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