Okay.
Good afternoon.
And that feels unfair.
The commission will call this
October 1st regular meeting of the Ethics
and Elections Commission in order to welcome everyone
to this meeting in person and online.
We have a full agenda today.
We have received written public comments
on the adjudicated matter and the adjudicated appeal
that has been distributed to all commissioners.
But there's no need to read any of that into the record.
We have several final action items on the agenda.
The first action item is the appeal
from the dismissal of an ethics complaint
brought by Chapman and is Mr.
Chapman online.
Okay, I am
ready.
It's impossible
to move Mr.
Chapman's bubble, so that is not blocked by the textbook.
So it's very
skewed reports.
Great.
And what that is doing that
we I've been in communication with the parties
through the commission's counsel.
Gary Smith was also present today,
as well as with the executive director
and we'll proceed in this appeal.
We received written submissions by both parties.
We received an e-mail summary course of the executive
directors dismissal in this case
will allow the executive director
to add anything to his written dismissal by email.
No time limit on that for you.
Executive Director, but I don't think you need
to too long. All right.
And you may receive questions from commissioners as well.
And then each party will receive
15 minutes as the appellant, Mr.
Chapman, and preserve time for rebuttal
and then proceed to Mr.
Wong's representing the city.
Before we proceed any further, I just want to stay
on the record that
I offered to
recuse myself from this matter
based on a perceived conflict of interest.
The parties have been in communication about this
based on Mr.
Wong, who represents the mayor's office, his former
employment at my law firm, Pacifica Law Group,
as well as instrumental in my personal friendship.
Mr. Chapman was fully formed
that conflict and elected to waive it and consent to my
continuing to adjudicate this appeal.
Mr. CHAPMAN Can you just confirm that
that is still your intention on the record?
Yeah, it's
anything from give us form on that.
Mr. Deputy Director.
Okay, then we'll proceed.
When you take away as much time
as you need to learn to add anything for to say,
Thank you very much, Commissioners.
Thank to Mr. Chapman for filing this. Thank you, Mr. Wong.
This is a difficult case.
There's no way around it. It's just a difficult case.
As I wrote in my email to Mr.
Chapman when I dismissed this complaint.
I understand why he brought it.
I understand completely why he brought the case,
the necessary resources to promote
the claimants, especially when there's the election.
One of his life or about and trained
about extensively since he joined the commission
four years since working for Mr..
I trained extensively
and I always tell people
in my role as a trainer and advisor,
and I don't mean the same as during elections.
I think that very clearly he's going to do this
because it's not a good idea and we're likely to end up
in a hearing before the Commission like this.
So that is don't dramatically
increase the circulation of your newsletter,
Don't have more shows on the Seattle Channel, don't
do anything to increase your
outreach that you
haven't done already.
I always advise that that's impossible.
But on this appeal,
I am not here as an advisor or a trainer.
I'm here as someone who dismissed the complaint
under the elections code and is now defending it,
because I do not think it is more likely than not.
I can prove by a preponderance of the evidence
that the mayor's use of city resources
violated the elections code.
In making this decision, I'm going to make a decision.
And 20 years ago by this commission in the case
involving Mayor Nickels account for this document.
It was entitled Mayor Craig Nichols.
Three Years of Accomplishments
Making a Difference in People's Lives.
And it was an eight page document.
All of it points out when his successors in office
first thing opinion
joined by for the commission seven members does
is it says the purpose is to be check tested objective.
I'm not going to get into the state of mind of people
if we assume that,
like most elected officials, are going to have
a credible explanation for why they exist.
Resources to ability.
I cannot recall a single instance
where an elected official did not have
a credible explanation for their use of resources.
The second thing it says is, and this is not enough to ask
whether the use
is informative, informational or promotional,
because in a political environment
there's an
element to promotion intrinsic in the enterprise.
The question is whether it is primarily
the sign designed to influence the outcome of the election
or primarily designed to be information,
content and style was where
the Commission began its analysis.
The content and stop start with the document.
And also the phrase
you use here in the office is tone intended.
You do that in the document that matters.
Commission noted that the title of the document
was an everyday use because it's making a difference
in people's lives.
Close with a reference to the timing
of the conference document
saying that timing may cause the Commission to more readily
conclude primary source communication
through which
they are applying that decision to this matter.
I reviewed the Mayor's use of social media.
Ironically, I missed out on September 4th.
That's when my analysis happened.
So I'm not saying anything after it is not just
my analysis ended up in September 4th.
I know there are they are almost all by definition
about current events, the daily goings on, big
they playing, which is a partial birth.
And then we get some brown children's book opening in
the Central district circuit.
Those are all events
that are highlighted in the mayor's social media.
The only item for me on the other
side of the ledger is the timing.
It is.
And I don't I don't look dismissive.
It's not nothing.
But to me, it is not enough to overcome
the fact that I don't have it.
There's not enough evidence to establish the use
by members of the.
So thank you, Commissioners.
I look forward to continuing to question.
My only question is
I just want to clarify this ground
of the dismissal decision.
So SNC 2.04.070.
D specifies that the executive director
shall dismiss the complaint alleging a violation of this.
Chapter 2.04 or Chapter 2.061
Is he or she determines that all of the
alleged facts is true do not constitute a violation
or two if he or she determines after an investigation
that a
there's no reasonable grounds
to believe that a violation has occurred
or been violation was inadvertent and minor.
So my understanding
is that the director that you dismissed on ground
to say that you determined after your investigation
that there is no reasonable grounds
to believe that a violation has occurred.
Is that right?
That is.
Any other questions
from the commissioner's
and we'll proceed to the arguments of the parties.
Mr. Chapman, you have 15 minutes and told it.
Would you like to reserve any time for rebuttal?
Yeah, I will reserve some time.
How much time would you like to reserve?
I probably don't need more than about.
Let's go. 3 minutes.
Okay. So you'll have 7 minutes now.
And 8 minutes reserve for rebuttal again.
And whenever you're ready.
All right.
Thank you, Commissioner.
And to the executive director for taking up this matter.
I agree with the executive director that
this is an important matter to do.
Elections are important.
And preserving this by for the law
within the elections is a critical
in the in the dismissal and will be heard today.
The executive director said that the guidance is given
repeatedly is don't do new things during
the election season and guidance is,
I am presuming, based upon the election laws that
the mayor has objectively started.
A new thing during the election season, started.
And you took time
one week prior to the New
Year to be the primary.
Shortly after he received
bad news
for about his life
in terms of letting that person
to talk has been available since 2018, far in advance of
the mayor's incumbency position.
The mayor started an Instagram account account
at the start of his term
would have started a matter of Seattle
until the start of his term, and he chosen to use to talk.
To talk has been popular throughout this time.
I do understand that the specific
mayor of Seattle handles music by somebody else.
However, there's other options
that the mayor could have had for a year
and or two times
that he wanted to be able to talk.
Near the start of his term, as he was doing
the new
thing, he started in July of this year.
It was the City of Seattle account.
And as the analysis in
the documented provided shows
the city of Seattle the of tick tock
is not a mirror of the city of Seattle.
Instagram is not a city wide
focus is very clearly in the world.
So this
mayor's
Instagram account which he has had throughout,
he has not started a new thing
in election season, but his Instagram account
does serve to highlight what the mayor is doing,
the mayor's accomplishments
to talk about.
On the other hand,
because it is being used to highlight the mayor's office
is a new thing and in the elections
is trying to reach an audience
that he wasn't reaching before.
This information about his accomplishments is not.
This is the reason why that
election ethics guidelines
and that.
Mr. Chairman,
I just want to clarify one of the basis of your complaint.
He said it in emails,
but not all commissioners have been privy to those.
And I think it's clear from your submission.
But so
the focus of your complaint,
the sole focus of your complaint
is the mayor's office, the CMC battle tick tock account,
not the mayor's office Instagram account.
Is that correct?
Correct.
The the Mayor in the end of July of this year
started a new social media account
writing its own account
using the City of Seattle handle.
It ran in the city of Seattle.
Yeah it is.
That is the is the facts, not the Instagram account.
It's not
you know the existing city of Seattle Instagram account.
It's the new TikTok.
It is the fact that it is a branded, as you put it,
with the city of Seattle handle
a central factor And that is to say,
if it were labeled
the mayor of Seattle TikTok account
or the mayor Bruce
TikTok account, would we be here today
or would you still feel that it was ethically problematic?
Yes. While I feel that they
are ethically problematic in different ways
related but
if he had started a Mayor
Bruce Harrell TikTok account, you'd be creating a new thing
to promote what he's doing to a new audience.
That feels to me would be violating
the guidance that executive director has been given based
upon the law to candidates.
Don't start a new thing.
Don't start a new word communicating with voters
in the middle of an election.
I see.
So it's it's
both the timing of when this new medium was adopted,
as well as the label of it as the city of Seattle.
So let me ask you this.
What else have you talked? A lot.
So if if he had done it as mayor of Seattle,
it would be problematic because referring to
the fact that he's done it under the city of Seattle
feels to me to obfuscate the fact that this is actually an
area with
not a city of Seattle.
Okay.
Let me let me ask you hypothetical question, Mr.
Chairman.
If the mayor's office had started this account
and that content is, in fact, effectively identical,
he'd started it in
a year ago, in September of 2024,
and it was called the mayor.
Bruce kicked off the council.
Would we be here on your complaint today? No.
Similarly, if you created a TikTok
account, the city of Seattle that was mirroring
the city of Seattle, Instagram,
I wouldn't be here.
But this this account is labeled
City of Seattle, obviously stating the fact that it is
almost exclusively
mayor from Herald
rather than the mirror of this Instagram account,
which is from the City of Seattle Instagram account,
which is a much broader set of content
that is available on the account.
I understand that, but it sounds like that
your problem is not so much with the content
of the account, but because you just said that
if the set of the content were exactly the same,
but it had been started a year ago
that there would be no you have no problem with it.
So it's it's the timing and the label of it
in combination that seems to have
provoked the complaint is
if he had.
Yes, I think I think that's fair.
I can I can build that.
But I don't I don't think it's it's Yeah it's not
okay.
And I think that's an important
you know,
I'm not
indicating my view
one way or the other, but I think that's important
because it means that we don't really need
to delve deep into what this post or that post
says that is in consideration of the account as a whole
and the specific, the timing and the label of the account
that creates the ethical violation
or not that you understand.
Yeah, Yeah.
It's just to be clear again, like had the city of Seattle
used the city of Seattle to attack the account
sometime during this year,
and that account simply
was posting the same content that is available for
the City of Seattle.
Instagram accounts.
That feels to me to be a different time,
but that is not what has happened in this case.
The content in this case is the content of this
account is both not the same as the city of Seattle
is much more closely aligned
to the mayor of Seattle and see that.
And the timing of it
is such that it came one week
prior to
I don't know if that helps
clarify.
Yes, thank you.
You've answered my questions.
Letting other commissioners have any questions for Mr.
Chapman.
I think you have
9 minutes remaining for all.
And just
just to state, it looks like the camera has
Maybe because
we were spotlighting them.
Okay, We'll hear from the mayor's office now.
Mr. Wong, would you come to the table?
I think that's probably the best place for you to send.
Comfortable with that? Yes.
Thank you. You have 2 minutes.
Thank you, commissioners.
Appreciate the time here.
Greg Walden, general counsel for the mayor's office. Mr.
Harrell, in this hearing and our task here
today is that you affirm and uphold the dismissal
by the executive director, Barnett of the and just start.
I also want to bring
on something that I think everybody here
agrees is important, which is that we are holding
the ethical rules of our city and that it's obvious
that the first priority and the priority of us as a
an office is to make sure
that we are working within those rules
and we're very careful to not cross that line.
So that is a value.
Curtis Chapman Chair Executive Director One that
and I want to be clear that there
the mayor's office wants that as well.
The question before the commission is just
if Director Barnett's decision has a rational basis,
does it have a rational basis on the record?
And we are in support of the executive
Director Barnett's decision that it was rationally based.
And that's because the primary purpose of these videos
is informational.
And I thought it was an interesting question to ask
Mr. Phillips
about whether that content was temporary,
whether that would make a difference,
and seemed like there was
somewhat of a concession that it wasn't the words said,
it wasn't the types of things included in the video,
video, etc.
I guess that's at least my understanding what I heard.
And that is a little bit
indisputable because that's being quoted in
those is the city of Seattle.
These are the daily activities of the mayor
and the mayor's office that's being highlighted.
And it is, I will say, content is relevant
in this regard,
which is Mayor Carroll from day one of his administration
has been incredibly strong.
So his moral and
regular course of business is how he
sees consistently community events.
Some of the facts of the events
that were highlighted, like the big day of play
live in Times Square,
buildings or things, media centers, community assets.
These are things
that he has done in one way or another in the public eye.
Some from day one,
appears publicly, speaks to the city's people,
and that the public should publicly shows that.
It was interesting.
I was going back and I saw there is a Seattle Times
article
about his first hundred days in office,
and this is the very beginning of his term.
And it says that Carol said one of his first priorities
is using his people skills to reestablish the trust
and local
communities of those who felt affected by this.
In a lot of ways, he's been the promoter
for the city, its people, its communities, its investments.
All of that is ready for action.
And he's done.
And as I mentioned, probably he averages around 260
external community events
in addition to events, other opportunities.
So he's a very public mayor.
It's not sitting in city hall
just discussing policy with his executives.
He's out there in the community all the time.
So what's not new here is the public
that the mayor is a public figure
and as a very consistent public figure
to the people of Seattle, to the community.
And so that's what's not talk is new this year.
We agree with that.
But all the talk is is a new vehicle
for something that he's done on a consistent basis.
I will say, though, that there's an even though content
that hasn't been too much of issue,
I do think it makes a big difference here
in terms of the precedents
and the guidance from this commission.
You know,
the NICKELS newsletter that was discussed,
really touted first 90 minutes
in an effort to persuade people of a success.
I think that it was that it was
three years of accomplishments
making a difference in people's lives.
That's a
that's a fairly positive, persuasive sounding statement.
No matter how
you look at the content of Mayer's videos,
he's talking about these community events
and having them,
If you look at them carefully, you never hear them say,
I did this.
This is the result of mine.
So that's something that I think has some relevance here
in terms of the content, but also point to
when we talk
about advice and guidance, some of the public policy
at play for this commission, I quoted the city's
social media policy, which supports
an active use of social media to inform the public
of the work of the city to increase transparency.
And this commission's own advisory
specifically on social media for elected officials.
And I think that even that there's a lot of interesting
information in that advisory panel, all you did.
But the important part for me
is it's a lesson on what the official use of social media
plainly violates.
The elections code
or the advice content of this opinion.
The commission will not resolve those questions
regarding the application of elections code
to social media enforcement proceedings.
I don't think it's
a particularly close question, in my opinion.
Here.
Again, you've worked within the ethics
code on a regular basis, but to the extent
there's a question about that, that this commission
is going to will not result in an enforcement proceeding.
And the other thing that's interesting
in social media is that it's just evolving, right?
I mean, I think we all know,
looking back at the date of the Nichols
decision, I
it was 2006 and I think the iPhone
app introduced at that point.
So to me, more
communicator focus was you send out a newsletter,
maybe it was an email blast
at that time, but it wasn't social media.
As we know.
The staff in the communications
department in the mayor's
office is consistent with how we must reach this.
That is our main goal, is how do we best do that?
And it will evolve and it will change an in-house
course of this administration.
An insight into some of the work
we did to try to make the deal in the early
days of Seattle channel.
But Seattle channels are great,
but it wasn't quite as successful
as the things that we see now that the been of the in
an interesting way.
I thought in the advisory opinion, the fact that we felt
we focused on social media creating an open public forum.
So that's inherently different from a newsletter
that may say, look, point, accomplishments,
captive audience, tens of thousands of dollars, right?
We're creating a forum
where they're saying, this is what we're doing.
But then there are a lot of there'll be robust discussion.
I think that I tend to mention the negative comments,
and that's very true.
I left it neither sign up for including the criticism
and there is a moderation of
those comments on the mirrors to talk about
this robust discussion. For me there.
But then, you know,
I think he supports policies and, you know,
and I think that if you look at the comments,
you'll see that everyone's discussion is there.
And in the advisory opinion, that's
exactly the kind of behavior and a public square dialog
that we want encourages to see not just
a few additional
facts that I come to the brief,
the timing of this and the origin kicked off
was created this year in the mayor's office.
We've always used the most popular
social media platforms.
So I think that the beginning of the administration,
Instagram, Facebook and Twitter,
because those are the best ways to reach people,
that's not trying to persuade people
you want to magnify your audience because that's what
he's doing and then they can engage for less discussion.
Our delays have been primarily, honestly, internal.
Our communities have started already very well.
It sounds like it's been around since 2018.
I would say that
in official government kicked off has not really taken off.
It's starting to it's becoming
an emerging technology, which is great,
but it's not something that not everyone
council has done.
This is something that's starting to develop.
So we had some staffing issues that maybe some
of the training standards, new areas, those were resolved
and we were able to get things passing this year.
And I mentioned this and and it's a very real thing,
which is there's
actually a lot of federal insurgent corruption.
So when we have limited staff, we're looking at the federal
contract on.
And then, of course, following the news,
you have the president extended the use of TikTok.
It became more apparent that
it would be around the state in one way or another.
And there was numerous executive orders
that extended that.
But that uncertainty creates
a reason to say, okay, let's see how this plays out.
And that was actually discussed
at his party members and staff leaders in tech talk.
And we said, well, you know, I know this may not be around
for kids and resources and technology and these things.
So as
I said, there's
there's other departments are trying to look into this
and council members are saying this off the council.
This is in my mind all the time.
And the sole fact it was done 2025 is not sufficient
to show correlation.
And also
there was a mention of polling
and I saw that in the appellate brief.
But I'll just say that while I'm sure
that the issue of polling that had nothing to do
with this
to the mirror, to not to
practice is now pretty ticked off
after reading some sort of polling report
that, again, this has been a long process
and this was the end result of that process.
And so timing here is insufficient. If
I could just handle question as well, just an know. So
Richard Clarke
said, well, I'm should
that the mayor of Seattle which is consistent
the our peaceful Instagram handles
people I'm starting out as a member
I'm working one out and we're trying out
but when we went to the peak, now somebody else
that's certainly not the mayor of Seattle.
There had been a decision made, obviously
for small handles
like some city officials
have done that and then you can't
keep it on the post career.
And so we decided not to do that.
We wanted an official accounts
to keep this public forum forward.
And so we used that City of Seattle account.
This mayor's office
actually coordinates the city of Seattle, accounts
for the other social media platforms,
Facebook and Instagram.
So the fact the mayor's
office is involved in that is actually different
from those platforms.
And we have actually been soliciting content
from other departments.
Some of the posts on there are from other governments.
Every time there's a post from
let's say it's contact from Office
of Sustainability Environment,
that was one of the most recent posts.
Doesn't talk about the future of children here at all.
That's great.
But the merging of social media,
instead of
to kind of understand how to use and how to use it.
So that just takes time to grow.
And so that's opened the middle off here.
And I would say there's kind of a distinction
without a difference, whether it's
the city of Seattle and more than yourself,
you know, it's all fun for us. This is
from an ethics perspective.
These are all public assets
that we're using the public process.
And so that's what I mean.
So without
having to take any questions and thank you
for your consideration.
And just first, this commission to affirm
that factors that decision
that you just want.
I want you to something on page
four of your call it rape is the second sentence
of the first full paragraph for every ten times video
featuring the mayor.
The corresponding event
also appeared on mayors and other social media platforms,
and then it cites attachment.
A So I just want to confirm that what that means is
on the City of Seattle Tech talking down every post
that features the mayor, there is a corresponding post
on the mayor's Instagram account, for example.
That is correct at that attachment.
Maybe that was submitted
shows what all the other posts were.
There was one out of all the posts.
It's not.
And that was the policy that was not feasible,
which is not yet and it's not the main word.
So I see you may have posted it on their social media,
but every other one was posted on the mayor's official
mayor or at mayor of Seattle,
the Council of Correct Instagram account.
Yes. It looks
you have to go through and look at looks like
yes, it looks like there's
one on Facebook and Instagram.
I guess
it's just kind of ambiguous because it says Instagram
and the heading says other social media platforms,
but it's not specifying which Instagram account
I'm carrying.
I see that when we reference the Instagram
or Facebook or Axios or that name of Seattle.
Okay, so
and are the posts I know like with social media,
you can, for example, post something to Instagram
and also share it to Facebook simultaneously.
I'm not sure Tik Tok
has that capability where you can post something
on Instagram and also share it to Tik Tok.
Do you know whether that was the mechanism
by which the mayor's office generated those posts
are beyond my technical.
I apologize for that.
I will say, you know, there was
and we mentioned this in the break part.
This is is a media problem with the new media technology.
And you need some proficiency
in general that understand how it works. Right.
I'm not that technical person.
We did have a person who
is a younger, but let's say he's more versed
in that technology who was looking
at professional development opportunities.
And this was one of those that was given.
And so that was just
one of those background
that that
this was part of the process, not part of a
conscious decision after a certain point
in time of holding to do this.
And you mentioned the federal ban controversy
sale of TikTok.
Was there some particular event in that drama
that kind of led the office
to say, well, looks like tech off,
TikTok is here to stay, it's working investment, or was it
an iterative process?
It was more iterative because again, this is the
you know, it wasn't like there was one meeting
that says, should we do to talk about.
Right.
This is a team of staff who get together and say,
how are we working as a company?
How are you amplifying the message of the city
and the mayor in all these different ways?
And they're always
looking for different ways to do so as we all do our jobs
and so I think there was ongoing discussion,
as I mentioned, more than a year ago,
and I felt it should be kicked out.
They didn't ask me to do it.
And I was like, how else you do it?
This uncertainty.
I think that has the executive orders.
I think there was a series of them
from the administration that have been extended
to part in this whole reason. Tick tock.
Once it became pretty apparent that there was going to
be a beyond the city, do you want to
leave the sale?
I actually
just happened to know that was meant to happen. This
based on Mr.
Chapman's submissions writing this kind of said.
I mean,
I really don't think content content of the post
is fairly at issue at this point.
But since you raised content, I will I mean, I understand
your point that we don't have explicit
electioneering type of communications both for Main
or even kind of operating in sort of the Nicholls document.
But I mean,
you're not taking the position that only those types
of statements
could constitute the use of public facilities
for the primary purpose of dancing
and to discarding them.
But I do think, though it's relevant
in terms of the analysis that this commission has done,
I don't think that I think it's essentially
if you say the content is okay,
then all you're saying is literally
the timing cannot be anything new in election year
and that otherwise would be a violation of that.
And that was the executive director of ICE apparently
interjects.
And that's as a trainer,
as an adviser,
I'm not that is not meeting with my enforcement
head on as a trainer advisor.
I'm one of these people.
I don't want to be doing this stuff
and then drawing on the heat.
So I would much rather not be here.
So that's what it's about.
It's about like training.
People don't do these things in an election year.
It's just is it's smart decision.
Mr. Chapman is here with a criminal complaint and
honestly, the resources here to
consider to respond to that police.
So and I think it would be a departure from the law office
and the opinions of this commission to say the timing
of not meeting the election that raises voices
is a violation on its face.
I would be very different in this conference for
that also.
And again.
Question Is it really right?
Because what is the mean here?
He's just amplifying the public that he does
all of this work in the same communities.
He has done that since day one.
The standard topic that was created is kind of
I'll be honest, it's not a primary driver.
What we're trying to do, Right.
The point of content
is that if you're giving informational content,
I can see that.
And so it's like the driver there's always
we're going to talk about as well
in this promotion and airspaces everywhere on off.
That's just part of the office.
But I think that we need to really think about
is what's really that new thinking
because if he's already doing this,
the platform is already out there threatening people.
What is wrong with more people
caring about the things that are on them
and just going back to the election laws, Right.
You can't use it for campaign purposes.
Can't use it for the purposes of trying to persuade them
some content is offensive to which is,
I think, supported by this precedent.
So I don't know.
I would urge this commission not to go down the road of,
you know, what, the timing alone is sufficient.
I don't think it's within the walls of distance.
I understand your point,
but if you're not really looking at timing
and only time has to look at content.
So I posed two hypotheticals.
Mr. Chapman. I'll post one to you.
Imagine the mayor's office was a real leader in office up
until July of 25 at zero of social media
presence whatsoever,
and then BAM of a week before the primary kicked off.
Instagram, Facebook, Blue Sky.
What how
have you suddenly released
all these new accounts with all this new content?
The content is exactly the
same as what we see now, which, you know, again,
is not inherently problematic.
I think we all agree
that violation.
I think we're way into the hypothetical here.
That's not what happened, I think potentially.
But at the same time, I first ask what has been
the degree of public involvement and engagement
of elected official to date?
And is this just a new way of doing what already a new way
to some medium, what's already been done?
Because we've really got to look at
what's the impact on people
who are trying to influence people to vote for.
That is the violation.
It's not
that you use of technology, it's not that different
thinking about it.
So it could just be fitness machines.
A Well,
you get Craigslist a little bit more stuff, a lot of it.
And so you're fast.
I have a very skeptical
that there's a explanation that, you know,
but also don't think it's necessarily
a per se violation even to investigate
any other
questions or questions for what's wrong.
I think it's wrong.
Mr. Chapman, you have 9 minutes
remaining for rebuttal.
Thank you.
Spotlight Chapman as well.
Yeah. Sorry.
Just to make sure you can hear me.
We can hear you. Yeah. Okay. All right.
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
And is just the one that means that the media started,
as you would say, no,
you started this.
The highlight is the public at times
accomplishments to a new audience.
And then I want a response to your questions.
I might have been
perhaps less clear and concise and I should have been
content. Is it at issue here?
But it's not.
The only thing is this issue is the content in the timing
of of this account.
The delegation meeting is precisely that near here
as a project that we started of news that
to highlight his accomplishments to the city.
And this is done precisely what Mayor Nichols did.
He started
a new form of communication during election season.
The accomplishments,
the new attempt
is under the City of Seattle Handle
and it highlights predominantly
and in my analysis, 80% of the posts featured
Mayor Bruce Harrell.
While the City of Seattle account on Instagram
was dramatically less than
what is trained, etc.
So content is the issue.
This new account was created to highlight
Mayor Harrell's accomplishments.
Now, in his in his remarks, Mr.
Wong noted that there was
pushback in the comments under
and the executive director also noted this.
My hope is that the election was delivered to the Council.
Whether or not
this new mode of communication is effective or falls flat.
If you've broken the law, you've broken the law.
Even you have failed at achieving
increasing the number of voters
through that failed.
And I also appreciate Mr.
Ron Long has raised the nature of social media
is changing, and in his remarks
he referred to the fact that
back in the early part of the century
we had different
forms of communication, such as newsletters,
and is
that there is a comment in there
about what's more, as more people
are dealing with
Mayor Nichols was that he started a new thing to try
to get more people to hear about his accomplishments.
This, again, is precisely what Mayor Bruce Herald his job.
He started a new thing, a new TikTok account,
to highlight his accomplishments,
as you can see in the content on that account,
which is exclusively
highlighting Harrell's accomplishments
and not simply a mirror about
the existing City of Seattle Instagram account,
which does not almost exclusively highlight
America's health and health issues.
And also, I
want to say a few things about that on Twitter.
Tik Tok has been around for a while.
It has receded.
Americans Ferrell's term as mayor
has been massively popular for mayor of Disturbed,
became mayor, has been popular throughout
the uncertainty about is Tik Tok here?
Is there enough?
Has not been an issue until
the last
year.
This mayor who has been in office much past this
just this last year when it was the question
mayor could have related to his health
at the start of his term, just as the Instagram account.
Back then, Tik Tok already was passing
the a question about technical usage
of what many people who are on Tik Tok do,
who are on other social media as well, has been.
Video posted on Tik Tok was the exact same media file
to Instagram for all to you to work on to Facebook,
posting the exact same content
on multiple smartphones done by
many people every day.
Citizen.
There were comments that
yeah I think that I think but thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
I want to give you an opportunity to address
the the appellate standard here
which which frankly is very deferential
to the executive directors dismissal
the commission has to find
that is dismissal lacks any rational basis.
It's a high bar.
What do you think your best argument is for why
executive Director bar in his decision
was effectively irrational?
I do not believe
that his decision coheres with the facts of the case.
The facts are that there started a new thing.
The mayor, in starting that meeting said
use that new thing to highlight his public accounts.
And as you heard, Mr.
Wong agreed to that, that
throughout his term, Bruce Harrell has been
using his Instagram account to highlight
the things that he is doing in the city school that
we are
now seeing with this new thing to talk about that
the mayor is highlighting his accomplishments,
using that again
and again,
the analysis of the analysis shows that it is
his accomplishments,
not the city of Seattle that is being presented.
I think that the two of those
shows that the decision
was not to hear the facts of the case, which is new thing,
highlighting the mayor's accomplishment
in the middle of the election season,
timing of which
shortly before the primary,
where the mayor is
on the docket this.
Yeah,
I mean,
I think we're
also going to go back to the content,
which, you know,
I do think he's
effectively conceded that the content is not
what is problematic here.
But is it really fair to ask my question, Mr.
President?
And secondly, I asked my question and the
the the claim that
the posts are highlighting the mayor's accomplishments.
I certainly think that that is a fair characterization
of many of those on the take up the now
attending the superb statue on bail, for example.
I that's highly subversive almost that's not the mayor.
So what's your best example of a post that that highlights
explicitly the mayor's accomplishment.
So I just
just to clarify and then the context is that
I have not considered the content is not issue.
The content is not only
so social media
exists to promote
the person using social media in
the city of Seattle to take account
highlights.
The mayor is the mayor's face
on vast majority of the posts.
It's not the city of Seattle that comes.
It's the mayor of Seattle attending this thing.
It's the is the mayor of Seattle
making this proclamation.
That's his name near Seattle putting this with
it is putting the mayor
in the forefront of the city of Seattle.
Tell was created during an election year
shortly before the prime
because of that,
he is essentially advertising themselves
to the public using the city of Seattle.
So I think your point is
that it's focusing on the mayor himself
rather than the city government as a whole.
You see that that's not really the same
as focusing on the mayor's accomplishments.
It's not like the Nichols portfolio says, you know,
here's a highlight of all that we've accomplished.
It's you know,
I don't think any of the posts are saying,
here's what we achieved or we enacted this bill or we,
you know, created this initiative.
I mean, that would be a highlighting
his accomplishments. Right.
This is more just as you put it, it's focus.
Focus is on the mayor.
It is an advertising marketing.
This is this is the the the media
function of social media.
It is
I, I won't
read it.
I'm tempted to be here, but it functions
almost as if
a commercial for the mayor in the way
that you see the media going about his day.
We see the mayor engaging around the city
doing these things, which we should
rationally feel good about.
You know, the super
example. Right?
And it's been doing about feel good
motion that we have about this.
You heard with the mayor of the city, you know, have
which was created
in the middle of
an election cycle,
as the commissioner has.
As a question. Mr. Hodge, go ahead.
I do this Commissioner of
Mr. Chapman, appreciate your your commentary.
Just following up on this point
that we've been discussing with respect
to the mayor's accomplishments versus the city of Seattle
with homelessness altogether,
is it your position that the future of this paper
talking about
the city of Seattle take to look at that account
and assume that the events that are celebrated or noted
there are to be attributed to me or
yes when you when you
when you open the city of Seattle to talk to
what you are faced with is
from now after sundown.
This is the city itself.
And what you see is Mayor Bruce Harrell on this city as
you go an Instagram account, you see thumbnail of this
of a wide range of events.
You don't
see only New Yorkers here.
And you know what?
As the city itself will tell
you, should not be the dominant, the dominant subject
that was the other city experience was the other city.
So, you know, again, like
I am perhaps I'm putting a very fine point on it.
But this is not just about content
and it's not just about themselves.
It's the combination of the mayor.
Read a social media account is to take account using
the city of still and handle, and it features predominantly
the mayor.
And the mayor is doing this.
The mayor is accomplished.
You know, we should presume that when the mayor is at
a ribbon cutting for the city, that the new waterfront that
is part of the mayor's office, what he has done, he has
guided the
city in order to achieve this,
you know, the new waterfront, old.
Any other questions for Mr.
Chairman?
That concludes this appeal hearing
would like
to thank both parties for their arguments today
and for the executive director
for the summary and contributions.
It's important that we have public participation
in the process and that we that people like Mr.
Johnson step forward and submit complaints
to hold public officials
accountable when they believe that they are.
The Commission will go into a closed session
and to discuss it.
This adjudicated matter at the end of today's meeting.
I'd like to conclude the remainder of our
business on the agenda,
but everyone is free to remain
or to to leave and to confer.
We don't have much on the agenda.
So just briefly, we'll have
we have
the adoption of the September meeting minutes.
Is the only other action I have on the agenda
at all Commissioners.
And we'll head as any commissioner
not had an opportunity to review the meeting minutes.
Okay.
Here and done.
Is there a motion to approve the minutes?
yes, please.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith,
I'm just
sorry.
You're hard to hear.
It's urgent. You
must increase the volume, but
I better
try again.
That better?
A little bit. It's
just. Speak louder.
Just shout it out.
I you to know something and I can hear it.
Mr. Chairman. And Mr.
Wong wants to put on the record as well.
I refuse to myself because is the view.
Thank you, Mr. Smith.
I should have noted that beginning and Mr. Chapman's.
You have another question or comment
before we move on to other.
Yes. Yeah, just just an administrative one.
are totally appreciate that you will have the conversation
the discussion of this in executive session.
How will the decision be communicated
after about that is a good question.
I think there's a possibility that we will announce
the decision immediately after the closed session,
but there's also a possibility that you would have made
an issue, some sort of written announcement.
I submit an opinion
would accompany this decision would be appropriate.
But we certainly would not wait until, you know,
because it could take weeks to put together an opinion.
So it will either be
immediately after the closed session
will come back into the open session
to announce the decision
with an opinion to follow or will issue a short written
order in the next day or so.
Just like
any other questions so that
okay, is there a motion to approve
the September 18 minutes
of the Commission?
Thank you. Vice Chair Sherman.
Second
Seconded, Seconded
by Commissioner has any further discussion.
All in favor approving the means to say
I or your hands are opposed to say hers In
any abstentions, motion carries
on to our two discussion items.
The Democracy Voucher program Report from your name,
Commissioner Gates. yes.
One other question.
Now that
the first time, can we turn off whatever.
Say it you are to
nothing.
Anyone else on WebEx can see you just have audio.
I see
that it was just
maybe the Spotlight segment triggered that.
Has it been like that throughout the hearing?
It has a zero unable to hear to see Mr.
Wong.
We were we were not able to see Mr.
Wong and
that's unfortunate.
It would have been great if someone had let us know that
Mr. Hall was actually testing me at some point.
So I can do that.
I guess I'll give you this.
We're doing our best chap,
Mr. Chen, as well.
You see the screen now.
We cannot.
This was
important to the commissioners or anybody else
to be able to see us.
The next two items, probably more like one,
certainly for the deliberation in the process.
And it would be helpful.
Yes, sir.
Obviously that form or
fact.
There it is. Excellent.
Okay,
Rene. Yes.
Now that you
okay, so quick update us at the top table.
It's really just the candidates
and we are going to use.
Now, I did add a problem for folks
who had reached an item about the distribution.
It's actually outdated already.
So currently that both mayoral candidates
have reached their maximum distribution.
So you can do that on the website
portal.
So you will be actually users and decisions
also on candidate for city council site
has reached their maximum power distribution
as well as has been that no candidate
has been released from that NAACP
and the contribution there today.
So this is when we have a lot of activity going on
and campaigns need to see
it is time for them to get released or not.
So I'm invoicing update we are at about 30%
of what we can to least to them, ways to go.
We've had over 41,000 folks get their vouchers
as much as I believe I looked at four years ago in October
and we didn't have a meeting that there was a report
in October, but at a decent number and
over September
to that we're pretty long with
get that close to our users.
Great.
So then on the next
page is just the chart of where
the matches are coming from and what type of vouchers
are using.
The voucher percent.
You states for example, report is
looking at this seems
heading right to the electronic from
spending accounts and then is a separate outreach.
So our our research avenues are really on down
to 2025.
Our is also revenue accounts will be in final invoices
and reports from those community partners
and then staff be able to launch the 2026
outreach part
with lots of focus on 55
outreach.
So again, later this month we'll have of these session
with community partners that might have questions
about our due process and schedule
of our activities
leading up to
launch next year.
That's for
questions for any
and so
Executive Purpose report.
I have not done much since the last meeting in terms of
ongoing things.
So Commissioner Shorts openings remains open.
I didn't have any communication with
Council president since the last meeting about it.
I assume she's just you
and your your client were ended in January, Right.
We'll try to get going and your replacement when we have
the winner of the November election.
Okay.
Well, any other public items that any commissioner
like to raise before we enter a closed session
to discuss a quasi judicial matter?
Okay.
So I have just announced the formal announcement
for entering that position.
The commission will now be
convening in a closed session
for the purpose of deliberation
related to a quasi judicial matter.
We expect the closed session will last for
15 minutes and
we'll return to open session at five 2040.
And if we need more time, we'll come back and then say,
okay, we're
back in open session after our closed session
among just the commissioners and counsel to discuss a quasi
judicial matter.
The question in this appeal of the complaint brought by Mr.
Paul Chapman
involves the following.
The executive director dismissed
the complaint pursuant to SNC 2.04.070.
D, where the executive director concluded
after an investigation that there is no reasonable grounds
to believe that a violation has occurred.
And this appeal, pursuant to Commission
administrative rule for G
r jurisdiction, is to consider whether
the executive directors decision lacked a rational
basis.
So if you determine that the executive director
decision had a rational basis, you should vote to affirm.
And if you determine that the executive directors
dismissal lacked a rational basis,
you should vote to reverse or pull each of the five
non refused commissioners, beginning with the Vice-Chair
Vice Chair Sherman and you vote to affirm or
excuse me of the breakdown including Mr.
Chapman
back in about 42 seconds.
Okay,
then I'll
do that.
You'll
the next time the feeling.
Okay.
So welcome back.
As I just announced to apparently an empty
WebEx room,
we're back from a closed session
discussing this quasi judicial matter.
The commissioners have discussed the issues
and are now prepared to vote on the appeal of the issue.
And this appeal brought by
the complaint by Mr.
Paul Chapman.
Is it
the executive Director dismissal pursuant
to Seattle Municipal Code
2.0 41070d The executive director dismissed Mr.
Chapman's complaint because he determined that
after an investigation, there is no reasonable grounds
to believe that violation has occurred.
The Commission, in its appeal,
under the administrative rules for Point G,
our jurisdiction in reviewing this dismissal
is determined whether it lacks a rational basis.
Therefore, commissioners
are to vote to affirm if they conclude
that the decision has a rational basis
and they should go to the reverse
If they conclude that the executive
branch's dismissal lacks a rational basis,
we'll go and order
from the Vice chair
in the room and then on to the zoom of
the non abuse commissioners, Vice Chair Sherman,
to vote to affirm or reverse, either to affirm.
Commissioner Basile, how have you vote, affirm the reverse
and the vote from Commissioner Ford over to affirm
Commissioner office?
I go to affirm as well, and I also vote to affirm
we will issue a written opinion describing
the reasoning for the decision of the Commission,
and that will be issued forthwith, and that we urge.