I'll call this meeting to order.
This is the September 3, 2025 meeting of the Seatttle Ethics and Elections Commission.
And the chair is Ellis.
And we also have in the WebEx platform.
The vice chair on the chair
as well as Commissioners Oz and Smith.
Nelson. Yeah.
Commissioner is here.
Not signed in.
So, we'll proceed to the agenda.
The first order of business
is discussion of written public comment,
and then we'll move that to item two.
Since we do have some public comment, you may want to discuss it, but
I think it makes sense to do some context.
The special lots in this is the opening.
So that'll bring us to the first action item
with option of the meeting minutes from August 6th.
Those have been distributed.
Any comments, questions, discussion or revisions?
As to the August 6th minutes.
Hearing none,
I would entertain a motion to adopt the minutes.
So moved.
And seconded.
So I, I was muted.
I'll second the motion.
Okay. Moved by Commissioner Oz.
Second by the vice chair.
All in favor of any further discussion?
Hearing none.
All in favor, say I raise hand.
Opposed?
Say anything you
notice
those areas? Minutes are adopted.
The second action item is voting on the parameters
for the special election in district five next year.
Which we discussed at the last meeting.
We understand we solicited public comment,
and from various media groups and generally,
you received, I believe, three written responses.
Correct me if I'm wrong when you're correct.
Okay.
And I think that we can receive public comment
if there is any, regarding this issue at this time.
So anyone on the zoom platform or
in the seat in offices is present to share,
use of the parameters for the special election next year.
Specifically on the amount, and whether we should limit it
to just five or the citywide for multi doctors.
We welcome that coming out.
So I guess just like raise your hand in the platform and
let long medium.
Mr. Davis, his hand is raised.
Right now.
Okay. Thank you. Welcome. Appreciate.
Thank you.
So, as a former candidate, I want to weigh in on this.
I think that's watching away from 150
or limiting to district five only is a problem for a number of reasons.
The one is it's inequitable for candidates.
And access, relative to other years, which I don't really understand
why we want to do that.
To the point that a program is not just to enable, vouchers
to be allocated in your own district and across districts all the time.
In other, in other elections.
The point of the program is to make it easier for Seattleites,
particularly people who don't have the means to participate in elections.
There will be no additional limits preventing,
people of cash from doing this across district.
So I don't know why we would deferentially call people about vouchers here.
And it also has to make it easier
for folks who don't have a lot of access to means to run.
And this will substantially hamper, people who rely on vouchers to run
by taking, 6/7 of the population off the table.
I do not like the logic where it come from,
but I think it creates all of these perverse outcomes
and very much out against the grain of the point of the program.
And so it seems like a bad idea to make
any questions about to do that.
You know, the reasoning or anything else?
No, I mean, I think it is, it's worth pointing out here
because I think is responsive to your comment
that there is a bit of a catch 22
and that if you limit it to,
you have a $100, in voucher
standard way and you go citywide, it
it really limits in number of participants.
I believe that would mean that only 10% of the city residents could actually
provide their full vouchers.
Is that right, Wayne? Do I have that correct?
Yes, you do, because there's a limited amount of money,
of course, in total, so would represent the percentage.
It would not represent.
It would not reduce that the absolute number relative to other elections,
unless you reduce the cap itself,
because there's only so many people with $100 that can participate,
let's say the numbers 225,000.
And that was my that, that number is still true, right?
As a relative percentage in the case of this election, because,
the rest of the city isn't going to other, candidates, you get a lower percentage
if you start the same absolute number of people who are allowed to spend.
So I guess
if you're if you're as is every resident is created equal,
then better 2% of citywide and 13% of this district.
But, that is the that is the constraint
based on the overall funding for the program.
There will, of course, be a differential representation of district five,
just in virtue of the fact that any decent campaigner will be there on Morse
as well.
I agree.
Okay. And thank you, Mister Davis.
Any additional, public comment regarding
the special election policy boundaries,
miss Jane, opposed to your public comment?
Thank you, Miss Lindell Smith.
Are you not muted? But there you go. Great.
Take it away.
Perfect. Thank you so much.
I'm sorry.
First of all, can you hear us?
All. Yes.
Okay. Thank you.
So called commissioners.
Thank you for the opportunity.
Just in making this town announcement.
And I'm close.
You know, for elections. Washington.
So as an alliance of organizations focused on building, more representative,
inclusive and just democracy, we know that a local elections matter.
They're what decide the real issues we face in our neighborhoods
and communities, from the home
we live in to the busses we ride to the schools our children go to.
And so each one
and the district process of election is definitely no exception to this.
So as we talk about quarterly sales progress, the voucher program,
we know that what we're really discussing is how to ensure
that this election is as people, party and community life as possible.
So with this in mind, our coalition, including the Washington Community
Action Network, the Washington Bus, It's Democracy
First and more brings three recommendations.
So first, we hope to maintain program consistency
by keeping our model of four, three, $5 voters.
It's always confusion and continue to be serious for the program,
which is often misunderstood.
Or often folks are told using it or selling the policies of it.
Additionally, it will provide enough to allow candidates to run strong campaigns
while also providing that incentive for them to use and program.
Second, we do recommend distributing vouchers only to district five residents
because we believe that the people of district five should really be able
to choose and fund the council member who will represent them.
And there
we do urge you to invest strongly in community outreach, partnering with
trusted organizations to raise awareness and encourage use of those ideas.
This model is effective and addresses that often low reservation
rates, especially in D5.
That's something that really when our coalition
was having conversations and insistently came up,
people want our community outreach as trusted organizations, as partners,
and to see more ways that people can just increase the visibility
of the program in general, and especially for the success of our allies.
And so with those efforts, we hope that the first special election
in the history of this program
will be as successful as every other election has been.
So thanks for your time, and we look forward to continuing your.
Indiana.
Any additional public comment?
Or the offering or the time to discuss and?
So can you see the Miss Jenks has her hand
raised? Yes.
I would like to make some comment.
Can you hear me? Yes, yes, we can.
Please go ahead.
Hi, my name is Jenks.
I'm a resident of district five and the summer candidate for Seattle City Council.
I hope it's not too for secretary's for me to offer my opinions
and thoughts on the voucher program.
First, I want to thank you all for your work and your thoughtfulness.
As someone who was involved in the regarding the levy efforts.
I want to express my gratitude for its passing as well,
and also for the program itself.
Having used it, I am definitely a fan.
It led to a lot of connection with my neighbors.
Telegrams.
You receive vouchers from people across the city who supported the campaign
for a variety of reasons for a climate change, be it, you know, identity
based or, you know, a link to what I have to say for whatever reason.
And we would, you know, whoever is on that council does represent everyone
started to write my notes and pick up my daughter, and traffic was crazy.
So I'm a little bit out there, but I do want to speak to two parts.
One is limited to only $50 will make it really hard
to fund the campaign, so I hope we will keep to 100.
I've heard a variety of things here.
I don't know if that's still consideration, but, you know,
even if you get 10% of defined using the vouchers,
you will cause a real burden in the beginning to fund the campaign
and cause a real advantage to people who has means in other ways.
My concern around limiting to divides
is creating a donor class in the rest of the city,
and so there is no way that you will not have people reaching out
to the rest of the city.
I saw it in every single district.
And so I am worried that you will definitely have people
reaching out to people's names to do that initial funding for their campaign.
And finally, just as someone who lives in district size,
if you look
for second district lot, the time, you know,
this special election is a result of, you know,
having a council member resigning and then having a five year process,
which is through, and then having a special election.
And if we really want to keep vouchers to districts in 2027, we will have
district campaigns and try it out there, if that's really the purpose.
Doctors are not voters.
They are a means of funding the campaign.
And then I would prefer for it to be honored in that way,
because there's no way that people
from out of the district will not be given cash in this circumstance.
And then you will be making decisions.
Those are the people that have money to do so.
It just
feels like that might not be the purpose to the program.
I mean,
I hope that's helpful.
I respect any decision that you make.
You know, and I appreciate everyone's working on this and I appreciate it.
Conference. Do.
And I'm always available.
You know, if there's any questions
that folks have as well, I'm here to answer them.
You're muted,
Mr. Chairman. You.
Okay.
All right. It was like you in Yeah. Yeah.
I mean, okay, I think I figured it out.
I just want to make sure I understand your position.
So your fear is that by limiting
the boundaries to just the district, it would, create a disincentive
to participate in the maximize program
and thereby engender a donor class teaser phrase.
No, I think in the other districts, people will still contribute.
They will have all the reasons that they contributed in the past
to define elections and the way they do so would be via money.
And I just heard people get vouchers.
You know, the vast majority of my campaign was through vouchers.
And yes, possibility is.
One thing I do forget to mention is that, I understand
that the goal here is also to save costs for the program and reduce confusion
about receiving the voucher when you don't have an election.
Maybe something to consider is something similar
to the green card program, where someone requests their voucher
or they don't get mailed about your and can use replacement forms
as some middle ground, for not allowing.
Most of the city to become cash based.
For a city
council member or a political for the whole city.
But not mailing out to every single person and trying to save some.
Just as, mail is expensive.
Share or rename?
Do you have any feedback on that?
Alternative proposal.
And is this the only.
Or legality?
I, I think that legality might be
the first line I would go to, and I don't know what that answer is.
I don't know that we would have the ability to make
people have to call or somehow otherwise access us
when they don't have access to the, social media.
So, so for me, that would be an equity issue
to have it be only like on request for the city.
And that point I would rather sell to the entire city.
That would make me feel uncomfortable.
And I think it would be
more beneficial to folks who I said that are out at a farmer's market
or at the rail station there, you know, homebound, you know, and,
so that that's just my my response to this, my hybrid situation.
I appreciate looking at the administrator cost, but I think that
my concerns are would be.
Okay.
Thank you very much for your for your comment in this.
Several things to think about.
Any other public comments on the special election,
staff program?
Okay.
Not seeing any additional commenters.
Like I said, open it up now for discussion among commissioners.
I think it's actually before we go to the commissioners.
We have your recommendation memo.
Wayne. Last month.
I assume your views have not changed or I that they have at all.
Is there anything you'd like to have?
Or change about the staff's recommendations?
Oh, yeah.
No. I believe the staff recommendation remains to do $100 instead of 50.
I think that was something we kind of talked about and settled on 100 instead.
But to me, I do hear
Neelu and I do hear Ron, but I still think mailing just to D5
seems like it best serves the goals of the program,
which were to, like, put candidates in touch with voters and donors.
So that's to me like, those are the people you should be appealing to.
And like you're appealing to, like the owners of the entire city.
When only the people in your district will be voting.
I don't think that's necessarily the best answer.
Yeah, there remains our.
I don't think our proposal has changed.
Okay. So. Thanks.
Commissioners, I think we've done
15 minutes or so for the discussion.
We need to,
I can start
I mean, I think the consistent thing I've heard is, is the request or
the amount of analysis to be $100, which I agree with.
That would be
the indication,
that, it's not like, all the public comment that that's the desired outcome.
And I think that makes sense from a certain age.
And I think it's, number one, funding for things.
That's sort of the easier issue.
The second issue is that, you know, geographically where we're sending them.
I down the, side of the divide.
Are they from that sort of, more of the the or
you want to get their volunteers and I understand that
public comments about extending down to all
and on the, in the sort of in the sense that I would be involved with them,
you know, Mister Price is when the county
that's, you know, they call you 17.
But I didn't hear.
Yes. Motion was.
Yeah.
I, I agree with Commissioner Service.
I'm comfortable with raising the amount of faxes
allocated to $100
by percent, but would,
want the vouchers to be issued to folks in district five?
For the reasons Commissioner Sherman has articulated,
but also based on the feedback that we received from,
people and elections and various other community, the government groups
who really seem to believe that distributing the the voucher
to in the district, I would concentrate campaigning in the district
as opposed to requiring candidates to campaign outside of the district.
I understand that, the concerns raised could be concerns raised by Mr.
Davis in exchange.
But I also think you'll hear
their candidates or former candidates and the input that we've received
from the government groups for use is more persuasive overall.
And it's also consistent with how we've operated in kind of the intent
and how I think people perceive the voucher program as being a,
focusing or tied to elections
in, in a particular place, as opposed to everyone getting vouchers all the time.
I think we have a notice and responsibility in there.
Administer these funds wisely and free
reception of of judicious administration.
And for those reasons, I think it's important to restrict,
the voucher distribution to the district US.
Thank you.
Question and ask questions that
thank you.
I think there's a lot of,
extensive knowledge about it.
And I think that there are
hurdles,
I know that we apply for
those funds that.
And I also know that although it's true in our election
office, US districts practice that these
lots of ideas and practice
are more restrictive.
And so, this is something
we should have and others are generally.
All right.
Well, thank you, Kristen, but it seems like we have,
consensus at least among three of us.
I confess I'm a bit more
conflicted about district only versus city wide.
I don't think the democratic values are quite so clear
as some others have suggested.
I think that there is a clear difference between voting and entitlement
to vote and intervening dollars
or suppressive activity.
But I see no reason why we want to limit
the expressive activity of Seattleites
or not in this particular district,
but I'm persuaded ultimately
for two reasons, that we shouldn't limit it to district five residents.
In this particular case.
First is just the simple limitation of funding.
I think it would be unfortunate to restrict it
to 2% of citywide residents who could have their vouchers redeemed.
So the the budget constraints demand
that the district only from practical standpoint.
And I don't see any kind of creative way out of that.
And second,
I'm intrigued in
the possibility of a district only,
democracy voucher experiment
that may enable Wayne and Ray and their team to,
maybe fine tune some strategies
for enhancing participation.
In the program, like, and they plan to focus on one district
at a time rather than a citywide campaign, which is what we're used to.
So I think that, district only democracy
voucher, distribution
or this one time about kind of setting a precedent or,
an ironclad rule that this is our as the going forward
provides a really great opportunity at this inflection point in the program,
or it's been enthusiastically re-upped by voters, to figure out how
we can make it even better going into the next
decade or more, or more,
so that I
agree with my colleagues that we should limit it to just five,
and I think I agree the hundred dollars appropriate,
so with that, I think we can take a vote.
And we'll entertain a motion.
I'll make the motion to allow us to move
the five and $33.
Is there a second?
Seconded.
Okay.
Any further discussion on the motion to, circle
$100 in vouchers and limit the vouchers to district five only.
Can I just.
I have one breaking thing I want to say, which is that Renee just raised.
I think the memo does talk about you doing $250 vouchers instead of the 425.
And I'll kind of just talked about for 25, but we're talking about a race
which will likely adopt if we get if we attract ten people to this race,
that would be wonderful.
But I don't think right now that crowded field goal will be a one year
term election.
So it seems to give people four vouchers that they can give until like
at most like ten people.
Seems, jellybeans distributor's vouchers.
So give us the other and do vouchers to candidates across the city or citywide.
So I would recommend we just do for two vouchers
of 20 to $50 vouchers.
That was that is in the metro.
I'm just renewing.
Yeah.
I've never done $50 vouchers before or is always employed by
we did 220 fives in 2024
okay.
It was a special.
But I think it would rights.
For what it's worth I know for people intending to run already.
All right.
Well that's good.
We love democracy.
That's planning ahead.
Yes I see Hannah clapping.
So yes,
I just, I wonder, where are you announcing?
Are you suddenly announcing your own candidacy here?
I don't think we've ever had a candidate declared our intention to run in,
in a seat meeting for more than a month.
The new ground you are announcing here.
I don't know what RTW I can't hear.
It's the most effective form of campaign, but.
Okay. She says, no comment. So,
I don't have a problem.
Press, there's our vice chair.
Do you want to amend your, motion to specify,
as ever, $25 vouchers?
Sir, as
I have no further comments on the other measures.
No further comment.
Okay, so so,
so just to clarify, if your motion for $50 vouchers or $25.
Yes, I'll make a motion for that $50 vouchers,
that dollars and how to, of the existing fine.
Okay.
Is there a second?
Seconded.
Okay. Seconded by all.
Is any further discussion on the motion?
Okay.
All in favor, please say I raise your hand.
I although those was in everything in.
Any instances okay.
The motion carries.
So that's what we'll do.
Thank you very much to all our public commenters,
both in person or by zoom. And,
in writing,
appreciate hearing the community's, perspective,
even if it wasn't totally, lockstep consensus.
It's it's really valuable.
Your different views, and for my for me, it was definitely informed.
Other item.
When you get anything else
from us on that topic.
No, we don't, except.
Well, I guess
Rene just said, like,
the memo does cover a bunch of things, not just the value of the vouchers.
The the mailing thing, for example, is that the do we have your consent?
Is there support for all the items in the menu, in the menu?
Yeah, I didn't see any,
you know, particular controversy over mailing.
There's no I
so were there any other systemic issues?
The, the available program
fund limits is a required piece.
Yes, I have announced at some point.
So I just put all these things in there.
They read me and said, oh, I see okay.
I'm just looking at the actions. Yeah. Okay.
So mainly I think we have consensus on the mailing a,
the funds limit that we were assuming the $900,000 fund
let Oh, so we have a budgeted budget question.
You recommend 100,000 or so about the 20,000.
That seems reasonable to me.
I think then you're mostly dealing with action item number four, right?
So I don't know that it's necessary.
First, a vote on those more kind of administrative decisions.
But as you would feel more comfortable with, I was thinking about, yeah.
I if you expressed any misgivings about it or any reservations,
that would matter to me, but I don't it that so I think we will just receive
you'll know where we're going for the memo, but at.
Commissioners.
Any misgivings, concerns, thoughts?
You got?
Okay.
Marianne.
All right.
All right, so
I think we're moving to the Democracy Voucher Program report.
Yeah.
I just in general, are there any questions about information
provided and or, or how we're doing?
I do want to say that I did I updated the general and the general candidates.
Yesterday was the last day for vouchers to come into our office.
And, for those folks who did not make it on to the general.
So we let the primary candidates know, the September 2nd deadline,
doing those names from our portals, they can be selected.
And then we also have the primary
closeout deadline and
penalties for those and those September.
I'm adding to this chart.
The dates that folks are getting released
from the FCD and or the contribution limits.
So, so far we only have one candidate, in, council position
nine, that spent two weeks on the cap as well as the contribution limit.
Again, every single day.
So we're just over 3 million, so far, which is just over 30% of the moneys
that we have released, what we have held,
still good turnout in democracy
that you hours see towards the end of the cycle, we can look back at.
But this looks like four years ago and we just still 20, 21 was still a
interesting year for to look
at anything out in front, but, otherwise than that was returned by the district.
Okay.
There you can look and see the activity across the district,
and then we've got new outreach activities, to close out the summer.
Our community organizations will be closing out,
their efforts and abiding by the reports and so forth.
And then I think about, while same time will be building our key, throughout,
for request for proposals for the 2026,
like focused outreach in that area.
So that's what we have,
right?
For.
Great.
So I guess we're in a don't have a sense, in terms of funds
utilization at this point, I would start up,
against 2021
as an idea.
Okay.
We'll find out.
As you said, 21 is a different number. So,
All right, any questions or any.
Overnight,
as a district three resident, I want to know why we're so much better
than everyone else that got involved about the first
call.
You have to take us because I love district one.
And so
district three has.
This has a lot of activity.
I think if you look across the election,
this it's always an area that's got a lot of activity.
And two, obviously it's exciting because it's I don't know if you see.
Yeah.
Okay.
Went to the executive director office.
I do have I just have a request you, frankly, that you
every year the conference goes on, you know, it's
it's roughly it's in December and every year
I ask you for your permission to attend the conference, and I'm asking
that again this year.
Be sure and
be sitting at the Public Financing Administrator roundtable,
as well as participating in a forum on public
campaign finance and America's Next Top model.
So let's talking about like, the best ways to like metrics to judge public
financing programs by now, the advocating for the voucher program, obviously.
So we're asking for your permission again to go.
I think this year we'll be using my voucher funds.
I've discussed this with Rene.
So the general fund, the general fund is you know, it's just there's
there's basically a travel ban right now on city employees traveling.
So I'm able to use the voucher.
So because I have no reason it's not just nothing.
And when I'm there to be primarily focused on the voucher programs.
Yes, I think it seems like the related cost makes sense to me.
Where is the conference this year?
It's an Atlanta.
In December.
Okay.
Sounds it sounds good to me. All right.
Oh, the other thing is I didn't check in with the council
president's office again about a replacement commissioner short.
I didn't hear anything, so I'm not sure what over there.
I can't imagine they were keen on, like, replacing Commissioner Short.
I don't think that made that to the top of their to do list.
Understood.
Okay, well, thanks for that update as well.
I will continue to stay on.
Thank you.
Anything else from other commissioners?
Any other staff members?
I thank you very much.
Everyone. Enjoy our closing days of summer.
All right. Thank you very much.
Right there. I guess it on
to.