>>> GOOD MORNING. THE PUBLIC SAFETY MEETING WILL COME TO ORDER. IT'S 9:34. JANUARY 14, 2025. I'M ROBERT KETTLE, CHAIR OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE. WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL ROLE? [ ROLL CALLED ] >> THERE ARE FIVE MEMBERS PRESENT. >> THANK YOU. IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, THE AGENDA WILL BE ADOPTED. HEARING AND SEEING NO OBJECTION, THE AGENDA IS ADOPTED. GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. APPRECIATE EVERYBODY BEING BACK FOR OUR FIRST COMMITTEE MEETING OF 2025. FOR THE CHAIR'S REPORT, I JUST WANTED TO START OFF WITH A COUPLE REMARKS ON A COUPLE OF ISSUES OR TOPICS, AND THEN TO THE TOPIC OF THE DAY. TODAY, I WANTED TO START WITH TRANSIT SECURITY. WHAT I WANTED TO DO WAS ASK FOR A MOMENT OF SILENCE FOR KING COUNTY METRO DRIVER SEAN YIN. OUR CONDOLENCES TO THE FAMILY, TO THE TRANSIT UNION ATU 587 LED BY PRESIDENT GREG WOODFILL, PLUS COMMUNITY MEMBERS PART OF HIS RIDERSHIP AND THE REGION. WITH THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR A MOMENT OF SILENCE. THANK YOU. I WANTED TO NOTE THAT T SECURITY REMAIN CENTER TO OUR EFFORTS BOTH IN THE GENERAL SENSE AND WHAT WE ARE LOOKING TO DO FOR OUR COMMUNITIES, OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, THE ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH THE TRANSIT SYSTEM WORKS, BUT ALSO SPECIFICALLY TO TRANSIT SECURITY ITSELF. SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE SEEN ON OUR CALLS FOR SUPPORT WORKING WITH KING COUNTY METRO, KING COUNTY SHERIFF LAST SUMMER AND ALSO IN OUR BUDGET FROM LAST FALL. WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK TRANSIT SECURITY DURING THE COURSE OF '25 WITH THE COMMITTEE MEETINGS BUT ALSO REACHING OUT TO THE STAKEHOLDERS, THOSE THAT ARE IN THIS WORLD TO ASSURE THEM THAT WE WILL DO WHAT WE CAN WORKING IN PARTNERSHIP WITH KING COUNTY AND SEPARATELY WITH OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AS WELL POTENTIALLY IN ORDER TO CREATE A BETTER, SAFER ENVIRONMENT FOR EVERYONE TO INCLUDE OUR BUS DRIVERS IN KING COUNTY METRO. SEPARATELY, TOO, AS YOU KNOW, LOS ANGELES IS GOING THROUGH A TERRIBLE DISASTROUS, CATASTROPHIC FIRE. OUR THOUGHTS ARE WITH OUR C OUNT COUNTER COUNTERPARTS IN L.A. COUNTY THERE WILL BE LESSONS TO LEARN. SOME MAY NOT APPLY TO US, BUT SOME WILL. WE SHOULD NOT HAVE A FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY BECAUSE IN THE BIG DARK IT RAINS OFTEN AND THE LIKE. I REMIND EVERYONE THAT WAS IT LAST YEAR OR THE YEAR BEFORE WE HAD A WILDFIRE IN THE OLYMPIC NATIONAL RAINFOREST. WITH CLIMATE CHANGE, WE'RE GOING TO BE INCREASINGLY AT RISK. SO IT'S EVEN MORE IMPORTANT TO TAKE THESE LESSONS LEARNED NOW SO WE CAN TAKE ACTIONS NOW. SO CLEARLY, PUBLIC SAFETY AND SPECIFICALLY EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS NEEDS TO BE CENTER OF OUR PLANNING EFFORTS. THE IDEA OF AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION IS WORTH A POUND OF CURE TOMORROW, AND IT NEEDS TO BE PART OF OUR PLANNING TO LOOK AT WHAT WE'RE DOING IN THE COUNCIL WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE ON A POSITIVE STEP FORWARD IN TERMS OF PLANNING TO BE POTENTIALLY READY FOR SOMETHING SIMILAR. IT ALSO HIGHLIGHTS, BY THE WAY, IF YOU LOOK AT THE REPORTS COMING OUT OF L.A. COUNTY, WE HAVE T■O DO JOB ONE, TOO IN TERMS OF TAKING CARE OF THE HEALTH OF OUR SYSTEM, PARTICULARLY IN TERMS OF IN THIS CASE, FIRE. WE NEED TO ENSURE THE MAINTENANCE IS DONE. I'VE BEEN TO THE FIRE GARAGE. I'M PROBABLY THE ONLY COUNCILMEMBER TO HAVE GONE. BUT THE ISSUES THAT RELATE TO THE FIRE GARAGE, THE MAINTENANCE OF THESE LADDER TRUCKS, THESE FIRE ENGINES AND EQUIPMENT ARE SO HUGE. THERE'S TRAINING. THEN ULTIMATELY, IT COMES DOWN TO THE PEOPLE. WE HAVE TO BE MINDFUL OF THE UP TEMPO IMPACTING OUR FIREFIGHTERS, OUR PARAMEDICS ACROSS THE BOARD. THESE ARE THINGS WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT NOW AND LOOK TO MAKE SOME LONG- TERM PLANNING DECISIONS SO THAT WE CAN PUT THAT ON A STRONGER FOOTING SO THAT IF WE DO GET SOMETHING LIKE WHAT'S HAPPENING TO L.A. NOW, THAT WE ARE IN A POSITION TO MITIGATE IT AND RESPOND QUICKER. AGAIN, OUR THOUGHTS ARE WITH OUR COUNTERPARTS IN L.A. COUNTY AND PROBABLY VENTURA COUNTY SOME OF THE OTHER AREAS AND THE COMMUNITIES WITHIN. TODAY, WE ARE LOOKING AT LESS LETHAL WEAPONS. THIS IS SOMETHING ONGOING AS PART OF THE CONSENT DECREE PROCESS FOR A WHILE. THERE'S BEEN COURT ACTIONS. THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSIONS LIKE IN THE FALL, THE MAYOR HAD HIS LETTER ON THIS TOPIC IN OCTOBER. WE HAD OUR FIRST MEETING IN DECEMBER ON LESS LETHAL WEAPONS. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE SOME MAIN THEMES. ONE IS THE RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY NEED TO BE PROTECTED. NON- VIOLENT PROTESTS. ONE OF THE THINGS NOTED IS THAT WE HAVE ALL TAKEN OATHS TO DEFEND THOSE RIGHTS HERE IN THE CITY, THE STATE AND THE FEDERAL. I'VE DONE IT MANY TIMES PREVIOUSLY DURING THE COURSE OF MY SERVICE IN THE MILITARY. SO THAT'S THE FRAME THAT WE SHOULD START WITH, IS THAT THE RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY NEED TO BE PROTECTED. ANOTHER THING THAT I THINK IN TERMS OF FRAMING AND UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE CANNOT LEGISLATE TO THE PERFECT SCENARIO. WE WILL NOT ALWAYS GET THE NOTICE OF A PROTEST TO INCLUDE THOSE THAT MAY BECOME VIOLENT, MAYBE A COUNTERPROTEST AS PART OF THAT. WE MAY NOT ALWAYS GET THAT NOTICE OF THAT COUNTERPROTEST. SCENARIOS CAN BE BORN OUT OF ACROSS THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM. SOMETIMES WE THINK FROM ONE PERSPECTIVE. WE NEED TO BE ON THE READY THAT THESE PROTESTS CAN COME FROM VARIOUS DIRECTIONS AND PERSPECTIVES. WE NEED TO ENSURE THAT -- WE NEED TO AVOID -- WE NEED TO BE READY TO RESPOND IN THE CASE OF VIOLENCE. HOW BEST TO RESPOND, PRACTICALLY MEANING UNDERSTANDING THE STRUCTURES THAT ARE SET AND CAPABLE TO RESPOND. THIS IS AN AREA WHERE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S SYSTEMS OPERATIONALLY, LIKE WITH SPD, WITH THE CHIEF OF POLICE WITH A DEPUTY WHO HAS THE EXPERIENCE AND BACKGROUND, OR THE ASSISTANT CHIEF WHO HAS THE MANY RESPONSIBILITIES FOR BEING INCIDENT COMMANDER IN ADDITION TO HAVING CAPTAINS IN THE PRECINCTS AND LIEUTENANTS THROUGHOUT THE 24 HOURS OF EACH DAY. I HIGHLIGHT THIS BECAUSE I HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE MAYOR AND OTHERS. I'M REMINDED THAT SOMETIMES THE MAYOR IS NOT HERE. LAST YEAR, THE MAYOR WAS IN KOREA. WHAT IS THE SYSTEMS THAT ARE THERE FROM THE MAYOR'S SIDE THAT MAY NOT EXIST WITH THE CHIEF OF POLICE? AS I NOTE, IF THE MAYOR IS IN KOREA NOT ABLE TO BE REACHED, ARE WE READY FOR THAT? ALSO, LEGISLATION AND POLICIES ARE IMPORTANT BUT CRUCIAL IS TRAINING. TRAINING AND TRAINING. FROM COMMAND AND CONTROL TO THE EMPLOYMENT OF LESS LETHAL WEAPONS, TRAINING AND ENSURING THAT THAT TRAINING IS OCCURRING IS KEY. THAT'S ANOTHER AREA OF FOCUS THAT NEEDS TO BE PART -- AS WE LOOK AT THIS TOPIC TO ENSURE THE PROPER USE OF LESS LETHAL WEAPONS. IN TERMS OF THOSE EMPLOYING IT BUT ALSO COMMAND AND CONTROL. FINALLY, THIS GOES TO THE TRAINING AND POLICIES POINTS, I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT OUR ACCOUNTABILITY PARTNERS ARE AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF OUR PUBLIC SAFETY TEAM AND THAT WE NEED TO SET THEM UP FOR SUCCESS RATHER THAN FAILURE. THE OIG, THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, WHICH IS MENTIONED IN THE LEGISLATION, OPA, OFFICE OF POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY, WHO HAS WRITTEN THE LETTER RELATED TO THIS LEGISLATION, AND ALSO AND IMPORTANTLY, THE POLICE COMMISSION WHO IS REPRESENTED TODAY WHO ALSO BOTH SENT A LETTER AND SOME PROPOSED EDITS OF THE LEGISLATION, AND I BRING UP CPC BECAUSE IT HAS A KEY ROLE IN TERMS OF ENGAGING WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ON POLICIES. THIS IS AN IMPORTANTIMPORTANT PIECE. I BRING THIS UP FOR PEOPLE TO THINK ABOUT AS WE LISTEN TO THE AMENDMENTS, AS WE LISTEN TO DIFFERENT POINTS THAT ARE MADE THAT THE COUNCIL CAN PUSH -- THE COMMITTEE AND COUNCIL CAN PUSH INTO THE POLICY PIECE, BUT MY FEAR IS THAT WE CROWD OUT THAT SPACE FOR THE CPC. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO GIVE THAT SPACE TO WORK POLICY ISSUES WITH THE CPC TO BE THAT VOICE AND TO BE THAT KIND OF GIVE AND TAKE FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, SO THEY HEAR FROM THE COMMUNITY, IN ADDITION TO WHAT WE DO AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE COMMUNITY. I SAY THAT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT. THIS COMES UP IN OTHER AREAS, TOO, IN TERMS OF SUPPORTING THE ACCOUNTABILITY PARTNERS. YOU WILL HEAR SOON ENOUGH ABOUT OTHER LEGISLATION THAT HELP THE OFFICE OF POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY. SOMETIMES BY ACCIDENT WE KIND OF TIED THEIR HANDS AND CREATED A SITUATION WHERE THEY CAN'T PERFORM TO THE BEST OF THEIR ABILITY. THIS KIND OF GOES TO THE IDEA THAT WE NEED TO BE SETTING UP OUR ACCOUNTABILITY PARTNERS FOR SUCCESS RATHER THAN FAILURE. SO WITH THAT, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THOSE NOTES AND SAY THOSE PIECES. IN TERMS OF FRAMING, TO HAVE THAT IN THE BACK OF YOUR MIND AS WE LISTEN TO THE COMMENTS FROM THOSE WHO ARE HERE TO SPEAK AND ALSO FROM MY COLLEAGUES AS WE MOVE FORWARD. THE NEXT THING THAT -- MOVING ON, NEXT THING IS THAT WE WILL NOW OPEN THE HYBRID PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. PUBLIC COMMENT SHOULD RELATE TO ITEMS ON TODAY'S AGENDA, WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE. ONE THING I WANTED TO BE -- CLERK, CONFIRM, HOW MANY DO WE HAVE TODAY IN. >> CURRENTLY, WE HAVE 13 IN- PERSON SPEAKERS AND 16 REMOTE SPEAKERS. >> EACH SPEAKER WILL HAVE ONE MINUTE. WE WILL START WITH THE IN-PERSON SPEAKERS. ONE OF THE THINGS I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT BY THE WAY AND SAY THIS AS THE CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE -- THIS HAS COME UP PREVIOUSLY. THIS IS A PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING, NOT A PUBLIC HEARING. NORMALLY, THIS 20 S -- WE WILL GO BEYOND THAT. I WANT TO SAY WE CANNOT GO FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THIS ROOM FOR THE ENTIRE DAY. WE HAVE A COUNCIL MEETING THIS AFTERNOON. THERE'S SOME PEOPLE -- PEOPLE LIKE TO EAT LUNCH AND THE LIKE. % WE WILL LOOK TO ENDEAVOR TO GET EVERYBODY THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK, WHICH I THINK TODAY WE WILL. WITH THAT, CLERK. >> THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD WILL BE MODERATED IN LOWING MANNER. IT'S UP TO 60 MINUTES. SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED IN THE ORDER IN WHICH THEY REGISTERED. SPEAKERS WILL HEAR A CHIME WHEN TEN SECONDS ARE LEFT OF THEIR TIME. SPEAKERS MIC'S WILL BE MUTED IF THEY DO NOT END THE COMMENTS WITHIN THE ALLOTTED TIME TO ALLOW US TO CALL ON THE NEXT SPEAKER. THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IS NOW OPEN AND WILL BEGIN WITH THE FIRST SPEAKER ON THE LIST. THE FIRST IN- PERSON SPEAKER IS GABRIEL JONES TO BE FOLLOWED BY JONATHAN -- I'M NOT SURE OF THE LAST NAME. IT STARTS WITH A T. I APOLOGIZE FOR THE READING. GABRIEL, GO AHEAD. >> GOOD MORNING. >> GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS GABRIEL JONES. I'M TALKING ABOUT LESS LETHAL OPTION. LET'S LOOK AT 2020. THERE WAS A $10 MILLION SETTLEMENT FOR POLICE BRUTALITY DURING THE PROTESTS. $30 MILLION TO FIGHT IT. THAT'S $40 MILLION TOTAL OUT OF THE BUDGET. FOR $40 MILLION, WE COULD OPEN 133 UNIT PROPERTY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR TEAR UP 20 BARRIERS. NO POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY LET POLICE LIE AND SAY THERE WERE ARMED PROUD BOYS WHEN THERE WERE. IT LET THEM ARREST JOURNALISTS FOR KEEPING PEOPLE SAFE AND INFORMED. NO POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY LED TO PEOPLE HAVING LIFE LONG INJURIES AND DYING. THERE ARE MEDICS WHO GO THROUGH TREATMENTS. THERE ARE INJURIES THAT AREN'T RIGHT THAT I SAW FIRSTHAND AS A MEDIC AND WAYS I'M NOT CHANGED FROM HAVING TO TRY TO KEEP PEOPLE SAFE EVERY DAY OUT THERE. INSTEAD TH ONCE AGAIN TO INSTEAD OF SEEING WHAT IS WRONG AND MAKING CHANGES WE GIVE COPS MORE MONEY AS CRIMES DON'T GO DOWN AND THINGS DON'T CHANGE. I PROMISE, WHAT YOU WILL SEE IF YOU UNBAN LESS LETHAL OPTIONS IS MORE MONEY THAT COULD GO TO THINGS WE NEED AND MORE PEOPLE INJURE AND MORE PEOPLE LEFT DISABLES. I NEED YOU TO MAKE A CHANGE. STAND UP FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY. I NEED YOU TO VOTE NO ON LESS LETHAL OPTIONS TO KEEP OUR CIVILIANS ALIVE. >> THANK YOU. PLEASE WHEN YOU HEAR THE CHIME, YOU HAVE TEN SECONDS REMAINING. >> JONATHAN, I'M GOING TO TRY -- TOLEDO, TOLEDA. NEXT UP IS VALLEY ERIE SCHLERDET. >> HELLO. MY NAME IS JONATHAN. I'M A MEMBER OF THE SEATTLE ALLIANCE AGAINST RACIST AND POLITICAL OPPRESSION. TO START OFF, I WANT TO SAY THE CONSENT DECREE IS ENDING. WE HAVE NOT SEEN PROOF THAT THE WAY THAT SPD CONDUCTS ITSELF HAS CHANGED. THE LAST TIME THE POLICE WERE GIVEN ACCESS TO THESE LESS THAN LETHAL WEAPONS IT RESULTED IN A $10 MILLION LAWSUIT, PAID FOR BY OUR TAX DOLLAR MONEY. THESE INJURIES SUSTAINED WERE AS FOLLOWS. FRACTURES, BLINDNESS, EVEN HEART ATTACKS. THIS IS NOT EVEN INCLUDING THE FACT THAT CHILDREN AND PREGNANT WOMEN WERE AMONG THESE CROWDS WHERE THEY FIRED WITH TEAR GAS, PEPPER BALLS AND BLAST BALLS. THE FACT THAT THIS IS EVEN A QUESTION AFTER SO MANY PEOPLE HAVE FACED GRIEVOUS HARM CALLS INTO QUESTION WHETHER THIS COUNCIL CARES ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY OR WHERE OUR TAX AND CITY FUNDS ARE GOING. >> THANK YOU. >> GOOD MORNING. >> HI. AFTER 12 YEARS, LET'S NOT SACRIFICE FREE SPEECH AND HUMAN RIGHTS JUST TO EXIT THE CONSENT DECREE IN A HURRY. THE JUDGE TOLD THE CITY TO GET THE CROWD CONTROL POLICIES IN COMPLIANCE, BUT HE ALSO SAID HE STILL HAS CONCERNS ABOUT OUR POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY. THE BILL YOU ARE DISCUSSING TODAY IS TOO VAGUE TO HOLD OFFICERS ACCOUNTABLE WHEN THEY USE WEAPONS THAT BLOW HOLES IN FLESH, DAMAGE HEARING AND EYESIGHT OR CAUSE HEART ATTACKS. FOUR YEARS LATER, THERE'S BEEN NO REAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SPD'S MOST HARMFUL POLICING OF THE GEORGE FLOYD PROTESTS OF 2020. DAMAGE SETTLEMENTS PAID BY THE TAXPAYER ARE ONLY SOME COMPENSATION. THEY ARE NOT JUSTICE. SOME PROPONENTS ASSERT WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH A PUBLIC RECKONING IN THE CITY. IN FACT, THE REVIEW GATHERED A PANEL OF POLICE AND CITY WITH FEW COMMUNITY AND DESIRE ZERO PROTESTERS. HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT POLICE CONDUCT AT DEMONSTRATIONS. >> THANK YOU. >> NEXT WE HAVE LINDSEY BURGESS TO BE FOLLOWED BY KOMAS HOMADEY. >> HELLO. I'M HERE TO OPPOSE THE USE OF LESS THAN LETHAL WEAPONS BY POLICE. THE POTENTIAL FOR HARM, MISUSE AND IMPACT ON PUBLIC TRUST ARE KEY REASONS I'M AGAINST THE USE. THIS VOTE SHOULD BE POSTPONED AND THERE SHOULD BE A PUBLIC HEARING TO INCREASE TRANSPARENCY. THERE'S RISK OF DEATH AND SERIOUS INJURY DESPITE BEING LABELED LESS THAN LETHAL. FOR EXAMPLE, THE BLAST BALLS RELEASE CHEMICAL IRIRRITANTS, INCREASING RISK TO PROTESTERS. THESE AFFECT EVERYONE IN THE VICINITY, INCLUDING PEOPLE IN THEIR OWN HOMES. I MYSELF WAS SUBJECT TO RESPIRATORY DISTRESS ON MY 8th FLOOR APARTMENT DURING 2020 WITH MY WINDOWS CLOSED. THESE WEAPONS CAN INFRINGE ON THE INDIVIDUAL'S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND FREE ASSEMBLY. THERE CAN BE A LACK OF TRAINING FOR THE POLICE OFFICERS THAT USE THEM. THEY MIGHT USE THEM IN -- ARE LIKELY TO USE THEM UNNECESSARILY. THEY CAN LEAD TO LONG- TERM HARM WITHIN THE COMMUNITY FACING INEQUALITIES. WE NEED TO -- SORRY. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> GO AHEAD. >> GOOD MORNING. I'M A PRIVATE CITIZEN IN DISTRICT FIVE. I APPRECIATE THE COUNCIL AND STAFF'S WORK TO CODIFY THE PROHIBITION OF USE OF LESS LETHAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE CITIZENS OF SEATTLE. HOWEVER, I HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THE LACK OF CLARITY ON THE SPECIFIC TYPES OF SCENARIOS THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR AN EXCEPTION OF THE BAN TO BE USED BY THE SO- CALLED LESS LETHAL WEAPONS BY SPD. FROM HOW I HAVE READ THE BILL, IT LACKS EXAMPLES THAT WOULD LEAD TO THE EXCEPTIONS OF THE BAN CLAIMED BY SPD OFFICERS AND SUPERVISORS. WITH THE LAW AS MINUTE, PERMIT THE CHAOS THAT WAS ESCALATED TO OCCUR AGAIN DURING A FUTURE PROTEST AGAINST THE INCOMING FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION. I BELIEVE IT WOULD ALLOW FOR SUCH AN EVENT THAT OCCURRED ON CAPITOL HILL ALL OVER AGAIN WHICH LED TO 13,000 CITIZEN COMPLAINTS AND A $10 MILLION SETTLEMENT AFTER A LEGAL BATTLE WITH THE CITY. I IMPLORE YOU TO TURN THIS OVER TO MORE PUBLIC INPUT AND ENSURE THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY HAVE MORE TIME TO GIVE INPUT ON THIS SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN LEGISLATION. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> NEXT UP WE HAVE RICKY KOHL TO BE FOLLOWED BY HOWARD GALE. HOWARD GALE. TO BE FOLLOWED BY CRYSTAL SNOW. >> GOOD MORNING, HOWARD. >> GOOD MORNING. THE CROWD CONTROL LEGISLATION BEFORE YOU TODAY IS SEVERELY FLAW AND MUST BE PUT ON HOLD TO HEAR FROM THOSE MOST AT RISK AND EXPERTISE AND HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE OF PAST PRACTICES. THE THIS IS SUGGESTIVE AS FOR "WHEN FEASIBLE" ALLOWS POLICE TO IGNORE CONSTRAINTS. NOTHING WRONG WITH ASPIRATIONS, BUT WHEN THESE HAVE BEEN PART OF POLICE POLICY FOR DECADES, IT SEEMS ABSURD TO THINK REWARDING THEM IS GOING TO BRING ABOUT A BETTER RESULT. COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE, YOU TALK ABOUT TRAINING. TRAINING WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY IS WORTHLESS. WE HAVE NO ACCOUNTABILITY FROM 2020. LASTLY, COMMUNITY POLICE COMMISSION HAS BECOME IN THE LAST TEN YEARS THE COMMISSION THAT POLICES THE COMMUNITY. IT IS ONE OF THE ONLY COMMISSIONS THAT DOES NOT ALLOW PUBLIC COMMENT. NOT A SINGLE MEMBER OF THE CPC HAS EVER BEEN HARMED IN A DEMONSTRATION. IT'S ABSURD TO THINK THAT THE CPC IS GOING TO REPRESENT THE COMMUNITY. WE NEED A FULL PUBLIC HEARING. NOT A RUSH TO JUDGMENT. LAST, LET ME SAY, 650 WEEKS OF THE CONSENT DECREE. WHAT IS A FEW MORE WEEKS GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE JUDGE USUALLY RULES IN THE SUMMER OR FALL? WE CAN TAKE TIME ON THIS. >> THANK YOU. >> NEXT UP, CRYSTAL SNOW FOLLOWED BY MAX DOGGETT. >> I'M CRYSTAL SNOW, DISTRICT THREE. SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL HAS AN OBLIGATION TO OBJECT THE LEGISLATION TO ALLOW SPD ACCESS TO CROWD CONTROL WEAPONS. THE PROPOSAL TO MILITARIZE OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT FOLLOWS AN INTERNATIONAL TREND OF STATE BRUTALITY INSTEAD OF OFFERING CITIZEN SUPPORT IN THE WAKE OF INCREASING RACISM, HOMOPHOBIA AND DEPORTATION SEATTLE WOULD JOIN IN ON THIS TREND. INSTEAD, CONSIDER THE I'LL ALTERNATIVE. CARE FOR CITIZENS WILL REDUCE UNREST. SPEND THIS MONEY ON SERVICES. EDUCATION, HEALTH CARE, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, ACTUAL TRAINING WITH ACCOUNTABILITY AND AS COUNCILMAN KETTLE SAID, CITY INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE WAKE OF CLIMATE CHANGE. SERVE THE PEOPLE YOU CLAIM TO REPRESENT. ALLOW US TO -- ALLOW THE CITY THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AND VOTE NO ON ARMING SPD WITH LESS LETHAL WEAPONS. I EMPHASIZE WEAPONS. >> THANK YOU. >> MAX AND FOLLOWED BY SEAN ISHAM. >> I'M HERE THIS MORNING TO ASK THAT YOU PLEASE NOT AUTHORIZE THE INCREASE IN THE USE OF MORE TOOLS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST ME AND MY FAMILY, MY COMMUNITY, MY CHILDREN. FOR OUR MILITARIZED POLICE FORCE, IT SEEMS SURREAL THAT I WOULD HAVE TO EVEN COME AND ASK YOU ALL THIS. FOR ALL OF THE VICTIMS OF THE MILITARIZED SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, I'D LIKE TO ASK US FOR A MOMENT OF SILENCE. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU TO WHAT I BELIEVE IS A CLASS OF STUDENTS THAT CAME AND VISITED. ARE YOU THE TEACHER? THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING. GOOD DAY TO COME. IMPORTANT TOPIC. DEMOCRACY IN ACTION. >> NEXT UP -- >> WHAT GRADE? >> 11th AND 12th GRADERS. >> WHICH SCHOOL? >> UNIVERSITY PREP. THANK YOU ALL. >> WE HAVE A UNIVERSITY PREP ALUM? >> NO. SEATTLE PREP. >> SEAN TO BE FOLLOWED BY GREG DAVERNA. >> GO AHEAD. >> I AM FROM DISTRICT ONE. I AM HERE TO TALK ABOUT CB120916. IT'S NICE TO SEE MORE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AT THIS PARTICULAR MEETING VERSUS THE LAST PUBLIC COMMENT. I CAN SEE WHY THIS IS BEING RUSHED FORWARD SO QUICKLY. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HEALTH÷÷ AND SAFETY AND WELL- BEING OF THE CITIZENS OF THIS CITY OF OUR CITY, OF YOUR CITY. WHAT YOU ARE PRIORITIZING NOW IS HARMFUL WEAPONS TO A GROUP THAT HAS A LONG HISTORY OF ABUSING THEM ON YOUR CITIZENS. THIS IS BEING SWEPT UNDER THE RUG AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE AND WILL BE USED TO SUPPRESS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. I YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> GREG, FOLLOWED BY DANIEL GRIMALDI. >> GOOD MORNING. $385 MILLION IS THE EXPECTED POLICE BUDGET THIS YEAR. $10 MILLION MORE THAN LAST YEAR AND $20 MILLION MORE THAN THE YEAR BEFORE. WHILE WE THE WORKING CLASS GET CUTS TO OUR SCHOOLS, RENTAL SERVICE PROGRAMS, FOOD PROGRAMS. MAYBE WITH THE EXTRA BUDGET, THE SPD CAN CONTINUE TO PAY OUT $10 MILLION LAWSUITS TO THOSE HIT WITH RUBBER BULLETS AND IT'S GAS. A YEAR IN WHICH WE SAW AN 18% IN HOMELESSNESS IN THIS CITY. WE ALL GET TO TAKE PRECIOUS TIME OUT OF OUR DAY TO COME OUT HERE AND DEBATE WHETHER THE POLICE CAN CONTINUE TO ASSAULT THE WORKING PEOPLE OF THIS CITY. HAVE WE STOPPED TO CONSIDER THAT MAYBE THOSE EXERCISING THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS ARE SCREAMING OUT, DO BETTER? WE DESERVE HEALTH CARE. WE DESERVE HOUSING. WE ARE TIRED OF OUR COUNTRY'S PROTECTION AND FUNDING OF A GENOCIDE WHEN IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO LIVE IN THE CITY AS RENTS CLIMB, AS GROCERY BILLS CLIMB. WE HAVE AN INCOMING INAUGURATION PROPOSING SOME OF THE LARGEST TAX CUTS TO THE RICH AND MASS DEPORTATIONS WE HAVE SEEN. THE PEOPLE ARE SCREAMING OUT. THE CITY IS DEBATING WHETHER TO BEAT THEM INTO SUBMISSION. >> THANK YOU. >> NEXT UP, DANIEL TO BE FOLLOWED BY KURI WHITE. >> THIS ATTEMPT TO REINSTATE THE SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S USE OF SO- ED NON-- LETHAL WEAPONS IS AN ATTEMPT TO REPEAL REFORMS TO THE WORKING PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY. FRANKLY, IT COMES AS NO SURPRISE BECAUSE IT HAPPENS NO MATTER WHO IS IN CHARGE, WHAT PARTY YOU ARE AFFILIATED TO. IT HAPPENS OVER AND OVER AGAIN. WE UNDERSTAND THIS BECAUSE THESE REFORMS WERE MADE FROM A MILITANT AND VALIANT PROTEST MOVEMENT OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS CITY. ALL WHILE THE CONDITIONS OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY WORSEN HOMELESSNESS RISES, INFLATION RISES, WAGES STAGNATE. WE KNOW WHEN TRUMP COMES IN, HE IS GOING TO WORSEN THESE CONDITIONS. IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS A SITUATION IN WHICH Y'ALL ARE PREPARING FOR. IT'S SURPRISING THAT THIS IS THE GO TO. >> THANK YOU. >> NEXT UP IS KURI. OUR LAST IN-PERSON SPEAKER IS KAT MUNSON. >> HI. I JUST WANT TO ANNOUNCE THAT FOR 23 YEARS I WAS A JUVENILE CORRECTION OFFICER. I'M GOING TO SPEAK TO THE MENTALITY OF THE POLICE THAT I DEALT WITH EVERY DAY I WORKED IN INTAKE. SO I HAD TO WORK WITH THE POLICE. THE WORSE DAYS I HAD WITH THE POLICE WERE THE DAYS WHEN THEY WERE TRAINING SOMEONE, BECAUSE THEY WOULD PUT UP THEIR CHEST AND THEY WOULD BE MACHO AND TREAT THE KIDS WITH LESS RESPECT WHEN THEY ARE TRAINING. THE SEATTLE HAS A DIFFICULT TIME WITH TRAINING. THEY CAN'T EVEN SEEM TO GET A DECENT CHIEF OF POLICE. FROM WHAT WE HAVE SEEN, FROM WHAT I DEALT WITH, TRAINING IS NOT WORKING. IT SCARES S A SENIOR CITIZEN LIKE ME THAT WANTS TO GO OUT TO A PEACEFUL RALLY, PROTEST. AND FOR CHILDREN AND FOR ME THAT HAS A SERVICE DOG. THAT RIGHT SHOULDN'T BE TAKEN AWAY BECAUSE POLICE DEPARTMENTS CANNOT TRAIN TO NOT KILL AND INJURE PEOPLE. WE GIVE THEM THE WEAPONS. YOU WANT TO GIVE THEM THE WEAPONS TO DO IT. >> THANK YOU. >> OUR LAST IN-PERSON SPEAKER IS KAT MUNSON. >> GOOD MORNING. I'M THE POLICY AND ADVOCACY MEMBER FOR REAL CHANGE. AS I WAS READING THROUGH THE AMENDMENTS, I WAS STRUCK THAT THE PARSING OF HOW, WHEN AND UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS THESE DANGEROUS CROWD CONTROL MEASURES CAN BE USED IS NOT A DISCUSSION THAT CENTERS PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY. ANY GROUP OF PASSIONATE PROTESTERS WILL GOING FORWARD BE PAINTED AS CHAOTIC. EACH AMENDMENT OUTLINES EXCEPTIONS THAT ARE PROVIDING JUSTIFICATION FOR SPD'S USE OF WEAPONS. LET'S BE CLEAR, ANY AND ALL OF THE CROWD CONTROL MEASURES ARE WEAPONS. WEAPONS ARE DESIGNED TO THREATEN AND OPPRESS THOSE WITHOUT INSTITUTIONAL POWER. THEY HAVE NO PLACE IN A PUBLIC PROTEST. YOU HAVE HEARD THE HARMFUL POWER OF THESE LESS LETHAL MEASURES. I CANNOT IMAGINE ANY CITIZEN WHO HAS SUFFERED A CARDIAC ARREST AS A RESULT OF BEING HIT BY A BLAST BALL WOULD CATEGORIZE THEM AS SUCH. IF THE CITY COUNCIL PUT A FRACTION OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCE INTO PROTECTING THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF OUR UNHOUSED NEIGHBORS, FORCED TO SLEEP ON DOWN DOWNTOWN STREETS EVERY NIGHT, WE WOULD BE MUCH CLOSER TO THE SEATTLE THAT OUR MOST VULNERABLE IES DESERVE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. OUR FIRST ONLINE COMMENTER IS M.J. JURGENSON. PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX WHEN YOU HAVE HEARD THE PROMPT, YOU HAVE BEEN UNMUTED. >> GOOD MORNING. I'M THE DIRECTOR OF THE GREENWOOD SENIOR CENTER. I'M ONE OF THE PROTESTERS WHO CAME TO THE STREETS IN 2020 TO CONFRONT POLICE BRUTALITY. I BECAME ONE OF THE 50 PLAINTIFFS WHO BROUGHT A LAWSUIT BEFORE THE CITY. IN THE SUMMER OF 2020, I WAS TARGETED WITH AN EXPLOSIVE THAT BLEW UP AGAINST MY LEFT THIGH. THE EXPLOSIVE, WHICH WE CAN ASSUME WAS A BLAST BALL, SHATTERED THE CHAPSTICK IN MY POCKET AND GAVE ME A BRUISE OF SIZE OF MY LEFT QUAD. IT WAS THE LEAD ST OF MY FELLOW PROTESTERS. WE CAME TO PROTEST POLICE BRUTALITY. I ASK THE COUNCIL TO TAKE THESE ACCOUNTS INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN REFLECTING ON WHAT IT MEANS FOR A POLICE DEPARTMENT TO PROTECT AND SERVE THE PEOPLE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. THE NEXT REMOTE SPEAKER IS HANNAH JONESJONES BE FOLLOWED BY LENNON BROOKS. >> HI. MY NAME IS HANNAH JONES. I LIVE IN CROWN HILL. I'M SPEAKING TODAY TO URGE YOU TO OPPOSE THE USE OF, QUOTE, LESS LETHAL WEAPONS. THIS ORDINANCE WILL ALLOW VIOLENCE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGAINST PROTESTERS AND CHILL THE FREE SPEECH OF PEACEFUL PROTESTERS. BY REPEALING THE BANS ON MANY OF THE, QUOTE, LESS LETHAL WEAPONS, THAT WERE USED, WE'RE GOING BACK TO THE PROTESTS OF 2020 FOR RACIAL JUSTICE WHEN SPD PEPPER SPRAYED ROUNDS AND UNLOADED RUBBER BULLETS CAUSING INJURIES TO PEACEFUL PROTESTERS, EXERCISING THEIR FREE SPEECH RIGHTS. I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND YOU THAT THIS COST THE CITY $10 MILLION IN LAWSUITS. PROTESTER RESPOND AND LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE SEATTLE POLICE OFFICERS REMAIN THE REASON THAT THE SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS UNDER THE CONSENT DECREE. GIVING SPD DISCRETION TO DETERMINE WHAT CONSTITUTES A THREAT TO ESCALATE TENSIONS DURING PROTESTS AND FAILING TO HAVE MEANINGFUL ACCOUNTABILITY TO HOLD OFFICERS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS IS A RECIPE FOR DISASTER. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> NEXT UP, WE HAVE LENNON BROOKS TO BE FOLLOWED BY SUE HAHN. >> GOOD MORNING. I LIVE IN WEST SEATTLE. I'M CALLING IN BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE SPD SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO USE BLAST BALLS, RUBBER BULLETS AND PEPPER SPRAY AGAINST MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. WE ALL KNOW THE REPRESENTATION OF SPD. THE LARGEST KNOWN CONTINGENT OF COPS AT THE JANUARY 6th INSURRECTION. THE SPD PROVED IN 2020 THEY CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO PROTECT THE FREE SPEECH OF THE PEOPLE AS THEY USED THEIR LESS LETHAL WEAPONS AGAINST PEACEFUL PROTESTERS. THESE LESS LETHAL WEAPONS CAN INFLICT LIFE- LONG INJURIES AND IT'S UNACCEPTABLE FOR OUR TAX DOLLARS TO BE USED TO INFLICT SUCH HARM ON OUR COMMUNITY. WE LIVE IN UNSTABLE TIMES AND THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE PROTESTS IN THE FUTURE. I IMPLORE YOU TO PROTECT OUR RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH AND OPPOSE THE USE OF THESE WEAPONS. YOU HAVE A MORAL AND ETHICAL OBLIGATION TOWARDS US. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. NEXT UP WE HAVE SUE HAHN FOLLOWED BY MATTHEW OFFENBACHER. >> I'M A SECOND YEAR LAW STUDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON AND RESIDENT OF D3. I'M ASKING WE LEARN FROM THE HISTORY OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN THIS COUNTRY WHERE WE CAN TRACE MODERN DAY POLICING BACK TO SAVORY AND POLICE OFFICERS KILLING AND MAIMING PROTESTERS IN THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT AND 2020. IN 2020, SPD HAS CAUGHT US THEY CAN'T BE TRUSTED WITH LESS LETHAL WEAPONS. WE REMEMBER A WOMAN WHOSE EYE WAS MANGLED AND 72 RESIDENTS WHO REPORTED SERIOUS INJURIES FROM THE PROTESTS IN 2020. THERE'S NO AMOUNT OF TRAINING THAT SPD CAN RECEIVE THAT WILL OVERCOME THE INHERENT, IMPRECISE NATURE OF LESS LETHAL WEAPONS. LESS LETHAL WEAPONS TARGET PEOPLE INDISCRIMINATELY, INCLUDING CHILDREN AND DISABLED. LESS LETHAL WEAPONS CAN AND WILL KILL PEOPLE. THE ORDINANCE SIGNALS TO THE POLICE PUBLIC THAT OUR SAFETY IS NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY AND WE WILL REMEMBER THIS COME ELECTION SEASON IN THE FALL. >> THANK YOU, SUE. NEXT WE HAVE MATTHEW TO BE FOLLOWED BY MICHAEL MALLINI. >> HELLO. MY NAME IS MATTHEW. I'M A LONGTIME RESIDENT. COUNCILMEMBERS, I WONDER IF YOU WERE LIVING ON CAPITOL HILL IN 2020. HOW TO FIND WORDS TO DESCRIBE HOW POLICE BOMB YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, TO HAVE WEAPONS TURNED ON YOU AND YOUR NEIGHBORS FOR NO REASON THAT THEY ARE FEARFUL AND ANGRY AT PEOPLE SPEAKING OUT ABOUT POLICE BRUTALITY. ON THE GROUND IN 2020 IT WAS CLEAR SPD'S ACTIONS WERE MOTIVATED BY RAGE AND CONTEMPT AND THAT THEIR RECOURSE TO VIOLENCE WILDLY DISPROPORTIONATE TO ANY THREAT WAS THE SIGN OF A DEEPLY TROUBLED ORGANIZATION. NOTHING I HAVE SEEN SINCE 2020 SUGGESTS SPD SHOULD EVER BE TRUSTED WITH THESE DANGEROUS WEAPONS AGAIN. YES, LET'S GET RID OF THE CONSENT DECREE. VOTE NO ON THIS BILL. YOU CAN SEND IT BACK AND REQUIRE DETAILED, NON- VIOLENT CROWD CONTROL, DEESCALATING PLANS AND METHODS AND CONTINUE THE BAN ON TEAR GAS AND PEPPER SPRAY. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. NEXT UP WE HAVE MICHAEL TO BE FOLLOWED BY B.J. LAST. >> HELLO. I'M A RENTER IN DISTRICT THREE. DURING THE 2020 DEMONSTRATIONS, MY APARTMENT WAS FLOODED WITH TEAR GAS CAUSING ME TO HAVE TO EVACUATE. DURING THIS PERIOD, THE ONLY THING THAT MADE ME FEEL UNSAFE WAS THE MILITARY PRESENCE OF SPD AND NOT THE ACTUAL DEMONSTRATION. IF CITY COUNCIL IS CONCERNED WITH THE UPTICK IN DEMONSTRATIONS IN THE COMING MONTHS AND YEARS, THEY SHOULD SEEK POLICIES THAT WILL SUPPORT THE MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES IMPACTED BY THE THREATS OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION RATHER THAN TRYING TO OWE PRESIDENT ITS OWN CITIZENS. THERE'S NO NEED FOR THIS POLICY TO BE RUSHED. DO NOT ALLOW SPD TO HAVE THESE WEAPONS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> NEXT UP WE HAVE B.J. LAST TO BE FOLLOWED BY AIDEN CAROLE. >> GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS B.J. LAST. I'M A HOMEOWNER. I'M AGAINST REVERSING THE BAN. LESS LETHAL WEAPONS FOR CROWD CONTROL. THE DISCUSSION WHY STICKS TO SPD OBJECTED TO THIS BAN. WHEN THE PEOPLE TRIED TO ENACT THE BAN, SPD SAID NO. WHEN THEY COULDN'T PUSH ENOUGH, THEY GOT THE CONSENSUS DECREE MONITOR TO COME IN AND BE ON THEIR SIDE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY DONE IS PROP UP SPD. TODAY SPD COULD ADOPT THE POLICY THAT'S IN LINE WITH WHAT THE ORDINANCE THAT COUNCIL PASSED. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO DO THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER SPD. REPEALING THE BAN REFLECTS THAT. INSTEAD OF THE COUNCIL TRYING TO ACTUALLY EXERT CONTROL OVER SPD, IT WILL SAY, NOPE, IT'S WHAT YOU WANT, BECAUSE WE KNOW WE CAN'T FORCE YOU TO DO ANYTHING. WE SAW THIS WITH WHEN THE PRIOR COUNCIL ASKED SPD TO FIRE COPS. THEY MADE SURE THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. WE SAW THIS WITH ROLLING OUT OF NON-POLICE RESPONSE. SPD PREVENTED IT FROM HAPPENING, REQUIRING IT A DUAL DISPATCH AND SPD GETS FULL CONTROL OVER WHAT IT DOES AND WHO GETS DO THAT. ANOTHER SIGN WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER SPD. >> THANK YOU. >> NEXT UP, WE HAVE AIDEN CAROLE TO BE FOLLOWED BY SKYLAR MOCK. >> SEEMS LIKE EVERY COMMENTER GETS IT. I HEAR YOU CONNECTED THIS TO THE CONSENT DECREE. YOU COULD USE THIS TO NEGOTIATE TO LET THEM EXPAND THE CARE TEAM. AS WE HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG, YOU DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH THOSE OF US WHO DON'T BELIEVE -- REALITY ASIDE, EXPAND ALL ALTERNATIVE RESPONSE, MORE MONEY÷÷ON THE POLICE. MEANWHILE, YOU HEAR YOU SAYING THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT REASON FOR THIS IS THERE COULD BE AN EMERGENCY THAT PLEASE OLICE NEED TO RESPOND. WHAT ABOUT WHEN THE POLICE NEED TO RESPOND TO THE GOVERNMENT? CONNECT THE DOTS. YOU MIGHT NEED US AT SOME POINT. WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO TURN -- >> THANK YOU. >> WHEN YOU HAVE GIVEN THE POLICE -- >> THANK YOU. HAVE A GOOD DAY. >> NEXT, WE HAVE SKYLAR MOCK TO BE FOLLOWED BY KAREN KOHLER. >> HI. I'M SKYLAR. [ INAUDIBLE ] SHOWS THE COUNCIL KNOWS IT'S NOT ONLY UNPOPULAR BUT DANGEROUS THREATENING THE WELL-BEING OF THE PROTESTERS AND THE PUBLIC. [ INAUDIBLE ] [ INAUDIBLE ] >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. NEXT UP WE HAVE KAREN KOHLER. TO BE FOLLOWED BY RAYMOND MITCHELL. >> GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS KAREN KOHLER. I'M FROM DISTRICT SEVEN. I LIVE HERE. I'M MANAGING PARTNER OF MY LAW FIRM HERE. I'M A HOUSING PROVIDER TO DOZENS OF SEATTLE CITIZENS HERE IN DISTRICT SEVEN. MY LAW FIRM AND I REPRESENTED MANY, MANY PEOPLE AGAINST THE CITY OF SEATTLE IN ALL OF THE BIGGEST HIGH- PROFILE CASES INVOLVING PROTESTS. WE WERE INVOLVED IN WTO WHICH LED TO THE CONSENT DECREE. WE WERE INVOLVED IN THE MARDI GRAS KILLING OF CHRISTOPHER KIND. I WAS THE LEAD ATTORNEY ON THE BLACK LIVES MATTER PROTEST. I SENT YOU A LETTER WHICH I ASK YOU TO FORWARD TO ALL THE PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THIS MEETING TODAY THAT DETAILS 23 ILLUSTRATED EXAMPLES OF PEOPLE THAT WERE INJURED IN THE PROTESTS. I DIDN'T GIVE YOU ALL 50. I THOUGHT I WOULD GIVE YOU SOME OF THEM. THEY INCLUDED TWO PEOPLE THAT WERE HIT BY SHRAPNEL. I THINK YOU NEED TO TALK TO ME FOR MORE THAN ONE MINUTE. % I SPENT YEARS WORKING ON THESE CASES. I HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION AND STATISTICS AND EXPERTS TO HELP YOU LOOK AT ALL OF THESE FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE THAN WHAT YOU ARE BEING -- WHAT YOU ARE BEING FED BY THE SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT. >> THANK YOU. >> THIS IS AN INVITATION TO YOU TO CALL ME. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. WE DO HAVE YOUR LETTER THAT WAS WRITTEN YESTERDAY, WHICH WE WILL ENTERING INTO THE RECORD. WE HAVE COPIES WE CAN PASS OUT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CALL. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU. >> RAYMOND MITCHELL. TO BE FOLLOWED BY TIM MARINEN. >> I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE CONSIDERING PASSING THIS LEGISLATION IS TO BE SWAYED BY A MORAL ARGUMENT. I WON'T PRESENT A MORAL ARGUMENT. I WILL GIVE YOU A PRACTICAL ONE. THE CITY HAD TO PAY MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO SETTLE A LAWSUIT ABOUT THE USE OF THESE WEAPONS. IT MADE YOU AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CITY GOVERNMENT LOOK BAD. I'M GUESSING IT MADE YOUR JOBS HARDER. IF YOU PASS THIS LEGISLATION, IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN. THE SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO NOT CAUSE PROBLEMS FOR YOU AS YOU SHOULD BE WELL AWARE OF. THEY DON'T HOLD THEIR OWN ACCOUNTABLE AND THEY DON'T CARE WHETHER IT MAKES YOU LOOK BAD WHEN THEY INJURE CIVILIANS. THEY WILL NOT USE DISCRETION. THEY WON'T CARE IF IT COSTS THE CITY TO USE WHATEVER WEAPONS THEY HAVE ON HAND. IF YOU PASS THIS, THE POLICE WILL MISUSE THE WEAPONS AND THE CITY WILL PAY MORE SETTLEMENTS FOR IT. IT WILL. NOT MIGHT, WILL. IT WILL BE BAD FOR ALL OF YOUR CAREERS. >> THANK YOU. >> IF YOU DON'T WANT BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS AND EGG ON YOUR FACE, YOU WILL NOT PASS THIS LEGISLATION. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. NEXT UP WE HAVE TIM TO BE FOLLOWED BY ROBERT ENGEL. >> HI. MY NAME IS TIM. I'M FROM DISTRICT THREE. LEGISLATION THAT ALLOWS THE POLICE TO USE VIOLENCE AGAINST PEOPLE TO PREVENT SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY DAMAGE IS EXPLICITLY DISCRIMINATORY. IT MEANS THE POLICE SERVE THOSE WITH MORE MONEY AND EXPENSIVE PROPERTY OVER PEOPLE WHOSE VOICE IS THEIR ONLY TOOL FOR CHANGE. THIS REPRESENTS A LACK OF CREATIVITY BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO FIND SOLUTIONS RATHER THAN RECYCLING OLD POLICIES THAT ARE EXPENSIVE AND HAVE FAILED IN THE PAST. I FIND IT INTERESTING THAT FOR LEGISLATION ABOUT GIVING NEW WEAPONS TO THE POLICE, THE FIELD ON RACIAL EQUITY ANALYSIS IS NOT APPLICABLE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, TIM. WE HAVE ROBERT NEXT. TO BE FOLLOWED BY DAVID HAINES. >> HI. I'M ROBERT ENGEL. I WANT TO TELL YOU IN THE STRONGEST LANGUAGE POSSIBLE THAT YOU CAN'T PASS THIS BILL. THIS IS A CLEAR ATTEMPT TO RUSH IT THROUGH. I'M ASHAMED. I'M DISAPPOINTED. I REALLY, REALLY HATE IT. YOU HAVE PAID OUT $10 MILLION IN SETTLEMENTS FROM THE PROTESTS IN 2020. IT WAS OUTLAWED BECAUSE OF THAT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS SO DIFFERENT NOW. WHAT IS SO DIFFERENT NOW THAT MAKE U.S. S YOU THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA NOW? IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. ALL OF THE EXPERTS KNOW THAT THESE -- ALL THESE WEAPONS ARE VERY DANGEROUS. YOU ARE -- WE'RE HAVING CITY COUNCILMEMBERS TRY THEM OUT IN A TESTING RANGE. WHAT ABOUT TESTING GETTING HIT BY THEM? THIS IS WHAT -- YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT US. IT'S DISGUSTING. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. NEXT UP IS DAVID HAINES. TO BE FOLLOWED BY -- >> THANK YOU, DAVID HAINES. >> GO AHEAD. >> SEATTLE IS OVERRUN WITH EVIL CRIMINALS CONDUCTING UNCIVIL WAR WITHIN THE TRANSIT CORRIDOR. THE CITY COUNCIL WANTS TO FOCUS ON BLAST BALLS, ALMOST LIKE THEY ARE MISCONSTRUING AND VICARIOUSLY LIVING THROUGH THE RIOTS OF OTHER CITIES AND APPLYING THAT AS AN OVERWHELMING AMOUNT OF RESOURCE AND OVERTIME FOR COPS TO DO CROWD MANAGEMENT. THEY SPENT MORE DETAILED TIME FOCUSING ON THAT THAN ALL THE EVIL CRIMINALS AND THEIR OPEN DRUG MARKETS THAT ARE PROTECTED FROM HAVING BLAST BALLS APPLIED TO THEM. GET RID OF THE BLAST BALLS. IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN TEAR GAS WHEN YOU HAVE COPS THAT NEED TO BE REQUIRED TO BLOW INTO A BREATHALYZER TO MAKE SURE THEY ELECTRIC NOT HUNG OVER WHERE THEY USE BLAST BALLS FROM THE SIDE INSTEAD OF GOING INTO THE CROWD AND GRABBING THE TROUBLEMAKER OR SHOOTING THEM WITH A RUBBER BULLET IN A SAFE PLACE. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. OUR SECOND TO LAST COMMENTER, RIVER HAZE TO BE FOLLOWED BY MONSERI DE CASTRO. RIVER, PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX. >> HI. I'M RIVER HAZE, A THIRD YEAR STUDENT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF LAW. THIS LEGISLATION ALLOWS FOR THE USE OF LESS LETHAL WEAPONS WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES OCCUR THAT CREATE AN IMMINENT RISK OF PHYSICAL INJURY TO ANY PERSON OR SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY DAMAGE. AS SOMEBODY ACTIVELY WORKING ON CIVIL RIGHTS CASES IN THIS CITY AS WELL AS ACROSS THE COUNTRY, I CAN SEE THAT THE SEATTLE POLICE ARE PRACTICED IN CREATING EXCUSES FOR BRUTALITY AFTER THE FACT. A RISK OF PHYSICAL INJURY OR PROPERTY DAMAGE CAN AND WILL LOOK LIKE ANYTHING. THE PASSAGE OF THIS LEGISLATION WILL ALLOW THE SPD TO EXERCISE BRUTALITY AGAINST SEATTLE CITIZENS INDISCRIMINATELY. THIS CONTINUES SEATTLE'S MILITARIZATION ARMING THEM AGAINST SEATTLE CITIZENS. THE BUDGET ALONG WITH OTHER LAWS SHOW THIS CITY COUNCIL IS MORE INTERESTED IN EXERCISING STATE CONTROL OVER ITS CITIZENS THAN ADDRESSING THE PROBLEMS THAT WE ARE CRYING OUT FOR YOU TO SOLVE. THIS WILL SHOW AT THE NEXT ELECTION TIME. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. OUR LAST REMOTE COMMENT ER. >> I'M A DISTRICT SEVEN RESIDENT. I'M SPEAKING TO YOU, BOB KETTLE. I'M ENCOURAGING PUBLIC SAFETY TO VOTE NO ON THE BAN ON LESS LETHAL WEAPONS AND LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE HARMED BY LESS LETHAL WEAPONS. THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT WILL AFFECT ALL OF US, YOUR CONSTITUENTS AND YOURSELVES. YOU THINK LESS LETHAL WEAPONS AREN'T A BIG DEAL UNTIL YOU ARE FIGHTING FOR YOUR RIGHTS. THE ACTIONS SPD HAS TAKEN AGAINST US HAVE AN IMPACT ON REAL HUMANS. HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE WERE INJURED IN THE EXCESSIVE FORCE. TOO MANY HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE ANGUISH OF BEING HARMED BY THE PEOPLE SWORN TO PROTECT HIM. BY REPEALING THIS, YOU MAY PICK UP THE BLAST BALL AND THROW IT IN THE FACE OF YOUR NEIGHBOR WITH THE RETURN OF TRUMP, PEOPLE WILL BE OUT FIGHTING FOR RIGHTS. YOU WILL PERSONALLY BE THE ONES PEPPER SPRAYING ALL OF US. THE INJURY AND HARM TO YOUR CONSTITUENTS IS IN YOUR HANDS. WE ARE NOT GOING TO FORGET IT COME ELECTION SEASON. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, EVERYONE WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT. THOSE CALLING IN AND FOR EVERYONE THAT WAS HERE, THAT IS HERE AND SOME THAT HAVE LEFT, REALLY APPRECIATE IT. I APPRECIATE THE SNAPS. THANK YOU. ONE OF THE THINGS I HAVE SAID BEFORE IS THAT PUBLIC COMMENT IS IMPORTANT. IT LED TO AMENDMENTS IN PREVIOUS BILLS, LAST YEAR IN TERMS OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY BILLS WE PASSED. I HEAR THE POINTS REGARDING THINGS LIKE NOT SEEING PROOF. FAIR POINT. THERE'S OTHER INDICATORS THAT POINT TO THAT. MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD BE BROUGHT OUT. SOME OF THE OTHER COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE, I DEFINITELY RECOMMEND JUST AS PART OF THE CONVERSATION WHAT WE CALL THE MATRIX -- OR THE SPD CALLS WITH THEIR SIX LEVELS. THAT'S ONLINE. THAT WAS PRESENTED AT THE LAST MEETING IN DECEMBER. THAT'S HELPFUL. THAT GOES TO SOME OF THE COMMENTS. MILITARIZATION OF THE POLICE. I'M 100% IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU ON THAT AS A VETERAN. A VETERAN OF THE IRAQ WAR, WHERE A LOT OF THE MILITARIZATION POINTS GO TO. I NOTE THAT INTERIM POLICE CHIEF ROHR HE IS ESPOUSES BEING GUARDIANS VERSUS WARRIORS. WILL GO THROUGH THE PROCESS FOR THE NOMINATION OF OUR NEW POLICE CHIEF. I HEAR THE VARIOUS POINTS ABOUT TEAR GAS. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S NOT TALKED ABOUT IN THIS IS THAT THIS BILL AS RELATES TO TEAR GAS IS ABOUT ALIGNING THE CODE WITH THE REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON. GETTING THE CITY LAW LINED UP WITH THE STATE LAW ON THIS. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU SEE IN THE LEGISLATION. I UNDERSTAND THE $10 MILLION POINT THAT MANY MAKE. I WILL NOTE, TOO, I REALLY APPRECIATE THE POINTS ABOUT TRAINING AND THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO ENGAGE ON AS A COUNCIL AND AS A COMMITTEE TO ENSURE NOT JUST FOR CROWD MANAGEMENT BUT ACROSS THE BOARD THAT TRAINING IS LOOKED AT AND ENSURED IT'S TO THE LEVEL THAT'S NEEDED. I APPRECIATE THESE COMMENTS. I ALSO WANT TO THANK ALL THOSE THAT HAVE EMAILED, THOSE THAT HAVE SENT LETTERS TO INCLUDE THIS ONE THAT TIED TO THE LADY WHO WAS SPEAKING , MISS KOHLER, THAT WAS SPEAKING FROM HER LAW FIRM AND THE REPORT THAT CAME IN YESTERDAY. I'M JUST SEEING IT RIGHT NOW. I WILL LOOK AT IT LATER. ALSO THE MEETINGS ON THIS TOPIC ACROSS THE BOARD THAT REALLY HELP INFORM WHAT WE'RE DOING. I JUST WANTED TO -- IN TERMS OF PUBLIC COMMENT, THE VARYING TIMES THAT WE RECEIVE, I WANT TO THANK EVERYONE FOR PARTICIPATING. I FEEL I SHOULD NOTE, TOO, THAT THE RIGHT TO PROTEST IS VERY IMPORTANT. I, MYSELF, PARTICIPATED IN A MARCH AND A PROTEST EIGHT YEARS AGO, THE WOMEN'S MARCH, WHICH WE ARE COMING UP ON THE ANNIVERSARY OF. THESE ARE IMPORTANT THINGS WE NEED TO LOOK AT AS WE GO THROUGH THIS BILL. WITH THAT SAID, WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS. WILL THE CLERK READ ITEM ONE INTO THE RECORD? >> COUNCIL BILL 120916, AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT MANDATING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ADOPT AND MAINTAIN CROWD MANAGEMENT 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 A PERSON -- TO ANY PERSON OR SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY DAMAGE AND REPEALING SECTION 3.28. 146 OF THE SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE AND ORDINANCE 126422. >> THANK YOU. I MOVE THAT THE COMMITTEE RECOMMEND PASSAGE OF CIL BILL. >> SECOND. >> IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED. ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS? BEFORE WE MOVE INTO THE AMENDMENTS, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE OUR PRESENTERS HERE AT THE TABLE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK BEFORE WE GO INTO IT. WE WILL ALSO HAVE CENTRAL STAFF PARTICIPATING AS WELL. TODAY WE HAVE DEPUTY MAYER BURGESS. WE HAVE CHAIR MERKEL. MISS DUGARD, A FOUNDING MEMBER OF THE POLICE COMMISSION, NOW HEAD OF PDA, THE LEAD PROJECT BEING THE CENTERPIECE. ALSO FROM SPD, WE HAVE DEPUTY CHIEF UNDERWOOD AND ASSISTANT CHIEF DAVIS. ALSO THE CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, MR. MAXEY. DEPUTY MAYOR. >> GOOD MORNING, COUNCILMEMBERS. THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED CROWD MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE WITH YOU AGAIN. PERHAPS THIS IS A GOOD TIME FOR EACH OF MY COLLEAGUES TO INTRODUCE THEMSELVES AND TELL US WHY THEY ARE HERE, WHAT THEIR POSITION IS TO ADDRESS THIS. >> GOOD MORNING. I'M JOEL MERKEL. I'M CO- CHAIR OF THE SEATTLE POLICE COMMISSION WHERE I HAVE SERVED ALMOST THREE YEARS. IN MY DAY JOB, I'M AN ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. >> GOOD MORNING. I'M LISA DUGARD. AS CHAIR KETTLE INDICATED, I'M CO- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AT PURPOSE DIGNITY ACTION, FORMERLY THE PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOCIATION. I'M HERE TODAY BECAUSE I WAS -- THE INAUGURAL CO- CHAIR OF THE COMMUNITY POLICE COMMISSION. I SERVED IN THAT ROLE FOR SIX YEARS FROM 2013 UNTIL 2018. I REMAINED ON THE COMMISSION IN 2019 WHEN I STEPPED DOWN. I WAS AMONG THOSE WHO LED THE CPC'S WORK ON SPD'S RESPONSE TO CROWD MANAGEMENT, PROTEST EVENTS, COUNTERPROTEST EVENTS AND REQUESTED REGULATION OF LESS LETHAL WEAPONS MANY I'M HERE TO SHARE SOME OF THAT HISTORY. >> GOOD MORNING. I'M THE DEPUTY CHIEF UNDERWOOD. I'VE RECENT BY BEEN APPOINTED. I'M HERE WITH MY COLLEAGUES TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS COUNCIL MIGHT HAVE ABOUT THESE TOOLS. >> GOOD MORNING. I'M ASSISTANT CHIEF DAVIS. I'M CURRENTLY SERVING AS THE ASSISTANT CHIEF OVER OUR SPECIAL OPERATIONS BUREAU WHICH CONTAINS OUR S.W.A.T. UNIT, WHICH CONDUCTS A LOT OF THE TRAINING FOR OUR LESS LETHAL TOOLS. I ALSO SERVED ON THE -- AS A MEMBER OF THE SEMINAL EVENT REVIEW. I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE DISCUSSION LEADING UP TO WHERE WE ARE AT TODAY IN TERMS OF THE WORK WITH CROWD MANAGEMENT. THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME. >> GOOD MORNING. CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT. HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT I CAN. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. MAYOR PROPOSED THIS ORDINANCE TO HARMONIZE CITY LAW AND POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICIES SO THAT WE COULD SUBMIT THOSE POLICIES TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR THEIR REVIEW AND THEN TO THE JUDGE FOR HIS CONSIDERATION. THIS IS ONE OF THE JUDGE'S REQUESTED FINAL STEPS BEFORE WE CAN JOIN WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND SEEK DISMISSAL OF THE CONSENT DECREE. THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AFFIRMS OUR LONGSTANDING SEATTLE TRADITION OF SUPPORTING FREE SPEECH AND PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY AND IMPORTANTLY IT RECOGNIZES THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS AN OBLIGATION TO MAKE SURE THESE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS CAN BE EXERCISED FREELY AND SAFELY. THE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHES THE VALUES AND RULES THAT GOVERN THE USE OF LESS LETHAL TOOLS IN CROWD MANAGEMENT SITUATIONS. PUT ANOTHER WAY, THE ORDINANCE YOU ARE CONSIDERING TODAY WILL ESTABLISH RESTRICTIONS ON WHEN THOSE TOOLS CAN BE USED. AND THESE RESTRICTIONS ARE MORE SUBSTANTIAL THAN WHAT IS REQUIRED UNDER STATE LAW. THEY CAN ONLY BE USED WHEN POLICE OFFICERS CAN CITE SPECIFIC FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATING IMMINENT RISK OF VIOLENCE TO INDIVIDUALS OR SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY DAMAGE. I WANT TO AMPLIFY SEVERAL KEY FACTORS AS YOU CONSIDER THE AMENDMENTS TODAY. FIRST, THE ORDINANCE RESTRICTS THE USE OF LESS LETHAL TOOLS RATHER THAN RESTRICTING THE TOOLS THEMSELVES. WE BELIEVE THIS IS A MUCH BETTER APPROACH BECAUSE IT ACKNOWLEDGES THE VOLATILE AND OFTEN QUICKLY CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES POLICE OFFICERS ENCOUNTER IN THE FIELD. IT'S A VALUES BASED APPROACH THAT CAN -- THAT OFFICERS CAN TRAIN FOR AND PRACTICE. IT IS ALSO AN APPROACH THAT SUPPORTS AND REINFORCES THE CONTINUUM OF FORCE STANDARDS THAT OFFICERS MUST FOLLOW. WHEN YOU READ OUR POLICE POLICIES, YOU WILL SEE THE PHRASE REASONABLE NECESSARY AND PROPORTIONAL USED REPEATEDLY. OUR POLICE OFFICERS ARE TRAINED TO APPLY THIS STANDARD FOR ALL USES OF FORCE, FROM COMPELLING A PERSON TO BE HANDCUFFED FOLLOWING AN ARREST ALL THE WAY UP THE CONTINUUM TO THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE. THIS ORDINANCE REINFORCES THESE CONTINUUM OF FORCE PRINCIPALS AND PRACTICES. SECOND, WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL THE AMENDMENTS DON'T HAVE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. FOR EXAMPLE, RESTRICTING BLAST BALL USE OR REQUIRING TIME CONSUMING PROCEDURAL STEPS BEFORE THEIR USE COULD FORCE INCIDENT COMMANDERS TO ESCALATE HIGHER ON THE FORCE CONTINUUM. WHILE UNINTENDED, RESTRICTING ONE LESS LETHAL TOOL COULD REQUIRE USING ANOTHER THAT IS A HIGHER USE OF FORCE. WE WANT TO AVOID THAT. WHAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT HERE IS TO RECOGNIZE THAT NOT ALL CROWD MANAGEMENT SITUATIONS ARE THE SAME. WHEN CONSIDERING THIS ORDINANCE, WE TEND TO THINK ABOUT MASS PROTESTS OR DEMONSTRATIONS WHEN PEOPLE EXERCISE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF FREE SPEECH AND PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY. HOWEVER, THE POLICE DEAL WITH MANY DIFFERENT TYPES OF CROWDS. THINK ABOUT THE CROWDS THAT SOMETIMES OVERWHELM GOLDEN GARDENS, MAGNASON PARK WITH STREET RACING, LOUD CROWDS AND EVEN VIOLENCE. OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT BEGAN CONSIDERING USING BLAST BALLS IN 2001 AFTER A HORRIFIC AND DEADLY ASSAULT IN PIONEER SQUARE. IT WAS MARDI GRAS, AND THERE WERE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE CELEBRATING. CHRISTOPHER KIME WAS THERE, TOO. HE NOTICED A YOUNG WOMAN LYING ON THE GROUND. SHE HAD BEEN ASSAULTED. AS HE BENT OVER TO ASSIST HER, CHRISTOPHER HIMSELF WAS ASSAULTED AND BEATEN TO DEATH. NEARBY, POLICE OFFICERS WHO WERE NOT PREPARED FOR THE SIZE OF THE CROWD WERE HELD BACK BY THEIR COMMANDERS WHO FEARED THE VIOLENCE PLAYING OUT BEFORE THEM WOULD OVERWHELM THE LIMITED NUMBER OF OFFICERS. THIS WAS A CROWD MANAGEMENT CRISIS. HAD BLAST BALLS BEEN AVAILABLE, THEY COULD HAVE DIS BURSED THE CROWD AND ALLOWED OFFICERS TO RESCUE CHRISTOPHER AND SAVE HIS LIFE. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A TACTICAL DECISION MADE BY AN INCIDENT COMMANDER IN MINUTES. THERE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ANY TIME TO CONSULT WITH THE CHIEF OF POLICE OR THE MAYOR. THERE CERTAINLY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY TIME TO PREPARE A PROCLAMATION OF CIVIL EMERGENCY. A MORE RECENT EXAMPLE HAPPENED LAST YEAR ON CAPITOL HILL NEAR BROADWAY AND PIKE STREET. ONE OF THE STREET TAKEOVER EVENTS WAS TAKING PLACE. VEHICLES WERE SPINNING DOUGHNUTS, REVVING ENGINES, CREATING E ING HAVOC AND ENDANGERING HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE. THEN GUNFIRE AT INTERSECTION WOUNDED THREE KILLED ONE. THIS WAS ALSO A CROWD MANAGEMENT CRISIS. WHILE IT IS LESS CLEARCUT THAN CHRISTOPHER'S DEATH, IT DOES HIGHLIGHT THE COMPLEXITY AND VOLATILE NATURE OF SOME CROWD MANAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTS. SOMETIMES EVENTS DEMAND FAST, REASONABLE, NECESSARY AND PROPORTIONAL INTERDICTION. I'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE AMENDMENTS THAT PLACE RESTRICTIONS ON OUR MUTUAL AID PARTNERS. MUTUAL AID PROTOCOLS ARE MANDATED BY A MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT THAT ESTABLISHES PROCEDURES AND RULES OF ENGAGEMENT. ALMOST EVERY MUNICIPALITY IN KING COUNTY IS A PARTY TO THIS AGREEMENT. THE AGREEMENT REQUIRES RESPONDING MUTUAL AID OFFICERS TO FOLLOW THE COMMAND AND AUTHORITY OF THE REQUESTING JURISDICTION. WHEN OUR POLICE OFFICERS REQUEST MUTUAL AID FOR CROWD CONTROL PURPOSES, THE RESPONDING OFFICERS FROM OUTSIDE THE CITY ARE UNDER THE CONTROL, DIRECTION AND AUTHORITY OF THE SEATTLE POLICE ON SCENE INCIDENT COMMANDER. AFFIRMING THIS IN THE ORDINANCE IS FINE, BUT IMPOSING FURTHER RESTRICTIONS WILL LIKELY CAUSE OUR MUTUAL AID PART NER S TO DECLINE TO RESPOND AS THEY HAVE SINCE THE 2021 ORDINANCE WAS ADOPTED BY THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL. I ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THIS AS PART OF YOUR DELIBERATIONS, ESPECIALLY SINCE WE WILL REQUIRE A SIGNIFICANT MUTUAL AID RESPONSE BEGINNING THIS SUMMER WITH THE CLUB WORLD CUP GAMES AND THEN THE WORLD CUP IN 2026. I WILL TURN NOW TO THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE COMMUNITY POLICE COMMISSION. I WILL SAY WE ARE VERY PLEASED THAT THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, THE OFFICE OF POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY AND THE COMMUNITY POLICE COMMISSION ARE UNIFIED IN THEIR SUPPORT OF THE MAYOR'S ORDINANCE. THESE PROFESSIONAL SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS HAVE REVIEWED THIS ORDINANCE, CONSULTED WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND CONCLUDED THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS REASONABLE AND WORKABLE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. CHAIR KETTLE, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, I WANT TO START BY THANKING THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE FOR INVITING THE SEATTLE POLICE COMMISSION TO TESTIFY THIS MORNING ON THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE. ENGAGING IN POLICING POLICY WITH CITY LEADERS AND OUR PARTNERS IS A CORE FUNCTION AND MISSION OF THE CPC. WE ARE GRATEFUL FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE OUR FEEDBACK AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON CB12096. I WANT TO THANK CPC STAFF WHO ARE PRESENT BEHIND ME FOR THEIR LEADERSHIP AND THEIR WORK ON THIS ISSUE. I ALSO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE WORK OF THE CPC'S POLICE PRACTICES WORK GROUP FOR THEIR DEDICATION AND COMMITMENT TO INCORPORATING THE COMMUNITY'S FEEDBACK TO SHAPE THE RECOMMENDATION AND OVERALL POSITION ON THIS ISSUE. SINCE RECEIVING THE DRAFT OF THE ORDINANCE, THE CPC HAS WORKED DILIGENTLY TO ENSURE THAT OUR FEEDBACK BALANCES THE NEED TO PROTECT CIVILIANS' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EXPRESSION, FREE SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY WHILE EMPHASIZING SPD'S ROLE IN PROTECTING THESE RIGHTS WHILE THEY ARE UNDER THREAT FROM OTHERS AND TO ACCOMPLISH THIS, THE POLICE PRACTICES WORK GROUP CONVENED SEVERAL MEETINGS DURING WHICH THEY DEVELOPED, ISSUED AND ANALYZED A COMMUNITY SURVEY ON CROWD MANAGEMENT. THEY ENGAGED THIS POLICY DISCUSSIONS WITH FWARTER PARTNERS, INCLUDING CPC FOUNDING COMMISSIONER LISA DUGARD, BRIAN MAXEY AND COUNCIL STAFF AND CONDUCTED RESEARCH ON BEST PRACTICES FOR CROWD MANAGEMENT. FROM THIS WORK, THE CPC DEVELOPED THREE PRINCIPALS TO GUIDE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. THEY ARE NUMBER ONE, ABOVE ALL ELSE, THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN LIFE IS PARAMOUNT. TWO, THE USE OF LESS LETHAL WEAPONS SHOULD BE AVOIDED UNLESS THERE'S A DIRECT THREAT TO SOMEONE'S LIFE OR SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY DAMAGE. THREE, SPD PLAYS AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN FACILITATING SAFE GATHERINGS AND PROTECTING CIVILIANS' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO ASSEMBLE. UNDER THESE PRINCIPALS ALONG WITH COMMUNITY FEEDBACK, RESEARCH AND PARTER IN DISCUSSION PARTNER DISCUSSIONS, WE VOTED TO NOT PLACE A PROHIBITION OF THE USE OF TOOLS THAT CAN HAVE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES NOT ONLY LEAVING SPD IN A POSITION TO USE LESS APPROPRIATE TOOLS BY BY REMOVING TOOLS NECESSARY FOR SPD TO ASSURE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY, TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHEN COUNTERPROTESTERS THREATEN THOSE RIGHTS. TO THAT END THE CPC VOTED TO SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS. WITH RESPECT TO BLAST BALL USE, THE CPC ADVOCATES FOR RESTRICTIONS ON HOW AND WHEN THEY ARE USED FOR CROWD CONTROL AND TO PROTECT LIFE AND SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY DAMAGE. THE CPC SUPPORTS A CLEAR AND TIMELY APPROVAL PROCESS RESTING WITH THE INCIDENT COMMANDER WITH THE RANK OF LIEUTENANT OR HIGHER. INDIVIDUAL OFFICERS SHOULD NOT HAVE THE DISCRETION TO DEPLOY BLAST BALLS FOR CROWD AL. WHEN DEPLOYED, THE CPC ADVOCATES BLAST BALLS BE DIRECTED AWAY FROM PEOPLE, THROWN UNDERHANDED AND RELEASED AT LEAST TEN YARDS AWAY FROM THE INDIVIDUAL. WE BELIEVE THIS SHOULD BE WRITTEN INTO THE ORDINANCE. WITH RESPECT TO MUTUAL AID, THE CPC BELIEVES MUTUAL AID AGENCIES DEPLOYED IN SEATTLE MUST ADHERE TO SEATTLE ORDINANCES AND SPD POLICIES, INCLUDING THOSE ON LEASE LETHAL TOOLS AND CROWD MANAGEMENT. THEY SHOULD OPERATE UNDER THE DIRECTION OF AN SPD INCIDENT COMMANDER WHO IS BOUND BY SEATTLE LAW AND SPD POLICIES. WITH RESPECT TO POST DEPLOYMENT OVERSIGHT, THE CPC BELIEVES SPD SHOULD CONSULT WITH THE CPC REGARDING THE DEPLOYMENT OF THE LESS LETHAL WEAPONS IN A CROWD MANAGEMENT SCENARIO. THIS SHOULD INCLUDE GATHERING AND INCORPORATING PUBLIC FEEDBACK ON SIGNIFICANT CROWD MANAGEMENT INCIDENTS, INCLUDING THOSE INVOLVING LESS LETHAL WEAPONS AND INTEGRATING THIS INFORMATION INTO THE REQUIRED ANNUAL REPORTS BY SPD AND OIG. FINALLY, THE ORDINANCE SHOULD EMPHASIZE SPD'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT THE EXERCISE OF FREE SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY RIGHTS WHEN THOSE ARE UNDER THREAT FROM OTHERS. I WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT PASSING THIS LEGISLATION IS ONE OF THE FINAL COMPONENTS NECESSARY TO END THE CONSENT DECREE AND RESTORE SEATTLE TO SELF- GOVERNANCE ON POLICING. THE CPC LOOKS FORWARD TO A POST- CONSENT DECREE AIR WHERE WHERE THE COMMUNITY HAS GREATER INFLUENCE OVER E ING POLICY AND RELIES ON LOCAL LEADERSHIP. THIS IS A CRITICAL OPPORTUNITY TO HOLD OURSELVES ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE PROGRESS ACHIEVED SINCE 2012 AND THE CPC REMAINS COMMITTED TO ENGAGING WITH THE COMMUNITY AND THE COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR'S OFFICE AND PARTNERS IN THIS WORK. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> AS I SAID, I SERVED ON THE CPC FOR SEVEN YEARS. I HOPE IN THESE BRIEF REMARKS TO DISTILL THE COLLECTIVE THINKING AND WISDOM OF MY MANY REMARKABLE COLLEAGUES WHO SERVED ON THE COMMISSION THROUGHOUT THOSE YEARS. THAT PERIOD OF TIME WAS CHARACTERIZED BY REALLY STRONG CONSENSUS FORMATION PROCESS THAT TOOK A LOT OF TIME AND DEBATE TO CREATE WHAT WERE USUALLY UNANIMOUS CPC POSITIONS ON ISSUES SUCH AS SPD RESPONSE TO PUBLIC DEMONSTRATIONS AND CROWD MANAGEMENT. OBVIOUSLY, MY COLLEAGUES, MOST ARE NO LONGER ON THE COMMISSION, DIDN'T ELECT ME TO SIT HERE AT THIS TABLE TODAY. BUT I WILL TRY TO REFLECT ON THE COLLECTIVE THINKING THAT THAT GROUP PRODUCED. I DO WANT TO SAY -- THIS MAY BE STRANGE BUT I HAVE BEEN HARMED AS A PARTICIPANT IN DIRECT ACTION. AND I HAVE BEEN FALSELY ARRESTED BY REPRESENTATIVES OF MUTUAL AID AGENCIES OPERATING IN THE STREETS OF SEATTLE IN A POST WTO EVENT WHICH THE THEN CITY ATTORNEY AGREED WAS A WRONGFUL ARREST. I HAVE BEEN PEPPER SPRAY MANY TIMES. MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE BEEN PEPPER SPRAYED. I CAME TO THE CPC AMONG OTHER REASONS IN ORDER TO BRING THOSE EXPERIENCES AND CONCERNS TO THE DELIBERATIONS OF THE COMMISSION. IN 1999, WHEN THE WTO PROTESTS OCCURRED, I LED THE DEFENSE OF PROTESTERS SUGGESTED TO SUBJECTED TO ALL MANNER OF ARGUABLY USE OF LESS LETHAL TOOLS BASICALLY SUCCESSFUL LITIGATION. I REPRESENTED PLAINTIFFS ARGUING THAT THEY WERE WRONGFULLY SUBJECTED TO USE OF FORCE IN A CROWD MANAGEMENT CONTEXT. SO THIS IS THE POINT OF VIEW I BRING TO THIS TOPIC IS THAT THESE ARE EXTREMELY SERIOUS, POTENTIALLY EXTREMELY HARMFUL SITUATION SITUATIONS. OUR EXPERIENCE IS THAT SETTING -- WHILE LISTENING TO PUBLIC TESTIMONY, I WAS BROUGHT BACK TO 2015 WHEN JESSE HIGOPIAN WHO MANY OF THE FOLKS WHO TESTIFIED KNOW, MANY COUNCILMEMBERS KNOW, HE WAS WALKING DOWN THE STREET IN THE CENTRAL IN A MARTIN THER KING DAY MARCH AND HE WAS PEPPER SPRAYED BECAUSE AS IT TURNED OUT POLICE -- THERE WAS AN OFFICER WHO HAD FALLEN BEHIND A POLICE LINE AND OFFICERS WERE UNDERDEPLOYED. THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT HIS SAFETY. SO AN OFFICER PEPPER SPRAYED JESSE. IT WAS INCREDIBLY HARMFUL AND DIVISIVE. IT CAUSED TREMENDOUS PUBLIC LEGITIMACY CRISIS AROUND THE USE OF FORCE. THESE WERE -- THAT HAPPENED WHILE I WAS ON THE CPC. IT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS WE FOCUSED ON SPD POLICY ON CROWD MANAGEMENT AS A CENTRAL PIECE OF WHAT THE ACCOUNTABILITY AGENCIES NEEDED TO BE RAISING TO THE ATTENTION OF ELECTED OFFICIALS AND OF SPD ITSELF. I WILL SAY DURING THAT PERIOD FROM -- ESPECIALLY FROM 2014, WHEN BLACK LIVES MATTER DEMONSTRATIONS BEGAN IN SEATTLE, THROUGH 2019, WE WERE ALMOST ALONE IN RAISING CROWD MANAGEMENT ISSUES. THE CONSENT DECREE PROCESS DID NOT FOCUS ON THESE. IN FACT, BOTH THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND THE COURT WERE UNINTERESTED IN FOCUSING ON THEM. SO IT IS REALLY IN A WAY A VICTORY IN ITSELF TO SEE THIS DEGREE OF FOCUSED ATTENTION FROM COUNCIL AND FROM THE MAYOR'S OFFICE ON THESE ISSUES. IT IS APPROPRIATE, AND IT WAS LONG IN COMING. I WILL SAY THE CPC LETTER IS ONE THAT I RESPECT AND SUPPORT. IT'S VERY ALIGNED WITH THE APPROACH THAT WE TOOK FROM 2014 TO 2019. I WANTED TO PROBABLY -- LET ME MAKE A COUPLE POINTS AND CONCLUDE WITH DISCUSSION OF BLAST BALLS. WE FOUND THAT WHILE THERE CAN BE A TENDENCY TO MINIMIZE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THREATS TO PROPERTY, AS AN APPROPRIATE BASIS FOR USE OF FORCE, THE FACT IS THAT PUBLIC EXPECTATION IS THAT A POLICE FORCE WILL PROTECT PROPERTY AGAINST RAMPANT DAMAGE. A COMPELLING EXAMPLE OF THAT THAT I THINK EVERYONE CAN SEE IN RETROSPECT WAS PROBLEMATIC WAS A MARCH THROUGH THE CHINATOWN INTERNATIONAL DISTRICT IN 2020 THAT RESULTED IN TREMENDOUS DAMAGE TO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD FROM WHICH SOME BUSINESSES REALLY WERE NEVER ABLE TO RECOVER. SPD DID NOT -- WAS NOT VIEWED AT TAKING PROMPT ACTION IN RESPONSE TO THAT. I THINK THERE WAS A WIDESPREAD UNDERSTANDING THEREAFTER THAT THAT WAS PROBLEMATIC AND THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE OF A RESPONSE. I JUST CALL THAT OUT CONNECTED TO THE LEGACY PC'S POINT OF VIEW THAT UNDERSERVICE FROM A POLICE DEPARTMENT, FAILURE TO PROTECT IS ITSELF A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE. I WOULD NOT -- IT WAS NEVER OUR APPROACH TO SORT OF SET ASIDE PROPERTY DAMAGE AS UNIMPORTANT. THE RULES OF THE ROAD AROUND RESPONDING TO PROPERTY DAMAGE ARE WHERE FOCUS NEEDS TO BE. THE SPD POLICY THAT'S BEEN EVOLVED DOES PLACE PROPERTY DAMAGE, I THINK, IN A PRETTY SHARPLY SHARPLY AREA. IT'S ADDRESSED. THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROACH WE TOOK. WE SEE THAT ALSO FROM WHEN I WAS ON THE CPC THAT WAS -- THAT COVERED THE PERIOD FROM 2016 TO 2019 WHEN THERE WAS A GREAT DEAL OF CIVIC UNREST BETWEEN CIVIL SOCIETY FORCES. PEOPLE IN THE STREET ADVANCING STRONG VIEWS ON ONE ISSUE AND FAIRLY FREQUENTLY BEING CONFRONTED AND SOMETIMES ATTACKED BY CIVIL SOCIETY FORCES WHO HAD A STRONG DIFFERENT POINT OF VIEW. AT THAT POINT, WHAT ONE COULD LOOSELY SAY WERE THE MORE PROGRESSIVE FORCES STARTED TO CALL FOR -- NOT UNIVERSALLY, BUT STARTED TO CALL FOR SPD TO PROTECT THEM FROM THREATS OF HARM FROM COUNTERPROTESTERS. THE DEPARTMENT MAY BE PLACED IN A POSITION WHERE THEY MUST USE FORCE IN ORDER TO PROTECT INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE EXERCISING THE RIGHTS OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY. WE SAW THAT PLAY OUT MANY TIMES. ALSO NOTE THAT WE ALL HAVE TO RECALL THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO GET APPROVAL, EVEN SUPERVISORY APPROVAL, BEFORE LETHAL FORCE IS USED. IT'S ASSUMED THAT THAT FORCE IS GOVERNED BY STATE LAW, BY CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS. BUT IF AN OFFICER IS IN A POSITION WHERE SHE BELIEVES THAT SHE MUST AND SHOULD USE LETHAL FORCE, NO ONE PAUSES TO GET SUPERVISORY APPROVAL OR THE APPROVAL OF AN ELECTED OFFICIAL OR OF THE CHIEF, BECAUSE THE SITUATION IS UNDERSTOOD TO BE QUICKLY DEVELOPING AND THE THREAT THAT WOULD CAUSE THAT, THAT WOULD CALL FOR THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN PUSH PAUSE AND WAIT TO SEE. IT IS REALLY -- IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT LESS LETHAL WEAPONS, I THINK APPROPRIATELY CALLED WEAPONS, ARE CALLED THAT BECAUSE THEY ARE CONTRASTED WITH OTHER WEAPONS THAT ARE NOT REGULATED TO THE DEGREE THAT THIS LEGISLATION AND THE SPD POLICY CONTEMPLATES REGULATING LESS LETHAL TOOLS. THERE ARE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES FOR MANY OF IMPEDING THE RIGHT DECISION BY GOING TO OTHERS WHO ARE MORE REMOVED FROM THE SITUATION. AND THE SPIRIT OF CPC WORK FROM 2013 TO 2019 WAS VERY MUCH TO INVEST IN A POLICY FRAMEWORK, TRAINING AND CONTINUOUS FEEDBACK SO THAT THOSE ON THE GROUND MAKING THE DECISIONS WHO ARE ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBILITY TO THE MAYOR, THEY ARE EXECUTIVE EMPLOYEES, ARE EQUIPPED TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION. IF THEY DON'T, THAT THAT LESSON CAN BE RAPIDLY LEARNED AND PUBLICLY TAKEN ON BOARD. BLAST BALLS, WE STARTED WRITING TO THE COUNCIL ASKING THAT THERE BE A TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF USE OF BLAST BALLS IN, I BELIEVE, 2017 BASED ON CONTINUED INCIDENTS FROM 2015 AND 2016 AND THEN AGAIN OCCURRING IN 2017 AND 2018 OF BLAST BALLS BEING USED CONSISTENT WITH SPD DIRECTION. NO OFFICER, I BELIEVE, WAS FOUND TO HAVE USED A BLAST BALL CONTRARY TO THAT DIRECTION. BUT IT WAS THE DIRECTION WAS TO BOWL UNDERHAND OR OCCASIONALLY THROW OVERHAND INTO AN OPEN SPACE NOT DIRECTLY AT A PERSON BUT ADJACENT TO THE PERSON WHO WAS THE TARGET, WHOSE ACTIVITIES WERE THE TARGET. OFFICERS WOULD DO THAT IN CHAOTIC CROWD SITUATIONS. PEOPLE WERE CONTINUOUSLY HURT. THOSE HARMS, SOME OF THEM WERE BURNS AND THINGS THAT SOMEONE COULD RECOVER FROM. BUT SOME OF THE INJURIES WERE MORE SERIOUS AND IN ONE INSTANCE SOMEONE WAS -- COULD EASILY HAVE LOST AN EYE. THERE WAS A DEEP GASH BELOW THE PERSON'S EYE. ALL OF THESE IMPACTS WERE UNINTENDED. THEY ARE NOT THE PLANNED IMPACT OF THE WEAPON. THEY CHRONICALLY HAPPEN BECAUSE THESE WEAPONS ARE VERY DIFFICULT TO AIM AND VERY DIFFICULT TO CONTROL. BECAUSE THEY EXPLODE. THE PEOPLE WHO GOT INJURED WERE NOT THE PEOPLE COMMITTING CRIMES OR ALLEGEDLY COMMITTING CRIMES. THEY WERE, IN ONE CASE, A POLICE OFFICER. SEVERAL TIMES A REPORTER. BYSTANDERS, PEOPLE CLEARLY JUST EXERCISING THEIR RIGHTS OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY. OBSERVING THAT, IT WAS OUR VIEW THAT THIS COULD BE EXPECTED TO REPEAT UNLESS THERE WAS SOME KIND OF DIFFERENT DIRECTION. UPON -- IN ALL THE YEARS THERE WAS NO RESPONSE TO THAT REQUEST I'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO THINK ABOUT WHAT MIGHT WORK BETTER AND TO LISTEN TO OTHER THOUGHTS. IT IS MY BELIEF THAT BLAST BALLS ARE NEVER APPROPRIATE TO THROW INTO A GROUP OF PEOPLE, BECAUSE THE OUTCOME IS UNCONTROLLABLE BY A WELL-INTENTIONED OFFICER FOLLOWING POLICY AND DIRECTION. PEOPLE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO GET HURT, BECAUSE THE TOOL ITSELF IS JUST UNIQUE IN THAT WAY. IT'S SOMEWHAT CHAOTIC IN ITS IMPACT. THEREFORE, THE DIRECTION WHICH I WOULD HOPE THE COUNCIL WILL IMPOSE THAT BLAST BALLS SHOULD ONLY BE BLOW AWAY FROM PEOPLE. THEY CREATE A NOISE. THEY GET ATTENTION. THAT'S THE INTENDED USE BY SPD AS THEY PRESENTED TO THE CPC LAST MONTH. IF THAT'S THE CASE, AND THEY ARE ONLY THROWN AWAY FROM PEOPLE, THEN YOU GET AWAY FROM THE NEED TO CREATE THESE SORT OF HIERARCHIES OF APPROVAL WHICH DON'T REALLY MATCH THE NATURE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN YOU WOULD WANT TO THROW A BLAST BALL. IN CONCLUSION -- I KNOW I HAVE GONE ON FOR A LONG TIME -- I DO APPRECIATE THAT AGREEMENT ON COUNCIL THAT THESE ARE REALLY SERIOUS QUESTIONS. IT'S REALLY A MATTER OF STRATEGY ABOUT HOW BEST TO CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT THAT REDUCES RISK AND REDUCES UNINTENDED HARM. NO MATTER WHAT DECISIONS ARE MADE, IT IS A GOOD THING THAT WE ARE BACK IN AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE LOCAL OFFICIALS ARE CHARGED WITH AND HAVE THE OBLIGATION TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS UNDER YOUR OWN POWER, BECAUSE YOU CAN MAKE CHANGES IF THINGS PLAY OUT IN A WAY THAT'S NOT INTENDED. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONCERN AND EFFORT ON BEHALF OF THOSE OF US WHO RAISED THESE ISSUES FOR ISSUES LEADING UP TO 2019. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU FL . DEPUTY CHIEF, ANYTHING TO ADD? OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU, BY THE WAY, FIRST AS CHAIR, TO HIGHLIGHT I'VE BEEN NEGLECTFUL IN RECOGNIZING ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES HAS ARRIVED EARLIER. COUNCILMEMBER RINK, WELCOME. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. ASK ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. YOU CAN'T VOTE. JUST BE KNOWN THAT I GO TO MY VICE CHAIR FIRST. THANK YOU FOR THAT. I APPRECIATE THE BACKGROUND. I REALLY APPRECIATE THE POINT ABOUT BEING UNDER DEPLOYED. THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT, BECAUSE WHEN UNDER DEPLOYMENT HAPPENS, THAT'S WHEN POTENTIALLY BAD THINGS CAN HAPPEN. AS YOU WERE SAYING THAT, THAT WORD, I'M THINKING OF MY TIME IN IRAQ. BECAUSE AS YOU KNOW, IN DETENTION, PRISONS A ND THE LIKE. IN MY UNIT, A PRISON, WE HAD TOP PEOPLE, SADDAM AND DR. DEATH AND THE REST. WHEN REPORTS CAME OUT ON ABUSES, THE CAMP AND THE MILITARY POLICE BATTALION THAT WORKED WITH US, THE SILVER LINING OF THAT REPORT, AND THE REASON WHY IS BECAUSE WE ENSURED THAT IT WAS WELL RESOURCED. SADLY, A LOT OF UNITS WERE ORPHANED. THEY WERE AT FERENT LOCATIONS. FOOD, AIR CONDITIONING, WATER, IT'S INCREDIBLE IF YOU THINK ABOUT. WE ADOPTED THAT UNIT. BECAUSE WE WERE A CIA /DIA UNIT, WE WERE THE BEST RESOURCED UNIT IN THE COUNTRY. THAT OPERATION WAS DONE WELL AND DONE ETHICALLY WITH GREAT LEADERSHIP. UNDER DEPLOYED IS A VERY INTERESTING PHRASE AND SOMETHING TO BE THOUGHT OF AS IT GOES TO THIS PIECE. USUALLY, I GO VERY LAST. I WANTED -- UNDER DEPLOYED CAUGHT MY ATTENTION. I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT. I APPRECIATE THE CONTEXT THAT YOU ADDED, MS. DUGARD. ANY QUESTIONS? I I START WITH MY VICE CHAIR. >> THANK YOU. ONE QUESTION. FOR EVERYONE ON THE PANEL TODAY. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. STARTING WITH THE COMMUNITY POLICE COMMISSION, PERTAINING TO A SPECIFIC TECHNIQUE FOR DEPLOYMENT OF BLAST BALLS, I'M HEARING A FEW DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW REFLECTED IN VARIOUS EXPRESSIVE DOCUMENTS AND WORDS HERE. I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S A CONSENSUS VIEW. IF THERE'S NOT, THAT'S FINE, TOO. ON YOUR LETTER LAST WEEK I THINK IT WAS DATED, YOU TALKED ABOUT THE RECOMMENDATION FOR USE OF BLAST BALLS BEING TEN FEET AWAY . IT STAYS SILENT ON UNDERHAND VERSUS OVERHAND USE. JOEL I HEARD YOU TALK ABOUT -- YOU SPECIFICALLY PREFER THE UNDERHAND DEPLOYMENT. THEN I HEARD YOU, A MOMENT AGO, JUST SAY -- TALK ABOUT BOTH. ONLY OVERHAND SHOULD BE USED MORE OR LESS IN A VERY LIMITED, NARROW SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES. I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE POSITION, IF THERE'S NO CONSENSUS, THAT'S UNDERSTANDABLE. THAT'S FINE. BUT I WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE COMMISSION'S PERSPECTIVE ON THE USE OF UNDERHAND VERSUS OVERHAND, AND THEN ALSO DIRECTLY FROM THE MAYOR'S OFFICE AND OUR POLICE EXPERTS HERE ON THE SAME EXACT POINT, UNDERHAND VERSUS OVERHAND. THANK YOU. >> I'M NO LONGER ON THE POLICE COMMISSION -- ON THE CPC. I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THEIR POSITION. I WILL SAY, THIS IS WHY TO ME THE SIMPLEST SOLUTION IS THROW THEM AWAY FROM PEOPLE, UNDERHAND OVER OVERHAND. IF THEY ARE THROWN AWAY FROM PEOPLE TO EXPLODE AND GET ATTENTION THROUGH NOISE, THEN THESE OTHER ISSUES DISAPPEAR OR VANISH. I DON'T THINK UNDERHAND OR OVERHAND CONTROLS THE CHAOTIC PATH OF THE BLAST BALL IN A RELIABLE ENOUGH WAY THAT IT MITIGATES THE PROBLEM OF TRYING TO INSERT THEM IN AN OPEN SPACE WITHIN A CROWD, WHICH IS REALLY÷÷ -- IT'S TOO DYNAMIC OF A SITUATION TO ASSUME YOU CAN EXECUTE THAT. THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INTEND OR SKILL OF THE OFFICER. IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT WEAPON TO CONTROL. >> THE CPC WAS FOCUSED ON ENSURING THAT IF A BLAST BALL IS USED, THAT IT IS DIRECTED AWAY FROM PEOPLE, AWAY FROM A CROWD, AT A MINIMUM OFOF YARDS, OVERHAND OR UNDER HAND WASN'T IMPORTANT. IT WAS AWAY FROM PEOPLE. THE CHAOTIC NATURE OF THAT WEAPON CAN CAUSE A LOT OF HARM IF IT'S NOT DIRECTED AWAY FROM PEOPLE AT A CERTAIN DISTANCE. THAT WAS THE FOCUS OF THE COMMISSION UNDERHAND, OVERHAND WASN'T THE FOCUS. >> THANK YOU. >> I WILL DEFER TO THE POLICE COMMANDERS ON THAT QUESTION. >> IN TERMS OF DEPLOYMENT, OUR PRIMARY TRAINING FOR DEPLOYMENT OF THE BLAST BALLS IS TO DO THE UNDERHAND DEPLOYMENT. HOWEVER, AS WE SAW -- WE SAW THIS IN 2020. THERE ARE OCCASIONS WHERE THERE ARE TACTICS USED BY SOME OF THE PEOPLE DOING THE DEMONSTRATIONS BECAUSE THEY KNOW WE DEPLOY THAT WAY, OR MAYBE THERE ARE ACTORS IN THE BACKGROUND THAT ARE THROWING FROZEN BOTTLES OF WATER OR INSTRUMENTS THAT COULD IGNITE AND HARM SOMEBODY, WHERE MAKING A DEPLOYMENT OVERHAND TO REACH THOSE PEOPLE ARE IMPORTANT. WHEN WE DEPLOY THOSE BLAST BALLS, WE DO THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF AFFECTING CHANGE, MAKING THEM MOVE, STOPPING THEIR BEHAVIOR OR STOPPING THE ASSAULT OR BEHAVIOR FROM OCCURRING. WE TRAIN THIS. THIS IS SOMETHING WE HAVE THEM CONSIDER. THERE'S A LIMITED TIME IN WHICH THE BLAST BALL WILL DETONATE. IF IT'S TOO FAR OF A DISTANCE, THAT'S MAYBE NOT THE BEST TOOL. THAT IS SOMETHING WE TRUST OUR OFFICERS TO EVALUATE PRIOR TO MAKING THAT DEPLOYMENT. IT STARTS WITH OUR TRAINING. >> THANK YOU. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, MR. CHAIR. >> THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR. COUNCILMEMBER RINK? >> THANK YOU, CHAIR. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO JOIN TODAY. I'M NOT A MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE BUT APPRECIATE AT BUILT TO PARTICIPATE AND ASK SOME QUESTIONS. JUST TO GET SOME THINGS AND MAKE SURE WE HAVE -- WE'RE ALL WORKING FROM THE SAME UNDERSTANDING OF THE HISTORY BEHIND THIS. AND THERE'S A LONG HISTORY BEHIND THIS. ORDINANCE 126102 WAS PASSED IN 2020 AND OUTRIGHT BANNED LESS LETHAL WEAPONS. THIS GOT ENJOINED BY THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT. ESSENTIALLY STOPPED. FROM THAT POINT, IN 2021, WE HAD ORDINANCE 126422, WHICH ULTIMATELY NEVER WENT INTO AFFECT FOR A MYRIAD OF REASONS. SINCE THAT POINT, WE HAVE BEEN OPERATING UNDER SPD'S INTERIM POLICY. SINCE WE HAVE BEEN OPERATING UNDER THE INTERIM POLICY HOW MANY TIMES SINCE THEN HAVE WE DEPLOYED BLAST BALLS? >> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. THE ANSWER IS, WE HAVE NOT DEPLOYED ANY BLAST BALLS SINCE OCTOBER 26th OF 2020. >> THANK YOU. >> NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, CHAIR. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBERS? COUNCIL PRESIDENT? NO QUESTIONS? OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED TO THE NEXT -- DON'T GO TOO FAR. WE WILL GO TO THE NEXT PART OF THE MEETING. I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE MR. DOS TO COME TO THE TABLE. THANK YOU. MR. DOS, IF YOU COULD -- FIRST, WELCOME. SECOND, IF YOU CAN INTRODUCE YOURSELF. I FORGET, DO YOU HAVE ANY REMARKS BEFORE MOVING INTO THE AMENDMENTS? I KNOW YOU WILL SPEAK TO THE AMENDMENTS? ANY REMARKS PRIOR TO DOING THAT IN. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. GOOD MORNING. MR. CHAIR AND COUNCILMEMBERS AND -- COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND COUNCILMEMBER RINK. I WAS GOING TO OFFER SOME OPENING COMMENTS AND THEN MOVE RIGHT INTO THE AMENDMENTS. JUST BY WAY OF BACKGROUND FOR FOLKS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN PRESENT OVER THE LAST COUPLE MONTHS, THIS COUNCIL BILL 120916 WAS FIRST INTRODUCED IN MID OCTOBER, WHICH WAS DURING THE COUNCIL BUDGET SESSION. THERE WASN'T AN AVAILABILITY FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE TO HEAR IT AT THAT TIME. IT WAS FIRST HEARD ON DECEMBER 10th AT WHICH TIME THERE WAS A DISCUSSION BY MANY OF THE FOLKS THAT WERE HERE TODAY, ALONG WITH THE OIG AND OPA. BACKGROUND ON THE BILL 120916 REPEALS CITY LAWS THAT GOVERN THE USE OF LESS LETHAL WEAPONS. IN ITS PLACE, THE BILL WOULD ENACT UNCODIFIED LANGUAGE THAT WOULD REQUIRE SPD TO ENSURE CROWD MANAGEMENT POLICIES ARE CONSISTENT WITH CITY VALUES AND EXPECTATIONS AND COMPLIANT WITH STATE LAW ON TEAR GAS. THE BILL OUTLINES HIGH LEVEL PRINCIPALS THAT SPD POLICY IES MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH. ENSURING POLICE USE IS OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE, NECESSARY AND PROPORTIONATE TO THE THREAT PRESENTED. AS I SAID A MINUTE AGO, IT MAKES SEATTLE LAW CONSISTENT WITH THE RCW ON TEAR GAS. IT DOES GO ONE STEP FURTHER ON TEAR GAS AND REQUIRES A MAYOR PROCLAMATION BEFORE TEAR GAS CAN BE USED. IT'S THE CASE THAT THIS BILL WOULD ENDORSE, NOT INCORPORATE BY REFERENCE OR BY LAW, SPD POLICIES. SPD POLICIES WOULD ALLOW FOR TEAR GAS USE UNDER PHASE SIX OF THE MATRIX. PHASE FIVE IS THE FIRST PHASE WHERE A CROWD MAY BE DECLARED ILLEGAL AND MAY BE DISPERSED. SIX IS WHERE LIFE SAFETY COMES INTO ABSOLUTE PARAMOUNT -- A NEED ABSOLUTELY TO INTERVENE. IT IS PHASE SIX THAT TEAR GAS WOULD BE USED. IT'S REGULATED BY THIS BILL. FINALLY, THE BILL REQUIRES SPD TO COLLABORATE WITH THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR PUBLIC SAFETY TO CREATE AND SEND TO THE COUNCIL THE USE OF FORCE IN CROWD MANAGEMENT SETTINGS. THAT SHOULD INCLUDE THE USE OF LESS LETHAL TOOLS. WITH THAT BASE OF UNDERSTANDING, I'M AVAILABLE TO GO INTO AMENDMENT DISCUSSIONS AND TALK ABOUT HOW YOU ALL WOULD AMEND THE BILL. >> THANK YOU. WE WILL START THAT PROCESS. AS IT TURNS OUT, I'M THE AUTHOR OF AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE. I MOVE TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL 120916 AS PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT ONE. >> SECOND. >> IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED TO ADOPT AMENDMENT ONE. MY NOTES SAY CENTRAL STAFF IS RECOGNIZED TO DESCRIBE AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE. >> I WILL. I THINK WE'RE GOING TO BRING UP THE AMENDMENTS ON THE SCREEN SO EVERYONE CAN SEE THE EXACT LANGUAGE. I'M GOING TO SUMMARIZE THIS AT A HIGH LEVEL. BUT I'M GOING TO TRY TO HIT ALL THE POINTS. BEFORE I GET INTO SUMMARIZING IT, I WILL SAY THAT THERE ARE TEN AMENDMENTS THAT ARE BEFORE YOU TODAY. THEY VARY IN THE AMOUNT OF RESTRICTION THAT THEY WOULD PLACE ON THE DEPARTMENT'S CROWD CONTROL POLICIES. THEY HAVE BEEN ORDERED SUCH THAT FOR THE MOST PART, THIS IS THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE AMENDMENT ON SPD. THEN FROM THERE ON, IT BECOMES MORE RESTRICTIVE AS WE GET THROUGH THE AMENDMENT PROCESS. SO THAT'S SOMETHING FOR COUNCILMEMBERS TO KNOW AS YOU ARE CONSIDERING THIS. SOMETHING ELSE THAT YOU SHOULD CONSIDER OR YOU MAY WANT TO CONSIDER IS THAT THIS AMENDMENT WAS WORKED -- THE CHAIR WORKED ON THIS AMENDMENT WITH THE MAYOR'S OFFICE. I DON'T KNOW, MR. CHAIR, IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT BEFORE I GET INTO IT. I GUESS I SHOULD DESCRIBE IT. >> DESCRIBE. I WILL SPEAK TO THAT AFTER YOU ARE DONE. >> OKAY. THE TITLE EXPANDING AND CLARIFYING CITY VALUES AND EXPECTATIONS FOR CROWD MANAGEMENT. THIS AMENDMENT WOULD INCORPORATE INTO SECTION TWO OF THE BILL CITY VALUES AND EXPECTATIONS FOR SPD'S CROWD MANAGEMENT POLICY. THE BILL WOULD PROHIBIT USE OF BLAST BALLS UNLESS CROWD CONDITIONS MIRROR THOSE DESCRIBED IN PHASE FIVE OF THE MATRIX AND AN UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY OR RIOT. THEN AUTHORIZATION WOULD BE PROVIDED BY THE ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE ON SCENE COMMANDER AFTER CONSULTING WITH THE CHIEF OF POLICE. WHEN A CROWD -- WHEN USED FOR CROWD MOVEMENT OR DISBURSE AL, BLAST BALLS SHOULD BE DEPLOYED WHEN SAFE AND FEASIBLE, CONSISTENT WITH TRAINING IN AN OPEN SPACE TO MITIGATE AGAINST THE RISK OF INJURY TO A PERSON. THIS IS IN THE OPEN SPACE TO MITIGATE RISK OF INJURY TO A PERSON IS ALONG THE THEME THAT THE CPC PRESENTED TODAY. THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS GO FURTHER. THIS IS CERTAINLY REINFORCING THEIR THEME OF ENSURING THAT BLAST BALLS ARE THROWN WITH ENOUGH SPACE THAT FOLKS WON'T GET HURT. MUTUAL AID OFFICERS RESPONDING TO CITY AT THE REQUEST OF SPD FOR CROWD MANAGEMENT PURPOSE MUST AGREE TO FOLLOW THE COMMAND AND CONTROL OF THE ON- SCENE INCIDENT COMMANDER. THEY MAY NOT DEPLOY LESS LETHAL WEAPONS IN A CROWD MANAGEMENT SETTING CONTRARY TO THE DIRECTION. OR CONTRARY TO STATE LAW OR STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THE WASHINGTON STATE CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION. THIS LANGUAGE REINFORCES THE CURRENT MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT THAT IS SHARED BY DEPARTMENTS IN KING COUNTY. IT'S NO MORE RESTRICTIVE. IT'S REINFORCING THE FACT THAT THERE IS A COMMAND AND CONTROL THAT SPD WILL BE LEAD ON THAT WHEN MUTUAL AID OFFICERS COME INTO OUR JURISDICTION. THERE IS A NEW SECTION FIVE THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT REPORT TO THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR PUBLIC SAFETY AND THE COMMUNITY POLICE COMMISSION ANY DEPLOYMENT OF LESS LETHAL WEAPONS IN A CROWD MANAGEMENT SETTING AS SOON AS FEASIBLE. IT WOULD REQUIRE THE OIG TO EVALUATE THE DEPLOYMENT PROPERLY FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE GOALS AND VALUES OF THIS ORDINANCE. IT WOULD REQUIRE THE OIG IN ITS ANNUAL REPORT TO INCLUDE INFORMATION ON THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S TRAINING AND USE OF BLAST BALLS AND WHETHER THAT TRAINING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE VALUES IN THIS ORDINANCE. FINALLY, IT WOULD REQUIRE SPD TO NOTIFY THE COUNCIL'S PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE BEFORE AUTHORIZING USE OF ANY LESS LETHAL WEAPON THAT'S NOT CURRENTLY IN SPD POLICY. WITH THAT, I WILL STOP AND ASK IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS. >> BEFORE DOING THAT, I WILL INTRODUCE AS THE AUTHOR OF THE AMENDMENT PRIOR TO QUESTIONS THE GENESIS OF THIS CAME FROM OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS THROUGHOUT THE FALL, OFF AND ON, PRIOR TO BUDGET. OBVIOUSLY, WE HAD THE MAYOR'S LETTER FROM OCTOBER AND THE DISCUSSION RELATED TO CONSENT DECREE. THERE'S MANY CONVERSATIONS TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE COUNCIL, BUT ALSO WITH THE EXECUTIVE, THE MAYOR'S OFFICE AND SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT. ALSO STARTED CONVERSATIONS WITH OTHERS AS WELL. IN ADDITION, WE HAD THE CHECK WITH LEGAL IN ADDITION TO ALL OF THE OTHER PIECES THAT WE HAVE HAD. THERE WAS CHECK- IN IN ADDITION TO THAT WITH THE FEDERAL MONITOR. OBVIOUSLY, MOVING FORWARD, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO FOR THIS CROWD MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE IS TO WORK WITH THE FEDERAL MONITOR, WORK WITH THE JUDGE AS PART OF THE CONSENT DECREE PROCESS. THAT WAS THE GENESIS BEHIND OR PARTS -- BEHIND THE AMENDMENT. I LOOK AT THIS AMENDMENT -- I WILL BY UP FRONT WITH YOU. EVERYBODY BRINGS THEIR PERSPECTIVE. AS I MENTIONED, IN TERMS OF UNDER DEPLOYED PIECE THAT I BRING IT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE AS A NAVAL OFFICER RETIRED. ALSO MY EXPERIENCE WORKING COMMUNITY POLICE -- COMMUNITY SAFETY, PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES IN THE COMMUNITY HERE IN SEATTLE. WHEN LOOKING AT THE LEGISLATION, I FELT THAT AN ON- SCENE INCIDENT COMMANDER ITSELF WAS NOT SUFFICIENT. THIS GOES TO THE QUESTION AS I DESCRIBED IN VARIOUS INTERVIEWS AND THE LIKE THAT THIS COMES UP TO THE CHIEF AND THE MAYOR QUESTION TO HAVE THAT KIND OF -- DUE TO THE, AS DESCRIBED BY OTHERS IN TERMS OF THE IMPACT OF BLAST BALLS AND THE NATURE OF THE BLAST BALLS. ANOTHER PART OF THIS -- I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT THIS AMENDMENT BRINGS UP THE MATRIX. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO STEP THROUGH THESE PHASES AND BE MINDFUL OF THE FACT, WORKING THROUGH THESE PHASES , EACH SITUATION IS DIFFERENT. SOME MAY SPEED UP REALLY QUICKLY IN TERMS OF SKIPPING THROUGH THE÷÷PHASES. SOME MAY GET TO BEING VIOLENT EARLY. THAT IS SOMETHING IN TERMS OF THE MINDSET AS WE GO THROUGH THAT. THINK ABOUT THE VARIOUS SCENARIOS, THE VARIOUS CONTINGENCIES. THAT'S AN AREA WHERE AS I HIGHLIGHTED, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS THAT STRUCTURE TO RESPOND AND RESPOND WITH INDIVIDUALS OF SUFFICIENT RANK AND EXPERIENCE AND TRAINING TO MAKE FOR BETTER, SMARTER DECISIONS. THAT IS WHAT GENERATED MY LOOK AT THAT PART OF THE ORDINANCE. SECOND, AS IT RELATES TO BLAST BALLS AS WELL, LIKE EVERYBODY HERE, I THINK WE'RE ALL LOOKING FOR THE SAFE EMPLOYMENT OF THE BLAST BALLS. IN ADDITION TO ALL THE MEETINGS I HAVE HAD AND THE LIKE WITH ALL THE VARIOUS PIECES AND ALSO RECEIVING THE VARIOUS INPUT ON THIS, I SHOULD BE -- A GOOD POINT TO NOTE THAT I DID GO TO THE RANGE AND HAD A BRIEFING FROM S.W.A.T. ON ALL THE LESS LETHAL WEAPONS. THAT INCLUDED A DEMONSTRATION OF BLAST BALLS ALONG WITH A NUMBER OF OTHER LESS LETHAL WEAPONS AS WELL. PART OF UNDERSTANDING THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN TERMS OF THE EMPLOYMENT OF BLAST BALLS. I BELIEVE THAT THIS, WHICH HAS WORKED WITH LEGAL, IS A GOOD WAY TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE IN TERMS OF THE EMPLOYMENT OF BLAST BALLS. THAT'S THE REASON WHY THIS IS INCLUDED HERE, BUILDING ON WHAT WAS IN THE BILL INITIALLY. THE MUTUAL AID OFFICERS PIECE, I HIGHLIGHT THIS BECAUSE I BELIEVE WE HAVE TO BE PRACTICAL. IF WE COME TOO RESTRICTIVE, EITHER IN TERMS OF OTHER JURISDICTIONS POLICIES OR THEY -- THOSE INDIVIDUALS INTO OUR POLICIES AND THE LIKE, WHAT WE WILL END UP HAVING IS NO JURISDICTIONS PROVIDING MUTUAL AID TO THE SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND TO THE CITY OF SEATTLE. IF WE DON'T GET MUTUAL AID IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, AND IF WE ARE UNDER DEPLOYED, THAT CREATES EVEN WORSE CONDITIONS. THAT CREATES CONDITIONS FOR BEING FRANK, BAD THINGS TO HAPPEN. IT IS THE ABILITY TO ATTRACT MUTUAL AID BUT THEN DO IT IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT FOLLOWS THE SEATTLE WAY, THE SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAY. BY THE WAY, I HEAR THIS IN PUBLIC COMMENT. BUT WE SHOULD RECOGNIZE THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF 2025 IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF 2012. YOU COULD SEE IT IN THE TURNOVER, FIRST OFF. THEN IF YOU LOOK AT ALL THE REFORMS AND PIECES OF THAT -- THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S NOT REALLY ACKNOWLEDGED. I WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT POINT RIGHT HERE. BUILDING OFF THAT, BY EMPHASIZING THE COMMAND AND CONTROL AND THE DIRECTION, IT IS A WAY TO ENSURE THAT MUTUAL AID OFFICERS ARE OPERATING IN A WAY CONSISTENT WITH SEATTLE POLICE POLICIES IN A WAY WE DO BUSINESS HERE IN SEATTLE AND DONE AND WRITTEN IN A WAY SO IT DOESN'T TURN OFF ANY MUTUAL AID FROM NEIGHBORING JURISDICTIONS. AGAIN, I SAY THIS THIS WAY BECAUSE IF WE DON'T GET MUTUAL AID, THE CIRCUMSTANCES COULD BE WORSE. MY EXAMPLE IN IRAQ GOES TO THAT. THE EXAMPLE IN PIONEER SQUARE. THERE'S PLENTY OF EXAMPLES OUT THERE THAT WHEN PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE THE SUPPORT -- WE WERE SUPPORTIVE OF AFGHANISTAN OPERATIONS. THOSE SOLDIERS OPERATED IN A WAY WHEN THEY KNEW THEY HAD THE SUPPORT OF OUR AIR WING AND THE COVER. IF YOU DON'T HAVE SUPPORT AND YOU ARE IN A VERY TENUOUS SITUATION, THAT IS WHEN, AGAIN, POOR DECISIONS MAY BE MADE BAD DECISIONS MAY BE MADE. SO IT'S CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO ENSURE WE HAVE THAT SUPPORT WHEN NEEDED. THAT'S THE BACKGROUND RELATED TO THAT SECTION. ALSO VERY IMPORTANT IS THE -- I CANNOT SAY ENOUGH AND I KEEP SAYING THIS. THE SUPPORTING OUR ACCOUNTABILITY PARTNERS, ALL THREE. OIG, OPA AND THE CPC. THAT GOES TO ENSURE THAT COMMUNICATION BETWEEN SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND OUR ACCOUNTABILITY PARTNERS. TO ENSURE TO THE TRAINING POINT THAT THAT IS ALSO REPORTED ON. FINALLY, TO HAVE THAT KIND OF DIALOGUE REQUIRED IN TERMS OF HOW WE MOVE FORWARD WITH LESS LETHAL WEAPONS. THAT'S THE DRIVING PARTS BEHIND THIS AMENDMENT. IT'S REALLY -- IT'S ONE AMENDMENT BUT IT'S GOT SIX PIECES TO IT OR FIVE IF YOU KIND OF COMBINE THE TWO BLAST BALL ELEMENTS BEHIND THIS AMENDMENT. WITH THAT, COLLEAGUES, VICE CHAIR, I TURN OVER TO QUESTIONS FOR MR. DOS OR IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT THEM TO ME AS WELL. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. A COUPLE QUICK COMMENTS. FIRST OFF, I NOTE THAT ALL OF OUR PROPOSED TEN AMENDMENTS EFFECTIVELY BUILD UPON THE MAYOR'S ORIGINAL PROPOSED BASE BILL. I WANT TO THANK YOU, MR. DOS, FOR WORKING SO COLLABORATIVELY AND CLOSELY WITH ME AND MY OFFICE IN BUILDING OUR OWN AMENDMENTS. THEY DO A NUMBER OF THINGS TO EACH OTHER. TREAT CERTAIN ELEMENTS CONTAINED IN INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS DIFFERENTLY. SOMETIMES THEY STAY SILENT ON IT. FOR THE PUBLIC'S BENEFIT TO UNDERSTAND THE CHRONOLOGY OF WHAT THESE DO AND WHAT THEY DO NOT DO IN CERTAIN INSTANCES, WOULD APPRECIATE AS WE GO GO THEM -- YOU ARE NO DOUBT PLANNING TO DO THIS. HIGHLIGHT AREAS OF CLEAR CONSISTENCY AND INCONSISTENCY AS WELL, BECAUSE IN SOME CASES THEY COMPLETELY ABROGATE FEATURES CONTAINED AND IN SOME CASES THEY STAY SILENT. THAT WILL BE HELPFUL FOR THE PUBLIC. THE SECOND THING, JUST WANT TO JUST CLARIFY, I GUESS, JUST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I APPRECIATE MR. DOS YOUR CHARACTERIZATION THAT THE AMENDMENTS GO ON AN ESCALATING BASIS FROM LEAST TO MOST RESTRICTIVE. I GENERALLY AGREE WITH ONE MINOR EXCEPTION. THAT IS MY PROPOSED AMENDMENT NUMBER SIX, ALL THAT DOES IS INCORPORATE BY REFERENCE EXISTING LAW AND MAKE CRYSTAL CLEAR SOMETHING THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN UNDER LAW ANYWAY MUST HAPPEN. WE WILL TALK MORE ABOUT IT. THE EXECUTIVE MUST ENGAGE WITH ACCOUNTABILITY PARTNERS BEFORE MAKING CHANGES. IN ANY EVENT, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S PARTICULARLY RESTRICTIVE. I GENERALLY AGREE WITH EVERYTHING. THIRD AND FINAL THIN, MR. G, MR. CHAIR. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR PUTTING FORWARD THIS THOUGHTFUL CHAIR IT'S AMENDMENT. I THINK IT'S VERY CLEAR TO ME YOU'VE THOUGHT THROUGH THE ISSUES AND TALKED TO A LOT OF PEOPLE AND TRIED TO INCORPORATE AS MANY PERSPECTIVES AS POSSIBLE IN PUTTING TOGETHER A THOUGHTFUL PACKAGE. MY AMENDMENTS ARE INTENDED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THAT. MOSTLY CONSISTENT WITH THAT. BUILD UPON IT. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP IN PUTTING THIS TOGETHER. >> THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHAIR. MY QUESTION, GREG, IS SINCE WE HAVE SO MANY ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS, ARE THEY -- IF WE APPROVE AMENDMENT ONE, WHAT DOES THE IMPACT OF THE OTHER -- ARE WE AMENDING AMENDMENT ONE WITH THE OTHER SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS? >> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER MOORE. THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS, YES. THE VARIOUS PARTS OF THE CHAIR'S AMENDMENT, AMENDMENT ONE WOULD BE AMENDED OUT OR CHANGED IF YOU ADOPT SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS. A GOOD EXAMPLE IS THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE CHAIR'S AMENDMENT, IT SAYS THAT POLICY -- POLICE POLICY SHALL PROHIBIT THE USE OF BLAST BALLS TO MOVE OR DISPERSE A CROWD. IT LAYS OUT PHASE FIVE REQUIREMENT OF SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY DAMAGE OR IMMINENT THREAT OF VIOLENCE AGAINST PERSONS. THEN IT SAYS THAT BLAST BALLS MAY BE AUTHORIZED ONLY THROUGH AN ON- SCENE ASSISTANT CHIEF INCIDENT COMMANDER AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE CHIEF. THAT FIRST PARAGRAPH OF SECTION FIVE, IF SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS THAT WE GET TO REQUIRE A HIGHER LEVEL OF APPROVAL, LIKE SAY A MAYOR'S AUTHORIZATION OR A DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY, IT WOULD AMEND THAT FIRST AMENDMENT AND TAKE OUT THE CHAIR'S FIRST PARAGRAPH SAYING THAT THE CHIEF OF POLICE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO AUTHORIZE AND REPLACE IT WITH THE MORE STRICT OR RESTRICTIVE REQUIREMENTS. YES, THIS AMENDMENT WILL SERVE AS A BASE. THEN AS WE GET TO EACH SUBJECT, YOU ALL WILL HAVE THE CHOICE TO SORT OF RAISE THE LEVEL OF RESTRICTION OR RAISE THE BAR IN EACH OF THESE AREAS. DOES THAT HELP? >> YES. THANK YOU. THAT WAS VERY HELPFUL. MAY I MAKE A COMMENT ON THE AMENDMENT? CHAIR? >> YES. >> THANK YOU. >> THE FLOOR IS YOURS. >> I JUST WANT TO -- OBVIOUSLY, I HAVE QUITE A NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS MYSELF. I DID WANT TO THANK YOU, CHAIR, FOR PUTTING FORTH THIS AS A BASELINE CHAIR AMENDMENT. I THINK IT MAKES SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS OVER THE LEGISLATION THAT WAS SENT TO US. I DO APPRECIATE THE THOUGHTFULNESS THAT WENT INTO PUTTING TOGETHER THE CHAIR'S PACKAGE. AGAIN, I BELIEVE WE CAN GO FURTHER. THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT MY ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS. BUT THANK YOU, NONETHELESS, FOR THE WORK YOU HAVE PUT INTO THIS. >> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS? >> THANK YOU FOR PUTTING SO MUCH WORK INTO THIS. I KNOW YOU HAVE BEEN CONSULTING WITH A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE TO PERFECT YOUR AMENDMENT COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE. AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR COMMENTS, YOU SAID YOU HAD RUN THIS AMENDMENT BY LEGAL AND ALSO I BELIEVE -- WELL, CENTRAL STAFF. DID YOU CHECK IN WITH OUR PARTNERS THAT WERE AT THE TABLE EARLIER TODAY, SPECIFICALLY WITH CPC? >> YES. THERE'S BEEN CONVERSATIONS WITH CPC, PARTICIPATION IN CPC MEMBERS AND ALL OF THE ABOVE. >> THANK YOU. >> ALSO, THE MAYOR'S OFFICE AND SPD WERE INVOLVED. >> YES. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS ON AMENDMENT ONE. AT THIS POINT I WAS GOING TO NOTE THE QUESTION THAT YOU RAISED, COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, REGARDING MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE AND THE LIKE. I THINK, MR. DOS, YOU ADDRESSED THOSE POINTS CLEAR AND WALKED THROUGH THOSE -- THAT ASPECT OF THESE AMENDMENTS. AT THIS POINT, I ASK FOR -- OKAY. FURTHER TO WHAT YOU NOTED, THERE ARE TWO AMENDMENTS IN AMENDMENT ONE THAT ARE EXCLUSIVE WHERE ONLY ONE OF THE TWO MAY BE ADOPTED. I'M GOING TO ASK CENTRAL STAFF TO WALK THROUGH THE TWO AMENDMENTS WHICH ARE AMENDMENTS TWO AND THREE. CENTRAL STAFF, PLEASE WALK THROUGH THESE TWO OPTIONS. >> OKAY. AMENDMENT TWO IS GOING TO -- WOULD AMEND YOUR AMENDMENT, MR. CHAIR, TO REQUIRE A HIGHER LEVEL OF AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF BLAST BALLS. ONE THAT WOULD REQUIRE A MAYOR PROCLAMATION. WE WILL GET INTO DISCUSSION OF THAT AFTER YOURS. NUMBER THREE WOULD AMEND YOUR -- AGAIN YOUR FIRST PARAGRAPH ON AUTHORIZATION THAT WOULD REQUIRE AND WOULD REQUIRE MAYORAL AUTHORIZATION AND A PROCLAMATION OF EMERGENCY FOR USE OF BLAST BALLS. YOUR AMENDMENT AS A BASE CAN BE PASSED. THE SPONSORS OF AMENDMENT TWO AND AMENDMENT THREE COULD VOTE FOR YOUR AMENDMENT. THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. AMENDMENT TWO AND AMENDMENT THREE WOULD CHANGE YOUR AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE A HIGHER LEVEL OF AUTHORIZATION. >> IN EFFECT, WE WILL GO THROUGH AMENDMENTS TWO AND THREE AS IT IMPACTS CHANGES POTENTIALLY ATO AMENDMENT ONE. AFTER THAT PROCESS IS DONE, THEN WE WILL VOTE ON AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE. >> SORRY. POINT OF PRIVILEGE? >> YES. >> IS THAT CORRECT? THERE ARE PORTIONS OF YOUR AMENDMENT ONE THAT RELATE TO MUTUAL AID. I HAVE AN AMENDMENT THAT RELATES TO MUTUAL AID. YOU HAVE A SECTION THAT RELATES TO HOW BLAST BALLS ARE DEPLOYED. I ALSO HAVE AN AMENDMENT TO HOW THE BLAST BALLS ARE DEPLOYED. THOSE WOULD ALL AMEND YOUR UNDERLYING AMENDMENT. >> UNDERSTOOD YOUR POINT. >> IF I CAN ADD, I DON'T KNOW IF THE CLERK HAS REQUESTED THIS CHANGE. IN THE WAY THAT THE AMENDMENTS ARE BUILT AND STRUCTURED, YOURS SHOULD GO FIRST. FOR INSTANCE, YOUR AMENDMENT ADDS A NEW SECTION TO THE BILL, SESSION SECTION H. >> WE WILL GO WITH THE VOTE. I'M WORKING IN TERMS OF WHAT WE HAD DONE WITH THE CLERKS. TO THAT POINT, WE WILL VOTE ON AMENDMENT ONE, WHICH ADDRESSES THE POINT THAT COUNCILMEMBER MOORE DID. IT'S NOT JUST AS SHE NOTED THE BLAST BALL PIECE. THERE'S THE MUTUAL AID PIECE. WE WILL GO AHEAD AND -- I CALL FOR A VOTE ON AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE. >> I'M PRETTY SURE WE HAVE TO -- BECAUSE AMENDMENT TWO AND AMENDMENT THREE BOTH AMEND AMENDMENT ONE, THEY HAVE TO BE VOTED ON FIRST. THE REST OF THE AMENDMENTS, FOUR THROUGH TEN, DO NOT AMEND AMENDMENT ONE. THEY AMEND THE BILL AFTER IT HAS BEEN AMENDED BY AMENDMENT ONE. >> POINT OF ORDER. I THINK WHAT YOUR PROPOSED AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE DOES IS ESTABLISH THE NEW BASE. THEREFORE, IT SHOULD BE VOTED ON FIRST. AND THEN FROM THERE THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS. >> WE ARE CONTACTING THE CLERKS. THE CLERKS WILL COME DOWN HERE. >> THANK YOU. >> WE WILL HAVE A FIVE-MINUTE RECESS. >>> THANK YOU. WE ARE RESTARTING, RECONVENING. WE ARE ADJUSTING OUR PARLIAMENTARY PROCESS HERE SLIGHTLY FROM THE ORIGINAL SCRIPT THAT WE HAD. MR. DOS, CAN YOU SPEAK TO THIS IN. >> HAPPY TO EXPLAIN. WHAT WE HAVE IS A SITUATION WHERE THE BILLS THAT WERE WRITTEN WITH THE CODE REVISER AND THE LAW DEPARTMENT HAVE SPECIFIC JINGLES TO THEM. A JINGLE IS A HEADLINE WHERE WE DISCUSS HOW A BILL IS AMENDED. THEY ARE WRITTEN IN SUCH A WAY THAT CLASHES WITH PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE. THEY ARE RULES YOU ADOPT. WHAT THIS MEANS IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED AS WE HAD TALKED ABOUT, AS I HAD SAID WHERE WE'RE GOING TO START WITH AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED TWO, THREE, ET CETERA. BUT WHEN WE GET TO AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO, YOU ARE GOING TO SUSPEND THE RULES SO THAT WE CAN RECONSIDER THE ISSUE OF AUTHORIZATION. TO WALK YOU THROUGH IT, AMENDMENT ONE WILL REQUIRE THE CHIEF OF POLICE TO PROVIDE AUTHORIZATION FOR BLAST BALLS. WE WILL GET TO AMENDMENT TWO. YOU WILL SUSPEND THE RULES. AMENDMENT TWO REQUIRES MAYOR PROCLAMATION FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR BLAST BALLS. YOU WILL VOTE ON THAT. YOU WILL GET TO AMENDMENT THREE SUSPEND THE RULES AGAIN, AND THEN VOTE ON AMENDMENT THREE, WHICH IS A PROCLAMATION AND MAYORAL APPROVAL. AS WE CONSIDER THE SAME ISSUE, YOU WILL HAVE TO SUSPEND THE RULES. THIS IS A STAFF ERROR. FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH COUNCIL, NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONSIDERATION OF THE AMENDMENTS FROM A POLICY STANDPOINT. THIS IS ALL JUST TECHNICAL CLASHES BETWEEN TWO DIFFERENT POLICIES. I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. >> MR. DOS, NO ISSUE THERE. OBVIOUSLY, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY, SOMETIMES THINGS CLASH. WE WILL WORK THROUGH IT RIGHT NOW. WE WILL START WITH ONE AND THEN HOPING THERE'S NO OBJECTIONS, BUT I WILL SAY THAT AGAIN AFTER -- WHEN WE GET TO NUMBERS TWO AND THREE. WITH THAT, CLERK, WILL YOU CALL THE ROLL ON THE ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE? [ ROLL CALLED ] THERE ARE FIVE YES VOTES. ZERO NO VOTES AND ZERO ABSTENTIONS. >> THANK YOU, CLERK. COLLEAGUES, IF THERE'S NO OBJECTIONS, THE RULES WILL BE SUSPENDED TO ALLOW THE CONSIDERATION AND VOTE ON AMENDMENT TWO AND AMENDMENT THREE. ANY OBJECTION? SEEING AND HEARING NO OBJECTION, WE WILL PROCEED AS STATED BY MR. DOS. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK VICE CHAIR TO MOVE HIS AMENDMENT. >> THANK YOU. I MOVE TO AMEND AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE AS PRESENTED ON TWO. >> IT IS MOVED AND SECONDED AS PRESENTED ON THE AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO. COUNCILMEMBER SAKA, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO DESCRIBE IT FIRST? >> YES. GO AHEAD. >> AMENDMENT TWO, AS WE DISCUSSED A BIT, WILL AMEND THE FIRST AMENDMENT. THE FIRST AMENDMENT REQUIRES THE CHIEF OF POLICE TO AUTHORIZE USE OF BLAST BALLS. THIS AMENDMENT, NUMBER TWO, WOULD REQUIRE THAT THE MAYOR ISSUE A PROCLAMATION OF CIVIL INFORMATION PURSUANT TO SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE 10.02. THIS REQUIREMENT FOR A PROCLAMATION OF EMERGENCY IS THE SAME REQUIREMENT THAT THE UNDERLYING BILL HAS FOR TEAR GAS. THIS IS ELEVATING THE AUTHORIZATION LEVEL FROM BLAST BALLS AT THE INCIDENT COMMANDER TO THE MAYOR -- TO A PROCLAMATION OF EMERGENCY GIVEN BY THE MAYOR. ALSO NOTABLE IS THAT THIS DOES NOT CHANGE THE CAUSES AND CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH SPD MAY USE THE BLAST BALLS THEMSELVES. THEY COULD STILL BE USED AS LEVEL FIVE WHERE THERE'S A THREAT OF VIOLENCE AND SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY DAMAGE. IT WOULD JUST REQUIRE THE MAYOR AL DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. >> THANK YOU. VICE CHAIR? >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. IT'S NO SECRET THAT THE MOST CONTENTIOUS TOOL OR TECHNIQUE THAT WE ARE BEING CALLED UPON TO CONSIDER AS PART OF THE BROADER CROWD MANAGEMENT PROPOSED LEGISLATION IS THE USE -- THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH SPD COULD USE BLAST BALLS OR NOT. BLAST BALLS, MOST CONTROVERSIAL, MOST SENSITIVE. BLAST BALLS ARE DANGEROUS. IT'S NO SECRET. SKIMMING THROUGH THE LETTER FROM A PUBLIC COMMENTER EARLIER TODAY, MISS KAREN KOHLER. WE HAVE PICTURES OF PEOPLE SUFFERING CATASTROPHIC INJURIES AS A DIRECT RESULT OF BLAST BALLS. IT CONTINUES ON WITH SOME MORE GRUESOME PHOTOS. COULD TURN THE PAGES HERE, AND THESE ARE ACTUAL PEOPLE WHO HAVE SUFFERED AS A RESULT OF BLAST BALLS, WHETHER JUSTIFIED OR NOT, IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES. THEY ARE HARMFUL. THEY ARE DANGEROUS INHERENTLY. LESS THAN LETHAL OR OTHERWISE. WE HAVE SEEN VARIOUS COMMUNITY GROUPS SAY WE SHOULD NOT USE THOSE AS A CITY, AS A POLICY MATTER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES WHATSOEVER. THAT CERTAINLY SEEMS TO BE THE POSITION OF OUR CITY'S OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS. OCR. I READ THEIR REPORT I THINK FROM LAST MONTH NOW. IT'S NO SECRET BLAST BALLS ARE DANGEROUS -- VERY DANGEROUS. MY PROPOSED AMENDMENT HERE -- BLAST BALLS ARE DANGEROUS. ON THE ONE HAND PEOPLE SAY THEY SHOULDN'T BE USED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. OTHER HAND, FOLKS SAYING SHOULD HAVE FREE WILL ACCESS TO USE THEM UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. ULT PAT ULTIMATELY WHAT MY PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS ABOUT, IT'S ABOUT BALANCE. THIS AMENDMENT IS ABOUT BALANCE. IT'S TRUE THAT THERE MAY BE SITUATIONS WHERE BLAST BALLS ARE NECESSARY FOR CROWD DISPERSEMENT PURPOSES. PURPOSES. SPECIFICALLY WHERE DEMONSTRATORS AND CITIZENS ARE AT RISK BECAUSE A DEMONSTRATION HAS GOTTEN OUT OF HAND. IN ORDER TO USE THIS TECHNOLOGY, WE SHOULD BE SURE THAT BLAST BALLS ARE BEING DEPLOYED IN A CONTEXT THAT WARRANTS THEIR SPECIFIC USE, WHICH IS WHY MY PROPOSED AMENDMENT CALLS ON THE MAYOR TO MAKE A DECLARATION OF CIVIL EMERGENCY. AS WE HEARD, THERE'S AN EXISTING -- AS WE KNOW, THERE'S AN EXISTING STATE ORDINANCE THAT IMPOSES A REQUIREMENT FOR MORE HEIGHTENED STRINGENT, EXACTING STANDARD FOR POSSIBLE -- POSSIBLE USE OF BLAST BALLS FOR CROWD MANAGEMENT PURPOSES. LET ME BE CRYSTAL CLEAR. BLAST BALLS ARE NOT WITHOUT RISK. I DON'T BELIEVE -- I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY SUCH THING AS ZERO RISK. I MYSELF VOLUNTEERED TO WITNESS -- AND SIGNED UP TO DO A BLAST BALL DEMONSTRATION AMONGST OTHER CROWD MANAGEMENT TOOLS THAT SPD CURRENTLY HAS AT ITS DISPOSAL. SIGNED UP TO WITNESS AND OBSERVE THAT FIRSTHAND. I ALSO TOOK THE EXTRA STEP -- I HEARD SOMEONE DURING PUBLIC COMMENT EARLIER TODAY SAYING, YOU ALL TOOK THE VISUAL DEMO. NONE OF YOU SIGNED UP FOR -- TO ACTUALLY SEE IT FIRSTHAND. I DID. I TRIED AT LEAST. I TRIED. I TRIED. I PERSONALLY -- I THINK IT'S A PERSONAL CHOICE. FOR ME, BEING A MILITARY VETERAN, I HAVE SEEN CERTAIN IMPACTS FIRSTHAND OF WEAPONS, TOOLS AND TECHNOLOGY. I ALSO HAVE BEEN AT DEMONSTRATIONS , PROTESTS, INCLUDING IN 2020, THAT STARTED OFF PEACEFUL AND QUICKLY DEVOLVED WHERE I HAVE INHALED NOXIOUS GAS, PEPPER SPRAY. I DON'T KNOW WHATEVER THE HECK IT WAS. THAT'S WHEN I KNEW IT WAS TIME FOR ME TO GO HOME TO MY FAMILY, PERSONALLY. I WOULDN'T PERSONALLY AUTHORIZE ANYTHING THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE USED ON THE GENERAL PUBLIC THAT I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH OBSERVING FIRSTHAND. I TRIED. I TRIED. I SIGNED UP. I ASKED. I ASKED, WANTED TO. PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THE SEPARATION OF POWERS. THIS IS A CLEAR EXAMPLE. I MADE THE REQUEST. THIS IS ULTIMATELY THE MAYOR'S CALL. THE EXECUTIVE DECLINED MY REQUEST TO EXPERIENCE A DEPLOYMENT OF BLAST BALLS FIRSTHAND. BUT I TRIED. I STILL, AGAIN, OBSERVED THEM VISUALLY AT LEAST. MY GOAL WITH THIS AMENDMENT IS THAT WE AS A CITY COME UP WITH A POLICY THAT ATTEMPTS TO RESTRICT THE USE OF BLAST BALLS TO MORE LIMITED, NARROW CIRCUMSTANCES PROVIDING CLARITY FOR OFFICERS, MUCH NEEDED CLARITY FOR OFFICERS ON THE GROUND AND PROTECTIONS FOR THOSE DEMONSTRATING IN OUR CITY. IN TERMS OF SOME OF THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE, THAT FIRST SENTENCE THERE OF MY PROPOSED AMENDMENT AGAIN, REQUIRES THE MAYOR TO ISSUE A PROCLAMATION OF A CIVIL EMERGENCY. THAT SECOND SENTENCE, COLLEAGUES, AS MR. DOS NOTED, IS ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH AN ELEMENT -- I JUST BORROWED LANGUAGE DIRECTLY FROM THE CHAIR'S AMENDMENT SETTING FORTH THE CIRCUMSTANCES, ONCE THAT HAPPENS, THEY SHOULD BE USED. I LIKE TO THINK -- THAT'S FROM ONE OF THE MATRIX -- THE CPC MATRIX, I BELIEVE. THAT'S ONE OF THEIR SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS. WE CLARITY ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THAT. BUT I LIKE TO THINK OF THAT SHORTHAND AS A MINIMUM -- A LAST RESORT. CIRCUMSTANCES OF LAST RESORT. AGAIN, COLLEAGUES, I THINK THIS BILL IS CONSISTENT WITH, IT HEIGHTENED WITH THE PROPOSED CHAIR'S AMENDMENT THAT WE JUST PASSED. IT BUILDS UPON IT IN AN IMPORTANT WAY BY MAKING CLEAR -- MAKING CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT BLAST BALLS ARE ONLY A MATTER OF LAST RESORT. ONCE THAT PROCLAMATION BY THE MAYOR HAS BEEN GIVEN, IT UNLOCKED ANY NUMBER OF OPTIONS. AT THAT POINT I PERSONALLY WOULD DEFER TO THE MAYOR AND THE DEPARTMENT TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT -- WHO SHOULD MAKE THE CALL. I THINK THIS IS ULTIMATELY AT THE END OF THE DAY A BALANCED APPROACH THAT STRIKES THE RIGHT BALANCE BETWEEN THE VARIOUS COMPETING INTERESTS AND NEEDS HERE. I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU. >> CAN I CLARIFY ONE THING? >> YES. >> I MAY HAVE MISSPOKE EARLIER. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I DID THAT THIS POINT IS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR. THE STATE LAW REQUIRES THAT THE MAYOR GIVE APPROVAL OF USE OF TEAR GAS. IT WAS THE MAYOR'S OFFICE AND SPD THAT ADDED INTO THIS BILL THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT THERE BE A MAYOR'S OFFICE PROCLAMATION FOR USE OF TEAR GAS. IT IS TRUE THAT BOTH OF THOSE THINGS ARE NECESSARY UNDER THIS BILL FOR USE OF TEAR GAS. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. DOS. ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS ON AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO? >> THIS IS -- I APPRECIATE YOUR WORK. I HAVE JUST A SIMPLE QUESTION ABOUT WHEN WE SAY PROCLAMATION, WE WHO SIT UP HERE ALL THE TIME -- I HAVE A CERTAIN IDEA OF WHAT A PROCLAMATION IS. IT'S IN A FOLDER AND YOU PRESENT IT TO SOMEBODY. IS THERE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF -- WHO ARE THE -- WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A PROCLAMATION IN TERMS OF WHO HAS TO BE IN THE AUDIENCE, ET CETERA? DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE LOGISTICS? >> THE LOGISTICS ON THAT -- THE SPECIFIC DETAILS OF THE LOGISTICS, I WOULD DEFER TO MR. DOS AND THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. AT A PRE- CONDITION RATHER FOR POSSIBLE DEPLOYMENT, THE MAYOR WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ISSUE A PROCLAMATION OF CIVIL EMERGENCY PURSUANT TO EXISTING LAW. IN THIS CASE IS SMC CHAPTER 10.02. THOSE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS AND LOGISTICS SET FORTH IN THAT CODE WOULD APPLY WITH EQUAL WEIGHT AND FORCE IN THE BLAST BALL CONTEXT FOR CROWD MANAGEMENT PURPOSES AS WELL. MAYBE MR. DOS HAS -- >> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER SAKA. EVERYTHING YOU SAID IS TRUE. SMC 10. 02 WOULD REQUIRE SPECIFIC FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES TO THAT EVENT WHICH IS CAUSING THE EMERGENCY DECLARATION. IT IS THE CASE THAT THE MAYOR'S OFFICE HAS INDICATED THAT SUCH A DECLARATION COULD BE WRITTEN BETWEEN ONE AND THREE HOURS. PROBABLY CLOSER TO THE HIGHER END OF THAT RANGE. IT WOULD HAVE TO GO -- THAT'S MY INTERPRETATION. IT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH LEGAL REVIEW WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO ENSURE THAT THE DECLARATIONS THAT WERE GOING INTO THE PROCLAMATION WERE CORRECT AND THAT IT COULD BE ISSUED. THERE'S A DURE ALL THINGS THAT WOULD SLOW IT DOWN. THE MAYOR'S OFFICE ESTIMATES THAT COULD TAKE UP TO THREE HOURS. >> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I NOTE AMENDMENT TWO IS -- RELATES DIRECTLY TO THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE NOW AMENDED BILL. I ALSO NOTE IT POINTS TO POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY, WHICH GOES BACK TO THE EARLIER POINT ABOUT WORKING WITH THE COUNCIL BUT ALSO THE COMMUNITY POLICING COMMISSION TO ENGAGE SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT ON POLICY ISSUES TO INCLUDE CROWD MANAGEMENT. WITH THAT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I DON'T SEE ANYTHING. WITH THAT, CLERK, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL ROLL ON ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT TWO? [ ROLL CALLED ] >> FIVE IN FAVOR AND NONE OPPOSED. >> THANK YOU. AMENDMENT TWO IS ADOPTED. WE HAVE ALREADY HAD THE RULES SUSPENDED. WE CAN MOVE TO AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE? >> THANK YOU. I MOVE TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL 126916 AS PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT THREE, DRAFT VERSE TWO. >> SECOND. >> IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED TO AMEND AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE AS PRESENTED IN AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE DRAFT TWO. DRAFT VERSION TWO. >> DRAFT TWO WAS DISTRIBUTED A FEW MOMENTS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE SESSION BEGAN. I WOULD ASK THE CLERK IF HE CAN BRING UP AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE DRAFT TWO. >> THIS AMENDMENT WOULD REQUIRE THE MAYOR ISSUE A PROCLAMATION OF CIVIL EMERGENCY PURSUANT TO THE SMC 10.02. THE SAME LEVEL OF RESTRICTION YOU JUST ADOPTED. BUT IT WOULD FURTHER REQUIRE THAT THE MAYOR HIMSELF OR HERSELF AUTHORIZE USE OF BLAST BALLS. AGAIN, CONSISTENT WITH PHASE FIVE OF SPD'S CROWD MANAGEMENT CONTROL POLICY. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE AMENDMENT, PHASE FIVE IS AS WE DISCUSSED, VIOLENT ACTS BY A PERSON OR ACTS THAT POSE A THREAT OF VIOLENCE AGAINST PERSONS OR SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY DAMAGE. IT IS THE CASE THAT ONCE THESE THINGS HAVE BEEN -- HAVE HAPPENED, THERE'S A PROCLAMATION THAT HAS BEEN ISSUED AND THE MAYOR HAS GIVEN HIS OR HER AUTHORIZATION THAT THERE'S NO MORE RESTRICTION AND SPD INCIDENT COMMANDERS LIEUTENANT OR ABOVE COULD PROVIDE AUTHORIZATION TO USE BLAST BALLS. THAT PROVISION ALSO THE SAME AS COUNCILMEMBER SAKA'S AMENDMENT. HERE, WE ARE LAYERING ON TWO ADDITIONAL LEVELS OF AUTHORIZATION OR ONE LEVEL. THAT IS THAT THE MAYOR MUST GIVE SPECIFIC APPROVAL. I WILL ASK IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT. >> ANY QUESTIONS? COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, CAN YOU SPEAK TO YOUR AMENDMENT? >> SURE. THANK YOU. THIS AMENDMENT DOES TWO THINGS. WELL, THREE THINGS, I GUESS. IT REQUIRES THAT BEFORE WE -- THE MAYOR -- BEFORE SPD IS ALLOWED TO USE BLAST BALLS, THERE HAS TO BE A MAYORAL AUTHORIZATION OF CIVIL EMERGENCY AND THEN THE MAYOR HAS TO AUTHORIZE THE USE OF BLAST BALLS UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF SECTION FIVE OF THE POLICE POLICY. BASED ON MY CONVERSATIONS WITH CPC -- I GOT THEIR LETTER ON FRIDAY. AND THEIR CONCERN THAT THERE WAS NO MECHANISM FOR IMMEDIATE RISK TO LIFE. I BROUGHT FORTH THIS AMENDMENT. I DID PASS IT OUT TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS YESTERDAY, JUST SO YOU WOULD BE AWARE THAT IT WAS COMING. THAT'S WHY IT SAYS THESE RESTRICTIONS SHALL NOT APPLY TO IMMEDIATE THREATS TO LIFE SAFETY THAT REQUIRE IMMEDIATE POLICE ACTION AS ESTABLISHED IN PHASE SIX OF SPD'S CROWD MANAGEMENT INTERVENTION AND CROWD CONTROL POLICY. I KNOW THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION EARLIER TODAY ABOUT UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF BEING SOMEWHAT PRESCRIPTIVE IN REFERENCING THE RIOTS AT MARDI GRAS THAT RESULTS IN THE DEATH OF THE INDIVIDUAL. I WANT TO BE CLEAR MY AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW SPD -- WOULD HAVE ALLOWED -- IF IT WERE IN PLACE AT THAT TIME WOULD HAVE ALLOWED SPD TO IMMEDIATELY RESPOND AND UTILIZE BLAST BALLS. IT WOULD NOT HAVE REQUIRE AID DECLARATION OF CIVIL EMERGENCY OR A DIRECT AUTHORIZATION BY THE MAYOR. THERE IS THAT ESCAPE CLAUSE IF SPD IS SEEING SOMEBODY WHOSE LIFE IS IMMEDIATELY IN DANGER. IF THEY DON'T ACT IMMEDIATELY, THE PERSON WILL SUFFER SERIOUS -- LIFE- THREATENING INJURY. I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. TO THE OTHER PIECE, WE HAVE HEARD A LOT ABOUT THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. AND WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE THIS HIGHER LEVEL OF APPROVAL BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT UNINTENDED HARM TO HAPPEN THROUGH ESCALATING TO DIFFERENT USES, DIFFERENT LESS LETHAL WEAPONS. TO THAT I WOULD RESPOND THAT BLAST BALLS THEMSELVES HAVE BEEN DOCUMENTED BOTH IN 2015 AND 2020 IN SEATTLE AND I WOULD SAY THEY ARE USED THROUGHOUT THE NATION AS RESULTING IN UNINTENDED HARM. BECAUSE BLAST BALLS BY THEIR NATURE ARE RUBBER AND THEY BOUNCE, EVEN IF AN OFFICER THROWS THE BALL PER POLICY APPROPRIATELY, THERE'S NO WAY TO GUARANTEE THAT THE BALL ISN'T GOING TO BOUNCE AND HIT SOMEBODY WHERE IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO OR BOUNCE OFF INTO A DIFFERENT DIRECTION AND HIT AN UNINTEND ED PERSON BECAUSE OF THE VERY NATURE OF HOW IT DEPLOYS. THEY SEPARATE. SO YOU HAVE THE RUBBER PIECE THAT'S FLYING ANY WHICH WAY, WHICH CAN ALSO CAUSE INJURY. THIS IDEA THAT SOMEHOW WE HAVE TO -- THAT BY ALLOWING SORT OF THE UNLIMITED USE OF BLAST BALLS, WE ARE PREVENTING UNINTENDED HARM FROM OTHER WEAPONS I THINK IS DISINGENUOUS IN TALKING ABOUT THE UNINTENDED HARM THAT CAN HAPPEN WITH BLAST BALLS. THE OTHER THING THAT'S IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND IS THAT WE CONTINUE TO SAY LESS LETHAL VERSUS NON-LETHAL. IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE KEEP THAT DISTINCTION IN MIND. NONE OF THESE ARE NON-LETHAL. THEY ARE ALL LESS LETHAL. I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE MATERIALS THAT KAREN KOHLER SUBMITTED TO SHOW IN GRAPHIC DETAIL WHAT HAPPENED. I ALSO WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE DO HAVE A NEW SPD FORCE. WE HAVE MADE A LOT OF ROE PROGRESS UNDER THE CONSENT DECREE. WE HAD PROBLEMS IN 2015. THAT WASN'T MAYDAY. THAT WASN'T A 2020 PROTEST WHERE PEOPLE WERE PROTESTING AGAINST LAW ENFORCEMENT AND IT WAS PERSONAL. WE HAD THESE KINDS OF PROBLEMS IN 2015 WHERE PEOPLE WERE PROTESTING ABOUT MAYDAY. TO THE POINT THAT COUNCILMEMBER RINK WAS ABLE TO MAKE, WE HAVEN'T DEPLOYED IT YET. I'M SURE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MANY DEMONSTRATIONS THAT ARE COMING FORTH. TO ME, THE USE OF BLAST BALLS AND THE POTENTIAL INJURY AND THE POTENTIAL RISK TO LIFE IS OF A LEVEL OF SERIOUSNESS THAT THE HIGHEST ELECTED OFFICIAL IN THE CITY SHOULD APPROVE THEIR USE. THE PERSON, THE MAYOR SHOULD BE CONFIDENT THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANT PLACING THE CITIZENRY AT THIS LEVEL OF RISK. IF THE MAYOR IS UNWILLING TO MAKE THAT CALL, THEN IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT IS INAPPROPRIATE TO AUTHORIZE THAT DEGREE OF LESS LETHAL. I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT THAT OVERALL, I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT ALL OF THE LESS LETHAL WEAPONS. BUT THERE ARE CERTAINLY OTHER ONES THAT CAN BE UTILIZED THAT ARE NOT QUITE SO LETHAL AS BLAST BALLS. LOOKING AT THE BLUE NOSE. SOME OF THOSE ARE. BUT THE BLUE NOSE ARE LESS SO. WE HAVE PEPPER SPRAY THAT WE CAN UTILIZE. I WANT TO NOTE THAT WASHINGTON ATTORNEY GENERAL USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE AND CROWD MANAGEMENT BEST PRACTICES THAT CAME OUT IN JULY OF 2022 TALKED ABOUT NOISE FLASH DEVICE, WHICH IS WHAT A BLAST BALL IS. IF YOU GO TO THE DEFENSE PAGE, THEY ARE THE MANUFACTURERS THAT WE HAVE, THEIR PAGE SAYS THAT THE BLAST BALL GRENADE IS A DEVICE THAT DELIVERS THREE STIMULI FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL AFFECTS. LIGHT, SOUND AND OC PEPPER SPRAY. THE INTENT IS TO CAUSE DISTRACTION, PANIC, DISORDER. BECAUSE OF THAT, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AN ARM -- NOT A BLEEDING LIBERAL IN TERMS OF ITS INSTITUTIONAL POSITIONS, HAS RECOMMENDED AGAINST THE USE OF NOISE FLASH DIVERSIONS, SHALL NOT BE USED FOR CROWD MANAGEMENT EXCEPT AS A LAST RESORT. I THINK GIVEN THAT THE PROFESSIONALS WHO HAVE LOOKED AT THIS ISSUE OVER THE YEARS, WE EVEN HAVE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TALKING ABOUT THE NEED TO REALLY UTILIZE THIS AS A LAST RESORT, THAT WE NEED TO CREATE THAT FRAMEWORK FOR OUR CITY. THERE'S SOME CONCERN THAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE TOO MUCH TIME FOR THE MAYOR TO MAKE THIS DECISION OR THE MAYOR IS GOING TO BE OUT OF TOWN. IF THE MAYOR IS OUT OF TOWN, THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE A PRO TEM. I WOULD ASK MY COLLEAGUES IF YOU BALK AT HAVING TO -- BEING PUT IN A POSITION OF HAVING TO MAKE THE DECISION ABOUT WHETHER TO AUTHORIZE THE USE OF BLAST BALLS, I WOULD ASK YOU TO ASK YOURSELF WHY. WHY WOULD YOU HAVE THAT HESITANCY? FOR ME, I KNOW IT'S BECAUSE OF THE LEVEL OF POTENTIAL LETHALITY THAT I WOULD BE EXPOSING THE CITIZENS TO AND HAVING TO BALANCE THAT AGAINST ALSO THE LEVEL OF POTENTIAL HARM THAT COULD HAPPEN TO PEOPLE FROM A RIOT SITUATION. NEEDING TO KNOW THAT PROPORTIONAL BALANCE. CERTAINLY, I WOULD LOOK TO MY SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS AND SPD TO HELP ME MAKE THAT DECISION. I WOULD EXPECT THE MAYOR TO DO THE SAME. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WHEN I TALKED TO CPC ABOUT ON FRIDAY WAS THEIR CONCERN AGAIN THAT THERE WOULD BE TOO MUCH TIME BETWEEN THINGS UNFOLDING ON THE GROUND AND BEING ABLE TO MAKE THIS -- COMING BACK TO THE MAYOR FOR A DECLARATION RELATING TO BLAST BALL USE. I'M NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT. CLEARLY, I'M SPEAKING FROM A POSITION OF SOME IGNORANCE HERE. BUT I WOULD IMAGINE THAT IF YOU ARE COMING TO THE MAYOR'S OFFICE FOR A DECLARATION OF CIVIL EMERGENCY THAT IT WOULD MAKE SENSE AT THAT TIME TO ALSO MAKE THE CASE FOR ISSUING -- AUTHORIZING THE USE OF BLAST BALLS AND GIVING IT AS AN OPTION FOR THE LIEUTENANTS ON THE GROUND IF THEY SEE IT NECESSARY. IN MY OPINION, I WOULD SEE THAT AS SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS SIMULTANEOUSLY TO THE REQUEST FOR A CIVIL EMERGENCY DECLARATION. THE OTHER THING AS WELL, IF THE MAYOR IS OUT OF TOWN. IF WE LEAVE IT AT THE POLICE CHIEF, THE CHIEF ISN'T ALWAYS IN TOWN EITHER. THEN WE AGAIN ARE DOWN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND. IS THAT APPROPRIATE GIVEN THE POTENTIAL RISK, BOTH PHYSICAL RISK AS WELL AS THE LEGAL RISK? WE PAID OUT $10 MILLION BECAUSE THERE WERE OPA FOUND -- CONFIRMED QUITE A NUMBER OF INSTANCES WHERE POLICY WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH. EVEN WHEN YOU HAVE A POLICY, YOU RUN THE RISK OF THERE BEING FOR WHATEVER REASON, NON-COMPLIANCE. I THINK IT'S INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT THAT WE MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT THESE TOOLS CARRY SERIOUS RISK. THERE NEEDS TO BE SERIOUS CONSIDERATION. IF THINGS GO WRONG, THAT THERE IS SOMEBODY DIRECTLY ACCOUNTABLE TO THE CITIZENRY. IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO SAY, WELL, THE POLICE CHIEF CAN BE FIRED. BECAUSE OFTEN WE SEE THAT THAT CAN BE A COMPLICATED AND LENGTHY PROCESS AND DOESN'T ALWAYS HAPPEN. I THINK WHEN SOMEBODY IS EXERCISING THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT AND THEY RECEIVE A LIFE- THREATENING OR EVEN LONG-TERM INJURY, THAT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO HOLD THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, THE COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR RESPONSIBLE FOR HAVING MADE THAT DECISION SHOULD THEY BELIEVE IT WAS THE WRONG DECISION. THAT'S WHY I BELIEVE WE NEED TO HAVE THIS AMENDMENT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER MOORE. >> MR. CHAIR. >> GO AHEAD. >> I'M SORRY TO KEEP INTERRUPTING. I NEED TO PRESENT SOME TECHNICAL INFORMATION THAT I THINK WILL AFFECT ALL OF YOUR VOTING. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ALL HAVE INFORMATION. I SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED IN MY OVERVIEW THAT THERE IS, AS COUNCILMEMBER MOORE PUT IT, THE ESCAPE CLAUSE THAT REQUIRE IMMEDIATE POLICE ACTION AS ESTABLISHED IN PHASE SIX OF THE CROWD INTERVENTION AND CONTROL POLICY. THERE IS WITHIN SPD'S MATRIX POLICIES THE ALLOWANCE FOR OFFICERS TO MAKE INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS TO DEPLOY BLAST BALLS WHEN THERE IS A THREAT TO LIFE. HOWEVER, THAT PROVISION DOES NOT ALLOW FOR CROWD DISPERSAL. ALLOWS FOR MORE OF AN INDIVIDUAL INTERDICTION TACTIC. IN A WAY, THIS BROADENS THEIR EXISTING POLICY, BECAUSE THE RESTRICTIONS -- THIS BROADENS THE POLICY FROM THE LAST AMENDMENT, BECAUSE THE RESTRICTIONS THAT WOULD BE PUT IN PLACE, THE MAYOR'S OFFICE AUTHORIZATION AND THE MAYOR'S OFFICE PROCLAMATION, WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED IN PHASE SIX WHEN WE HAVE REACHED LIFE SAFETY EVENTS. THAT IS -- THAT WOULD ALLOW THE MAYOR'S OFFICE TO DISPERSE A CROWD AT PHASE SIX. UNDER THEIR CURRENT POLICY, THEY CAN ONLY USE THEM FOR INDIVIDUAL INTERDICTION. OFFICERS CAN MAKE DECISIONS ONLY AT THE INDIVIDUAL LEVEL FOR INDIVIDUAL INTERDICTIONS, NOT FOR CROWD DISPERSAL. I'M GOING TO INVITE BRIAN MAXEY UP. DO YOU WANT -- UNLESS I SAID SOMETHING WRONG THERE. DO YOU WANT TO CLARIFY? TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY IS GETTING THE RIGHT INFORMATION. >> GREG, WHAT IS THE SPECIFIC QUESTION? >> SPD'S CURRENT POLICIES ALAW ALLOW FOR OFFICERS TO MAKE INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS IF IT'S A MATTER OF LIFE DECISION, BUT THEY CANNOT MAKE THE DECISION TO DISPERSE A CROWD. THEY CAN ONLY MAKE THE DECISION TO INTERDICT AT AN INDIVIDUAL LEVEL. >> THAT'S A CORRECT STATEMENT, YES. >> UNDER THIS AMENDMENT, THE MAYORAL PROCLAMATION AND THE MAYORAL SPECIFIC PERMISSION WOULDN'T BE REQUIRED IN PHASE SIX WHEN THERE IS -- TO DISPERSE THE CROWD, NOR WOULD AN INDIVIDUAL OFFICER BE PROHIBITED FROM MAKING A DECISION TO INTERDICT WITH INDIVIDUALS WITHIN A CROWD IF THERE'S A LIFE SAFETY EMERGENCY? IT BASICALLY GIVES A BROAD EXCEPTION FOR LIFE SAFETY EMERGENCIES? >> THANK YOU, MR. DOS. >> CAN YOU CLARIFY? IS THIS COUNTERINTUITIVELY PROVIDING FOR MORE -- NOT NECESSARILY -- FOR MORE FLEXIBILITY FOR THE USE OF BLAST BALLS IF YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE SAFETY OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IS ALREADY A REQUIREMENT THAT HAS BEEN MET IN A SITUATION? >> ONE WAY TO THINK ABOUT IT IS, WHEN THE MAYOR'S OFFICE OR THE CHIEF OR AN INCIDENT COMMANDER GIVES AN ORDER TO DISPERSE A CROWD, THAT'S USING BLAST BALLS IN A WAY THAT IS INTENDED TO MOVE OR DISPERSE THE CROWD. WITHIN SPD POLICY, THERE'S ALREADY AN EXCEPTION FOR LIFE SAFETY EMERGENCIES IF SOMEONE -- IF AN OFFICER SEES THAT SOMEONE AT THE EDGE OF A CROWD PULLS OUT A KNIFE OR A MOLOTOV COCKTAIL OR SOMETHING THAT COULD CREATE LIFE SAFETY EMERGENCIES, THAT OFFICER CAN USE A BLAST BALL TO INDIVIDUALLY INTERDICT IN THAT INSTANCE. THEY COULDN'T DISPERSE A CROWD. BUT THEY COULD INTERDICT WITH THAT ONE INDIVIDUAL. THAT REMAINS TRUE UNDER THE LAST AMENDMENT THAT YOU JUST PASSED. TO DISPERSE A CROWD, YOU NEED THE HIGHER LEVEL OF AUTHORIZATION, THE MAYOR'S OFFICE. OR IN THIS CASE, THE PROCLAMATION FROM THE MAYOR AND THE MAYOR'S OFFICE EMERGENCY DECLARATION. THIS AMENDMENT ALSO ALLOWS CROWD DISPERSAL AT LEVEL SIX. NOT ONLY DOES THE OFFICER HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE INDIVIDUAL INTERDICTIONS DECISIONS AT -- TO USE A BLAST BALL. UNDER THIS AMENDMENT, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT COULD USE CROWD CONTROL AS A METHOD. THEY COULD -- WHEN IT GETS TO LIFE SAFETY, THEY COULD DISPERSE THE CROWD AND THEY COULD DO SO WITHOUT HAVING TO CONTACT THE MAYOR'S OFFICE. DOES THAT HELP? AGAIN, IT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL INTERDICTION AND CROWD DISPERSAL. INDIVIDUAL INTERDICTION ALLOWED UNDER ALL THE AMENDMENTS THAT YOU HAVE PASSED SO FAR. THIS ONE WOULD ALLOW INDIVIDUAL INTERDICTION FOR LIFE SAFETY AND THE MAYOR'S OFFICE WOULD NOT HAVE TO BE CONTACTED IF IT'S A LIFE SAFETY EMERGENCY TO DISPERSE A CROWD. IF IT'S A LOWER LEVEL, PROPERTY DAMAGE, THE MAYOR'S OFFICE NEEDS TO BE CONTACTED AND THEY NEED TO ISSUE A PROCLAMATION AND GIVE PERMISSION. >> THANK YOU. THAT'S CLEARER. >> THANK YOU, MR. DOS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? VICE CHAIR? >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD. REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR LEADERSHIP ON THIS AND ANY NUMBER OF ISSUES. AMONG THE REMAINING ITEMS , AMENDMENTS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE CONSIDERING THIS ONE, I WAS THE CLOSEST ON THE FENCE FOR POTENTIALLY SUPPORTING. I'M ULTIMATELY NOT GOING TO BE SUPPORTING IT TODAY. BUT I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP AND THOUGHTFULNESS IN BRINGING IT FORWARD. I CAN SAY SOMETHING GREAT ABOUT ALL OF OUR COLLEAGUES. I DO REGULARLY PUBLICLY AND BEHIND THE SCENES. FOR YOU, YOU ARE PROBABLY THE MOST THOUGHTFUL, DILIGENT COLLEAGUE THAT I HAVE HAD THE PLEASURE OF WORKING WITH. IT'S REFLECTED HERE. ULTIMATELY WHY I'M GOING TO DECLINE TO SUPPORT IT TODAYTODAY BECAUSE ON ONE HAND, IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE EARLIER ONE THAT WE JUST PASSED, THE PROCLAMATION. IN MY VIEW THE NEXT STEP IN TERMS OF REQUIRING -- CONSISTENT INSOFAR AS IT REQUIRES THE MAYOR TO ISSUE A PROCLAMATION. TO BUILD UPON THAT BY REQUIRINGREQUIRING MAYOR ALSO TO PROVIDE SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF BLAST BALLS AND IN MY VIEW THAT'S -- THAT IS A BIT TOO PRESCRIPTIVE AND LEAVES THINGS LESS FLEXIBLE. I DON'T WANT TO PUT ANY -- I THINK THAT KIND OF OF DECISION IS NOT BEST FOR AN ELECTED OFFICIAL TO BE MAKING. I THINK THAT'S BEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO BE MAKING. I THINK -- I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THERE'S SUFFICIENT ACCOUNTABILITY BAKED INTO THE SYSTEM. IF THE MAYOR ISSUES THE ORIGINAL PROCLAMATION OF A CIVIL EMERGENCY, WHICH IN AND OF ITSELF UNLOCKS ANY NUMBER OF POTENTIAL TOOLS BEING DEPLOYED, TEAR GAS, BLAST BALLS NOW AND ANY NUMBER OF THINGS, AND I THINK THERE'S SUFFICIENT ACCOUNTABILITY FROM VOTERS THAT THEY ARE ACCOUNTABLE -- THE MAYOR WOULD BE DIRECTLY ACCOUNTABLE TO VOTERS. I THINK THAT'S SUFFICIENT IN THIS CASE. FOR THOSE REASONS, I'M NOT GOING TO BE SUPPORTING THIS. BUT I DO APPRECIATE YOUR THOUGHTFULNESS AND THE DILIGENCE AT WHICH YOU SHOW UP AND DO THIS WORK EVERY DAY. I'M HONORED TO WORK ALONGSIDE YOU. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, COLLEAGUES? THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR YOUR AMENDMENT. REGARDS TO MY VIEWS, I DID LOOK AT LIFE SAFETY IN MY ORIGINAL DRAFT OF AMENDMENT ONE. THIS BILL IS REGARDING CROWD MANAGEMENT AND LIFE SAFETY AND THOSE INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES IS ADDRESSED. DID NOT INTERMINGLE THE TWO AND PULLED THAT OUT OF MY CHAIR AMENDMENT. SEPARATELY, THE APPROVAL FOR EACH DAY COULD CREATE ITS OWN CHALLENGES. IT SAYS SPD INCIDENT COMMANDERS MUST REQUEST -- THAT S ECHELONS. I WOULD ADD THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF POLICE OFTEN HAS MORE EXPERIENCE AND HAS THE SUBSTANTIAL TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE SO THAT IF THE DEPUTY IS ACTING CHIEF, THAT YOU HAVE THAT COVERED. I WANTED TO NOTE THAT. FOR THOSE REASONS -- THIS IS SIMILAR TO THE AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO -- I RESPECT THE POINTS MADE. BUT I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT. CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON THE ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE. [ ROLL CALLED ] >> TWO IN FAVOR AND THREE OPPOSED. >> THANK YOU. THIS IS THE -- FINISHING THAT SECTION THAT WE HAD RELATED TO AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE. >> YES. YOU ALL HAVE NOW AMENDED NUMBER ONE IN TERMS OF MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE TOPICS . FROM NOW ON, THERE WILL EITHER BE ADDITIONS TO AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE OR SPD POLICY. BUT THERE WON'T BE ANYTHING EXCLUSIVE. WOULD HE LIKE ME TO DESCRIBE NUMBER FOUR ? >> YES. AMENDMENT TWO HAS AMENDED AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE. WE DON'T HAVE TO RECONFIRM AMENDMENT ONE AS AMENDED NUMBER TWO? >> NO. YOU DON'T NEED TO SUSPEND THE RULES AGAIN. >> THANK YOU. LET'S MOVE TO AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR. >> IT'S BROUGHT BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE. IT WOULD AMEND THE BILL TO REQUIRE THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, ITS POLICY ON LESS LETHAL WEAPONS SHALL REQUIRE THAT BLAST BALLS ARE DEPLOYED ONLY WHEN DIRECTED AWAY FROM PEOPLE UNDERHANDED AND AT A DISTANCE OF AT LEAST TEN YARDS. IT WOULD INCORPORATE TWO NEW RECITALS SUGGESTED BY THE COMMUNITY POLICE COMMISSION. THEY ARE ABOVE YOU ON THE -- ABOVE ME ON THE AMENDMENT. THE WHEREAS CLAUSES. THEY SUGGESTED THE LANGUAGE OF DIRECTED AWAY FROM PEOPLE UNDERHAND AND AT A DISTANCE OF TEN YARDS. THAT LANGUAGE IS MIRRORED HERE. AS I SAID, THE TWO RECITALS ARE FROM THE COMMUNITY POLICE COMMISSION LETTER. >> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE? >> THANK YOU, CHAIR. AGAIN, I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO DEPLOY BLAST BALLS AND ARE WE BEING TOO PRESCRIPTIVE. I'M SORRY. THANK YOU. I MOVE TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL 120916 AS PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT FOUR. >> SECOND. >> IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED TO ADOPT AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR. WE HAVE DONE THAT. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO ADDRESS IT. >> THANK YOU. SORRY FOR MISSING THAT CRITICAL STEP. AGAIN, THIS IS ALSO BASED ON CONVERSATIONS WITH CPC. ADDITIONALLY, I WAS ABLE TO LOOK AT THE SPD POLICIES. THEY DO STATE THAT THE PREFERRED METHOD OF BLAST BALL DEPLOYMENT IS LOW DEPLOYMENT, WHICH IS BOWLING STYLE. ABSENCE A THREAT OF SERIOUS IMMINENT HARM. THERE'S THAT EXEMPTION. DIRECTING BLAST BALLS TOWARDS PEOPLE NOT CAUSING A THREAT. THEY ALLOW OVERHAND WHEN THE NEED FOR FURTHER DEPLOYMENT OR GET AROUND AN OBSTRUCTION CREATED BY THE ING MUNITION. I BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO LIMIT IT TO THE UNDERHAND THROW. IN LOOKING AT THE OPA FINDINGS, MANY OF THEM RELATED TO VIOLATION OF POLICY RELATING TO THE OVERTHROWING OF BLAST BALLS. THIS IS IN THE MATERIALS SUBMITTED TO US BY KAREN KOHLER. SPD OFFICERS DEPLOYED TEAR CANISTERS OF BLAST BALLS WARE OF THEIR SURROUNDINGS AND HITTING PEOPLE NOT POSING A RISK TO PUBLIC SAFETY OR PROPERTY. IT WAS INCONSISTENT WITH POLICY AND TRAINING. I THINK EVEN -- THERE'S SOME MENTION BY LISA DUGARD THAT UNDERHAND OR OVERHAND MADE NO DIFFERENCE. I BEG TO DIFFER. GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE INSTRUMENT ITSELF BEING RUBBER, BOUNCING, IT BEING ITSELF AN UNPREDICTABLE ENTITY, THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF RISK POSED BY HOW IT IS DEPLOYED OVERHAND OR UNDERHAND. THAT'S WHY I'M BRINGING THIS AMENDMENT. >> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER MOORE. VICE CHAIR? >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I WANT TO THANK COUNCILMEMBER MOORE FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD. I GENERALLY -- WITH RESPECT -- THERE'S A LOT OF THOUGHTFUL IDEAS CONTAINED IN THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT. WITH RESPECT TO THE RECITALS PIECE, RECITALS, AS WE KNOW, THEY ARE VALUE STATEMENTS. IT'S A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO STATE AND MAKE CLEAR VALUES, SET EXPECTATIONS SHORT OF ACTUALLY PUTTING IT IN THE UNDERLYING CODE. THAT'S THE BEST WAY TO DO IT. I LIKE THE RECITALS HERE. ULTIMATELY WHERE I AM NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE WHOLE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IN ITS ENTIRETY IS BECAUSE OF ONE AND ONLY ONE WORD. UNDERHAND. CPC, WE -- THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION EARLIER. WHAT'S THE POSITION ON UNDERHAND USE OR NOT? IT SOUNDS LIKE EVEN CPC RECOGNIZES THAT -- I DON'T THINK THE FOCUS OF THE ANALYSIS WAS UNDERHAND VERSUS OVERHAND. BUT I THINK AS A GENERAL PROPOSITION, I HEARD THAT THERE'S EVEN RECOGNITION THAT THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES -- LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE OVERHAND IS APPROPRIATE. I THINK THIS GETS JUST A LITTLE TOO PRESCRIPTIVE FOR MY PERSONAL LIKING AND COMFORT. I DO LIKE THE RECITALS. IF THOSE WEREN'T ALL -- THERE'S A LOT GOING ON IN THIS THOUGHTFUL AMENDMENT. I WOULD BE INCLINED TO SUPPORT THE RECITALS ALONE. BECAUSE IT HANGS TOGETHER IN ONE SINGULAR DOCUMENT AND ONE AMENDMENT, I'M NOT OING TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT IT TODAY. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT FORWARD. >> COLLEAGUES? ANYBODY ELSE? THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER MOORE. I APPRECIATE AND OBVIOUSLY READ CPC'S LETTER AND SUGGESTIONS. CONSIDERING THEM, RELATED TO THIS AND RELATED TO THE WHEREAS CLAUSES, THE RECITALS, MY CONCERN IS -- IT GOES TO PRESCRIBING -- BEING TOO SPECIFIC REGARDING THE MANNER OF DEPLOYMENT RELATES TO SOME LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS. FOR THOSE I WILL NOT SUPPORTING THOSE -- THIS AMENDMENT TODAY. I WOULD LOOK TO ENGAGE IN TERMS OF POSSIBILITIES WITH THE CPC LETTER AT A LATER TIME. I WILL BE VOTING NO ON THIS. WILL THE CLERK -- COUNCIL PRESIDENT. >> I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT I VALUE THE ROLE OF THE COMMUNITY POLICE COMMISSION WHOSE JOB -- IN THE SMC, IT SPECIFIES THE JOB OF THE PCC IS TO DEVELOP POLICY IN CONSULTATION WITH THE COMMUNITY. THAT'S A UNIQUE RESPONSIBILITY OF OUR ACCOUNTABILITY APPARATUS. I DO -- I WOULD -- I GUESS I AGREE THAT WE SHOULD LISTEN TO THEM. AND I HAVE NO ISSUES WITH ADDING THE RECITALS. I WOULD CONSIDER IF YOU WANTED TO BRING THIS FORWARD AGAIN AND ADD THE RECITALS IF THIS AMENDMENT DOES NOT PASS AT FULL COUNCIL. I DO UNDERSTAND THAT UNDERHAND IS VERY SPECIFIC. AS SOMEONE WHO IS PERHAPS SHORTER THAN A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE WHO MIGHT BE EMPLOYING THIS PARTICULAR TOOL PERHAPS, I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES OVERHAND COULD BE BETTER. IN ANY CASE, I JUST WANTED TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE VALUE OF THESE RESIZE ALS AND THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THEM BEFORE OUR ATTENTION FOR DISCUSSION. >> THANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT. WILL THE CLERK CALL ROLL ON ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT FOUR? [ ROLL CALLED ] THERE ARE TWO IN FAVOR, TWO OPPOSED AND ONE ABSTENTION. >> AMENDMENT FOUR IS NOT ADOPTED. MOVING ON TO AMENDMENT FIVE. MR. DOS WILL HAVE YOU ENTER IT BEFORE YOU SPEAK TO IT. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, CAN YOU MOVE YOUR AMENDMENT, PLEASE? >> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I MOVE TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL 120916 AS PRESENTED ON DRAFT ONE AMENDMENT FIVE. EXCUSE ME, AS PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT FIVE DRAFT ONE. >> THANK YOU. SECOND? >> SECOND. >> IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED TO ADOPT AMENDMENT NUMBER FIVE. MR. DOS, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO DESCRIBE AMENDMENT FIVE. >> THANK YOU. THIS AMENDMENT IS SOMEWHAT STRAIGHTFORWARD. IT SIMPLY SAYS THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S MUTUAL AID POLICY AND INTERIM CROWD MANAGEMENT POLICY SHALL PROHIBIT THE DEPARTMENT'S INCIDENT COMMANDERS FROM DEPLOYING TO A CROWD MANAGEMENT CONTROL ROLE ANY MUTUAL AID OFFICER WHO IS UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO COMPLY WITH SPD'S CROWD MANAGEMENT POLICIES. SPD MAY DEPLOY MUTUAL AID OFFICERS TO NON- CROWD CONTROL MANAGEMENT ROLES DURING A CROWD MANAGEMENT EVENT. AS THIS AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CPE, THE NATIONAL POLICING ORGANIZATIONS, THAT SAY THAT MUTUAL AID OFFICERS SHOULD ABIDE BY THE DEPARTMENT -- THE POLICIES OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THEY ARE ASSISTING. HOWEVER, IT HAS BEEN NOTED BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE MAYOR'S OFFICE THAT -- AND THE CPC THAT IT IS THE CASE THAT THERE ARE SOME PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS AROUND HAVING MUTUAL AID OFFICERS FOLLOW SPD POLICY. THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION -- THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW MUTUAL AID TO COME HELP. THEY JUST COULDN'T BE IN A ROLE THAT WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DEPLOYING LESS LETHAL WEAPONS OR DISPERSING A CROWD OR ANY KIND OF CROWD MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY. IF MUTUAL AID OFFICERS CAME TO THE SPD'S ASSISTANCE, THEY WOULD GO INTO TRAFFIC CONTROL OR BACKFILLING 911 IF THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR THEM. BUT NOT INTO CROWD MANAGEMENT ROLES, UNLESS THEY COULD COMPLY WITH SPD'S POLICIES. >> THANK YOU, MR. DOS. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO SPEAK TO YOUR AMENDMENT. >> THANK YOU, AGAIN. I KNOW THERE'S BEEN SOME CONCERN IN STATEMENTS MADE THAT IF WE REQUIRE THEM TO SIGN ON THE DOTTED LINE AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH THE SEATTLE CROWD MANAGEMENT POLICIES THAT INCLUDE RESTRICTIONS AROUND THE USE OF BLAST BALLS, THAT NOBODY WILL SHOW UP TO THE CALL. I GUESS PLY MY RESPONSE IS I THINK IT'S HYPERBOLE. THIS DOES NOT PROHIBIT OFFICERS FROM SHOWING UP AND BEING UTILIZED IN A MANNER IN WHICH THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE PUT IN A POSITION TO UTILIZE LESS LETHAL WEAPONS. WE HAD A FINDING FROM OPA THAT IN 2020 MUTUAL AID OFFICERS ALSO WERE -- PEOPLE WERE -- PROTESTERS WERE INJURED BY MUTUAL AID OFFICERS USING LESS LETHAL WEAPONS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THEIR OWN POLICIES . SO IF THEY ARE UNWILLING TO COMPLY, THERE'S THE POSSIBILITY THAT THEY CAN BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THEIR POLICY AND YET ENGAGE IN ACTIONS THAT WILL RESULT IN HARM OR INJURY TO OUR CITIZENRY. LASTLY, IF THEY ARE UNWILLING TO COMPLY, THAT CAUSES ME SERIOUS CONCERN. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY SHOULD BE COMING TO THE CITY. WE CAN ALWAYS LOOK FOR OTHER WAYS. WE CAN UTILIZE THEIR SERVICES IN A WAY THAT DOESN'T PUT -- DOESN'T COMPROMISE THEIR INDEPENDENCE BUT ALSO DOESN'T POTENTIALLY PLACE OUR RESIDENTS AT RISK. >> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER MOORE. COLLEAGUES? VICE CHAIR? OTHERS? NOTHING? OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER RINK? >> THANK YOU, CHAIR. VERY BRIEFLY TO CHIME IN ON THIS. I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A FAIR AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION JUST ABOUT CONCERNS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT MUTUAL AID WOULD COME WHEN CALLED UPON BUT WOULD JUST AGAIN REAFFIRM THAT PERHAPS THIS IS TO SOME DEGREE HYPERBOLE, WOULD FURTHER STATE THAT I THINK THERE'S MORE INTENDED RISK POSED TO THE CITY BY THE LIABILITY OF HAVING MUTUAL AID COME IN AND DISPLAY EXCESSIVE FORCE OR DEPLOYMENT OF OTHER KINDS OF WEAPONS AND WOULD OPEN UP THE CITY, OF COURSE, TO ADDITIONAL LIABILITY FOR HAVING TO PAY OUT DUE TO EGREGIOUS INJURIES CAUSED TO THE PUBLIC. WOULD JUST STATE AND URGE THE COMMITTEE TO SERIOUSLY CONSIDER THIS AMENDMENT. WOULD STATE MY SUPPORT FOR IT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER RINK. >> MAY I MAKE ONE LAST COMMENT? >> YES, COUNCILMEMBER MOORE. >> I DID WANT TO NOTE THAT THIS IS RECOMMENDED -- THIS AMENDMENT IS RECOMMENDED BY CPC. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. OBVIOUSLY, I HAVE SPOKEN TO THIS ALREADY. ONE OF THE POINTS I WANT TO MAKE -- IT GOES BACK TO LIFE SAFETY. THIS IS A CROWD MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE. TO MR. DOS' POINT, IF WE HAD OFFICERS FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONS COMING DOING NON- CROWD MANAGEMENT ISSUES, THAT'S A SEPARATE CIRCUMSTANCE ESSENTIALLY. THE BILL AS NOW AMENDED SAYS MUTUAL AID OFFICERS RESPONDED FOR CROWD MANAGEMENT PURPOSES MUST AGREE TO FOLLOW THE COMMAND AND CONTROL OF THE ON- ON-SCENE COMMANDER. MY POSITION IS THAT THIS GETS US TO WHERE WE ARE BECAUSE -- I UNDERSTAND THE POINT. I UNDERSTAND THE POLICIES. BUT WE'RE GETTING TO THE SAME PLACE. THE ISSUE IS, AGAIN, IF YOU ARE IN ANOTHER JURISDICTION AND YOU HAVE YOUR CITY ATTORNEY COMING TO YOU, THAT CITY ATTORNEY WOULD LIKELY RECOMMEND FOR LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS, LEGAL EXPOSURE, TO NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUEST FOR MUTUAL AID. AT THE END, I DON'T CONSIDER IT HYPERBOLE TO SAY THAT OFFICERS, WHETHER POLICE OFFICERS, LAW ENFORCEMENT OR IN OTHER SETTINGS, IF THEY KNOW THEY HAVE BACKUP, IF THEY KNOW THEY HAVE SUPPORT, THEY ARE IN A POSITION TO EVEN BETTER CARRY OUT THEIR DUTIES IN CROWD MANAGEMENT IN A WAY CONSISTENT WITH OUR POLICIES AND OUR LAWS. WITH THAT POINT, AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND -- GENERALLY, THERE'S A LOT OF OVERLAP BETWEEN THE TWO. IT'S THAT SPECIFIC POINT AND MY BELIEF THAT ANOTHER JURISDICTION WITH THEIR LEGAL COUNSEL WOULD BASICALLY GET TO A SITUATION WHERE WE DON'T GET ANYBODY. WITH THAT, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT. THANK YOU. WILL THE CLERK CALL THE ROLL ON ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT FIVE? [ ROLL CALLED ] THERE ARE TWO IN FAVOR AND THREE OPPOSED. >> AMENDMENT FIVE IS NOT ADOPTED. WILL THE CLERK CALL THE ROLL -- SORRY. MY PAPER. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WITH MANY AMENDMENTS. VICE CHAIR, WILL YOU PLEASE ADDRESS -- MOVE AMENDMENT NUMBER SIX? >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I MOVE TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL 120916 ON AMENDMENT SIX. >> SECONDS. >> IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED. CENTRAL STAFF, MR. DOS. YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO DESCRIBE AMENDMENT NUMBER SIX. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. COUNCILMEMBER SAKA IN HIS COMMENTS EARLIER WAS RIGHT. THESE AMENDMENTS DO TEND TO ESCALATE IN TERMS OF THE RESTRICTIONS PUT ON THE DEPARTMENT. HOWEVER, THIS ONE IS AN EXCEPTION. THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT JUST REQUIRES THAT SPD COMPLY WITH THE ACCOUNTABILITY ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS THAT SEATTLE'S ACCOUNTABILITY AGENCIES ARE PROVIDED WITH AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REGULAR, TIMELY REVIEW OF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE SPD POLICY MANUAL. THAT LANGUAGE, REGULAR, TIMELY REVIEW AND A SCHEDULE FOR REVIEW OF REVISIONS TO THE POLICY MANUAL IS IN THE ACCOUNTABILITY ORDINANCE ALREADY. SPD SHOULD BE COMPLYING WITH THAT. THIS IS UNDERSCORING THE POINT THAT THEY SHOULD BE COMPLYING WITH THAT AND OBVIOUSLY IN THE CONTEXT OF CROWD CONTROL WEAPONS AS WELL AS ANY OTHER CHANGES TO THEIR POLICY MANUAL. >> THANK YOU. COUNCIL -- VICE CHAIR SAKA, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO ADDRESS AMENDMENT NUMBER SIX. >> THANK YOU. I WILL BE BRIEF. THIS AMENDMENT WOULD REINFORCE THE BELIEF THAT SPD NEEDS TO CONSULT WITH THE ACCOUNTABILITY PARTNERS BEFORE AUTHORIZING NEW POLICIES. SPECIFICALLY, PERTAINING TO CROWD MANAGEMENT POLICIES. SPD NEEDS FLEXIBILITY IN ADJUSTING POLICIES. BUT OUR COMMUNITIES NEED TO KNOW THEY HAVE DONE SO IN CONSULTATION WITH THOSE CRITICALLY ACCOUNTABLE PARTNERS. ENOUGH SAID. THIS SHOULD BE HAPPENING ALREADY UNDER CURRENT LAW, NAMELY THE ACCOUNTABILITY ORDINANCE. THIS MAKES CRYSTAL CLEAR AND PUTS -- CAPTURES THIS REQUIREMENT INTO A SINGLE LEGISLATIVE INSTRUMENT. IN THIS CASE, THE ORDINANCE WE HOPE TO PASS. THANK YOU. I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. >> THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR SAKA. COLLEAGUES? OKAY. THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR. CLEARLY, THIS IS ADDRESSED. WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING TO DO IS TO RE- EMPHASIZE BASICALLY. THAT DOESN'T GET INTO SOME OF THE CONSIDERATIONS WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING ALREADY. YES, I SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT. WILL THE CLERK CALL ROLL ON ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT NUMBER SIX? [ ROLL CALLED ] THERE ARE FIVE IN FAVOR AND NONE OPPOSED. >> AMENDMENT NUMBER SIX IS ADOPTED. THANK YOU FOR BEING BRIEF. BECAUSE WE ARE OBVIOUSLY RUNNING LATE. I HAVE A NOTE, COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, REGARDING SEVEN. ARE YOU PROCEEDING WITH THIS? >> NO. I WANT TO MAKE PEOPLE AWARE OF IT. >> OKAY. AMENDMENT NUMBER SEVEN WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED TODAY. WE WILL MOVE -- WE WILL SKIP AMENDMENT NUMBER SEVEN IN TERMS OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE HAVE WITH THIS BILL. MOVE TO AMENDMENT NUMBER -- IS EIGHT -- EIGHT IS BEING NOT -- >> ALL THE REST ARE GOING FORWARD. >> THE REST ARE GOING FORWARD? >> YES. >> OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MOVE AMENDMENT NUMBER EIGHT. >> I MOVE TO AMEND THE BILL AS PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT EIGHT. >> SECOND. >> IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED TO ADOPT AMENDMENT NUMBER EIGHT. MR. DOS, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO DESCRIBE AMENDMENT EIGHT. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AMENDMENT EIGHT IS SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE BUT AUTHORED BY RINK. THE AMENDMENT WOULD REQUIRE SPD TO REVISE THE PURPOSE STATEMENT FOR ITS CROWD MANAGEMENT INTERVENTION AND CONTROL POLICY SUCH THAT THE PURPOSE STATEMENT WOULD SAY, A FUNDAMENTAL FUNCTION OF THE ROLE OF POLICE IN CROWD MANAGEMENT SETTINGS IS TO IDENTIFY AND CLEARLY COMMUNICATE ENTRY AND EXIT POINTS FOR INDIVIDUALS ASSEMBLED IN THE CROWD AS WELL AS INDIVIDUALS PASSING BY, LIVING IN THE AREA OR WORKING IN THE AREA. SO THAT STATEMENT WOULD BE NEEDED TO ADD TO SPD'S CROWD MANAGEMENT POLICY. THERE IS A PURPOSE STATEMENT THAT WOULD -- THIS WOULD GO INTO THAT IS ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE PARAGRAPHS LONG. I WILL ASK THE CLERK TO BRING IT UP. AS YOU CAN SEE THERE, THE PURPOSE STATEMENT EMPHASIZES THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH. IT EMPHASIZES SPD'S ROLE IN CROWD MANAGEMENT. SO THIS WOULD ADD THAT STATEMENT I JUST MADE INTO THE PURPOSE STATEMENT. I WOULD ALSO NOTE BY WAY OF BACKGROUND THAT SPD'S POLICY, NOT IN ITS PURPOSE STATEMENT, BUT ELSEWHERE DOES REQUIRE THAT INCIDENT COMMANDERS ENSURE THERE IS AN AVENUE OF EGRESS SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW A CROWD TO DEPART AN ASSEMBLY DECLARED UNLAWFUL IN STAGE FIVE. WHILE THIS REQUIREMENT IS IN SPD'S POLICIES ALREADY, IT IS NOT IN THE PURPOSE STATEMENT. IT DOESN'T SERVE AS A GUIDELINE FOR HOW SPD SHOULD MANAGE CROWDS. I BELIEVE THE INTENT OF THE COUNCILMEMBER WHO IS OFFERING THIS IS TO ENSURE THAT THIS IS PART OF THE PURPOSE STATEMENT AND DOES PROVIDE GUIDANCE TO SPD ON HOW THEY SHOULD HANDLE ALL CROWD MANAGEMENT EVENTS. >> THANK YOU. I GUESS WE WILL HAVE TWO. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO BE OFFICIAL, I WILL START WITH YOU. I SUSPECT YOU WILL LATERAL TO COUNCILMEMBER RINK. >> THANK YOU. I WILL CEDE MY TIME TO COUNCILMEMBER RINK. THANK YOU FOR BEING WILLING TO SPONSOR THESE AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU, GREG, FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS AND FOR EXPLAINING A BIT BEHIND OUR INTENTIONS HERE. THIS AMENDMENT ADDS LANGUAGE CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT POLICY TO OVERARCHING CODE. IT DOES NOT INTEND TO REQUIRE SPECIFIC PROCEDURES FOR SPD TO CONTACT EVERY INDIVIDUAL IN THE VICINITY OF EXIT POINTS. IT DOES INTEND TO ENSURE THAT THE EXPECTATION IS EXPLICIT THAT SPD PERSONNEL MUST RECOGNIZE NON- PARTICIPANTS IN THE VICINITY OF ANY CROWD SITUATION IN WHICH LESS LETHAL WEAPONS ARE CONSIDERED AND CONSIDER THE IMPACT IN ALL OF THE VICINITY AND ENSURE THAT ALL IN THE VICINITY ARE GIVEN INFORMATION ABOUT SAFE POINTS OF ENTRY AND EGRESS, ET CETERA. CURRENTLY, THERE'S LANGUAGE IN POLICY REQUIRING SPD TO IDENTIFY DISPERSAL ROUTES TO CROWD BUT NOTHING ABOUT LOCAL BUSINESSES OR RESIDENTS THAT COULD BE INJURED AS COLLATERAL DAMAGE. WE NEED TO ENSURE THAT SPD IS AFFIRMATIVELY CONSIDERING THE IMPACT OF THE DEPLOYMENT OF THESE KINDS OF WEAPONS ON NOT JUST FOLKS IN A CROWD PEACEFULLY EXERCISING THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS BUT ALSO ON THE FOLKS WHO JUST HAPPEN TO LIVE AND WORK IN THE VICINITY. I THINK WE CAN SEE THIS ALSO BEST EXEMPLIFIED SEEING THE EVENTS THAT OCCURRED THROUGHOUT 2020. THAT CONCLUDES MY COMMENTS. I'M HAPPY TO CEDE THE REST OF MY TIME. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, COUNCILREMEMBER RINK. VICE CHAIR, COLLEAGUES? NOT HEARING AND SEEING NONE, THANK YOU COUNSELMEMBER RINK AND MOORE FOR THIS AMENDMENT. I BELIEVE A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THIS AMENDMENT -- I COULD SEE THE VALUE OF THEM. THERE'S TWO THINGS THAT I RAISE. ONE IS -- I SAID THIS AT THE BEGINNING. THIS IS KIND OF LIKE -- IN TERMS OF EMPOWERING THE CPC IN TERMS OF ITS ROLE IN ENGAGING SPD ON ITS POLICIES , I'M LOOKING FOR OPPORTUNITIES -- I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO SUPPORT THE CPC IN TERMS OF ITS LANE AND ITS WORK. NOT CROWDED OUT BY DOING THIS WITH COUNCIL ACTION. THE OTHER THING, TOO, IS SOME LEGAL CONCERNS WERE RAISED ON THIS AMENDMENT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. I THINK THIS WOULD BE BEST MAYBE WORKING WITH CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND WORKING THROUGH THAT PROCESS OF THE COMMUNITY POLICE COMMISSION. AND, OF COURSE, WITH US AS WELL. TO LOOK TO ATTAIN WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING TO DO WITH THIS AMENDMENT. FOR THOSE LEGAL CONCERN QUESTIONS, AND MY DESIRE TO WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY POLICE COMMISSION ON SPD POLICY ISSUES, WHILE UNDERSTANDING WHAT'S GOING BEHIND THIS AMENDMENT, I WILL BE VOTING NO ON THIS AMENDMENT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THIS IS NUMBER EIGHT. >> I HAD MY HAND UP. >> SORRY. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE. >> I WANTED TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS. I UNDERSTAND THE ADVICE WE GOT FROM LAW JUST TO -- IT'S OUR ROLE TO DECIDE HOW WE INTERPRET AND EXECUTE THAT ADVICE. I THINK IT DOESN'T HURT TO RESTATE WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR. I DON'T THINK THIS USE -- INCLUDING THIS LANGUAGE IN ANY WAY USURPS THE ROLE OF CPC. WE ARE ALL WORKING HERE IN PARTNERSHIP. FOR THOSE REASONS, I WILL BE SUPPORTING IT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER MOORE AND COUNCILMEMBER RINK. >> JUST TO RESPOND TO THAT POINT AND EMPHASIZE, IT'S NOT OUR PRIMARY JOB AS CITY COUNCILMEMBERS TO SOLELY EMPOWER THE CPC. WE ARE PUT HERE TO SERVE THE PEOPLE AND ENSURE THEIR SAFETY. THIS LANGUAGE HAS ALREADY BEEN REVIEWED BY LAW. I UNDERSTAND ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK CAME IN THIS MORNING. IT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY LAW AS IT EXISTS IN SPD POLICY CURRENTLY. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER RINK. FAIR POINTS ON BOTH, PARTICULARLY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE ON YOUR POINT. THE LEGAL COUNSEL WE RECEIVED -- MY POSITION REMAINS THE SAME. CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON THE ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT NUMBER EIGHT. [ ROLL CALLED ] THERE ARE TWO IN FAVOR AND THREE OPPOSED. >> AMENDMENT EIGHT IS NOT ADOPTED. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, AMENDMENT NINE. OVER TO YOU TO MOVE. >> THANK YOU. I MOVE TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL 120916 AS PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT NINE DRAFT 1A. >> SECOND. >> IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED TO ADOPT AMENDMENT NUMBER NINE. MR. DOS, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO DESCRIBE AMENDMENT NUMBER NINE. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THIS AMENDMENT IS BROUGHT BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE AND IS AUTHORED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINK. IT WOULD REQUIRE SPD TO AGAIN CHANGE THE PURPOSE STATEMENT OR TO ADD TO THE PURPOSE STATEMENT FOR ITS CROWD MANAGEMENT INTERVENTION AND CONTROL POLICY. THE PURPOSE STATEMENT WOULD BE MODIFIED TO SAY THAT LESS LETHAL WEAPON USE SHOULD BE NECESSARY AND PROPORTION ATE AND TACTICS THAT MAY CAUSE INJURY OR FATAL HARM SHOULD BE PROPORTIONAL TO THE THREAT PHYSICAL HARM THAT WOULD RESULT FROM CROWD VIOLENCE. THIS WOULD AGAIN SERVE AS A GUIDELINE FOR THE DEPARTMENT WHEN THEY ARE DEVELOPING LESS LETHAL WEAPON AND CROWD MANAGEMENT RULES AND POLICIES. WHAT THIS SAYS SPECIFICALLY -- THE OPERATIVE AFFECT IS THAT LESS LETHAL WEAPONS OR TACTICS THAT MAY CAUSE PHYSICAL INJURY SHOULD NOT BE USED UNLESS THE RISK OF SAID INJURY IS PROPORTIONATE THAT MIGHT RESULT FROM CROWD VIOLENCE. WHERE THIS COMES INTO AFFECT IS THE MATRIX. THE MATRIX AT LEVEL FIVE ALLOWS AN SPD INCIDENT COMMANDER TO DISPERSE A CROWD AND TO USE LESS LETHAL WEAPONS TO DO SO. HOWEVER, THE THRESHOLD IS ONE OF IMMINENT RISK TO SAFETY OR SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY DAMAGE. UNDER THIS AMENDMENT, THERE WOULD BE A SECOND CONSIDERATION THAT SPD OFFICERS WOULD HAVE TO MAKE. THAT IS IF LESS LETHAL WEAPONS ARE DEPLOYED THAT COULD CAUSE PHYSICAL INJURY, SHOULD THEY BE DEPLOYED IF THERE'S NO RISK OF PHYSICAL INJURY IN THE CROWD AT THAT MOMENT? FOR INSTANCE, IF THERE IS SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY DAMAGE OCCURRING, IF THERE ARE -- AS WAS GIVEN EARLIER, THE EXAMPLE OF THE CHINATOWN INTERNATIONAL DISTRICT, IF THERE'S A MARCH AND ALL THE BUSINESSES ARE BEING AFFECTED, THERE'S SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY DAMAGE, THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH UNDER THE CURRENT THRESHOLD FOR SPD TO DISPERSE THE CROWD. UNDER THIS LANGUAGE, SPD WOULD HAVE TO CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS ACTS OF VIOLENCE IN THE CROWD TOWARDS PEOPLE. IF THERE WAS NO PHYSICAL THREAT TOWARDS INDIVIDUALS IN THE CROWD, ANY LESS LETHAL WEAPON THAT MIGHT CREATE PHYSICAL INJURY SHOULD NOT BE USED. IT REALLY GETS TO THE POINT WHERE THERE IS A THRESHOLD SUCH THAT PROPERTY DAMAGE ALONE IS UNLIKELY, EVEN IF SIGNIFICANT, TO ALLOW THE USE OF ANY LESS LETHAL WEAPON THAT COULD POTENTIALLY INJURE SOMEONE. >> THANK YOU, MR. DOS. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO ADDRESS AMENDMENT NINE AND OUR COLLEAGUE. >> THANK YOU. I CEDE MY TIME TO COUNCILMEMBER RINK. >> THANK YOU. THIS ADDS LANGUAGE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S THERE. IT'S ADDRESSED IN PHASES FIVE AND SIX IN RESPONSE DESCRIPTIONS BUT NOT IN THE OVERARCHING PURPOSE STATEMENT. WE HAVE HEARD THAT OUR LANGUAGE ASSUMES OR IMPLIES THAT. LESS LETHAL WEAPONS ARE TO CAUSE SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY OR FATAL HARM. THIS IS A MISREAD. WE SAID THEY MAY CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY AND FATAL HARM. THAT'S ABSOLUTELY TRUE. WE HAVE HEARD THAT CONDITIONAL USE OF LESS LETHAL WEAPONS POTENTIALLY ELEVATES THE LIMITATION OF LESS LETHAL WEAPONS POSSIBLY ABOVE LETHAL FORCE. WE WOULD SAY THIS IS A BIT OF A STRETCH AND RELIES ON THE ARGUMENT THAT CALLING FOR PROPORTIONALITY WITH LESS LETHAL WEAPONS IS A HIGHER STANDARD THAN FOR FIREARMS, WHICH WE PERMIT IF THERE'S A RISK OF SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH. CERTAINLY, MAYBE WE SHOULD ENSURE THAT OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SHOULD THINK THROUGH THE IMPACTS OF DEPLOYING ANY WEAPON IN A CROWD AND DEPLOY THEM WITH PROPORTIONALITY IN ALL SITUATIONS. TO THAT END, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE IN ALL OF THESE DISCUSSIONS, JUST TO CHIME IN, WE'RE IN A STATE RIGHT NOW WHERE WE HAVE A FLUX IN LEADERSHIP BETWEEN HAVING AN INTERIM CHIEF WITHIN SPD AS WELL AS INTERIM LEADERSHIP AT OPA AND CPC. I JUST WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO ALSO NOTE THAT RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A REAL RESPONSIBILITY GIVEN THE FLUX IN LEADERSHIP ACROSS THOSE ROLES TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE A GREATER AMOUNT OF OVERSIGHT AT THIS TIME. THIS CONCLUDES MY COMMENTS ON THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCILMEMBER RINK. RICE CHAIR, COLLEAGUES? NOTHING? OKAY. FIRST NG I WANTED TO SAY -- THIS GOES BACK TO THE LAST AMENDMENT. I DO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE'S TIMES WHEN WE HAVE TO ENGAGE ON POLICY. MY POINT WAS A GENERAL POINT REGARDING ALLOWING OUR ACCOUNTABILITY PARTNERS TO OPERATE IN THEIR LANE. I'M NOT SAYING WE'RE NOT ENGAGED ON POLICY. I DIDN'T MEAN THAT, THE IMPRESSION ONE MAY RECEIVE. REGARDING THIS, THERE'S SOME QUESTIONS IN TERMS OF HOW I SEE THIS. MOST CONCERNING IS THAT WE STILL HAVE THE SAME LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS AS PRESENTED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN TERMS OF SOME OF THE PHRASING, AND THAT COULD CREATE SOME LEGAL CHALLENGES FOR US. FOR THAT REASON -- I UNDERSTAND AND I THINK BOTH THE LAST ONE AND THIS ONE COULD BE WORKED IN A DIFFERENT WAY. BUT BECAUSE OF THE LEGAL CONCERNS, I WILL NOT BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS AMENDMENT. I DON'T SEE ANY HANDS RAISED UP. I WILL GO TO THE CLERK TO PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON THE ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT NINE. [ ROLL CALLED ] THERE ARE ONE IN FAVOR, THREE OPPOSED AND ONE ABSTENTION. >> THANK YOU. AMENDMENT NINE IS NOT ADOPTED. NOW WE ARE -- THANK YOU, BY THE WAY FOR EVERYONE WHO HAS BEEN IN ATTENDANCE TODAY. I RECOGNIZE THIS MEETING IS BASICALLY A DOUBLE MEETING. WE ARE NOW ON OUR LAST AMENDMENT. AGAIN, I WILL GO TO COUNCILMEMBER MOORE. >> THANK YOU. I MOVE TO AMENDMENT COUNCIL BILL 120916 AS PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT TEN DRAFT 1A. >> SECONDED. >> MR. DOS, YOU ARE RECOGNIZES TO DESCRIBE NUMBER TEN. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THIS AMENDMENT IS BROUGHT BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE. AGAIN AUTHORED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINK. IT WOULD CREATE A PRIVATE RITE OF ACTION WHEN A PERSON INCURS PHYSICAL INJURY CAUSED BY THE USE OF LESS LETHAL WEAPONS IN VIOLATION OF SPD'S CROWD MANAGEMENT INTERVENTION AND CONTROL POLICY. IT WOULD GO ON TO SAY THAT A PERSON WHO IN THE JUDGMENT OF A REASONABLE PERSON COMMITS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE AT OR IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO THE USE OF A LESS LETHAL WEAPON USE OF FORCE MAY NOT RECOVER UNDER THIS SECTION. ABSENT EVIDENCE ESTABLISHING A GREATER AMOUNT OF DAMAGE, THE DAMAGE IS PAYABLE TO AN INDIVIDUAL FOR INJURIES APPROXIMATELY CAUSED IN VIOLATION IN SPD LESS LETHAL WEAPON POLICY SHALL BE $10,000 ADDED TO ATTORNEY AND COURT FEES. THIS DOES NOT PRECLUDE FROM ANY OTHER LEAGUE RECOVERY PROCESS AVAILABLE TO A PERSON UNDER FEDERAL OR STATE LAW. >> THANK YOU, MR. DOS. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO ADDRESS AMENDMENT TEN. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. TURN IT OVER TO COUNCILMEMBER RIFRPG. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT BRINGS BACK THE RIGHT OF PRY SAT ACTION WHICH THE CURRENT INTERIM POLICY SUPPLANTED. AS GREG EXPLAINED, THIS WOULD CREATE A RIGHT OF PRIVATE ACTION AGAINST THE CITY WHEN A PERSON HAS INJURY BY THE USE OF LESS LETHAL WEAPONS IN VIOLATION OF THE CROWD INTERVENTION AND CONTROL POLICY. THIS WAS INCLUDED BY THE PREVIOUS LEGISLATION AS SAID. THIS WOULD ONLY APPLY IF LESS LETHAL WEAPONS ARE USED IN VIOLATION OF SPD POLICY. WHILE SOME HAVE DISCUSSED FINANCIAL RISK, THERE IS ALSO THE COMPONENT THAT WE SHOULD REALLY MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE STRONGLY INCENTIVIZING CITY EMPLOYEES ARE NOT INJURING OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS AGAIN. WE CAN CREATE THIS CAUSE OF ACTION AND CREATE A KNOWN RISK FOR THE CITY. AS WAS DISCUSSED TODAY THROUGHOUT PUBLIC COMMENT, THE CITY HAS HISTORICALLY PAID OUT TO THE TUNE OF $10 MILLION. WE CAN CREATE KNOWN RISK RATHER THAN LEAVE IT UP TO CHANCE IN THE COURTS FOR WHATEVER SUBSEQUENT LAWSUITS MAY OCCUR WHEN THESE KINDS OF WEAPONS ARE DEPLOYED. WE COULD JUST TAKE OUR CHANCES ON THAT FRONT. AGAIN, THIS KIND OF MONEY AND THE MONEY THAT UNFORTUNATELY HAS BEEN SPENT TO PAY OUT FOR EGREGIOUS INJURIES AND HARM THAT HAS BEEN CAUSED TO OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS, THAT MONEY COULD HAVE BEEN MUCH BETTER SPENT ON OTHER THINGS THAT MAKE OUR COMMUNITIES HEALTHY AND WHOLE. I WOULD URGE THE COMMITTEE'S SUPPORT FOR THIS AMENDMENT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. VICE CHAIR, COLLEAGUES? THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THIS AMENDMENT. IT'S INTERESTING, YOU NOTED THE PREVIOUS TWO ORDINANCES PASSED PREVIOUSLY THAT AS YOU NOTED WERE HELD UP. I THINK OTHERS HAVE SPOKEN TO THAT AS WELL. THAT BILL, WHICH I HAVE HERE, DID SPEAK TO THE PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR PHYSICAL AND OTHER REASONS. ONE OF THE THINGS HERE IS THERE IS MANY WAYS TO ADDRESS THIS IN TERMS OF SEEKING REDRESS THAT ALREADY EXIST. THE IDEA OF INCENTIVIZING THE -- ON THE CITY SIDE , I NOTE THAT. BUT WE HAVE OTHER WAYS AND OTHER -- THIS BILL IN ITSELF WILL DO THAT. I'M CONCERNED IN TERMS OF ITS INFLUENCING ON THE OVERALL ENVIRONMENT WITH A DOLLAR AMOUNT IN TERMS OF USING THE WORD YOU USE, INCENTIVIZE. THAT'S A GREAT CONCERN. AGAIN, PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION I DON'T THINK IS NECESSARY, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE A MEANS TO ADDRESS THIS. I WILL BE VOTING NO ON THIS AMENDMENT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? WILL THE CLERK CALL THE ROLL ON ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT NUMBER TEN? [ ROLL CALLED ] THERE ARE NONE IN FAVOR, THREE ABSTENTIONS AND TWO OPPOSED. >> THANK YOU. THE AMENDMENT IS NOT ADOPTED. WE WILL MOVE NOW TO THE AMENDED BILL. ARE THERE ANY FINAL COMMENTS ON THE BILL AS AMENDED? VICE CHAIR? I'M ASKING THIS AS STANDARD. I JUST WANTED TO ASK. I WANTED TO THANK EVERYONE WHO HAS BEEN PARTICIPATING IN THIS PROCESS OVER THE MONTHS AND PARTICULARLY OVER THE LAST NUMBER OF WEEKS . THERE WILL BE MORE TO COME AS WELL, NO DOUBT. THAT WILL BE EXTENDED, TOO. BECAUSE I BELIEVE THIS WILL NOT BE COMING ON JANUARY 28th TO FULL COUNCIL DUE TO THE ABSENCE OF SOME COUNCILMEMBERS. WHICH IN TURN WILL ALLOW SOME TIME FOR OUR NEW DISTRICT TWO REPRESENTATIVE MEMBER TO ALSO GET UP TO SPEED ON THIS BILL. AGAIN, I BELIEVE THAT THIS AMENDED BILL REALLY GOES TO THE ISSUES THAT WE SPOKE ABOUT THROUGHOUT TODAY. STARTING OFF REAFFIRMING THE RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY. THEN ALSO DOING SO IN SUCH A WAY THAT -- IN TRYING TO SOLVE ONE PROBLEM, WE'RE NOT CREATING OTHERS IN TERMS OF BEING OVERLY PRESCRIPTIVE. I THINK THE AMENDED BILL IMPROVES THE ORIGINAL BILL AND GETS TO ALL THE ISSUES THAT WE GOT TO, MAYBE NOT AS FAR AS WE MAY WANT IN SOME CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. BUT IN TERMS OF ALLOWING THE CITY TO BETTER RESPOND TO THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I THINK THIS BILL DOES THAT. WE WILL CONTINUE OUR WORK IN THIS AREA THROUGHOUT -- THIS IS NOT A ONE AND DONE SITUATION. THIS IS SOMETHING WE ARE ENGAGING. THE RECOGNIZE COMMENTS MADE THROUGH PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING TRAINING AND OTHER POINTS MADE AND THAT WE NEED TO CONTINUALLY WORK THIS AND WORK THIS WITH OUR ACCOUNTABILITY PARTNERS. WITH THAT, I LOOK UP AT MY SCREEN. I SEE COUNCILMEMBER MOORE. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR KETTLE. I HAVE SAID A LOT TODAY. I WILL KEEP MY S SHORT. I DID WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUES FOR THE THOUGHTFUL WORK YOU HAVE DONE ON THIS, ON THE BILL. THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER SAKA FOR YOUR LOVELY COMMENTS. APPRECIATE THAT. AGAIN, BASED ON THE AMENDMENTS I PUT FORTH, I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF ROOM FOR ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT. GIVEN THE GRAVITY OF WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US, THE FACT THAT WE'RE GOING FROM ESSENTIALLY HAVING A POLICY, EVEN THOUGH IT WASN'T IMPLEMENTED BECAUSE OF THE CONSENT DECREE, THAT SAID NO BLAST BALLS TO ONE THAT TURNS IT OVER TO THE DISCRETION OF THE DEPARTMENT IS TROUBLESOME. I THINK THE FACT THAT A LOT OF THIS IS DRIVEN BY THE DESIRE TO BE OUT OF THE CONSENT DECREE, WHICH I FULLY SUPPORT. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE CONCLUDE THAT CHAPTER IN OUR HISTORY. I ALSO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT WE DON'T RUSH SOMETHING AS CRITICAL AS THIS. I'M GOING TO KEEP WORKING WITH MY COLLEAGUES BEFORE WE GET BACK TO FULL COUNCIL ON THIS. I THINK THERE'S SOME ROOM FOR MOVING SOME ADDITIONAL COMMON GROUND THAT CAN BE FOUND. I DID WANT TO SAY, THANK, THANK YOU FOR THE WORK YOU HAVE DONE. AGAIN, I THINK WE CAN DO BETTER. SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS TODAY. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MEMBER MOORE. >> I KNOW WE ARE -- I KNOW YOU LOVE TO RUN LONG PUBLIC SAFETY MEETINGS. I SUPPORT OUR SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT. I THINK WE AS A COUNCIL HAVE VOTED ON ORDINANCES, BUDGETS AND WE HAVE CHANGED THE TONE OF THIS COUNCIL WITH THE RELATIONSHIP WITH OUR PRECINCT AND OFFICERS. I'M VERY AWARE IN MY DISTRICT THE ACTIONS THAT WERE TAKEN DURING 2020 AND THE HISTORY THAT THAT HAS. WE HAVE HAD PUBLIC COMMENTERS COME AND SPEAK TODAY AND ONLINE. WE RECEIVED EMAILS FROM FOLKS. I WILL BE SUPER FRANK, I HAVE SHARED THIS PRIVATELY AND PUBLICLY THAT THIS WAS NOT A PRIORITY OF MINE. I THINK AS THE GENERAL PUBLIC, PEOPLE ARE ASKING IMPORTANT QUESTIONS ON WHY IS IT THE COUNCIL TAKING UP NON- LETHAL WEAPONS WHETHER IT'S HARD S WHEN IT'S HARD TO GET RESPONSE TO ROBBERIES AND BREAK-INS. WE ARE UNDERSTAFFED. I KNOW WE ARE MAKING PROGRESS ON RECRUITMENT AND ENFORCEMENT AND ARRESTING ING PEOPLE FOR VIOLENT CRIMES. I'M THANKFUL TO SPD AND OUR FIRST RESPONDERS FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS THEY HAVE MADE TO HELP RESPOND TO THE CRIME IN OUR CITY. I'M GRATEFUL FOR THEM. I ALSO WANT TO ECHO COUNCILMEMBER MOORE'S COMMENTS REGARDING -- I DO BELIEVE WE NEED TO BE OUT OF THE CONSENT DECREE AND UNDERSTAND THAT. FOR THIS, I WILL BE ABSTAINING FOR THIS. I KNOW THERE'S SOME WORK TO DO LEADING FROM NOW INTO THE FULL COUNCIL VOTE. I APPRECIATE THE CHAIR'S WORK ON THIS AND THE REST OF MY COLLEAGUES FOR YOUR CONTINUED EFFORTS TO STRENGTHEN THIS BILL. IT'S VERY THOUGHTFUL OF YOU ALL. WANT TO MAKE SURE OUR CITY IS SAFE. THANK YOU TO MY S AND EVERYTHING. THIS IS NOT A NO. THIS IS JUST ABSTAINING AND LOOKING FORWARD TO THE FULL COUNCIL VOTE. >> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH. >> THANK YOU TO ALL OF THE FOLKS THAT TURNED OUT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND FOLKS THAT HAVE WRITTEN IN. WHEN SEATTLE RESIDENTS GO OUT TO EXERCISE THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLE, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE THE PEACE OF MIND THAT THEY WILL NOT BE INJURED BY THEIR OWN -- BY THEIR LAW ENFORCEMENT. THEY SHOULD TRUST THAT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT MAY BE ON THE GROUND IS ALSO ABIDING BY THE LAWS WITHIN THE CITY, LAWS AND POLICIES. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT AS EVIDENCED BY THE MANY EMAILS WE RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC ON THIS TOPIC AS WELL AS PUBLIC COMMENT TODAY -- I KNOW FROM MY CONVERSATIONS IN COMMUNITY THAT EVEN SO, THERE'S CONCERN THAT SPD WILL FOLLOW OR ABIDE BY WHATEVER MAY BE PASSED BY THIS COUNCIL. EVEN IF WE HAVE MADE IMPROVEMENTS ABOVE OUR BASELINE FROM WHAT WE HAD BEFORE GOING INTO 2020. I THINK THAT'S A CRITICAL DATA POINT. FOR THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCH. WE HAVE NOT ADDRESSED POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE DEGREE WE HAVE NEEDED TO TRULY REMEDY THE HARMS THAT HAVE HAPPENED ACROSS THE CITY AND TO SEATTLE RESIDENTS TO GIVE OUR COMMUNITY PEACE OF MIND. I JUST WANTED TO CHIME IN WITH THAT PIECE. I LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO WORK ON THIS AS IT COMES BEFORE FULL COUNCIL. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER RINK. I APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK. I APPRECIATE THE POSITIONS. SOMETIMES IT'S A MATTER OF DEGREE. I ALSO APPRECIATE THE INPUT THAT MAYBE WORKED -- THAT WE RECEIVED BETWEEN NOW AND THE FULL COUNCIL AS NOTED. MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THIS. WITH THAT, WILL THE CLERK -- VICE CHAIR. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. >> WHEN I LOOK AT THE SCREEN AND I DON'T SEE ANYTHING, I'M -- VICE CHAIR, OVER TO YOU. >> I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS TODAY. I AM DEFINITELY OPEN TO THE ADDITIONAL IDEAS. I THINK THE CURRENT VERSION AS AMENDED, SPECIFICALLY TODAY AT THIS MOMENT AND THIS TIME, BUILDS UPON AND MAKES THE MAYOR'S ORIGINAL LEGISLATION BETTER. THAT SAID, I'M OPEN TO HEARING -- WE HAVE ALL SHARED HOW WE APPROACH AND THINK ABOUT THESE VARIOUS ISSUES. I'M OPEN TO ADDITIONAL IDEAS TO MAKE IT BETTER. I WANT TO JUST CLARIFY. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MADE A COMMENT ABOUT IT IS OUR JOB -- WE NEED TO BE MINDFUL AND UNDERSTAND THE GUIDANCE, THE ADVICE WE GET FROM OUR EXPERTS. IN THIS CASE, LEGAL EXPERTS. IT IS UP TO US INDIVIDUALLY -- INDIVIDUALLY TO INTERPRET THE IMPACT OF THAT ADVICE. IT'S ADVICE. MAKE DECISIONS AND BE POTENTIALLY WILLING TO OVERRIDE IT BASED OFF WHERE WE LAND. IN THAT PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCE, I JUST SO HAPPENED TO DISAGREE WITH WHAT THE LEGAL ADVICE FOR THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE, WHATEVER IT WAS AT THE TIME. THAT IS EXACTLY OUR JOB. OUR JOB IS TO LISTEN TO THE ADVICE AND GUIDANCE OF EXPERTS, WHETHER IT'S LEGAL POLICY EXPERTS, DEPARTMENT EXPERTISE. WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION, NOR SHOULD WE BE IN A POSITION TO RUBBER STAMP EVERYTHING PUT IN FRONT OF US. EXCELLENT POINT. I HAPPENED TO DISAGREE ON THE CONCLUSION HERE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. I DO WANT TO CALL OUT WHAT I CALL IS GRAVE BEHAVIOR BY ONE OF OUR COLLEAGUES IN PARTICULAR COUNCILMEMBER RINK. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING FORWARD YOUR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AT THIS BODY THROUGH A SPONSOR. I THINK WE NEED TO DO MORE OF THAT FOR THOSE COMMITTEES THAT WE DON'T SIT ON INDIVIDUALLY. FOR ME, THAT SHOWS COLLABORATION. EFFORTS TO RESOLVE THINGS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. WE CAN'T ALWAYS DO IT AT THE COMMITTEE LEVEL RATHER THAN FULL COUNCIL LEVEL. KUDOS, HATS OFF, EXCELLENT SHOWING OF COLLABORATIVE BEHAVIOR. WE SHOULD ALL EMULATE THAT. I OFFER MYSELF -- CLEARLY, GOING ON RECORD, I'M OPEN TO DOING THAT KIND OF THING, EVEN IF I WON'T SUPPORT IT ULTIMATELY. TALK TO ME. I WILL LISTEN. I MIGHT EVEN SUPPORT IT. IN ANY EYE EVENT, GREAT BEHAVIOR. THANK YOU FOR LEADING THIS PROCESS, MR. CHAIR. IT'S CLEAR THERE MIGHT BE WORK TO DO. I'M OPEN TO HEARING SPECIFIC FEEDBACK FROM MY COLLEAGUES. WANT TO THANK THE MAYOR'S OFFICE. FOLKS WITHIN SPD FOR THE TOUR LAST WEEK. BRIAN MAXEY LEFT THE ROOM. APOLOGIES FOR PUTTING HIM ON THE SPOT. A REQUEST LAST MINUTE AT THAT SITE VISIT TO PERSONALLY GET THAT DEMO AND SEE WHAT THE BLAST BALLS ARE LIKE. I PUT HIM IN AN UNCOMFORTABLE POSITION WHEN THAT'S SOMETHING -- I CAME TO MY SENSES. LET'S DO THIS THE RIGHT WAY. WE ESCALATED UP THE CHAIN. WE SEEN AN EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY AND POWERS AND SEPARATION OF POWERS AT THE BRANCHS. I MADE THE REQUEST PERSONALLY. THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT SAID, THANK YOU FOR YOUR REQUEST. NO THANKS. THAT'S FINE. THAT'S HOW THINGS WORK. WE CAN DISAGREE. WE CAN AGREE AND DISAGREE WITHOUT BEING DISAGREEABLE. I DO -- I DO APPRECIATE THE COLLABORATION AND PARTNERSHIP WITH THE MAYOR'S OFFICE THROUGHOUT THIS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. >> THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR. I'M NOT LOOKING AT MY SCREEN ANYMORE. NO OTHER COMMENTS. I JUST WANT TO THANK ALL THOSE THAT PARTICIPATED. WITH THAT, WILL THE CLERK CALL THE ROLL ON THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION TO PASS COUNCIL BILL 120916 AS AMENDED? [ ROLL CALL ] THREE IN FAVOR, ONE OPPOSED AND ONE ABSTENTION. >> THANK YOU. THE MOTION CARRIES. THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BILL PASS AS AMENDED WILL BE SENT ORIGINALLY FOR JANUARY 28th, CITY COUNCIL MEMBER. I BELIEVE THAT WILL BE SHIFTED TO FEBRUARY 4 th. WE HAVE REACHED THE AGENDA. IS THERE ANY FURTHER BUSINESS? WE ARE ADJOURNED.