Officials and Guests in Attendance
Councilmembers present: Gonzalez, Lewis, Morales, Sawant, Herbold. All were prepared and courteous.
 
Accessing the Meeting and Materials
The meeting started on time. I observed the entire meeting. An agenda was available and the meeting was easily accessible at this link.

Summary of Discussion
The agenda was followed.
 
Public Comment
The meeting began with a lengthy public comment period. Most callers asked the Committee to pass the original version of CB 11981, which reallocated a $5.4 million from the SPD to participatory budgeting. This figure represents the amount spent on overtime in excess of SPD’s 2020 budget. Some callers opposed decreasing the SPD’s budget, noting that things (especially downtown) were already unsafe, and a budget decrease would just make it worse. One caller complained that the Community Police Commission is not sufficiently transparent (doesn’t keep many meetings online and doesn’t allow public access to work group meetings, as is the case in some other cities).
 
Office of Emergency Management Annual Report
OEM presented its annual report to the Committee. They noted some of the emergencies they had to deal with in 2020, including COVID, the West Seattle Bridge, protests, smoke from wildfires, and the elections. A link to the report can be found in the Agenda above.
 
CB 119981
CM Herbold introduced an amendment that will have the effect of cutting the SPD budget, but by less than the original $5.4 million. She noted that the team monitoring SPD compliance with the consent decree has submitted questions to SPD regarding staffing needs and suggested that a vote on the ordinance should be tabled pending receipt of answers by the monitoring team and review by the court.
 
The amendment notes that SPD is expected to save up to $7.7 million in 2021 due to an unprecedented number of officers leaving the department in recent months. Instead of redirecting all of the savings to participatory budgeting, the amendment proposes that nearly $5 million of this amount should stay in SPD, with the remainder being moved to other departments, including $2 million for participatory budgeting.
 
The amendment requires SPD to submit monthly reports to the Council before funds will be released, in increments of $625,000 each month for 8 months). This will enable the Council to better monitor how funds are being spent.
 
CM Lewis noted that programs such as STAR in Denver and CAHOOTS in Eugene provide cost-effective alternatives for responding to calls involving mental health issues.
 
CM Sawant noted that the amendment does not hold SPD accountable for overspending its budget, and thus breaks a promise made by the Council to do just that. This is particularly egregious in light of the fact that SPD incurred much of these overtime costs in overpolicing the protests.
 
CM Herbold called for a vote on whether the amendment should replace the original proposed ordinance. She stated that this was NOT a vote on whether to recommend the amendment to the full Council but merely on whether the amendment should be the vehicle for further discussions. With this understanding, the motion passed by a vote of 3 (Herbold, Lewis, Gonzalez) to 2 (Sawant, Mosqueda). The next step will be to hear back from the monitor/court on this issue.

Officials and Guests in Attendance
Councilmembers present: Gonzalez, Lewis, Morales, Sawant, Herbold. All were prepared and courteous.
 
Accessing the Meeting and Materials
The meeting started on time. I did not observe the entire meeting. An agenda was available and the meeting was easily accessible here.

Summary of Discussion
The agenda was followed. After attendance and the flag salute the meeting was opened for public comment.  Only one person spoke but their connection was quite bad so the Council asked him to email his comments.

1. Public Comment
   1. Several people asked the Council to pass 119981 without amendment to reduce the SPD budget by $5.4 million; money should be reallocated to participatory budgeting
   2. Need to have youth representation on CPC
   3. Prioritize budget support for community policing effort
   4. SPD not equipped to address mental health crises—have done a bad job of responding to calls from Tiny House location
2. CB 120011—appropriations for Human Services Department
   1. Plan for awarding $12 million in community safety capacity building
      1. Capacity building—expanding capacity of community-led solutions that contribute to overall community safety by developing and strengthening skills, instincts, abilities, processes and resources that organizations and communities need to survive, adapt, and thrive
      2. Move toward a public health model
      3. RFP—open competitive process for $10.4 million in one-time funds; up to 40 proposals may be funded for period 7/1/21-12/31/22
      4. Prioritizing community-led projects
      5. Placed proviso to give council an opportunity to learn more about the proposal; that has been satisfied, so they lifted the proviso on these funds and passed the bill unanimously
   2. Background
   3. Presentation
   4. Analysis of Proviso Lift
3. 2021 Budget—119181
   1. Cuts $5.4 million from SPD and adds that to participatory budget process
   2. Salary savings have occurred due to unanticipated departures BUT additional costs resulting from separation pay
   3. SPD in a staffing crisis—patrol and 911 challenges
   4. Currently not budgeted or staffed to provide an acceptable level of services
   5. Bottom line—can’t cut budget and still maintain required level of service
   6. Herbold—cosponsor of bill, but willing to listen to SPD about what its needs are
   7. Herbold and Gonzales have submitted additional questions
   8. Amendments should be submitted by 3/16
   9. Council is also consulting with consent decree monitor re these issues
   10. Want to fully fund CSOs and CPC positions and address large volume of public disclosure requests
   11. Central Staff memo
   12. SPD memo
   13. Presentation by SPD
4. Had to adjourn meeting due to losing quorum but seemed to be essentially finished.

Members present: CMs Herbold, Lewis, Morales, and Sawant.

Virtual Meeting Highlights:
Public input seemed adequate. People called in and were given 2 minutes to speak. Everyone who wanted to speak had an opportunity. (Note: There was a discussion about operation of regional emergency radio system that League Observer did not watch.)

Public Comments

• Ballard resident—Suddenly disbanded community police team in her neighborhood. Currently has inadequate policing with no current holistic leadership or accountability at neighborhood level.
• Constituent from D7—Police accountability needs improvement. Need discussion about violations of 1st amendment rights; Community Policing Commission (CPC) has shut down public comment. Accountability partners have become unaccountable.
• Constituent from D7— SPD is not providing public safety and aren’t accountable.
• Constituent from D2—Following this since 2010; SPD shouldn’t be allowed to use CS gas, rubber bullets, blast balls. This is a partial solution and we need to change structure of policing and accountability.

Presentation by Shayleen Morris, Community Policing Commission
Discussed CPC recommendations on crowd dispersal and less lethal weapons (see report). Stressed the importance of community-centered review process.

CM Gonzalez:
(1) What would community-centered process look like,
(2) Re: Recommendations 3 and 4—who is “the City” referring to in terms of who should take responsibility for these actions, and
(3) Who should the independent reviewing agency be?

Answers:
Response often comes from agency level first. Community is already driving the work, have been demanding a seat at the table. “The City” includes SPD, Council, and Mayor’s Office, although SPD is the one who will be implementing change in their culture and being held accountable. Community is at center of decision-making. CPC has been listening to the community. They are an independent agency making a community-centered decision on this.

CM Sawant—Council and Mayor have obligations to listen to community and act on their concerns. Crowd control weapons ban is an example of this. Should revisions in policy manual be made in accordance with the crowd control weapons ban?

Answer:
Revision of use of force policies should comply with ordinances. Overhaul of manual with community members’ input –need to do a deep dive with consideration of what has happened in the last few months.

CM Herbold—Written questions from other Councilmembers:
(1) Should flash bangs be used? (v. blast balls) (blast balls aren’t as bad but have been outlawed).

• Answer: Flash bangs not supposed to be part of crowd control, so their use hasn’t been addressed by CPC.

(2) Should title of ordinance be changed removing the term “crowd control”?

• Answer: There is a distinction between what’s available for crowd control and other situations, so these measures should be available, but not for crowd control. Police  should never use blast balls and tear gas.

(3) What elements should be considered to determine what’s an unlawful assembly?

• Answer: Standard of 4 or more people is too low. Stakeholders should set standards on this.

CM Mosqueda—Confirmation re recommendation to eliminate tear gas and blast balls; recommendation re what to do in the interim before they’re eliminated and a determination is to made re unlawful assemblies.

Answer:
Recommendation against tear gas and blast balls in 2015 said the ban should start immediately. Even more so now with the pandemic. Use of weapons during protected assemblies should be limited to situations involving imminent harm to people.

Presentation by Andrew Myerberg, Dir. of Office of Police Accountability (OPA)
Discussed Crowd Control Weapons (see report). All less-lethal tools should be authorized for non-crowd control. SWAT should be able to use tear gas but should not be available to patrol.
If protests are against law enforcement, cops should minimize their presence—otherwise, they are exacerbating the problem.

CM Sawant—What has OPA actually done to hold officers accountable?

Answer:
Haven’t issued any findings yet (87 cases). First findings should be issued next Friday.
Ordinance passed by City Council was too broad.

CM Gonzalez
Didn’t find Sawant’s line of questioning helpful to addressing the issue of what less lethal weapons should be used. Believes OPA is independent. Confirms that OPA believes status quo isn’t working. Need clarification on use of force to prevent property damage. 

Answer: Blast balls may be appropriate, but not to prevent property damage. They are okay to use to move a crowd back if cops are getting injured by rocks thrown, etc., but should only be rolled on ground to create space, not thrown at people.

OPA agrees that community needs to be involved in the process. Okay to have executive approval for riot declaration but concern about Mayor’s office making tactical decisions.

CM Herbold—Written questions from other members
(1) How do we define categories for use of less lethal, by situation or by group (i.e. SWAT)?

• Answer: Either is fine, but should work with stakeholders to come up with definitions. Can’t just say “non-crowd-control” situations because this is too broad—i.e. only when the only other alternative is use of lethal force.

(2) What are the recommendations regarding targeted arrests during demonstrations?
(3) Clarification re use of blast balls

• Answer: All less lethal means can cause injuries. The question is are there other options to disperse a crowd.

CM Morales—What info do we have about how many times riots were declared and specific weapons were used? Clarified interest in use of non-lethal weapons in stationary (as opposed to moving) crowd.

Answer: Acknowledged that regular tactics don’t work in static crowds—need to develop better tactics. They can track info about who used force, when, and where to identify trends.

CM Herbold—Is it appropriate for accountability partners to make recommendations just based on what they’ve seen from all the protests as opposed to responding to specific complaints? Why did cops create issues on Labor Day by continuing to escalate situations? How do we stop this??

Answer: They do communicate with each other and SPD in real time, but SPD apparently is not listening. Community not satisfied with being told to file a report when nothing changes.

Presentation by Inspector General Lisa Judge, Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
Discussed OIG crowd dispersal recommendations (see report). They have identified actions that can be taken today.

CM Mosqueda—Response to protests against use of excessive force was to use excessive force. Clarification about cause and effect?

Answer: There were instances of excessive force. Mission of SPD seemed to change. They didn’t expect level of anger at cops. Culture has to acknowledge this anger.

Officials and Guests in Attendance
CMs Lewis, Morales, Sawant, Herbold, Gonzales. All present were prepared and engaged.
 
Accessing the Meeting and Materials
The meeting started on time. I left early, before the new members of the CPC were appointed. The meeting was easily accessible and I was able to review a copy of the agenda beforehand.
 
Summary of Discussion
The agenda was followed.
 
Public Comment:
The meeting opened with public comment; most people testified in favor of keeping the ban on crowd control weapons passed by the City Council last year (and subsequently rejected by Judge Robards pursuant to the Consent Decree as being overly broad).
 
Recommendations from Oversight Agencies
The Committee then discussed recommendations from the Community Police Commission (CPC), Office of Inspector General (OIG), and Office of Police Accountability (OPA). These oversight agencies each made recommendations in three use categories (patrol, tactical/SWAT, and crowd dispersal) for five different types of less lethal weapons (tear gas, pepper spray, blast balls, 40 mm launcher, and flash diversionary devices (flash bangs)).

There were a few areas of consensus—all agencies agreed that pepper spray, the 40mm launcher, and flash bangs do not need to be banned for non-crowd control uses. And all agreed that tear gas should not be used on patrol. 

Chair Herbold noted that:

• The goal is to have the strongest possible ordinance
• SPD will be making its own recommendations on this issue, so it’s important for the Council to take action
• There are some current limitations on crowd control tactics as a result of the lawsuit by BLM/ACLU, but it’s still necessary to have an ordinance addressing these issues

The following points were made with respect to specific tactics:

• Tear gas
  • Members agreed that tear gas was used improperly during the demonstrations last year
  • Some believed a total ban is appropriate, citing the fact that the use of tear gas is banned under the Geneva Convention
  • Others felt that some exceptions would be appropriate, and the OIG expressed openness to banning tear gas in situations where only damage to property is involved as well as in residential areas
• Blast balls
  • While there was no consensus among the oversight agencies on this issue, the Council members seemed to agree that they should be banned entirely.
  • Members discussed harm to protestors and the fact that repeated requests for improved training and policies in this area had been disregarded
• 40 mm launcher
  • Chair Herbold clarified that the discussion isn’t around banning the launchers themselves, but about how they’re used and what’s being launched (i.e., pepper spray)
  • Members Herbold, Lewis, and Sawant spoke in favor of maintaining the ban, while Pres. Gonazales supported the base bill, which limited the ban to crowd dispersal situations

 
An ordinance has been drafted that includes the areas of agreement among the oversight agencies, and it will be modified following the discussion at the hearing, with a potential committee vote on a new proposed ordinance at the next meeting on Jan. 26.

Members Present: Councilmembers Gonzales, Lewis, Morales, Sawant (observing), Herbold
  
Public Comments:
The public was invited to comment and they had two minutes each to speak.

• Ballard resident—LEAD program—public safety program that uses human services tools; no transparency in program currently; local communities aren’t being represented
• Dist 7 resident—subpoena power legislation—overall going in a good direction, but concern that doesn’t go far enough; concern about OPA investigation where officer hit a parked car and lied about it—OPA disciplined officer but not other cops involved in attempted cover-up
• QA resident--cops are moonlighting and not providing needed services

 
Summary of Discussion:
CoLead presentation (see slideshow)
a.    Reduces crime through life stabilization of vulnerable individuals by addressing basic needs of participants through provision of hotel-based intensive case management connecting participants to social services
b.    Intended to operate at scale by 2023 (accept all qualified participants)
c.    Will ultimately not require referrals from police
d.    JustCare—a new model of justice

• Currently funded for ID/Pioneer Square
• Working w/ 4 hotels
• Participants—unhoused people w/ significant mental health issues
• Targeting Native Americans

e.    Have made adaptions based on COVID-19
f.    Community response to low-level negative behaviors
g.    Lessons learned

• Lodging and prosecutorial liaisons are key
• Diverse staff is important
• Harm reduction protocol works but also need to maintain boundaries
  
• Supporting food insecurity (providing meals) important

h.    Community reception

• Overwhelming support for this approach
• Support from Downtown Seattle Assn and other organizations and businesses

i.    112 hotel placements so far
j.    Multi-disciplinary mode of care
k.   Goal—reduce participants’ contact with criminal justice system but also maintain public safety
l.    Developmental evaluation—appropriate for new and innovative programs
m. Distinction between LEAD, CoLEAD and JustCares

• LEAD—street-based outreach case management, low caseloads but not tied to dedicated housing resource—have to navigate various resources on a case-by-case basis
• CoLEAD—hotel-based adaptation of LEAD; short-term intervention on street (a couple of weeks) but real work starts once people are in the hotel; also have dedicated medical provider and 7-day a week schedule
• JustCare targets specific neighborhoods and sites and works across multiple providers—provides more options than CoLEAD

 
Subpoena process for OPA
Original bill

• Subpoena enforcement by OPA and Inspector General
• Subject to collective bargaining requirements

Substitute bill (see agenda)

• Clarifies language, changes effective date (court approval or 30 days from approval of mayor, whichever is later); other technical changes
• Substitute bill adopted (4-0) and will not be heard at 1/4 city council meeting

 
Less lethal weapons recommendations from CPC, OIG, OPA (see slideshow)
a.       Not talking today about all weapons mentioned in ordinance
b.       Plan to vote in committee on 1/12
c.        Legislation will then follow consent decree process—to monitor and DOJ
d.       Court—need to have time for training on alternative methods before making changes to existing law
e.       Generally, CPC wants to ban weapons such as tear gas, pepper spray, blast balls for crowd dispersal, while OIG and OPA want to maintain them (but use of weapons needs to change) (chart included in PP presentation)
f.        Recommendations (groups came up with very detailed recommendations; will just provide a summary at this meeting)

• Ban tear gas
• Develop protocols for use of LLW (less lethal weapons)
• Develop detailed tactical plan in advance
• Don’t use LLW just to prevent property damage
• Better communication w/ crowds
• Improve training and increase accountability
• Don’t require executive authorization
• OPI may be making amendments based on review of complaints from recent protests
• OIG—should certain tools be banned by ordinance or should this be a matter of SPD policy
• CPC—concern about officer discretion being used inappropriately

g.       Becca Boatright from SPD

• Regular ongoing daily protests and LLW haven’t been used
• SPD is open to alternatives to policing these events and understands concerns about blast balls but there are concerns about necessity to create space between groups to minimize threat to life and property—blast ball is best tool to achieve this
• City needs to decide how much property damage and disruption it’s willing to accept in the name of 1st amendment activity
• Need to do a better job of articulating crowd management policy