>>> GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE.
IT'S THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4th.
THE SPECIAL
GOVERNANCE, ACCOUNTABILITY AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
WILL
COME TO ORDER.
IT'S 2:02.
I'M SARA NELSON, CHAIR OF THE
COMMITTEE.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL
THE
ROLL. [ ROLL CALL ]
>> FOUR PRESENT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
COUNCIL MEMORY BER RIVERA IS
RUNNING
A BIT LATE.
THIS IS OUR FIRST MEETING IN
ALMOST THREE MONTHS.
IT FEELS GOOD TO BE
BACK TOGETHER AGAIN AND GET
INTO THE SWING OF THINGS AFTER
BUDGET.
TODAY'S A SPECIAL MEETING
SINCE OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED
ONE WOULD HAVE FALLEN
ON
THANKSGIVING. WE HAD TOO MANY
ITEMS
FOR ONE
MEETING BEFORE WE CLOSE OUT THE
YEAR.
WITH THAT SAID, WE WILL HAVE
OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED
DECEMBER MEETING NEXT WEEK ON
THE 11th.
TODAY WE HAVE JUST TWO
ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.
FIRST WE WILL HAVE A BRIEFING
AND DISCUSSION ON THE
CONSULTANT ETHICS
BILL. THEN A BILL FROM SEATTLE
HR
RELATED TO INFLATION
ADJUSTMENTS TO PAY BANS.
IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION,
THE AGENDA WILL BE ADOPTED.
HEARING NO OBJECTION,
THE AGENDA IS ADOPTED.
NOW IT'S TIME TO MOVE INTO OUR
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE SIGNED UP
TO SPEAK TODAY?
>> WE HAVE TWO VIRTUAL AND NO
IN-PERSON.
>> ALL RIGHT.
LET'S GIVE EVERYBODY TWO
MINUTES.
BEGIN WITH THE VIRTUAL, PLEASE.
YOU HAVE TO SAY THE
INSTRUCTIONS.
>> I WILL CALL ON
SPEAKERS IN THE ORDER IN WHICH
THEY
ARE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
STARTING WITH IN- PERSON
COMMENTERS.
SPEAKERS WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES.
YOU IF YOU EXCEED YOUR
TIME, YOUR MIC MAY BE CUT OFF SO
WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT
SPEAKER.
IF YOU ARE OFFERING
REMOTE COMMENT, MAKE SURE TO
PRESS STAR
6 TO UNMUTE YOURSELF.
OUR FIRST -- SINCE WE HAVE
NO REGISTERED IN- PERSON
PUBLIC COMMENTERS, WE WILL MOVE
TO
REMOTE.
OUR FIRST IS COLLEEN M cHALER.
PRESS STAR 6.
>>
GOOD AFTERNOON, CITY COUNCIL
MEMBERS.
REPRESENTING LAWHURST COMMUNITY
COUNCIL.
WE STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS COUNCIL
BILL 121130.
IT IS LONG OVERDUE.
IT BRINGS A SHINING LIGHT TO
CLARIFY THE ETHICAL ROLE OF ITS
CONSULTANTS.
THIS LEGISLATION WILL PREVENT
THE DOUBLE DIPPING BY SOME
CONSUL
CONSULTANTS WHO INFLUENCE CITY.
IT PREVENTS BACKDOOR
POLITICS USING INSIDER
INFORMATION WHICH
IS FORBIDDEN BY AND TRANSACTION
IN THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
SECTOR.
ACCESS TO INSIDER INFORMATION
IS AS VALUABLE AS MONEY WHEN
IT COMES TO POLITICS.
THIS BILL PROMOTES
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
STEWARDSHIP BY
REQUIRING ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE
CONSULTANTS.
IT ENSURES THE PUBLIC
FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE FOR SCRUTINY
BY ALL
CONSTITUENTS AND ALL ELECTED
OFFICIALS.
THIS IS WHAT RESIDENTS
EXPECT AND DESERVE.
PASSING THE BILL WILL
STRENGTHEN SEATTLE'S
REPRESENTATION AS
A CITY THAT LEADS WITH INTEGRITY
AND EQUITY.
WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
SET A GREAT EXAMPLE FOR OUR
REGION, OUR CITY AND THE NATION.
WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO VOTE YES
IN FAVOR OF LEGISLATION 121130.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE,
ESPECIALLY THE COUNCIL
PRESIDENT
SARA NELSON. WILL WE MISS YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
OUR
NEXT SPEAKER IS DAVID HAINES.
>> THANK YOU.
DAVID
HAINES. WHERE IS THE ETHICS
RULES
THAT VERIFIES IF YOU ARE A
LANDLORD ON CITY COUNCIL YOU
HAVE TO
ACKNOWLEDGE BEFORE EVER
MEETING THERE'S A CONFLICT WITH
YOURYOUR
CONSIDERATION?
WILL COUNCIL INTRODUCE IF
THE MAYOR WON RE-ELECTION?
IS THIS ANOTHER
SIGNALING DISTRACTING THE ETHICS
BOARD
AND CITY COUNCIL NEVER ADDRESS
THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH
THE LANDLORDS ON THE CITY
COUNCIL? ING THE REAL
DEVELOPERS,
MINIMALIZING THE 21st
CENTURY LIVABLE AMENITIES
AND RESTRICTING THE QUALITY OF
LIVING AS IF LANDLORDS
DECIDE THE FATE AND PURSUIT
OF HAPPINESS WHILE DISTRACTING
WITH RACISTLY TAINTING THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO HEIGHT THE
FACT THAT CITY
COUNCIL LANDLORDS ARE SELF-
DEALING CONFLICTS
OF INTEREST ABOUT MAKING
SURE NOTHING WAS BUILT BACK
BETTER
TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF A SUPPLY
AND DEMAND OPPRESSIVE SQUEEZE SO
THE
COUNCIL LANDLORDS AND THEIR
DOUBLE, TRIPLE, QUADRUPLE
REMORTGAGE HOUSE AND
RENTAL PROPERTY CAN BE FLIPPED
ON TO
THE NEXT UNSUSPECTING BUYER
WHO DOESN'T HAVE A BETTER
CHOICE
IN HOME BECAUSE CORRUPT CITY
COUNCIL LANDLORDS.
WE HAVE A NEW SLUMLORD.
THEY CHARGED 21st CENTURY
AREN'T
COURTESY OF A CORRUPT CITY
HALL FOR ANOTHER PRIVILEGED
LANDLORD.
THIS IS MORE PROOF THAT
CITY COUNCIL HAS NOT KEPT THE
EFFORTS
HONEST. WE HAVE A HOMELESS
CRISIS RIGHT
NOW. YOU AREN'T DEALING WITH
THAT.
IT MAKES ME WONDER WITHIN
ALL THE LANDLORDS, ARE YOU GOING
TO CONTINUE TO UNDERMINE
THE INTEGRITY OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND HOMELESS CRISIS THAT THE
MAYOR
SABOTAGED, THAT YOU ROAD THE
COATTAILS AND CAPITULATED
TO, THAT'S EXACERBATING THE
CRISIS WE SUFFER EVERY DAY
DEALING
WITH
POLICIES THAT YOU NEVER
ADDRESSED PROPER?
IT'S LIKE MELISSA RIVERA
SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED.
>> THANK YOU, DAVID.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS
ALBERTO ALVAREZ.
>> HELLO. THANK YOU.
COUNCIL MEMBERS , GOOD
GOVERNANCE IS NOT ABOUT RUSHING
VIN TICKIVE
LEGISLATION AFTER SUFFERING A
MAJOR ELECTION LOSS.
THE LAME DUCK MEMBER HAD
PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITY ALL YEAR
TO
BRING HER PROPOSAL UP FOR
CONVERSATION
AND PUBLIC SCRUTINY.
SELF- INTEREST GUIDES HER AND
HER PERSONAL
GRIEVANCES ALWAYS CAME BEFORE
SERVICE TO THE CITY.
WAITING UNTIL AFTER
AN EMBARRASSING LOSS IS PROOF
POSITIVE THAT SHE ENDS HER
TERM AS SHE RAN IT, WITH RUSHED
LEGISLATION AND USING
COUNCIL'S TIME AS A FORM OF
REVENGE.
BRING BACK A SENSE OF HONOR TO
THIS COUNCIL AND VOTE NO ON
SOUR
GRAPES. THANK YOU AND HAVE A
GREAT DAY.
>> THANK YOU.
THAT WAS OUR LAST REMOTE
SPEAKER.
WE HAVE
NO IN-PERSON SPEAKERS SIGNED UP.
>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IS NOW
CLOSED.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE READ THE
FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS INTO THE
RECORD?
>> AGENDA ITEM ONE, CB121130, AN
ORDINANCE RELATED TO
THE ETHICS CODE.
PROHIBITING POLITICAL
CONSULTANTS FROM
PERFORMING CONSULTING WORK WITH
THE
CITY ESTABLISHING A COOLING
OFF PERIOD FOR POLITICAL
CONSULTANTS ADDING A NEW SECTION
4.16. 72
TO THE SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE
AND AMENDING SECTION 4.16. 30 TO
THE CODE FOR
BRIEFING AND
DISCUSSION.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
COLLEAGUES, THIS LEGISLATION
IS ABOUT GOOD GOVERNANCE.
IT'S ABOUT STRENGTHENING
PUBLIC TRUST AND CONFIDENCE THE
POLICY DECISIONS MADE BY
ELECTEDS
ARE IN THE PUBLIC'S BEST
INTEREST.
LET THE RECORD
SHOW THAT COUNCIL BER RY HAVE
ARE A HAVE RIVERA IS NOW HERE.
THEY LACK SAFEGUARDS FOR
CONSULTANTS WHO ADVISE
POLICYMAKERS.
OPENING THE DOOR TO
POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST THAT CAN UNDERMINE
PUBLIC TRUST.
I DEVELOPED THIS
LEGISLATION AFTER RESEARCHING
WHAT OTHER
CITIES DO ON THIS FRONT.
FOR EXAMPLE, PORTLAND
REQUIRES POLITICAL CONSULTANTS
TO
REGISTER AND REPORT THEIR
ACTIVITIES.
SAN FRANCISCO'S ETHICS
CODE EXPLICITLY APPLIES TO
CONSULTANTS AND PROHIBITS
THEM FROM PARTICIPATING IN
DECISIONS
WHERE THEY HAVE CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST.
PAGE 1 OF THE CODE STATES,
IF YOU ARE A CITY OFFICER OR
EMPLOYEE, INCLUDING
CONSULTANTS BUT ARE NOT A BOARD
MEMBER OR
COMMISSIONER, YOU
SHOULD DISCLOSE THE CONFLICT
OF INTEREST ON THE PUBLIC
RECORD AND ABSTAIN FROM
DISCUSSING
AND
PARTICIPATING IN THE DECISION IN
ANY WAY.
PAGE 2 STATES, ALL ELECTED
OFFICIALS, COMMISSIONERS
AND EMPLOYEES ARE PUBLIC
OFFICIALS AS ARE CERTAIN
INDEPENDENT
CONSULTANTS WORKING FOR THE
CITY.
THEN IT GOES ON.
WE WILL TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE
SIMILARITIES OF THIS
LEGISLATION WITH OTHER CITIES.
I JUST WANT TO GET
SOMETHING STRAIGHT RIGHT NOW AND
GET
IT OFF THE TABLE.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT
CHRISTIAN'S ROLE WITHIN THE
MAYOR'S OFFICE.
THAT WAS AN UNPRECEDENTED
SITUATION.
CONTRACTING WITH THE CAMPAIGN
CONSULTANT FOR STRATEGIC
AND POLICY ASSISTANCE.
THAT WAS A SITUATION THAT
IS VERY HIGHLY
UNLIKELY TO BE REPLICATED.
RATHER, THE BLURRING OF THE
LINE THAT I'M MOST CONCERNED
ABOUT
IS MORE LIKELY TO OCCUR IN
THE CONTEXT OF BALLOT MEASURES.
I'M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT IT
BECAUSE WE RENEW
BALLOT MEASURES -- OR WE
RENEW LEVEE LIFTS QUITE
FREQUENTLY.
THESE WHAT HITS
OUR CONSTITUENTS IN THE
POCKETBOOK.
THIS
IS WHAT I'M THINKING ABOUT
GOING FORWARD.
THIS IS SIMPLY STRAIGHT
UP ETHICS REFORM THAT
FILLS A GAP IN OUR CODE,
MODELLED ON
WHAT'S WORKING IN OTHER CITIES.
WHILE THIS BILL IS
RECEIVING POSITIVE RECEPTION IN
THE
COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION ACROSS
THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM, THE
ETHICS AND ELECTIONS COMMISSION
HAS
UNFORTUNATELY NOT WEIGHED IN.
I DID REQUEST ON NOVEMBER
18th THAT THEY DO SO AT THEIR
MONTHLY
MEETING LAST NIGHT.
THERE WASN'T TIME TO -- FOR
PEOPLE TO GET
UP TO SPEED AND DISCUSS IT LAST
NIGHT.
LAU
LAUREN WILL PRESENT IT.
WITH THAT, I WOULD LIKE YOU
TO -- I INVITE OUR GUESTS
TO COME TO THE TABLE.
PLEASE INTRODUCE
YOURSELVES FOR THE RECORD.
YOU MAY BEGIN.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
LAUREN HENRY, CENTRAL STAFF.
>> WAYNE BARNETT, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, ETHICS AND ELECTIONS
COMMISSION.
>> I THINK FIRST I WILL
MOVE THROUGH THE PRESENTATION
THAT WAS ATTACHED TO THE
AGENDA THAT
PROVIDES AN OVERVIEW OF THE
BILL.
POLICY SIMILARITIES WITH OTHER
JURISDICTIONS, PORTLAND AND SAN
FRANCISCO.
THEN CONCLUDE WITH ANY
QUESTIONS.
TO OPEN, AS AN OVERVIEW, THIS
BILL, COUNCIL BILL 121130,
WOULD AMEND THE SEATTLE
MUNICIPAL CODES CODE OF ETHICS,
4. 16, TO
DEFINE AND REGULATE POLITICAL
CONSULTANTS AND
POLITICAL CONSULTANT SERVICES.
THOSE ARE THE TWO KEY TERMS THAT
ARE BEING INTRODUCED TO
OUR CODE
OF ETHICS. I WILL DIVE THEM IN A
MOMENT.
AS WAS STATED, THE BILL
BEFORE YOU IS MODELLED MOST
CLOSELY
TO THE REPORTING REGULATIONS
PROVISIONS IN PORTLAND.
IT DOES BEAR SOME
SIMILARITIESSIMILARITIES BOTH IN
PRINCIPLE AND
UNDERLYING POLICY DECISION TO
THE SAN
FRANCISCO LAW AS WELL.
THE PRIMARY PURPOSE FOR THE
BILL WOULD BE TO REQUIRE
POLITICAL CONSULTANTS TO
REGISTER AND
TO REPORT ON THE
POLITICAL CONSULTANT SERVICES
THAT
THEY PROVIDE WITHIN THE CITY OF
SEATTLE TO THE
SEATTLE ETHICS AND ELECTION
COMMISSION.
THIS BILL WOULD ALSO
AND UNIQUELY PROHIBIT
POLITICAL CONSULTANTS FROM
PERFORMING
COMPENSATED WORK ON AN
ELECTION CAMPAIGN WHILE BEING
UNDER
CONTRACT
WITH THE CITY IN A CONSULTING
ROLE AT THE SAME
TIME.
I WANT TO DRAW A
DISTINCTION BETWEEN CITY
EMPLOYEES
VERSUS CONTRACTORS OF THE CITY.
THIS BILL IS NARROWLY
TAILORED TO SPEAK TO THE ROLE OF
A POLITICAL CONSULTANT THAT
IS SERVING IN A CONTRACT
CONSULTING CAPACITY WITH THE
CITY AS
OPPOSED TO, SAY, AN FTE AND
FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT WITH THE
CITY.
THAT'S NOT ADDRESSED BY THIS
BILL.
FINALLY, BY WAY OF OVERVIEW,
I WILL NOTE THAT THE STEC IS
EMPOWERED TO ENFORCE THE CODE
OF ETHICS.
SO RATHER THAN CREATING A NEW
REGULATORY REGIME JUST FOR
POLITICAL CONSULTANTS, THIS BILL
BY HAVING ITS PROVISIONS PLACED
WITHIN THE CODE OF ETHICS, USES
THE EXISTING REGULATORY
FRAMEWORK, ALL OF THE
CIVIL PENALTY PROVISIONS AND
OTHER
ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS THAT
YOU HAVE FOR INVESTIGATION,
ENFORCEMENT AND APPEAL, ALL
OF THOSE THINGS WOULD
APPLY SIMILARLY TO
POLITICAL
CONSULTANTS. SO I WILL POINT OUT
AT THE END
OF MY PRESENTATION SOME OF
THE
CIVIL PENALTY PROVISIONS THAT
WOULD APPLY.
AS I SAID, THERE'S TWO KEY
DEFINITIONS THAT ARE BEING
INCLUDED INTO THE CODE OF
ETHICS. THE FIRST IS THE TERM
POLITICAL
CONSULTANT.
THE SECOND IS POLITICAL
CONSULTING SERVICES.
I WANT TO WALK THROUGH WHAT
THOSE DEFINITIONS ARE.
THEY BECOME THE MAIN DRIVERS OF
THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
AND OF THE PROHIBITED CONDUCT
THAT
OCCURS LATER.
THE DEFINITION AS YOU CAN SEE ON
YOUR SCREENS AND WAS PROVIDED
IN YOUR AGENDA PACKET, A
POLITICAL CONSULTANT IS A PERSON
THAT
PROVIDES POLITICAL CONSULTING
SERVICES
TO -- THEN THERE ARE SEVERAL
CATEGORIES.
AN ELECTED OFFICIAL,
CANDIDATE FOR CITY OFFICE, OR
THE AUTHORIZED CAMPAIGN
COMMITTEE REGISTERED WITH THE
WASHINGTON
PUBLIC DISCLOSER COMMISSION FOR
A CITY BALLOT PROPOSITION.
NOTE ALSO THAT POLITICAL
CONSULTANT ALSO HAS A FEW
EXCLUSIONARY DEFINITION
ELEMENTS. THOSE ARE THAT A
POLITICAL CONSULTANT IS NOT A
CITY
EMPLOYEE. THEY ARE NOT AN
ACCOUNTANT, AN
ATTORNEY, A POLLSTER OR A
PROFESSIONAL FUND- RAISER THAT
IS OPERATING IN THOSE DISTINCT
LANES AS OPPOSED TO
PROVIDING POLITICAL CONSULTING
SERVICES.
THAT'S A KEY DISTINCTION
BECAUSE IT NARROWS THE FOCUS OF
THE BILL
QUITE EXTENSIVELY.
THE OTHER DRIVER, IF A
POLITICAL CONSULTANT IS DEFINED
AS ONE
WHO PROVIDES POLITICAL
CONSULTING
SERVICES, THE DEFINITION
OF POLITICAL CONSULTING
SERVICES BECOMES THE MAIN AVENUE
TO DETERMINE WHO IS IN WITHIN
THE SCOPE OF THE
BILL'S REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
AND WHO IS OUT.
THAT DEFINITION OF
POLITICAL CONSULTING SERVICES
ARE,
ACTIONS IN CITY CAMPAIGN
MANAGEMENT
AND POLITICAL STRATEGY SERVICES.
THEN THERE'S AN INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO.
IT LISTS MANY OF THE
TYPICAL ROLES YOU WOULD FIND
WITHIN
THE POLITICAL CONSULTING FIELD.
THOSE ARE ADVOCACY AND
STRATEGY, POLITICAL POLLING,
ASSISTING OR
ADVISING IN VOTING
CONTACT STRATEGY AND SERVICES.
MEDIA POLICY.
POLITICAL IMAGE CONSULTING.
THE LIST IS LONG.
I NOTE THAT THIS DEFINITION
TRACKS ONE FOR ONE WITH
THE DEFINITION OF PORTLAND.
IT WAS A LIFT
AND INCORPORATION INTO OUR CODE.
AS I SAID, THE BILL HAS TWO MAIN
DRIVERS.
ONE, A REQUIREMENT
THAT POLITICAL CONSULTANTS
REGISTER AND PROVIDE INFORMATION
ABOUT THEIR POLITICAL CONSULTING
CONTRACTS AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE
JURISDICTION IN SEATTLE, BE IT
A CANDIDATE CAMPAIGN OR A BALLOT
INITIATIVE CAMPAIGN.
SO TO ANSWER THOSE FEW THRESHOLD
QUESTIONS OF WHO WOULD
ACTUALLY HAVE TO REGISTER,
THAT'S
ANYONE FALLING
WITHIN THAT DEFINITION OF
POLITICAL
CONSULTANT. NOTE THAT THAT'S
BOTH
AN INDIVIDUAL OR A BUSINESS
ENTITY.
AS FOR WHEN REGISTRATION WOULD
OCCUR, THE BILL NOTES THAT
REGISTRATION MUST HAPPEN
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER PROVIDING
ANY
POLITICAL CONSULTING SERVICES.
WHEN DOES REGISTRATION NEED
TO BE UPDATED?
THERE'S TWO DAYS.
WITHIN 15 DAYS OF CHANGE OF THE
INFORMATION. CHANGE IN YOUR
CONTACT
INFORMATION TO THOSE IN
YOUR
EMPLOY PERFORMING THE SERVICES
WORK.
SECONDLY, THERE IS A
TERMINATION STATEMENT THAT'S
REQUIRED TO
BE FILED WITHIN 15 DAYS OF
THE TERMINATION OF THAT
POLITICAL
CONSULTING SERVICE WORK THAT WAS
PROVIDED FOR AN ELECTION
CAMPAIGN.
ELECTION CAMPAIGN IS ALSO
A DEFINED TERM IN THE CODE.
SO THAT TERM WOULD APPLY TO
BOTH THE CANDIDATE ELECTION
CAMPAIGN
AND A BALLOT MEASURE CAMPAIGN.
WITHIN THE EXISTING
BILL, THERE'S ALSO A
REPORTING REQUIREMENT FOR
ELECTED
OFFICIALS.
THOSE ARE ALL OFFICIALS WHO
ARE ELECTED TO ELECTIVE
OFFICE OR APPOINTED TO ELECTIVE
OFFICE.
THAT'S ALSO
A DEFINED TERM IN OUR CODE.
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE END
OF EACH QUARTER -- QUARTER IS A
DEFINED TERM AS WELL. AN ELECTED
OFFICIAL MUST FILE
A STATEMENT WITH WAYNE
BARNETT IDENTIFYING FOR THAT
QUARTER ANY
POLITICAL CONSULTANTS THAT THEY
CONTRACTED WITH AND THEN WHAT
POLITICAL SERVICES WERE PROVIDED
AND THE DATE THOSE SERVICES
STARTED.
SIMILARLY TO THE LAST
SLIDE AROUND THE REQUIREMENT FOR
UPDATES, SAME TIMEFRAME
FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS.
MUST UPDATE WITHIN 15 DAYS OF
A CHANGE TO THAT REPORTING
INFORMATION.
THERE'S A PROVISION IN THE BILL
CONCERNING TRANSPARENCY ANGLE
OF WHAT THEY DO WITH
THE INFORMATION IT RECEIVES.
THE COMMISSION WOULD
BE OBLIGATED TO POST ON ITS
WEBSITE INFORMATION SUBMITTED IN
A STATEMENT OR THE REGISTRATION
WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF RECEIPT.
PORTLAND HAD A SIMILAR
PROVISION.
THEIR TIMEFRAME WAS THREE DAYS.
OURS IS ONLY UNIQUE
IN THAT IT'S A FIVE-DAY
REQUIREMENT.
NOW AS I SAID, SO MANY OF THE
BILL'S PROVISIONS
ARE A LIFT FROM PORTLAND'S
GISTRATION
LAW.
THE MAJOR DIFFERENCE IS
PORTLAND'S -- AND SAN
FRANCISCO,
THEY ARE SUNSHINE LAWS.
THEY HAVE REPORTING OBLIGATIONS.
BUT THEY DON'T HAVE THE SAME
PROHIBITED CONDUCT MEASURES
THAT
ARE FOUND WITHIN OUR COUNCIL
BILL.
THAT SAID, AS IT RELATES TO
THE REPORTING ASPECTS OF THE
BILL, THESE TWO TRACK VERY
CLOSELY
TOGETHER.
I WILL
JUST NOTE THE DIFFERENCES,
BECAUSE THERE ARE
MORE SIMILARITIES THAN
DIFFERENCES. I WILL NOTE THE
DIFFERENCES.
ASSUME IF I'M NOT MENTIONING
IT, THERE'S MORE OF
A ONE TO ONE
CORRELATION. THE FIRST
DIFFERENCE I WOULD
NOTE IS THAT PORTLAND'S
LAW APPLIES TO POLITICAL
CONSULTANTS FOR ELECTED
OFFICIALS AND
SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES TO
CITY ELECTED OFFICE
OR SUCCESSFUL CAMPAIGN
COMMITTEES.
OUR LAW WOULD APPLY REGARDLESS
OF THE SUCCESS OF A CAMPAIGN
OUTCOME.
THE FINAL NOTE THAT I WILL MAKE
THERE IS THAT PORTLAND'S
ONLY APPLIES TO POLITICAL
CONSULTANTS THAT MAKE THAT WORK
THEIR
TRADE OR PROFESSION.
WE HAVE NO SIMILARLY
LIMITING
COUNCIL BILL 121130 AS I
SAID WOULD TAKE THIS AND APPLY
IT
TO ANY CANDIDATE FOR OFFICE.
BUT ONLY APPLIES TO
THE AUTHORIZED CAMPAIGN
COMMITTEES FOR BALLOT MEASURES
NOT FOR
CANDIDATES.
THAT'S A UNIQUENESS IN THE
DEFINITION.
ONE OTHER DIFFERENCE IN
REGISTRATION THAT I WANTED
TO NOTE BETWEEN PORTLAND AND
THIS
COUNCIL BILL IS THAT IN PORTLAND
THE POLITICAL CONSULTANT MUST
REPORT THE NAMES AND
THE CONTACTS OF THEIR
PRINCIPLES, EMPLOYEES AND
CONTRACTORS
THAT PROVIDED POLITICAL
CONSULTING SERVICES TO A CITY
ELECTED
OFFICIAL.
OUR BILL THAT'S IN FRONT OF
YOU, COUNCIL BILL 121130, DOES
NOT HAVE THAT SAME RESTRICTION.
A POLITICAL CONSULTANT WOULD
BE REQUIRED TO REGISTER THEIR
NAME AND THEIR CONTACT
INFORMATION OF
ALL OF THE PRINCIPLES, EMPLOYEES
AND CONTRACT ORCONTRACTORS,
REGARDLESS
WHETHER THEY WORKED ON
A PARTICULAR PAIN OR NOT.
DISCLOSURE INFRASTRUCTURE IF YOU
ARE
ING POLITICAL CONSULTING
SERVICES.
I JUST WANT TO NOTE A FEW OF
SAN FRANCISCO'S REPORTING LAW
DISTINCTIONS.
SAN FRANCISCO'S LAW
FOCUSES ON REPORTING AND
TRANSPARENCY,
DOES NOT HAVE THE PROHIBITED
CONDUCT
PROVISIONS THAT I WILL GO INTO
IN A MOMENT.
IN SAN FRANCISCO, IT IS
POLITICAL CONSULTING DEFINITION
IS LIMITED TO CONSULTANTS
THAT EARNED $1,000 OR MORE IN
A CALENDAR YEAR.
OURS DOES
NOT HAVE A DOLLAR VALUE
ASSIGNED.
THE REPORTING INFORMATION
THAT SAN FRANCISCO HAD APPEARED
TO
BE MORE DETAILED, INCLUDING
HOW MUCH A POLITICAL CONSULTANT
WAS
PAID.
THIS BILL IS SILENT TO THAT
PARTICULAR DETAIL OF THE
CONTRACT.
IN SAN FRANCISCO'S VERSION,
THE POLITICAL CONSULTANTS ARE
THE
ONES THAT FILE THE QUARTERLY
REPORTS.
IN THE COUNCIL BILL IN FRONT OF
YOU, IT'S THE ELECTED OFFICIALS
THAT WOULD FILE THOSE
QUARTERLY REPORTS.
I WILL PAUSE THERE TO
SEE -- BEFORE I TURN TO
THE PROHIBITED CONDUCT
PROVISIONS, CHECK
IN AND
SEE IF THERE ARE EARLY
QUESTIONS.
IF NOT, I WILL KEEP POWERING
THROUGH.
>> ARE YOU GOING TO MENTION
THE
CHANGES THAT ARE --
>> YES.
I WAS GOING TO JUST DO
THEM COLLECTIVELY AT THE END IF
THAT'S OKAY.
>> SURE.
>> ALL RIGHT.
NOT SEEING
ANY OTHER HANDS, WE WILL KEEP
MOVING.
WITHIN COUNCIL BILL 121130,
THERE IS A PROHIBITED CONDUCT
PROVISION THAT LISTS THREE
ELEMENTS OF
RESTRICTED ACTIVITY FOR
POLITICAL CONSULTANTS.
THEY ARE, NUMBER ONE, TO
PROVIDE POLITICAL CONSULTING
SERVICES WITHOUT REPORTING THEM,
AS
IS REQUIRED UNDER THE BILL.
TO PERFORM COMPENSATED WORK
ON BOTH AN ELECTION CAMPAIGN
AND PROVIDE CONSULTING SERVICES
WITH
THE CITY AT THE SAME TIME.
FINALLY, TO PERFORM COMPENSATED
POLITICAL
CONSULTING SERVICES FOR AN
ELECTION CAMPAIGN
WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE
TERMINATION OF A
CONSULTING SERVICES CONTRACT
WITH THE CITY.
IF A POLITICAL CONSULTANT HAS A
CONSULTING CONTRACT WITH THE
CITY, UPON THE TERMINATION OF
THAT CONTRACT, THERE'S A
ONE- YEAR COOLING PERIOD
BEFORE THEY CAN ENGAGE IN
POLITICAL CONSULTING WORK FOR
THE CITY.
BY THE CITY, I DON'T MEAN OF
THE CITY AS A CLIENT.
I WOULD MEAN WITHIN THE CITY'S
JURISDICTION.
A CANDIDATE FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE
IN THE CITY OR A BALLOT
MEASURE
THAT'S BEING PUT FORWARD FOR THE
CITY.
I WILL SPEAK TO THE EXISTING
CODE. FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS AS TO
THE
SPECIFICS ARE MAYBE MOST
APPROPRIATE FOR THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WHO IS WITH
US TODAY.
REGARDING THE EXISTING CODE,
THE ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS
WOULD APPLY TO THE
POLITICAL CONSULTANTS AND THE
ELECTED
OFFICIALS THAT ARE REGULATED
UNDER THIS BILL.
THOSE EXISTING PROVISIONS ARE IN
4.16.100.
AT LEAST AS IT RELATES
TO POLITICAL CONSULTING
SERVICES,
THERE WERE THREE COMPONENTS
THAT I THINK WOULD BE MOST
LIKELY
TO BE ENFORCED, I WOULD SAY.
ONE IS THAT ELECTED
OFFICIALS ARE PROHIBITED FROM
KNOWINGLY
USING A POLITICAL
CONSULTANT
THAT'S IN VIOLATION OF THE
BILL'S PROVISIONS.
THERE'S EXISTING ENFORCEMENT
PROVISIONS WOULD APPLY TO
ANY OFFICIAL THAT KNOWINGLY USES
A POLITICAL CONSULTANT WHO, FOR
EXAMPLE, HAS VIOLATED
THE COOLING OFF PERIOD OR WHO
HASN'T BEEN UP TO DATE WITH
THEIR
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
NEXT, NO PERSON MAY SUBMIT
FALSE, FRAUDULENT OR MISLEADING
INFORMATION IN ANY STATEMENT OR
REGISTRATION. IF THEY DID, THE
EXISTING
ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS
OF OUR CODE OF ETHICS WOULD
APPLY.
FINALLY, IF A PERSON FAILS
TO REPORT AS REQUIRED, THEY
WOULD
FACE THE POTENTIAL
PENALTIES, INCLUDING CIVIL
LIABILITY, THAT ARE IN OUR
EXISTING CODE.
ONE UNIQUE FEATURE OF THE
BILL THAT I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT
RELATES
TO CONTRACTS.
THERE'S A PROVISION IN THE
BILL THAT SAYS CONTRACTS THAT
VIOLATE THE PROVISIONS OF THE
BILL
WOULD BE CONSIDERED VOID.
THAT WOULD POSSIBLY INVOLVE THE
REPAYMENT OF ANY
COMPENSATION GIVEN UNDER THAT
CONTRACT.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF A POLITICAL
CONSULTANT VIOLATED THE
BILL, THE CONTRACT THAT THEY ARE
WORKING UNDER FOR A
CITY CAMPAIGN MIGHT HAVE TO BE
REPAID IF THEY RULED THERE WAS
A VIOLATION AND THE CONTRACT WAS
VOID.
IF ANY PERSON VIOLATED
SUBSECTION F2 OF THE PROHIBITED
CONDUCT OF POLITICAL
CONSULTANTS, THAT WOULD
MEAN THAT THEY
WORKED FOR BOTH A CAMPAIGN AND
CITY
CONSULTING CONTRACT AT THE SAME
TIME.
THEY WOULD BE PRECLUDED
FROM CONTRACTING WITH THE CITY
AS A CON SULTANT FOR FIVE YEARS.
IT'S A PROCESS THAT
FAS CURRENTLY UTILIZES AND N
KEEPING
TRACK OF WHO OUR CONSULTANTS
ARE. THERE'S A MECHANISM BY
WHICH THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO
CLASSIFY SOMEONE AS DE- BARRED
OR
INELIGIBLE TO HOLD A
CITY
CONSULTING CONTRACT FOR A
FIVE-YEAR TERM.
I WOULD NOTE THATTHAT
4.16. 100B, THAT'S THE
ENFORCEMENT SECTION
THAT'S EXISTING IN OUR CODE AND
IS
NOT BEING AMENDED BY THIS
COUNCIL
BILL, THERE'S A LIST OF
ENFORCEMENT PENALTY OPTIONS FOR
WAYNE BARNETT AND THE SCEC TO
EVALUATE AND ATTRIBUTE
TO ANY FOUND VIOLATION OF THE
ETHICS
CODE.
ONE OF THOSE IS A MON MONETARY
FINE UP TO $5,000 OR THREE
TIMES THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF
ANYTHING SOUGHT OR RECEIVED IN
VIOLATION OF OUR CODE OF ETHICS.
THAT'S JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF A
POTENTIAL CIVIL PENALTY THAT
WOULD ATTACH TO A VIOLATION.
THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
ESTABLISHES THE FINE AMOUNT
BUT
CANNOT EXCEED THE $5,000
THRESHOLD.
WOULD BE ABLE TO ATTACH
ANY OTHER CODE SANCTIONS.
THOSE ARE SUBJECT TO APPEAL.
THE APPEAL PROVISIONS ARE IN OUR
CODE.
AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT ALLUDED TO,
WITHIN YOUR AGENDA PACKET
THERE'S A SUBSTITUTE BILL
THAT MAKES THREE DISCREET
CHANGES TO
THE VERSION
THAT'S INTRODUCED AND BEFORE
YOU RIGHT NOW.
FINALLY, I WILL NOTE WHAT
THOSE THREE CHANGES ARE.
ONE IS A CHANGE WITHIN THE
POLITICAL CONSULTANT DEFINITION
TO DEFINE POLITICAL CONSULTANTS
AS THOSE WHO ARE COMPENSATED OR
PAID TO PERFORM THEIR WORK.
VOLUNTEERS WOULD BE
EXCLUDED FROM
THE REGULATORY SCHEME OF THE
BILL.
THE SECOND CHANGE IN
THE SUBSTITUTE BILL IS THAT IT
AMENDS THE QUARTERLY REPORTING
SECTION.
RECALL THAT RIGHT NOW IN
THE INTRODUCED VERSION, IT'S
THE ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO FILE
THAT QUARTERLY REPORT.
THIS CHANGE IN THE
SUBSTITUTE VERSION WOULD HAVE
THE POLITICAL
CONSULTANTS DOING THAT
QUARTERLY
REPORTING. NOT THE ELECTED
OFFICIALS.
FINALLY, IT ADDS A FOURTH
PROHIBITED ACTION TO PROVIDE
A COOLING OFF PERIOD BETWEEN
THE END OF A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN
AND THE BEGINNING OF A
CONSULTING
CONTRACT.
RECALL IN THE
INTRODUCED VERSION, THAT COOLING
OFF
PERIOD GOES FROM THE END OF
A CONSULTING CONTRACT, ONE-
YEAR PERIOD, BEFORE A POLITICAL
CAMPAIGN.
THIS WOULD BE AT THE
CONCLUSION OF A POLITICAL
CAMPAIGN,
THERE'S A ONE- YEAR COOLING
PERIOD
BEFORE YOU CAN ENGAGE IN
CONTRACT CONSULTING WORK FOR THE
CITY.
THOSE ARE THE THREE DISCREET
CHANGES THAT ARE IN THE
INTRODUCED -- NO, THAT ARE
CHANGES TO
THE INTRODUCED VERSION
AND IN THE SUBSTITUTE BILL
BEFORE YOU.
>> I
JUST -- A POINT OF
CLARIFICATION.
THE REASON WHY -- BECAUSE IT
WAS MODELLED TO CLOSELY ON OTHER
CITIES, THE ORIGINAL BILL
HAVING -- REQUIRING THE ELECTED
TO DO THE REPORTING, IS
BECAUSE IN A LOT OF OTHER
CITIES, THE
ELECTION SEASON OR THE
CAMPAIGN SEASON IS
NOT AS CLEARLY DELINEATED AS IT
IS HERE.
PEOPLE CAN BE KIND OF ON --
CAMPAIGNING ON AN ONGOING BASIS,
RAISING MONEY, ET CETERA.
OUR ELECTION RULES ARE
DIFFERENT.
I HAD NOT
CAUGHT THAT DISCREPANCY TO BEGIN
WITH.
JUST TRYING TO EXPLAIN WHY
THAT CHANGE WAS MADE AND ALSO
WHEN IT
COMES TO COMPENSATED,
JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT
WAS --
THINGS WERE MORE CLEAR.
A LOT OF
PEOPLE GIVE A LOT OF ADVICE IN
THIS TOWN.
THAT WAS THE REASON BEHIND THAT.
GO AHEAD. SORRY.
DIDN'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT.
>> THAT'S GREAT.
THIS CONCLUDES THE OVERVIEW OF
THE BILL.
I'M HAPPEN MY TO TAKE ANY
QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I WILL OPEN IT TO QUESTIONS
IMMEDIATELY. I JUST WANT TO NOTE
THAT
YOU MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT
A COOLING OFF PERIOD.
I DIDN'T HEAR IN YOUR -- YOU
CAN PLEASE -- WE DO DO COOLING
OFF
PERIODS FOR CITY EMPLOYEES,
CORRECT?
>> YES.
THERE'S A PROVISION WITHIN
OUR EXISTING CODE OF ETHICS ON
LEAVING CITY EMPLOYMENT.
THERE ARE ETHICAL DUTIES THAT
EACH CITY EMPLOYEE MUST BE
BOUND TO WHEN THEY LEAVE
THEIR CITY JOB.
IT INVOLVES WHAT YOU CAN DO
WITH THE SENSITIVE OR
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION YOU
LEARNED AS
A PART OF YOUR ROLE WITH THE
CITY.
IT INVOLVES THE WAYS IN
WHICH YOU CAN ACCEPT
CONTRACTS WITH THE CITY MOVING
FORWARD.
SO THIS COOLING OFFOFF WOULD
BE SPECIFIC TO THE CONSULTANT
CONTRACTS, BECAUSE CITY
EMPLOYEES ARE ALREADY REGULATED
IN
THEIR ETHICAL CONDUCT AFTER THEY
LEAVE THE CITY.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT.
THE OVERARCHING GOAL HERE
IS TO BRING SOME RULES
AROUND CONSULTANTS THAT ALREADY
--
THAT ARE APPLIED TO EITHER
LOBBYISTS,
THE REPORTING FUNCTIONS, AND
COOLING OFF PERIOD AND
SOME OF THE PROHIBITIONS THAT
GO
ALONG WITH THE ENFORCEMENT OF
THOSE RULES.
I JUST WANT TO RESTATE THAT
THE GOAL HERE IS TO ESTABLISH
VERY CLEAR RULES SO THAT WE
CAN REDUCE THE PERCEPTION OF
THE POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF
INTEREST AMONGST CONSULTANTS
THAT WE ARE
ALREADY TRYING TO DO WHETHER ING
ING TO DO
WHETHER WHEN IT COMES TO OTHER
ENTITIES THAT WORK WITH THE
CITY.
UNDER CURRENT RULES,
A CONSULTANT CAN ADVICE
CITY OFFICIALS WHILE WORKING ON
POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS,
INCLUDING BALLOT MEASURES, WHICH
IS
WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT
RELATED TO
THE SAME POLICIES.
THEY CAN LEVERAGE
INSIDER KNOWLEDGE THAT THEY GET
FROM THESE RELATIONSHIPS
DEVELOPED IN
THE COURSE OF WORKING ON POLICY
MATTERS OR THROUGH CITY WORK.
THEY CAN PARLAY THAT INTO
ELECTORAL ADVANTAGE AFTER THAT.
I WANT TO SORT OF PUT CLEAR IN
MY WORDS WHAT SOME OF THE --
SOME OF
THE PROBLEMS THAT EXIST RIGHT
NOW.
NOT NECESSARILY PROBLEMS,
BUT THE STATE OF PLAY CURRENTLY.
IT DOES NOT REGULATE
WHAT CONSULTANTS CAN SAY OR
WHAT ADVISE THEY CAN GIVE.
IT CREATES TRANSPARENCY
AND ESTABLISHES BOUNDARIES
BETWEEN PUBLIC SERVICE AND
PRIVATE
PROFIT, THE SAME PRINCIPLES
WE APPLY TO
LOBBYISTS AND ELECTEDS AND
EMPLOYEES.
THAT'S A MORE JUMBLED UP WAY OF
SAYING WHAT YOU SAID.
I'M TRYING TO CONVEY MY -- THE
PRINCIPLES BEHIND THIS
LEGISLATION.
NOW I WILL OPEN
IT UP TO ANY COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS.
>> CHAIR?
>> YES.
COUNCIL MEMBER KETTLE.
>> I WAS CURIOUS --
THANK YOU FOR THE BRIEFING, MISS
LAUREN AND DIRECTOR BARNETT.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
AN INTERESTING BILL FOR MANY
REASONS.
BOTH BILLS WE HAVE TO SUBSTITUTE
GIVEN
OUR ROLES AND LANES WE ARE IN.
ONE OF THE THINGS I NOTED IN
YOUR PRESENTATION, YOU SEEM
TO BE MAKING A POINT ABOUT CITY
FTEs.
IS THERE ANYTHING -- YOU SEEM
TO FOOT STOMP IT A LITTLE BIT.
CAN YOU SPEAK TO
THAT MORE WHY THAT DISTINCTION
WAS BEING MADE?
>> YES.
HAPPY TO.
I WOULD FIRST NOTE, WITHIN THIS
PRESENTATION PLAYING THE ROLE
OF A POLICY ANALYST.
WITHIN THAT VEIN, I WILL
NOTE THERE'S A STATE LAW
THAT PROTECTS THE FULL MEASURE
OF
A CITY EMPLOYEE, ANY
GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY ACROSS THE
STATE,
COUNTY, CITY, THAT PROTECTS
THOSE
EMPLOYEES' FIRST
AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO EXPRESSION
AND ASSOCIATION AND ALLOWS FOR
THE
SIMULTANEOUS WORK FOR A CITY AND
POLITICAL CONSULTING, ADVIS
E ING OR POLITICAL WORK IN
GENERAL.
THAT LAW APPLIES TO
ALL CITY OF SEATTLE EMPLOYEES.
SO I MAKE THE DISTINCTION IN THE
PRESENTATION AND THE
DISTINCTION IS MADE IN THE BILL
THAT IT
IS CONTRACT CONSULTANTS FOR
THE CITY THAT WOULD BE
REGULATED UNDER THE BILL.
I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT IN
MY OTHER ROLE, I SERVE AS THE
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL TO THIS
BODY.
I'M HAPPY TO TAKE OFFLINE
ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT
THE INTERSECTION
OF THAT STATE LAW WITH THIS
BILL.
>> THANK YOU.
THAT GOES TO -- IT
IS INTERESTING IN THE PUBLIC
SAFETY SIDE.
I'M ALWAYS INTERESTED
IN CLEAN -- WE JUST DID THIS AT
THE END OF OUR COMMITTEE
SCHEDULE IN
TERMS OF THE ALIGNING.
THAT GOES TO THE SAME THING.
ALIGNING THE STATESTATE LAW.
I DO FIND THAT INTERESTING.
BECAUSE OF PORTLAND AND SAN
FRANCISCO, THOSE ARE
TWO DIFFERENT STATES.
TO THE POINT YOU JUST
MADE, UNDERSTANDING THE RCWSMC
PIECE
IS IMPORTANT.
THANK YOU FOR THAT.
>> THAT'S A REALLY GOOD
POINT YOU BRING UP.
THAT'S WHY I -- SAN FRANCISCO
BASICALLY EXPLICITLY INCLUDING
CONSULTANTS IN THEIR
CODE OF ETHICS.
BASICALLY SAID THEY ARE NOT
DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THE ACTUAL
EMPLOYEES OR ELECTED ARE BOUND
TO. THIS IS EXPLICITLY SAYING
THAT WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT
CITY
EMPLOYEES.
WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT PAID POLITICAL
CONSULTANTS.
SO THAT IS BEING CAREFUL TO MAKE
THAT DISTINCTION.
COUNCIL MEMBER
RIVERA.
>> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
JUST IN TERMS OF THE FTEs,
IT DOESN'T APPLY
TO THEM. BUT THERE ARE OTHER
ETHICS RULES
THAT APPLY WHEN YOU DO
ADVOCACY OR DO VOLUNTEER WORK OR
PAID
WORK, YOU CANNOT DO SO UNDER
YOUR TITLE AT THE CITY.
YOU HAVE TO DO IT AS A PERSONAL.
SO SOMETIMES WE HAVE EMPLOYEES
THAT COME TO ADVOCATE, EVEN IN
CHAMBERS, BUT THEY SAY I'M
HERE ON MY PERSONAL CAPACITY
NOT MY OFFICIAL CITY ROLE.
I BELIEVE WE ALREADY HAVE ETHICS
LAWS THAT APPLY TO
CITY EMPLOYEES IN THAT WAY.
IT MAKES SENSE THAT THIS
MAKES THAT DISTINCTION THAT IT
DOESN'T APPLY, BECAUSE WE
ALREADY
HAVE SOMETHING
THAT APPLIES TO CITY EMPLOYEES.
CORRECT?
>> YES.
>> I JUST WANT TO SAY ABOUT
THIS PARTICULAR ROLE -- EXCUSE
ME,
RULE, THIS PARTICULAR
PROPOSAL, THAT I UNDERSTAND
COUNCIL PRESIDENT YOU ARE TRYING
TO BRING TRANSPARENCY THAT
OTHER CITIES LIKE PORTLAND
AND SAN FRANCISCO HAVE
SPECIFICALLY
ADDRESSED. SEATTLE HAS NOT
ADDRESSED.
IN THE SMC AND IN OUR
ETHICS CODES RELATED TO THIS
WORK.
I APPRECIATE THAT YOU ARE ALWAYS
LOOKING WITH AN EYE TOWARD
TRANSPARENCY AND GOOD
GOVERNANCE THAT WAY.
SO I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT IS THE
INTENT BEHIND THIS
PROPOSAL THAT YOU ARE MAKING FOR
THIS LAW.
I APPRECIATE THAT YOU ARE ALWAYS
FOCUSED ON ENSURING THAT OUR
CON
CONSTITUENTS HAVE FULL
TRANSPARENCY. MORE INFORMATION
IS
BETTER THAN LESS.
I APPRECIATE YOU, WAYNE.
YOU AS THE ENFORCER OF ALL THE
LAWS THAT WE HAVE TO GIVE
TRANSPARENCY AT THE CITY FOR OUR
CONSTITUENTS.
YOU PLAY AN IMPORTANT
ROLE IN THE COMMISSION THAT
SUPPORTS
YOUR WORK.
PLAYS AN IMPORTANT ROLE THAT
WAY.
JUST TO SAY THAT WE ALL ARE
AS ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE
REQUIRED TO REPORT YEARLY ON ALL
OUR
OWN NOT JUST WORK BUT JUST A LOT
OF PERSONAL INFORMATION
FOR TRANSPARENCY SAKE SO THAT
THE PUBLIC IS AWARE AS WE'RE
DOING
OUR WORK.
ANYWAY, NOT A QUESTION IN THIS
CASE BUT JUST A COMMENT ABOUT
I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT BEHIND
WHY YOU ARE BRINGING THIS.
I ALWAYS APPRECIATE YOUR
EYE TOWARD THE GOOD GOVERNANCE
PIECE
AT THE CITY.
I KNOW MANY CONSTITUENTS ALSO
APPRECIATE THAT AS WELL.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK
YOU FOR THOSE COMMENTS. BOTH OF
YOU.
GETTING BACK TO SOMETHING
THAT YOU WERE SAYING, IT REALLY
--
THERE'S A VERY FINE -- NOT FINE
LINE.
THERE'S A VERY VISIBLE,
HARD- CORE LINE BETWEEN WHAT
WE CAN DO AS ELECTEDS WHETHER
IT COMES TO BALLOT INITIATIVES.
AS SOON AS WE VOTE TO SEND
A BALLOT INITIATIVE TO THE
COUNTY TO GET ON BALLOT, WE
CANNOT
TALK ABOUT IT EXCEPT FOR IN
RARE CASES WHETHER WE ARE
EXPLICITLY
ASKED BY A REPORTER IN A
PUBLIC FORUM -- WAYNE, YOU CAN
TELL ME
IF I'M GETTING THIS WRONG.
WE KNOW WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT
DO.
WHEN WE ARE AN INCUMBENT
RUNNING FOR RE- ELECTION, THEN
WE
CANNOT USE ANY CITY PROPERTY.
WE CANNOT BE PRESENT AND
ENGAGE IN KIND OF
ELECTIONEERING.
WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT OTHER
CAMPAIGNS.
THAT'S JUST PRETTY MUCH --
THAT'S VERY CLEAR AND THAT'S
OFF THE TABLE AS WELL.
WHAT THIS DOES IS IT GETS AT
A GAP IN OUR CODE WHERE PEOPLE
IN POSITIONS OF POWER AND WHO
CARRY A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF
LEGITIMACY AND AUTHORITY ARE
ALSO IN
A REALM OF INFLUENCE.
IT'S JUST KIND OF
ESTABLISHING ACROSS THE BOARD
THE
SIMILARLY KINDS OF RULES THAT
WILL
ASSURE OUR CONSTITUENTS
THAT WE ARE PLAYING BY THE
BOOKS.
IF YOU STRIP AWAY ALL THE
GOODY TWO SHOES LANGUAGE WE
ARE TALKING ABOUT AND THE
STUFF ABOUT GOOD GOVERNANCE
AND TRANSPARENCY AND
MINIMIZING CONFLICT OF INTEREST,
WHAT
WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT IS
HERE IS
CREATING A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD
AMONG THE PROFESSIONALS WHO
WE HIRE TO GIVE US POLICY
ADVICE.
THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO
HERE.
WE'RE TRYING TO GET AWAY
FROM SOME OF THE INSIDER
POLITICS
THAT'S REALLY AT THE HEART
OF PUBLIC DISTRUST OF
GOVERNMENT.
YOU HEAR
ABOUT PEOPLE THINKING THAT THERE
ARE BACKROOM
DEALS GOING ON.
THAT NARRATIVE IS OUT THERE.
THE MORE WE CAN DO TO DISPEL
THAT SORT OF -- THAT
THINKING ABOUT OUR
OWN GOVERNMENTAL PRACTICES, THE
BETTER.
PEOPLE HAID HATE THAT.
THEY DO NOT LIKE THE
FEELING THAT SOMETHING IS GOING
ON
THAT THEY DON'T KNOW ABOUT.
THAT IS HAPPENING
BECAUSE OF SOMEBODY'S INSIDER
STATUS.OF
THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO
WITH THERE BILL. THAT'S WHY YOU
WILL SEE COMMENTS
ONLINE ABOUT THIS LEGISLATION
RANGING FROM, THIS SEEMS DOT,
DOT, DOT, INCREDIBLY REASONABLE.
LOTS
OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONFLICT OF
INTEREST CURRENTLY.
TO, QUOTE, HEARTBREAKING.
THE WORST PERSON YOU KNOW MADE
A GOOD POINT.
BY THE WAY, I KNOW THAT IS A
MEME.
I'M OWNING UP TO IT.
YES, A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO
WOULD PROBABLY FIND THEMSELVES
OR WOULD SEE THEMSELVES TO BE ON
THE OPPOSITE END OF
THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM LIKE
THIS BECAUSE IT'S GETTING
AT SOMETHING THAT ACROSS THE
BOARD
NOBODY REALLY LIKES, WHICH IS
TO FEEL LIKE THERE'S SOMETHING
GOING ON IN THEIR
GOVERNMENT THAT THEY CAN'T
UNDERSTAND.
THERE'S SOME
INFLUENCE THAT IS NOT REALLY
NAMED.
FRANKLY, I THINK THIS IS --
THAT'S SORT OF WHAT
I'M TRYING TO GET AT.
AS TO THE TIMING OF THIS
LEGISLATION,
SOMETIMES YOU DON'T BECOME
AWARE OF SOMETHING,
YOU DON'T DISTILL IT IN YOUR
MIND UNTIL IT APPEARS IN A MEDIA
ARE AWARE OF IT.
FRANKLY, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED TO
ME AS WELL.
I DID WAIT UNTIL AFTER
THE ELECTION BECAUSE I WANTED
TO AVOID ANY KIND OF PERCEPTION
OF
POLITICAL SELF- INTEREST ON
MY OWN BEHALF.
I DIDN'T WANT TO DRIVE
THE MAYOR INTO THE MUD.
SOON THEREAFTER, WE WERE IN
BUDGET.
I WAS ABLE TO GET THIS ON
THE
REFERRAL CALENDAR THE FIRST
OPPORTUNITY THAT I COULD.
THAT EXPLAINS THE TIMING.
UNLESS ANYBODY ELSE -- GO AHEAD,
COUNCIL MEMBER LIN.
>> JUST A COUPLE COMMENTS,
QUESTIONS.
ONE THING IN GENERAL WHEN WE ARE
CONSIDERING NEW REGULATIONS,
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A CLEARLY
IDENTIFIED CONCERN
THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS IN
THAT THE
REGULATIONS THAT WE'RE
ADOPTING ARE KIND OF NARROWLY
TAILORED
TO ADDRESS THAT CONCERN AND THAT
THERE AREN'T OTHER INADVERTENT
CONSEQUENCES
OR THINGS THAT ARE BEING DRAGGED
IN.
I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT AS
WE CONSIDER THIS THAT I HAVE
A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF
THE CONCERN THAT YOU ARE TRYING
TO
ADDRESS, WHICH I HEAR IS ABOUT
CONSULTANTS FOR LEVEES.
I WONDER IF THOSE NEED TO
BE ADDRESSED THROUGH THE
ETHICS RULES OR IF THERE'S OTHER
WAYS
OF ADDRESSING THOSE
CONCERNS THROUGH HOW WE HIRE
CONSULTANTS
OR CONTRACT THROUGH
OUR CONTRACTING LAWS.
THAT'S ONE GENERIC QUESTION.
KIND OF TO PUT A POINT ON, ONE
CONCERN FOR THIS DRAFT IS WE
ALREADY HAVE FAIRLY ROBUST
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR
CAMPAIGNS.
WE REPORT TO THE WASHINGTON PDC.
WE REPORT TO THE SEATTLE
ETHICS AND ELECTIONS COMMISSION.
IT LOOKS LIKE TO ME, IF YOU
ARE A FIRST- TIME
CANDIDATE, YOU ARE RUNNING A
CAMPAIGN, YOU HIRE A
CONSULTANT, NOW THERE WOULD
BE AN ADDITIONAL REPORTING
REQUIREMENT AS A CONSULTANT AS
WELL.
JUST A LITTLE BIT OF CONCERN
IF WE ALREADY HAVE REALLY
ROBUST REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
UNDER OUR
PDC, DOES THIS
ADD ANOTHER SORT OF REPORTING
REQUIREMENT ON TOP
OF
THOSE? IS THAT NECESSARY?
OR IS THERE A WAY TO MORE
NARROWLY CARVE OUT WHO
NEEDS TO REPORT?
>> I L GET AT YOUR FIRST
QUESTION.
WHY THE ETHICS CODE?
I DID GO BACK AND FORTH ON THAT.
I WAS THINKING, WHY DON'T WE
PUT THIS WHERE WE HAVE ALL THE
RULES FOR CONTRACTING AND
PROCUREMENT AND ALL OF THAT
STUFF.
I DID HAVE A LONG
CONVERSATION WITH FAS.
THEN ALSO, I SPOKE WITH THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BARNETT.
I BASICALLY SAID, IS
THERE ANYTHING -- FIRST OF ALL,
IT TURNS OUT THAT IT DIDN'T
SEEM
TO REALLY FIT BECAUSE THERE
WERE THE CONTRACTING
REGULATIONSREGULATIONS
QUITE SPECIFIC RELATED
AROUND PROJECTS.
THERE WAS THAT REASON WHY
IT DIDN'T SEEM TO FIT IN THERE.
CONVERSATIONS WITH WAYNE
BARNETT, BASICALLY YOU
SAID, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, IS
THERE
ANYTHING THAT CAN BE DONE?
YOU SAID, YOU ARE GOING TO
HAVE TO AMEND
THE ETHICS CODE TO ADDRESS THIS.
THAT'S HOW WE ENDED UP IN THIS
SITUATION TALKING
ABOUT ETHICS INSTEAD OF
CONTRACTING.
AS FOR THE OTHER -- DID YOU HAVE
ANY THOUGHTS ON -- THIS IS
RELATED TO POLITICAL
CONSULTANTS WHEN THEY ARE
WORKING WITHIN
THE CITY FAMILY ON OTHER
PROJECTS LIKE --
IT APPLIES TO THE POLITICAL
CONSULTANTS WORKING ON
A BALLOT INITIATIVE OR ELECTORAL
CAMPAIGN, THAT MIGHT BE --
BE CONSIDERED FOR A POLICY BODY
OF WORK.
LAUREN,
DID YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER
THOUGHTS?
>> I GUESS WITHIN THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS BILL, THE
UNIQUE COMPONENT ABOUT THE
REPORTING WOULD BE THAT IT IS --
ALL OF
THE DOCUMENTS AS PUBLISHED ON
THEIR
WEBSITE. PERHAPS WAYNE COULD
SPEAK TO
THIS.
I DON'T KNOW THAT OUR OWN
SCEC PUBLISHES THE EXISTING
REPORTING
DOCUMENTS THAT YOU
WERE SPEAKING
TO. THOUGH THEY COULD.
BEYOND THAT, I WOULD NEED TO
LOOK INTO AND GET BACK TO
YOU ABOUT WHICH -- WHAT TYPES
OF INFORMATION ARE FILED WITH
THE STATE AND THE SCEC.
TO THE EXTENT THERE'S
DUPLICATION OR NEW INFORMATION
THAT WOULD BE AT THEIR
DISPOSAL AND ON THE WEBSITE.
I
WILL LOOK INTO IT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> ALL RIGHT.
LET'S SEE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU.
I APPRECIATE THE
OPPORTUNITY. I KNOW THERE'S
NOT A VOTE TODAY. THIS IS JUST A
CONVERSATION.
FULL DISCLOSURE, MY HUSBAND IS
A POLITICAL CONSULTANT IN
TOWN, AS WAYNE BARNETT VERY WELL
KNOWS.
I WANTED TO ADDRESS COUNCIL
MEMBER LIN SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE
ATTORNEY.
I LOVE IT.
I LOVE THE CONVERSATION ABOUT
NARROWLY TAILORED.
I FEEL LIKE THIS PARTICULAR BILL
SOUNDS LIKE IT'S
NARROWLY TAILORED BECAUSE IT
ONLY
APPLIES TO THOSE
POLITICAL CONSULTANTS THAT HAVE
A CONTRACT WITH THE
CITY AND THEN WOULD BE
ENGAGED THERE SOME KIND OF NON-
CITY
RELATED
CAMPAIGN LIKE A BALLOT MEASURE.
IN THAT CASE, IT SOUNDS LIKE --
OUR LEGAL COUNCIL AND OUR
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR GAVE ADVICE.
IT SOUNDS LIKE WHERE IT
IS PRETTY NARROWLY --
IT'S NARROWLY TAILORED TO THAT.
IT DOESN'T COVER ALL POLITICAL
CONSULTANTS. IT'S JUST THOSE
FOLKS THAT
HAVE THE CONTRACT WITH THE CITY.
ALSO, FULL DISCLOSURE,
MY
HUSBAND NEVER HAD A CONTRACT
WITH THE CITY.
AGAIN, IN THE INTEREST OF
TRANSPARENCY, I'M SAYING THAT.
TO ADDRESS THE CONCERN ABOUT
NARROWLY TAILORED,
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS IS
NARROWLY TAILORED TO MEET THAT
SPECIFIC CONSULTANT WHO BOTH
HAS A CONTRACT WITH THE CITY --
BECAUSE WE HAVE
POLITICAL CONSULTANTS THAT HAVE
ONGOING CONTRACTS WITH THE CITY.
THEN SEPARATELY MIGHT WORK ON A
BALLOT MEASURE
LIKE THE TRANSPORTATION LEVEE,
FOR
INSTANCE.
WE JUST HAD.
OR THE FAMILIES -- NEXT WE'RE
WE WILL HAVE A LIBRARIES LEVEE.
THOSE CAMPAIGNS ARE NOT CITY
CAMPAIGNS.
THEY ARE INDEPENDENT CAMPAIGNS.
THIS WOULD APPLY TO THE
CONSULTANT THAT HAS A
CITY CONTRACT AND THEN MIGHT
WORK ON
THAT INDEPENDENT CAMPAIGN.
THAT'S HOW I'M READING THIS.
PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG,
LAUREN OR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
BARNETT.
>> UNDER EXISTING STATE
AND LOCAL ETHICS LAW,
IT'S IMPERMISSIBLE FOR THE CITY
TO
HIRE A POLITICAL CONSULTANT
FOR A CAMPAIGN PURPOSES THAT'S
NOT A
CITY FUNCTION.
WHETHER WE
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CANDIDATES
FOR CITY OFFICE OR BALLOT
MEASURES THAT IMPACT CITY
RESIDENTS.
>> BOTH OF WHICH ARE
INDEPENDENT FROM THE CITY?
>> THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.
MUST BE UNDER STATE AND LOCAL
LAW.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT
DISTINCTION.
WHILE YOU WERE TALKING, I
WAS THINKING WE GOT DONE WITH
THE
FAMILY LEVEE.
YOU WILL BE GOING INTO
THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.
YOU WILL HAVE TO VOTE ON THE
PLAN.
WOULD YOU NOT WANT
THE CONSULTANT OF A SCHOOL
BOARD MEMBER TO BE INVOLVED
THERE THAT
POLICY MAKING FOR THE
PACKAGING OF THAT IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN OR
ADVISING COUNCIL ON THAT
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.
I'M JUST PROVIDING A DIFFERENT
EXAMPLE FOR THE ONE THAT YOU ARE
GIVING THAT COULD BE RELEVANT
COMING UP.
>> NOT
THAT THEY WOULD BE PAID
FOR.
>> RIGHT.
RIGHT.
>> I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I
UNDERSTAND.
AS I LOOK AT THE BILL,
THERE'S TWO -- A FEW DIFFERENT
PARTS.
THERE'S BOTH THE REPORTING
PART, WHICH APPEARS TO ME TO BE
A
MUCH BROADER THAN THE
PROHIBITIONS.
THERE'S PROHIBITIONS, BUT THE
REPORTING PART SEEMS TO BE
AT LEAST ON MY READ ANY
POLITICAL
CONSULTANT AND IT'S BROADLY
DEFINED, INCLUDING FOR NOT JUST
CAMPAIGNS THAT WIN, FOR
LOSING
CAMPAIGNS. I WANTED TO
DISTINGUISH BETWEEN
THE REPORTING KIND OF
REGISTRATION TYPE, WHICH IS
VERY BROAD, VERSUS THE HIBITION
PART, WHICH IS MORE NARROW.
WOULD THAT BE ACCURATE?
>> YEAH.
I THINK THAT'S AN ACCURATE
ASSESSMENT.
>> OKAY.
NOT SEEING ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS.
IF THERE ARE
REQUESTED
AMENDMENTS, WHEN WOULD YOU NEED
THOSE?
MAYBE I SHOULDN'T INVITE THAT.
>> WHAT AN EXCELLENT QUESTION.
THIS WILL APPEAR FOR
POSSIBLE VOTE DISCUSSION AND
POSSIBLE
VOTE NEXT THURSDAY.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> RIGHT.
>> SO WITH AGENDA PUBLISHED ON
WEDNESDAY, PERHAPS IDEAS HAVE
BAKED ORS OTHERWISE BY MONDAY
AFTERNOON SO WE CAN DO DRAFTING
ON TUESDAY.
>> THAT SOUNDS GOOD.
THIS IS NOT DESIGNED TO BE
A CONTROVERSIAL BILL.
THIS IS A GOOD GOVERNANCE
TRANSPARENCY, FILLING OF GAP
IN OUR EXISTING ETHICS CODE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING
HERE.
WOULD YOU PLEASE -- WILL
THE CLERK READ ITEM NUMBER
TWO OR THE NEXT ITEM INTO THE
RECORD?
>> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER
TWO, COUNCIL BILL 121131,
AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO CITY
EMPLOYMENT, REFERRED TO AS THE
PAY ZONE ORDINANCE,
ADJUSTING THE STRUCTURE FOR THE
2026 FOR
THE CITY'S DISCRETION
ARY PAYMENT.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT.
THERE ARE TWO WAYS
WE COULD HAVE GONE WITH THIS.
ONE WAY TO SEND IT TO FULL
COUNCIL.
BEFORE I BECAME PRESIDENT,
THAT'S THE WAY A LOT OF THE
HR BILLS WERE HANDLED WHEN
THINGS WOULD -- FOR EXAMPLE,
THE QUARTERLY EMPLOYMENT
LEGISLATION IN WHICH CERTAIN
POSITIONS MOVE
FROM CIVIL SERVICE TO EXEMPT OR
VICE VERSA, A LOT WENT
STRAIGHT TO FULL
COUNCIL. I DECIDED THIS
COMMITTEE NEEDED TO WEIGH IN.
THERE ARE SOMETIMES
FINANCIAL IMPACTS TO THOSE
DECISIONS --
TO THOSE CHANGES.
WE WOULD TAKE ONE OR TWO
MEETINGS. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE
CASES THAT
COULD VERY WELL HAVE
PROBABLY GONE TO FULL COUNCIL
GIVEN --
I█ WANTED IT IN COMMITTEE AND
I REALLY÷÷ THANK YOU VERY MUCH
FOR TAKING THIS ON.
HR COULDN'T BE HERE AT THE
TABLE.
THIS IS EXECUTIVE GENERATED.
I'M HOPING WE CAN VOTE IT OUT
OF
COMMITTEE TODAY. GO AHEAD,
PLEASE.
>> AMANDA ALLEN WITH THE CENTRAL
STAFF.
I'M JUST GOING
TO SHARE MY SCREEN.
>> WHILE YOU ARE DOING THAT,
I DO HAVE TO SAY THAT THIS IS
ONE OF THREE HR BILLS THAT WE
WILL
HAVE.
THERE ARE TWO MORE NEXT WEEK.
>> WHEN THE CLERK SHOWED ME
THIS EARLIER TODAY, IT SEEMED
VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
AND IT WAS.
THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBERS.
I'M HERE TO WALK YOU THROUGH
THE SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
RESOURCES PAY ZONE ORDINANCE.
THIS IS AS THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT
ALLUDED, A FINE EXAMPLE OF THE
ESSENTIAL AND
SOMETIMES ADMINISTRATIVE
LEGISLATION
THAT COMES YOUR WAY.
THIS PAY ZONE ORDINANCE WILL
HELP THE CITY TO ENSUREENSURE
THOSE IN DISCRETIONARY PAY
PROGRAMS RECEIVE EQUITABLE
PAY IN
ACCORDANCE WITH PRIOR
LEGISLATION THAT HAS PASSED.
FOR EXAMPLE, IN DECEMBER OF
2024, THE CITY COUNCIL
PASSED LEGISLATION TO SET THE
ANNUAL WAGE INCREASE FOR 2025
AND TO SET THE CALCULATION FOR
THE
INCREASE FOR 2026.
THAT CALCULATION HAS RESULTED
IN A 3. 6% ANNUAL WAGE INCREASE
FOR
2026.
SINCE THAT TIME, THERE HAVE BEEN
VARIOUS COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENTS THAT HAVE
COME
BEFORE THE COUNCIL AND HAVE BEEN
ADOPTED.
MOST RECENTLY, CITY
COUNCIL PASSED A 2026 ADOPTED
BUDGET.
WHICH INCLUDED ALLOWANCE FOR
THIS 3.6% ANNUAL WAGE INCREASE.
THIS ORDINANCE IS GOING TO HELP
TO UPDATE THOSE PAY
BAN STRUCTURES TO BE IN
ALLIANCE WITH THE ANNUAL WAGE
INCREASE.
IT WILL IMPACT TITLES LIKE
MANAGERS, STRATEGIC
ADVISORS, EXECUTIVES AS WELL AS
SOME
SELECT TITLES LIKE THE CHIEF OF
SEATTLE I.T. , THE FIRE
CHIEF, THE POLICE CHIEF.
THERE ARE 15
DIFFERENT DISCRETIONARY PAY
PROGRAMS
THAT WILL BE IMPACTED BY THIS
LEGISLATION.
REALLY, THE PURPOSE OF
THE ORDINANCE IS TO COMPLY WITH
THE RULES AS SET OUT IN THE
MUNICIPAL CODE THAT THE
SDHR DIRECTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
SETTING THE PAY STRUCTURES
AND THAT THOSE STRUCTURES MUST
BE
APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL.
THE DIRECTOR HAS
RECOMMENDED THIS CHANGE TO HELP
ENSURE
THAT PRIOR LEGISLATION WILL
BE IMPLEMENTED IN A TIMELY
FASHION
AT THE BEGINNING OF THE NEXT
YEAR.
IT WILL IMPACT 2,600 EMPLOYEES,
1,000 OF WHOM ARE REPRESENTED.
THE REMAINING ARE NON-REP
EMPLOYEES.
AGAIN, THIS IS MAINTENANCE
LEGISLATION, SO TO SPEAK.
ROUTINE THAT HAPPENS ANNUALLY.
WITHIN THE LEGISLATION,
TO ENSURE THAT IT IS IMPLEMENTED
IN
ACCORDANCE WITH OUR ESTABLISHED
PAY PERIODS, THERE'S A
PRIOR RATIFY AND CONFIRM CLAUSE
THAT ALLOWS THESE PAY BAN
CHANGES
TO BE MADE AS OF DECEMBER 21,
2025.
I THINK IT HELPS TO ENSURE THE
CONSISTENCY THAT ALL OF YOUR
PRIOR LEGISLATION CAN BE ENABLED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
TIMING. IF THERE ARE ANY
QUESTIONS,
I'M HAPPY TO
ANSWER THEM. THAT'S THE
END OF MY HORSE AND PONY SHOW.
>> I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.
THAT WAS A THOROUGH EXPLANATION
OF ROUTINE AND
ANNUAL LEGISLATION THAT WE HAVE
TO DO
TO KEEP EVERYTHING IN LINE
WITH PRIOR ACTS.
I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.
I'M GLAD WE
HAD THE TIME TO DISCUSS THAT
TODAY.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS
THAT
FOLKS HAVE ABOUT THIS
LEGISLATION?
ALL RIGHT.
HEARING NO QUESTIONS, I MOVE
THE COMMITTEE RECOMMEND PASSAGE
OF COUNCIL BILL
121131.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU.
IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED
TO RECOMMEND PASSAGE OF COUNCIL
BILL
121131. FINAL QUESTION S?
GOING, GOING, GONE.
CALL THE ROLL.
>> ROLL [ ROLL CALL ]
>> FOUR IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THE MOTION PASSES.
THE BILL WITH THE
COMMITTEE'S
RECOMMENDATION WILL BE SENT TO
THE CITY COUNCIL.
ALL RIGHT.
DUE TO THE TIMING OF TODAY'S
MEETING IN ANTICIPATION OF
THE LENGTHY DECEMBER 16th CITY
COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA,
THAT'S GOING TO BE A LONG
COMMITTEE
PROBABLY, I'M GOING TO
REQUEST THE RULES BE SUSPENDED
TO
SEND THIS BILL TO THE DECEMBER
9th MEETING INSTEAD OF DECEMBER
16th, CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION,
COUNCIL RULES WILL BE
SUSPENDED TO SEND COUNCIL BILL
121131 TO THE
DECEMBER 9th MEETING.
HEARING NO OBJECTION,
THE RULES ARE SUSPENDED AND THE
BILL
WILL BE SENT TO THE DECEMBER
9th CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA.
COLLEAGUES,
THIS CONCLUDES TODAY'S MEETING.
WE'RE AT THE END OF THE AGENDA.
OUR NEXT -- UNLESS ANYBODY HAS
ANYTHING TO ADD?
ANY FURTHER BUSINESS?
OUR NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING
IS SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY,
DECEMBER 11th.
OUR NEXT AND LAST
COMMITTEE MEETING IS SCHEDULED
FOR
NEXT
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11th AT 2:00
P.M.
HEARING NO FURTHER BUSINESS,
IT IS 3:07.
I WISH YOU ALL A
GOOD EVENING. WE ARE ADJOURNED.
THANK YOU.