKAY, AND YET ONE OF THE
AMENDMENTS YOU HAVE TODAY IS TO
SAY THAT THESE DEVICES HAVE
DEMONSTRATED A TRACK RECORD OF
PAST POLICY INFLICTING INJURY
INCLUDING SERIOUS INJURY AND THE
AMENDMENT ENDS WITH SAYING PAST
POLICY INTENDED TO REDUCE THE
RISK OF SUCH INJURY
[INDISCERNIBLE]
>> NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE? PLEASE
HAVE YOUR SEAT. I BELIEVE IT IS
FLORA, THEN ANNIKA, AND MATT.
>> I DEMAND THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL VOTE AGAINST
IMPLEMENTING THE USE OF
NONLETHAL WEAPONS BY THE SEATTLE
POLICE DEPARTMENT, THIS DECISION
IMMEDIATELY AFFECTS MY
COMMUNITY'S SAFETY. DURING THE
PROTESTS OF 2020 AND THEREAFTER,
IT WAS CLEAR HOW HARMFUL THEY
ARE, IT HURT COUNTLESS CITIZENS
DURING A PUBLIC OUTCRY DURING
POLICE BRUTALITY. WE SPOKE OF
THE DANGERS OF NONLETHAL WEAPONS
AND WE SPEAK AGAIN, DO NOT BRING
BACK NONLETHAL TOOLS USED TO
SUPPRESS OUR VOICES, DO NOT
WEAPONIZE THE SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT.
>> DO WE HAVE ANNIKA?
>> HELLO. I REPRESENT MYSELF,
THIS IS MY FIRST TIME SPEAKING
BEFORE THE CICIL, AND I
HAVE BEEN IN QUITE A FEW
PROTESTS. I HAVE BEEN THERE WHEN
THESE WEAPONS WERE USED AGAINST
THE CROWD, AND WHY DO YOU WANT
TO PEPPER SPRAY US? WHY DO YOU
WANT TO TEARGAS US? WHY DO YOU
WANT TO HARM PEOPLE THAT JUST
HAVE IMPORTANT THINGS TO SAY TO
YOU? YOU WON'T LISTEN TO US IF
WE DON'T PROTEST. WE NEED TO BE
ABLE TO DO THAT SAFELY. I
DIDN'T PREPARE ANYTHING TO SAY,
I JUST WANT YOU TO LOOK ME IN
THE EYE AND SAY, YOU SERIOUSLY
WANT PEOPLE TO GET TEARGAS, THAT
IS WHAT YOU WANT? YOU WANT
PEOPLE TO GET HURT? INEXCUSABLE.
>> WE HAVE MET, THEN MJ.
>> HIGH COUNCIL MEMBERS, I'M A
CAPITOL HILL RESIDENT AND SMALL
BUSINESS OWNER IN SOTO. I WANTED
TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT
A FEW WEEKS AGO, THAT A PRECINCT
CAPTAIN WAS REPRIMANDED FOR
VIOLATING CROWD CONTROL POLICIES
THIS PAST SUMMER, AND AMONG
OTHER THINGS, HE DROVE HIS
UNMARKED POLICE CAR INTO A GROUP
OF NONVIOLENT PROTESTERS. I WAS
ONE OF THOSE, SO I CAN TELL YOU
FIRST HAND HOW SHOCKINGLY
UNHINGED HIS BEHAVIOR SEEMED.
FOR THE MOMENT HE ARRIVED ON THE
SCENE, HIS RAGE LED HIM TO
ESCALATE HIS RESPONSE, GREATLY
INCREASING THE POTENTIAL FOR
HARM AND INJURY. THIS IS NOT
JUST MY OWN PERSONAL
OBSERVATION, THIS IS THE
OFFICIAL FINDINGS OF THE OPA AND
I BRING CAPTAIN STRAND TO YOUR
ATTENTION TODAY AS A WARNING, NO
MATTER WHAT SAFEGUARDS YOU
WRITE, IF YOU REAUTHORIZE SPD'S
USE OF LESS LETHAL WEAPONS, THEY
WILL USE THEM AND THERE WILL BE
A CERTAIN NUMBER OF OFFICERS WHO
[INDISCERNIBLE]
>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR,
YOUR TIME IS UP.
>> NEXT WE HAVE MJ, AND
FOLLOWING WOULD BE GARRETT .
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME IS MJ
JURGENSEN, MY PRONOUNS ARE THEY,
THEM, THEIRS. I'M AN ACTIVIST
IN OUR SENIOR CENTER IN OUR
COMMUNITY, WHAT SOME OF YOU MAY
NOT KNOW ABOUT ME IS IN THE
SUMMER OF 2020 I WAS ALSO KICKED
BY A POLICE OFFICER AND TARGETED
WITH A GLASS BALL THAT EXPLODED
AGAINST MY LEFT THIGH. I HAVE
BEEN A PLAINTIFF, INTERVIEWEE,
ARTICLE WRITER AND ADVOCATE ON
THIS ISSUE. AHEAD OF FOUR YEARS,
OF WHAT HAS PROVEN TO BE
FLAGRANT ATTACKS ON CIVIL RIGHTS
IN OUR COUNTRY, THE CITY OF
SEATTLE HAS A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY
TO STAND AT THE FOREFRONT OF
CIVIL JUSTICE AND REFORM, AND TO
BE A LEADER ON THIS TOPIC, I
URGE YOU, PROTECT YOUR CITIZENS.
DO NOT REARM OUR COPS WITH WHAT
WE HAVE LEARNED IS POTENTIALLY
LETHAL WEAPONS. THANK YOU.
>> GARRETT, AND FOLLOWING
GARRETT IS ALEX.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON COUNCIL
PRESIDENT NELSON,
COUNCILMEMBERS, MY NAME IS
GARRETT, I'M A RESIDENT OF CD3
AND BY 2020 I WAS A RESIDENT OF
CAPITOL HILL AND I HAVE
INCREDIBLE STORIES TO SHARE FROM
THAT YEAR THAT I WISH I COULD
TELL YOU ALL ABOUT. BUT I WANT
TO TAKE YOU BACK TO ONE DAY IN
PARTICULAR IN WHICH I FINALLY
CONVINCED A DEAR FRIEND OF MINE,
A SENIOR, AN ELDERLY WOMAN WHO
JUST SURVIVED CANCER TO FINALLY
COME OUT AND JOIN THESE
WONDERFUL DEMONSTRATIONS THAT WE
ARE ALL A PART OF. FOR ABOUT ONE
HOUR, IT WAS FANTASTIC, WE
FINALLY GOT TO THE EAST PRECINCT
AND UNFORTUNATELY WITHIN ABOUT
FIVE MINUTES, SHE TURNS TO ME
AND YELLS GARRETT, RUN, RUN,
RUN. WHAT WAS GOING ON? WE START
RUNNING AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THE
GLASS BALLS START GOING OFF, I
HAVE NEVER HEARD SUCH DEEP
SCREAMS OF FEAR IN MY ENTIRE
LIFE. PLEASE DO NOT SUPPORT
THESE SO-CALLED LESS LETHAL
WEAPONS.
>> ALEX TSIMERMAN .
>> THANK YOU. YES, MY NAME IS
ALEX TSIMERMAN AND TO BE VERY
HONEST WITH YOU, I LIKE THIS AND
I WILL EXPLAIN TO YOU WHY, THEY
PROCEEDED TO ME FIVE TIMES, SO
I'M IMPRESSED [INDISCERNIBLE]
WHAT YOU WANT FROM A MAN LIKE
ME? BUT, THIS SITUATION IS
MAKING ME TOTALLY SICK, YOU,
SARAH NELSON, YOU ARE PROBABLY
SO STUPID SO I CAN, TRUMP TWO
WEEKS AGO MAKES A FREEDOM OF
SPEECH ORDER, YOU KNOW. BY THIS
ORDER, EVERYBODY IS SUPPOSED TO
BE ALL RIGHT FOR SPEECH. BUT,
700,000 AND NO PROTEST. SO I
TALKED ABOUT THIS FOR MANY
YEARS, STAND UP .
>> SAGE IS OUR LAST PUBLIC
SPEAKER.
>> DURING THE 2020 PROTEST, SPD
USED THESE WEAPONS AND THEIR
JUDGMENT ON WHEN TO ESCALATE
INDISCRIMINATELY AND CRUELLY,
THE ORDINANCE YOU SUGGESTED FOR
REPEAL CONSTANTLY DEFINES PUBLIC
DISTURBANCE IN A WAY THAT
ACTUALLY PROTECTS PEOPLE FROM
THEIR INDISCRIMINATELY CRUEL AND
EXCESSIVE TACTICS AGAINST
CITIZENS WHO ARE THREATENING NO
INDIVIDUAL OR GROUPS ACTUAL
SAFETY. FASCIST OLIGARCHICAL
REGIME IN OUR GOVERNMENT IS HERE
PLAIN AS DAY, SPD HAD THE
LARGEST ATTENDANCE OF ANY POLICE
DEPARTMENT IN THE INSURRECTION
OF 2021. DO NOT MAKE IT EASY FOR
THEM, DO NOT ARM SPD WITH THESE
CRUEL LESS LETHAL WEAPONS, DO
NOT LET THEM DECIDE WHAT COUNTS
AS A VIOLENT PUBLIC DISTURBANCE.
THEY HAVE PROVEN THAT THEY WILL
COST INNOCENT CITIZENS THEIR
HEALTH AND USE OF EXCESSIVE
FORCE TO VIOLENTLY REVIEW OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FREE
SPEECH AND COST THE CITY OF
SEATTLE MILLIONS MORE IN
LAWSUITS FROM INJURIES.
>> WE CAN MOVE ON TO REMOTE
SPEAKERS.
>> WE WILL BEGIN REMOTE PUBLIC
COMMENT, PLEASE PRESS *6 WHEN
YOU HEAR THE PROMPT THAT YOU
HAVE BEEN UNMUTED, THE FIRST
SPEAKER IS ESTHER. GO AHEAD,
ESTHER.
>> HI, CAN YOU HEAR ME? OKAY,
I'M HERE AT UNIVERSITY OF
WASHINGTON AND A GROUP OF 16
RESEARCHERS INCLUDING STUDENTS
AND PROFESSORS, CAN YOU SAY HI
REALLY QUICK?
>> HI.
>> I CANNOT EXPRESS HOW IT
DISRUPTED AND DISMAYED WE ARE,
WE HAVE SPENT TWO CLASSES
TALKING ABOUT THE POLITICAL
SITUATION IN THE WHITE HOUSE
INSTEAD OF DOING OUR NORMAL
WORK, AND WE ARE WAITING FOR
I.C.E. TO COME AND RAID OUR
CLASSROOM, WE WILL NOT STAND BY
IN THIS POLITICAL CLIMATE AND WE
HAVE TO DEFEND OURSELVES, OUR
UNIVERSITIES AND OUR LIVELIHOODS
AND THE TRUTH ITSELF, SO WE ARE
PLANNING TO FULLY EXERCISE OUR
CIVIL RIGHTS THROUGH PEACEFUL
DEMONSTRATION. IF YOU REPEAL
THIS BAN ON WEAPONS AND LET THEM
BE USED ON US, YOU WILL BE
COMPLACENT AND WE IN SEATTLE
WILL ALL KNOW ABOUT IT. THIS IS
BECAUSE OF THE FEAR OF
ENCOUNTERING HIS WEAPONS, I DO
NOT WANT TO BE PEPPER SPRAYED.
>> THANK YOU, OUR NEXT SPEAKER
IS OLIVER. GO AHEAD, OLIVER.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR NELSON
AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, I'M A
SEATTLE PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHER
AND LGBTQ+ SMALL BUSINESS OWNER
AND A VICTIM OF POLICE VIOLENCE,
I'M NOT HERE REPRESENTING ANY
OF MY CLIENTS TODAY. I'M HERE
TO TALK AGAINST THE LESS LETHAL
WEAPONS, THIS IS A DANGEROUS
BREACH OF OUR BASIC FREEDOMS, AS
AN EDUCATOR I FIND IT DEEPLY
TROUBLING THAT ON ONE HAND WE
ENCOURAGE TO BE SEPARATELY
ENGAGED, AND TAKE DIRECT ACTION
BUT AT THE SAME TIME WE HAVE A
CITY COUNCIL THAT IS WILLING TO
PUT THEM AT RISK OF REAL
VIOLENCE, THE VIOLENCE
PERPETRATED BY POLICE ON THE
COMMUNITY AT THE DIRECTIVE OF
OUR ELECTIVES. IMAGINE YOUR
CHILD IN A CROWD OF PROTESTERS,
WOULD YOU WANT THESE POLICE
ARMED?
>> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS TED, THEN
IT'LL BE DAVID HAYNES.
>> I'M FROM DISTRICT 3, I'M
SPEAKING TODAY TO OPPOSE
ALLOWING THE POLICE TO USE THE
CROWD CONTROL WEAPONS, I THINK
THE LEGISLATION ALLOWS POLICE TO
USE VIOLENCE BUT I CAN SPEAK ON
SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY DAMAGE, IT
IS EXPLICITLY DISCRIMINATORY, IT
MEANS THAT POLICE ARE SERVING
DIFFERENT PEOPLE IN OUR
COMMUNITY DIFFERENTLY. PEOPLE
WITH MORE MONEY ARE PROTECTED
AND THEIR VOICE MEANS MORE THAN
PEOPLE WHO HAVE LESS BECAUSE IT
GIVES THE POLICE AN OPPORTUNITY
TO USE WEAPONS AGAINST PEOPLE
WHOSE OPERANT -- PROPERTY IS
THREATENED. I ALSO PEAK THINK
THIS LEGISLATION IS PUSHED
FORWARD TOO QUICKLY BECAUSE
THERE WAS NO ANALYSIS DONE ON
THE DISPROPORTIONATE EFFECT OF
CROWD CONTROL DEVICES ON THE
DIFFERENT MARGINALIZED
COMMUNITIES IN SEATTLE. THAT
WASN'T INCLUDED IN THE
LEGISLATION AND I THINK WE NEED
TO FIND NEW SOLUTIONS FOR THESE
PROBLEMS INSTEAD OF TRYING TO
RECYCLE OLD SOLUTIONS.
>> THANK YOU, NEXT IS DAVID
HAYNES. AFTER DAVID WILL BE
ROBERT ENGEL.
>> THANK YOU, DAVID HAYNES. WHY
DID THE CITY COUNCIL LEADERSHIP
ELECT A SO-CALLED PUBLIC SAFETY
EXPERT DURING A SPECIAL ELECTION
WHO DOESN'T EVEN HAVE A VOTING
SEAT ON THE PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMITTEE? WAS IT BECAUSE THE
COUNCIL WAS SECRETLY
BACKSTABBING THE WORKING CLASS,
PUTTING RESTRICTIONS ON LEVELS
OF LIVABLE SPACE, TO MAKE IT
EASIER FOR UNQUALIFIED
NONPROFITS TO BUILD LOW-QUALITY
PROJECTS, GUARANTEEING THAT
BLACK LIVES MATTER AND GEORGE
FLOYD, DEVILS ADVOCATES WHO ARE
HIDING BEHIND THE STAKEHOLDERS
AND THEIR UNQUALIFIED RACIST
SLUM DEVELOPERS OF A SO-CALLED
AFFORDABLE AND LOW INCOME
HOUSING NONPROFIT, OR SHAKING
DOWN A CITY COUNCIL 11 YEARS IN
A ROW TALKING ABOUT MILLIONS AND
BILLIONS, CREATING MODERN THIRD
WORLD SLUM REAL ESTATE FOR BLACK
AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO SPREAD
THROUGHOUT EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD
EXCEPT MAPLE LEAF. HOW MUCH
MONEY IS PAID IN OVERTIME FOR
THE SEATTLE DEPARTMENT TO
FACILITATE A PROTEST VERSUS HOW
MUCH MONEY IS SPENT TO COMBAT --
>> THANK YOU, OUR NEXT SPEAKER
WILL BE ROBERT ENGEL. THEN
MICHAEL.
>> HI, I'M ROBERT ENGEL, I'M
REPRESENTING THE SEATTLE
ALLIANCE AGAINST POLITICAL
OPPRESSION, YOU CAN'T
[INDISCERNIBLE] WE HAVE ALREADY
SEEN HOW MUCH DAMAGE IT HAS
CAUSED, WE HAVE SEEN BRAIN
INJURIES, I KNOW PEOPLE THAT
HAVE BEEN SERIOUSLY HURT BY THIS
STUFF AND HONEST TO GOD, IF YOU
WANT TO PASS THIS THING AND
INCUR [INDISCERNIBLE] AND PUT MY
BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS, BE MY
GUEST. HONESTLY. HONESTLY, BE MY
GUEST IS THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT.
WHEN I.C.E. IS COMING TO OUR
CITY AND RAIDING PEOPLE'S
HOMES, I THINK I SPEAK FOR A LOT
OF PEOPLE WHEN I SAY WE WANT TO
KEEP THE IMMIGRANTS SAFE. WE
DON'T WANT TO BE HIT WITH THESE
GLASS BALLS, AND YOU GUYS ARE
MISERABLE, I DON'T WANT TO SEE
THIS PAST AND I DON'T THINK
ANYBODY DOES.
>> THANK YOU, OUR NEXT SPEAKER
IS MIKE, THEN LESLIE MATHIS.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, CAN YOU HEAR
ME?
>> YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON CITY COUNCIL,
I'M A FOUNDER OF
[INDISCERNIBLE] IN 2015, BRUCE
HARRELL WORKED AGAINST US, THEY
WERE TO SHUT DOWN BLACK MEDICAL
CANNABIS BUSINESSES, THEY CAN
FOLLOW STATE LAWS BUT THEY STILL
TREATED US LIKE CRIMINALS, AND
NEARLY A DECADE LATER, THE CITY
OF SEATTLE IS TALKING ABOUT
SOCIAL EQUITY BUT I ASK YOU,
WHERE IS IT? WHERE ARE THE BLACK
AND BROWN CANNABIS BUSINESSES
THE CITY WANTS TO SUPPORT? MAYOR
BRUCE HARRELL, YOU SIGNED AN
EXECUTIVE ORDER FOR DOWNTOWN
REVITALIZATION, AND EXECUTIVE
ORDER FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, SO I
ASK YOU, WHERE IS THE REAL
COMMITMENT TO REPAIR THE HARM
DONE? THIS IS ONE SEATTLE FOR
THE PEOPLE OR JUST THEIR
FRIENDS? BECAUSE WE DON'T SEE
JUSTICE, WE SEE BLACK AND BROWN
PEOPLE STILL LOCKED DOWN AND
LEFT BEHIND.
>> THANK YOU, OUR NEXT SPEAKER
IS LESLIE MATHIS. AFTER LESLIE
WILL BE VALERIE.
>> THIS IS LESLIE MATHIS, I'M IN
DISTRICT 6 AND I JUST HAVE A
PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING
REAUTHORIZATION, WHAT I CAN TELL
IS THE 2023 SPD INTERIM POLICY
WHICH INCLUDES THE
REAUTHORIZATION OF LESS LETHAL
WEAPONS, AND LOOKING AT THESE
FORCES, I SEE THERE'S A NUMBER
OF OTHER PROVISIONS THAT NEED TO
BE CHANGED, ONE, OTHER POLICE
DEPARTMENT'S FROM OUTSIDE THE
CITY THAT COME TO SUPPORT SPD IF
SOMETHING DOES GO WRONG, WOULD
NOT HAVE TO COMPLY WITH SPD
GUIDELINES FOR USE OF LESS
LETHAL WEAPONS. TWO, IT WOULD
ELIMINATE THE PUBLIC ACTION TO
SUE SPD IF WE ARE INJURED DURING
SOME KIND OF CROWD MANAGEMENT,
AND THREE, IN THE OWN MATRIX,
AND REGARDING CROWD MANAGEMENT,
MOVING FROM PHASE FOUR WHICH IS
ISOLATED, UNLAWFUL BEHAVIOR TO
PHASE FIVE, ONLY TO REQUIRE THE
THRESHOLD OF FOUR VIOLENT
PEOPLE. I HAVE A LOT MORE TO
SAY.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER IS
VALERIE. AND AFTER VALERIE WILL
BE MICHAEL POINT
>> HI, THIS IS VALERIE FROM
DISTRICT TWO, SPEAKING ON THE
CROWD CONTROL WEAPONS
LEGISLATION. LESS LETHAL WEAPONS
LIKE TEARGAS AND GLASS BALLS
HAVE A HISTORY OF BADLY HARMING
PEOPLE WHO DEMONSTRATE FOR
JUSTICE, DURING THE SUMMER OF
2020, SPD PEPPER STRAYED --
PEPPER SPRAYED A YOUNG CHILD AND
TEAR GASSED AN ENTIRE
NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THEN CITY
COUNCIL PASSED A BAN ON THIS FOR
A REASON. THIS INCLUDED DAMAGE
TO HEARING, CONCUSSION, BURNS,
BROKEN BONES, TRAUMA AND ONE
NEAR FATAL HEART ATTACK, IT COST
SEATTLE TAXPAYERS $10 MILLION
AND MILLIONS MORE IN LEGAL FEES.
WE NEED A PUBLIC PROCESS BEFORE
YOU PASS THIS LEGISLATION.
>> THANK YOU, THE NEXT SPEAKER
WILL BE MICHAEL. AFTER MICHAEL
WILL BE SKYLER.
>> HELLO, MY NAME IS MICHAEL AND
I'M A RENTER IN DISTRICT 3 AND
I'M CALLING ON THE COUNCIL TO
VOTE AGAINST REINSTATING LESS
LETHAL WEAPONS, IT IS INCREDIBLY
DISHEARTENING THAT WE ARE
WATCHING IN REAL-TIME THE
GUTTING OF FEDERAL AGENCIES AND
THE ATTACK ON COMMUNITIES,
INSTEAD OF DEDICATING TIME AND
RESOURCES TO SUPPORT THOSE WHO
WILL BE HARMED AND PUSH BACK
AGAINST AUTHORITARIANISM, THE
COUNCIL IS DEBATING WAYS TO
ATTACK ITS PUBLIC CITIZENS WHO
URGENTLY NEED TO EXERCISE THEIR
FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO PASS
THESE UNJUST INITIATIVES. JUST
FROM LEAVING MY WINDOW OPEN ON A
NICE SPRING EVENING, I HAD MY
APARTMENT FLOODED WITH TEARGAS,
CAUSING ME TO EVACUATE AND THIS
IS REALLY SOMETHING I DON'T
THINK WOULD BE PERMITTED IN MANY
OTHER DISTRICTS. THE COUNCIL
FRAMES THIS AS A PUBLIC SAFETY
ISSUE BUT DURING THAT TIME, THE
ONLY THING THAT MADE ME FEEL
UNSAFE WAS THE UNNECESSARY
MILITARIZED PRESENCE AND ACTIONS
OF SPD, NOT THOSE THAT WERE
PEACEFULLY PROTESTING.
>> THANK YOU, THE NEXT REMOTE
SPEAKER IS SKYLER.
>> HELLO, I'M CALLING TO SPEAK
ABOUT THE LESS LETHAL WEAPONS,
AND ASK YOU TO RETAIN A BAN
AGAINST THEIR USAGE, IN 2020, IT
RESULTED IN MILLIONS OF
TAXPAYERS MONEY USED FOR
SETTLEMENT, AND THE SPD POLICY
IS TO USE OBJECTIVELY REASONABLY
NECESSARY AND PROPORTIONAL USE,
WHAT HAS CHANGED SINCE THEN? THE
SPD DOESN'T PUBLIC'S
TRUST AND THIS WON'T CHANGE
ANYTHING ABOUT HOW THEY INTEND
TO USE THEM, WHY ARE THEY STILL
EAGER TO STIFLE PROTESTS AND
FREE-SPEECH, ESPECIALLY AS WE GO
INTO THE NEXT FOUR YEARS, WE ARE
FIGHTING AUTHORITARIANISM, IT IS
GOING TO BE ALL THE MORE
IMPORTANT. WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE
HOW THIS FACILITATES COLLECTIVE
PUNISHMENT, FOR CITIZENS THAT
ARE SIMPLY TRYING TO PRACTICE
THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH.
>> THERE ARE NO ADDITIONAL
REGISTERED PUBLIC COMMENTERS.
>> WE HAVE ONE MORE IN PERSON,
AND THAT IS GOING TO BE BRETT.
>> SO, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE
GLASS BALLS ORDINANCE, I WAS
HERE ON THE MORNING WHEN THE
ASSISTANT CHIEF NELSON WAS
TALKING ABOUT THE DIFFERENT
CATEGORIES ASIANS OF PROTEST
FROM PEACEFUL TO MAXIMALLY
VIOLENT AND WHEN THEY WOULD TRY
TO INTRODUCE WEAPONS ONLY TO
CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS
A COGNITIVE FALLACY WHEN YOU'RE
LISTENING TO A PRESENTATION LIKE
THAT, IF YOU CAN FOLLOW THE
LOGIC OF WHAT HE IS SAYING, IT
MAKES YOU THINK IT IS TRUE AND
THAT IS WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN.
YES I CAN FOLLOW THE LOGIC OF
WHAT HE WAS SAYING, TOO. THAT
DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS TRUE OR
THAT IT IS HOW IT IS GOING TO
HAPPEN, AND THAT IS THE MISTAKE
PEOPLE MADE JUST BECAUSE YOU
FOLLOWED THAT REASONING.
REMEMBER I PLAYED YOU A VIDEO
ONCE, HE WAS DANGLING A DONUT IN
FRONT OF THE [INDISCERNIBLE]
THEY ENDED UP HAVING TO PAY HIM
$20,000, YOU THINK THAT IS
EXPENSIVE, IT IS STILL LESS THAN
WHAT SPD HAD TO PAY OUT AGAINST
VIOLENCE AGAINST PROTESTERS.
THANK YOU.
>> I'M THE RESIDENT OF DISTRICT
7, ON THE LAST WEEK OF MAY IN
2020, WE ALL STOOD IN HORROR AS
WE WATCHED AN OFFICER KILLED
GEORGE FLOYD ON CAMERA, IT WAS
TOO HEAVY TO CONTAIN. I LEFT MY
HOME, AND NOTHING BUT DOZENS OF
FLOWERS TO HONOR THE DEAD. I
ALONG WITH THE PEOPLE OF THIS
CITY WERE MET WITH TEARGAS AND
PEPPER SPRAY BY THE PEOPLE WHO
WERE SWORN TO PROTECT US, OVER
AND OVER, THE SEATTLE POLICE MET
US WITH VIOLENCE AND OVER AND
OVER I SAW THE PEOPLE OF THE
CITY ABUSED BY THE COPS AND I
HAVEN'T BEEN THE SAME SINCE. I
HAVE LIVED WITH THIS FOR YEARS
AND LAST YEAR I WAS FINALLY
DIAGNOSED WITH AN EXTREME CASE
OF POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS SYNDROME
, BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE THAT
YOUR AND I STAND HERE TO SHOW
YOU AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT CAN
HAPPEN WHEN YOU GIVE THE POLICE
THE POWER TO HURT THE PEOPLE OF
THIS CITY, PLEASE DON'T LET
THIS HAPPEN TO ANYONE ELSE
BECAUSE I'M NOT THE SAME PERSON
ANYMORE.
>> OUR LAST TWO SPEAKERS WILL BE
NICK LARSON AND ANDRE.
>> MY NAME IS NICK LARSON AND I
LIVE IN SOUTH SEATTLE, MY MAIN
QUESTION IS, IF WE DECIDE TO
ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN GOING
FORWARD NOT ONLY WITH THE REGIME
WE CURRENTLY HAVE BUT ALSO ON
THE INDIVIDUALS WHO YOU HAVE
ALREADY HEARD FROM AND YOU SEE
ON A REGULAR BASIS. IF WE LET
THE POLICE OFFICERS HAVE THESE
OPTIONS, WHAT IS THE NEXT DESK
OF THE TORY STEP THAT HAPPENS
AFTERWARDS? THIS IS A PIVOTAL
MOMENT WHERE WE GET TO TURN BACK
TO EACH OTHER AND CARE FOR EACH
OTHER, OR TURN TOWARDS EACH
OTHER WITH HARM AND AGGRESSION,
IF THERE IS A GUN IN ACT I, IT
HAS TO BE USED IN ACT THREE,
LET'S MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T
SHOW UP AND ACT ONE SO ACT III
DOESN'T HAPPEN. I REALIZE THIS
IS A HARD DECISION, PLEASE
RECOGNIZE WE ARE DOING OUR BEST
TO SHOW UP FOR YOU WITHIN THE
LINES THAT YOU HAVE CREATED FOR
US AND THESE INFRASTRUCTURES TO
WHICH WE CAN TALK TO YOU. YOU
CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS NOW.
THANK YOU.
>> ANDRE IS OUR LAST SPEAKER. MY
APOLOGIES IF I MISPRONOUNCED
YOUR NAME.
>> I LEFT YOU A MESSAGE ABOUT
THE SHELTER WE'LL, DID YOU GET
THAT MESSAGE? [INDISCERNIBLE] MY
TIME IS BEING USED UP, SO THANK
YOU FOR SHOWING UP AND DOING
WHAT YOU'RE DOING, I PUBLIC
SHAME, YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO SHOW
UP AND MEET ME AT THAT SHELTER
WHICH IS SO DECREPIT AND
HORRIBLE, IT IS CONDEMNED,
THERE'S BLACK MOLD, SO I
PUBLICLY SHAME LIKE I DID METRO
[INDISCERNIBLE] YOU ARE A PART
OF THE PROBLEM AND NOT THE
SOLUTION. I WAS ASSAULTED AND
RAPED. IS THAT OKAY WITH YOU,
BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IS
HAPPENING TO MEN AND WOMEN ON
THE STREETS. HOW DO YOU LIVE
WITH YOURSELVES?
>> THAT IS OUR LAST SPEAKER.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND THANK
YOU EVERYBODY FOR COMING WITH
YOUR COMMENTS AND THOSE WHO HAVE
JOINED US REMOTELY, WE HAVE
REACHED THE END OF OUR
REGISTERED SPEAKERS SO THE
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IS CLOSED.
IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION, THE
INTRODUCTION AND REFERRAL
CALENDAR WILL BE ADOPTED.
HEARING NONE, THE INTRODUCTION
AND REFERRAL CALENDAR IS
ADOPTED. IF THERE IS NO
OBJECTION, THE AGENDA WILL BE
ADOPTED. HEARING NONE, THE
AGENDA IS ADOPTED. WE WILL
CONSIDER THE PROPOSED CONSENT
CALENDAR AND THE ITEMS INCLUDE
THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 4th,
2025 AND COUNCIL BILL 120940
WHICH IS THE PAYMENT OF THE
BILLS, ANY ITEMS THAT THE
COUNCILMEMBERS WOULD LIKE TO
REMOVE FROM THE CONSENT
CALENDAR? HEARING NONE, I MOVED
TO ADOPT THE CONSENT CALENDAR,
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WILL THE
CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON
THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT
CALENDAR?
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE .
COUNCILMEMBER MERCEDES RINCK,
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA,
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS ,
COUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH.
COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE, COUNCIL
PRESIDENT NELSON. NONE OPPOSED.
>> THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS
ARE ADOPTED, WILL THE CLERK
PLEASE SIXTH MY SIGNATURE ON THE
CONSENT CALENDAR ON MY BEHALF
AND PLEASE READ THE TITLE OF
ITEM ONE IN THE RECORD.
>> RELATED TO THE CONVERSION OF
UNDERUTILIZED COMMERCIAL
PROPERTY TO HOUSING AND THAT A
NEW CHAPTER 5.75 TO THE SEATTLE
MUNICIPAL CODE.
>> THANK YOU, IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED. OKAY, COUNCILMEMBER
SOLOMON AS A SPONSOR IN THE
LAND-USE CHAIR, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED TO ADDRESS THE BILL.
GO AHEAD, PLEASE.
>> THIS IS INTENDED TO IMPLEMENT
A PROGRAM IN SEATTLE THAT WOULD
DEFER SALES AND USE TAX FOR
PROJECTS CONVERTING COMMERCIAL
USES TO RESIDENTIAL USES
CONTAINING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
COMPONENT. THE INTENT OF THIS
TEXT REFERRAL WHICH WOULD BE
CREATED THROUGH THIS BILL IS TO
ENCOURAGE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN
TARGETED URBAN AREAS. AS WE
KNOW, SEATTLE HAS AN ACUTE
SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
MOREOVER, MANY COMMERCIAL
BUILDINGS DOWNTOWN CONTINUE TO
EXPERIENCE HIGH VACANCY DUE TO
CHANGING WORK PATTERNS. THIS IN
TURN CREATES ECONOMIC RECOVERY.
IT FURTHERS THE CITY'S GOALS TO
INCREASE HOUSING SUPPLY AND
SUPPORT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
REVITALIZATION AND DOWNTOWN
ACTIVATION. THESE GOALS ALIGN
CLOSELY WITH PRIORITIES OUTLINED
IN THE MAYORS DOWNTOWN
ACTIVATION PLAN AND THE COMPANY
IS OF PLAN UPDATE. THIS
LEGISLATION AND ASKED THE
AUTHORITY GRANTED TO THE CITY BY
THE STATE OF WASHINGTON THROUGH
SENATE BILL 6175, WHICH BECAME
EFFECTIVE JUNE 1st, 2024, TO
ACTIVATE THE TEXT REFERRAL
LOCALLY, A CITY MUST PASS A
RESOLUTION AND PROVIDE DRAFT
PROGRAM DOCUMENTS FOR PUBLIC
REVIEW AND HOLD A PUBLIC
HEARING. THE COUNCIL LAND-USE
COMMITTEE VOTED TO APPROVE
RESOLUTION 32156 ON DECEMBER
4th, 2024 AND THE FULL CITY
COUNCIL APPROVED THE RESOLUTION
ON DECEMBER 17th, 2024. A PUBLIC
HEARING ON COUNCIL BILL 120937
WAS HELD DURING LAST WEEK'S
CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON FEBRUARY
4th, 2025, AFTER PUBLICATION OF
APPROPRIATE NOTICE AS REQUIRED.
I URGE YOUR SUPPORT ON THIS BILL
TODAY.
>> THANK YOU, ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM MY COLLEAGUES?
I'M NOT SEEING ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS, I WILL SIMPLY SAY THAT
WE NEED MORE HOUSING AND IN FACT
THERE ARE UNDERUTILIZED
BUILDINGS AND IT IS QUITE
EXPENSIVE TO CONVERT COMMERCIAL
SPACE TO RESIDENCE. SO I'M IN
FULL SUPPORT OF THIS AND I DO
APPRECIATE YOU STEPPING UP AND
TAKING OVER WITH A PIECE OF
LEGISLATION THAT BEGAN BEFORE
YOU TOOK OFFICE, SO THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR HANDLING THIS AND
I WILL BE VOTING IN FAVOR AS
WELL. I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER
COMMENTS, WILL THE CLERK PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL ON THE PASSAGE OF
THE BILL?
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE,
COUNCILMEMBER MERCEDES RINCK,
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA,
COUNCILMEMBER SAKA,
COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON,
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS ?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH?
>> YES.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
>> THANK YOU, THE BILL PASSES.
>> AND WILL THE CLERK PLEASE
READ THE TITLE OF ITEM TWO INTO
THE RECORD?
>> THE REPORT OF THE PUBLIC
SAFETY COMMITTEE ITEM, RELATING
TO THE SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT, MANDATING THAT THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT ADOPT AND
MAINTAIN CROWD MANAGEMENT
DOESN'T -- POLICIES THAT
PROHIBIT THE USE OF LESS LETHAL
TOOLS IN CROWD MANAGEMENT
SETTINGS UNLESS SPECIFIC FACTS
AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE OCCURRING
OR ABOUT TO OCCUR THAT CREATE AN
IMMINENT RISK OF PHYSICAL INJURY
TO ANY PERSON OR SIGNIFICANT
PROPERTY DAMAGE, AND REPEALING
SECTION 3.28 POINT 146, OF THE
SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE AND
ORDINANCE 126422 POINT
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL PRESIDENT,
I APPRECIATE THAT, TO START, I
JUST WANTED TO KNOW, IN A LOT OF
WAYS, THIS BILL HAS BEEN A DOZEN
PLUS YEARS IN THE MAKING, THIS
CURRENT PROCESS STARTED IN
SEPTEMBER WITH DISCUSSIONS AND
MORE BROADLY IN DECEMBER TO
INCLUDE COMMUNITY WORK AND
OUTREACH AND WE ARE HERE TODAY
IN MID FEBRUARY, ADMITTEDLY,
RELATING TO THE DUE DILIGENCE WE
HAVE BEEN CONDUCTING FROM LEGAL
REVIEW, THIS BILL, AS NOTED IN
COMMITTEE IS KEY TO PROTECT THE
RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH AND
ASSEMBLY AND THE IDEA THAT THEY
NEED TO BE PROTECTED AND I HEAR
THE PUBLIC COMMENTARY AND I'M
ALSO MINDFUL THAT THERE IS
COUNTER PROTESTS, THERE'S
MALIGN ACTORS AND THE LIKE AND
THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT
PIECES THAT COME TO THAT. BUT AT
THE END OF THE DAY, THIS IS
ABOUT PROTECTING THE RIGHTS FOR
THOSE TO GATHER AND TO HAVE
THEIR PROTESTS HEARD, THEIR FREE
SPEECH. ONE THING ALSO NOTED IN
THE COMMITTEE WAS THAT WE CANNOT
LEGISLATE TO A PERFECT SCENARIO.
THE GENTLEMAN SPOKE TO THE SIX
DIFFERENT AREAS WITHIN POLICE
POLICY, WE NEED TO HAVE THE
FLEXIBILITY AS IT RELATES TO THE
LEGISLATION AND IN TURN, TO
AVOID FUTURE CHALLENGES. ALSO
NOTED IN COMMITTEE WAS THAT IT
IS BEST -- HOW TO BEST RESPOND
PRACTICALLY REALLY GOES TO THE
ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE CHARGED
WITH THIS MISSION AND IN ORDER
TO DO THE GOAL AND THE MISSION
THAT IS BEFORE US, AND THAT HIS
UNDERSTANDING PARTICULARLY THE
SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE
DEPUTY CHIEF, ASSISTANT CHIEF'S,
THEIR ROLE AS COMMANDERS AND THE
PRECINCT LIEUTENANTS AND THIS
COMES UP IN A LOT OF QUESTIONS
AS IT RELATES TO THE MAYOR AND
ALSO THE CHIEF OF POLICE. IT'S
ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE HERE,
MUTUAL AID IS AN IMPORTANT AREA
HERE THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT AND
TO UNDERSTAND HOW THAT PLAYS OUT
IN TERMS OF WHETHER OR IF THAT
MUTUAL AID WILL BE OFFERED. ALSO
NOTED WAS THAT LEGISLATION AND
POLICIES ARE IMPORTANT BUT
CRUCIAL IS TRAINING, TRAINING,
TRAINING. WE CANNOT EMPHASIZE
THIS ENOUGH, TRAINING, AND THIS
GOES TO THE OVERSIGHT THAT WE
HAVE IN TERMS OF THE CITY
COUNCIL, OR THE EXECUTIVE TO
INCLUDE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT
BECAUSE THIS GOES TO ANOTHER
PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WAS MADE IN
TERMS OF IN THE HEAT OF THE
MOMENT, AND THE BIGGEST GUARD
AGAINST THAT IS THE TRAINING.
AND THAT OVERSIGHT THAT WE DO IS
SO IMPORTANT IN THAT AREA. THE
NEXT POINT THAT CAME OUT OF
COMMITTEE THAT RELATES TO THIS
AS WELL WAS OUR ACCOUNTABILITY
PARTNERS, OUR ACCOUNTABILITY
PARTNERS ARE SO IMPORTANT. WE
HAVE THE COMMUNITY POLICE
COMMISSION, WE HAVE THE OFFICE
OF POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY AND THE
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL. WE
NEED TO BE INVOLVING THEM,
SUPPORTING THEM AND BASICALLY
EMPOWERING THEM TO DO THEIR
MISSION AS IT RELATES TO SEATTLE
POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE
OVERSIGHT THAT PARTICULARLY
RELATES TO POLICIES BUT ALSO
REVIEWING ANY INSTANCES IN TERMS
OF LESS LETHAL FORCE. I NOTE
THAT THIS BILL IS A PIECE THAT
ALIGNS THE SEATTLE MUNICIPAL
CODE TO THE REVISED CODE OF
WASHINGTON, THIS IS IN RESPECT
TO TEARGAS AND THAT IS WHAT THIS
BILL DOES, OFTEN TIMES WE CAN
GET AWAY FROM THAT CLEAR
REQUIREMENT OF ALIGNING CITY LAW
WITH STATE LAW. AND IN THIS CASE
I THINK WE DID A GOOD JOB ON
THAT. AND AS YOU KNOW, ON CS AND
TEARGAS, THE STATE LAW REQUIRES
A PROCLAMATION BEFORE THE USE OF
TEARGAS AND AS YOU WILL SEE IN
THIS LEGISLATION, THAT HAS BEEN
EXTENDED TO GLASS BALLS. SO
THESE ARE THE PIECES THAT ARE IN
THIS LEGISLATION, BUT
ULTIMATELY, THIS IS ABOUT THE
CONSENT DECREE AS WELL. AGAIN, A
DOZEN YEARS IN THE MAKING, THIS
IS THE LAST PIECE AS THE JUDGE
NOTED IN TERMS OF CAPSTONE IN
THE REFORMS THAT HAVE BEEN
COMPLETED IN THE LAST DOZEN
YEARS, I HAVE BEEN TO EACH
PRECINCT AND EACH TIME I BROUGHT
UP THE CONSENT DECREE AND I
ACKNOWLEDGED WHY WE NEED ONE,
BUT I ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE ALL THE
REFORM AND HARD WORK THAT HAS
OCCURRED OVER THE LAST DOZEN
YEARS AND THAT PUTS US IN A
BETTER PLACE IN TERMS OF THE
POLICIES AND THE LIKE FOR THE
SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT. IN
THE LAST PIECE WAS CROWD
MANAGEMENT, LESS LETHAL WEAPONS,
SO WE'VE BEEN WORKING TO
INCLUDE THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE TO WORK ON THIS AND THIS
ALSO GOES TO MY POINT EARLIER
ABOUT LEGAL REVIEW, TO ENSURE
THAT OUR LEGISLATION IS IN A
GOOD SPOT RELATED TO THIS
CONSENT DECREE PROCESS AND THIS
IS CRUCIAL TO CEMENT THE REFORMS
THAT WE'VE BEEN DOING UNDER THE
CONSENT DECREE, TO SHOW THE
JUDGE THAT WE ARE IN THIS
POSITION. SO WITH THAT,
COLLEAGUES, AS A QUICK
INTRODUCTION AND SPEAKING IN
TERMS OF THE COMMITTEE, THIS IS
A BILL AND SOME OF THE
CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE HAVE TO
THINK ABOUT AS WE MOVE FORWARD
AND I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT IN
ITS PASSAGE. THANK YOU.
>> THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IS
FINISHED, PLEASE BE QUIET IN THE
HOUSE, I APPRECIATE IT. THE BILL
HAS 10 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND
IT HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED THAT
CENTRAL STAFF BE INVITED TO THE
TABLE TO PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF
THE AMENDMENTS WHERE THERE ARE
COMPETING AMENDMENTS WHICH ARE
AMENDMENTS A THROUGH D. AND
CENTRAL STAFF WILL BE HERE TO
ANSWER QUESTIONS, TO THOSE
FOLLOWING D . NO OBJECTION, THE
COUNCIL RULES ARE SUSPENDED, AND
GREG DOSS IS AT THE TABLE TO
SPEAK ABOUT THE PROCEDURAL STEPS
FOR VOTING ON AMENDMENTS A
THROUGH D . GO AHEAD, THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU MADAM PRESIDENT AND
COUNCIL MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY TO HELP TODAY
CLOSE OUT THIS VERY IMPORTANT
ISSUE, COUNSEL BILL 120916, AS
THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT SAID, I'M
GREG DOSS, STAFF WILL BE HERE TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ON
THE NEXT SEVERAL AMENDMENTS. THE
WAY THIS IS GOING TO WORK, WE
ARE GOING TO START OUT BY
BRINGING IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL
AMENDMENT A, AND THAT IS A
STRIKER AMENDMENT THAT WILL
REPLACE THE CURRENT BILL AND IT
WILL MAKE CERTAIN ADDITIONS THAT
COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE HAS
REQUESTED. I WILL GO THROUGH
THOSE WITH YOU, BUT THEN YOU'RE
NOT GOING TO VOTE ON IT JUST
YET, YOU ARE GOING TO HOLD IT,
AND THEN WE ARE GOING ON TO
AMENDMENTS B, C, AND D AND THOSE
ARE GOING TO CHANGE AMENDMENT A,
THEN AMENDMENT A WILL COME BACK
TO THE FLOOR, POTENTIALLY
CHANGED, THEN YOU WILL VOTE ON
A. SO I WILL STOP AND ASK IF
THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU, I DO HAVE A
QUESTION ABOUT VOTING ON
SEQUENTIALLY FOR B AND C AND
I'M GOING TO BE MAKING A
REQUEST, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS
IS THAT TIME TO MAKE THAT
REQUEST, DO WE TAKE THEM OUT OF
ORDER AND VOTE ON C BEFORE B
BECAUSE C AS YOU WILL BE ABLE TO
EXPLAIN IS MORE RESTRICTIVE AND
POTENTIALLY PROTECTIVE THAN B.
SO ANYWAY, I'M JUST PUTTING
THAT OUT THERE FOR YOUR
DIRECTION AND PERHAPS CLERKS
DIRECTION.
>> I WILL CHECK BUT I THINK IT
IS UP TO THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT
TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY
SHOULD BE SWITCHED.
>> IT IS A RECOMMENDATION AS FAR
AS HOW THEY ARE ORDERED RIGHT
NOW, AND WHEN THE NUMBER IS
RECOGNIZED, THEN THEY ARE ABLE
TO PROVIDE THE MOTION TO AMEND,
SO THROUGH THAT PROCESS WOULD BE
UP TO THE BODY AS WELL, IF THEY
WOULD PREFER TO REARRANGE THAT
ORDER AS WELL.
>> OKAY, COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE,
DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO
THAT ?
>> NO OBJECTION, OF COURSE MY
RECOMMENDATION WOULD REMAIN THE
SAME. BUT NO OBJECTION. AS LONG
AS THIS DOESN'T VIOLATE ANY --
>> NO, THE CLERK IS MAKING SURE
WE DO ANYTHING RIGHT. AND ONCE A
HAS BEEN BROUGHT AND AMENDED
THROUGH B, THROUGH D , THEN
IT'LL COME TO THE FLOOR FOR A
VOTE AND YOU WILL VOTE ON IT AND
WE WILL MOVE ON TO E THROUGH I.
>> AND IN THE SPIRIT OF
COLLABORATION, I'M GOING TO
GRANT THAT REQUEST.
>> THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE, ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
PROCEDURE HERE? OKAY,
COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED TO MOVE AMENDMENT A
POINT
>> THANK YOU, I MOVE AMENDMENT A
TO COUNSEL BILL 120196 POINT
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED, AS PRESENTED ON
AMENDMENT A, AND COUNCILMEMBER
KETTLE, AS YOU WILL BE
RECOGNIZED TO SPEAK AFTER YOUR
CENTRAL STAFF ANALYST JUST
BASICALLY SAYS WHAT IT DOES AND
HE WILL SPEAK TO ITS MERIT, IF
YOU ARE AMENABLE TO THAT. OKAY,
GO AHEAD, PLEASE LET US KNOW
WHAT THIS DOES.
>> THANK YOU, THE AMENDMENT
INCORPORATES LINE ITEM
SUGGESTIONS FROM THE COMMUNITY
POLICE COMMISSION THAT WERE
NOTED IN A LETTER TO THE COUNCIL
AND MAYOR ON JANUARY 8th, IT
WOULD AMEND CURRENT RECITALS AND
ADD A NEW RECITAL TO BETTER
ARTICULATE SPD'S ROLE IN CROWD
MANAGEMENT SETTINGS,
SPECIFICALLY RECOGNIZE SPD'S
ROLE IN OBSERVING FREE SPEECH
AND ASSEMBLY RIGHTS OF RESIDENTS
TO ENSURE THAT CROWD MANAGEMENT
ACTIVITY TAKES PLACE CONSISTENT
WITH THOSE RIGHTS. THE AMENDMENT
WOULD CHANGE GLASS BALL
DEPLOYMENT GUIDELINES TO ENSURE
THAT CLASS BALLS ARE THROWN AWAY
FROM PEOPLE AND THAT LANGUAGE
AWAY FROM PEOPLE COMES FROM THAT
POLICE COMMISSION ON JANUARY
8th. THERE WERE A NUMBER OF
DIFFERENT DEPLOYMENT GUIDELINES
THAT WERE SUGGESTED BY THE CPC
ON GLASS BALLS AND YOU ALL WILL
GET INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT
FURTHER BUT I WANT TO NOTE THAT
AWAY FROM PEOPLE WAS ONE OF
THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS AND IT IS
A PART OF THIS AMENDMENT. AND
FINALLY THIS WOULD CLARIFY THE
ROLES OF THE ACCOUNTABILITY
AGENCIES WHEN IT COMES TO
EVALUATING AND REPORTING ON
SPD'S CROWD CONTROL POLICIES
AND TACTICS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE, GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL PRESIDENT,
I BELIEVE THIS AMENDMENT IS
REALLY IMPORTANT, I BELIEVE IT
IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THIS IS
ABOUT, BEYOND LESS LETHAL
WEAPONS CROWD MANAGEMENT BILL,
THIS IS ABOUT SUPPORTING OUR
ACCOUNTABILITY PARTNERS, THIS IS
A GOAL OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMITTEE AND TO THE 25, TO LOOK
TO SUPPORT OUR ACCOUNTABILITY
PARTNERS, THE OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL AND THE OFFICE
OF POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY AND THE
COMMUNITY POLICING COMMISSION,
THIS IS ABOUT RECOGNIZING THEIR
ROLES AND WHAT THEY ARE DOING IN
THIS UPDATED LEGISLATION,
PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO OIG
AND CPC , BUT IT HIGHLIGHTS THAT
CPC HAS THE ROLE OF ENGAGING
WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ON
POLICY AND I BELIEVE THE
LEGISLATION OVERALL SUPPORTS THE
CPT MISSION SET BECAUSE IT
DOESN'T CROWD IT OUT, WE CAN
GET MORE DETAILED IN TERMS OF
POLICY DIRECTION BUT WE NEED TO
CREATE SPACE FOR THE CPC TO DO
ITS JOB AND I THINK THIS BILL
OVERALL DOES THAT, AND BY HAVING
THIS AMENDMENT , THAT REALLY
HIGHLIGHTS THE INPUT THAT WE GOT
FROM THE CPC, SHOWING OUR
COMMITMENT TO THE CPC TO HAVE
THEIR VOICE HEARD AND
ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR OUTREACH TO
COMMUNITY AND THAT IT COULD HAVE
INPUT INTO THIS BILL. SO THAT IS
THE FIRST THING I WANTED TO
HIGHLIGHT, THAT MORE BROADER
CONTEXT. BUT IT ALSO HAS MANY
HELPFUL CALLOUTS IN TERMS OF THE
CONTEXT OF LESS LETHAL WEAPONS,
TO THROW GLASS BALLS FOR EXAMPLE
AWAY FROM PEOPLE AND INTO AN
OPEN SPACE. BASICALLY THE
CLARIFICATION AS I NOTED
REGARDING OUR ACCOUNTABILITY
PARTNERS AND FOR THOSE REASONS,
I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT TO
AMENDMENT EIGHT. THANK YOU.
>> OKAY, ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT
AMENDMENT A? OKAY, CAN YOU
PLEASE NOT TALK DURING THE
MEETING? MOVING ON. WE WILL
RETURN TO THIS. GO AHEAD, PLEASE
CONTINUE WITH THE PRESENTATIONS.
>> THANK YOU. SO, WILL THE CLERK
PLEASE PUT UP THE TABLE THAT WE
PREPARED ON THE NEXT AMENDMENT,
THIS IS TO HELP GUIDE YOU
THROUGH IT. THANK YOU. SO, WHAT
YOU WILL SEE IN THIS TABLE IS
AMENDMENTS B, C AND D AND AGAIN
WHERE WE ARE IN SPACE IS THESE
THREE AMENDMENTS ARE GOING TO
CHANGE THE AMENDMENT, THE
UNDERLYING AMENDMENT A, SO YOU
ARE GOING TO GO THROUGH THESE,
B, C AND D AND DEPENDING ON YOUR
CHOICES, THAT UNDERLYING
AMENDMENT WILL BE CHANGED AND
BACK BEFORE YOU AGAIN. SO HOW WE
PROCEED IS UP TO THE BODY,
WHETHER YOU WOULD LIKE TO START
WITH C OR B .
>> LET'S GO AHEAD WITH C, SO
LET ME SCROLL DOWN HERE.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED TO ADDRESS AMENDMENT
C.
>> THANK YOU, I MOVE TO AMEND
AMENDMENT A AS PRESENTED ON
AMENDMENT C, DO I HAVE A SECOND?
>> SECOND POINT
>> SO, QUICKLY TO DESCRIBE THE
AMENDMENT, THIS WOULD PROHIBIT
THE USE OF GLASS BALLS TO --
I'M SORRY I'VE GOT THE WRONG
ONE. THIS WOULD REQUIRE POLICE
DEPARTMENT POLICY TO REFLECT
THAT WHEN USED FOR CROWD
MOVEMENT OR DISPERSAL, GLASS
BALLS SHALL NOT BE DEPLOYED
DIRECTLY INTO A CROWD. GLASS
BALLS SHALL ONLY BE DEPLOYED
UNDERHANDED USING A BOWLING
STYLE MOTION AND AWAY FROM
PEOPLE. IN THE CASE OF
INDIVIDUAL INTERDICTION, THIS IS
AN OFFICER CHOOSING TO INTERDICT
FOR A SAFETY PURPOSE AGAINST ONE
OTHER PERSON.
>> WE ARE ON THE WRONG ONE, IT
LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE SPEAKING TO
AMENDMENT D .
>> YES, THIS HAS GOTTEN ME TO GO
OUT OF ORDER. OKAY, LET ME TRY
THIS AGAIN. SORRY ABOUT THAT.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD REQUIRE THE
MAYOR TO PROVIDE AUTHORIZATION
FOR USE OF GLASS BALLS IF THERE
IS A PRESIDENT PRO TEM ACTING AS
MAYOR, THEN AUTHORIZATION SHALL
COME FROM THE CHIEF OF POLICE,
ONCE AUTHORIZED BY THE MAYOR AND
THE MAYOR'S OFFICE HAS ISSUED A
COMMISSION OF CIVIL EMERGENCY,
THEN ANY SPD COMMANDER MAY
AUTHORIZE THE USE OF GLASS BALLS
TO MOVE OR DISPERSE A CROWD AND
THAT IS THE CURRENT STANDARD IN
THE CROWD MANAGEMENT POLICIES.
SO, HOW THIS WILL WORK, IF YOU
LOOK AT LANGUAGE UNDER AMENDMENT
A, THE TOP LEFT BOX, THAT IS THE
LANGUAGE THAT IS IN THE
AMENDMENT, AND YOU WOULD BE
POTENTIALLY REPLACING IT, IF YOU
LOOK AT THE SECOND ROW DOWN,
AMENDMENT C, THE LANGUAGE TO THE
RIGHT . SO IT WOULD AMEND IT SO
THAT AUTHORIZATION WAS PROVIDED
BY THE MAYOR AND IF THERE IS A
PRESIDENT PRO TEM ACTING AS
MAYOR, THEN AUTHORIZATION SHALL
COME FROM THE CHIEF OF POLICE.
AND THAT IS AFTER THERE HAS
ALREADY BEEN A PROCLAMATION OF
EMERGENCY.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT. OKAY,
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE , GO AHEAD
AND ADD YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT WHY
YOU ARE PUTTING THIS FORWARD.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, I DON'T
HAVE A LOT TO ADD, GREG HAS DONE
A GREAT JOB OF DESCRIBING WHAT
THIS AMENDMENT DOES. THIS IS AN
AMENDMENT BUT I ALTER THE
AMENDMENT THAT I BROUGHT IN
COMMITTEE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE
ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IF THE MAYOR
IS UNAVAILABLE, AND THE CONCERN
ABOUT WANTING TO KEEP THAT
DECISION-MAKING WITHIN THE
EXECUTIVE, SO THAT IS WHY IT
PROVIDES FOR THE CHIEF OF
POLICE, RATHER THAN IT BEING
WHOEVER IS SERVING AS PRO TEM.
AGAIN, WE WOULD REQUIRE, THIS
DOES NOT CHANGE THE REQUIREMENT
THAT THERE BE A MARROW
PROCLAMATION OF CIVIL EMERGENCY,
THIS ADDS YET A SECOND PIECE TO
THAT WHICH IS THAT THE MAYOR HAS
TO MAKE A GENERAL AUTHORIZATION
FOR THE USE OF GLASS BALLS.
AGAIN, I THINK GIVEN ALL THAT WE
HAVE EXPERIENCED IN THIS CITY
GOING BACK TO WTO, IT IS VERY
CLEAR THAT GLASS BALLS ARE VERY
DANGEROUS, THAT IS A WEAPON OF
LAST RESORT BEFORE WE GET TO
TEARGAS, OBVIOUSLY. AND BECAUSE
WE ARE USING IT AGAINST PEOPLE
WHO ARE EXTENSIVELY EXERCISING
THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, I
THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE
HIGHEST LEVEL OF AUTHORITY BE
THE ONE TO GIVE THAT
AUTHORIZATION. SO THAT IS WHY
I'M REQUESTING THAT I'M MOVING
THAT IT BE THE MAYOR BECAUSE
AGAIN, I THINK WE AS RESIDENTS
NEED TO BE ABLE TO HOLD WHOEVER
MADE THAT DECISION ABSOLUTELY
ACCOUNTABLE AT THE BALLOT BOX,
NOT NECESSARILY HAVING THE MAYOR
HOLD THAT INDIVIDUAL
ACCOUNTABLE. FOR THOSE REASONS,
I WOULD REQUEST YOUR SUPPORT.
>> ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS,
COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE ?
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL PRESIDENT,
THE POINT I WOULD LIKE TO RAISE
IS THAT THE AMENDED BILL SPEAKS
TO A NARROW PROCLAMATION BEING
IN PLACE AND THAT IS DONE BEFORE
THE STANDARD OPERATION WITH
INCIDENT COMMANDERS HAPPENS
WITHIN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
THIS GOES TO THE POINT OF
UNDERSTANDING THE OPERATIONS AND
THE STRUCTURE OF THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT. IT DOES NOT HAVE A
MAYORAL AUTHORIZATION PIECE IN
THE BASELINE LEGISLATION. SO
HERE, THE WAY IT IS WRITTEN, IT
DOESN'T MAKE THAT CLEAR BUT I
WOULD ALSO ARGUE THAT AGAIN,
OPERATIONALLY, WE NEEDED TO PULL
IT UP FROM A BASIC INCIDENT
COMMANDER UP TO THE CHIEF OF
POLICE WHICH GIVEN THE FACT THAT
WE ARE HAVING A MAYORAL
PROCLAMATION, THERE'S NO DOUBT
THE CHIEF WOULD BE INVOLVED BUT
WE NEED TO BE EXPLICIT ABOUT THE
ROLE OF CHIEF OF POLICE AND JUST
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF THE
GLASS BALLS. THAT IS THE TWO
STEP PROCESS, AND LIKE AMENDMENT
B, WHEREAS IN AMENDMENT C, I
WOULD ARGUE THAT IT IS NOT CLEAR
BECAUSE THERE'S NO NEED FOR
AUTHORIZATION FROM THE MAYOR IN
THE BASELINE LEGISLATION AND THE
AUTHORIZATION WOULD AGAIN
NORMALLY COME THROUGH THE
INCIDENT COMMANDER BUT BECAUSE
OF GLASS BALLS AND ITS
UNIQUENESS, IT HAS BEEN ELEVATED
UP AND TO THE CHIEF OF POLICE.
FOR CLARITY SAKE, I BELIEVE THAT
AMENDMENT B IS CLEAR ON THAT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MERCEDES RINCK
?
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL PRESIDENT,
THE CITY CHARTER IS CLEAR WHEN
IT STATES THAT THE COUNCIL
SHOULD HAVE POWER BY ORDINANCE
TO MAKE ALL LOCAL POLICE
REGULATIONS AND THE MAYOR SHALL
SEE THAT THE LAWS IN THE CITY
ARE ENFORCED AND SHALL MAINTAIN
PEACE AND ORDER IN THE CITY. AND
AT THE HEART OF BOTH AMENDMENTS
B AND C IS THE COUNCIL'S DESIRE
TO HAVE ACCOUNTABILITY OF
AUTHORIZATION OF LESS THE
WEAPONS ELEVATED TO THE HIGHEST
POSSIBLE LEVEL, WHILE AMENDMENT
B WOULD ELEVATE THAT TO CHIEF OF
POLICE, AMENDMENT C WOULD PUT IT
SQUARELY IN THE HANDS OF THE
HIGHEST ELECTED OFFICIAL, THE
MAYOR WHO IS ACCOUNTABLE TO
EVERY VOTER IN THE CITY. THE
PEOPLE HAVE GIVEN US
COUNCILMEMBERS AND THE MAYOR
POWERS, I ENCOURAGE OUR
COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT AMENDMENT
C TO ENSURE MAXIMUM
ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE PEOPLE.
>> ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? GO AHEAD
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA .
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL PRESIDENT,
I ALSO WANT TO CONFIRM THAT WE
WILL BE ABLE TO AT THE END BE
ABLE TO GIVE THE OVERALL BEFORE
WE PASS IT. TO THIS POINT, FIRST
OF ALL I THINK THAT MY
COLLEAGUES WHO SIT ON THE PUBLIC
SAFETY COMMITTEE FOR ALL THE
WORK THAT THEY DID, IN REVIEWING
AND PUTTING TOGETHER THIS
LEGISLATION, I KNOW THIS WAS
HARD WORK AND I DO NOT TAKE IT
FOR GRANTED. IN TERMS OF THIS
PARTICULAR PIECE, I WILL SAY
THAT THE CHIEF OF POLICE IS THE
HIGHEST PERSON AT THE DEPARTMENT
AND WHO ANSWERS DIRECTLY TO THE
MAYOR, SO THAT PERSON IS UNDER
THE PURVIEW OF THE MAYOR AND HAS
TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE MAYOR,
SO I WOULD SAY THAT HAVING THE
CHIEF OF POLICE BE THE PERSON
WHO IS IN CHARGE OF THIS
DECISION, ONCE THE MAYOR IS
ISSUING AN EXECUTIVE ORDER OR
PROCLAMATION, IS APPROPRIATE IN
THE STRUCTURE OF THE CITY OF
SEATTLE AND THAT IS TO SAY THAT
IF THE CHIEF OF POLICE MAKES A
DECISION THAT IS NOT ONE THAT
THE MAYOR WOULD SUPPORT, THE
MAYOR IS WITHIN HIS RIGHT TO
TAKE ACTION AGAINST THAT CHIEF
OF POLICE AND THERE IS A NUMBER
OF ACTIONS THAT THE MAYOR CAN
TAKE. SO I WOULD SAY THAT IN
THIS INSTANCE, WHILE I'M
COMPELLED BY ALL THE COMMENTS OF
MY COLLEAGUES AND UNDERSTAND
WHERE IT IS COMING FROM, I ALSO
KNOW THAT THE WAY THE CITY IS
SET UP, THE CHIEF OF POLICE
NEEDS TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE AND
THEY ARE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE
MAYOR SO I DON'T SEE GIVING THE
CHIEF OF POLICE THE DECISION AT
THAT MOMENT IN TIME AS THE MAYOR
NOT OVERSEEING THIS. SO FOR THIS
PARTICULAR AMENDMENT, I WON'T
BE SUPPORTING THIS BUT I DO
APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE DID IN
BRINGING THIS FORWARD AND FOR
THE REASONS I STATED, I STILL
FEEL THAT THE CHIEF OF POLICE AS
THE HIGHEST OFFICER AT SPD IS
APPROPRIATE TO GIVE THEM THE
DECISION AND THE ANSWER TO THE
MAYOR. THANK YOU.
>> I WILL LET YOU HAVE THE LAST
WORD, BUT I JUST WANT TO NOTE
THAT IN THIS, IT IS IMPORTANT TO
NOTE THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
LESS LETHAL TOOLS OR WEAPONS,
WHATEVER NOMENCLATURE ONE WISHES
TO USE, IN THE EVENT THAT SPD IS
FACED WITH A SITUATION WHERE
PEOPLE'S LIVES ARE AT RISK IF
THEY DON'T ACT, AND NOT DOING
ANYTHING IS NOT AN OPTION, SO MY
POINT IS THAT IF WE TIE THEIR
HANDS TOO MUCH, OR COMPLICATE
THINGS SO MUCH IN THE MOMENT,
AND THIS IS JUST IN GENERAL, AND
THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO USE LESS
LETHAL WEAPONS OR TOOLS IN
CERTAIN SITUATIONS, WE RISK THE
LIKELIHOOD OF THEM HAVING TO
TURN TO OTHER TOOLS THAT ARE NOT
LESS LETHAL OR EVEN MORE
DANGEROUS OR COULD PRODUCE OTHER
NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON PEOPLE WHO
ARE PRESENT. THAT IS JUST AN
OBSERVATION THAT I DON'T WANT
TO REPEAT OVER AND OVER AGAIN
BUT I WILL JUST SAY THAT I DO
UNDERSTAND THE DESIRE TO ADD
CHECKS AND BALANCES ON THIS, BUT
I ALSO HAVE TO CONSIDER THE
PRACTICALITY OF THE ISSUE WHEN
SOMETHING IS HAPPENING IN THE
MOMENT AS SO OFTEN THESE
SITUATIONS DO ARISE. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? GO AHEAD,
I WILL LET YOU --
>> THANK YOU, I JUST WANT TO BE
CLEAR THAT NOTHING IN THIS
PROHIBITS SPD FROM BEING ABLE TO
ACT INDIVIDUALLY, LIKE IN MARDI
GRAS WHERE THERE IS AN IMMEDIATE
THREAT TO LIFE SAFETY, OFFICERS
ARE ABSOLUTELY EMPOWERED TO
DEPLOY WHATEVER WEAPON THEY
NEED, LESS LETHAL OR LETHAL TO
ADDRESS THE SITUATION, SO THIS
DOES NOT CHANGE THAT AUTHORITY.
WHAT IT DOES SAY IS THAT IF WE
ARE GOING TO BE ENGAGED IN CROWD
CONTROL MANAGEMENT AND
DISPERSAL, THAT THE ULTIMATE
DECISION -- AND THIS ISN'T JUST
SPECIFIC LIKE THE MAYOR REACHES
OUT TO A PARTICULAR INCIDENT
CAPTAIN AND SAYS YES, THIS IS
LIKE WHEN YOU COME TO THE MAYOR
AND REQUEST A PROCLAMATION OF
CIVIL EMERGENCY, AT THE SAME
TIME, YOU SUBMIT, YOU MAKE YOUR
CASE, THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES ON THE GROUND
RAISED TO THE LEVEL THAT YOU ARE
PROBABLY GOING TO NEED TO USE
GLASS BALLS AND AT THAT POINT
YOU MAKE THE REQUEST TO THE
MAYOR AND THE MAYOR GIVES BROAD
AUTHORIZATION. THEN IT FALLS
THROUGH THE CHAIN OF COMMAND,
EITHER CHIEF OF POLICE OR THE
INCIDENT COMMANDER WHO NOW HAS
THAT BROAD AUTHORIZATION TO MAKE
THE DECISION WHETHER TO ACTUALLY
EXECUTE ON THE GROUND. SO WE ARE
NOT INTERFERING IN THE LINE OF
CHAIN OF COMMAND
DECISION-MAKING, WE ARE SIMPLY
SAYING THAT THE MAYOR NEEDS TO
GIVE THE OVERALL APPROVAL AND
THEN THOSE DECISIONS ON THE
GROUND CAN BE MADE. AGAIN, IF
THERE IS AN IMMEDIATE THREAT TO
LIFE SAFETY, AN OFFICER CAN ACT
AT THE TIME AS THEY SHOULD BE
ABLE TO. BUT GIVEN THE
LIFE-THREATENING CONSEQUENCES
THAT CAN COME FROM THIS, AGAIN,
I DO BELIEVE THIS AUTHORITY
SHOULD REST, THIS AUTHORIZATION
SHOULD REST WITH THE MAYOR
BECAUSE IT CAN TAKE TIME FOR THE
MAYOR TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT
WHETHER TO REMOVE A CHIEF OF
POLICE AND THERE CAN BE
DECISIONS THEY CHOOSE TO NOT
REMOVE FOR VARIOUS REASONS. I'VE
SAID ENOUGH, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> OKAY. IF I'M NOT SEEING ANY
OTHER HANDS RAISED, WILL THE
CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLE IN
THE ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT C ?
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE,
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK,
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA ,
COUNCILMEMBER SAKA ,
COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON,
COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS ?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?
>> NO.
>> WE HAVE THREE IN FAVOR, SIX
OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, THE
AMENDMENT FAILS, LET'S GO ON TO
AMENDMENT B, PLEASE ?
>> THANK YOU MADAM PRESIDENT,
AMENDMENT B, WORKING BACKWARDS
ON THIS CHART IS ENTIRELY
ENCAPSULATED ON THE FIRST ROW.
THERE IS THE LANGUAGE IN THE
UNDERLYING AMENDMENTS AND THE
LANGUAGE AS YOU ARE AWARE
REQUIRES A MAYORAL PROCLAMATION
BEFORE GLASS BALLS MAY BE
AUTHORIZED AND AS YOU SEE TO THE
RIGHT, THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE
ADDS THAT GLASS BALLS ARE ONLY
AUTHORIZED BY THE CHIEF OF
POLICE AFTER THAT PROCLAMATION
HAS HAPPENED.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
KETTLE ?
>> YES, I MOVE AMENDMENT B TOBI
>> SECOND. I WILL ASK, WE'VE
ALREADY HAD AN EXPLANATION FROM
CENTRAL STAFF, I WILL LET YOU GO
AHEAD AND CONTINUE YOUR
PRESENTATION, COUNCILMEMBER
KETTLE .
>> THANK YOU, AND TO BE FRANK, I
DON'T THINK I CAN GET THE
BETTER JUSTIFICATION FOR
AMENDMENT B THAN TO SAY THANK
YOU COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA BECAUSE
I THINK THE POINTS YOU HAVE MADE
RELATED TO THIS TOPIC REALLY
GOES TO AMENDMENT B, SO THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, I APPRECIATE IT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS? GO AHEAD COUNCILMEMBER
SAKA.
>> THANK YOU, JUST WANTED TO SAY
THANK YOU TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY
CHAIR FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD,
IT IS VERY HARD FOR MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC, ANYONE TO
EFFECTIVELY TRACK THE CHRONOLOGY
OF HOW THIS LEGISLATION HAS
EVOLVED OVER TIME, THE LAST FEW
MONTHS, BUT I JUST NOTE THAT
I'M IN STRONG SUPPORT OF THIS
PARTICULAR AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT
IS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO MY
OWN AMENDMENT TO THE UNDERLYING
BILL BEFORE US, AND IN FACT,
EVERY SINGLE WORD IS IDENTICAL
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THAT LAST
PART TWO, SO THANK YOU CHAIR
KETTLE FOR BRINGING IT FORWARD,
GREAT MINDS THINK ALIKE SO TO
SPEAK.
>> GO AHEAD COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA.
>> THANK YOU, AND I KNOW WE HAD
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THIS, SO
THANK YOU FOR TAKING MY
COMMENTS, I LIKE TO WORK WITH MY
COLLEAGUES WHEN THEY ARE WORKING
ON LEGISLATION, SO I APPRECIATE
YOU BRINGING THIS FORWARD AFTER
WE HAVE THAT CONVERSATION ABOUT
THE IMPORTANCE OF MAKING SURE
THAT IT'S THE HIGHEST PERSON IN
THE DEPARTMENT WHO IS
RESPONSIBLE, ULTIMATELY FOR
MAKING DECISIONS SINCE THEY ARE
THE ONES WHO ARE DIRECTLY UNDER
THE SUPERVISION OF THE MAYOR SO
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD.
>> OKAY, ANYTHING ELSE? WILL THE
CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON
THE ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT B ?
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE .
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RINCK .
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON?
>> YES.
>> NINE IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED.
>> THE MOTION CARRIES AND
AMENDMENT B IS ADOPTED AND WE
WILL PROCEED TO AMENDMENT D .
>> THANK YOU, THIS WOULD REQUIRE
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY TO
REFLECT THAT WHEN USED FOR CROWD
MOVEMENT OR DISPERSAL PURPOSES,
GLASS BALLS ARE NOT DEPLOYED
DIRECTLY INTO A CROWD, GLASS
BALLS SHALL ONLY BE DEPLOYED
UNDERHANDED USING THE BOWLING
STYLE MOTION AND AWAY FROM
PEOPLE. IN THE CASES OF
INTERDICTION, WHEN REASONABLE,
NECESSARY AND PROPORTIONAL TO
ADDRESS IMMEDIATE THREATS TO
LIFE SAFETY, OFFICERS MAY DEPLOY
OVERHAND AND NEAR A PERSON. THE
UNDERHAND DEPLOYMENT TACTIC
COMES AT THE REQUEST OF THE CPC
AND ACTION RECOGNITION THAT WAS
MADE ONE YEAR AFTER THE 2020 BLM
PROTEST. MOVING TO THE TABLE
OVERHEAD, WHAT THIS AMENDMENT
WOULD DO IS REPLACE LANGUAGE IN
THE UNDERLYING AMENDMENT A THAT
YOU CAN SEE ON THE LAST ROW,
WHEN USE OF CROWD MANAGEMENT OR
DISPERSAL PURPOSES AND IT WOULD
REPLACE THE LEFT BOX WITH NO
LANGUAGE IN THE RIGHT BOX. WHAT
I WOULD NOTE, THE MAIN
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO IS
THAT THE UNDERLYING AMENDMENT A
CAPTURES THE AWAY FROM PEOPLE
LANGUAGE THAT THE CPC
RECOMMENDED. THE PROPOSED
LANGUAGE BY COUNCILMEMBER
MOORE'S AMENDMENT WOULD ADD
THAT GLASS BALLS MUST BE
DEPLOYED UNDERHANDED USING A
BOWLING STYLE MOTION AND THAT
THEY ALSO BE THROWN AWAY FROM
PEOPLE, AND IT DOES ALLOW
INDIVIDUAL INTERDICTION TO ALLOW
FOR OVERHAND DEPLOYMENT. AND
THAT IS ALL I HAVE.
>> OKAY, GO AHEAD. PLEASE, IT IS
VERY DIFFICULT TO HEAR WITH YOUR
SPEAKING DURING THE MEETING. IT
MUST BE THE WAY THE SOUND
CARRIES IN THIS T IT IS
DIFFICULT FOR ME TO HEAR. GO
AHEAD, PLEASE ADDRESS YOUR
AMENDMENT.
>> I MOVED TO AMEND A AS
PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT D .
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU. OKAY, AGAIN, WHAT
THIS DOES HAS BEEN SET FORTH
VERY CLEARLY. THIS HAS BEEN
RECOMMENDED BY CPC, ALSO
RECOMMENDED BY OPA, IT ALSO IS
IN ALLIANCE WITH SPD POLICY IN
TERMS OF SAYING THE PREFERRED
METHOD OF DEPLOYMENT IS
UNDERHAND, SO I ALSO NOTE THAT
IN THE MATERIALS THAT WERE
SUBMITTED TO US BY KAREN KOHLER,
WHICH WENT THROUGH THE OPA
FINDINGS, THAT MOST OF THE
INJURIES WERE SUSTAINED IN
RELATION TO DEPLOYMENT OF GLASS
BALLS WHEN THEY WERE THROWN
OVERHAND AND BECAUSE OF THE
NATURE OF GLASS BALLS
THEMSELVES, BEING RUBBER, THE
FACT THAT THEY SEPARATE, THERE
IS A GREATER CHANCE OF THEM NOT
TO LANDING WHERE THEY SHOULD
WHEN THEY ARE THROWN OVERHAND,
SO GIVEN THAT THERE HAVE BEEN SO
MUCH RECOMMENDATION AND THIS IS
KEEPING IN GENERAL WITH SPD
POLICY, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD
THIS ADDITIONAL PROVISION. THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
KETTLE ?
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL PRESIDENT
AND AGAIN, THANK YOU
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE , FOR
ENGAGING WITH THIS AMENDMENT. A
FEW THINGS I WANTED TO NOTE,
LOOKING AGAIN, AMENDMENT A
BRINGS IN CPC BUT THERE WERE
SOME ADJUSTMENTS MADE DUE TO THE
COORDINATION AND COLLABORATION
ON THIS BILL, TO INCLUDE LEGAL
AND ILLEGAL HAD MADE
RECOMMENDATIONS AS YOU SEE ON
THE LEFT SIDE, AND ALSO, THIS
ALSO GOES TO THE LEVEL OF
DETAIL, AS I SAID AT THE
BEGINNING, REGARDING THE
OPERATIONAL ASPECTS OF IT, AND
THIS IS ALSO AN AREA WHERE CPC
CAN BE ENGAGING AS A PART OF ITS
DUTIES WITH THE SPD ON THIS. AND
ONE LAST THING I WANTED TO NOTE,
AND THIS CAME UP EARLY ON, IN
THE EARLY DRAFTS OF THE
LEGISLATION, THAT THIS IS LESS
LETHAL WEAPONS CROWD MANAGEMENT
AND LIFE SAFETY IS SPECIFICALLY
A VERY DIFFERENT PIECE THAT
FALLS UNDER DIFFERENT POLICY
RULES AND THE LIKE, SO WE
PURPOSELY AVOIDED ANY REFERENCE
TO LIFE SAFETY TO AVOID THE
CONFUSION OF HAVING TWO
POLICIES, OR TWO PIECES OF
LEGISLATION LIKE SPEAKING TO
THIS. SO MY RECOMMENDATION IS
AGAIN FOR THE SIMPLICITY AND THE
CLARITY PIECE, NOT TO INCLUDE
LIFE SAFETY AND A CROWD
MANAGEMENT BILL, AND I WOULD SAY
THAT TRAINING AWAY FROM PEOPLE,
OPEN SPACE GETS TO THE CRUX OF
THE MATTER AND GETS US TO AN
IMPROVED PIECE OF LEGISLATION
THAT HAS ALSO BEEN CHECKED OUT
BY LEGAL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA?
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL PRESIDENT,
I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD, VERY MUCH
APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT WAS
DONE WITH CPC AND OIG WHEN
CRAFTING THIS LEGISLATION, I
HAVE ALSO TALKED TO THE
DEPARTMENT, I KNOW THIS IS IN
LINE WITH THEIR PRACTICE, SO
GIVEN THAT THAT IS ALL TRUE, IT
IS LESS LETHAL WEAPONS BUT IT IS
A WEAPON, SO WE NEED TO MAKE
SURE WE PUT AS MANY PARAMETERS
IN PLACE WHEN WE ARE GETTING THE
DEPARTMENT THE ABILITY TO USE IT
IF NEEDED, AT THE SAME TIME
PUTTING AS MANY PROTECTIONS AS
WE CAN. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD AND I WILL BE
SUPPORTING THIS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA .
>> THANK YOU MADAME COUNCIL
PRESIDENT, WHEN THIS ORIGINALLY
CAME FORWARD AT THE COMMUNITY
LEVEL, THERE WERE 10 OR SO
AMENDMENTS, AND NOW THERE'S
ANOTHER 10 OR SO AMENDMENTS AND
A PREVIOUS FRANKENSTEIN VERSION
OF THIS AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL, OR
EXCUSE ME, THE PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMITTEE LEVEL HAS SPONSORED
AGAIN BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE , I
DID NOT SUPPORT AND IT DID NOT
MAKE IT INTO THE FINAL BILL BUT
IT HAS BEEN RESURRECTED AND I
THINK IMPROVED. SO I DID NOT
SUPPORT THAT EARLIER VERSION, I
WILL BE SUPPORTING TODAY'S
AMENDMENT, AND EFFECTIVELY
REVERSING MYSELF BECAUSE
ORIGINALLY AT THE TIME I THOUGHT
I HAD CONCERNS AROUND HOW
PRESCRIPTIVE IT WAS, AND WHAT
KIND OF LIMITATIONS AND IMPACT
THAT COULD HAVE ON PEOPLE'S
LIVES, LITERALLY PEOPLE'S
LIVES. BUT, HAVING DONE SOME DUE
DILIGENCE, TALKING TO A NUMBER
OF STAKEHOLDERS, I DO THINK THE
EXTRA COUPLE WEEKS THAT WE GOT
IN THIS PROCESS REALLY HELPED ME
AND MY OWN JOURNEY AS WE
CONSIDER THIS A VERY COMPLEX
PIECE OF LEGISLATION. BUT AFTER
DOING ALL OF THAT DUE DILIGENCE
AND HEARING THOSE CONCERNS, MY
ORIGINAL CONCERNS ARE SATISFIED
AND LARGELY BECAUSE IT IS
EFFECTIVELY HOW THE DEPARTMENT
OPERATES TODAY AND THERE
APPROPRIATE MECHANISMS IN PLACE,
OR EXCEPTIONS, IF YOU WILL, TO
ALLOW VARIANCE. FOR THOSE
REASONS, I WILL BE SUPPORTING
THIS AMENDMENT TODAY AND I WANT
TO THANK COUNCILMEMBER MOORE FOR
BRINGING IT FORWARD. THANK YOU
FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP.
>> OKAY, I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER
HANDS UP, SO HEARING ONCE,
HEARING TWICE? WILL THE CLERK
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON THE
AMENDMENT D AS AMENDED TO
AMENDMENT A POINT
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE ,
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK.
>> AYE .
>> COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?
>> NO.
>> SEVEN IN FAVOR, TWO OPPOSED,
THE AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED, SO NOW
WE WILL MOVE ON CONTINUING WITH
AMENDMENT A, SO ANY OTHER
DISCUSSION THAT ONE WOULD LIKE
TO MAKE ON AMENDMENT A?
>> [CAPTIONERS TRANSITIONING] S
IT CHANGES SOME RECITALS. IT
ADDS ABOUT HOW BLAST BALLS
SHOULD BE DEPLOYED. THAT
LANGUAGE ALSO REQUIRES NOW, THE
CHIEF OF POLICE, TO AUTHORIZE
BLAST BALLS AS YOU VOTE ON
AMENDMENT BE. THAT IS THE
AMENDED AMENDMENT A THAT IS NOW
BEFORE YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WOULD
YOU LIKE TO --
>> I AM GOING TO HAVE TO ASK
THAT YOU BE SEATED AND BE QUIET,
PLEASE.
>> I AM ASKING YOU TO PLEASE
LEAVE SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE
WITH OUR BUSINESS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, YOU ARE
CLEARED TO SPEAK.
>> I JUST HAVE A QUESTION. WE
ARE VOTING ON AMENDMENT A WHICH
IS AMENDING VERSION 2, IS THAT
CORRECT? WE WILL THEN VOTE ON
OTHER AMENDMENTS TO VERSION 2
AND VOTE ON THE ENTIRETY?
>> MORE OR LESS, YES. HE WILL
VOTE ON AMENDMENT A, AS IT HAS
BEEN CHANGED NOW BY THE BODY.
ONCE AMENDMENT A PASSES, THEN WE
WILL GO THROUGH AMENDMENTS P
THROUGH I AND THOSE ALL AMEND
THE UNDERLYING BILL BECAUSE
THERE IS NO CONFLICT LIKE THERE
WERE WITH THESE.
>> GOT IT. THANK YOU.
>> CAN I ASK A QUICK
CLARIFICATION?
>> IT SEEMS LIKE WHEN AMENDMENTS
A AND B, THEY WERE INDEPENDENT
OF EACH OTHER BUT AMENDMENT C
CREATED THAT CONFLICT SO NOW WE
HAVE THE B AND C DECISION TO BE
MADE BUT IN EFFECT, B, BECAUSE
IT WAS PAST, IS NOT REALLY IN
CONFLICT WITH AMENDMENT A
BECAUSE IT WAS TWO SEPARATE AND
THEY WERE BUILT THAT WAY.
OBVIOUSLY, AMENDMENT C HAS NOT
BEEN APPROVED. I JUST WANT TO
MAKE THAT STATEMENT. I KNOW IT
IS COMPLICATED BUT JUST TO SAY
THAT, FOR THE RECORD. LET'S
JUST PROCEED WITH THE VOTE ON
AMENDMENT A . CLEARLY, I WAS IN
OPPOSITION TO AMENDMENT D,
PARTLY BECAUSE OF THE CONFLATION
OF LIFE SAFETY AND CROWD
MANAGEMENT WHICH ARE TWO
DIFFERENT THINGS AND I WOULD
ALSO HAVE MADE, AND IT DID MAKE
THAT ARGUMENT ABOUT GETTING TOO
OPERATIONALLY DETAILED IN TERMS
OF THE LEGISLATION WHICH GOES
THROUGH MY POINT A LITTLE BIT OF
TRYING TO LEGISLATE TO THE
PERFECT SCENARIO. KEY TO THIS IS
TO GET BOTH AMENDMENT B, WHICH
IS ESSENTIALLY PAST, AND -- PAST
. I WILL BE VOTING FOR AMENDMENT
A.
>> WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL ON A MONDAY? AS
AMENDED.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RINCK?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL NUMBER SOLOMON?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER TRAN 21?
>> YES.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?
>> TWO.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
>> AYE.
>> NINE IN FAVOR COMMON
UNOPPOSED.
>> THE MOTION PASSES. MOVING ON
TO AMENDMENT E .
>> THIS WOULD ADD A NEW RECITAL
TO THE BILL, TO THE UNDERLYING
BILL WHICH WAS RECOMMENDED BY
THE COMMUNITY POLICE COMMISSION
TO THE MAYOR AND THE CITY
COUNCIL IN THE LETTER AND I WILL
READ THAT RECITAL TO YOU NOW. IT
SAYS THAT THE CPC NOTES THAT
BLAST BALLS AS USED IN SEATTLE
OVER THE LAST DECADE HAVE A
DEMONSTRATED TRACK RECORD WHEN
USED ACCORDING TO PAST POLICY OF
INFLICTING INJURY TO
JOURNALISTS, BYSTANDERS AND
POLICE OFFICERS. WHEN PAST
POLICY INTENDED TO REDUCE RISK
OF SUCH INJURY BUT WAS UNABLE TO
ACHIEVE THAT OUTCOME.
>> OKAY.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE YOU'RE
WELCOME TO MOVE AMENDMENT E .
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
I MOVE AMENDMENT E.
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED TO AMEND AS PRESENTED
ON AMENDMENT E. COUNCILMEMBER
MOORE IS THE SPONSOR. YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED TO GO INTO FURTHER
DETAIL ON E.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
AGAIN, GREAT JOB ON PRESENTING
WHAT THIS DOES. I HAD BROUGHT
THIS AS TO MAKE -- TWO, WHEREAS
TOGETHER IN COMMITTEE AND THAT
DID NOT PASS. COUNCILMEMBER
KETTLE ADOPTED ONE IN HIS NEW
AMENDMENT. THANK YOU FOR THAT. I
DECIDED TO BRING THE SECOND ONE
AT THE REQUEST OF CPC , GIVEN
THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BLAST
BALLS, WE ALL THE KNOWLEDGE THEY
ARE LESS LETHAL, I THINK IT IS
IMPORTANT TO GET THE GROUNDING.
I WOULD NOTE TO THE CONCERNS
THAT WERE RAISED IN THE LEGAL
MEMORANDUM, THIS IS DIRECTLY
TYING IT TO THE COMMENTS THAT
CPC MADE IN THE LETTER. TO SOME
EXTENT, IT IS THEIR RECITATION
OF THEIR POSITION ON THIS,
RATHER THAN US SAYING THIS IS
THE CASE. ANYWAY, I DO THINK IT
IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE THIS SO
THANK YOU.
>> ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS ON
AMENDMENT E?
>> COUNCILMEMBER CATTLE --
KETTLE.
>> THANK YOU. I GOT USED TO
HAVING THE TEXT UP ON THE
SCREEN. I DO HAVE THE CPC'S
ORIGINAL LETTER AND THEIR
SUGGESTED EDITS TO THE
LEGISLATION AND I WOULD SAY,
AGAIN, THIS ONE HAS MANY LEGAL
CONCERNS AND MY RECOMMENDATION
IS AGAIN, TO THE POINT OF
CLARITY, TO NOT SUPPORT THIS
RECITAL IN THE BILL. WE HAVE
INCLUDED THE CPC RECITAL THAT
WAS INCLUDED IN AMENDMENT A BUT
MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO NOT
INCLUDE THIS ONE IN THE
LEGISLATION. THANK YOU.
>> I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER HANDS
UP SO WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL ON THE ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENT E?
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE?
>> AYE ALEXIS MERCEDES RINCK AYE
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA AYE
COUNCILMEMBER SAKA AYE
COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON NO
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS
>> NO
>> THAT IS SIX IN FAVOR, THREE
OPPOSED.
>> IT IS FOUR OPPOSED.
>> IT IS FIVE IN FAVOR, FOUR
OPPOSED.
>> OKAY. THE MOTION CARRIES END
AMENDMENT E IS AMENDED.
AMENDMENT F. MOORE, YOU ARE
WELCOME TO PROCEED AND THEN WE
CAN GO THROUGH THE EXPLANATIONS.
>> I MOVED TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL
120196 AS PRESENTED ON
F.
>> WE NEED A SECOND.
>> I DO NEED A SECOND.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT HAS
BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED AS
PRESENTED. GO AHEAD AND EXPLAIN
WHAT YOU SAID.
>> THIS AMENDMENT WOULD PROHIBIT
SPD INCIDENT COMMANDERS FROM
ASSIGNING TO ANY CROWD
MANAGEMENT ROLL , ANY MUTUAL AID
OFFICER WHO IS UNWILLING OR
UNABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE CROWD
MANAGEMENT POLICIES. FPD MAY
DEPLOY MUTUAL AID OFFICERS TO
OTHER ROLES. AS WAS DISCUSSED IN
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE, THIS
REQUIREMENT IS ONE THAT WAS
RECOMMENDED BY SOME BEST DISSING
ORGANIZATIONS AND WAS
HIGHLIGHTED IN THE REVIEW.
ALTHOUGH, ALSO NOTICEABLE --
NOTABLE IS THE DEPARTMENT, THE
MAYOR'S OFFICE AND OIG HAVE ALL
INDICATED THAT MUTUAL AID
ORGANIZATIONS MAY CHOOSE NOT TO
COME TO THE ASSISTANCE OF
SEATTLE AT THEY ARE REQUIRED TO
FOLLOW POLICIES THAT THEY ARE
NOT TRAINED ON.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
KETTLE?
>> MAY I SPEAK TO THE BILL?
>> I'M SORRY.
>> AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO NOTE
THAT THIS AMENDMENT HAS BEEN
REVISED TO CLARITY COMPARED TO
WHAT WAS HEARD AND CLARITY.
AGAIN, THE UPDATED LANGUAGE
CLARIFIES THAT IT IS ABOUT
DEPLOYING TO A CROWD MANAGEMENT
ROLL IN THE SECOND SENTENCE
CLARIFIES THAT SPD MAY DEPLOY
MUTUAL AID OFFICERS FOR OTHER
PURPOSES WHEN SPD PRESENTED,
THEY MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT
THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT THEY
WANTED THE ABILITY TO DO, TO BE
ABLE TO DEPLOY AND THAT THEY
WOULD CONSIDER DEPLOYING TWO
OTHER PURPOSES IF THEY WERE NOT
ABLE TO UTILIZE FOR CROWD
CONTROL, EVEN OUTSIDE OF THIS
RESTRICTION. I DON'T BELIEVE
THAT WE ARE DOING ANYTHING THAT
SPD WOULD NOT ALREADY DO. I JUST
WANT TO NOTE THAT THERE HAVE
BEEN ANOTHER -- A NUMBER OF
COMMENTS ABOUT LEGAL CONCERNS
RAISED ABOUT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF
THESE AMENDMENTS. THERE IS
NOTHING UNIQUE TO THIS
PARTICULAR AMENDMENT OR SOME OF
THE OTHERS. THEY ALL SHARED
SIMILAR LEGAL CONCERNS AND AS I
SAID IN COMMITTEE, WE HAVE THE
LAW DEPARTMENT GIVE US DEVICE --
ADVICE, TO GIVE US A RISK
ASSESSMENT FROM HIGH TO LOW AND
IT IS UP TO US TO DECIDE WHAT
LEVEL OF RISK WE ARE COMFORTABLE
WITH BASED ON WHAT KIND OF
POLICY WE ARE TRYING TO ACHIEVE.
I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP
THAT IN MIND. ADDITIONALLY,
THERE HAS BEEN A CONCERN RAISED
THAT IF WE ONLY ALLOW MUTUAL AID
OFFICERS -- IF WE RESTRICT THEIR
ABILITY TO USE LESS LETHAL
WEAPONS BASED ON THEIR POLICIES
VERSUS SEATTLE POLICIES, THAT
THEY WON'T SHOW UP. AGAIN, I
THINK THAT IS SPECULATION TO
SOME EXTENT. TO SOME EXTENT THAT
IS SPECULATION . ADDITIONALLY, I
DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE
INVITING PEOPLE TO MANAGE OUR
CROWDS IF THEY ARE UNWILLING TO
FULLY COMPLY WITH SPD POLICY. I
DON'T BELIEVE WE SHOULD BE
PROVIDING ANY SORT OF
INTENTIONAL OR UNINTENTIONAL
LOOPHOLE TO THE UTILIZATION OF
LESS LETHAL WEAPONS THAT ARE IN
CLEAR VIOLATION OF WHAT THE CITY
OF SEATTLE, THROUGH ITS ELECTED
REPRESENTATIVES, HAS CHOSEN TO
SET UP AND I DON'T THINK THAT
WE WANT OFFICERS COMING TO THE
CITY WHO ARE NOT WILLING TO
COMPLY WITH OUR SPECIFIC
POLICIES, PARTICULARLY NOW WHEN
WE ARE LOOKING AT A DIFFERENT
LANDSCAPE IN TERMS OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT. WE ARE NOW LOOKING
AT DEPLOYMENT OF THE MILITARY ON
THE BORDER. WE ARE NOW LOOKING
AT NATIONAL GUARD DEPLOYMENT. WE
HAD DEPLOYMENT OF WASHINGTON
STATE PATROL IN 2020 AND THERE
WAS A FINDING THAT THEY DID
VIOLATE POLICY. I THINK WE NEED
TO SET THE STANDARDS. WE NEED TO
TRAIN ON THOSE STANDARDS. WE ARE
TOLD THAT TRAINING HAPPENS. WE
CAN PROVIDE WITH THE TRAINING
MANUALS, AND THIS DOES PROVIDE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEPLOY MUTUAL
AID IN ALL OTHER CAPACITIES IF
THEY ARE UNWILLING TO SIMPLY
AGREE TO NOT DEPLOY BLAST BALLS
OR OTHER LESS LETHAL WEAPONS AS
DIRECTED BY THE POLICIES THAT
HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY THE ELECTED
REPRESENTATIVES OF THIS CITY. I
FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT THIS IS
IMPORTANT. IF IT TURNS OUT TO
TRULY BE A PROBLEM, WE CAN
ALWAYS REVISIT IT AS WE ALWAYS
REVISIT ISSUES BUT THIS IS A
TIME WHEN WE ARE ASKING FOR
MUTUAL AID FROM OTHER
JURISDICTIONS FOR WHOM WE ARE
NOT ENTIRELY SURE WHERE THEY
ALIGN ON THE SPECTRUM OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT ISSUES. I THINK THIS
IS AN EVEN MORE COMPELLING
REASON TO MAKE IT EVEN CLEAR
THAT IF YOU COME, YOU ABIDE BY
OUR RULES AND IF YOU ARE
UNWILLING TO DO THAT, WE WILL
PUT YOU IN SOME OTHER HELPFUL
ROLL . IN THE SECTOR OF NOT
HAVING PEOPLE FOR FIFA, I FIND
IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT THEY
WOULD BE UNWILLING TO COME AND
PARTICIPATE IN THE CROWD
MANAGEMENT ROLL IN SOMETHING
LIKE THAT, A SPORTING EVENT OR
SOMETHING LIKE THAT WHERE WE ARE
CONCERNED WITH NEEDING
ADDITIONAL HELP. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH.
>> COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE ?
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT
AND THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
MOORE. WE STRONGLY DISAGREE ON
THIS ONE. THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN
ADDRESSED IN THE BILL. ANY
MUTUAL AID THAT COMES TO SEATTLE
HAS TO FOLLOW THE COMMAND AND
CONTROL OF THE MUTUAL --
INCIDENT COMMANDER AND FOLLOW
THE DIRECTION OF THE INCIDENT
COMMANDERS. THEREFORE, THIS
COVERS THE POLICY PIECE . SPD,
FROM THE CHIEF OF POLICE ON
DOWN, THEY FOLLOW SPD POLICY END
THEY GIVE DIRECTION AS IT
RELATES TO SPD POLICY.
THEREFORE, ANY MUTUAL AID WILL
FOLLOW BOTH DIRECTIONS.
OBVIOUSLY, IF THERE IS AN
OFFICER THAT REFUSES TO FOLLOW
THE DIRECTION OF THE INCIDENT
COMMANDER, THAT PERSON WILL
ADDRESS THAT ISSUE. WE ALSO
NOTE, TOO, TO THE POINT OF
NEIGHBORING JURISDICTION, WE
FALL UNDER THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON. THERE ARE EVER
INCREASING RULES IN THE
STANDARDIZATION ACROSS THE STATE
RELATED TO POLICY AND THAT WILL
CONTINUE. BOTTOM LINE, IT IS NOT
SPECULATION. JURISDICTIONS WILL
NOT COME TO OUR AID IF WE GET
TOO PRECISE IN TERMS OF
POLICIES, IN TERMS OF FOLLOWING
THEIR POLICIES. THAT WILL
BASICALLY MEAN THAT NOBODY WILL
SHOW UP. NOBODY WILL SHOW UP. IF
WE ARE IN A DIRE SITUATION AND
OUR OFFICERS ARE ON THE STREET
AND THEY DON'T FEEL ANYONE WILL
SHOW UP, THAT IS PROBLEMATIC.
THAT CREATES EVEN MORE DANGER .
MORE DANGER. WE SHOULD NOT PUT
OURSELVES IN THAT POSITION.
WE'VE GOT THIS COVERED. MUTUAL
AID IS COVERED IN THE
LEGISLATION NOW ALREADY AND TO
GO FURTHER WOULD CREATE MORE
PROBLEMS AND CREATE MORE DANGER
AND MORE CONCERN THAN WHEN WE
FACE A CROWD MANAGEMENT
SITUATION AND THE USE OF LESS
LETHAL WEAPONS. MY
RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFINITELY
SAY NO TO THIS AMENDMENT. THANK
YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RINCK ?
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
I WILL KEEP THIS BRIEF. COUNCIL
RESIDENTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO
TRUST THAT WHEN THEY GO TO
EXERCISE, THEY SHOULD KNOW THAT
POLICE ARE ABIDING BY SEATTLE
POLICY. I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT
THE KIND OF CONDUCT WE MAY SEE
IF WE ALLOW LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES THAT ARE COMING ONTO
THE SCENE AND PLAYING BY
DIFFERENT RULES. WE ALREADY HAVE
WORK TO DO TO ADDRESS THE
ACCOUNTABILITY CHALLENGES WITHIN
OUR OWN POLICE DEPARTMENT. I
HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT INTRODUCING
A WHOLE NEW CATEGORY OF
ACCOUNTABILITY CHALLENGES,
BRINGING IN AGENCIES ABIDING BY
THEIR OWN POLICIES, NOT OURS.
THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER MOORE
FOR INTRODUCING THIS AMENDMENT.
I WILL BE SUPPORTING IT AND I
ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES TO
SUPPORT IT AS WELL.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON?
>> THANK YOU , MADAM PRESIDENT.
FOR ALMOST 35 YEARS, I HAVE
WORKED WITH THE MEN AND WOMEN
WHO HAVE BEEN ON THE LINE IN
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WHO HAVE
DEALT WITH CROWD MANAGEMENT
ISSUES, WHO HAVE DEALT WITH
UNREST AND PROTEST. MY THOUGHTS,
MY VOTES ARE FORMED BY THAT LENS
AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT IT
IS NOT A PERSONAL SLIGHT, VOTING
AGAINST AN AND THEN MEANT THAT
SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES ARE IN
FAVOR OF IT IS INFORMED BY
KNOWLEDGE, BY EXPERIENCE AND
BEING WITH THOSE MEN AND WOMEN
AND HAVING HEARD THEIR
EXPERIENCES WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN
OUT THERE. WITH THE ISSUE
REGARDING MUTUAL AID, ANYTIME WE
HAVE MUTUAL AID COMING INTO THE
CITY, THEIR SENIOR LEADERS ARE
CONNECTING WITH OUR SENIOR
LEADERS, THE INCIDENT COMMANDERS
ON THE SCENE. THERE IS
COORDINATION BETWEEN THEM. THERE
IS NOT GOING TO BE AN ASK OF
BELBEY OR KIRKLAND TO DO
SOMETHING THAT THEY ARE NOT
TRAINED TO DO. I JUST WANT TO
MAKE THAT POINT THAT THERE
ALREADY IS THAT COORDINATION.
THERE IS NOT INTERACTION TO
PREVENT SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT
THIS AMENDMENT IS SEEKING TO
ADDRESS.
>> THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?
>> I JUST WANTED TO NOTE , THANK
YOU COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON. I
APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS AND THE
EXPERIENCE THAT YOU BRING TO
THIS AND I UNDERSTAND THE
THOUGHT BUT TO COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK'S POINT, THEY WILL NOT BE
PLAYING BY DIFFERENT RULES AS
NOTED BY COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON,
THEY WILL BE FOLLOWING SEATTLE
RULES AS IT FALLS UNDER THE
CHIEF OF POLICE AND THEN THE
DIRECTION TO THE INCIDENT
COMMANDERS TO ANY MUTUAL AID
OFFICERS. THAT IS UNDER THE
COMMAND AND CONTROL. I JUST
WANTED TO MAKE THAT POINT. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH.
>> ARE THERE ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS?
>> WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL ON ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENT F?
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE?
>> AYE.
>> ALEXIS MERCEDES RINCK?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> NO.
>> THAT IS TWO IN FAVOR, EIGHT
OPPOSED. THE MOTION FAILS.
>> GOING ON TO AMENDMENT G.
>> THIS AMENDMENT WOULD BETTER
ENABLE COUNCIL REVIEW OF
POLICIES THAT GOVERN CROWD
MANAGEMENT . I DRAW YOUR
ATTENTION BACK TO AMENDMENT A
WHICH ALLOWS OR REQUIRES THE
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE TO BE
NOTIFIED WHEN SPD WISHES TO
START USING A LESS LEGAL ROLL .
THE POLICY WILL BE ENACTED. THIS
AMENDMENT GOES A LITTLE BIT
FURTHER. WITH THIS AMENDMENT
DOES IS IT SAYS THAT SPD MUST
REPORT ON PROPOSED POLICY
CHANGES BOTH FOR LESS LETHAL
WEAPONS AND BOTH FOR THE CHANGE
IT MIGHT BEFORE THE THRESHOLD
THAT DETERMINES WHETHER THE
CROWD HAS BECOME UNLAWFUL. AS
THE COUNCIL WILL RECALL, THE
CURRENT THRESHOLD IS THAT SPD
COMMANDERS HAVE TO BE ABLE TO
ARTICULATE THE SPECIFIC FACTS
AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ESTABLISH
THE IMMINENT THREAT OF VIOLENCE
AGAINST PROPERTY DAMAGE. UNDER
THIS AMENDMENT, SPD WOULD NEED
TO NOTIFY NOT JUST THE PUBLIC
SAFETY COMMITTEE BUT THE ENTIRE
COUNCIL OF ANY CHANGE FOR THIS
COUNCIL AND ANY LESS LETHAL
WEAPON. ONCE THE COUNCIL IS
NOTIFIED, SPD WOULD NEED TO WAIT
120 DAYS BEFORE IMPLEMENTING
THAT CHANGE INTO THE POLICY.
DURING THAT 120 DAY WAITING
PERIOD, THE COUNCIL HAS THE
OPTION OF PASSING A RESOLUTION
OF DISAPPROVAL. THIS IS A TERM
THAT ORIGINATES IN THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT WHEREBY CONGRESS CAN
GENERALLY OVERSEE MAJOR
RULEMAKING AND IN THE SAME WAY
HERE, IF SPD CHANGES ITS POLICY,
THE COUNCIL WOULD HAVE THE
OPTION TO PASS THE RESOLUTION
THAT WOULD MAKE THOSE POLICIES
NORMAL -- NULL AND VOID. ANY
QUESTIONS?
>> YOU ARE MEMBER -- WELCOME TO
MOVE AND SPEAK TO YOUR
AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU. THIS IS MY FINAL
THE MEN. MOVED TO AMEND COUNCIL
BILL 120916 IS PRESENTED ON
AMENDMENT G.
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED TO AMEND LEGISLATION AS
PRESENTED. HAD.
>> THANK YOU. I TALKED ABOUT
THIS IN CONCEPT AND COMMITTEE
BUT NOW I HAVE THE ACTUAL
LEGISLATION, THE PROPOSED
LEGISLATION. I WANTED TO NOTE
THAT THIS WAS DRAFTED IN
CONSULTATION WITH OUR CONSENT
DECREE COUNCIL BECAUSE I WANTED
TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GOT IT
RIGHT AND DIDN'T DO ANYTHING TO
POTENTIALLY JEOPARDIZE OUR --
THAT IS WHY IT IS WRITTEN THIS
WAY IN UTILIZING THE FEDERAL
STRUCTURE. IT WAS HER OPINION
THAT UTILIZING THIS STRUCTURE,
THIS FEDERAL LANGUAGE WOULD BE
MORE COMPREHENSIBLE BY THE
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE,
THE LANGUAGE THAT THEY USE. THE
OTHER IMPORTANT PIECE TO THIS IS
-- THIS IS BASICALLY A DEFAULT.
THE POLICIES WOULD BECOME
EFFECTIVE UNLESS COUNCIL TAKES
ACTION , WITHIN 120 DAYS. THE
DEFAULT IS THAT THEY GO INTO
EFFECT UNLESS AND 120 DAYS
COUNCIL MAKES A RESOLUTION OF
DISAPPROVAL. AGAIN, I THINK --
THIS IS A POLICY QUESTION ABOUT
TRYING NOT TO BE TOO PRESCRIPT
GIVE. I HAVE CERTAINLY HEARD
THAT AND HAVE TRIED TO BE
RESPECTFUL OF THAT. THAT IS WHY
IT IS LIMITED TO SIMPLY
REVIEWING THE INTRODUCTION OF
CHANGES TO POLICY THAT WOULD
INTRODUCE THE USE OF NEW, LESS
LETHAL WEAPONS THAT HAVE NOT
BEEN INCORPORATED OR COVERED IN
THE CURRENT POLICY AS WELL AS
CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF WHAT
CONSTITUTES A RIOT WHICH IS WHAT
IS THE TRIGGER FOR CIVIL
EMERGENCY PROCLAMATION. TO ME,
THOSE ARE POLICY DECISIONS THAT
THE COUNCIL SHOULD BE ENGAGED IN
. I APPRECIATE THAT AMENDMENT A
HAS A LOT OF REQUESTS FOR
FEEDBACK FROM OUR ACCOUNTABILITY
PARTNERS AND I THINK THAT IS
IMPORTANT BUT AT THE END OF THE
DAY, IT IS OUR DECISION TO
DECIDE WHAT WE DO WITH THAT
FEEDBACK AND OUR DECISION ABOUT
THE POLICY WE HAVE TO DEVELOP
AROUND, DO WE GET NEW AND LETHAL
WEAPONS OR DO WE CHANGE THE
DEFINITION OF A RIOT WHICH THEN
ALLOWS A HIGHER LEVEL OF USE OF
A HIGHER TYPE OF WEAPON ? AGAIN,
I WILL JUST REPEAT. IF COUNCIL
DOESN'T TAKE ACTION IN 120
DAYS, THIS NEW POLICY WOULD
AUTOMATICALLY GO INTO EFFECT .
THANK YOU.
>> I HAVE ONE QUESTION. YOU
DISTRIBUTED THIS REVISION. CAN
YOU SPEAK TO THAT?
>> THAT IS ONLY IF IT WAS
CONCERN ABOUT 120 DAYS VERSUS A
LESSER NUMBER OF DAYS BUT I HAVE
NOT HEARD A CONCERN SO I AM NOT
BROACHING THAT TOPIC.
>> OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE .
>> AGAIN, WITH THIS AMENDMENT, A
COUPLE OF THINGS. ONE THING AS
NOTED BEFORE, IN TERMS OF
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MAYOR AND
THE CHIEF OF POLICE, ALL OF
THOSE ARGUMENTS ARE GERMANE HERE
AND APPLY AND THEIR
RESPONSIBILITIES AS IT RELATE TO
IT ARE IN EFFECT. AS NOTED, I
UNDERSTAND THE POINT BUT WE
SHOULD NOT BE CROWDING OUT OUR
ACCOUNTABILITY PARTNERS. THIS IS
WHY WE HAVE THE CPC. WE SHOULD
BE WORKING TO EMPOWER THE CPC TO
SET IT UP FOR SUCCESS AS OPPOSED
TO FAILURE AND ONE WAY IT IS SET
UP FOR SUCCESS IS TO GRANT THIS
SPACE AND THAT ENGAGEMENT. THAT
IS THE RULE IN THIS . WE SHOULD
BE BASICALLY SUPPORTING THAT.
SEPARATELY, WE DO GET THE
NOTIFICATION AND THE COMMITTEE
AND THE FULL COUNCIL CAN TAKE
ACTION IF NEEDED BUT AT THIS
POINT, THE LEGISLATION AS
WRITTEN, CAPTURES ALL THAT IS
REQUIRED AND ALSO, IN TERMS OF
THE BROADER POINTS, IT IS ALSO
POSITIVE IN HOW IT IS WRITTEN.
MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO SAY NO
TO THIS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU. I AM NOT SEEING
ANY -- COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON,
PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM
PRESIDENT. I WANT TO ECHO THE
COMMENTS OF COUNCILMEMBER
KETTLE. I KNOW OUR
ACCOUNTABILITY PARTNERS. I TRUST
OUR ACCOUNTABILITY PARTNERS AND
I TRUST THAT THEY WILL DO THEIR
JOBS. THEREFORE, I WILL N█OT BE
SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT.
>> OKAY. FINAL COMMENT?
>> I TOO KNOW AND TRUST OUR
ACCOUNTABILITY PARTNERS. THERE
IS NOTHING IN THIS AMENDMENT
THAT PRECLUDES OR CROWDS THEM
OUT . IT SIMPLY TREATS THEM AS
THEY SHOULD BE TREATED WHICH IS
ADVISORY BODIES. THEY ARE
ADVISORY BODIES TO THIS COUNCIL.
THEIR JOB IS TO GO OUT AND TALK
TO THE COMMUNITY. THEIR JOB IS
TO TALK TO THE COMMUNITY AS WELL
AS LAW ENFORCEMENT AND OTHER
NATIONAL ACTORS, LOCAL ACTORS
BUT THEY EXIST AT OUR PLEASURE
TO PROVIDE US WITH THAT KIND OF
INFLAMMATION THAT WE CURRENTLY
NEED. I WILL ALSO NOTE THAT NOT
EVERYBODY IN THE COMMUNITY HAS
BEEN SUPER HAPPY WITH HOW CPC
HAS BEEN DOING ITS JOB. TO SAY
THAT WE ARE GOING TO ABDICATE
OUR RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MOST
IMPORTANT ISSUES ABOUT HOW WE
DEFINE A RIOT AND WHAT WEAPONS
WE ALLOWED TO BE USED AGAINST
OUR RESIDENTS TO A GROUP THAT IS
NOT ACCOUNTABLE TO ANYBODY OTHER
THAN US TO WHETHER THEY ARE
REAPPOINTED AND TO WHO THE
COMMITTEE DOES NOT NECESSARILY
HAVE A LOT OF TRUST OR HIGH
REGARD FOR, I THINK THIS IS A
MISTAKE. NOT TO SAY THAT WE ARE
CROWDING THEM OUT. ABSOLUTELY
NOT. THE FACT THAT WE HAVE
DIRECTLY PRESENTED AMENDMENTS
BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATION AND
LANGUAGE SHOWS THAT THIS COUNCIL
IS VERY RESPECTFUL AND RESET THE
OF TO THE FEEDBACK AND I THINK
WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE SO. AT
THE END OF THE DAY, IT IS THIS
BODY THAT MAKES THAT DECISION
BASED ON GOOD COUNCIL THAT WE
RECEIVED. THIS IS VERY NARROW.
AGAIN, IT IS NOT ABOUT THE
POLICY. IT IS ABOUT HOW WE
DEFINE RIOT, WHICH IS THE
TRIGGER FOR BEING ABLE TO
UTILIZE MORE WEAPONS WITHOUT THE
HIGH RISK OF LETHALITY. THIS IS
NOT EITHER/OR, THIS IS ABOUT
UTILIZING THAT FEEDBACK BUT
BEING THE ULTIMATE JUDGE. THANK
YOU. I HOPE THAT YOU WILL
SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON, IS
THAT A NEW HAND? IF SO, YOU'RE
WELCOME TO SPEAK.
>> NO, JUST LOWERING MY HAND
SINCE LAST TIME.
>> I JUST WANTED TO NOTE, AS
CHAIR OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMITTEE, THAT I DO NOT
ABROGATE MY RESPONSIBILITY AND I
BELIEVE THAT WE ABROGATE OUR
RESPONSIBILITY AS IT RELATES TO
THIS. WE EXERCISE THAT
RESPONSIBILITY, THAT
ACCOUNTABILITY IN SO MANY WAYS
THROUGH MULTIPLE COMMITTEES AND
THE OVERALL COUNCIL AND WE WILL
CONTINUE TO DO THAT. I DO NOT
BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ANY
CONCERN ABOUT ABROGATING
RESPONSIBILITY. IF I MEET ON A
REGULAR BASIS WITH OUR PARTNERS,
I MEET MONTHLY, REGULARLY WITH
THE CHIEF OF POLICE. I WILL BE
MEETING WITH THEM AGAIN SOON.
THESE ARE THE OPPORTUNITIES THAT
ENGAGE IN ADDITION TO WHAT WE DO
THROUGH THE PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMITTEE. I JUST WANTED TO NOTE
THAT I, AND I DON'T THINK WE,
ABROGATE OUR RESPONSIBILITIES
EVEN AS THIS IS WRITTEN
CURRENTLY. THANK YOU.
>> GO AHEAD, COUNCILMEMBER
MOORE.
>> THANK YOU. I MAY HAVE THE
FINAL WORD ON THIS AS THE AUTHOR
OF THIS AMENDMENT. IF YOU LOOK
AT SECTION 7 IN AMENDMENT A,
THAT IS NOT CURRENTLY
AUTHORIZED, POLICE DEPARTMENTS
SHALL NOTIFY THE COUNCIL PUBLIC
SAFETY COMMITTEE AND REPORT ON.
THERE IS NOTHING IN THERE THAT
SAYS THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
BRINGS US FORTH TO THE REST OF
THE COUNCIL . I CERTAINLY AM NOT
IMPUGNING ANYONE'S DESIRE TO
HOLD PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE AND DO
THE WORK. I KNOW THE WORK IS
BEING DONE. THAT IS NOT THE
POINT. THE POINT IS, THAT IT
SHOULD NOT JUST BE ADVISING THE
COUNCIL AND ONE PARTICULARLY
COMMITTEE, IT SHOULD BE COMING
-- WE SHOULD HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE ALL OF THAT
INFORMATION, WHICH WE WOULD.
THEN, IF WE WERE TO HAVE
CONCERNS ABOUT SOME NEW NOVEL
WEAPON OR CHANGING A RIOT FROM 4
TO 2, THEN WE HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY, IF WE ARE CONCERNED
ABOUT THAT, TO BRING
LEGISLATION. IF WE DON'T HAVE
CONCERNS, THEN NOTHING HAPPENS.
IT JUST GOES INTO EFFECT. THIS
IS JUST AN ADDITIONAL SAFEGUARD.
IT IS AN ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITY
FOR US TO CONTINUE TO EXERCISE
OUR OVERSIGHT AUTHORITY AND THAT
IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. THANK
YOU.
>> NOT SEEN TOO MANY OTHER
HANDS, WILL THE CLERK PLEASE
CALL THE RULE ON THE ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENT G.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RINCK?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?
>> NO.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
>> NO .
>> THREE IN FAVOR, SIX OPPOSED.
>> THE MOTION FAILS AND
AMENDMENT G IS NOT ADOPTED.
>> I MOVED TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL
120916 AS PRESENTED IN AMENDMENT
H .
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL
120916 AS PRESENTED IN AMENDMENT
H. GO AHEAD, PLEASE.
>> THIS AMENDMENT WOULD REQUIRE
SPD TO AMEND OR CHANGE THE
PURPOSE STATEMENT FOR ITS CROWD
MANAGEMENT INTERVENTION AND
CONTROL POLICY. UNDER THIS
AMENDMENT, THE PURPOSE STATEMENT
MUST SAY THAT A FUNDAMENTAL
FUNCTION OF THE ROLL OF POLICE
IN ALL CROWN MANAGEMENT SETTINGS
IS TO, WHENEVER NECESSARY , SAFE
AND FEASIBLE, IDENTIFY AND
CLEARLY COMMUNICATE SAFE ENTRY
AND EXIT POINTS FOR INDIVIDUALS
ASSEMBLED IN CROWDS AS WELL AS
INDIVIDUALS PASSING BY, LIVING
IN THE AREA, OR WORKING IN THE
AREA. THE LANGUAGE AROUND THIS
SAFE EXIT POINT IS ALREADY IN
SPD POLICY SO THE EFFECT OF THIS
AMENDMENT WOULD BE TO HIGHLIGHT
OR RAISE UP THE FUNCTION OF
ENSURING THAT CLEARLY
COMMUNICATING ENTRY AND EXIT
POINTS IS A HIGH PRIORITY FOR
THE DEPARTMENT SO THAT IT IS
SUCH A HIGH PRIORITY THAT IT IS
NOW INCLUDED IN THE PURPOSE
STATEMENT. THE PURPOSE STATEMENT
IS ABOUT FIVE PARAGRAPHS LONG
AND REFLECTS A LOT OF DIFFERENT
SUBJECTS. AS I JUST SAID, THIS
WOULD ADD A PRIORITY FOR THE
COUNCIL FOR THAT STATEMENT.
>> ALL RIGHT. COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK, YOU ARE WELCOME TO
ADDRESS YOUR AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
LANGUAGE DIRECTING SPD TO
IDENTIFY SAFE DISPERSAL ROUTES
IS ALREADY IN THE POLICY. THIS
AMENDMENT WOULD ELEVATE THAT
ALREADY AGREED-UPON STANDARD TO
THE PURPOSE STATEMENT OF THE
CITY'S CROWD CONTROL POLICY.
THIS IS TO ENSURE THAT THE
SAFETY OF ALL IN THE VICINITY OF
POLICE RESPONSE, TO ANY CROWD
MANAGEMENT SITUATION, ARE
PROVIDED SAFE OPTIONS OF EGRESS
WHENEVER POSSIBLE. AS WE SAW ON
CAPITOL HILL IN DOWNTOWN IN
2020, SPD CROWD CONTROL IMPACTS
NOT JUST THOSE IN THE CROWD
BEING MANAGED BUT ALL THE
RESIDENTS, BUSINESS OWNERS AND
WORKERS NEARBY. IT IS A
FUNDAMENTAL DROP AND ROLL OF
POLICE OFFICERS TO TAKE THE
PUBLIC . IT IS REASONABLE TO ASK
POLICE OFFICERS TO INCREASE
CROWD MANAGEMENT PUBLIC SAFETY
FOR BOTH COMMUNITY MEMBERS
EXERCISING THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT
RIGHTS AND THE RESIDENCE,
BUSINESS OWNERS AND OTHER FOLKS
IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY.
COLLEAGUES, I ENCOURAGE YOUR
SUPPORT FOR THIS AMENDMENT.
THANK YOU.
>> ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS ON
THIS AMENDMENT?
>> I WILL GO AHEAD WITH YOU,
COUNCILMEMBER SAKA. I DON'T
KNOW WHO RAISED THEIR HAND
FIRST.
>> GENERALLY I AM AGAINST
AMENDMENTS THAT ARE OVERLY
PRESCRIPT LIVE BUT I BELIEVE
THIS AMENDMENT STRIKES AN
APPROPRIATE BALANCE BETWEEN
COMMUNICATING SAFE ENTRY POINTS
AND EXIT POINTS BUT DOING SO
WHEN IT IS NECESSARY, SAFE, AND
FEASIBLE. AGAIN, WE LEARNED THAT
IT IS ALREADY CONSISTENT WITH
CURRENT POLICY OF THE DEPARTMENT
SO THAT THIS WOULD EFFECTIVELY
DO IS ELEVATE THAT TO ORDINANCE
AND I THINK THERE ARE VALID
REASONS AT TIMES TO ELEVATE THE
DETAIL OF A DEPARTMENT POLICY TO
THE LEGISLATION LEVEL INCLUDING
BECAUSE IT IS MORE DIFFICULT TO
CHANGE ONCE IT IS IN ORDINANCE.
THE WHIM OF WHOEVER THE NEXT
POLICE CHIEF IS, WHO ULTIMATELY
REPORTS TO THE MAYOR, THE
DEPARTMENT OF POLICIES CAN
CHANGE. I THINK THIS ENSHRINES
AND CODIFIES CURRENT BEST
PRACTICE. I DON'T LOVE IT BUT I
AM GOING TO SUPPORT IT AND I
WANT TO THANK COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK FOR BRINGING IT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT
AND THANK YOU , COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT
THIS AMENDMENT HIGHLIGHTS IS, IS
THE REFORM THAT HAS OCCURRED
OVER THE LAST DOZEN YEARS PART
OF THE CONSENT DECREE PROCESS
BUT ALSO, SPECIFICALLY IN THE
LAST FIVE YEARS, SINCE THE
PROTEST OF 2020. IT SHOWS --
OFTEN TIMES IN THE PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMITTEE, THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST
WHATEVER PIECE OF LEGISLATION
THAT WE WERE HEARING, WHEREAS IF
THEY WERE FROM YESTERYEAR WITH
NO ACCOUNTING FOR ALL THE
CHANGES, THE DRAMATIC CHANGE IN
SPD, THE MASSIVE TURNOVER IN THE
STAFFING, THE MASSIVE TURNOVER
IN THE POLICY. BASICALLY WHAT IT
SHOWS IS THE SYSTEM WORKING. TO
INCLUDE MY A POINT ABOUT
ACCOUNTABILITY PARTNERS AND THE
REFORMS WE BROUGHT INTO THE
SEATTLE WAY, WHICH IS DIFFERENT
FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONS AROUND
THE STATE AND COUNTRY . AGAIN,
THIS SHOWS THAT THE SYSTEM IS
WORKING AND THAT SEATTLE WAY
WILL BE DRIVING WHAT WE ARE
DOING. AGAIN, A LOT OF THESE
HAVE SIMILAR PIECES TO THEM .
AGAIN, MY POINT REGARDING
RESPONSIBILITY TO THE MAYOR AND
THE CHIEF OF POLICE AND THEN
AGAIN, THE ACCOUNTABILITY
PARTNERS IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE.
MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO NOT GET
INTO THE WEEDS AS A COUNCIL BUT
TO KEEP THAT BIGGER PICTURE
RESPONSIBILITY IN TERMS OF WHAT
WE ARE DOING IN OUR OVERSIGHT
AND THE EXERCISE OF THAT
RESPONSIBILITY. MY
RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO VOTE
NO ON THIS AMENDMENT. THANK YOU.
>> ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO
THANK COLLEAGUE, COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK, FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD. GIVEN THAT THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT THE DEPARTMENT
ALREADY DOES, I WON'T BE
SUPPORTING THIS BUT ALWAYS
APPRECIATE THE THOUGHTFULNESS OF
MY COLLEAGUES. THANK YOU.
>> ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO OTHERS,
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ON AMENDMENT H?
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RINCK?
>> AYE MICK . COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> NO.
>> JOY HOLLINGSWORTH?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?
>> NO.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
>> NO.
>> THREE IN FAVOR, SIX OPPOSED.
>> THE MOTION FAILS AND
AMENDMENT H IS NOT ADOPTED.
>> I MOVED TO AMEND --
>> HOLD ON. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
PLEASE TELL US ABOUT THIS
AMENDMENT I AND THEN WE WILL GET
TO MOVING? GO AHEAD.
>> OKAY. AMENDMENT I, SPONSORED
BY COUNCILMEMBER RINCK, THIS
WOULD CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF
ACTION AGAINST THE CITY WHEN
PERSONS WHO INCUR PHYSICAL
INJURIES PROXIMATELY CAUSED BY
THE USE OF LESS LEGAL WEAPONS IN
VIOLATION OF SPD'S CROWD
MANAGEMENT POLICY, A PERSON WHO,
IN THE JUDGMENT OF A REASONABLE
PERSON COMMITS A CRIMINAL
OFFENSE IMMEDIATELY AT OR PRIOR
TO THE USE OF THAT LESS LETHAL
FORCE MAY NOT RECOVER UNDER THAT
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION. ABSENT
EVIDENCE ESTABLISHING A GREATER
AMOUNT OF DAMAGES THAT WILL BE
PAYABLE TO PERSONS FOR INJURIES
CAUSED IN VIOLATION OF THE
SECTION OF $10,000. I WOULD NOTE
THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS
AMENDMENT -- WHILE THIS
ESTABLISH A PRIVATE RIGHT OF
ACTION, THIS ONE WOULD NOT ALLOW
FOR RECOVERY OF COURT AND
ATTORNEY FEES. THAT IS THE
DIFFERENT COMPONENT HERE AND THE
ONE THAT WAS AT THE PUBLIC
SAFETY COMMITTEE.
>> GO AHEAD.
>> MOVED TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL
120916 AS PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT
I.
>> SECOND.
>> SECONDED TO AMEND COUNCIL
BILL 120916 AS PRESENTED ON
AMENDMENT I. WE HAVE ALREADY HAD
AN EXPLANATION. COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK IS THE SPONSOR. YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED TO ADDRESS IT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. TO THAT
END, I HAVE EXPLAINED THAT THIS
MEMO WOULD CREATE A PRIVATE
RIGHT OF ACTION ON THE CITY WHEN
A PERSON INCURS PERSONAL
INJURIES PROXIMATELY BY THE
CROWD MANAGEMENT INTERVENTION
AND CONTROL POLICY. IT IS
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS WAS
INCLUDED IN PREVIOUS LEGISLATION
THAT THE CURRENT INTERIM POLICY
14.090-POL-1 SUPPLANTED. WE HAVE
TAKEN THE STEPS IN BETWEEN THE
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING
AND TODAY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE
ISSUES RAISED BY LEGAL COUNCIL
TO TRY TO COMMITTEE THIS BUT TO
THIS END , THIS IS A MATTER OF
CREATING NO RISK FOR THE CITY.
SOME MAY ARGUE THAT THERE IS
FINANCIAL RISK TO THE CITY BEING
POTENTIALLY LIABLE FOR THE
$10,000 THAT WOULD BE OWED TO
FOLKS UNDER THIS. HOWEVER, WE
KNOW THAT THE MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS THE CITY HAS ALREADY
PAID OUT TO MANY WHO HAVE BEEN
HARMED BY LESS LETHAL WEAPONS
DURING CROWD CONTROL INCIDENTS.
THIS IS WHERE WE COULD CREATE
ACCOUNTABILITY WITHIN OUR SYSTEM
BUT ALSO THIS ADDRESSES USE OF
FORCE VIOLATIONS. ALSO CREATE A
REDUCTION OF BARRIER OF ENTRY
FOR THE COURT OF LAW FOR FOLKS
WHO ARE SEEKING LEGAL RECOURSE.
WITH THAT, I ENCOURAGE YOU,
COLLEAGUES, TO SUPPORT THIS TO
BE ABLE TO CREATE JUSTICE FOR
THOSE WHO HAVE AND HARMED BY
LESS LETHAL WEAPONS. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT
AND COUNCILMEMBER RINCK. ONE OF
THE THINGS ON THIS THAT THERE IS
ALREADY PROCESSES AVAILABLE TO
INDIVIDUALS WHO FELT THAT THEY
HAD BEEN INJURED BY ANYBODY IN
THE CITY, NEVERMIND THE SEATTLE
POLICE DEPARTMENT. THOSE
PROCESSES GET THE JOB DONE AND
WE SHOULD NOT ANSWER THAT WITH A
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION. I HAVE
NOTED -- AS NOTED, THERE ARE TWO
PREVIOUS VERSIONS WHICH I HAVE
RIGHT HERE IN TERMS OF THE
ORDINANCES FOR LESS LETHAL
WEAPONS, CROWD MANAGEMENT AND
THEY WERE WRONGLY STRUCK DOWN,
OPPOSED, BY THE MAYOR AND IN HER
LETTER OF JUNE 29, 2020, SHE
NOTED THAT THE PRIVATE RIGHT OF
ACTION COULD PROMOTE IN LEGAL
VIABILITY FOR THE CITY.
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY'S
ABSTAINED INJURY DIRECTLY CAUSED
BY CROWD CONTROL DEVICE BUT ALSO
WHEN POLICE ARE USING PEPPER
SPRAY, I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT
TO NOTE THAT THE CHALLENGES AND
THE CONCERNS AND THE LIABILITY,
THAT THE CITY IS INCURRING WHEN
WE ALREADY HAVE A SYSTEM IN
PLACE TO DEAL WITH THAT, THOSE
SITUATIONS THAT MAY OCCUR WITH
INDIVIDUALS. TO BE FRANK, TO,
WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF THIS
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION IN TERMS
OF THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS?
COULD IT INFLUENCE INDIVIDUALS?
I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT
NEEDS TO BE TAKEN INTO
CONSIDERATION AND UNDERSTOOD AND
GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE HAVE
PROCESSES TO ADDRESS -- THERE IS
ALREADY THE AVENUES TO ADDRESS
THAT THIS SHOULD BE HOW WE GO
FORWARD AND NOT ADD A PRIVATE
RIGHT OF ACTION. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE?
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
I WANT TO THANK COLLEAGUE,
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK, FOR
BRINGING THIS AND MAKING THE
CHANGES. I HAD ABSTAINED IN
COMMITTEE ON THIS BUT I
APPRECIATE THE CHANGES TO
REMOVING ATTORNEY -- THIS IS
LIMITED TO INJURIES PROXIMATELY
CAUSED BY LESS LETHAL WEAPONS
NOT RELATED TO EMOTIONAL DAMAGE
EVEN THOUGH WE HAD TESTIMONY
HERE TODAY OF SOMEBODY WHO WAS
ENGAGED IN THE PROTEST AND HAD
LESS LETHAL WEAPON USED AGAINST
HIM AND NOW SUFFERS FROM
POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS. THAT IS
NOT THE FIRST PERSON. THE PERSON
SITTING NEXT TO ME, WE BEGAN
TALKING ABOUT -- I DON'T KNOW
HOW WE GOT IN THE TOPIC BUT IT
WAS A PHOTOGRAPHER WHO WAS AT
2020 COVERED IN PRESS INSIGNIA,
STATING HE WAS PRESS, TOOK
PHOTOS, WAS HAVING A GUN PLACED
TO HIS HEAD BY A POLICE OFFICER,
TAKING PHOTOS AND THEN HAD
BLESSED BALLS DEPLOYED NEAR HIM
AND SEVERELY INJURED HIM. HE WAS
ONE OF THE MANY PLAINTIFFS FOR
WHICH WE SETTLED FOR $10 MILLION
AND HE TOLD ME THAT AS OF TODAY,
HE STILL HAS POSTTRAUMATIC
STRESS. HE STILL RESPONDS TO
LOUD NOISES, TO BRIGHT LIGHTS,
TWO CARS BACKFIRING. HE DOES NOT
LIKE TO BE OUT IN CROWDS. HIS
LIVELIHOOD IS TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS
OUTSIDE. MY POINT BEING THAT
THIS DOES NOT EVEN COVER THE
EMOTIONAL DAMAGE THAT SOME
PEOPLE HAVE DOCUMENTED THAT
OCCURRED TO THEM IN THE CHAOS
AND THE WEAPONS THAT WE USED IN
2020. WE HAVE A STATE AND
FEDERAL REMEDIES BUT THEY ARE
REALLY HARD TO UTILIZE .
NORMALLY I WOULD NOT BE AS
SUPPORTIVE OF CREATING
ADDITIONAL PRIVATE RIGHT OF
ACTION BUT I THINK IT IS
IMPORTANT THAT WE PROVIDE THAT
ADDITIONAL REMEDY. I KNOW IT IS
LIMITED BUT I DON'T THINK WE
CAN OFFER THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING
TO MAKE A FALSE CLAIM ABOUT
BEING INJURED, PARTICULARLY
BECAUSE THIS IS LIMITED TO
PHYSICAL INJURIES PROXIMATELY
CAUSED BY THE USE OF LESS LETHAL
WEAPONS. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT
THAT WE ACKNOWLEDGE -- THERE
NEEDS TO BE ADDITIONAL REMEDY.
THERE NEEDS TO BE ADDITIONAL
THOUGHT GIVEN TO UTILIZING THIS
LEVEL OF WEAPONRY. THANK YOU,
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK FOR BRINGING
THIS. OBVIOUSLY I WILL BE
SUPPORTING IT.
>> I DID NOT VOTE FOR THIS
AMENDMENT EARLIER AND I AM GOING
TO OPPOSE IT RIGHT NOW BECAUSE
OF A NEW CAUSE OF ACTION. IT IS
A PLETHORA OF EXISTING REMEDIES
UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL LAW AND
SETTING DAMAGES AT A MINIMUM OF
10,000+ ATTORNEY FEES OR
WHATEVER THE AMOUNT IS, EXPOSES
THE CITY TO RISK BASED ON
MINIMUM PROOF FROM MINOR
PHYSICAL INJURIES. EFFECTIVELY,
THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS FOR HOW
THESE CASES WOULD PLAY OUT GOING
FORWARD IN ANOTHER LAYER OF --
AT A RISK THAT I AM INTERESTED
IN AVOIDING AS WELL. I WILL BE
VOTING NO ON THIS ONE. ARE THERE
OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?
>> WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL ON THE ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENT I?
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RINCK?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?
>> NO.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
>> NO.
>> TWO IN FAVOR, SEVEN OPPOSED.
>> THE EMOTION FAILS AND
AMENDMENT I IS NOT ADOPTED.
>> WE HAVE GOTTEN THROUGH ALL OF
OUR AMENDMENTS. IS THERE ANY
FINAL COMMENTS ON THE BILL AS
AMENDED? OKAY. IS THAT A NEW
HAND? GO AHEAD, COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
I WANT TO THANK EVERY MEMBER OF
THE PUBLIC WHO HAS REACHED OUT
TO MY OFFICE ON THIS AND A
THOUGHTFUL CONVERSATION WITH MY
COLLEAGUES ON THIS REALLY
IMPORTANT PUBLIC SAFETY MATTER.
I HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS BILL
DEEPLY OVER THE PAST SEVERAL
WEEKS GIVEN MY OWN EXPERIENCES.
TO THAT END, I ASK THAT COUNCIL
CONTINUES TO THINK DEEPLY ABOUT
THE DECISIONS WE MAKE ON THIS
DAY AS AND HOW THEY WILL IMPACT
OUR COMMUNITY ESPECIALLY IN THIS
RAPIDLY CHANGING POLITICAL
CLIMATE. FOR EXAMPLE, JUST THIS
PAST WEEKEND, THERE WERE
PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATIONS
PROTESTING THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION , I.C.E. FAMILY
SEPARATION POLICIES. AS THESE
COMMUNITY MEMBERS WERE
EXERCISING THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT
RIGHT , AN SPD OFFICER POINTED
THE BARREL OF WHAT LOOKED LIKE A
PAINTBALL OR PEPPER BALL GUN IN
THE FACE OF A YOUNG
DEMONSTRATOR. ALL OF OUR OFFICES
WERE EMAILED THIS VIDEO AND THIS
IS UNACCEPTABLE. ACTIONS LIKE
OFFICERS CAN ESCALATE IN AN
INSTANT. THIS IS WHERE WE WERE
BEFORE PASSING A LESS LETHAL
WEAPON POLICY. IT IS 2025. YOU
ARE ON TRUMP 2.0. PROTESTERS
WILL KEEP HAPPENING. WE NEED TO
ENSURE THAT SPD IS HELD TO THE
ABSOLUTE HIGHEST STANDARD OF
INCIDENTS LIKE THIS OR FAR WORSE
SO INCIDENTS LIKE THIS OR FAR
WORSE DON'T KEEP HAPPENING. IF
AND WHEN CITY EMPLOYEES THAT
THIS COUNCIL EMPOWERS TO PROTECT
AND SERVE OUR CONSTITUENTS ACT
OUTSIDE OF THE POLICIES WE ARE
CHARGED TO LEGISLATE, WE NEED TO
HAVE STRONG PROTECTIONS IN PLACE
FOR ACCOUNTABILITY. THE
ACCOUNTABILITY OF ANY OFFICERS
INVOLVED AND OUR ACCOUNTABILITY
AS ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. TO
THAT END, I UNDERSTAND MY
COLLEAGUES' DESIRE TODAY TO
FIND A BALANCE BETWEEN
ACCOUNTABILITY AND WORKING
THROUGH THE CONSENT DECREE.
HOWEVER, THIS POLICY UNLESS
LETHAL WEAPONS DOES NOT ENSURE
THE ACCOUNTABILITY AND ADVANCE
INTO THE EXTENT THAT OUR
NEIGHBORS DESERVE. FOR THAT
REASON, I CANNOT VOTE YES ON
THIS BILL IN THE CURRENT
VERSION. THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE?
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT. FIRST, I
WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO CHAIR
KETTLE FOR ALLOWING FOR THE
THOUGHTFUL DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS
BILL IN COMMITTEE AND GIVING US
SOME ADDITIONAL TIME TO BRING A
SERIES OF AMENDMENTS AND ALSO,
TAKING THE FEEDBACK THAT WAS
HEARD AT COMMITTEE AND BRINGING
AMENDMENT A . I THINK IT IS
CLEARLY BETTER THAN WHAT WAS
ORIGINALLY PROPOSED. I
APPRECIATE THAT WILLINGNESS TO
CONSIDER AND ACTUALLY
INCORPORATE FEEDBACK SO THANK
YOU FOR THAT AND THANK YOU TO MY
COLLEAGUES FOR YOUR THOUGHTFUL
COMMENTS AND CONSIDERATION OF
THE AMENDMENTS THAT I BROUGHT
AND ALSO THANK YOU TO
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK FOR YOUR
COLLABORATION ON THIS BILL AND I
APPRECIATE THAT THE DEPLOYMENT
AMENDMENT WAS APPROVED BUT, I AM
AFRAID, FOR ME, THAT IS NOT
ENOUGH . IN 2020, WE WERE ALMOST
OUT OF THE CONSENT DECREE
BECAUSE SPD HAS DONE GREAT WORK
AND EVERYONE WAS FEELING
POSITIVE. THEN, THE RACIAL
JUSTICE PROTEST OF GEORGE FLOYD
HAPPENED AND WE SAW HOW FAR WE
HAD YET TO GO WITH CROWD CONTROL
AND THE COURT DECIDED TO NOT
RELEASE US FROM THE CONSENT
DECREE AND REQUIRED US TO COME
UP WITH A CROWD CONTROL POLICY
AS A BASIS IN THE CONSENT
DECREE. NOW WE ARE HERE. I DO
HAVE TO SAY THAT I HAVE TO
WONDER WHY THE PROCESS WAS SO
RUSHED . CPC ONLY GOT INVOLVED
AFTER THAT COMMITTEE MEETING AND
THEY WERE APPROACHED -- THEY DID
NOT INDEPENDENTLY COME TO US
ABOUT THIS. I THINK THAT A LOT
OF PEOPLE FEEL THAT THERE HAS
NOT BEEN ENOUGH TIME FOR THE
COMMUNITY TO BE ENGAGED. I WOULD
HAVE LOVED TO HAVE BROUGHT KAREN
TO THE TABLE TO HAVE HER TALK
ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE
LAWSUIT AND THE NUMEROUS,
NUMEROUS PLAINTIFFS THAT WERE IN
THAT CASE AND WHAT HAPPENED TO
THEM AND WHAT HER THOUGHTS WERE
ABOUT HOW WE COULD HAVE IMPROVED
THIS POLICY BUT WE DID NOT HAVE
AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT. WE
DID NOT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
HEAR FROM A LOT OF PEOPLE. WE
TRY TO REACH OUT TO SOME PEOPLE
WHO WERE PLAINTIFFS AND THEY DID
NOT HAVE THE TIME TO COME. I
UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO MOVE US
OUT OF THE CONSENT DECREE. I
ALSO SUPPORT THE NEED TO GET OUT
OF THE CONSENT DECREE BUT AS I
SAID THE FIRST TIME, I DON'T
NECESSARILY THINK THAT -- WE
HAVE TO GET IT RIGHT. I DON'T
KNOW THAT THE COURT IS
NECESSARILY GOING TO BELIEVE OR
FIND THAT THIS IS AN ADEQUATE
POLICY. IT IS DEEPLY FLAWED. TO
MY POINT, THE COUNCIL DOESN'T
GET TO MAKE THE ULTIMATE
DECISION ABOUT WHETHER THE NEXT
POLICY IS A GOOD ONE. WE HAVE
GIVEN UP OUR ABILITY TO REVIEW,
ADVISE, AND CONSENT, MAKE POLICY
DECISIONS. WHY WOULD THE COURT
DECIDE THAT THE CPC AND OIG IS A
SUFFICIENT MONITOR? THEN WE HAVE
THE EVENT THAT HAPPENED AT ALKI?
I WAS REALLY KIND OF SHOCKED TO
SEE HOW POORLY THOSE PROTESTERS
WERE DEALT WITH. WE HAD PEOPLE
BEING PHYSICALLY PUSHED BY
OFFICERS. WE HAD THE TEAM THERE
AND THE TEAM HAS BEEN PRESENTED
TO US AS A GREAT ADVANCEMENT AND
THEY ARE A GREAT ADVANCEMENT AND
THEY HAVE DONE GREAT WORK BUT
WHERE WERE THEY? THEY WERE
THERE. THINGS WERE GETTING OUT
OF HAND QUICKLY. THIS WAS A
MINOR EVENT. THERE WAS WHAT,
MAYBE 30 OR 40 PEOPLE THERE AND
THEY WERE JUST A LITTLE BIT OFF
THE SIDEWALK IN THE ROAD?
TENSIONS WERE HOT. PEOPLE BEING
PUSHED. SOME SORT OF PEPPER GUN
OR WHATEVER, BLAST BALL GUN
BEING POINTED, POINT-BLANK AT A
YOUNG PERSON BECAUSE THEY DID
NOT GET BACK FROM THE SIDEWALK
FAST ENOUGH? SO, NOW WE WANT TO
JUST TURN IT ALL OVER AND SAY IT
IS ALL GREAT? CLEARLY IT IS NOT
ALL GREAT. WE HAVE NOT COME THAT
FAR FROM 2020. WE ARE ABOUT TO
EMBARK ON ANOTHER EXPERIMENT ON
OUR RESIDENTS AT AN INCREDIBLY
VOLATILE TIME IN OUR NATION. SO,
I CANNOT IN GOOD CONSCIENCE,
EVEN THOUGH TWO OF MY AMENDMENTS
WERE APPROVED AND THANK YOU FOR
THAT, BUT THE REALLY IMPORTANT
ONES ABOUT WHO MAKES A DECISION
AND WHO GETS TO MAKE THE
ULTIMATE REVIEW OF THIS AND
MUTUAL AID, WERE NOT APPROVED
AND I JUST REALLY, REALLY,
REALLY HOPE THAT WE ARE NOT BACK
HERE, THAT WE ARE NOT IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION AT THE END OF
THE YEAR HEARING HOW MUCH MONEY
WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY OUT
BECAUSE OF POOR MANAGEMENT OF A
CROWD WHEN WE HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY TO GET IT RIGHT AND
FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS, WE
DIDN'T. SO, I WILL NOT BE
VOTING FOR THIS ALTHOUGH I, DO
APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS OF MY
COLLEAGUES. THANK YOU.
>> I REALIZE THAT THERE ARE A
COUPLE OF COUNCILMEMBERS THAT
HAD THEIR HANDS UP FIRST BUT I
WOULD LIKE TO CALL ON
COUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH WHO
HAS NOT YET SPOKEN.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
I CAN GO LAST OR WHATEVER BUT
THANK YOU. SO, FIRST, I WANT TO
THANK COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE. YOUR
OUTREACH AND INTENTIONALITY
BEHIND THIS BILL IN CONNECTING
WITH COUNCILMEMBERS AND ALL THE
WORK YOU DID BEHIND THE SCENES
WAS EXACTLY HOW I THINK WE NEED
TO GO ABOUT THE WAY WE ARE
THINKING ABOUT LEGISLATION AND
YOU LISTENING, AND I REALLY,
REALLY SINCERELY APPRECIATE YOUR
EFFORT BECAUSE I KNOW YOU TRY
HARD JUST CRAFTING IT, TAKING
EVERYONE'S INPUT. IT IS A LOT.
WE HAVE HAD PLENTY OF
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT IT. I WANT
TO START BY THANKING YOU FOR
THAT. I ALSO WANT TO THANK
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE FOR BRINGING
A LOT OF YOUR AMENDMENTS. WE
HAVE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS
AND I HAD THREE NONNEGOTIABLE'S
FOR THIS AND I EXPRESSED THAT TO
COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE AND ALSO TO
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE WHICH WAS
THE MAYOR'S APPROVAL, UNDERHAND
THROW AND NOT THROWING IT UP
PEOPLE WHICH I JUST THOUGHT WERE
THE BARE MINIMUM FOR ME,
PERSONALLY. I KNOW SOME OF THE
AMENDMENTS PASSED BUT WHEN IT
COMES DOWN TO THE FINAL PIECE
FOR ME, SOMETHING LIKE THIS
SHOULD JUST HAVE THE HIGHEST
LEVEL OF AUTHORITY FOR NONLETHAL
WEAPON THAT COULD CAUSE HARM AND
ALL OF THESE THINGS AND I KNOW
THEY USE IT -- OUR SEATTLE
POLICE DEPARTMENT, WHO IS
PHENOMENAL, AND HAVE HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY TO REALLY SEE A LOT
OF CHANGE WITHIN THE
ORGANIZATION AND THE OFFICERS
AND THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO SERVE
OUR CITY. I KNOW THAT WHEN
AUTHORIZING THESE, THAT THEY
JUST DO NOT TAKE IT LIGHTLY AND
THAT IT IS A DECISION THAT IS
MADE NOT AT THE DROP OF A DIME
BUT THAT THERE ARE PROCESSES AND
PROCEDURES WHEN THAT IS
HAPPENING. FOR ME TO GET TO A
YES, WAS THE MAYOR'S APPROVAL.
FOR THIS, EVERYONE ANSWERS TO
SOMEONE AND I JUST WANTED THAT.
WE HAVE THREE BODIES. WE HAVE
OUR LEGISLATIVE BRANCH. WE HAVE
OUR EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND WE HAVE
OUR JUDICIAL BRANCH AND JUST
THINKING ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR
USE OF NONLETHAL WEAPONS JUST
NEEDS TO HAVE THE HIGHEST LEVEL
OF AUTHORITY TO BE ABLE TO DO
THIS. FOR THAT, I WILL BE VOTING
NO ON THIS TODAY BUT THAT DOES
NOT MEAN THAT I DO NOT SUPPORT
EFFORTS IN WHICH WE ARE TRYING
TO GET BETTER FOR NONLETHAL
LEGISLATION, ACCOUNTABILITY,
STRONG ACCOUNTABILITY METHODS
AND SO FORTH. I WANT TO THANK MY
COLLEAGUES FOR THEIR THOUGHTFUL
AMENDMENTS AND ALSO FOR ALL OF
THE WORK THAT THE CHAIR DID ON
THE COMMITTEE. VERY, VERY
GRATEFUL FOR YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
KETTLE AND ALL THE WORK THAT YOU
DID. THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA WAS FIRST.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA, PLEASE GO
AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU. I WILL TRY TO MAKE
THIS BRIEF . I AM IN SUPPORT OF
THIS AMENDED LEGISLATION TODAY.
THANK YOU TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY
CHAIR, COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE FOR
YOUR LEADERSHIP. CALLINGS,
MAYOR'S OFFICE, ACCOUNTABILITY
PARTNERS, THE SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT AND EVERYONE WHO
TESTIFIED FOR THEIR DIRECT
ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK AND
COLLABORATION ON THIS VITAL
PIECE OF LEGISLATION FOR OUR
CITY. TODAY'S CROWD MANAGEMENT
POLICIES WILL ENSURE THAT
EVERYONE SEEKING TO EXERCISE
THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS MAY
DO SO IN A WAY WHERE THEY CAN
FEEL SAFE . IF WE DO THIS RIGHT
-- THIS IS AN AREA WHERE I DO
RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH MY
COLLEAGUE, IF WE DO THIS RIGHT,
AND I THINK WE HAVE DONE THIS
HERE, WE COULD POTENTIALLY HELP
LIFT THE LONG-STANDING FEDERAL
CONSENT DECREE. TODAY'S
LEGISLATION ALSO REFLECTS HOW
THIS NEW COUNCIL OPERATES ,
THOUGHTFULLY AND COLLABORATIVELY
. WHEN THIS BILL WAS IN
COMMITTEE, I PROVIDED AN
AMENDMENT THAT ELEVATED THE
STANDARD FOR POTENTIAL BLAST
BALL DEPLOYMENT, REQUIRING THAT
THEY STATE OF EMERGENCY, A
PROCLAMATION IN THE HIGHEST
ELECTED OFFICER IN OUR CITY, THE
MAYOR, BEFORE ANY DEPLOYMENT
COULD POTENTIALLY BE MADE. IT IS
AN EXACTING STANDARD. THE
PRACTICAL IMPACT OF WHICH WILL
UNDOUBTEDLY LIMIT THE USE AND
DEPLOYMENT OF THESE LAST BALLS.
I ONLY WISH THAT IT WAS ENOUGH
TO EARN THE SUPPORT OF A FEW OF
MY COLLEAGUES. AND, THIS IS AN
SKI AREA WHERE I THINK
REASONABLE MINDS DIFFER. I
DON'T QUESTION YOUR MOTIVES OR
INTENT'S AND I APPRECIATE THE
PARTNERSHIP THROUGHOUT. SOME OF
MY OTHER AMENDMENTS ALSO HELP
MAKE CLEAR THAT WE MUST
SPECIFICALLY SEEK INPUT AND
FEEDBACK FROM OUR ACCOUNTABILITY
PARTNERS. THIS IS A BETTER BILL
BECAUSE OF THAT AND ALL OF THE
AMENDMENTS THAT WERE PASSED
TODAY, EVEN THOUGH I DON'T LOVE
SOME OF THEM. THAT IS
LEGISLATIVE SAUSAGE MAKING AT
ITS FINEST, THE ESSENCE OF WHAT
WE DO HERE IN THIS ESTEEMED
CHAMBER . SO, TODAY'S
LEGISLATION IS ABOUT BALANCE AND
TOGETHER, I BELIEVE WE HAVE
ACHIEVED IT . OUR ACTIONS TODAY
PROVIDE STRONG CONSTITUTIONAL
PROTECTIONS FOR THOSE SEEKING TO
LAWFULLY DEMONSTRATE AND
EXERCISE THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT
RIGHTS WHILE ALSO PUTTING INTO
PLACE CLEAR AND COMPELLING RULES
AND PROCEDURES TO KEEP PEOPLE
SAFE AND DISPERSE SITUATIONS
THAT DO GET DANGEROUS AND UNRULY
AND RAPIDLY DEVOLVE. THIS IS THE
MOST IN ALL MY LIMITED
EXPERIENCE, 13 OR 14 MONTHS ON
COUNCIL -- I WILL SAY THIS IS
THE MOST COMPLEX LEGISLATIVE
WORKSTREAM THAT AROSE OUT OF THE
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE,
POTENTIALLY OUT OF ANY COMMITTEE
SINCE MOST OF US, COLLEAGUES,
NEWLY TOOK OFFICE LAST YEAR. I
DON'T ENVY THE TASK AND ORDER
OF PUBLIC SAFETY CHAIR KETTLE.
THIS IS A DELICATE NEEDLE TO
THREAD, WORKING WITH EIGHT
SEPARATELY ELECTED INDEPENDENT
INDIVIDUALS ON THE COUNCIL,
PARTNERING WITH THE MAYOR'S
OFFICE, ACCOUNTABILITY PARTNERS,
THE DEPARTMENT, IMPACTED
STAKEHOLDERS TO TRY TO FIND THAT
RIGHT BALANCE BUT MR. CHAIR, I
THINK, BECAUSE OF YOUR
LEADERSHIP, WE ARE ABLE TO
ACHIEVE THAT. AGAIN, I WANT TO
THANK MY COLLEAGUES AND ALL THE
CITY DEPARTMENTS AND MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC FOR THEIR
COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS AND
FEEDBACK. I WILL BE SUPPORTING
THIS LEGISLATION TODAY. I ASK MY
COLLEAGUES TO DO THE SAME. THANK
YOU, MADAM COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA?
>> OKAY.
>> JUST SO YOU KNOW, IT IS
DIFFICULT FOR ME TO SEE THE
ORDER. GO AHEAD, COUNCILMEMBER
SOLOMON.
>> SHE WAS ACTUALLY FIRST.
>> I WILL GO, THEN. THANK YOU,
COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON. YOU KNOW,
I JUST WANT TO SAY AS SOMEONE
WHO HAS WORKED AND BEEN
SUPPORTIVE OF THE WORK AT THE
ACLU AND SOMEONE WHO HAS A LAW
DEGREE, I FULLY SUPPORT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE
SPEECH AS GRANTED TO ALL OF US
BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF OUR
COUNTRY'S CONSTITUTION. I
MYSELF HAVE EXERCISED THIS
RIGHT, AS HAVE MY CHILDREN AND I
DON'T TAKE THIS LIGHTLY. I DID
NOT WANT TO TAKE THE VOTE
WITHOUT HAVING THAT BE SAID. I
VERY MUCH APPRECIATE MY
COLLEAGUES WHO SIT ON THE PUBLIC
SAFETY COMMITTEE, FOR ALL OF THE
THOUGHTFUL WORK YOU DID TOGETHER
TO BRING FORWARD THIS
LEGISLATION AND TO PUT
PARAMETERS IN PLACE AROUND A
CROWD MANAGEMENT TOOL THAT LAW
ENFORCEMENT CAN USE IN PLACES
WHERE, SADLY, I THINK A FEW
INDIVIDUALS COME, PERHAPS WITH
THE INTENT -- I DON'T THINK TO
PEACEFULLY PROTEST BUT TO CAUSE
TROUBLE, THEREBY CREATING A
SITUATION WHERE YOU WOULD EVEN
NEED TO USE SUCH A TOOL.
EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO
PROTEST SAFELY AND WE NEED TO
HAVE SOME TOOLS IN PLACE TO BE
ABLE TO ADDRESS SITUATIONS THAT
BECOME UNSAFE FOR THE PEOPLE
THAT ARE PROTESTING. I REALLY
WANT TO THANK OIG AND THE CPC
ARE WEIGHING IN ON THIS
LEGISLATION AND FOR MY
COLLEAGUES WHO INCORPORATED
IMPORTANT FEEDBACK FROM THE CPC
BE A YOUR THOUGHTFUL AMENDMENTS.
THESE ARE NOT DECISIONS THAT WE
TAKE LIGHTLY. THIS IS A
DIFFICULT PIECE OF LEGISLATION
BUT I DO THINK EVERYBODY WORKED
TOGETHER TO BRING SOMETHING
FORWARD THAT WE COULD PASS TO
GIVE MORE TOOLS BUT IN A
THOUGHTFUL WAY, THAT I SAID
EARLIER, HAS IMPORTANT
PARAMETERS AROUND IT. I WILL BE
SUPPORTING THIS LEGISLATION
TODAY AND I WANT TO THANK YOU,
COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE, BECAUSE I
KNOW YOU DID WORK WITH ALL OF US
INDIVIDUALLY AS YOU WERE
CRAFTING THIS. I DON'T SIT ON
THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE BUT
I DO ATTEND MEETINGS, AS
EVERYONE KNOWS. VERY MUCH CARE
ABOUT THE PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES
IN THE CITY AND I KNOW THAT YOU
TOOK TIME TO MEET WITH ME AND
TAKE ME THROUGH THE LEGISLATION.
I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THAT.
AND, TO EVERYONE WHO BROUGHT
AMENDMENTS TODAY. THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON?
>> THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. I
JUST WANT TO OFFER A COUPLE OF
COMMENTS . THE LEGISLATION
BEFORE US ADDRESSES THE
COMMUNITY CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE
HEARD AND IT INCORPORATES
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM OUR
ACCOUNTABILITY PARTNERS AND THE
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
AS WELL AS THE OFFICE OF POLICE
ACCOUNTABILITY. AS I MENTIONED
BEFORE, I TRUST OUR
ACCOUNTABILITY PARTNERS TO DO
THEIR JOBS AND TO HOLD THE
DEPARTMENT ACCOUNTABLE. I ALSO
FEEL THIS LEGISLATION RECOGNIZES
THAT DYNAMIC DECISIONS REGARDING
THE DEPLOYMENT OF LAST BALLS OUR
LAST RESORTS. WE ARE TALKING TO
OFFICERS AND THEY DON'T WANT TO
USE THIS STUFF UNLESS IT BECOMES
ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. IT IS ONLY
GOING TO BE USED WHEN OTHER
METHODS OF CROWD MANAGEMENT HAVE
BEEN EXHAUSTED. WHETHER OR HOW
THEY ARE DEPLOYED CAN REALLY
DEPEND ON THE DYNAMICS ON THE
GROUND. THE DECISION, OR THE
AUTHORIZATION TO USE IS NOT THE
AUTHORIZATION TO DEPLOY AND I
THINK THERE IS A DISTINCTION
THERE THAT MAY BE A LITTLE
SUBTLE BUT JUST BECAUSE WHOEVER
DECIDES THAT, YOU MAY USE THESE
METHODS, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY
WILL BE USED. THAT DECISION AS
TO WHETHER OR NOT REALLY SHOULD
BE LEFT UP TO THE INCIDENT
COMMANDER ON THE GROUND DEALING
WITH THE DYNAMIC SITUATION AS IT
IS UNFOLDING. SO, FOR THESE
REASONS, I WILL BE SUPPORTING
THE LEGISLATION AND I DID WANT
TO BRING UP A POINT ABOUT WHAT
HAPPENED ON ALKI THIS PAST
WEEKEND BECAUSE I DID LOOK AT A
SIGNIFICANT INCIDENT REPORT
REGARDING THAT. THERE WAS POLICE
ACTION BECAUSE THERE WAS A
PERSON WHO ASSAULTED SOMEBODY
ELSE IN THE CROWD. POLICE ACTION
TOOK THAT PERSON INTO CUSTODY.
THERE WAS ANOTHER YOUNG PERSON
WHO WAS BLOCKING A VEHICLE FROM
MOVING FORWARD SO THAT PERSON
WAS BRIEFLY TAKEN INTO CUSTODY
AND THEN RELEASED TO THEIR
PARENTS LATER ON. LOOKING AT THE
SPECIFICS OF WHAT HAPPENED IN
THAT PARTICULAR INCIDENT IS
IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT IS WHAT WE
ARE TOLD BY FOLKS IN THE
COMMUNITY AND THEN THERE IS WHAT
ACTUALLY GETS REPORTED AND WHAT
ACTUALLY HAPPENED. THAT NEEDS TO
BE SOMETHING WE ARE MINDFUL OF
AND WHILE IT DOES NOT HAVE
ANYTHING TO DO WITH CROWD
MANAGEMENT, EARLY SATURDAY
MORNING, THERE WERE 100 SHOTS
FIRED IN A RAINIER BEACH
NEIGHBORHOOD, ONE PERSON HIT,
SUSTAINED THREE GUNSHOT WOUNDS
WITH CRITICAL CONDITION. WE HEAR
ABOUT THE PROTESTS. WE HEAR
ABOUT THE ACTION THAT WAS TAKEN
BUT WE DON'T HEAR ABOUT THE
YOUNG MAN WHO WAS SHOT IN
RAINIER BEACH WITH OVER 100
SHELL CASES RECOVERED AT 6:00 IN
THE MORNING ON A SATURDAY. THAT
IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO BE
MINDFUL OF AND THAT THIS BODY
SHOULD ALSO LOOK AT HOW WE CAN
ADDRESS THAT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
KETTLE, IN PARTICULAR, THANK YOU
FOR THE EXTRA TIME THAT WE HAVE
HAD REGARDING THE POLICY AND
HEARING MY CONCERNS THAT I HAVE
ABOUT THE POLICY AS INTRODUCED
AND PASSED AT COMMITTEE . WE
ABSOLUTELY NEED STRICTER LIMITS
ON SPD'S USE OF CROWD CONTROL
WEAPONS BUT LET'S BE CLEAR,
RIGHT NOW, THERE ARE NO LEGAL
RESTRICTIONS ON HOW SPD USES
CROWD CONTROL WEAPONS IN THE
SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE INCLUDING
BLAST BALLS. A GOOD POLICY NEVER
IMPLEMENTED DOESN'T WORK. THIS
IS THE LARGEST PROBLEM WITH THE
PREVIOUSLY PAST POLICIES, THE
2020 LEGISLATION THAT WAS
BLOCKED AND THE SUBSEQUENT 2020
LEGISLATION THAT WAS NEVER
IMPLEMENTED. TO PUT A CLEARER
POINT ON IT, RIGHT NOW, THERE
ARE NO MUNICIPAL CODE
RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF BLAST
BALLS. WITH THIS LEGISLATION,
BLAST BALLS ALONG WITH TEARGAS
ARE SUBJECT TO THE HIGHEST
APPROVAL PROCESSES INVOLVING
FIRST THE MAYOR AND THEN THE
CHIEF OF POLICE, NOT THE
INCIDENT COMMANDER AS PAST
PRACTICE HAS ALLOWED. I WILL BE
VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS BILL
TODAY DESPITE CONCERNS BECAUSE
THIS IS AN IMPROVEMENT ON THE
CURRENT POLICIES IN PLACE AND
FOR THE FIRST TIME WE WILL
ACTUALLY RESTRICT SPD'S USE OF
THIS WEAPONS. THIS BILL,
COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE, WAS
IMPROVED IN COMMITTEE SINCE
BEING TRANSMITTED AND HAS BEEN
FURTHER REFINED AND IMPROVED IN
THIS COUNCIL MEETING.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, YOU HIT ON
ONE OF THE THREE IMPORTANT
PIECES THAT I NEEDED TO SEE TO
SUPPORT THIS BILL TODAY . IT IS
IMPORTANT TO ME THAT IF THESE
WEAPONS ARE USED IN OUR CITY,
THIS USE IS AUTHORIZED BY FIRST
THE MAYOR ISSUING THE
PROCLAMATION OF CIVIL EMERGENCY
AND THEN THE CHIEF OF POLICE AND
THAT THEY ARE THROWN AWAY FROM
PEOPLE TOWARD AN OPEN SPACE AND
ARE ONLY THROWN UNDERHAND. AND,
WE DO HAVE MORE WORK TO DO TO
IMPROVE POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY,
TO ENSURE THIS AND OTHER
POLICIES ARE FOLLOWED IN
PRACTICE BECAUSE IF THIS POLICY
IS ONLY IN WRITING AND NOT IN
PRACTICE AND WITHOUT THE
ACCOUNTABILITY THAT WORKS, WE
WILL BE RIGHT BACK HERE AGAIN,
FURTHER RESTRICTING THESE
WEAPONS. THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE, WOULD
YOU LIKE THE LAST WORD?
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO MY
COLLEAGUES FOR ALL OF THE
COMMENTS , VOTING FOR OR
AGAINST. I APPRECIATE THE
ENGAGEMENT. I WOULD SAY, AFTER
11 MAJOR PUBLIC SAFETY PIECES OF
LEGISLATION PASSED LAST YEAR,
THIS IS BY FAR THE MOST
DIFFICULT ONE TO WORK AND THAT
IS REFLECTING THE IMPORTANCE OF
IT AND, TO SOME OF THE
COLLEAGUES FROM MY -- COMMENTS
FROM MY COLLEAGUES TO THE LEFT,
TO DO THE DUE DILIGENCE AND TO
WORK TO GET A PIECE OF
LEGISLATION THAT SERVES THE CITY
-- I JUST WANTED TO NOTE, THE
LEGISLATION, THE CLAUSES REFLECT
WHAT IT IS IN TERMS OF
SEATTLE'S VALUES. SECTION 1
ACTUALLY WAS TO COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS'S POINT, BEING
REPLACED. SECTION 2 THEN GOES TO
STATE SEATTLE 'S VALUES AND
EXPECTATIONS FOR THE SEATTLE
POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE
SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT IS
BETTER FOR IT AND I THINK THE
SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT SHOULD
BE RECOGNIZED FOR ALL OF THE
REFORMS AND THE WORK THAT HAS BE
DONE ON THIS AND OTHER AREAS, TO
REALLY BE SETTING THE EXAMPLE
FOR POLICE FORCES ACROSS THE
COUNTRY, NOT JUST OUR STATE OR
OUR LOCAL AREA. I ALSO WANT TO
NOTE -- NOT REALLY DISCUSS BUT
THIS LEGISLATION ALSO BRINGS
SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE IN LINE
WITH THE CODE WITH WASHINGTON AS
IT RELATES TO TEARGAS AND I
THINK THIS PROCESS HAS SHOWN
THAT THE CLEAN CONNECTION
BETWEEN THE STATE LAW AND THE
CITY LAW IS REALLY THE WAY TO GO
AND I KNOW THAT SOMETIMES THAT
DOESN'T ALWAYS HAPPEN AND THEN
WE HAD ADDITIONAL PIECES AS
NOTED WITH BLAST BALLS. WE HAVE
ELEVATED THAT AND DUE TO THE
RESPONSE TO FEEDBACK NOT JUST
HERE IN THE COUNCIL OR OTHER
AREAS BUT ALSO IN THE PEOPLE OF
THE CITY, I THINK THAT IS
IMPORTANT AND IT REFLECTS WHAT
IS HAPPENING WITH RESPECT TO
LESS LETHAL WEAPONS. I KNOW
THERE HAS BEEN SOME TALK ABOUT
ACCOUNTABILITY PARTNERS AND I
REALLY APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS
IMPORTANT TO ME. OIG IS
OBVIOUSLY VERY IMPORTANT HERE
BUT I APPRECIATE THE POLICE
COMMISSION AND THE LEADERSHIP OF
CO-CHAIR ON THIS AND THE TEAM
THAT HE OVERSEES , WHICH HAS
BEEN DOING GREAT WORK AND I NOTE
THAT IN THIS LETTER, HE NOTED
THAT WE SUPPORT THE OVERALL
APPROACH OF THE MAYOR'S
PROPOSED LEGISLATION WHICH
FOCUSES ON OVERARCHING VALUES
THAT GUIDE SPD DEVELOPMENT AND
CROWD MANAGEMENT SITUATIONS
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY EVENTS IN
WHICH DOES NOT PLACE OUTRIGHT
PROHIBITIONS ON THE USE OF
SPECIFIC TOOLS. WE AGREE THAT
ABSOLUTE PROHIBITIONS CAN HAVE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, NOT
ONLY MEETING SPD IN THE POSITION
TO USE LESS APPROPRIATE TOOLS
BUT ALSO BY REMOVING THE TOOLS
NECESSARY FOR SPD TO ASSURE THE
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY
TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHEN
COUNTERPROTESTERS THREATEN THEIR
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. THE CPC
LETTER GOES FURTHER, SAYING THAT
THERE ARE CONCERNS ON DIFFERENT
PIECES RELATED TO MUTUAL AID
AGENCIES AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE
ADDRESSED THIS IN OUR
LEGISLATION AND I ALSO THINK
THAT, WE NOTED THAT NOT ONLY THE
OIG BE INCLUDED IN THIS
LEGISLATION , WE HAVE TAKEN IT
ON QUITE STRONGLY, I BELIEVE, IN
TERMS OF THEIR INVOLVEMENT AND
HAVING THAT EXPLICIT LANGUAGE IN
THE LEGISLATION. WE ALSO BELIEVE
THAT MORE EXPLICIT LANGUAGE AND
EMPHASIZING THE ROLL WITH SPEECH
AND ASSEMBLY, WHEN THESE ARE
UNDER THREAT FROM OTHER MEMBERS
OF THE PUBLIC TO INCLUDE THE
MORE RECENT CHALLENGES THAT WE
MAY BE FACING AND LOOKING
FORWARD TO SUPPORT PARTICULARLY
IN LIGHT OF GROWING POLITICAL
TENSIONS. AT THE END OF THE DAY,
I THINK WE HAVE A PIECE OF
LEGISLATION THAT SERVES THE
PEOPLE OF SEATTLE. I RECOGNIZE
CLEARLY FROM ALL OF THE PUBLIC
COMMENTARY THAT WE RECEIVED
EITHER HERE IN THE CHAMBERS OR
THROUGH EMAIL OR CONVERSATIONS
AND ALL THE LIKE , THAT IT IS
INCORPORATED AND I APPRECIATE
AND THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT.
TOOK CLOSE, I ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT FOR THIS PIECE OF
LEGISLATION. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE, FOR YOUR
LEADERSHIP ON THIS PIECE OF
LEGISLATION. YOU TOOK A VERY
CAREFUL LOOK AND YOU DID A GREAT
JOB OF MAKING SURE THAT WE WERE
HEARD. THANK YOU. SEEING NO
FURTHER COMMENTS, WILL THE CLERK
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON THE
ADOPTION OF THE BILL AS AMENDED?
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RINCK?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA?
>> AYE MAC -- AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> COUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> AYE.
>> SIX IN FAVOR, TWO OPPOSED.
>> THE BILL PASSES AS AMENDED
AND THE CLERK WILL SIGN IT.
PLEASE FIX MY SIGNATURE ON
BEHALF.
>> THERE WERE NO ITEMS REMOVED
FROM TODAY'S CONSENT CALENDAR.
THERE IS NOT A RESOLUTION FOR
INTRODUCTION OR AN ADOPTION
TODAY. LOOKING TO MY SIDE TO SEE
IF THERE IS ANY FURTHER BUSINESS
TO COME BEFORE COUNCIL TODAY ?
GO AHEAD, COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON.
>> THANK YOU. DO TO HONOR
COMMITMENTS I MADE PRIOR TO
JOINING THIS BODY, I REQUEST TO
BE EXCUSED FROM THE MARCH 4
COUNCIL MEETING.
>> OKAY. ANY OBJECTIONS?
>> THERE WAS NO OBJECTION TO
YOUR EXCUSED ABSENCE FROM THE
MEETING ON THAT DAY.
COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?
>> THANK YOU. COUNCIL PRESIDENT,
ONE LESS PIECE SUBCOMMITTEE
BUSINESS. I THINK THE COMMITTEE
SHOULD WISH YOU, AS THEY SAY, A
HAPPY BIRTHDAY. [ SPEAKING
NON-ENGLISH ]
>> HAPPY BIRTHDAY.
>> THANK YOU.
>> ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO FURTHER
BUSINESS, IT IS 4:51 AND WE ARE
ADJOURNED.