Podcast appearances and mentions of adrian diaz

5pm: Top Stories recap/Updates // Guest – King County Assessor and Candidate for Executive John Wilson // New Stalking Allegations Against King County Assessor, County Executive Candidate Wilson // Ex-police chief Adrian Diaz files lawsuit against city of Seattle over termination // CNN asks Tim Dillon if comedians with podcasts are “part of a new establishment”; Dillon responds brilliantly // It Is So Embarrassing to Watch Dems Try to “Find” a Liberal Joe Rogan // Letters

Adrian Diaz, especialista en finanzas personales

Adrian Diaz, experto en finanzas personales

Adrian Diaz, experto en finanzas personales

¿Qué cosas CONVIENE pagar a CRÉDITO y cuáles de CONTADO? Administra tus FINANZAS con el experto #AdriánDíazSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

5pm: Seattle mayor calls for major SPD reforms after Adrian Diaz harassment claims probe // Downtown Seattle leader calls Amazon’s return-to-office mandate ‘influential’ as 5-day policy begins // How John ruined the pets at work policy at KIRO // Booze stocks fall as Surgeon General claims alcohol should carry cancer warnings on label // ‘Wheel of Fortune’ viewers are spinning with rage over ‘all-time horrible’ answer // Know-it-All Quiz // Letters 

The scandal surrounding Seattle Police Chief Adrian Diaz's resignation epitomizes the dysfunction plaguing liberal urban governance. A steamy love letter allegedly written by a former reporter turned Diaz's $200K-per-year Chief of Staff escalated from mere rumor to a full-blown investigation. Mayor Bruce Harrell terminated Diaz after a report by the Office of Inspector General cited breaches of police code, including dishonesty and misuse of power. Despite Diaz's claims of being blindsided and his controversial public revelation of being gay amidst harassment allegations, the evidence, including the letter, proved too damning. This incident spotlights the erosion of trust in law enforcement leadership as Seattle grapples with skyrocketing crime, police understaffing, and accountability failures. Once again, liberal leadership prioritizes narratives over results, leaving the city in a perpetual state of chaos.

Seattle's former Police Chief Adrian Diaz has been dismissed amid allegations of dishonesty and policy violations. The controversy revolves around claims of a romantic relationship with a subordinate, Jamie Tomkins, and subsequent dishonesty during the investigation. Mayor Bruce Harrell cited findings from the Office of Inspector General, revealing violations of professionalism, conflicts of interest, and supervisory protocols. Diaz denies the allegations and has filed a $10 million lawsuit against the city, alleging discrimination and retaliation after coming out as gay. This development highlights ongoing challenges within Seattle's leadership amid a backdrop of understaffed police forces and public distrust fueled by policy failures, such as the city's defunding efforts during the “Fentanyl Floyd” era. This case underscores the importance of transparency and leadership integrity, especially within law enforcement, as Seattle grapples with escalating crime and internal turmoil.

Exclusive: Auburn city councilmember’s car stolen outside of City Hall about 30 minutes before she was elected deputy mayor. After apparently destroying evidence, city claims Adrian Diaz had an affair with his chief of staff. Trump is calling out the Biden administration for selling off portions of the border well before he takes office. A new bill would exempt people 75 and older from state and local property taxes. // Judge Maureen McKee offers only $500 bail on felony suspect who allegedly confessed to crime. // MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle said that Donald Trump is much more accessible than Joe Biden or Kamala Harris.

Bill Radke discusses the week’s news with consultant Ron Davis, Seattle Times’s Patrick Malone, and Gamoran Legal Consulting founder Saul Gamoran.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell fired former SPD chief Adrian Diaz following an investigation by the city's Office of Inspector General. The report found Diaz violated a number of city policies in the course of a workplace relationship that he tried to cover up. We take a closer look at the report, which includes some salacious details and Star Wars references, and talk about the fallout for the city.  Next, the pod discusses the fatal stabbing of a bus driver in Seattle's University District that's sparking a debate about public safety. Plus, the latest graffiti crackdown.  Our editor is Quinn Waller.  Got questions for our next show? Please email us:  realseattlenice@gmail.com Send us a text! Note that we can only respond directly to emails realseattlenice@gmail.comThanks to Uncle Ike's pot shop for sponsoring this week's episode! If you want to advertise please contact us at realseattlenice@gmail.comSupport the showYour support on Patreon helps pay for editing, production, live events and the unique, hard-hitting local journalism and commentary you hear weekly on Seattle Nice.

URSULA'S TOP STORIES: Suspect in bus murder ID'd.  He’s killed before but wasn’t charged // Graffiti vandals charged with felonies // Even though Adrian Diaz was fired, the Seattle City Attorney’s office will have to defend him // Wealth taxes // WE NEED TO TALK. . . About holiday shopping

SPD's former chief Adrian Diaz is fired, lawmakers want to ban flavored vape and tobacco products, and bus stops close in Seattle's CID due to safety concerns. It’s our daily roundup of top stories from the KUOW newsroom, with host Paige Browning. We can only make Seattle Now because listeners support us. Tap here to make a gift and keep Seattle Now in your feed. Got questions about local news or story ideas to share? We want to hear from you! Email us at seattlenow@kuow.org, leave us a voicemail at (206) 616-6746 or leave us feedback online.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

  Exclusive: Auburn city councilmember’s car stolen outside of City Hall about 30 minutes before she was elected deputy mayor. After apparently destroying evidence, city claims Adrian Diaz had an affair with his chief of staff. Trump is calling out the Biden administration for selling off portions of the border well before he takes office. A new bill would exempt people 75 and older from state and local property taxes. // Judge Maureen McKee offers only $500 bail on felony suspect who allegedly confessed to crime. // MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle said that Donald Trump is much more accessible than Joe Biden or Kamala Harris.  

BREAKING: Adrian Diaz fired from SPD // GUEST: Matt Markovitch on the firing of Adrian Diaz // WE HEAR YOU! and WORDS TO LIVE BY

In this episode we'll hear from Vidal Marquez, Edna Ely-Ledesma and Adrian Diaz about their successful mobile workshop at this year's national planning conference which took place back in may in Minneapolis Minnesota. The workshop, Puentes: Bridging Healing and Revitalization in Latine neighborhoods, took participants to the East Lake Street Corridor, the largest Hispanic/Latinx neighborhood in the twin cities and a diverse community with immigrants from all over the world. Check out the photos posted on LAP's Instagram page Check out the route and stopping points along East Lake Street A special thank you to La Loma Tamales in Minneapolis for the delicious tamales! Vidal F. Márquez is an urban planner born and raised in the Highland Park community of Los Angeles, California. He is the immediate Past Chair of the APA Latinos and Planning Division. He holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Urban Studies and Planning from the California State University Northridge in Los Angeles. A division member since 2009, Vidal assisted in creating programming and educational opportunities within the Division beginning in 2012. During the fall of 2020, Vidal was proud to lead and produce the Division's inaugural multi-part conference event entitled L.U.G.A.R.E.S.: Latinidad, Unity, Gente, Advocacy, Resiliencia, Equity, Spaces. A key objective of the conference was to highlight ways in which planners within and outside of formal planning processes are addressing challenges and issues in their communities. Vidal is excited to showcase more resources and achievements for Latine planners who are working to make their communities a better place for all. Adrian Diaz Jr, is a Planner and Public Engagement Specialist with Short Elliot Hendrickson Inc, has worked with dozens of urban and rural communities throughout the Midwest. He earned two Bachelors of Science in Sustainable Community Development and Sociology with emphasis on social justice and sustainability. Adrian has focused on developing plans that provide equitable solutions and address community needs. Additional to his planning career, he has designed and launched multiple youth programs focused on career development, secondary education, community leadership, and cultural empowerment for Latine youth. Adrian was awarded the United States Presidential Environmental Youth Award for a stewardship project he led in his hometown, Waukegan, Illinois. Edna Ely-Ledesma is an assistant professor in the Department of Planning and Landscape Architecture at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where she directs the Kaufman Lab for the Study and Design of Food Systems and Marketplaces. The corpus of her research, teaching, and mentoring focuses on understanding the development of the smart, green, and just 21st century city. Her work seeks to bridge the gap between communities and city governments to help define the planning and design agency of Latinos, a traditionally under-represented group. She holds a Ph.D. in Urban and Regional Science from Texas A&M University, a Master of Architecture and a Master of Urban Design from the University of Texas at Austin, and a Bachelor of Environmental Design from Texas A&M University. She was a Ford Foundation Dissertation Fellow. She served as a lecturer in the Urban Design program at the University of Texas School of Architecture (UTSOA) from 2014-2018. In 2017, she was the Emerging Scholar of Race & Gender Fellow in the School of Architecture at the University of Texas at Austin, and in 2018 she was the Carlos E. Castañeda Postdoctoral Fellow for the Center for Mexican American Studies at the University of Texas at Austin. Plan Dulce is a podcast by the ⁠Latinos and Planning Division⁠ of the American Planning Association. Latinos and Planning Social media handles:  https://www.facebook.com/LatinosandPlanning/ https://www.youtube.com/@laplatinosandplanningdivis2944 https://www.linkedin.com/groups/4294535/

Detainee dies at ICE facility in Tacoma, former SPD chief Adrian Diaz files tort claim against city, and Seattle Public Schools settles sexual abuse lawsuit. It's our daily roundup of top stories from the KUOW newsroom, with host Paige Browning. We can only make Seattle Now because listeners support us. You have the power! Make the show happen by making a gift to KUOW. We want to hear from you! Follow us on Instagram at SeattleNowPod, or leave us feedback.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

3pm: Sam Cambell - ‘Free Gaza’ message linked to ballot box attacks in Washington and Oregon: source // Portland police say ballot box arsonist has ‘wealth of experience’ in metal fabrication // About 475 damaged ballots retrieved from burned drop box in Washington state, auditor says // Hundreds of ballots in Eastern WA never arrived to voters, auditor says // 1.75 million Washington voters have cast their ballots already //  Westneat: WA voter turnout is lagging. Of all years, this one? // Boeing, Machinists union hold ‘productive’ talks in attempt to end strike // Matt Markovich - Latest in the Adrian Diaz saga // Allegations former Seattle Police Chief Adrian Diaz ‘untruthful’ with investigators // Former Seattle Police Chief Diaz files $10M tort claim against city // China cracks down on Halloween, wary of subversion lurking in costumes // Why you’re seeing scary-high chocolate candy prices this Halloween

Former Seattle Police Chief Adrian Diaz was placed on administrative leave yesterday. Diaz, who served as chief for four years, was demoted in May amid allegations that he'd hired a romantic partner to a top level advisor role. Diaz is also the subject of a handful of lawsuits asserting he discriminated against SPD staff. Guest: Ashley Hiruko, KUOW Investigative Reporter Relevant Links: KUOW: Former Seattle Police Chief Adrian Diaz placed on paid leave amid watchdog investigations KUOW: A beef jerky run and alleged romantic hire: Two investigations launched into former Seattle Chief Diaz   Thank you to the supporters of KUOW, you help make this show possible! If you want to help out, go to kuow.org/donate/soundsidenotes Soundside is a production of KUOW in Seattle, a proud member of the NPR Network. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Cleveland Association of Broadcasters presented Rover with an award. Charlie and Jeffrey stunned everyone with their outfits. New medical evidence in the Jerry Sandusky case. Former SPD police chief, Adrian Diaz, claims to be homosexual in a five-million-dollar sexual harassment civil lawsuit. Snitzer bailed on jury duty. Man commits suicide after people found out about his sexual fetish. Can the show predict what would be their significant other's porn choice? Jeffrey was c-blocked by a show member. A new definition for the term "rawdogging." 

Andy has an inverted theory. Dan breaks the Adrian Diaz story. Nam gets computer pranked. Tyler dips mysteriously. All our guests have tv credits. try not 2 cum.

Guest host Mike Lewis discusses the week's news with Commute Seattle Executive Director Alex Hudson, Seattle Times City Hall reporter David Kroman, and political and public affairs consultant, and co-host of Seattle Nice podcast Sandeep KaushikSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What’s Trending: The former bassist for Nirvana Krist Novalesic is trying to start a new political party in Washington. Jason follows up on his interview with Adrian Diaz yesterday and the response it has gotten. San Francisco Mayor London Breed challenged her opponent and former Mayor Mark Farrell to name 3 drag queens in San Francisco. // LongForm: GUEST: State Senator Mark Mullet. // The Quick Hit: Josh Hawley got into a heated exchange with a scientist who dismissed the Covid-19 lab leak theory.  

3pm: Former Seattle Police Chief Adrian Diaz Comes Out as Gay Amid Sexual Harassment Allegations // Inside the world of “ride share hustlers” at Seattle Cruise Terminals // Guest - Elizabeth New, policy analyst with the Washington policy center on paid family leave tax / // Discussing the PFLM Tax Texts // John is Invited to the Torchlight Parade Again.

Former Seattle Police Chief Adrian Diaz does his first (and only) interview since stepping aside as chief and he has a secret to tell: he’s gay. 

Interview with Adrian Diaz, MD, MPH, and Andrew M. Ibrahim, MD, MSc, authors of Variation in Postoperative Outcomes Across Federally Designated Hospital Star Ratings. Hosted by Amalia Cochran, MD. Related Content: Variation in Postoperative Outcomes Across Federally Designated Hospital Star Ratings

Interview with Adrian Diaz, MD, MPH, and Andrew M. Ibrahim, MD, MSc, authors of Variation in Postoperative Outcomes Across Federally Designated Hospital Star Ratings. Hosted by Amalia Cochran, MD. Related Content: Variation in Postoperative Outcomes Across Federally Designated Hospital Star Ratings

Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell has removed police Chief Adrian Diaz from his post and replaced him with former King County Sheriff Sue Rahr, noting allegations against Diaz played a role in the move. A month ago, Harrell said he was evaluating everyone within the SPD, including the chief, amid a string of claims alleging sexual harassment and sexual and racial discrimination from department leaders. Diaz was accused by multiple employees in lawsuits and tort claims. He denied the allegations. On Wednesday, Harrell said Diaz would step aside and work on “special projects" after the two came to the "mutual decision." Rahr will serve as interim chief beginning Thursday morning, Harrell said. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/darien-dunstan3/message

Bill Radke discusses the week's news with South Seattle Emerald's Lauryn Bray, Seattle Times Jonathan Martin, and Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Rachel Smith. We can only make Week in Review because listeners support us. You have the power! Make the show happen by making a gift to KUOW: https://www.kuow.org/donate/weekinreview  We want to hear from you! Leave us feedback at https://www.kuow.org/feedbackSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What’s Trending: Adrian Diaz is out as Seattle Police Chief and Mayor Bruce Harrell has picked his interim replacement. Lisa Evans (Vice Chair of the Washington State Republican Party) responds to the Semi Bird story. // Big Local: For the first time ever, the Yakima City Council voted down a Pride Month declaration. Lake Forest Park is installing cameras to prevent speed racing but some locals are convinced it’s just money-making scheme. // Black men who were asked to leave a flight due to body odor are suing American Airlines.

Seattle's Chief of Police, Adrian Diaz, has been dismissed from his job. Diaz and the department have endured a flurry of allegations and lawsuits from employees over the past year. including claims of discriminatory behavior by Diaz toward women and people of color, and rumors of a relationship with an employee that roiled the department.  Hanging over all of this is the department's ongoing struggle to recruit and retain officers. Soundside spoke with KUOW Online Managing Editor Isolde Raftery to break down the latest. Raftery and KUOW's Ashley Hiruko have been out in front doing watchdog reporting about Seattle's Police Department and its chief.  Related: Seattle Police Chief Adrian Diaz out; former Sheriff Sue Rahr interim ‘Appearance of segregation' at Seattle Police Department, captain says in lawsuit Seattle cop accuses Chief Diaz of ‘predatory behavior' and ‘grooming' See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Updated at 1 p.m. 5/29/2024

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Seattle Times politics and communities reporter, Daniel Beekman! Crystal and Daniel discuss the unsurprising Seattle City Council vacancy appointment and what we might see from a business-backed, Harrell-picked legislative body as they navigate a hiring freeze, a large budget deficit, and upcoming important policy decisions. Next, they turn to the Office of Police Accountability's conclusion that SPOG Vice President Auderer's comments about Jaahnavi Kandula's death were “​​derogatory, contemptuous, and inhumane” and speculate how Chief Diaz and Mayor Harrell will handle disciplinary action. The conversation then covers Daniel's recent story about a Snohomish County school's travails with a neighboring gravel yard and seemingly unconcerned local government. Finally, in the wake of the City of Seattle settling with 2020 protesters for $10 million, Crystal and Daniel wonder whether there will be any meaningful change in how the Seattle Police Department responds to protests. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Daniel Beekman, at @DBeekman.   Resources The Raise the Wage Renton Campaign with Maria Abando and Renton City Councilmember Carmen Rivera from Hacks & Wonks   “In "Foregone Conclusion," Council Appoints Tanya Woo to Citywide Position” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   “Total Corporate Takeover of Council Now Complete” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger   “Harrell Issues Hiring Freeze as New Council Members Vow to "Audit the Budget"” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   “SPD cop's comments on Jaahnavi Kandula's death were ‘inhumane,' biased, watchdogs say” by Mike Carter from The Seattle Times   “Snohomish County school seeks relief from gravel yard sited next door” by Daniel Beekman from The Seattle Times   “City of Seattle settles BLM protesters' lawsuit for $10 million” by Mike Carter from The Seattle Times   Find stories that Crystal is reading here   Listen on your favorite podcast app to all our episodes here   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical show and our Friday week-in-review delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday topical show, I chatted with Renton City Councilmember Carmen Rivera and Raise the Wage Renton Steering Committee member Maria Abando to learn more about the citizen initiative to raise Renton's minimum wage. Ballots got mailed out this week, so keep an eye on that and make sure all your friends and family in Renton vote by February 13th. Today, we're continuing our Friday week-in-review shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: Seattle Times politics and communities reporter, Daniel Beekman. [00:01:28] Daniel Beekman: Thanks for having me on. [00:01:30] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Well, there is a good amount of news to discuss this week. Starting off, Seattle got a new councilmember. Tanya Woo was appointed by the council to fill the vacancy created by Teresa Mosqueda's election to the King County Council. What was the lead up? What happened here? How did this happen? [00:01:53] Daniel Beekman: Well, it was an interesting situation where so soon after actual elections, we had this appointment process for the City Council because Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda jumped to the King County Council in the same election that elected an almost all-new Seattle City Council, so there's some kind of whiplash there with so much change so quickly. And we saw the new-look City Council appoint someone who narrowly lost in November, which was interesting to see. They sort of had an option of, in theory, choosing someone who fit the profile politically of Teresa Mosqueda, the outgoing councilmember, to fill that citywide seat, or of choosing someone who had just run, or going a whole other direction. And there was a lot of politicking ahead of the appointment. And I think that the new City Council President Sara Nelson said we're not doing anything else until we have this appointment. So we're not going to get down to actual business, which to some extent makes some sense in that you want to sort of have everything set before you start doing the work. On the other hand, it sort of laid down a marker of - this is our first new thing that we're doing as a city council. It's going to be significant, which it is - choosing someone to represent the whole city, at least until November, late November when the election results get certified. But yeah, it was interesting. What did you make of it? Were you surprised that they picked Tanya Woo? [00:03:32] Crystal Fincher: I was not surprised at all. In fact, this seemed like it was a foregone conclusion for quite some time. Part of this was telegraphed publicly - it looks like with about a week before, there was a letter from Tim Ceis - who was a former consultant to Bruce Harrell, may currently be a consultant to Bruce Harrell, and business lobbyist - who had sent a letter to some of his allies talking about their success with the independent expenditure effort, referring to the money that they spent in support of electing candidates in this last election in Seattle, which was very successful for them. And saying that they had the right to voice their opinion and state that they wanted Tanya Woo picked. They named her by name and said - She is our person, you should pick her. Also telegraphed from a prior meeting where they narrowed down and selected the finalists where several councilmembers from the dais said - Since someone else already picked Tanya Woo, I'll go with a different person. So it looked like she was the favorite anyway. I think that the relationship that had been established between them was clear. They were all similarly ideologically aligned. They spent a lot of time together during the campaign trail. But as you said, it was a controversial pick because Tanya Woo was just unsuccessful in that election and just lost to Tammy Morales. And so having a portion of the City opt not to have Tanya Woo represent them to vote for Tammy Morales - and I personally am not someone who feels that someone who lost an election should never be appointed, but I do think that the will of the voters does make a difference here. If Tanya would have had similar ideological preferences to Tammy Morales and lost, you could say - Well, they're saying similar things. The voters seem like they would be fine, too. They didn't just reject this. This seems like it could be a pick that does represent what Seattle residents feel best represents them. This is not that case, and so we will see how this turns out. But there's been a shift in ideology on the council now. Interestingly with this, it's not like even if they didn't go with Tanya Woo, the majority of the council wouldn't still be in the same place. But this provides almost an extra insurance vote for them, as they consider the things that are facing the city, whether it's a budget deficit - Sara Nelson already signaling a desire to cut business taxes. They're going through an audit - they're saying right now - with the City and seeing where they can cut spending basically to address this $250+ million dollar deficit that's coming up that may be even bigger because they're also signaling that they want to further increase the police budget. So we'll see how this turns out, but it's going to be really interesting to see them negotiate the challenges that are facing them. What do you think this sets up for the council over the year? [00:06:23] Daniel Beekman: Yeah, it was interesting. I haven't been the reporter covering most of this in the last couple of weeks for us. And going forward, it'll be my coworker, David Kroman, who is doing a great job and will do a great job. But I did just dip in for a minute when the new councilmembers were sworn in - This was early this month. And I remember that Councilmember Tammy Morales made it a point in that swearing in, getting started meeting - and talking about this appointment that they had to make - of mentioning some of the big ticket items and running down the list of what this year might look like. And it was striking to think about what they have coming up. There's a Comprehensive Plan update due by the end of this year, which sounds kind of wonky, but is important. It's basically redefining the growth strategy for the city for the next 20 years. There's a transportation property tax levy up for renewal. There's this potential budget gap that you mentioned. And there's the issue of the contract for the police officers union due. So those are some big ticket things all in this year. And I think it may be the budget, like you were mentioning, that turns out to be the one that's the hottest politically with this new group and where you sort of see the imprint of the new politics to the extent that it is a shift. But I'm sure other things will crop up as they always do. [00:07:55] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Well, we will continue to pay attention to what happens with this council. Also, because this has been an appointment, this person who did get appointed has to stand for election in the very next election - they don't serve the full term after an appointment. So this seat will be on the ballot in November 2024. So that is going to be an interesting dynamic. Robert Cruidkshank talked about last week - this is going to be interesting to see. Given how there was controversy surrounding this appointment, how is that going to impact Tanya Woo, who is assumed to be running for this seat? And how many other people we see who applied for this appointment are also going to be on the ballot? Is anyone new going to be there? So certainly a lot to pay attention to politically here. [00:08:40] Daniel Beekman: I was just curious to know what you thought about that, because I listened to what Robert was saying, listened to your show last week with him - and I think he was saying that he thought the new guard on the City Council is maybe overestimating their political momentum. And that the way this appointment process happened with Tanya Woo being backed by the independent expenditure sort of business types, there could be a backlash in November, which I could kind of imagine in the sense that people don't love the idea of behind the scenes - big business picking their leaders. And it's in a presidential election year, so that could factor into things. But also Councilmember Woo now obviously has support and name recognition and all that and will benefit from being there at City Hall. And support not just from business leaders, obviously. And so I'm curious to know what you think - I understand where he was coming from when he was making that backlash prediction, but I'm not so sure about it. What do you expect? Do you think it'll hurt or help her or what? [00:09:46] Crystal Fincher: It could hurt. The potential is there. And it really depends on how things play out, I think, with the budget, primarily - with some of the real visible issues that they're going to be dealing with this year. I do think that it was notable and novel to have Tim Ceis send out that letter. Now, I don't think that penetrated immediately to the general public. I don't think 80% of people are aware that Tim Ceis sent any communication, or who Tim Ceis is realistically. Kind of same with how many people are really paying attention to the City Council right now. But as you hear these things being talked about, they do know that Tanya Woo lost. And this did make broad news - people are getting news alerts about it. And it's a name that they wouldn't expect to be there. So it's kind of like - Huh, that's different. And didn't she just lose? - which I think is an odd thing. I do think that there has been a - you could characterize it as brazen - that business has a big voice here and that there is a close alignment. And whether or not you view it as them being in the pocket or being a puppet of big business, or that they're just aligned and view it as an extremely important constituency that they're prioritizing that there does seem to be a much closer alignment there. And Seattle voters have explicitly rejected that before. They are uncomfortable when it comes to corporate control. Seattle residents are taxing themselves to institute a small property tax for the Democracy Voucher program. And I really do agree with Robert's point about Seattle voters being uncomfortable with austerity - cutting services is just not what Seattle residents are necessarily comfortable with. And Seattle, to a greater degree than just about any other city in this state, prioritizes services for its residents - those that cost - and they want library services, they want housing provided, they want these different things. Now they want action and they want to see improvement on the ground on these issues, but they don't expect an absence of these services or - Okay, we're just wholesale slashing programs and services that you've been used to and that Seattle is known for providing. So I do think that a number of these issues would be easier for them to run on, for them to implement had they mentioned that while they were running for election. But I think the other complication is while they were campaigning, they bent over backwards - these candidates that won, for the most part - to not talk about - Okay, there's a big budget deficit. What would you cut if you're not going to raise revenue? Where do you find revenue to provide more money for more police? And that's a conversation that many of them didn't want to have. I think Bob Kettle was probably the one who most explicitly talked about that. A few just didn't. A few threw out ideas like - Well, we need to find out what's happening with the City. But there wasn't anyone who said - You know what, we are going to be cutting programs. We are going to be cutting services. We are going to be providing business tax breaks. Not one said that one. So that's going to be interesting to see - in a deficit, when they're cutting services for residents and then seeing tax breaks for businesses, how that's going to fly. [00:13:02] Daniel Beekman: Yeah, I think that it's not surprising or out of bounds for the new councilmembers and the new council president to feel like they have a kind of mandate. And I think voters can feel to some extent like they were installed in office being business-friendly candidates, and the voters knew that - that's not a total surprise. And I think it's understandable that they would say - OK, well, we got put here, this is who we are, and we're going to try to do what we want to do. We'll have to see how the budget actually plays out and the deficit, because there can be updated forecasts and new money comes in - and it's hard to know what that will look like. But I do think what you mentioned about - if there start being cuts to libraries, that might not be a politically savvy thing in Seattle - hands off our library. So I think to that extent, that's where the rubber could meet the road to see how much political juice folks have, if that's the direction it goes. I can see both angles here. [00:14:05] Crystal Fincher: A lot is still up the air. Interestingly, it wasn't a unanimous vote by the council. One or two votes for this appointment - Joy Hollingsworth, Tammy Morales, and one other councilmember - [00:14:18] Daniel Beekman: Dan Strauss. [00:14:19] Crystal Fincher: Dan Strauss, that's right - did not have Tanya Woo as their choice. So there was some difference. So we'll see how these alliances play out. Even though there are ideological differences, councilmembers may still find things that they share, issues that they want to pursue - maybe on not the big headline issues, but other ones. And how those relationships build and progress - maybe that can provide some hope for how things play out with the City. Also, speaking of the budget, Mayor Bruce Harrell just announced a hiring freeze. As the new council sets out on their quest to audit the budget, Harrell instituted a hiring freeze across all City departments except police, fire and the 911 response division known as the CARE Department. PubliCola covered this - everybody covered this - but this is going to be a significant freeze. Certainly not the first freeze. Hiring freezes are not unprecedented - in fact, with big budget deficits, we have seen this before. It'll be interesting to see how this results and how much money this could potentially save. What do you see? Do you think a hiring freeze makes sense at this point in time? [00:15:30] Daniel Beekman: I wouldn't weigh in on whether it makes sense or not. It's interesting to see. And obviously, the idea is that we'll save some money leading into the budget season and maybe make some decisions easier, or get rid of some of the hard decisions that might otherwise be there. But also, it's a political signal - I would assume - to say, this is the situation we're in. This is really serious, and we're going to have to make some tough calls coming down the line. And the idea of exempting these public safety positions from that also sends a signal. Again - hiring freeze is one thing, cutting services is another thing - and if it starts to blur into cutting as the year goes on, then that's where you could imagine the average voter starting to get concerned. So it'll be interesting to see how it evolves and also how the relationship between the mayor and this new city council evolves too on something like this, as councilmembers get pressure from various advocacy groups or stakeholders with the budget - and employees - and as the mayor does too. Do they work in lockstep together - the mayor and the council, or the council majority to the extent that there is a clear one - or do they start playing off each other. I'm really curious to see how Mayor Harrell handles the new council - does he see himself as the leader, or is he going to play off what they're doing and position himself as different from whatever tack they're taking. And this hiring freeze and how it continues to play out could start to show what that relationship might be, I think. [00:17:09] Crystal Fincher: That is going to be interesting to watch. This hiring freeze was not a surprise to me. Again, it's not unprecedented. The City is facing a very serious budget deficit with some major structural issues. Over the years, there have been several short-term, or shorter-term, sources of funds that have been used to plug holes, get us through some challenging times - and that's all coming to roost now. There are several needs for permanent funding that don't currently have permanent funding sources attached. Also, it's going to be interesting to see what they end up doing with the JumpStart Tax and the revenues from that. That certainly has been dedicated to a number of issues that have provided some very important services to people who need housing assistance, small business assistance, eviction assistance - just really plugging some of the real critical gaps for folks and businesses in the city. But this is being eyed as a source of revenue for some of the other priorities or things that they're looking to shift to. And they have signaled that that may be a source of revenue that they look to divert or repurpose. And you're right - how the relationship develops between the mayor and council is going to be interesting to watch, especially since Bruce Harrell played a big role in recruiting and helping to elect these councilmembers - the majority who were elected, the new ones. He had talked about for a while, other people had talked about - Well, there needs to be more alignment between the mayor and council to get things done. Bruce talked about he wanted a council that would partner with him and that was loyal to him, really. And he has that now. And so from that perspective - okay, the barriers that you said that you had to being able to move forward on the priorities that you've set forth have seemingly been removed. So now we can expect to see, or we should expect to see, action on some of the priorities that have seemingly lagged or that there hasn't been as much progress on over the past two years since he took office. So it's going to be interesting to see what they set as an agenda, how aggressive they are with addressing priorities that residents have had when it comes to public safety - making everyone safer in the city, which they are taking steps to do. And some of the things that they've talked about with the CARE Department that is now rolling out a co-response kind of partial model for some mental health calls. Tammy Morales did make a point in some of her remarks to remind the colleagues that Bruce Harrell is not their boss. They don't work for him. They are partners with him. He's a colleague. He isn't a superior. And so it'll be interesting to see if - on the flip side, they view themselves as a check to some things that may come out of the mayor's office. We'll see how that turns out. It looks like there is broad alignment right now and a culture of positivity that they're trying to enforce - wanting to not have any negative comments, to get along and be really collegial. And we'll see if that results in some significant progress on homelessness, on public safety, on economic development, on just help for the people who need it most in the city. [00:20:25] Daniel Beekman: Yeah, I think you're right that - in terms of the mayor, he's halfway through his term now and now has this friendly city council. So yeah, you would think that now would be the time to do the things that he promised to do on the campaign trail and that people want to see City Hall accomplish. So what are those things? It'll be interesting to see what comes out of his office this year. Is it just going to be taking care of those must-dos? We talked about the Comp Plan and Transportation Levy renewal and the budget. Or is there something more proactive that's going to come from his office on housing and homelessness? The voters just passed a new Housing Levy last year. But yeah, what's going to come out of his office - if anything - that's a big ticket item this year now that, like you said, in theory, there shouldn't be any barriers to him getting done what he wants to get done. [00:21:18] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. I also want to talk about news this week about the comment that we heard from an SPD police officer mocking, really, Jaahnavi Kandula's death - she was killed by a police officer who was responding to a call - killed in a crosswalk, hit by his cruiser while he was driving it. And those comments made international news for how just grotesque and callous they were. I don't think anyone, besides perhaps the police union, is arguing that they weren't absolutely detestable. But it's been quite some time, but there was just an Office of Police Accountability finding at a disciplinary hearing on Tuesday where they found that the vice president of Seattle's police union acted unprofessionally and showed bias when he made callous comments downplaying the death of Jaahnavi Kandula. What did you think of this finding and this incident? [00:22:24] Daniel Beekman: Yeah, well, I don't think it's surprising that the watchdog agency, the OPA, would come down with this finding, although I don't think they released what their recommendations for discipline were - it just goes, they sent it to the police chief, Adrian Diaz, for him to decide whether he wants to concur with those unknown recommendations for discipline or he has to justify doing something else. So yeah, I don't think it's surprising that the OPA would come down on it this way, given what their role is as a watchdog agency and given what happened and all the uproar locally, nationally, internationally. I think the big question is what the police chief is going to do and what the mayor, his boss, is going to do. It seems like a major moment for, again - what is the relationship between the mayor and the police chief and the police union? We'll be waiting to see what happens. And a little bit interested that - I could imagine a world in which the police chief and the mayor, knowing that this recommendation was coming down from the OPA, would get their ducks in a row. Let's say, if they were sure they were going to concur - this is kind of speculation - but if they were sure they were going to concur with the recommendations and kind of be ready right away to say - Yes, we agree with this and here's the action we're taking now, boom. And the fact that that didn't happen concurrently with this coming out from the OPA and that the police chief apparently is taking time to take a look at it is interesting. And then, of course, there's the ongoing investigation into the incident itself and the officer who was involved in the fatal collision. So that's a whole other thing that's still waiting out there as well, and whether he - what kind of consequences he might face. [00:24:17] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and I think that's where the rubber is really going to hit the road here is - so what are you going to do about it? And like you said, the OPA investigator did not make his finding public. The police chief will have to decide whether he's going to fire this officer, whether he's going to discipline him in any way. But that's going to be really interesting to see, especially in an environment where they are really supportive of police - they do have plans to hire more officers - they are trying to signal it's a new day in our relationship with the police department. At the same time, the mayor has at least given lip service - and I think some of the other new councilmembers have - saying that, But we do want to take accountability seriously. This looks to be perhaps their first test of this under the new council. And especially with something that there doesn't seem to be much ambiguity on where the general public is on this - it is pretty detestable. And even in the findings from the OPA director, it was pretty stark what they said. They said his comments were "derogatory, contemptuous, and inhumane" - that's a quote from Betts' summary. Said - "For many, it confirmed, fairly or not, beliefs that some officers devalue and conceal perverse views about community members." This is not something where it's anywhere close to acceptable. It said the investigators concluded that his comments did in fact violate SPD policies - that the department prohibits behavior that undermines public trust, including any language that is derogatory, contentious, or disrespectful towards any person. The policy also prohibits prejudicial or derogatory language about someone's discernible personal characteristics, such as age. They directly violated those, and at a time where I think everyone acknowledges there needs to be trust rebuilt between the police department and the community - that those are really serious violations. And if we're serious about creating a culture that is different than this, then can this remain in the police department? So a decision coming up that hopefully - I certainly would hope - that they find this is not compatible with the police department or its culture. But we'll see how this turns out. [00:26:33] Daniel Beekman: Yeah, and I guess what raises the stakes - and of course the stakes are so high for the family involved and all of that. But what also raises the stakes here for the city is that this isn't just any police officer, but this person is vice president in the police officers' union, SPOG, and the guild. So right up at the top of the officer hierarchy and embedded in the culture of the force. [00:27:01] Crystal Fincher: Now, I do want to talk about a story that you wrote this week that I think is really important to cover. It's about a school in Snohomish County seeking some relief from a gravel yard sited next door. What is happening here and who's being impacted? [00:27:20] Daniel Beekman: Sure. This is an interesting one. So basically what's happening - this is an elementary school in the Mukilteo School District, but it's not in the city of Mukilteo. It's in this wedge of unincorporated Snohomish County between South Everett and Mukilteo. And next door on the same campus is a big kindergarten center that serves as the kindergarten for a larger area - so there's maybe close to a thousand kids on this campus. And there's this piece of property right next door to the school, closest to the south wing of the school - and some portables and the asphalt playground - that was a vacant lot until a couple of years ago. A company bought it that's involved in mining and gravel and sand and other construction materials with a mine up in, I think, Granite Falls, Snohomish County. And they bought this property to use as basically a gravel yard, sort of a distribution hub. So they'll bring stuff down from the mine and put it in piles there with big trucks. And then trucks will come get the material to take out to job sites. And for at least a while, they're also using it to bring in, I believe, construction debris from job sites and then to be taken elsewhere. And especially starting last spring, the school started noticing - at first, they said they didn't get any word about what this was or that this was happening in advance - they just saw construction activity happening on this property. And then last spring started realizing - Well, this is a permanent thing. They're not building something. This is just what it is. And it's going to be like this for the foreseeable future. And they say they've been dealing with dust from these materials and with lots of noise from the trucks rumbling around and the construction vehicles' buckets slamming against the sides of the trucks as they're unloading and loading. They say it's really disruptive to classes - some of the classes, especially closest to the property - and also they're concerned about health impacts in terms of the dust. It's hard for them to know exactly what to attribute or not attribute to the dust, but they've talked about more bloody noses and black snot and headaches and stomachaches among students and teachers. So that's kind of what's going on. And where government comes in is that it turns out that this gravel yard operation hasn't had any permits since the start. And there were some complaints filed last spring about this, and the county basically has taken the stance of - Yeah, they don't have any permits. There was some kind of mix up, perhaps, but we're going to work with them to bring them into compliance. What they're doing is, in theory, allowed under the zoning of this property. So yes, they need permits and they need to do various things to get those. But we're going to give them time to do that and work with them to do that to see if they can. And the school district and people at this school are saying - Why are you continuing to allow them to operate when we say it's disruptive to our classes and our kids learning, especially if they don't have the permits? So that's what I wrote about. It's a weird situation. To the bigger picture about why it matters - obviously, it matters to the kids and the teachers there. But the bigger picture - there's a question about priorities of Snohomish County government that's being raised. Even one teacher wrote in a letter to the county council something along the lines of - what's worth more, kids or dirt? So there's sort of a question of priorities there and what the handling of the situation says about those. And then also - what I found interesting was the principal and others raising a question of environmental justice or equity and saying - Look, this school, it's on unincorporated land. There isn't a city hall to look out for us in this case. The school serves - I think, about 70% of the students qualify for free lunch, about half are multilingual learners, which means they speak a language other than English at home. There are a lot of immigrant and refugee kids. And the principal just said straight up - If this was happening in different neighborhoods or with a different demographic of students, I don't think the powers that be would be putting up with it. So that's the story, and we're going to keep following it and see what happens. [00:31:55] Crystal Fincher: This was disappointing for me to read - just because that did seem to come through. It does seem to be a question of priority. When you talk about bloody noses, stomachaches, headaches, black snot - I mean, that is alarming to think of as a parent. If you see that going on with your kid, you know something's wrong. If you see that happening with your students and it wasn't previously happening, you know something's wrong. Again, like you said, it's hard to know exactly how to attribute it. But if this is a newer occurrence, you're going to ask questions and want a remedy. I think in the story you talk about - they can see the dust and there have been studies recently talking about how harmful particulate matter can be for developing lungs and hearts and brains - and for everyone, kids and teachers there. It's a big challenge. And for this to be happening suddenly - no notice, not current or appropriate permits for what they're doing - and the remedy to be, Well, we'll just let them keep doing it. Who knows what's going on at the school and we'll work with them to make sure they get up to code so they can keep doing this, instead of working to ensure that the kids are safe just seems backward. And it really does stand in contrast with so many other issues that we see people talk about when it comes to keeping kids safe, keeping schools safe. We restrict several activities around schools - really common ones are you can't have guns in school zones, you can't have any weapons, you can't have alcohol - that kind of stuff. We restrict, and some cities have sought to restrict, whether homeless people can be in vicinities of schools - which I personally think is misguided, but there have been cities that have done that. And so why is it so important to keep kids safe in those situations, but not this one? Why is it in this particular situation that the health of these kids doesn't matter? And not just the health impacts, but that this has been very disruptive to their learning - they've had to restructure their days. Extremely loud and disruptive, which studies have shown does impact, does hinder learning. So why is this allowed to continue unpermitted without any kind of approval or exploration about whether this is an appropriate and compatible use? I do hope the Snohomish County government does better. I hope they engage more actively in this. I hope that they do track down what is happening with these kids and that they are able to mitigate this. But it does seem like these stories often go unreported, so appreciate you servicing this. We're used to hearing - we think of a place like Magnolia or Laurelhurst and how much process there is around anything new that happens. And that this is allowed to just up and happen in a different area, in a poorer area, just seems really disappointing and a reflection on priorities that need to change. Also want to talk this week about the City of Seattle settling with Black Lives Matter protesters from 2020 for $10 million. What happened under this settlement? [00:35:09] Daniel Beekman: Well, the City Attorney's office in the city made a calculation and said - We're going to cut our losses here, in terms of the money that we're spending on the case and the money that we could end up paying at the end of it if we continue. And that's what they do is - they make a calculation, and they negotiate - and say $10 million is what it's going to take to make this case go away, but we might have to pay more if we continue. And it wasn't a case where the City said - And we're admitting fault. Sometimes - I think rarely - but sometimes the city, public entity will say something like that with a settlement. That wasn't the case here. They said this is a straight up calculation of risk for tax dollars and that's why we're settling this case. But that's what happened. And it's the latest in a now pretty long series of settlements of lawsuits related in one way or another to the May, June, July 2020 timeframe. And it will be interesting, actually, to try to tally them all up and see what the final number would be. But this is, I think, the biggest - but there have been a whole bunch of settlements in the six-figures and over a million dollars related to the protest summer of 2020. I think there still is some litigation hanging out there, so we may continue to see more. And I don't know how much closure this will bring to the city and to the plaintiffs involved here from this time, but definitely a big settlement. [00:36:45] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, this is already - as you said, City Attorney Ann Davison reiterated the City was not admitting any fault here. This lawsuit was filed about three years ago, has already cost the City in defense and expert witness fees. Among the plaintiffs were a woman who had a heart attack when she was struck in the chest by an SPD blast ball, and a man who was hospitalized in a coma after his arrest, a veteran who uses a cane and was gassed and tackled because he didn't retreat fast enough - because the cane was viewed as a weapon - there were lots. The police indiscriminately fired tear gas and blast balls in this neighborhood - not only impacting protesters, but also impacting the entire neighborhood. There were people who were just in their homes who were impacted. by this. It was quite a significant event. Even though the City did not admit any fault, there was a finding by a federal judge saying officers had used excessive force and had violated the free speech rights of thousands of residents who were legally gathered. It really was a stain on the police department - another thing that most people looked at and said, This is not right. This should not happen. This is a violation of trust, and really just harmful to residents in the city. Police are supposed to be there, philosophically, to protect people. And seemingly the opposite happened here. The attorney for the plaintiffs, along with some of the plaintiffs, did have a press conference yesterday and said - Hey, the City's not admitting fault, but they really should be. And there was so much that was troubling that happened here. The attorney cited other incidents, including a hoax perpetrated by the department to scare protesters into thinking armed members of the Proud Boys extremist group were in the area. The City hired an expert, University of Liverpool Professor Clifford Stott, who's among the world's foremost crowd policing experts. And I thought this was pretty jaw-dropping - Stott reportedly concluded that, particularly during the early days of Seattle's protests, he had not seen the level of violent aggression by police against unarmed protesters "in any democratic state." That's just a pretty stark, horrible conclusion - saying that this doesn't happen in democracies. We don't see this kind of reaction in free societies. And so this is a really significant payout. And once again, we're seeing a large payout because of police violations and misconduct. We're now seeing this happen while we're hearing - There's not much money to go around. We're trying to figure out what to do with the shortfall, yet we're still paying out this extra money. And it just seems like this should be a signal that - Hey, there is a reckoning that needs to happen within the department, within the city that perhaps hasn't happened yet. And maybe the insistence that - Hey, there's no fault here seems a bit out of touch. How did you see this? [00:39:56] Daniel Beekman: I'm not sure about the admitting wrongdoing aspect of it and what reasoning is behind that decision. But I think a bigger picture question is - okay, so there's this big payout for the plaintiffs. It's a headline. It's meaningful in those ways. But the bigger question is - okay, well, if something happens and there are big protests - what if a decision comes down that people don't like in that other case we were talking about, the fatal collision? And there are protests on the street and the police department is sent out to handle those protests. Are we going to see the same thing happen again? That's the real question, right - is what's been put in place in regulation and policy and law and culture to ensure that things are done the right way the next time? And I think there's an open question about would things be different again, or not? So I think that's the thing that it would be helpful to hear from policymakers and from City leaders on. The look back is important, but there's that question of - what about next time? What do you think about that? [00:41:14] Crystal Fincher: No, I think you're exactly right. I personally would love to hear from the police chief, from the mayor - who are directly responsible for the police department - what about next time? I think that's the right question to ask and what they should be asking themselves. What is going to change? How have we responded to this? Have policies changed in response to this? Has training changed? Has any guidance changed? Have they responded to this with any criticisms, with any - Hey, I would like this to change. This is under their purview. This is under their control. So how are they asserting their leadership? How are they affirmatively trying to shape this culture? Or are they just kind of taking a hands-off policy and hoping this doesn't happen again? - Hey, we'll deal with something if it directly lands in our lap, like we need to make a disciplinary decision on the one case that we talked about earlier that you just referenced. But when it comes to culture, when it comes to how things are looking moving forward - what is their vision for that? What are they setting forth? How are they leading? It's their responsibility. How are they handling that responsibility? Are they handling that responsibility? And I think residents are interested to hear that. They want to know that there are plans in place and that there is a response. Or are we setting ourselves up again for harm against residents of this city, and lawsuits that drag on that are really expensive - that take time and money? And here we go again. So I do hope they address that. And maybe, this new council can help prompt some of those questions - maybe as these conversations take place and as there are more press conferences, we can hear more about that, hopefully. And with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, January 26th, 2024. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today was Seattle Times politics and communities reporter, Daniel Beekman. You can find Daniel on X, also known as Twitter, at @DBeekman. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter at @HacksWonks. You can find me on Twitter - all platforms - at @finchfrii. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

En el directo de hoy, os hablaré en profundidad sobre nuestro viaje empresarial a China. Y para ello contaremos con la intervención de alguno de los participantes de la edición anterior. Recuerda que ya puedes apuntarte a la próxima edición aquí: https://adriandiazmarro.com/viaje/Transcripción --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/emjulu/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/emjulu/support

-her skating origin story -the start of her integration career -skating with Adrian Diaz and switching from GBR to Spain -the close rivalry and journey to get to represent at the Olympics -how it felt the her partner announced retirement -taking the year off competition skating and her mentality -Dancing on Ice experience -how it felt to be away from competition and do some soul searching -the decision to compete again with a new partner -the ongoing journey -her advice to skaters Follow me on IG: @polinaedmunds    

This Week in Skating is hosted by Gina Capellazzi and Daphne Backman and is a cooperative project between Figure Skaters Online and Ice-dance.com. New episodes are available every Tuesday.Website: http://www.thisweekinskating.comEmail: thisweekinskating@gmail.comFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/thisweekinskatingTwitter: https://www.twitter.com/thiswkinskatingInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/thisweekinskatingThread: https://www.threads.net/@thisweekinskatingPatreon: patreon.com/ThisWeekinSkating------------------------------------------------------------- EPISODE 113Event Results RecapGrand Prix Espoo | ResultsMidwestern Singles Sectional and Ice Dance Final | ResultsCS Warsaw Cup | Results NRW Trophy | Results Skate Celjel | ResultsBelgium National Championships| ResultsJapan Junior National Championships (results page in English)  | ResultsBoston Synchronized Skating Classic  | Results General Skating News Bradie Tennell announced in an Instagram post that she will miss the rest of the season due to injury.  Entries for Golden Spin of Zagreb were published Nov. 20.Segment - Recent Interviews Olympian Naomi Lang builds solo dance community in Arizona, by Abby Farrell, U.S. Figure SkatingA Magical Experience: Ashley Cain portrays Elsa in Disney on Ice, by Kristen Henneman, U.S. Figure Skating Fan ZoneGetting to know Emilea Zingas and Vadym Kolesnik, by Kristen Henneman, U.S. Figure Skating Fan ZoneWest Michigan sibling pair travels the world for figure skating competitions, by WZZM 13 (Grand Rapids)Making Milestones: Olympian Sandy Lenz reflects on recent life events, by Lois Elfman, U.S. Figure Skating2023-24 Grand Prix Final: Standings and Final Qualification, by Jackie Wong, Rocker SkatingBernard Adams, The Self-Taught Professor Of Skating, by Ryan Stevens, Skate Guard BlogSegment - Social Media UpdatesYuzuru Hanyu released a statement that announced his divorce. Statement translated into English as published by Olympics.com: https://olympics.com/en/news/figure-skating-japan-olympic-champion-hanyu-yuzuru-announces-divorce-partnerMadison Hubbell announced that she and her husband, Adrian Diaz are expecting a baby in February 2024.Gabriella Izzo announced that she has retired from competitive skating. Roman Sadovsky posted a photo with his fans at Warsaw Cup from which he had to withdraw last week and provided an update that he was able to get his luggage and skates back. Sergei Grinkov died in Lake Placid, NY on this 28 years ago on Nov. 20, 1995. Photos & a clip of his grave in snowy Moscow was shared by a Russian fan account. Segment - Upcoming Events for the Week:Nov. 24-26, 2023: NHK Trophy, Osaka JapanNov. 23-26, 2023: Tallinn Trophy, Tallinn, EstoniaIDC and FSO spotlight IDC: Grand Prix Espoo PhotosIDC: U.S. Ice Dance Final PhotosIDC: Japan Junior National Championships PhotosFSO: Grand Prix Espoo PhotosFSO: Grand Prix Espoo RecapFSO: Grand Prix TrackerSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/this-week-in-skating-podcast/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Public safety has been a topic our members have been discussing with us for some time. Seattle Police Chief Adrian Diaz has been a dedicated member of the Seattle Police Department for more than two decades. He holds a bachelor's degree in criminal justice from Central Washington University and a Master's in Public Administration from the University of Washington. He has completed the Major Cities Chiefs Associations Police Executive Leadership Institute, the Cascade Executive Program and the Senior Management Institute of Policing. Diaz has authored numerous national publications in community policing, misdemeanor justice and juvenile justice. Find out about the programs Diaz mentioned in this webinar at https://www.seattle.gov/police. Subscribe to Washington Hospitality Industry Podcast on Soundwise

Seattle Police Chief Adrian Diaz joins the Chino Y Chicano to talk about crime and gun violence. There has been a spike in shooting incidents  involving stolen guns. A fatal shooting in downtown Seattle took the lives of a  pregnant woman and her unborn child, and a shooting in the Rainier Valley at a community event injured five people.  Police are seeing the use of high power weapons and ammunition. The Chino Y Chicano take up those and other public safety concerns with the Seattle Police Chief.Read: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/08/us/lahaina-fire-families.html#:~:text=The%20F.B.I.,survivors%20wonder%20what%20comes%20next.: Read:https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2022/apr/15/fentanyl-involved-in-more-than-half-of-overdose-de/Read: https://pharmacy.wsu.edu/2021/08/23/how-one-professor-is-combating-a-silent-epidemic-in-eastern-washington/Read:https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=gonzalezRead: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/mental-health/seattle-libraries-transit-branch-into-social-work-to-take-on-mental-health-drug-use/: Read:https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/editorials/buoyed-by-poll-seattle-mayor-harrell-should-go-big-on-public-safety/Read: https://crosscut.com/news/2023/01/two-seattle-asian-american-community-newspapers-go-out-printRead: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/leesa-manion-sworn-in-as-king-county-prosecuting-attorney/Read: The Best & Worst Awards for 2022https://i0.wp.com/nwasianweekly.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/04-05-Matt-and-Gei-1.jpgRead Marcus Harrison Green's Seattle's Times column about Black Youth suicide. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/mental-health/more-black-kids-are-dying-by-suicide-the-reasons-unfortunately-arent-surprising/

This Week in Skating is hosted by Gina Capellazzi and Daphne Backman and is a cooperative project between Figure Skaters Online and Ice-dance.com. New episodes are available every Monday.Website: http://www.thisweekinskating.comEmail: thisweekinskating@gmail.comFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/thisweekinskatingTwitter: https://www.twitter.com/thiswkinskatingInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/thisweekinskating-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Episode 81 Show NotesEvents Results BriefHollins Trophy InternationalU.S. Pairs' Camp (Photos from Naomi Williams)Segment - General Skating News All-event tickets for the 2024 ISU World Figure Skating Championships in Montreal will go on sale June 15.Diana Davis and Gleb Smolkin have been released from the Russian federation and will now compete for Georgia. Georgia's Morisi Kvitelashvili has retired from competitive skating. [Sport24 RU article: https://sport24.ru/figureskating/news-2023-06-05-uchenik-tutberidze-kvitelashvili-zavershil-karyeru-figurista]Following the ISU Council meeting in Budapest, the ISU confirmed June 11 that Russia and Belarus will remain suspended for now. Segment - Recent InterviewsISU Video: Junwhan Cha with the Cherry Blossoms in Japan Video: Milla Ruud Reitan and Nikolaj Majorov eager for debut, by Judith Dombroski, Golden SkateWorld Junior Champion Daniel Tioumentsev's Career Skyrockets at SpaceX, by Marissa Pederson, U.S. Figure Skating Fan ZoneU.S. Collegiate Championships Spotlight: Goku Endo, by U.S. Figure Skating“Born this way”: Ice Dancers Fear/Gibson's message in support of diversity reaches beyond the ice, by Javier Raya, ISURockford's Janet Lynn Is Still All Smiles More Than 50 Years After The Sapporo Olympics, by Kevin Haas, Rock River Current Segment - Social Media UpdatesCongratulations are in order for Madison Hubbell and Adrian Diaz, who got married in Spain June 7. Photos appeared on Instagram stories of the skaters who were in attendance. Romain Haguenauer's Instagram post. Eva Pate posted that she said ‘yes' to the dress on her Instagram story.I.AM announced that Layla Karnes and Liam Carr are a new ice dance team for Great Britain.Caroline Mullen and Brendan Mullen have been working with MIDA on their programs.Haley Scott and Blake Eisenach are a new U.S. senior pairs team. Madeline Miller and Zachary Grant are a new junior ice dance team for the U.S.Isabella Flores and Ivan Desyatov's GoFundME account for Ivan's release from Belarus. Marissa Castelli got her bachelor's in management from DeVry University. GoFundMe for Adam Kaplan Segment - Program AnnouncementsCheck out our website for a listing of program music announcements - will be updated as they are announced!MenWomenPairsDanceSegment - Upcoming Events 2023 National Theatre on Ice, June 26-30 in Fraser, Michigan IDC and FSO spotlightIDC: Hurtado & Khaliavin open SK International Ice Dance School FSO: Loena Hendrickx enjoyed traveling North America with Stars on IceSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/this-week-in-skating-podcast/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Support World Evangelism by becoming a subscriber to the DAILY PREMIUM AD-FREE SERMON PODCAST using the links below: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Subscribe for only $2.99/month on Spotify: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/vbph-sermons/subscribe⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Subscribe for only $3/month on Supercast: https://vbph-sermons.supercast.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Subscribe for only $4.99/month on Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/3dix1mC⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ALL PROCEEDS GO TO WORLD EVANGELISM --- We need five-star reviews! Tell the world what you think about this podcast at: Apple Podcasts: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://apple.co/3dix1mC⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Washington state is experiencing an undeniable surge in crime. But what's the reason for it and how do we combat it? KTTH hosts Jason Rantz and Bryan Suits spoke with a variety of experts to tackle crime in the context of homelessness, drug use, and policing, featuring Sheriff Ed Troyer, Seattle Police chief Adrian Diaz, Everett Mayor Cassie Franklin, Kent Mayor Dana Ralph, former congressman Dave Reichert, and (un)divided host Brandi Kruse. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Washington state is experiencing an undeniable surge in crime. But what's the reason for it and how do we combat it? KTTH hosts Jason Rantz and Bryan Suits spoke with a variety of experts to tackle crime in the context of homelessness, drug use, and policing, featuring Sheriff Ed Troyer, Seattle Police chief Adrian Diaz, Everett Mayor Cassie Franklin, Kent Mayor Dana Ralph, former congressman Dave Reichert, and (un)divided host Brandi Kruse. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Seattle Police Chief Adrian Diaz's joins the Chino Y Chicano to talk public safety in Seattle. 2022 was a particularly challenging year as the violent crime rate was the highest in 15 years. Homicides increased 24 percent. Gun violence was the cause of death for the majority of the victims. Diaz served as interim police chief for two years before becoming full time chief earlier this year.  Crime, he says, did decrease in the fourth quarter of 2022  with reductions in aggravated assault and larceny-theft.  The SPD Chief talks about changes he is making in the department's leadership, as well as efforts to hire more officers, the training of recruits to deal with diverse communities and addressing officers mental health. Diaz also addresses the challenges for police in dealing with homeless encampments, downtown public safety and the growing problem of fentanyl addiction and overdoses. Read: https://crosscut.com/news/2023/01/two-seattle-asian-american-community-newspapers-go-out-printRead: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/leesa-manion-sworn-in-as-king-county-prosecuting-attorney/Read: The Best & Worst Awards for 2022https://i0.wp.com/nwasianweekly.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/04-05-Matt-and-Gei-1.jpgRead Marcus Harrison Green's Seattle's Times column about Black Youth suicide. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/mental-health/more-black-kids-are-dying-by-suicide-the-reasons-unfortunately-arent-surprising/

Grandiosas en entrevista exclusiva / Adrian Diaz nos da consejos de finanzas personales / Nicolás Romay nos trae las mejores noticias del deporte y más...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

After a weekend of shootings alongside a narcotics bust, multiple assaults, hate crimes, and even a power outage affecting 8,000 residents, many people who call Seattle home are worried about 2023's violent start.“We had a violent weekend, even by Seattle standards, for what we've been seeing over the past two years and the rise in violent crime and shootings and homicides,” Brandi Kruse said on KIRO Newsradio.While 2022 was a more violent year, according to Seattle Police Department's Crime Dashboard, crime followed 2021's rollercoaster-esque pattern in the back half of the year, crescendoing within the same months (July, August, October, December).January 2021 saw 42 shootings while January 2022 witnessed 65.“A man shot to death inside a restaurant, three people shot outside of a popular bar on Capitol Hill,” Kruse listed off. “A guy shot after he was asked for a cigarette by a stranger in Seattle. A guy sitting in his truck shot with a grazing bullet to the head in Seattle. A 16-year-old boy shot in Tacoma. Two teenage girls shot outside of Mount Vernon grocery store in the parking lot. Just a few of the things that happened in the past few days in western Washington.”All this occurred on Adrian Diaz‘ first official week as Chief of Police for Seattle. Diaz was the interim chief for two years following former Police Chief Carmen Best's resignation in August 2020, and was confirmed by the Seattle City Council with an 8-1 vote.Support the showSign Up For Exclusive Episodes At: https://reasonabletv.com/LIKE & SUBSCRIBE for new videos every day. https://www.youtube.com/c/NewsForReasonablePeople

Bratty en entrevista exclusiva / Adrian Diaz con los consejos de finanzas personales / Alessia resuelve todas tus dudas en el Consultorio Sexual y más...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

ASPA anticipa "competencia desleal" con Mexicana, Pedro Tello: "CDMX, Veracruz, Q. Roo y Sonora siguen sin recuperar los niveles de empleo", Gabriel Regino: "Militarizar el Metro CDMX una terrible decisión"

Diaz has led the Seattle Police Department for the past two and a half years.

After 29 months running the Seattle Police Department, Adrian Diaz said he was relieved and happy to be officially sworn in as Seattle's next chief of police at City Hall on Thursday. His oldest son Alex pinned the badge onto his uniform as supporters applauded.

Our first episode of 2023 focuses on public safety in downtown Seattle with a true authority on the subject – Seattle Police Chief Adrian Diaz. From a patrol officer in the late 90s to the top brass, Adrian Diaz has 26 years of experience in the department. Jon and Adrian talk about his rise to leadership, current challenges facing the department and the city, what he sees at areas like Third and Pine and 12th and Jackson and more. Join us for Seattle City Makers with Jon Scholes and guest Chief Adrian Diaz.

Thursday, October 20 on Urban Forum Northwest : *Elmer Dixon, President, Executive Diversity Services, a Co Founder, Seattle Chapter of the Black Panther Party comments on one of his comrades from the Panther days, the late Garry Owens who passed away September 30. Elmer will comment from Ireland. *Larry Gossett shares his memories of his Black Panther and U W Black Student Union (BSU) days with the late Garry Owens who was an advocate for the people all of his days, including his employment with the City of Seattle. *Seattle Police Chief Adrian Diaz talks about his vision for the city's law enforcement agency. Comments on his efforts to reduce crime and the challenges of his under staffed department, and how he will engage the various communities in Seattle. *Reverend Harriett Walden, Founder, Mothers for Police Accountability comments on the post pandemic work of Mothers and how her organization has worked with now permanent Chief Adrian Diaz. Urban Forum Northwest streams live at www.1150kknw.com. Check us out at www.urbanforumnw.com for archived programs and relevant information. Like us on facebook. Twitter@Eddie_Rye. This program will also air on Saturday 7:00-8:00 am (PDT).

Guest host Deaunte Damper discusses Adrian Diaz being appointed as the Chief of Police for Seattle and what that means for our community. Deaunte will also be joined by Ms. Apple from A 4 Apple Learning Center with tips for parents with children in preschool. #BlackMediaMatters #WWConverge

Adrian Diaz: New Seattle Police Chief Eddie Rye Jr: Local Update. Felicia Cross: Noble Conference, Black Law enforcement.

On this Hacks & Wonks week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Hacks & Wonks' very own Production Coordinator, Bryce Cannatelli!  The show starts with some new polling from Crosscut/Elway looking at November's upcoming general election. Current Senator Patty Murray is maintaining a fair lead against challenger Tiffany Smiley, who released a new ad this week that sees her pushing a “Seattle is Dying” narrative, filmed in front of the closed Starbucks along E Olive Way.  In police news, mayor Bruce Harrell has chosen his SPD Chief, and it's the same interim chief we've had for a while: Adrian Diaz. Diaz represents a status-quo pick from Harrell, and the decision seems to promise more of the same emphasis on police hiring and department budgets that we've been seeing from the administration.  The upcoming Seattle Police Officers Guild (SPOG) contract negotiation is a real test for Harrell and Diaz's commitments to police reform and accountability. People Power Washington put out recommendations for what they would like to see in the contract, including numerous oversight and discipline requirements already present in the Seattle Police Management Association (SPMA) contract. We'll be paying close attention to the final contract to see which reform measures the Harrell administration will push for.  Next Tuesday, September 27th, Mayor Harrell will announce his budget proposal for the city, and we all have a chance to have our voices heard! From September 28 to November 22nd, the public can provide feedback on the budget. You can submit your comments on the budget to the City Council via their email, Council@Seattle.gov, and public comment will be accepted at all meetings of the Council's Budget Committee.  In other interesting police-related decisions from Mayor Harrell, Notes from the Emerald City reports that, during an August 17th Community Police Commission meeting, the mayor spoke of working to get officers back into schools, without mentioning the potential to worsen the school to prison pipeline or risk the health and safety of students. The Mayor is also vouching for a parks budget that would pay for 26 additional rangers in the city's parks. Seattle's Solidarity Budget coalition is criticizing this move as paying for “soft-cops” to enforce harmful policies on homeless and marginalized people using the parks.  In some positive news this week, we look at the Green New Deal Proposals from Mayor Harrell, which promise to take some necessary steps to both lessen emissions from city buildings and prepare for the consequences of climate change through the creation of resilience hubs.  We also have some exciting, and much needed, financial relief programs for immigrants in the county. The Department of Community and Human Services (DCHS) announced the launch of two new programs: one that will help immigrants pay fees associated with applying for legal status, and another that will provide financial assistance to immigrants disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic but are ineligible for federal assistance because of their immigration status. Please look at the links below for more information, and share this information as much as you can to get the word out.  Finally, a reminder that Crystal will be moderating a debate between 37th LD State Representative Pos. 2 candidates Emijah Smith and Chipalo Street on October 4th at the Rainier Arts Center at 7:00pm. See the links below for information on how to RSVP and how to ask questions ahead of the show.  As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Follow us on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Bryce Cannatelli, at @inascenttweets. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com. Resources “Poll Watch: Elway finds solid lead for Murray; Steve Hobbs barely ahead of Julie Anderson” by Andrew Villeneuve from The Cascadia Advocate:  https://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2022/09/poll-watch-elway-finds-solid-lead-for-murray-steve-hobbs-barely-ahead-of-julie-anderson.html    “‘So much crime that you can't even get a cup of coffee from the hometown shop on Capitol Hill' — Republican Senate candidate takes on Murray over E Olive Way Starbucks closure” by jseattle from Capital Hill Seattle Blog:  https://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2022/09/so-much-crime-that-you-cant-even-get-a-cup-of-coffee-from-the-hometown-shop-on-capitol-hill-republican-senate-candidate-takes-on-murray-over-e-olive-way-starbucks-closure/  “New SPD Chief, Same as the Old Chief” by Will Casey from The Stranger: https://www.thestranger.com/cops/2022/09/20/78504249/new-spd-chief-same-as-the-old-chief   “Harrell Picks Diaz for Police Chief” by Erica C. Barnett from Publicola: https://publicola.com/2022/09/21/harrell-picks-diaz-for-police-chief-as-expected-council-park-district-alternative-would-keep-park-rangers-raise-tax/  People Power Washington's 2022 Seattle Police Officers Guild Contract Recommendations: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RIpYL98qo2mEeB5yAZN9Y53sbm3i2Jomv0sVrj10tWY/view   “City of Seattle's Fall Budget Cycle Is Nearly Upon Us: Your Participation Is Needed!” by Vee Hua from the South Seattle Emerald:  https://southseattleemerald.com/2022/09/19/news-gleams-det-cookie-chess-park-reopening-council-passes-6-5m-for-seattle-green-new-deal/#City-of-Seattles-Fall-Budget-Cycle-Is-Nearly-Upon-Us    “Mayor Asks for CPC's Assistance in Bringing Cops Back into Seattle Schools”  by Amy Sundberg from Notes from The Emerald City”:  https://www.getrevue.co/profile/amysundberg/issues/mayor-asks-for-cpc-s-assistance-in-bringing-cops-back-into-seattle-schools-1359958  Seattle Community Police Commission (CPC) August 17, 2022 Meeting:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5D-JtHPKuQQ   “Seattle Solidarity Budget coalition opposes funds for what it calls 'soft cops'” by Amy Radil from KUOW:  https://kuow.org/stories/seattle-solidarity-budget-coalition-opposes-funds-for-what-it-calls-soft-cops  “Det. Cookie Chess Park Reopening, Council Passes $6.5M for Seattle Green New Deal” by Vee Hua from The South Seattle Emerald: https://southseattleemerald.com/2022/09/19/news-gleams-det-cookie-chess-park-reopening-council-passes-6-5m-for-seattle-green-new-deal/  “King County launches new programs to support immigrants” from Northwest Asian Weekly:  http://nwasianweekly.com/2022/09/king-county-launches-new-programs-to-support-immigrants/     Call for support: 1-844-724-3737 (Monday to Friday from 9 a.m.–6 p.m.) Contact Aimee Zhu at 206-393-2110 or aimeez@cisc-seattle.org  “$340M WA immigrant relief fund plagued by monthslong delays” by Melissa Santos from Crosscut:  https://crosscut.com/politics/2022/03/340m-wa-immigrant-relief-fund-plagued-monthslong-delays  “Delayed immigrant relief fund now accepting applications” by Melissa Santos from Axios:  https://www.axios.com/local/seattle/2022/09/20/delayed-immigrant-relief-applications-washington  Apply through: immigrantreliefwa.org.  The application portal went live Monday and will remain open through Nov. 14. People will be notified as soon as December whether their application was accepted. Checks or pre-paid cards are expected to be mailed by January 2023.  37th LD State Rep. Pos. 2 Debate - Tuesday, October 4th at the Rainier Arts Center: officialhacksandwonks.com/blog/37th-ld-debate-state-representative-october-4-2022  RSVP here: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/south-seattle-emerald-2022-electoral-debate-tickets-412293840977   Submit audience questions before the show here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdQlF7kRixWh_GnFInZ7UxDdKXK59LONGKAsQ1WBXgm3lysRA/viewform Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington State through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, we are continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a cohost. Talk about talking to people who do the work - today, we are welcoming for the first time our co-host: my colleague, Bryce Cannatelli, who is the Production Coordinator for the show also. Welcome Bryce. [00:01:00] Bryce Cannatelli: Hey, Crystal - thanks for having me. [00:01:02] Crystal Fincher: Excited for you to be on - you are in the trenches with me every day in the work that we do - our day jobs - this podcast is like the side hustle. But you are brilliant and intelligent and always helpful and insightful and savvy and wise, so I'm excited to have you on the show today. [00:01:27] Bryce Cannatelli: Oh, thank you so much. That's very kind of you. [00:01:31] Crystal Fincher: Okay, so we should start off talking about - hey, some new polling dropped. We are in the midst of a general election with a lot of races on the ballot, including a senatorial race at the top of the ballot. And so what did these poll findings conclude? [00:01:52] Bryce Cannatelli: Yeah, so this new Crosscut/Elway poll, that was published yesterday, was a statewide poll and confirmed one of the things that we took away from the primary election earlier this year, which is that the red wave that was much talked about is not happening the way that a lot of people anticipated. Looking at the statewide races from this poll, we see that US Senator Patty Murray is still leading against Tiffany Smiley 50% to 37% with 12% undecided, which is a comfortable lead for Murray. And maybe more interesting from the polling - looking at the Secretary of State's race between Steve Hobbs, who was appointed to the position last year, and independent challenger Julie Anderson, where Hobbs received 31% in the poll, Anderson got 29%, and 40% of the voters were Undecided. And maybe even more surprising than that was Hobbs only getting 42% in his home county of Snohomish County, which shows that there is definitely a pathway for Julie Anderson here to become an independent Secretary of State, which would be a first for Washington in a very long time. [00:03:04] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it would be. And the Cascadia Advocate, which is a publication of the Northwest Progressive Institute, had a nice analysis and breakdown of this. I think this is consistent with what we have seen with prior polling for Patty Murray and Tiffany Smiley - it looks like Murray has a comfortable lead. Smiley is definitely trying to throw out all the stops - we've seen Smiley go hard about her being pro-life in the primary, try and scrub reference to that and revise her messaging in the general - that doesn't quite seem to be landing. Recently shot a "Seattle Is Dying" style - and that's a reference to previous hyperbolic documentary-style programs that have largely mischaracterized the state of homelessness and public safety in Seattle, conflated different reasons and root causes. And is really just viewed comically by people in Seattle, but unfortunately often taken seriously by people outside of Seattle - both in our suburbs here in the state and nationally. And so it's a narrative that doesn't land inside the City, but we'll see if maybe they think they can make some inroads using that kind of tactic. Capitol Hill Seattle had some coverage of that earlier this week, but I was not surprised to see anything about that. It looks like the Secretary of State's race is a race. It does look like it is a competitive race. I know that there are some people who - Hey, this thing is done. We will see. And, it may turn out not being as close as current polling reflects. Obviously we are sitting here in late September - most of the communication that campaigns are going to do is yet to come. And so there's still some defining of the candidates - their name IDs aren't very high statewide for either of them. So that may change some minds. There's a chunk of undecided people who still have to get familiar with them and get to know who they are. So it's an interesting dynamic because this is a position that has been held by Republicans for a long time. With Steve Hobbs' appointment, he's the first Democrat to be in that position in several years, but being challenged by an independent. And so - in campaigns, who you are aligned with can also influence how much money and resources you have access to. Steve Hobbs, you would think, is going to be supported by some Democratic organizations and independent expenditures by Democrats. It remains to be seen whether Julie Anderson gets that kind of independent support and other organizations communicating on her behalf to see what that race is gonna be like. So stay tuned, but that certainly looks to be a competitive race. Certainly more competitive than what currently looks to be the case for Patty Murray or Tiffany Smiley. But that is not to say that that should be taken for granted certainly. Voting is important, getting involved is important. And so we will continue to follow what the polls continue to say and what the campaigns continue to do. Also this week, we had a big announcement from Mayor Bruce Harrell, mayor of Seattle. Bruce Harrell naming that he selected his interim police chief as his permanent police chief. So basically person's doing the same job and their title changed, but it looks like we are going to be in for more of what we have gotten - very much a status quo pick. How did you see this, Bryce? [00:07:04] Bryce Cannatelli: Yeah, I definitely see it as a status quo pick as well. It seemed like there was a preference for Diaz early in Harrell's administration, but Harrell was required to do a national search for a new police chief. The three finalists that were highlighted were Adrian Diaz, SPD Assistant Chief Eric Greening - two people who have been working with and in the SPD for a long time. And the third pick was the assistant police chief out of Tucson, Kevin Hall. And the pick for Diaz really does highlight this commitment to the status quo, to the same strategies that we've been having when it comes to public safety and the role of police in public safety. Now, all three finalists did at least speak to some elements of reform, to some elements of alternative response, or evaluating the role of police in public safety and how to improve the relationships between police and communities. But it was really Kevin Hall out of Tucson who spoke the most in that regard, who talked about programs that he had been a part of in Tucson to try to circumvent people going directly to jail, who pointed out issues with the intense hiring focus strategy that the Harrell administration has been leading - pointing out that there is a nationwide shortage, or at least a long time, hiring troubles for police. And that in Seattle, specifically, we have bottlenecks within our police training system that make it such that hiring a police officer today means they won't be on the street for about a year. It is not a quick fix. And the Harrell administration ultimately choosing Diaz runs a little counter to Harrell's own talks about really rolling up his sleeves and figuring out how to change the culture of the SPD, how to add a little accountability - seems like we're really just strapping in for more years of the same approaches we've been seeing, which as you pointed out, the "Seattle is Dying" narratives that people like Tiffany Smiley like to use to try to rile people up outside of the City are overblown, but public safety is still an issue here. And our police-focused, or police hiring focus, strategies just have not been helping that. [00:09:40] Crystal Fincher: This is an interesting choice. As you just said, public safety is a concern. Rising violence is a concern. Any violence is a concern. And there is a problem within the City. I don't think anyone is disputing that some types and categories of crime have decreased, others have increased. But I think we all have an interest in making sure that fewer people are victimized, that we reduce violence. And there's just about no one who is satisfied with the direction things have been going in support of that effort. People may have different reasons for being dissatisfied, but pretty much there's universal agreement that the status quo has not been working. So this being a status quo pick is a curious choice in that regard. And to your point, it does seem to run counter to some things that Bruce Harrell has said, and even just lip service to how he views accountability. They talked about - Hey, they're gonna prioritize addressing violent crimes, the staffing shortage, and improving the culture within the department. Well really - they're gonna focus on addressing violent crimes? This is the same person who decided to stop investigating sexual assaults of adults - without telling many people evidently - but what is worth investigating if that isn't worth investigating? That actually often comes with more evidence unfortunately than a lot of other types of crimes. And to just wholesale make a decision that you're stopping doing that - seemingly just to deploy more people on patrol - doesn't seem in line with this. Bruce is this police chief's boss and if he is holding people accountable for their decisions, what was the outcome of that? Was it just - oh, please don't do that again. Why didn't I know about this? It seems like there is an endorsement of the things that have happened with this decision, and I question a number of the things that have happened and whether they are consistent with this goal of reducing violent crime and how we're measuring that. And so it'll be interesting to see how this plays out, but just - I don't know that - it seemed like there was a big effort in the press conference to sell this as - Hey, we're turning a corner, this is a new day. We're gonna start focusing on these things. And really it's the same people focusing on the same things, making the same kinds of decisions. And I just - in terms of reactions, whether someone is progressive or conservative, it just seemed to have fallen flat. Whether that squarely lands on the head of Diaz or Harrell is - can be questioned, but certainly from an outside perspective and just at a glance, it's - okay, we're continuing to do the same thing, and it seems like there's universal agreement - same thing isn't working. So would be very eager to see some differences in approach and in decision making to give people confidence that there is going to be something done to address violence. And also to your point, something done to address it today, this year - because hiring isn't that. Even with the money that has already been approved, and additional money that has been approved, to hire, to retain people, to search across the country - despite officers continuing to say that they don't think that's the most effective use of money and won't be effective in keeping people on the force. That can't result in any additional officers until next year at the earliest, because it does take a long time for someone to go through the hiring pipeline, then to go through the training pipeline, then to land on the street. So if that's what you're counting on, that won't start to make a difference until next year. And we have a public safety problem right now. We have people getting victimized right now. And so would love to see the plan for what are you going to do right now. With that - influential in that, and also talking about - just still in the realm of public safety, especially accountability. A lot of that goes beyond the chief or the mayor, and is largely dictated by the Seattle Police Officers Guild, or SPOG, contract. And what did we see happen this week? [00:14:26] Bryce Cannatelli: This week we saw an open letter of contract negotiations from People Power Washington, talking about what they would like to see happen with this year's SPOG contract. And this SPOG contract really represents a major test for what we've been talking about for how serious Harrell and Diaz are about adjusting the culture, introducing accountability, improving relationships between police officers and the City. What People Power Washington are asking for here is establishing greater methods of accountability, of making sure that the disciplinary review process mirrors what happens in the Seattle Police Management Association contract, making sure that there are methods of actually holding police officers accountable for problematic and illegal behavior. They want to see restrictions so that SPOG doesn't allow in-uniform off-duty work for police officers, which is definitely a problematic occurrence. They want to see that any contract with SPOG provides alternatives for, or provides alternative community-based emergency response programs. And a lot of other requests that are, quite honestly, things that we've seen in other cities in other areas really make a difference in community public safety. And especially programs like alternative community response - when City leaders are really hounding us again and again on the lack of police - you brought up sexual assault cases not being investigated. It is a very reasonable request. And it seems like in everybody's best interest to try to figure out some of these alternative community response programs. [00:16:26] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, definitely that. And these are - I think it's worth going through these things, 'cause a lot of times people are just like - okay, we need reforms, but what are those reforms? And yes, this contract is important but what are the things that we need to make sure that are in here? Sometimes it's not the most accessible information. And so I do think it's important to talk about - and not just things that have made a difference in other jurisdictions, but with the baseline set by the Seattle Police Management Association contract from earlier this year, making sure those types of provisions are included in here. So I'm gonna go through some of these things, especially what was in the Seattle Police Management Association contract - at minimum, the things that were included in there that should be included in the Seattle Police Officers Guild contract - providing subpoena power to both the Office of Police Accountability and the Office of the Inspector General so that they can get all information relevant to their investigations and to complaints to make their findings. Establishing the standard of proof as a preponderance of evidence for all disciplinary action, requiring OPA records to be retained for the length of employment plus six years regardless about whether the findings are sustained or unsustained - because we've had problems with records disappearing, officers unfortunately repeating that conduct, but no paper trail to be able to better root out who is creating problems. Defining dishonesty as providing false information which the officer knows to be false or providing incomplete responses to specific questions regarding material facts. Right now that definition is not that robust - pretty common sense, but it's not. Including layoff language in the management rights section of the CBA - allowing the city to decide the necessity for layoff without having to bargain. Requiring public disciplinary review meetings, phase out additional pay for the use of body worn cameras, establish a disciplinary review process mirroring the one defined in the recent 2022 SPMA contract. Allow for the 180-day clock to be stopped whenever a criminal investigation is conducted, regardless of where the alleged criminal activity occurred or what agency is conducting the investigation. And place the burden to establish any reason to deny an extension of the clock based on a good use, a good cause on the union. Empower the OPA to make assignments based on the skills and abilities of the investigator, rather than whether they are a civilian or a uniformed sergeant. And allow the OPA to communicate with the criminal investigators and prosecutors from any agency about the status and progress of a criminal investigation. These are really common sense things, things that are not out of bounds. These are already in a Seattle Police Management Association contract. They should absolutely at minimum be included in the SPOG contract. Also, wanting to remove barriers to civilianize certain public safety functions and provide alternative community-based response as you talked about - it shouldn't include any guaranteed minimum of staffing that might impede efforts to civilianize or limit the possibilities for reenvisioning public safety in Seattle. The mayor, the police chief, the council - all of our leaders in Seattle - have made commitments in this direction and tying their hands preemptively limits what they're able to do and what voters voted for and expect. Requiring SPOG - the contract should not allow in-uniform off-duty work for police officers, nor should it require the City to pay any part of the Seattle Police Officer Guild President's salary. It's pretty unprecedented. And in a time where we're heading into budget shortfalls, where other departments in the City are also dealing with this, that's not an arrangement that we see with other unions within the City. So let's bring that in line with other unions. And broader changes to the accountability system that'll close loopholes and remove barriers to accountability. Specifically, discipline should not be required to be foreclosed within a certain timeline - in other words, 180 days. The OPA should have the ability to refer criminal investigations to the agency of their choice and be able to oversee those criminal investigations. Requirements should be instituted for the OPA to retain records permanently for investigations related to excessive force, dishonesty, criminal conduct, or where underlying allegations were concealed. Limitations should be removed as to how many of OPA investigators must be sworn versus civilian, so we can progress towards civilianizing OPA and stop the practice of officers investigating other officers which is an inherent conflict of interest. There shouldn't be any language barring the ability of complainants to appeal disciplinary decisions, a process that should be developed by the CPC as a top priority. And there should also be no language preventing the transparency of and ability to adapt standards of discipline so the public can evaluate these standards and participate in changing them as expectations around public safety change. I wanted to go through those just because it is important for us all to know what we should be looking for in this contract, what is at stake, and what desperately needs to change. And so I appreciate People Power Washington engaging in this, so many community organizations engaging in this, and look forward to seeing what comes of this and what the mayor is comfortable with in this contract, as well as the city council. Other big upcoming element - and this is all wonky stuff, but it's wonky stuff that material impacts the day-to-day lives of people in these cities. So the budget process for the City of Seattle is coming up and that is going to determine a lot of what is - everything in the City - every service that the City provides, every function that the City has - is addressed in the upcoming budget. I just want to review the timeline real quick, so people know what to be on the lookout for. Coming up next week, the mayor's going to deliver the proposed budget on September 27th. The mayor's gonna outline his priorities, what anticipated spending levels on different things are. The council is going to review the mayor's proposal starting on September 28th throughout October. The public will be able to provide feedback on the budget between September 28th and November 22nd. Councilmembers will propose changes in October, the Budget Chair presents a balancing package - basically a response to the mayor's proposed budget on November 8th. Councilmembers may propose further revisions up to November 21st, and the council will vote to adopt the budget on November 22nd. So the months of October, really in the month of October, there's going to be a lot of work being done, and that's the time to engage with your councilmembers, to engage with the mayor, make your voice heard on what this budget is going to bring. And there are a couple elements that kind of preview a couple things that are on deck. One being - looks like the mayor is going to ask for the Community Police Commission, or CPC's, assistance in bringing cops back into Seattle schools. What is happening here? [00:24:26] Bryce Cannatelli: Yeah, so this was pretty interesting. During an August 17th meeting between Mayor Harrell and the Community Police Commission, Community Police commissioner and Officer Mark Mullens pointed to defunding as overstepping. And removing resource officers from schools - people don't have the visual, but I put quotes over defunding - and Mayor Harrell did respond, saying that resource officers and police officers needed to earn the trust and right to get back into schools. But also said that he's working with Superintendent Dr. Jones and Chairman Brandon Hersey to rebuild these relationships and is working to get officers back into school - suggesting that the Community Police Commission could be an invaluable asset in this space. It's interesting because in all of this, no mention was made about how this would affect - or could affect - students detrimentally, how it could contribute to the school-to-prison pipeline, how it would affect students' health and safety, which again just calls into question or at least runs counter to these spoken commitments to trying to find a more up-to-date view of police's role in public safety. In the same meeting, he also suggested that the CPC help recruit new officers for the Seattle Police Department. [00:25:57] Crystal Fincher: I don't think that's in their given roles, is it? [00:25:59] Bryce Cannatelli: Yeah, no, not at all. It's definitely not. So it was a really interesting meeting and it seems to go against what a lot of communities are concerned about when it comes to the role of police officers in school, especially how it affects students of color and other marginalized students. [00:26:19] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I'm curious to see what the Seattle Public School Superintendent has to say about this, what Seattle Public School's board members have to say about this. And what their intentions would be and what they find acceptable in this area - is this something that they are looking to incorporate, or is this something that the mayor is suggesting that does not align with what they want? I'm very curious to hear what their takes would be on that. Also, another thing that was - that will be - that Bruce Harrell previously announced will be something that he's looking to include in the budget is a new park ranger, basically expanded park ranger hiring, and maybe some expanded duties. What are the details there? [00:27:04] Bryce Cannatelli: Yeah. Harrell proposed to pay for 26 additional rangers in Seattle's parks. And during the announcement did stipulate some - tried to preemptively defend this by defining the differences between these park rangers and police - they're not supposed to be involved in sweeps. But this decision has still gotten a lot of pushback. The Solidarity Budget - the Seattle Solidarity Budget coalition is leading the effort here in criticizing this - calling the park rangers "soft cops" because park rangers can still issue trespass citations and can still end up funneling people into jail and into other areas of the criminal justice system, even if they're not armed, even if they don't fulfill the same exact roles as police officers. [00:28:16] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and so this is gonna be interesting to follow. Bruce Harrell is rolling this out, seemingly, as a public safety initiative, which immediately invited questions. Okay - what public safety role do these play and which talks, basically brings it into the "soft cop" conversation - they can issue citations, they can introduce people into the criminal legal system or reintroduce them into it. And so that being a concern - the council is looking at taking this up and potentially narrowing the scope of what they can do. The council looking at, as you said, preventing them from engaging with sweeps or anything like that. It'll be interesting to see where this lands, but again, make sure you make your voice heard. There was an article in KUOW this week that we will link discussing the Seattle Solidarity Budget coalition and what they have talked about and what they're also proposing. And they certainly are talking about - it would be more effective, according to evidence and data, to invest more in addressing core needs, things that are more closely tied to the root causes of crime to prevent it - instead of operating around the edges perhaps. So we will see where that lands and continue to follow that. We talk about Seattle a lot. We talk about Mayor Harrell a lot and certainly have some bones to pick with a number of things that are happening within the City. But one positive thing, I think, that was just announced by Mayor Harrell was the City unanimously passing a $6.5 million Green New Deal. Last week, the Seattle City Council unanimously passed legislation requested by Bruce Harrell, I believe, for setting up a Seattle Green New Deal Opportunity Fund. And this is something that Bruce Harrell talked about on the campaign trail, this is something that is desperately needed in Seattle and beyond. We have to address greenhouse gas emissions, we have to address pollution in all of its forms, and mitigating the effects on all of our communities, particularly those hit worst and the hardest, which are usually BIPOC, low-income communities that are dealing with the brunt of this. So what are the specifics of what's going to be happening, Bryce? [00:30:47] Bryce Cannatelli: Like you said, this is exciting and definitely points towards the City, both looking at how can we reduce emissions, but also how can we battle the impacts that climate change has on people who are really vulnerable. So looking at the breakdown, which we'll link in the show notes - the South Seattle Emerald did a really great breakdown of it. These funds are going to new resilience hubs to help during climate emergencies like extreme heat or other weather-related events like wildfire smoke and flooding. We're gonna see $1.78 million go to upgrading community facilities to foster resilience. Another, a little over a million dollars, for centers in the Duwamish valley to provide cooling, air filtration, other programming. And almost half a million for a citywide resilience hub strategy, focusing on communities that are impacted, as they say, first and worst by climate injustice. We're also going to see some upgrades to municipal buildings for electrification, cooling, heating, and air quality upgrades to Seattle's 650 owned buildings, including its 27 public libraries. We're gonna see over $2 million going to accelerating Seattle's transition of City-owned buildings off of fossil fuels by 2035. Providing heating, cooling, clean air to some library branches and over half a million for building electrification. We're also going to see, and this is pretty exciting as well, investments in fossil fuel free affordable housing - affordable housing for low income residents, which will give about $2 million to supporting affordable housing projects that are underway to be free of fossil fuels and avoid really inefficient and costly upgrades that we would have to do later just to make them more climate friendly and energy efficient. They're also funding a climate and community health indicator project, which hopes to get accurate local and reliable data for addressing climate change. Developing a carbon pollution and community health indicators to inform how we plan around climate change. Money to go to supporting community and public health partnerships to look at cumulative health impacts of climate change. Trying to acquire new transportation energy data to figure out where electrification needs to happen first. And there's also a hundred thousand dollars going to supporting community engagement to inform the climate element of the One Seattle Comprehensive Plan, which is hoping to develop Seattle's climate resilience and environmental justice goals over the next 20 years. This money is going in a lot of different directions - some of it proactive, some of it reactive - but it is really encouraging to see the City really taking this seriously and putting funds that came from the JumpStart program actually into making the City a place where people are safer and healthier. Especially if they're already in a part of a town or in a community that's especially vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. [00:34:25] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. So good work. Keep it up. Also wanted to make mention this week - King County is launching new programs to support immigrants, which is a big deal. There is now, which was just announced, this launch of two new programs that started earlier this month to provide financial support, including a King County immigration fee support program to help immigrants pay eligible fees associated with applying for legal status - including fees with US Citizenship and Immigration Services and Executive Office for immigrant review. And also immigrant applications costs vary from a couple hundred to thousands of dollars per applicant. So if you are living, working, going to school in King County, or currently detained in ICE facilities, but previously living, working, or going to school in King County - you are eligible for support. And that's up to $3,000 per individual and $6,000 per household, depending on the fees incurred or expected in 2022. So we will link that - in the system, oftentimes people are listening who may not be in that situation, but maybe you know folks who are. It's also common to know folks who are, but not know that they're in that situation - 'cause there is, often people are not excited to disclose that they may not have all of their papers in perfect order. So just the more people can do to spread this word throughout all of our communities in every area, in person and online - the more we can make sure people are connected to resources that are going to be helpful. So I was very encouraged to see that as well as there's another related piece of welcome news this week - in that some long overdue relief looks like it is finally going to get out. What is happening here? [00:36:23] Bryce Cannatelli: Washington's Legislature approved of $340 million in aid for undocumented immigrants last April and there have been a lot of delays on this program, this money not reaching its intended recipients. But this week we did get some good news. Applications are now open for a fund that are gonna provide financial aid to undocumented immigrants in the state. People who need the support can apply to receive a check or a prepaid debit card through the website immigrantreliefwa.org - we'll put that link in the show notes and it'll be on our Twitter as well. This application portal went live on Monday. It's gonna be open until November 14th. So just like the other story that we just talked about, this is gonna be really good to share as much as you can. The Department of Social and Health Services says that each eligible person will get a minimum - a minimum - of $1,000 with the total award to each person depending on the size of the applicant pool and other factors. If you qualify - you have to be over 18 years of age and you must be ineligible for unemployment benefits or federal stimulus payments due to immigration status. [00:37:44] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and this if we recall, back then was necessary because although there was a wide variety of relief made available to the majority of residents living here, there were some very notable carveouts for immigrants. And that - immigrants are part of our communities, they're working in jobs just along with the rest of us and in need of support. And so this was meant to fill the gap. Obviously would've been great to get the money out earlier as intended, but it is now available, so please spread the word. The online application is available currently in Spanish, English, Chinese, Korean, and Tagalog. Make sure you spread the word - support and help is available. And we are fairly sure that there are definitely a lot of people who need it, so making those connections is a very helpful thing. And as a reminder, I'm going to be moderating a 37th Legislative District candidate debate on Tuesday, October 4th, from 7:00 to 9:00 PM. Doors are gonna open at 6:30. This is an in-person event that will also be streamed online. It's gonna be at the Rainier Arts Center. So the programming starts at 7, doors open at 6:30. They are going to be checking vaccination cards, masking is required, they will also offer rapid testing for those who are not vaccinated. Again, all will be required to wear masks, but hope that you come down, make your voice heard. You can also submit questions. We'll put a link in the show notes that you can use to ask questions. You can also @ me on Twitter if you wanna do that, shoot me what you're thinking, we'll try and incorporate that in there. This is being put on by media partners, including Hacks & Wonks, KNKX, KVRU, and Real Change with support from King County Elections, the Seattle Foundation and League of Women Voters. So excited about that. Excited about hearing from both of those candidates. It's gonna be an important choice that residents of that district are going to make. So look forward to seeing you there. And with that, I think that is our show for today. Thank you so much for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, September 23rd, 2022. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler, assistant producer is Shannon Cheng, and our Production Coordinator is my co-host today - Bryce Cannatelli. [00:40:21] Bryce Cannatelli: Thank you so much again, Crystal. It's a lot of fun. [00:40:24] Crystal Fincher: And so thanks to Bryce for being our insightful cohost today. You can find Bryce on Twitter @inascenttweets, spelled I-N-A-S-C-E-N-T-T-W-E-E-T-S. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks, and you can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, as you do. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or anywhere you can get podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, please leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. You can also get a full text transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - we'll talk to you next time.  

As expected Bruce Harrel named interim Adrian Diaz his new chief of  Seattle police.  We debate the wisdom of the pick and prognosticate what will happen with police reform.  Plus, Erica  blasts a recent Seattle Times column about tipping while Sandeep shrugs.  Support the show

Yankees player Aaron Judge hits his 60th homerun. Ron Desantis leads Trump in latest presidential poll out of Florida. Seattle chooses Adrian Diaz as its new police chief. Putin announces a partial mobilization of Russian reserves. White House spokesperson tries to clarify lots of Biden's recent statements. // Early pass at checking of the texting. Shooting at Harborview hospital. // Russian social media is freaking out in light of partial military mobilization by Putin. One-way flights out of Russia are surging in price.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

WHAT'S NEW AT 10! with Adrian Diaz, Chief, Seattle Police Department // Man sentenced to 140 months for trafficking minors on Aurora Avenue // SCENARIOS!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Seattle Police Chief Adrian Diaz live // Feliks Banel with filmmaker Stephen Sadis, on the life of James J. Hill // Col. Jeff McCausland live on Russia's military mobilization // Omar Salisbury, Converge Media, live on the choice of Adrian Diaz as SPD Chief // Dose of Kindness - dog libarary! // Rachel Belle on leg lengthening surgerySee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Harrell said that while all three were "great candidates," Diaz had a “wow” factor.

The finalists to become Seattle's next police chief made their case to the public in a televised interview Thursday. Those finalists are interim Seattle police chief Adrian Diaz, assistant Seattle chief Eric Greening, and Kevin Hall, assistant chief in Tucson, Arizona.

Seattle Interim Police Chief Adrian Diaz joins the Chino Y Chicano to talk crime, gun violence, homeless encampments, staffing, and his desire to be selected as the city's full time top cop. 

Interim police chief Adrian Diaz is one of the candidates. KUOW's Amy Radil has more.

This Week in Skating is hosted by Gina Capellazzi and Daphne Backman and is a cooperative project between Figure Skaters Online and Ice-dance.com. New episodes are available every Tuesday.Website: http://www.thisweekinskating.comEmail: thisweekinskating@gmail.comFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/thisweekinskatingTwitter: https://www.twitter.com/thiswkinskatingInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/thisweekinskating_________________________________________EPISODE NOTESSpecial Episode from Lake Placid Ice Dance Championships and InternationalEvent Results BriefLake Placid Ice Dance ChampionshipsLake Placid Ice Dance InternationalGlacier Falls Summer Classic DuPage OpenU.S. Figure Skating Competition Central for National Qualifying SeriesGeneral Skating NewsISU posted the assignments for the first Junior Grand Prix event in Courchevel, FranceSkate Canada announced their 2022-23 National Team in a press releaseMadison Hubbell and Adrian Diaz's thoughts on coaching.ISU announced that the 5th Junior Grand Prix has been moved from Grenoble, France to Gdansk, Poland. U.S. Figure Skating has shattered its membership record for the 2021-22 season with a total membership of 222,890. Beating the Heat: Skating programs thrive in unexpected regions'The Sky's the Limit': Children's Health StarCenters thrive with Learn to Skate USA'A Wonderful Year of Learning, Growth and Improvement': Collegiate skating programs display positive growth in record seasonGolden Skate has an article with Mariia Holubtsova and Kyryl Bielobrov who are now training at I.AM through the end of the summer. Anything GOE did an interview with Swedish skater Josefin Taljegard.Social Media UpdatesAudrey Lu uploaded her 2022 U.S. Collegiate Championships programs on her YouTube channel (she only recently began sharing videos there again after several years).Videos of Eva Pate and Logan Bye's rhythm dance and free dance were uploaded to Eva's mom's YouTube channel. Upcoming Events for the WeekPhiladelphia Summer Championships is Aug. 3-7 in Aston, Penn. Philadelphia is a national qualifying series event for singles and pairs. It is also an ISU international competition for Senior/Junior singles on Aug. 4-7, 2022Quebec Summer Championships is Aug. 4-7 in Pierrefonds QC, Canada - Free live streaming links are posted at the bottom of the event page. The 2022 National Showcase competition is at the AdventHealth Center Ice in Wesley Chapel, Florida, August 1-6, 2022. Silicon Valley Open - a national qualifying series event for ice dance - takes place in San Jose, California (Aug 5-6)Cup of Colorado competition is a singles and pairs competition in Highland Ranch, Colorado, Aug 5-7.Scott Hamilton Invitational is a singles competition, Aug. 5-7 in Nashville, Tennessee. Segment - IDC and FSO spotlightFSO: Chock and Bates prepare for new season of skating and their Unlaced podcast

The Seattle interim police chief and the mayor of Tacoma expressed concerns that their respective cities could see a violent summer as shootings and homicides continue to trend upward.Interim SPD chief Adrian Diaz said his concerns stem from the Memorial Day weekend-- a time that the city typically examines when looking ahead to the summer. "We gauge our summer based on the Memorial Day weekend and there were a lot of shots fired," said Diaz. "We've already had over 100 more shots fired this year than compared to last year, and last year was our all-time high."LIKE & SUBSCRIBE for new videos everyday. https://bit.ly/3KBUDSK

At a live Civic Cocktail event, panelists discussed how city law enforcement might navigate short-term solutions and systemic reforms. What does it mean to be safe in Seattle, to be shielded from danger or threat so you can live your life fully, without fear, no matter where or who you are?  It's a big question, as Seattle wrestles with rising crime, an overwhelmed police department, a strained legal system and neighbors fed up and frustrated by everything from distrust around racial disparities to what feels like inaction, bordering on neglect. All with this nagging sense that, after the reckonings of the past few years, we're still not seeing the bigger picture.   For this episode of Civic Cocktail, host Mónica Guzmán explores how we define and address public safety over the course of two conversations with four guests close to the issue.  The show begins with three local leaders whose community advocacy gives them each a critical lens on what public safety is all about. Then, Guzmán sits down with the man in charge of the most powerful local institution officially charged with supporting safety in our city, Seattle Police interim Chief Adrian Diaz. This conversation was recorded on May 19, 2022. Civic Cocktail is a production of Seattle City Club and Crosscut. Subscribe to the Civic Cocktail podcast now to receive future conversations in your podcast feed earlier.  --- Credits Host: Mónica Guzmán Podcast production: Mark Baumgarten Event production: Jake Newman, Andrea O'Meara Video Production: Stephen Hegg Audio support: Sara Bernard

At a live Civic Cocktail event, panelists discussed how city law enforcement might navigate short-term solutions and systemic reforms. What does it mean to be safe in Seattle, to be shielded from danger or threat so you can live your life fully, without fear, no matter where or who you are?  It's a big question, as Seattle wrestles with rising crime, an overwhelmed police department, a strained legal system and neighbors fed up and frustrated by everything from distrust around racial disparities to what feels like inaction, bordering on neglect. All with this nagging sense that, after the reckonings of the past few years, we're still not seeing the bigger picture.   For this episode of Civic Cocktail, host Mónica Guzmán explores how we define and address public safety over the course of two conversations with four guests close to the issue.  The show begins with three local leaders whose community advocacy gives them each a critical lens on what public safety is all about. Then, Guzmán sits down with the man in charge of the most powerful local institution officially charged with supporting safety in our city, Seattle Police interim Chief Adrian Diaz. This conversation was recorded on May 19, 2022. Civic Cocktail is a production of Seattle City Club and Crosscut. --- Credits Host: Mónica Guzmán Podcast production: Mark Baumgarten Event production: Jake Newman, Andrea O'Meara Video Production: Stephen Hegg Audio support: Sara Bernard

On today's Hacks & Wonks week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Co-Founder and Editor of PubliCola, Erica Barnett. They start by discussing the impact of redlining on the City of Seattle today, housing affordability, and the initiative that would create social housing in Seattle. Then, they unpack why Seattle City Council's tree conservation plan would ultimately slow down housing development. Crystal and Erica then dive into this week's labor news and finish with a conversation about hiring and public safety – from the police chief to the downtown juvenile jail staff. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Erica C. Barnett, at @ericacbarnett. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources “New maps show strong correlation between redlined places in Seattle and worse air quality” by Nicholas Turner from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/new-maps-show-strong-correlation-between-redlined-places-in-seattle-and-worse-air-quality/    “$100K-plus households are now the majority in most Seattle neighborhoods” by Gene Balk from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/100k-plus-households-are-now-the-majority-in-most-seattle-neighborhoods/    “Initiative Would Pave the Way for Social Housing in Seattle” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola: https://publicola.com/2022/03/28/initiative-would-pave-the-way-for-social-housing-in-seattle/     “Seattle City Council Embarks on Tree Conservation Crusade, but Strauss Says Urbanists Need Not Worry” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger: https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2022/03/30/69548451/seattle-city-council-embarks-on-tree-conservation-crusade-but-strauss-says-urbanists-need-not-worry    “Judge: Seattle concrete companies intentionally drove into striking workers at picket line” by FOX 13 News Staff from FOX 13: https://www.q13fox.com/news/judge-seattle-concrete-companies-intentionally-drove-into-striking-workers-at-picket-line     “Broadway is a union street — Capitol Hill Crossroads workers approve unionization” by CHS from Capitol Hill Seattle Blog: https://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2022/03/broadway-is-a-union-street-capitol-hill-crossroads-workers-approve-unionization/   “Amazon Warehouse Workers Win Historic Union Vote on Staten Island” by Josefa Velasquez and Claudia Irizarry Aponte from The City: https://www.thecity.nyc/2022/4/1/23006509/amazon-warehouse-workers-union-win-staten-island   “Amazon Spent $4.3 Million On Anti-Union Consultants Last Year” by Dave Jamieson from HuffPost: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/amazon-anti-union-consultants_n_62449258e4b0742dfa5a74fb?c9h    “Kirsten Harris-Talley: Why I Am Not Seeking Reelection” by Kirsten Harris-Talley from The South Seattle Emerald: https://southseattleemerald.com/2022/03/29/kirsten-harris-talley-why-i-am-not-seeking-reelection/    “Seattle mayor announces nationwide police chief search, urges interim Chief Diaz to apply”  by Sarah Grace Taylor from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattle-mayor-announces-nationwide-police-chief-search-urges-interim-chief-diaz-to-apply/    “Report Says Hiring Incentives May Not Work; 11 City Appointees Kept Hanging for Lack of Council Quorum” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola: https://publicola.com/2022/03/29/report-says-hiring-incentives-may-not-work-11-city-appointees-kept-hanging-for-lack-of-council-quorum/    “Parents Won't Have to to Pay Jail Costs for Incarcerated Children; Another Suicide at Downtown Jail Amid Ongoing Staff Shortage” by Paul Kiefer from PubliCola: https://publicola.com/2022/03/25/parents-wont-have-to-to-pay-jail-costs-for-incarcerated-children-another-suicide-at-downtown-jail-amid-ongoing-staff-shortage/    Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I am Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington State through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. I can tell I've had a lot of coffee. Full transcripts and resources referenced in this show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, we are continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: Seattle political reporter, editor of PubliCola, co-host of the Seattle Nice podcast, and author of Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse, and Recovery - Erica Barnett. [00:00:58] Erica Barnett: Hey Crystal - great to be here. [00:01:00] Crystal Fincher: Hey, great to be here with you. I've been reading you for over the past decade and enjoying all of our conversations that we have on here, so I'm excited to have you back. I want to start talking about a story here in Seattle this week that was published in The Times - talking about the correlation between redlined places in Seattle and worse air quality. What were these findings? [00:01:26] Erica Barnett: Well, I think you basically said it. The places that were historically redlined in Seattle, places like Georgetown - and redlining of course is, I'm sure your listeners know this, but the racist practice of restricting home ownership and where people of color, Black people in particular, could live - it still persists to this day in the sense that we are a very segregated city. And no surprise, a lot of the places that people were sort of redlined into - South Park, Georgetown, the industrial areas of Seattle - are more dangerous places to live. Life expectancy is lower where pollution is greater and so the study basically confirmed that with some real numbers. [00:02:17] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and part of the conversation related to zoning that we've had - what we are seeing today - the development patterns and where people today live has definitely been influenced by areas that have traditionally been redlined and those that haven't. Development has followed a very predictable pattern - looking at where it's occurred in areas that were outside of redlined areas, and where development has not occurred in areas that were redlined. This is just part of the continuing conversation of looking at how we build and shape our communities. And if we don't move with intention to undo the blatantly racist practices from a couple few decades ago, then we're continuing and enabling dangerous conditions to persist in these communities. [00:03:16] Erica Barnett: Yeah - one of the most predictive factors for pollution and for health impacts is living next to a big road - a freeway, or just a big arterial - where you have lots of trucks and buses and cars driving all the time. And of course in Seattle, since the 1990s, we have had official policy of concentrating density around larger arterials and into areas that we call urban villages, which have lots of shops and businesses and restaurants and all that great stuff, but they're also on the busiest roads. This is official policy that basically was designed to "protect single family areas" which make up the overwhelming majority of Seattle - and there are real pollution implications and there are real class implications to doing that - to concentrating people who can't afford to buy a $1 million, $2 million house into these tiny little sections of the City where we allow them, or we allow us, because I certainly can't afford a house to live. [00:04:26] Crystal Fincher: Well, I am in that same club. And this is related to another story that came out this week talking about $100,000-and-over households are now the majority in most Seattle neighborhoods. The average home in Seattle now has an income of over $100,000. What does this mean for Seattle? [00:04:49] Erica Barnett: I don't find these numbers surprising, so I think it means exactly what we've been seeing - for those of us who've lived here for a decade or two - have been seeing for a long time. The haves and the have-nots in Seattle are just living in very different cities. Something like, I think, it was 52%, 51%, maybe a little more - make over $100,000. That is just a different world than the 18% or so who make under $35,000 - because when you have that kind of income, when you have that kind of wealth, even in the rental market, you've got people who are making a tremendous amount of money driving up costs for everybody else. And so if you make $50,000 a year, that means that the apartment that would maybe cost a $1,000 10 years ago now costs $2,000. So your money just doesn't go as far when you have this kind of tremendous income inequality and you have this tremendous top heavy city, with so many people just making sums that are absurd to those of us in the middle income and lower brackets. [00:06:07] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and this is so just revealing - and I should note that these numbers are an average of 2016 to 2020 - and we have seen incomes and housing prices continue to rise in that time. So these figures might technically be a little out of date and odds are that the average has actually increased, but with 53% of the homes in Seattle making over $100,000, it certainly skews so many things there. And just such small percentages of people who make incomes lower than that - and also interesting where they're concentrated - so looking at areas in interior of West Seattle, some areas in the Rainier Valley. Other areas where lower income, or households that earn less than $50,000, include part of Bitter Lake and part of Northgate, the CID and Yesler Terrace, and parts of Beacon Hill around New Holly. [00:07:16] Erica Barnett: It's Georgetown and South Park - the areas we were just talking about as being redlined - are also in those lower income brackets. [00:07:23] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and we have to do something about this. We can't continue to concentrate poverty and to kind of exempt people from healthier areas, more vibrant areas, more economically mobile areas. There's so many reports and studies that have been done - when you actually have areas with mixed incomes, the families generally do better, the neighborhoods are usually safer. It actually is harmful to the City to have it be this segregated and certainly harmful to the residents living in the areas that we just talked about - are experiencing all of the downsides from concentrating wealth in so few areas and kind of locking people out of wealth in other areas. And then also impacting their health and the way their community is just shaped and developed, and the way their families are forced to deal with the challenges that higher income people are able to buy themselves out of. I certainly am of the opinion that we should do more to protect the entire community - it's to all of our advantage to do that, but we will see how that continues to unfold. And then related to this, in response to so much of this that we've seen, there's a new initiative that was announced this week. What is it? [00:08:52] Erica Barnett: This is a new initiative put out by House Our Neighbors, which is a project of Real Change, that would essentially set up a public development authority to develop publicly owned, permanently affordable housing. The initiative would just set up an organization to do this work - it does not actually provide a funding source yet. The folks who are behind it said to me that they want to do this in steps because there's a single subject rule on initiatives and to sort of get people accustomed to the idea and educated on the idea of what they're calling social housing. And they distinguish this from affordable housing because it would not be owned and operated by a private non-profit or any of the other existing models. And because it would be permanently affordable, including if you move into a social housing apartment and your income changes, you would not be kicked out. So those are kind of the basics, and I think we'll find out more about their intent once they start the campaign - they have filed the initiative and they need, I want to say, a little over 26,000 signatures to get it on the ballot in November. [00:10:14] Crystal Fincher: All right. And then we're also seeing, in the City of Seattle, an effort to save trees that has some people suspicious. What's going on there? [00:10:26] Erica Barnett: Well, there has been a push for a very long time among single family homeowner advocates to "save trees". Seattle is a very green city compared to a lot of other cities and I think that is a wonderful thing about it. You go to San Francisco, you go to other places - and it's not as green and that is definitely a huge asset to the City. But there is an effort to sort of restrict what people can do in their backyards in terms of removing trees of sort of normal size, not giant exceptional trees. They're trying to make the - I'm trying to think of how to explain this - to make the size of tree that you can remove without taking extraordinary measures and getting permission from the City smaller. What this is actually aimed at is preventing development - it is an effort to say if you want to build a duplex, if you want to build a backyard cottage, and you have to remove a tree, we're going to make that incredibly hard for you to do. The legislation that they adopted this week was pretty anodyne - it was just about getting arborists to register and have licenses with the City before they can remove trees. But it was the first in a whole series of legislation - the largest piece of which is a giant update to the tree ordinance that would do all these things. It would make it harder to remove smaller trees - because now you already have to get a permit to remove exceptional, giant, enormous trees - so this would just kind of make it harder and harder to remove trees, and thus harder and harder to actually build new housing. And I think that is the ultimate goal. [00:12:19] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and what has a number of people who've been supportive of increasing zoning and density and building new housing - suspicious that this is a tactic just to prevent building new housing and is not driven by people with a principle motivation of maintaining trees. Trees are an important conversation. We've talked before on this program about how important the tree canopy is and having a wide variety of trees - particularly, just in terms of air quality in the area, but also in terms of regulating temperature - and as we continue to increase the types of harms that we are seeing from climate change and having more heat extremes, the amount of trees in an area completely dictates how hot an area gets, how long it takes to cool down, and there have been absolute heat zones correlated with areas that lack trees definitely here in King County. And The Seattle Times has covered this before with maps that demonstrate this, so trees are an important conversation. I do not want to discount the importance of talking about trees in terms of public policy and safety. This does not seem to be that. This seems to be just, "Hey, we want to make it harder to have anything to do with that." It's not talking about planting any new trees, it's not talking about addressing areas that are in heat deserts without trees. It's - just seems like it's, "Hey, we're going to make it harder to modify our existing landscape, particularly in single family zoned areas." [00:14:02] Erica Barnett: Right - I think the thing is, and the part of the conversation that we never seem to get to, is the fact that when we are in areas that do not have a lot of trees - development can be an opportunity to plant trees. And actually, we don't even need development to plant trees, but that is a great opportunity. And we're not talking about adding to the tree canopy in the same way that we are "protecting the tree canopy" by specifically not allowing people to cut down trees on private land. So I think that kind of reveals what this conversation is really about - because if it was about tree canopy, we would be talking about tree canopy everywhere and not just in these single family areas and these very wealthy single family areas that tend to have these huge urban forests, as opposed to these redlined areas - the poorer areas of town - where trees were cut down and where we don't have mature trees anymore. I think that part of the conversation just gets left out by these so-called tree advocates. [00:15:12] Crystal Fincher: Completely agree. Now, I also want to talk about an update to a story that we've been covering on lots of these weeks in reviews, and it's about the concrete worker strike. And this week - kind of a big deal - a judge ruled that Seattle concrete companies have been intentionally driving into striking workers who are on the picket line. Literally driving into workers causing injury - evidently it's been a tactic that has been used. The King County Superior Court judge ruled in favor of striking workers who filed a lawsuit against the concrete companies - these companies have had drivers that have assaulted and blocked union members' constitutional right to protest. The judge agreed with that and found that there have been multiple instances at concrete company sites where non-union drivers or trucks, leasing from or serving the companies, have charged into picketers causing bodily injury and creating significant danger to the picketers. And also violating some signage requirements. They also found that one truck driver intentionally drove a truck against, or basically drove into a picketer who was clearly standing in front of the truck, and that another driver for Cadman drove a truck into the picket line causing physical contact with picketers and causing injury. This is really, really out of bounds and scary. A representative from the union said it's reassuring to have the Court affirm our legal right to peacefully picket, but the violence that they've seen against their members is unfounded, egregious, and frankly disgusting. They're trying to negotiate, and exercising their rights to stand up for their members and negotiate better terms. The Court also found that the construction companies - particularly Cadman, Merlino and Stoneway - had failed to fully comply with an earlier order to post signage to drivers and customers alerting them of the pickets, and in order to prevent trucks from charging through picketers as they perform their picketing and patrolling. This, as Teamsters reached a good faith agreement to try and come back to work for some of the concrete companies - as we continue to hear how projects around the region, whether it's Sound Transit or other affordable housing projects, a wide variety or bridge projects have been delayed by this and the County is searching for options, including potentially, a publicly owned concrete company. What's your read of this? [00:17:56] Erica Barnett: I don't think the concrete companies have a lot of sympathy, and I'm not on the inside of this obviously, but if they're betting that all these agencies that rely on them and companies that rely on concrete flowing are going to get fed up with the unions and with the picketing - this certainly seems like a major miscalculation - committing violence. We were talking earlier off mic about how this sort of tactic of driving through protests has become more and more common in a lot of different contexts. And when you're talking about these giant trucks - obviously, it's incredibly dangerous, incredibly violent - and I think I on a political level, I don't think that it serves their cause at all to be committing violence against workers who are trying to bargain in good faith and as you said - are voluntarily working out agreements for some of them to go back to work, even in the absence of a deal with the companies - who I think the terms that they initially proposed were pretty unreasonable. So it seems like the stalemate just is going to continue, and there have been major consequences and I think will continue to be - Sound Transit relies heavily on concrete flowing - they're in a big production cycle, they're building a lot right now and I think that they could see delays. I don't think that this is going to make government agencies more sympathetic to the concrete company's side. [00:19:45] Crystal Fincher: Completely agree - we will continue to pay attention and stay involved. With that, we certainly hope those companies cease their violent tactics and just negotiate in good faith, please. This can cost lives. There is just no justification for those kind of violent tactics. In better, more exciting union news - just yesterday, a new union was formed. The Capitol Hill Crossroads workers voted unanimously to approve unionization, and this comes on the heels of hearing that Amazon's 5,000-member Staten Island facility also voted to unionize - which was a humongous uphill battle. And I don't know if you recall, especially in the Amazon example, there was a worker - a Black worker - who was fired unjustly for trying to organize a union. And it was leaked that Amazon suggested that this man was unintelligent, unarticulate, and that they wanted to make him the face of the unionization effort as if that was going to be some kind of liability, or that he was inherently problematic for some mysterious reason. And he said, "You know what? Bring it on." And actually led the unionization effort, and in a big David versus Goliath battle - came out on top and successfully organized that union. And so just a lot of news. I mean, we've talked about how just income inequality is flourishing as much as it ever has - and people are struggling in so many ways and experiencing so many consequences related to them just trying to earn a living and live a life - and certainly unionization helps. So congratulations to the Crossroads Workers Union in Capitol Hill. I definitely want to give a shout out to Emma Mudd who did an amazing job as a lead organizer there, and just hope that we are just seeing the beginning - between Starbucks and Crossroads, there is definitely a movement afoot. One other thing I wanted to touch on and talk about was an article this week that was written by outgoing, or who will be outgoing, legislator Kirsten Harris-Talley from Seattle's 37th legislative district - who announced that she is not running for reelection and called out a number of challenges that are currently happening in the Legislature - and really calling out the toxic environment that has festered there for quite some time and has played a role in a large number of departures that we've seen. What was your reaction to the story? [00:22:50] Erica Barnett: Well, I have to say it's not terribly surprising to me that the Legislature - she described the Legislature as a toxic work environment - and talked pretty specifically about some amendments that she tried to get in legislation and was basically just told, "Nope" - kind of a version of "not your turn." And this is something that I've heard about for years, that I'm sure you have even more so heard about for years since you are closer to the legislature than I am. And I think what's unusual about this is that - is for her to say all this explicitly - it's a very long piece in the South Seattle Emerald about what was the final straw for her. But I think that the Legislature seems to me to be the kind of place where there's leadership - leadership makes the decisions. If you are new, you are supposed to be quiet and not step out of line and take your turn. I would consider that a toxic work environment if it was in the private sector. And the fact is - people who serve in the Legislature do not get rich from it. It is not a full-time job. It is something people do because they want to make a difference, and it's largely a very, very thankless job. And I can certainly see why you would just get frustrated with being told, "Wait your turn. It's not your time. You're being unreasonable. You're being too loud." And there are a number of people of color who are leaving the Legislature this year - not all of them are being as explicit about why as Kirsten Harris-Talley was - but I have to imagine that some of their reasons are similar. [00:24:57] Crystal Fincher: Yeah - again, to your point, this is something that has been a problem for a while. I have personally witnessed toxicity and have certainly dealt with a number of legislators who have dealt with it themselves. That's not to say everyone in the Legislature is toxic - Kirsten Harris-Talley points out there are a number of people there who are absolutely pushing for the right thing, who are principled - but as she states, "The environment of a caucus is a unique one that speaks of being a family and collaboration, but is also one of centralized control, consistency, and compliance." I hope that sparks some reflection because one of the things that I have, just over the past few years in particular, have had my eyes opened up to even more than it was before - those three words - control, consistency, and compliance. And when you think about how those things are enforced in areas, it is in toxic ways. And to your point, people are not making a ton of money from the Legislature. And even with that, a number of people are depending on this income to pay their bills. There are - I think to the Legislature's benefit - have been an increasing amount of people who are not coming in who are independently wealthy, who don't need the money. There are a number of people who do, and if you actually are relying on the job to pay your bills and you're pushing for the change that your district is demanding of you, and then you get a message that you could be punished for it, and punishment in a legislature can look a number of different ways - whether it's committee assignments or reelection support or anything like that. If people feel that could be in danger, that can do a lot to reinforce control, consistency, and compliance. So I hope this sparks a lot of reflection. This was a very brave thing for Kirsten Harris-Talley to write. It's a very difficult thing for lots of people to discuss - and just the inherent power dynamics - we just had the unionization conversation - a lot in terms of workplace health and safety and culture. And understanding when you have more power - and in the Legislature, chairs and leadership have a lot more power than the average member - all votes and opinions are not equal - those of chairs and of leadership are greater. That the way they use that needs to be examined. And I just hope it causes a lot of reflection and conversation and people really examine how they've been using their power, how people have been made to feel, whether they are creating an environment that includes and is truly welcoming of certain opinions or does not. And that is not just, "Hey, we have a caucus with a variety of viewpoints," but just some truly not being welcome or people feeling like not toeing the line as it has been dictated perhaps by people above, comes with consequences and just may not be good for their career or their position, which therefore reflects on and impacts their ability to serve their district. So I just hope it's listened to. I do want to say this was brave. It is accurate. There are some people who kind of defaulted to, "Well, this is just a person who's mad about a piece of legislation not passing." And man, it's a lot more comprehensive than that issue. Or, "Well, this is just a person who wasn't sure how the legislative process worked." And also want to point out that this is a person who had thrived in other public service legislative capacities within the City of Seattle - and certainly understood that situation - but to discount the toxicity that we have heard obliquely referenced so many different times, and this is one of the most overt examples, that people take heed. And with that, I also want to talk about Mayor Harrell kicking off a search for his new police chief in the City. Was there anything that stood out to you in his announcement and direction there, Erica? [00:29:51] Erica Barnett: Yeah. I mean, the fact that he made it stood out to me. The mayor is required by charter - which is something that Paul Kiefer reported on that I had forgotten about - that he has to actually consider three different candidates at least. And so this week he announced he's doing a national search. The tone of it was interesting because I think that the kind of common knowledge, or what is believed, is that he is going to appoint interim police chief, Adrian Diaz, to the permanent position. He said several times in press conferences and other contexts that he really thinks that the chief is doing a good job. Diaz is fairly popular compared to his predecessor, Carmen Best, among the rank and file - he hasn't made anybody particularly mad. But he's doing a national search. And so the announcement was basically - we're going to have a search firm do this, so they're going to spend some money on this search process - but Adrian Diaz is encouraged to apply. So the way that the announcement was made was a little bit surprising to me - this kind of emphasis on a national search. And the other thing that sticks out is - we'll see, but I don't know what kind of response he's going to get for a couple of reasons. One, the fact that he has encouraged the police chief to apply, that the police chief is considered a favorite or the interim chief is considered a favorite to get the position could depress applications from elsewhere. And second, it's not like there are a lot of police chiefs in other departments around the country that are untainted by problems with accountability, allegations of abuse, allegations of biased policing. There's not a huge pool out there of people who are going to be able to come in and say, "I know how to change the system. I know how to get you out from under the consent decree. I know how to do all these things because I've done it in my own city." So I will be very, very curious to see how many qualified and good candidates actually end up applying. I was also kind of fascinated by the fact that there has to be at least three. So if there aren't three - if there was a scenario where there were not as many as three, I'm not sure what would happen. [00:32:30] Crystal Fincher: That's interesting. [00:32:32] Erica Barnett: Yeah, it is kind of interesting to dig into that announcement a little bit. Paul Kiefer, our dearly beloved and outgoing police accountability reporter, had a piece about that last night. [00:32:46] Crystal Fincher: Well, another piece that was in PubliCola touched on something that we've talked about before on this program. And that was about the police department hiring incentives that were talked about and numbers were thrown out and, "Hey, let's increase these signing bonuses," and we noted at the time that it seemed odd - and there did not seem to be any kind of data that supported the fact that, "Hey, did people cite that they were not motivated to stay, and any data to indicate that this incentive and this amount would make that more likely?" And some data came out this week that shed more light on that - what did it show? [00:33:36] Erica Barnett: I mean, essentially it showed that there was basically no impact. The City has been offering hiring incentives for a number of months, since October through actually January, because of some shenanigans by outgoing former mayor, Jenny Durkan. They were supposed to end at the end of the year, they went through January - so short period of time - that period did not show any bump in recruitment to the police department from the hiring incentives. And it showed a slight bump to the new 911 department, which has been sort of dissociated from the police department. And it showed similar outcomes from a previous period of hiring incentives - the incentives are not really working to recruit police but nonetheless, City Councilmember Sara Nelson has proposed bringing them back and believes that this will be the ticket to hiring more police. Of course, Seattle Police Department is at incredibly high attrition - a lot of people are retiring and leaving the department - and that's probably going to continue because there are new incentives in place from the state for officers to retire. And I think what we're seeing is what we've tried hasn't been working. If the goal is - just leaving aside whether this should be the goal - but if the goal is to hire more police and that is the mayor's goal and the City Council's goal for the most part, hiring incentives are maybe a waste of money. [00:35:18] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And it's so interesting and notable to me that for - especially for the mayor and councilmembers like Sara Nelson, who have talked about using data-driven approaches to public safety and just following the data - that when data is released that they don't agree with, there are reasons why it may not be complete or they may not have the full picture. But the same kind of grace or latitude is not given to other areas or other programs. If the goal really is to maintain police officers, this doesn't seem to be working. And we do need to keep people safe in Seattle - this is actually really important and no one wants to be a victim of anything. There are people who are concerned and worried, and we have seen types of crime increase and the stakes are - to me - too high to continue to move in directions that seem like a resource suck without delivering any results. We have limited resources here. We have a need to keep people safe. People talk about that being a very high priority. And it just doesn't seem they're taking it seriously if they continue to spend money that could be used on things that have a much better record and a lot more data behind it to ultimately keep people safe than to focus on a metric that - again, leaving aside whether it should be the goal - that putting it in place, there just doesn't seem to be any tie to how is this keeping people safer. And if we're going to use this limited amount of money, is it best used in this way or another way that's actually going to keep people from being victimized in the first place. I hope they start to take action that's effective in keeping people safe - also in the recruiting of officers, there is a long lag time between the time that they are actually signed and the time that they are deployed and active on the street - a really big delay. So what is the plan to keep people safer in the meantime? It feels like we're just talking about things that are not engaged with the reality of - how do we make people safer today and next month? There does not seem to be a plan for that and it is very concerning. I hope there is more of an examination of that from the mayor's office, from the Council, to actually do things to make people safer. There is not much time to waste and people are at stake. [00:38:08] Erica Barnett: And one other interesting thing that came out of this report - very briefly - was that there is also a problem with retaining people in other City departments that do a lot of important work - some of which also keeps people safe. And the problem that they cited was lack of advancement opportunities, an outdated classification system that makes it hard for people to get permanent positions and get full-time work. Those are things that the City could be focusing on, and it would take a lot of time and it's more complicated than it sounds to fix a classification system, but people are kind of feeling like they're in dead end jobs in other departments - and that is arguably as big or bigger problem than the problem of whether hiring incentives are working in the police department. So it's not just the police department that's hemorrhaging workers, it's the whole city. And I think Lisa Herbold on the Council has pointed out that we need to take a look at that too. [00:39:07] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and the last thing I want to touch on today is a story that you covered in PubliCola - just talking about another suicide, death by suicide, at the King County Correctional Facility in downtown - occurring amidst the staffing shortage that has been talked about for a while. What happened? [00:39:30] Erica Barnett: Well, there have been four deaths this year so far in the King County Jail, and I think that some of them have been suicides, the others have been overdoses. I think it is in part a problem of the staffing shortage that we're seeing these deaths occur and not be stopped. But I also think when we are putting people in jail who are very high acuity - who have severe problems with addiction, severe behavioral health problems, all the people that frankly City Attorney Ann Davison wants to focus on throwing in jail so they can get some mysterious form of treatment that does not actually exist - this is the reality of what happens. I think people are ending up in jail who should not be in jail. I'm not speaking to the specifics of any of these cases because I don't know the specific circumstances of each of these people's lives, but my understanding is these are people who have problems that jail makes worse. And when the focus of the City is to take people with severe behavioral health conditions, severe addictions, and put them in jail to "get them off the street" - one of the results is that you're putting people in circumstances that are very, very dangerous for them. I think that is part of what's happening here, and my worry is that if the City's policy is going to be to take "prolific offenders" or "high utilizers" of the system and put them in jail to teach them a lesson and to get them off the street, we're going to see more of these incidents happening - particularly with the staffing shortage at the jail being as bad as it is. [00:41:38] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. There are currently over a hundred vacant officer positions and the president of the King County Corrections Guild just stated exactly what you said. You said it seems like the people coming through our doors are sicker than they've ever been in terms of withdrawal, mental health, and everything else in the recent past - and it's hard to meet that need. They're experiencing shortages, not just with officers, but with the jail's medical staff - and it is putting everybody at risk. And again, the point of this - seemingly - and it's being sold as, "Hey, we put people in jail, it keeps the community safer." This is being touted as an approach to help clean up our streets and keep people from committing crime and it actually does not result in that. And again, this conversation about keeping people safe is too important to continue to do things that don't result in that. We're exacerbating a shortage - they say that more corrections officers have left since the beginning of the year than the County has hired - the problem's getting worse - and we are not doing anything to address any of the problems that the people who are coming in have. And again, we don't just lock people up and throw away the key - it's unconstitutional, it is extremely expensive - we can't afford to do that. But what we are doing is undertaking the extreme expense of incarcerating people, doing nothing to treat them or to address anything that will help them get on a better path and keep the community safe, and then releasing them again. We are setting them up for failure. We are setting the community up to be victimized. And again, we need to do a better job of keeping people safe. And I hope we center more of our conversations around the need to actually keep people safe. And if our elected officials are not focused on things that are doing that and are not spending our limited resources on things that are accomplishing that, then we need to re-evaluate our elected officials. They need to re-evaluate their approach. So I thank you for having this conversation with me today, and for all of you listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, April 1st, 2022. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler and assistant producer is Shannon Cheng with help from Emma Mudd. Our wonderful co-host today was Seattle political reporter and founder of PubliCola, Erica Barnett. You can find Erica on Twitter @ericacbarnett - that's Erica with a C and ending with two Ts - and on PubliCola.com, and you can buy her book Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse, and Recovery anywhere basically. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, and now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else to get your podcasts. Just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. While you're there, leave a review, it really helps us out. You could also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Thanks for tuning in, talk to you next time.

In our second 2022 Euros recap episode, there was no shortage of laughter or tears, as we nervously chuckled about Larry Loupolover's choreography, but are so incredibly sad that Allison Reed and Saulius Ambrulevicius will not be going to the Olympics despite an incredibly hard struggle to obtain Allison's Lithuanian citizenship.In the Men's event, we continued to wish for Kevin Aymoz to rest (but it's a little late now that we are right up against Olympics Eve), played some air guitar with Michal Brezina and his love for dad rock, and were SO happy for Jesus Christ Superstar, I mean, Mark Kondratiuk, who won the gold medal.In Ice Dance, there was a clear winner in the battle for the Spanish Olympics spot, with Smart and Diaz coming out on top, and an even clearer winner in Stepanova and Bukin's RD in that teenage heartthrobs will get us every time.Timestamps:(00:00) - Intro (00:48) - News (Mikhail Kolyada COVID test, Elizaveta Khudaiberdieva engagement, Sui & Han plans)(04:52) - ICE DANCE(06:20) - Allison Reed & Saulius Ambrulevicius(08:48) - Diana Davis & Gleb Smolkin (11:59) - Sara Hurtado & Kirill Khaliavin(15:00) - Lilah Fear & Lewis Gibson(16:52) - Olivia Smart & Adrian Diaz(19:10) - Charlène Guignard & Marco Fabbri(21:01) - Aleksandra Stepanova & Ivan Bukin(24:25) - Victoria Sinitsina & Nikita Katsalapov(28:33) - MEN(29:35) - Larry Loupolover (31:22) - Michal Brezina(34:12) - Gabriele Frangipani(36:40) - Kévin Aymoz(40:29) - Morisi Kvitelashvili(42:59) - Evgeni Semenenko(45:10) - Andrei Mozalëv(49:44) - Deniss Vasiljevs(52:25) - Daniel Grassl(58:14) - Mark Kondratiuk(1:01:26) - Outro------------------------------------------------Follow our figure skating podcast on:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lutzgetdownpod/   Twitter: https://twitter.com/lutzgetdownpod And to work with us please contact lutzgetdownpod@gmail.com Logo design by @dezisartvibes on Instagramxx Joce & Clauds

On today's week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Seattle political reporter, editor of Publicola, and author of Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse, and Recovery, Erica Barnett. They discuss Mayor Harrell's pitch to incorporate technology in Sound Transit fare enforcement, a bill that would force state agencies to improve access to DSHS benefits, new legislation that would create more housing density, a book ban at a Kent middle school, and a proposed retention bonus for Seattle police officers. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Erica Barnett, at @ericacbarnett. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources Sound Transit Fare Enforcement thread by @EricaCBarnett https://twitter.com/ericacbarnett/status/1486834701964697601   “Bill Would Force State Agency to Improve Access to Services or Stop Cutting Off Benefits” by Erica C. Barnett from Publicola: https://publicola.com/2022/01/26/bill-would-force-state-agency-to-improve-access-to-services-or-stop-cutting-off-benefits/   HB 2075 - Establishing service requirements for the department of social and health services: https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=2075&Year=2021&Initiative=false HB 1782 and SB 5670 - Creating additional middle housing near transit and in areas traditionally dedicated to single-family detached housing: https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1782&Initiative=false&Year=2021 https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5670&Chamber=Senate&Year=2021   “Let's Make #Homes4WA” sponsored by The Urbanist: https://actionnetwork.org/letters/lets-make-homes4wa/   “LGBTQ+ Books Quietly Pulled From Washington State Middle School” by Kelly Jensen from Book Riot: https://bookriot.com/lgbtq-books-quietly-pulled-from-washington-state-middle-school/   “Talk of Seattle Police Department offering $5k retention bonus to keep officers” by Matt Markovich from FOX 13 Seattle: https://www.q13fox.com/news/talk-of-seattle-police-department-offering-5k-retention-bonus-to-keep-officers   Transcript   [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington State through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: Seattle political reporter, editor of PubliCola, co-host of the Seattle Nice podcast, and author of Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse, and Recovery, Erica Barnett. [00:00:56] Erica Barnett: It's great to be here. [00:00:58] Crystal Fincher: Great to have you back - always an interesting show with you. Well, today I want to start off talking about Sound Transit - more conversations about fare enforcement, about their budget. What is going on with Sound Transit now? [00:01:15] Erica Barnett: Well, for the last year or more Sound Transit has not really been enforcing fare non-payment. So when people walk through - we don't have turnstiles here in Seattle - so when people walk through without paying the $3 for light rail, there is a program called Fare Ambassadors. And the Fare Ambassadors are sort of a friendlier version of fare enforcement officers - and they come out to you, they check your ticket, and if you didn't pay, they give you a warning and they take down your information. At a Sound Transit Board meeting yesterday, the outgoing CEO, Peter Rogoff, sort of doubled down on stuff he's been saying for a very long time now - about the need to basically amp up fare enforcement, to get more farebox recovery, which is the amount of money they get from actual fares. Sort of warning of this very dire situation where he says that the agency will potentially be insolvent if they can't figure out a way to collect more fares from people. Fares have gone down a lot since the beginning of the pandemic, largely because ridership has also been depressed for all the obvious reasons, but Rogoff also said yesterday that people are just increasingly not tapping their cards. He cited the example that he was at a Mariners game and I guess apparently saw a lot of people not tapping their cards and getting on the trains. Now, I would say that's sort of a situation where you don't necessarily want a huge backup with people tapping their cards because there are always crush loads, but he used that as an example of how people who can totally afford to pay the fare are just not paying the fare because there isn't enough of a penalty. [00:02:58] Crystal Fincher: Okay. And this was Bruce Harrell's first meeting on the Sound Transit Board? [00:03:05] Erica Barnett: It was. And he made a few comments. As he said, he came in hot with the suggestion that maybe there could be some kind of technological solution to fare enforcement. One of the criticisms of fare enforcement, particularly at Sound Transit, has been that it has way disproportionately targeted Black and Brown riders, particularly Black riders. And that it's all out of proportion to the percentage of Black riders versus white riders on the trains and Asian riders as well. And so Harrell was basically suggesting that maybe there could be a technological fix that would not be racially biased, but that would somehow increase the number of people paying fare and/or increase the number of people being penalized for not paying fare. It wasn't really clear. Rogoff, the CEO, jumped to, "Well, we don't want to do facial recognition." And Harrell said that's not what he intended, but he didn't really say anything specific about what sort of technological fix there could be. I mean, as we all know, it's not like algorithms are an anti-racist tool. In fact, they're often quite racist. So I would be skeptical personally of any such fix, but again, he wasn't very specific about what it would be. [00:04:30] Crystal Fincher: Okay. So there are two things in this story that I continue to come back to that just have me in a confused place. One is, okay, let's talk about fare recovery. So they're estimating 40% of their budget should be covered by riders paying fares, correct? [00:04:58] Erica Barnett: Right. [00:04:59] Crystal Fincher: How does that compare with other agencies? Does that seem to be a realistic number? [00:05:03] Erica Barnett: Well, other agencies are generally - always, in almost all cases - lower - nationwide and also in this region. I mean, farebox recovery ranges from 2% for inner city transit to, I believe, King County Metro has a goal of 25% - they might have lowered that. But 40% is incredibly high. And it sort of has set the agency up for a constant cycle of failure, when you define failure as getting all this money back from fares. And as Rogoff pointed out, fare payment has gone down, but it's, I believe, almost always been lower than 40%. So you have to look at the metrics and you have to look at sort of what the values of the agency are. If it's a money-making agency, if the purpose of transit is to constantly be churning money back into the system so as to provide more service and to build more stuff, then that's one thing. But if the value of the agency and the purpose of the agency is mobility and equitable mobility for everyone who needs to get from one place to another, that's another thing. And I think it would - if that was the value - it might cause the agency to deemphasize this idea of a farebox recovery and getting as much sort of profit out of riders as it can. [00:06:34] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, definitely. It just seems like they're setting themselves up for failure and setting themselves - we have this conversation, it seems like every year. Sound Transit is coming up short - what needs to happen? The other thing I find confounding - and ridiculous to be plain-spoken - is that when we have these fare enforcement officers, Fare Ambassadors, and they find someone hasn't paid a fare and they give them a ticket, I think most people assume that, hey, well, now you're paying a fine, and that fine is going to cover the costs of you not paying your ticket and hiring these Fare Ambassadors or officers, and that is back filling the money in the system. However, with Sound Transit, it's true that the fines that people pay don't go to Sound Transit, correct? [00:07:25] Erica Barnett: That's right. The fines go to the court system. I mean, right now the maximum fine is $124. And they're looking at a system that would reduce the fine in a lot of cases - probably most cases to $50 - but that money doesn't go to Sound Transit. The whole purpose of the fine is to be punitive and to discourage people essentially from jumping the virtual turnstile and not paying for fear of having to go to court and pay a $50 fine. And then ultimately maybe pay a $124 fine. So yeah, it's a system that doesn't make a whole lot of sense from a financial perspective, because the only thing that Sound Transit is trying to recover is literally just the $3 that you did or didn't pay as you walked onto the train. [00:08:17] Crystal Fincher: So the cost of fare enforcement officers or ambassadors is purely a cost. It's not how some other agencies sometimes justify it - saying, "Well, the fines end up paying for the officers, and we end up coming out ahead." That's purely a cost and a system that has shown to repeatedly fail to intimidate people into paying a fare when they're not paying, to backfill a budget that was already set unrealistically so that its goal, which has not been attained, continues to not be attained. It just seems like we're going around in a circle and nothing is making sense, and no one's pointing out that nothing is making sense. [00:09:02] Erica Barnett: Well, people are pointing out that it doesn't make sense, but just nobody at the agency is sort of making the pointed, or at least effective, case that we need to find another way to fund transit. I mean, transit does cost money. When people don't pay fares - in complete fairness to Peter Rogoff and others, Bruce Harrell as well - there is a financial consequence to thousands of people not paying that $3 at the door, right? But the fact is we could also fund our transit system in another way, or in many other ways. There are other systems that fund their transit systems differently. Right now we pay for ours with a combination of fees and motor vehicle licensing and things like that. A lot of employers pay into the system, but we could have an employer tax, for example, that would cover the system more equitably than expecting individual riders to shoulder the cost, including a lot of riders that really can't afford it. I mean, Rogoff said yesterday, and I thought this was a very telling comment. He said, "Well, we even have these ORCA cards, which are for people of modest means." Well, ORCA cards are only available to people making up to 200% of the poverty line on the federal level, which is actually below our local minimum wage and is way below poverty wages in this incredibly expensive city. And it just felt like, I don't know if - I mean, I assume that Peter Rogoff knows what the federal poverty level and knows a little bit about the cost of living in Seattle - but it felt like such an out-of-touch comment to me that - it felt like, very telling. Yeah. And so I mean, we are not even near the point of talking about alternative ways to fund this system that we do need funding for and that does need to be expanded. I ride the Light Rail - it's very useful, but I don't think that funding it on the backs of people who can't pay is going to be a great, sustainable, long-term way of funding it. [00:11:18] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. And for me, I would rather invest money that is currently being invested in this kind of punitive system of trying to intimidate people and fine people into paying - which is not working - into something that is going to move us closer to a more sustainable system. I don't know what the budget line item is for the Fare Ambassadors, but it seems like if we're not recovering that money, if it is purely a cost, that maybe that money can be better invested in a way that could more efficiently help people pay their fares or subsidize those fares in a way that helps the people who actually need it. But we'll see. What is coming next from Sound Transit? I guess, where did things leave and what are the next steps? [00:12:06] Erica Barnett: Well, they are considering - so they've had this Fare Ambassador program, which is, as I said, is basically just issuing warnings and taking people's information. They are discussing a new sort of system of enforcement that would have up to five warnings. And to me, I mean, again, I don't want to just sort of belabor the Peter Rogoff of it all, but his exasperation at the idea that people would just after warning, after warning keep "refusing to pay" - he was like, "And we can do a first warning, and then a second warning, and then a third warning, and then a fourth warning, and then a fifth warning." And, I mean, it's not like 27 warnings are going to make somebody who can't pay or who is not paying for whatever reason. It's not like any number of warnings is going to be the magic trick. So at any rate, that's what they're discussing - up to five warnings. On the fifth, you would have a penalty of up to $124 fine. Think on the fourth, it would be that $50 fine. So it's just kind of moving the goal post a tiny bit, but still kind of the - basically the same system that we've always had. [00:13:21] Crystal Fincher: Okay. Well, we will continue to pay attention to it. We've had conversations with you about Sound Transit here before. I'm sure we will in the future. Always interesting. Well, I also wanted to talk about a bill raising an important issue about how people are able to access state benefits and our safety net - like TANF, food stamps, housing and essential needs. And how that's been limited because of DSHS offices being closed. And in an attempt to remedy that, what is happening there? [00:13:55] Erica Barnett: Yeah, there's legislation being heard next Tuesday that would essentially require DSHS, which is the Department of Social and Health Services, to respond to calls within 30 minutes. So right now, just to back up, their offices have been either completely or partly closed since the beginning of the pandemic. So people seeking services for the most part have to call in or access services online. So when you're talking about people who are low income or maybe homeless, or you don't have internet fluency or access, they're usually calling. So this bill would respond to wait times that are right now - reportedly - sometimes three hours, four hours long, just to get somebody on the phone to tell you that they'll call you back. And it would require 30 minute wait times - no more - and it would set a bunch of standards for sort of levels of service that DSHS would have to provide. Or if they can't provide them, which seems like a good possibility because the bill does not include funding - it's not a budget bill in this short session - they would not be allowed to penalize people for essentially not meeting deadlines, not getting through. In some cases, for benefits, you have to check in with somebody at DSHS on a regular basis. And people are finding that they simply cannot do that. So this would just say, okay, you can't lose your TANF benefits, you can't lose your food stamps, you can't lose your housing and essential needs benefits that you are receiving because you are a person in extreme poverty simply because you couldn't stay on the line for three hours because your phone didn't have minutes, because you had to get to work, or for any of the many other reasons that anybody can't stay on the phone for three hours. [00:15:58] Crystal Fincher: Okay. So you say this has a hearing coming up next week. [00:16:02] Erica Barnett: That's right. On Tuesday. [00:16:04] Crystal Fincher: Is there any idea who is lining up to support or oppose it? [00:16:09] Erica Barnett: I am not aware of opposition right now, which is not to say that there will not be opposition. DSHS itself told me this week that they were still looking at the bill and sort of trying to figure out what the ramifications would be for them. The sponsors are Strom Peterson, who's from Edmonds, and Nicole Macri, who is from Seattle and works for the Downtown Emergency Service Center, which is a homeless provider. And the actual - I should say that the drafters of the bill were the Seattle/King County Coalition on Homelessness. So it is a bill backed by homeless service advocates. One thing Peterson also mentioned to me though is that there's a lot of other folks who use DSHS benefits who are not necessarily homeless - including, he mentioned people with traumatic brain injuries, and also people who've served overseas and have PTSD, people who don't speak English as their first language. One thing I discovered during my reporting is that if you don't speak English and you call the hotline, you are told to leave a message in your own language and someone will call you back. So it's just another little hurdle that is sitting in your way if you want to get services right now. [00:17:30] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. And I think it's hard for some people to conceptualize, but if you are at the point where oftentimes you need these services, you're already dealing with so many hurdles and barriers in your own life. And just getting to the point where you can ask for help or go through the steps to receive help - you have to overcome several barriers just to do that. And putting barriers in the way of people who are already struggling and - for a variety of reasons - may not be able to sit on the phone for three hours to wait, or have that time available, or not be able to work, or not be able to focus or concentrate or sit in one place for that time - like just putting those barriers in front of this population - we know - so many studies support and looking at the population, we know that is cutting people off from being able to receive the benefits they're entitled to and the benefits that we've decided as a society benefit us all to provide. It weakens our entire society if we allow people to fall through the cracks and have problems worsen, and then try and address those problems as they present as homelessness or different things. If we can intervene and help and get people back on their feet before problems get that bad, that is the goal and that benefits us all. There is a return on investment there, and it is the good thing to do as humans. So this is really talking about just kind of fundamental needs. And I think there is a need for it. I know that they - DSHS, I think, is dealing with staffing shortages as so many organizations were before the pandemic hit and now are dealing with that being even more of a challenge as people are out with COVID and various things. So I'm sure, in a bill especially that doesn't address funding, that a big question is going to be, okay, so who are these people going to come for? But the remedy of that is okay, well then you can't penalize someone and cut them off from benefits because they did that. We'll certainly be keeping an eye on it. Do you know what the bill number is for that? [00:19:47] Erica Barnett: It is 2075. House Bill 2075. [00:19:53] Crystal Fincher: House Bill 2075. So we will monitor that and keep it on the list. I also want to talk about another bill in Olympia in terms of zoning. What's going on with that? [00:20:07] Erica Barnett: Yeah. There is legislation in Olympia that is very exciting to people who support more density in cities, that has support of Governor Jay Inslee, that would - it's very complex. I'm just going to dumb it way down and say that it would allow more density in cities. And the main difference that this bill would sort of effectuate across the state - in cities of more than 20,000 people - is that in single family areas, areas that have been historically exclusively for detached homes, developers could build duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and in some cases, sixplexes and town homes. It's pretty modest as far as density goes. I mean, we're not talking about huge apartments. There was a bill that does not seem to be going anywhere this year, that would've allowed much taller buildings near transit stations. But it's really remarkable, in a way, how far this conversation has come just in the last 10 years and even 5 years - the idea of even allowing duplexes and accessory dwelling units. I recall very well when that was like anathema. I mean, that was a third rail in Seattle and certainly in other cities. And now you've got Jay Inslee saying we need to allow more density and particularly around transit stops and frequent bus stops and light rail stations. Even though I don't think that the ultimate impact is going to be particularly dramatic, it's a step in the direction of a dramatic impact which is badly needed, particularly in the Seattle region where we just have so much growth and we don't have commensurate housing development, which is obviously contributing to our incredibly high housing costs. [00:22:04] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, definitely. We will keep an eye on that. What bill number is that one? [00:22:10] Erica Barnett: Oh, after you asked me the first time, I knew you would ask me this and I don't have the bill number memorized. I will look it up and I'll mention it in a second. [00:22:21] Crystal Fincher: No, no worries. There are so many bill numbers to keep track of. I don't know the bill number off the top of my head. I've looked at it before. So what we will do is definitely put it in the show notes so you can see that - just in that text that comes along with the podcast and on officialhacksandwonks.com. [00:22:37] Erica Barnett: Oh, it's HB 1782, Senate Bill 5670, if you want to follow along at home. [00:22:43] Crystal Fincher: SB 5670. And then lots of calls to action from both urbanism and environmental groups have been spread on that. But these are going to be really important to make sure that you let your legislator know how you feel. This is an area where there are a lot more people in the public who support this than is assumed - just because a lot of times NIMBY groups who are notoriously vocal and always mobilize to oppose stuff are the ones who they are used to hearing from and who make themselves always very loud, both on municipal and the legislative level. So it's really important just to let your legislators know that you strongly support this, that you want them to support that, that it's actually critical for having an equitable and inclusive society and just to be able to afford to live near anything that people want to live near now and in the future. So hopefully everyone gets involved with that. And again, we'll put that in the episode notes. Also, want to talk about an issue - another issue in Kent that's - and today we're not talking about a Nazi cop who has not resigned. [00:24:04] Erica Barnett: Just taking a breather from that. [00:24:06] Crystal Fincher: Yes. I wish that was hyperbole - it is not - that's a literal statement. But we're talking about banning books, which sometimes people are like, "Well, that only happens in "backwards areas" and other states and not anything we would have to worry about in blue, progressive Washington - blah, blah, blah, blah, blah." It's everywhere. It's everywhere. If you think we're protected from something because we're in supposedly a blue, progressive Washington, please reconsider everything you have ever considered because everything is here, including a principal at Cedar Heights Middle School in Kent, which I'm very familiar with, taking it upon herself to ban some books - some LGBTQ books - what is happening here, Erica? [00:24:56] Erica Barnett: Well, so the main book that has been banned and I don't have all the details of where we're at in terms of other books right now, but the first book that came to the attention of this principal - it's called Jack of Hearts (and Other Parts). It is a book that is - it's about a young man who is a sex advice columnist, anonymous sex advice columnist - he is gay. And the book is - it's somewhat explicit - it is sort of rated at a 14 year old reading level, which does not mean appropriateness or non-appropriateness, but that's one of the things that the principal has apparently seized on in saying that this book is not appropriate for seventh and eighth grade students. I mean, it's fascinating because sexual explicitness - that's sort of the reason being given for removing this book from the middle school library - is really a moving target, as I think some of the critics of this policy have pointed out. There are many other sexually explicit books that are available to middle school students, including, I mean, one example of course, is the Bible - in which there's a story about a prostitute being hacked up into pieces that is quite explicit. And that's not banned, but this LGBTQ book that is somewhat explicit was banned. And so I think it speaks to a double standard for what types of sexually honest and straightforward literature we consider appropriate for children and what kind we don't. And yeah, I mean, Crystal, I don't know, what do you think about Kent? Is this the kind of thing that could only happen in Kent? Or is - [00:26:53] Crystal Fincher: Very much not the kind of thing that could only happen in Kent. I mean, I feel like we just got done with a School Board race in Bellevue that got some coverage with a candidate that had some very racist and backwards views - that caught the attention of a lot of people. Kent, who - I happen to pay attention to very acutely - has had a number of issues in the school district. Kent has a very extreme, conservative contingent of the population - not a majority of the population, but like there's been an organized Republican - and conservatives who feel like Republicans are too soft - Party organized here. And in school board elections, geez, almost 10 years ago now, I mean - one, was just a very small forum that I went to where one candidate who was running against a woman of color at the time, talked about the problem with students these days coming from "Taliban hell holes". And being - [00:28:05] Erica Barnett: Wow. [00:28:08] Crystal Fincher: Yes. So like, sound all the alarms - that kind of kicked me into gear to in-kind some help to that candidate, his opponent, to make sure that he didn't get on because of just blatantly racist beliefs. Kent is known as one of the most diverse cities of the state now - it was not always that way. That demographic shift started in the Nineties - before that, it was an extremely white city. A lot of those residents still here - a lot of people very uncomfortable with change and blaming every conceivable problem that could be on that. And we see that in a lot of suburbs, rural areas - we see that everywhere. And there's also a concerted conservative nationwide strategy to engage in local school districts and in municipalities, which are traditionally overlooked by most people - the turnout for those elections is lower than any other kind of election. People just don't pay attention. And so these conservatives - we've seen a ton of video online, if you're very online like I am, where you see these people railing against masking and testing and anything like that in school districts. That's a strategy. And so this book banning that we're now seeing is another tactic in this overall strategy to get control of school districts for a couple of purposes. So no, this is not something that can only happen in Kent. It's happening in Kent. It's happening in a lot of other places and people are going to have to get engaged in their local cities and in their local school districts and speak up in opposition to this. Because if all that happens is people go, "Oh, this is too bad," and they stay silent. And the only vocal people are the ones that want to ban books, then these books are going to get banned. And as much as people want to be like, "Well, it's only going to make these books more popular in the underground." - the underground is underground for a reason because most people are not accessing it. And especially if someone's in a more conservative environment, if their parents are not open-minded, this is really cutting people off from books. And to that point, I mean this librarian who, when the principal, who had not read this book - when she decided to ban it, came to the meeting, had brought other books that had been accused of being sexually explicit. One was a book on pregnancy, another was a book by Maya Angelou, another was The Hate U Give, another - Are You There God it's Me Margaret - certainly the Bible. This becomes very, very subjective. And I think part of the bigger issue is there is a process that is supposed to be followed when a book might not be appropriate. Because it's not like that can't happen, right? But there is a process dictated by the district which this principal did not follow. And so that's also another part of the issue is that - how subjective are we making this process and if we're not going to stick by given process and some visibility into this, how many books are disappearing that we know nothing about? [00:31:30] Erica Barnett: Well, I think too, I mean, the fact that the list that you gave includes books that are perennially or have perennially been banned or that people have attempted to ban - I mean, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, Are You There God It's Me Margaret. I mean, frequent targets in the past. I think that this particular book and the sort of focus on LGBTQ books in general is a wedge. I mean, it is an easy-ish thing to convince conservative parents that it is bad for children, or teenagers in this case, to be exposed to "sexually explicit, LGBTQ+ literature" and then kind of go from there. And this particular book is - Jack of Hearts (and Other Parts) - has been a target in other school districts across the country. So there is an effort to target specific books and specific books that are aimed at queer students, but I don't think that once it starts there, that it ends there, right? And so, this list of books, I mean, I could see some of those books being targeted again, because it hasn't been that long that some of these books were considered inappropriate for "young people" on all kinds of grounds. I mean, I remember reading a lot of these books when I was this age. I grew up in another time of frequent book bans. And there's nothing age inappropriate about them. 12 to 14 year olds are having sex. It is absurd to suggest, as this principal has, that the only appropriate thing for kids of that age is books that go up to hand-holding and pecks on the cheek and mild kissing and no more, because that is just not in keeping with the reality of teenagers that age. So I feel like this LGBTQ focus right now is very much just the kind of wedge that conservative ideologues have identified as potentially being most effective to get their foot in the door and then move on to other stuff. [00:33:55] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And to be clear, this hasn't even stopped with this book at this school. On a subsequent day when the librarian arrived to work, they said the most recent book order was waiting for them, but the boxes were already opened and one book was missing, All Boys Aren't Blue by George M. Johnson. And when they were in the office later that day, they spotted the book sitting on the vice principal's desk. They never sent any notice about taking the book. So this has already started down the path. The principal said that she was going to be putting together like a parent advisory board to determine which books were appropriate or not, which again is not part of the district policy. So this is an extremely slippery slope. And again, like you made reference to, we both come from a time where book bannings were en vogue. And so here we go again, but I just hope people engage - whether or not you have kids in your local school system, you need to be very vocal, contact your school board members, make sure that you are talking to your local school administrators, that you expect there to be books in the library that represent a variety of perspectives and a variety of identities and people, and that there should be the strictest scrutiny for removing something and some very clear guidelines. Because these vague guidelines are how they get away with just removing anything that they want to remove for whatever reason they feel like that day. We will continue to keep an eye on that and continue to talk about that. The last thing I wanted to talk about today, as we're coming up on a little bit of time here, was just news that broke this morning that Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell and interim police chief, Adrian Diaz, are discussing the possibility of a $5,000 retention bonus for every SPD officer - over a thousand officers there. This is different than the $25,000 or $10,000 signing bonuses for experienced or new officers. This would just be for existing officers - "Hey, we'll give you $5,000 if you stay." What are your thoughts about this? [00:36:32] Erica Barnett: Well, if you look at what police officers make in Seattle, it is - I mean, it's certainly a starting salary of quite a bit more than I make - with overtime, easily into the six figures. And I mention that - not to say that police officers make too much or too little or anything - just to point out that if you're making six figures, $5,000 is really not that much money. It is not nothing, but as you pointed out, there have already been pretty large signing bonuses offered and all sorts of incentives for people to come to the department. And yet that has not worked, and we still have a net loss of officers year over year - just as I would add - many, many, many other cities are experiencing right now. There's a workforce shortage in all kinds of industries and the police departments of America are not exempt from that. So it's hard to picture this strategy of offering what amounts to a small bonus working to retain people who are already making plenty of money. But more importantly, I don't think that they have defined where the money's going to come from. So I am curious what funding source, or what budget cut, are they proposing to make in order to pay for this. I mean, there's lots and lots of other departments and lots of other things the City pays for - including social service workers, outreach workers for encampments - all kinds of things that no one is proposing these kind of bonuses for. So where are the cuts coming from? Where's the money coming from? And why is this the priority - of all the City departments that are losing workers and of all the things the City funds - that deserves this extra funding on top of the extra funding that we've already provided? [00:38:37] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. That mirrors my concern - like, I would be interested - is this something that came from officers? I mean, just purely looking at - could this achieve what they're hoping that it achieves, given that the amount represents a lower percentage of their take-home pay than it does for most other City employees? Is it something that they're saying, "Hey, you know what? For folks considering leaving, we are looking at this - but this $5,000 - that would actually make us stay." Where did that number come from? Has that been like validated? And to your point, has this been considered? I mean, we have talked extensively, have a show coming up where we're going to be talking about - especially frontline workers who are working with the unhoused population and the strain that's on that infrastructure - the staffing shortages, and even for the staff that's there, the poverty wages that they're making and that being a significant barrier for just - in trying to get people housed and needing people to engage and provide support and services - we are paying those people who provide support and services pennies, and they're already overworked and understaffed. So it seems like this would make a much bigger percentage of that pay and perhaps make a bigger difference. Are we looking at these bonuses for other departments, other frontline workers who we are counting on who make lower wages and who are tied to more marginalized populations to see that? Is this under consideration from anything else? And definitely, where is this money coming from? So we'll keep an eye on that and continue with that. I want to thank all of you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, January 28th - it is January 28th, we're almost in February - 2022. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler and assistant producer Shannon Cheng. And our wonderful co-host today was Seattle political reporter and founder of PubliCola, Erica Barnett. You can find Erica on Twitter @ericacbarnett and on publicola.com. You can buy her book, Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse, and Recovery anywhere where you enjoy buying books. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, and you can now follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts. Just type "Hacks & Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. While you're there, leave a review, it really helps us out. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in. We'll talk to you next time.

Hazte socio de nuestro Centro Total de Entrenamiento para aprender a entrenar y lograr resultados increíbles 👉https://fullmusculo.com/ Únete a nuestra comunidad fitness y recibe cada semana emails con los mejores tips en entrenamiento, nutrición, psicología y suplementación, siempre basado en la última evidencia científica. 👉 https://fullmusculo.com/suscribete/ Síguenos también en instagram donde estamos aportando contenido cada día. 👉 https://www.instagram.com/fullmusculo/ Y sigue nuestro Podcast en Spotify donde puedes escuchar esta y muchas entrevistas más con los mejores profesionales cada semana. 👉 https://open.spotify.com/show/3Zb1EtDKEPX50TyKGqfD3R Algunas de las preguntas que estará respondiendo Adrian son: ¿Qué es un suplemento? Diferencias entre Suplementos vs Esteroides ¿Qué tanto ayudan? ¿Se puede progresar sin suplementación? ¿Son seguros y eficaces? Qué información ocultan en las etiquetas Cómo manipulan los suplementos ¿Existen los suplementos quemagrasas Cuales son los 3 Mejores suplementos según la evidencia

On this week-in-review, Crosscut reporter covering state politics and the Legislature, Melissa Santos, joins Crystal to discuss Governor Inslee attempting to make it illegal for politicians to lie about election fraud and ending the ban on affirmative action, bills to watch this legislative session, Seattle and Burien extending their eviction moratoriums, Kent's mayor saying that she didn't think the public would get upset about a Nazi cop, and parents and schools struggling though COVID.  As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Melissa Santos, at @MelissaSantos1. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources “Inslee will support bill to make lying by elected officials, candidates about election results punishable by law” by Joseph O'Sullivan and Jim Brunner from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/gov-jay-inslee-to-support-bill-to-make-lies-by-elected-officials-candidates-about-election-results-a-gross-misdemeanor/   “Inslee rescinds directive banning affirmative action in Washington state government” by Joseph O'Sullivan, Jim Brunner and Heidi Groover from The Seattle Times:  https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/gov-inslee-to-rescind-20-year-old-directive-banning-affirmative-action-in-washington-state-government/    “7 things WA Legislature is expected to address in 2022” by Melissa Santos from Crosscut:  https://crosscut.com/politics/2022/01/7-things-wa-legislature-expected-address-2022    “Bills to Watch in the 2022 Washington State Legislative Session” by Stephen Fesler, Doug Trumm, Ryan Packer and Natalie Bicknell Argerious from The Urbanist: https://www.theurbanist.org/2022/01/11/bills-to-watch-in-the-2022-washington-state-legislative-session/     Burien City Council extends eviction moratorium through COVID-19 state of emergency by Nicholas Johnson from The B-Town (Burien) Blog: https://b-townblog.com/2022/01/13/burien-city-council-extends-eviction-moratorium-through-covid-19-state-of-emergency/    “Mayor Harrell Extends Seattle's Eviction Moratorium until February 14th” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist: https://www.theurbanist.org/2022/01/12/mayor-harrell-extends-seattles-eviction-moratorium-until-february-14th/    “As Harrell Extends Seattle's Eviction Moratorium, Cracks Begin to Show in the Statewide Eviction Prevention Programs” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger:  https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2022/01/12/64855920/as-harrell-extends-seattles-eviction-moratorium-cracks-begin-to-show-in-the-statewide-eviction-program   “Email Reveals Even City Officials Fell Victim to 2020 Proud Boys Hoax” by Carolyn Bick from South Seattle Emerald: https://southseattleemerald.com/2022/01/12/breaking-email-reveals-even-city-officials-fell-victim-to-2020-proud-boys-hoax/    “Kent badly underestimated outrage over assistant police chief's Nazi insignia, mayor says” by Mike Carter from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/kent-mayor-city-badly-underestimated-outrage-over-assistant-police-chief-who-embraced-nazi-rank-insignia/    “Facing dire staff shortages, some schools are asking parents to step in” by Marisa Iati from The Washington Post for The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation/facing-dire-staff-shortages-some-u-s-schools-are-asking-parents-to-step-in/    “Teachers confront half-empty classrooms as virus surges” by Carolyn Thompson from The Associated Press for The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation/teachers-confront-half-empty-classrooms-as-virus-surges/   “Seattle students plan sickout, demand COVID tests and masks as school closures climb” by Monica Velez from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/seattle-students-demand-masks-and-tests-plan-sickout-as-school-closures-climb/    “What Seattle Public Schools Needs to Say Right Now” by Ray Dubicki from The Urbanist: https://www.theurbanist.org/2022/01/13/sps-letter-to-families/     Transcript:  [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington State through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program today's co-host, Crosscut staff reporter covering state politics and the legislature, Melissa Santos. [00:00:54] Melissa Santos: Hi Crystal. [00:00:55] Crystal Fincher: Hey, welcome back. How are you? [00:00:58] Melissa Santos: Doing as well as anyone can be doing at this moment in time and history probably. [00:01:03] Crystal Fincher: I feel that. Well, I guess we should start off by talking about a couple of actions that Inslee took over the past week. One is a move that he's trying to make to make it illegal for politicians to lie about election fraud. What is he doing there? [00:01:23] Melissa Santos: Well, it's hard to say precisely because I still haven't seen the text of a bill and a lot is dependent on that, but basically the Governor said he wants it to make it a gross misdemeanor for politicians to lie about election fraud. The part that some reporters immediately went, "Wait, wait, wait - we know in our state that our Supreme Court has said that basically lying as a politician is okay. There was a ruling almost 15 years ago now that said lying about your opponent is free speech essentially, for the most part, so we're wondering how can you make this work?" The Governor's argument is that this is speech lying about election fraud, and lying about the results of elections can lead to violence, and that's like calling "Fire" in a crowded theater. So that is something he believes can be regulated. I'm waiting to see how the text of that actually falls into place. Some other legislators that happen to be lawyers, including House Speaker Laurie Jinkins, said to me, "It really depends on how it's written, if it's constitutional," but the Governor made this announcement on January 6, the anniversary of the insurrection at the US Capitol and the anniversary of people actually storming the grounds of his, the governor's mansion in Olympia, over some of these claims of election fraud. I'm just interested to see how it plays out, and whether it could actually be passed, and whether it can actually uphold or be upheld in court. [00:02:53] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and that seems to be the stance of a lot of people - just waiting to see what the text is. But frankly, not just lawyers in the legislature, but also other constitutional lawyers who, with both conservative and progressive backgrounds, have said that this can be really dicey and whether or not this can be constitutionally constructed is a big question. I think Inslee - his response to that was, "Yes, this may draw some legal attention and challenge," but he's feeling that the rhetoric has gotten so inflamed that the truth - that misinformation and disinformation is actually damaging to our democracy and society - and we're paying a price. And he feels compelled to act to try to do something. And is ready for the fight. And I think he has almost acknowledged that he's not sure how it will ultimately turn out. He's going to do his best to craft it constitutionally, but he doesn't know. He just feels that this is worth the fight. [00:03:57] Melissa Santos: And I guess for me, I'm wondering if it just depends on whether you have to have violence result and then can go back and prosecute, because that might be a situation in which I think - I'm not a lawyer - and I haven't talked to as many people about this as I want to to make this claim. But I think potentially if you actually see violence that erupts that could be traced to someone's statements, maybe that's more legally defensible to have a penalty against a speech, than if it's just speculative, like this could lead to violence. So, I guess that's one of the things I'm wondering - if that will be specified clearly in what he puts out. [00:04:32] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and I mean the impression I got is that it wasn't going to be tied to violence - just the act of lying and knowingly spreading misinformation would be illegal and punishable by law. But again as you said, we haven't seen the text of this. So, this is a big stay tuned, but a big announcement and that has a lot of people interested in what the next steps are going to be. And then the other action that he took this week was ending the ban on affirmative action. What happened here? [00:05:05] Melissa Santos: Well, essentially this is something that, as you know, has come up at the ballot box a few times in, oh 2019, which seems like a very long time ago somehow now. The legislature did rescind Initiative 200, a 20-plus now year old ban on affirmative action that voters approved in our state. And then voters reinstated the ban essentially in the fall of that year. Yes, that's essentially how it played out. You can get talking about referendums in a way that are very confusing, but that's essentially what happened. But what was interesting and during that campaign, I remember people - even Gary Locke, the former governor - saying a lot of the stuff we actually think we can do under current law - things like targeting, hiring of people from minority groups for state contracting roles and state contracts, and some recruiting - targeted recruiting - of people who are people of color for certain jobs and focusing on those efforts. Those things actually - there's a disagreement even at the time whether you could do that already, even with the ban in place. Because essentially boiling down, you're not hiring someone just based on your race - you're hiring people that are perfectly qualified for these, well, for these jobs, right? I mean that was always what the idea was, and that was said to be possibly allowed already. And then the State Attorney General put out something saying, "Yeah, you can do this. It's legal," and that was different advice than Governor Locke 20 years ago received. So this has opened the door for the Governor, now Inslee, to basically change this just by executive order, or changing it through his own practices at state agencies without a change of law. I know this will be somewhat controversial for those who were like, "Wait, wait, didn't we just vote this down, et cetera," but I really recall - it was really such a healthy debate about, honestly even among supporters of rescinding the affirmative action ban - do we even need to do this, or can we just do it without any of this legal back and forth? And so that dates back a few years. And so the Governor, with advice from the Attorney General of our state, basically said, "Yeah, no, we can try to proactively recruit and hire people for state positions and state contracts that are from underrepresented groups." That's what he did just through his own authority without the action of the legislature, or vote of the people. The one thing I'm not totally clear on - I'm not sure it extends to university admissions. I think it's more within the Governor's purview of hiring, but I'm not 100% sure on how this applies to university admissions and whether universities can give extra weight between two equally qualified candidates - to someone who is from an underrepresented group when they're doing admissions, admitting students. I'm not sure how the Governor extends to that. I'm not sure if you know, Crystal, if it extends that far. [00:08:10] Crystal Fincher: I don't know, and I actually read an article by Joseph O'Sullivan, Jim Brunner and Heidi Groover about this and I don't think that's addressed in the article. I don't recall that being addressed in the article. They basically described exactly what you said - that there was a 2017 opinion by our current Attorney General Bob Ferguson that was different than prior attorney general saying that, "Hey, actually at the moment, race and sex conscious measures are not prohibited. You can do more. This isn't a blanket ban." And so, Inslee's executive order is instructing, within the next 10 days for that specifically, he'll issue a replacement executive order replacing the one Gary Locke put in place - to move forward "with achieving equity while still complying with essentially the law," which is restrictive. So, it's going to be interesting to see how he threads this needle and what results of it are going to be. I don't see that it impacts admissions, but I'm sure we're going to be hearing more about that. [00:09:27] Melissa Santos: Yeah, and - [00:09:27] Crystal Fincher: But it's really interesting. [00:09:28] Melissa Santos: Yeah and I will say that when I looked at this and when other reporters have looked at this, there was a really stark decline in the percentage of state contracts going toward businesses and firms owned by women and people of color after the passage of I-200, which passed in 1998. There really was - I mean going back to one my old stories right now - in 1998, when race conscious measures weren't expressly prohibited by I-200 that had not yet passed, more than 13% of the money spent by state agencies and/or state educational institutions went towards certified minority and women-owned businesses. But in 2017, that was below 3%. So, we saw a more than 10 percentage point decline after I-200 passed in hiring and contracts going to minority-owned businesses. There's some dispute about whether women-owned businesses should be all grouped in the same way, but you saw a clear decline there, at least in that form of measure. There was an effect, I guess, of I-200 passing and whether it can be reversed by what the Governor has just done, I guess remains to be seen. [00:10:38] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and I think the effect is going to be - I don't know that we're going to see immediate action by a lot of places, but my goodness, I used to do economic development work in this area - increasing minority business, contracting and relationships - and the amount of people who were like, "Yeah, we want to do that, but the law prohibits it." And sometimes people say that - it's not in good faith - but there were people who were doing it before, who specifically felt handcuffed and they would get in trouble if they attempted to do anything in that realm and felt like they would be scrutinized for choosing to work with companies of color, being accused of giving preferential treatment. There are certainly those who lob that accusation, no matter what the qualifications or reputation of the firm is. So it definitely had a chilling effect, and what this does is it really frees up those types of localities who had an interest in it, and people who do have an interest to act immediately. And others, it may take more external pressure, lobbying, and accountability measures to make sure that something that is prioritized, but this is an area where the law had an impact. This ban had an impact and a negative one. Especially given everything we're looking at now, as much as possible needs to be happening to make sure that everyone can participate in our economy, to make sure everyone is given a fair shot with public contracts. All of our dollars are going into this, and it needs to be flowing in an equitable way to all of us. [00:12:24] Melissa Santos: Yeah. And one other thing that I think is interesting about this, the Governor's budget proposal and I don't know if - he actually has a small amount of money for giving extra money to people who are of underrepresented backgrounds, or specifically I guess it says low income, to serve on state boards and commissions - recognizing that there maybe is an opportunity cost, or that people who are not rich basically can't participate in state government and have their perspective valued and incorporated into state policy making. So, he's pursuing different avenues of trying to get people who maybe haven't traditionally been involved in state government to have their perspectives. And the language is interesting because it's really saying people who basically are not wealthy, people who have lots of spare time to do this out of the goodness of their hearts - have a lot of valuable perspective they can add, and we need that perspective and we should pay for it. There's some interesting things happening with this across Inslee's administration. [00:13:24] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, definitely. We'll keep an eye on how that plays out. You have been doing a fantastic job over several years covering the legislature. We just had this legislative session start last week. So, what is on tap? What are the top bills that they're working on, or things that we should be keeping our eyes on? [00:13:48] Melissa Santos: I mean one of the things that they're moving really quick on which I think you've discussed a lot on your show, so I don't think we need to go deep into it, but changes to this Long-term Care Act, which is this program that was passed a couple years ago to provide people help with paying for nursing care and other things that could help them even age in place in their homes. It looks like the State House is going to vote to delay the payroll tax that pays for this program and delay it a little bit, and make some tweaks. And so that's moving through quickly. The other things that they're really focused on are some changes to the police accountability measures they passed - wow, I guess it was just last year. It feels like it was two years ago now, but at 20, 20 - [00:14:31] Crystal Fincher: 2021 session, yeah. [00:14:32] Melissa Santos: Wow, okay. Yeah, so there's going to be some tweaks - there's some bills introduced essentially, mostly focused on the changes that were made last year to use of force standards for police. The bill they passed last year set a higher standard for when police can use force. It's pretty detailed and nuanced, but essentially requiring more use of de-escalation and limits on when you can use force when in situations that aren't a dire danger kind of thing. And there was some concern that, "Hey, does this ban us from using less..." Okay, that's a different bill, but there were some concern that they cannot transport people who are suffering mental health crisis - that there were police who raised the concern like, "Hey, we don't know if under this, if someone's not an imminent danger to hurting us, or killing us, or killing themselves. Can we still transport them to the hospital when they need mental health treatment?" And the legislator says, "Yeah, you can, you absolutely can," but there seem to be enough confusion about that aspect that they'll have a bill that would clarify - yeah, you can still help with mental health issues if you're police, even under this use of force bill that we passed last year. So, that's one thing. And there's also some other changes. There were limits to police tactics passed in a wide-ranging bill last year and the concern that arose was, "Hey, can we still use less-lethal weapons - bean bag launchers and stuff - if we got those through military surplus programs," which there's some contradictory stuff potentially saying no military weapons will be used by police. I'm oversimplifying it, but then sometimes they use military grade launchers and stuff for less-lethal weapons. So, just making it clear you can still do things short of killing people that use launchers and things like that to launch bean bags and things like that. So, there's some tweaks like that. There's Republicans wanting more bigger repeals, but I just don't see the Democratic legislature doing - completely rolling back what they did last year. [00:16:36] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. I mean, and I want to talk a little bit more about you say, "There were concerns raised." Certainly throughout the legislative process, there were concerns raised. To that point, legislators attempted and felt they had addressed those concerns in the legislation and gave clear guidance that, Yes, you can still intervene. This is just limiting when you can use force, which was responsive to what protests were demanding, what voters across King County voted for with the King County Charter Amendments, an action that was taken by elected leadership in Seattle and around the county - moving towards mental health officers, non-armed officers to respond to a variety of these other things - recognizing that focus on de-escalation, focus on trying to actually address the problem without introducing a big risk of violence is beneficial to everyone. Police revolted in some situations - refused to respond to some calls, refused to intervene in mental health crisis calls. This went far beyond just a, "Hey we're concerned, we're not sure how to do this." They said, "Hey, we can't do this. We can't do our jobs," in a way that seemed that they were very unhappy with the fact that there was any legislation passed at all, and basically said it was all hindering their ability to do the job. And so some of this legislation is aimed at saying, "Fine. If this is really about a concern about responding to a mental health call, sure, we'll clarify that." And there are some clarifying bills, but obviously you've reported on this and this is me editorializing, but it seems like not all of those concerns have been raised in good faith and certainly the way that they were raised has been very contentious. [00:18:41] Melissa Santos: I think there was some exaggeration in the first weeks that these new laws went to effect, which was in July of 2021. I feel like there might have been some genuine confusion about some of the smaller points like, "Oh, wait what about these..." Maybe the less-lethal weapons thing - I think that maybe there was some genuine like, "Oh, we want to make sure we don't get in trouble for using our rocket launchers for something that maybe wasn't considered, or clearly outlined in this bill. You know - that we aren't trying to kill people with rocket launchers, we're trying to not kill people with rocket launchers." Fine, okay. But I do think there was some exaggeration and there were police chiefs that came out and said this is ridiculous, including Adrian Diaz from the Seattle Police saying, "The idea that..." - I think he called it ridiculous or something like that - the idea that you couldn't respond to mental health calls, because the assumption being that you're going to have to use physical force whenever you respond is where Adrian Diaz said, "I don't really see with the logic there." And also to be clear, you can use force when you see a crime happening or something. Police always, even under these laws, could pursue people, and they could pursue people. There was a lot of dispute about that, and I talked to a lot of chiefs who said, "I would definitely pursue someone in that situation if I saw them running away after I saw them under a car stealing a catalytic converter, and they ran off. I would not feel hamstrung by these laws. I think that's bunk." So, there was some, definitely even people within the law enforcement community saying, "I don't actually think that's how this works at all." That led me to think - Aaaahhh, I mean, is there genuine confusion in all cases, or is it also just resistance? And I think there was a mixture certainly of political resistance a little bit to some of the reforms. I think that was certainly true, and that might have caused people to interpret some aspects as being - people being - the police agencies to say I don't want to mess with this more than maybe what was necessary in certain cases. Yeah. I mean I talked to the Director of the state Criminal Justice Training Commission who also said some of these claims that were being made by police were overwrought. "People seem to be in a panic that maybe was unnecessary," is what she said, and I put in my story. That made me think, Okay, this isn't a clear cut, we can no longer do our jobs as police. Anyway, that's a discussion that the legislature is now having about - sorting through what is a legitimate concern, what is more just we don't want the legislature telling us how to do our jobs as police. And that's something the legislators are sorting through now. And I did personally have questions about the idea you can pursue certain people who are suspected of violent crimes, or people that you - one thing that someone from King County actually told me is that some police maybe have not had to distinguish that clearly between probable cause and reasonable suspicion, which are these thresholds for which you can do - super technical, but by which the standards you can do stuff under these bills basically. And there was a change in threshold, but to be honest, probable cause, some of the cops have told me, is not that high of a standard. If it sometimes - [00:22:00] Crystal Fincher: It clearly is not. [00:22:02] Melissa Santos: Some of the cops are saying, "Well, we have to do a full investigation of everything before we can even detain anyone," or say, "Hey, can you stop right there because we're investigating this and you're suspicious basically," but some police have said, "Actually, you know, probable cause is pretty low evidentiary standards. Even if you need probable cause to tackle someone to the ground and beat them, which is what some of these new laws do - it used to be reasonable suspicion which is lower - that's not that high of a threshold." I'm not saying police should be going straight to beating people, but the idea that they couldn't stop people ever, even when they saw someone fleeing the scene of a murder or something, was something that other police also questioned as being like, "Hmm, I don't know if that -." [00:22:46] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, there were plenty in the law enforcement community who said that this did not prohibit them from doing the job that they thought they should be doing. And even, I want to say it was the Renton Police Department, but I'm not precisely sure. There was a chase that they said - that they couldn't pursue someone who had fled because of this new law, which was just absolutely ridiculous, and that was their way of protesting that. But I mean we'll keep an eye on that legislation. We'll see how it proceeds, and I'm wondering if there is ever anything short of no action that they will find acceptable. And I think as you mentioned before, there are some Republicans who just want to repeal everything. But I think most people, the majority of people - and polling back that up and elections have backed that up - feel that changes do need to fundamentally happen to add protections and, at minimum, reforms. Now, how much those reforms need to be - it is another subject, but there's broad popular agreement that changes need to happen. And also, I just need to say, I don't see any situation in which I feel a police entity needs to have a rocket launcher, but evidently they do for some reason. But I do want to shift and talk about some local stuff. And Seattle and Burien extending their eviction moratoriums, which was something that a lot of people have been lobbying for. I certainly have - we've talked about this on this program, but especially with the rise with Omicron - the Omicron variant - people being unsure, not wanting to be exposed, or being sick with other folks. It was unthinkable and obviously extremely stressful for a lot of people to think, "Hey, just when this virus is once again surging, which is the reason why we had an eviction moratorium in the first place, why would we end it when we are basically hitting pandemic-high numbers for infections, hospitalizations? Putting someone out on the street during this time seems to just go against all of the reasoning for why it is currently in place." Bruce Harrell - this is one of the first decisions that he's made policy-wise since he's been mayor - decided to extend the moratorium for 30 days. Burien decided to extend their moratorium for as long as Governor Inslee has his COVID-19 emergency designation established, although they will revisit it for 90 days. In Seattle, lots of people are thinking, "Oh, 30 days, it could be longer." It is a good thing that the eviction moratorium was extended, and I'm very glad Mayor Harrell did that, and that the City of Burien is following, I know other cities are doing that. But it's absolutely necessary. And I hope during this time, all government agencies and entities really focus on getting the available financial help to renters, to landlords, just following through with that process and making sure all of the help that's available for people to get is made available and accessible, and it actually gets to people. There's a report that there are a backlog of 10,000 rental assistance applications at King County - that King County can't get to because they've run out of money. That's another element in the backdrop of this moratorium extension, in that help that was supposed to be available for people has not materialized. So, hopefully everyone at all levels of government gets their acts together to get help to people who need it on the ground. Otherwise, a lot of this COVID mitigation stuff feels like, "Hey, we're trying to get over the hump." Money to get people through this thing, and it seems like some folks are giving up when it is the hardest and the worst. And a lot of the outcomes that we've been trying to avoid look like they're more pressing than ever, so I just hope people coordinate and get money to the people who need it. [00:27:20] Melissa Santos: Well, I'm wondering, I'll have to look back at the Governor's proposal budget, but there is $1.3 billion in unspent COVID relief money at the state level, that's from the federal government, that still is sitting around. So, I'm wondering if maybe the legislature sends more money to some of the counties to help with this - even though the state eviction moratorium already expired - but I mean at least rental assistance is still something that many people need. Especially with Omicron, people - I mean again the economy, I think - restaurant workers and a lot of people in service industry jobs are underemployed or not employed. And that's still a huge issue and it's easy for people who are able to work remotely successfully and without a huge impact to their job, which is a lot of my colleagues and such. I mean to be honest, it's easy to underestimate how bad these surges create problems for people who are in other positions - when businesses have to downsize their staffs again because they just don't have people coming through the door. So that's something - I think I do wonder if maybe the legislature will send more money out to some of the counties to assist, relaying more of those unspent federal dollars. I'm not sure if they will. I think they probably will do some. [00:28:38] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. I mean it seems like that certainly should be an urgent priority for them to do, hopefully doing it as quickly as possible to enable help to get to people who need it the most, but I mean certainly people are sounding the alarm that more help is needed to keep people in their homes. And as lots of people have concerns about just general affordability - not just inflation, but housing prices - as people are trying to figure out, especially with a number of the reductions and COVID protections and isolation and mitigation, just what kind of effect that is having on people and their families, that that help is needed now and the legislature can certainly, excuse me, impact that. Again, this is another one to keep their eye on, but also one to talk to your legislator about and say, "Hey, people still need help. The number one way to address homelessness is to make sure people don't wind up homeless in the first place." That is actually the least expensive, most effective way to address it. Don't let people get out on the street - every problem becomes much harder to address once they do. I mean I was happy to hear Bruce Harrell talking about looking at also preventing utility shutoffs, looking at people who are behind, and trying to connect them with services intentionally because that's a leading indicator of a risk for eviction. There's still a big issue brewing here that we're going to feel the effects of in very painful and negative ways if more help isn't provided. [00:30:28] Melissa Santos: And this really is a statewide issue now. I mean, if you looked at the housing prices in Chelan County, they've gone up 20% year-over-year for instance. So, this is something that even though King County has a high concentration and super high housing prices that really compound it, here as an issue for folks, but I mean it really is something that other counties and other places in our state are experiencing acutely as well. [00:30:54] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. Well, and let's go ahead and revisit Kent's Nazi cop, which - wow, wouldn't it be amazing if that was hyperbole, but it's not, that's a literal statement. We talked about this a bit last week. An assistant police chief in the City of Kent made Holocaust jokes, shaved a Hitler mustache - and this is over time - and posted Nazi insignias, literal Nazi insignias, on his door at work above his nameplate. A detective thankfully after four days of that happening - one detective who saw that out of everybody passing by - reported, filed a complaint, reported it. It was investigated - he, after the fact, said, "Hey, he didn't know that those were actual Nazi insignias. And the Hitler mustache was a joke. And the other joke was just unfortunate and poor taste, but he doesn't have a racist, anti-Semitic bone in his body, la-di-da-di-dah." Clearly highly unacceptable. The investigation found that he did knowingly post it, even though they technically said that they didn't sustain a finding of officially lying. They said that his version of events is not what happened. He did knowingly post, that he did make those jokes, he did shave a Hitler mustache - that all happened, that's not in dispute. And the punishment that they came up with was two weeks suspension. And during this entire time, while he was under investigation, he wasn't suspended. He was still working. He was participating in personnel decisions, policy decisions. It's just beyond. So now he's on paid administrative leave and the mayor has - initially went along with the 2-week finding. Then after public outcry, because a group thankfully, called No Secret Police, put in public disclosure requests, found all of this information, and they're the ones who actually broke the story that we have a Nazi cop. The Seattle Times has been writing about it. But two weeks suspended after public outcry and revulsion. In response to that, the mayor, Mayor Dana Ralph, announced that she will be asking the union for that officer's resignation - not firing him, not doing any of that, but asking for his resignation. And then, while everybody's saying, "Okay, so why are we even here? Why does it take public outcry for you to reconsider that maybe two weeks suspension for a Nazi cop isn't appropriate, or it just really spits in the face of all of your residents?" And her response to that is she said her administration and that - I'm reading an article by Mike Carter in the Times - her administration badly underestimated the public outrage that would spring from the decision not to fire an assistant police chief who posted a Nazi insignia on his door, embraced the rank of an officer in Adolf Hitler's murderous - what, Schutzstaffel or SS - joked about the Holocaust. So, where is your mind at that this is not a big deal? Where is your mind at that you can't picture people getting upset? This is very concerning to me. How are you looking at this? [00:34:50] Melissa Santos: Well, and I mean the thing that does hit me a little is Kent is such a diverse community with - I mean, it's majority people of color - I'm trying to look at the actual population, but I think - I mean you know better than I, Crystal, because I believe you actually live in Kent, I think- [00:35:03] Crystal Fincher: I do live in Kent. [00:35:04] Melissa Santos: - but it's 60% people of color I think. The police department, I don't know how their demographics match up with the actual city - I've not looked into this - but it strikes me as the only way you could underestimate that this would be offensive and highly offensive is if you have a large number of people that are not from groups that would be personally hurt or offended by this. I'm really at a little bit of a loss for how exactly that happened. This all was happening in the summer and I'm not sure if the election was on people's minds a little bit like, "Okay, we don't want..." If you fire a cop, it's more likely to make news. There is that too. I mean people will be like, "Hey, well if the assistant chief got fired, what happened there?" So I don't know if they just didn't want to draw attention to it. There were elections happening last year, municipal elections. I don't know if that's a factor or not. If there was ignorance - [00:36:05] Crystal Fincher: Clearly they didn't want to draw attention to it. Yeah, clearly they did not. [00:36:07] Melissa Santos: Yeah, I mean if there really was some element of ignorance - that I think speaks to the police department being a little out of touch with a community that they serve potentially. [00:36:15] Crystal Fincher: Massively out of touch and a threat and a danger too, yes. [00:36:20] Melissa Santos: And looking through lots and lots of police disciplinary records, I've been a little bit surprised over the last couple years that a 2-week suspension to an average person may not seem that big of - I mean, I would be unhappy if I got two weeks unpaid leave from work, but I go back to work and it's not the biggest of deals. But it's pretty rare for police to actually issue those kind of punishments is what I have seen. So, possibly just because police discipline is structured the way [Crystal: The bar is on the floor.] that they considered it to be a bigger penalty than the public does, because I do see a lot of - the idea that police cannot - they have to start with progressive discipline. I mean they start with something small. So maybe in some cases - I mean there are cities where I've written about, where they've given someone a written reprimand as the only penalty for punching someone - a citizen in the face without real provocation - and things like that. If that's a written reprimand in some communities, a 2-week suspension would be pretty significant by comparison, right? I don't want to say they thought it was significant, but they're just out of touch with what the public expectation would be about what a punishment for this would look like. [00:37:42] Crystal Fincher: Yes, in my opinion, this is disqualifyingly out of touch. If the only thing that is in your mind and the justification that makes sense to you - and again, this is me editorializing, this is not reporting or anything - but if the only thing that makes sense is, Well, we barely punish cops anyway and for this Nazi behavior, got two weeks, that's a disciplinary finding, it'll be on his record, that's fine - is so far removed from understanding that this speaks a lot to the culture of the entire department. How this behavior - this behavior only stopped because a detective - one, finally, after this had endured for years evidently - said something because something was so blatant and actionable. But to have - what you hear in the background is a Kent police siren right now in my house - you have to be so detached from the community that you're serving to think that - that at the minimum gives the appearance of a police force that is racist, anti-Semitic, biased, uses extremely poor judgment, is not connected to the community at all. And if you're talking about needing to rebuild trust, needing to maintain and rebuild trust - which Dana Ralph tried to give some of that rhetoric during last year, while she was campaigning - then wow, this flies in the face of that. This spits in the face of all of the residents of the city. And to think that when someone is in total control of someone's civil rights, if someone has the power to detain you, if someone has the power to beat you and jail you and give you consequences that are going to last potentially for the remainder of your life - can impact whether or not you can hold a job, or have a job, get housing - that that standard should be higher than the average employee who may get paid for two weeks with discipline. But also, we hold average employees to such higher standards of conduct than we do our police. We require more de-escalation from our service workers when someone is yelling at them for not wanting to wear a mask than we do from police. We require people who are in the right, who have been detained by police, to conduct themselves with more decorum than the police are for fear of getting beat or detained unjustly. This is just so far, so unacceptable, so ridiculous, so absurd - a literal Nazi cop is just - obviously, you can hear that this is very frustrating to me. And the complicity of the mayor and the other one just really speaks to the culture, and it really says to the community that we don't care about you, we don't consider you, we don't think about, you're on your own, this is not a city where - to serve everyone. This is a city that is looking out for its own interests and putting the feelings of Nazi cops, and using tax dollars to support Nazi cops ahead of residents here in the city. And it's appalling. [00:41:25] Melissa Santos: Well, your point about one officer bringing it up, or a detective raising the issue makes me think a little bit about - our state just passed a law last year. One of - another police law they passed was about establishing a duty to intervene, and most departments have this on the books already. A lot of departments saying that if you witness misconduct as a cop, you're obligated to report it, but what if cops don't? What if a bunch of cops don't view this as reportable misconduct? That's what this brings to mind to me. I'm assuming there are other people who were offended and had misgivings about it, but maybe didn't say anything about the Nazi insignia on the door, but then only one person did. So, there are some established things that under our state's new law - if you've witnessed successive force, you have to report it, or else you can be punished kind of thing, but this - [00:42:10] Crystal Fincher: It's limited to force because that's what I was thinking. I'm like, "How does this not fall under that new law?" Went back and looked at the text of the new law, and it must involve force. So, just general misconduct, they still don't have a duty to report which clearly needs to change, but yeah. [00:42:29] Melissa Santos: Yeah. I mean what if that officer, that detective had not reported it, would it... I mean - [00:42:35] Crystal Fincher: If that detective hadn't reported it, if we didn't have No Secret Police - that organization in Kent doing these PDR requests - they couldn't do that. If we didn't have those, we wouldn't know about this. We straight up would not know. [00:42:54] Melissa Santos: Yeah, I mean I think that - [00:42:55] Crystal Fincher: Which is appalling. [00:42:55] Melissa Santos: So I mean that's the thing - I'm actually looking at that law too - they have to report wrongdoing, but wrongdoing is defined as contact that is contrary to law, or contrary to the policies of the witnessing officer's agency. I mean there's still a lot dependent on police recognizing that this is a violation, right? And if people did not recognize that, or thought it was a gray area of some sort for whatever reason, which I think that most people who read the stories about this do not think it's a gray area in any way, shape, or form. But I mean that's still the cultural issue. This brings that to light to me a little bit about what if other cops don't see this as big of a deal as everyone else does, and that's what gives me pause. [00:43:38] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. It gives me huge pause. Clearly. If the Holocaust jokes didn't do it, the Hitler stache didn't do it - this is an assistant chief, this is someone who is dictating the culture, setting the policy, hiring, training, disciplining, guiding the department. People are following his example. He is there for that purpose, and he's a Nazi. [00:44:05] Melissa Santos: That also actually brings - I shouldn't assume what the motivations of the cops - but is it more, are our forces structured so it's very difficult for underlings to report the misconduct of a superior? I don't know if we've addressed that in law and policy. This is me assuming that there were people who wanted to report it and did not, because I have to in my mind, but anyway. [00:44:28] Crystal Fincher: Well, I mean, also we've heard about the - what is it, what a blue line of silence, whatever they call it - or issues in any general workplace where, "Hey, are you going to report your boss for misconduct?" That comes with the threat of physical force retaliation, maybe we're not going to back you up in police contexts, and just what a tainted and spoiled culture that must be. There was a statement made that, Clearly this is the action of a cop, we still have confidence in the department. I don't. How can you? I question you if you have confidence in this department. I question how you can see literal Nazi behavior tolerated and think that that's okay. [00:45:22] Melissa Santos: We probably could talk about this forever, but again, it would have been very different if in July of last year, the chief and the mayor come out saying, "Someone reported this. We've looked into it and we think it's horrendous. And we're going to demote, fire this police assistant chief." That did not happen - coming out by the work of an advocacy group, by a group who's making records requests and not the police department itself - it does not look good. [00:45:54] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it does not look good. There's a lot to talk about including how - there's a lot to talk about with this. We could talk forever, but we will leave it here actually for the day. We have time coming up, but also I just want to speak quickly about schools, just being - parents are just trying to figure out - I have talked to a number of parents and they're like, "I don't even know at this point whether it's better to send the kids to school or send them at home, but I don't feel like they're safe anywhere. I feel like every situation is suboptimal. I feel like the communication from the school districts is confusing and contradictory and late." And even for people with privilege who can stay home, they're trying to figure out how to navigate around this. And to have two parents who are working outside the home, who can't stay home and deal with all of this, or who may not be very online to get all of this information that's dictated for the next day at 10 p.m. sometimes. It's just a lot to deal with. People are afraid for the safety and health of their kids. Quarantining rules are changing and different. And just no one knows what's going on. Lots of calls for "schools to stay open." And I don't think there's anyone who disagrees that in a perfect world, yes, having people in school is ideal, but with the mitigating factors is that the case and they need to be socialized. And it's about the quality of education. But now so many people are out with COVID that they're asking parents to staff classrooms, they're asking lunch workers to staff classrooms, just any adult over 18. Some districts are changing qualifications to remove any qualification, but being an adult over 18 who can pass a background check. Clearly, we're out of the realm of talking about the quality of education and what's ideally best for the kids. And you've got to wonder just what is going into these decisions. It just doesn't seem like the health of the students is the guiding factor. I think a lot of people feel like, with the CDC, the health of Americans isn't the guiding factor. There seems to be a lot of profit motives at stake, and just people trying to force this to work in a way that makes people real uncomfortable about the health impacts. [00:48:32] Melissa Santos: So, I don't have a kid that's school age. I have a kid in daycare and whenever there is a COVID closure, it's very disruptive. And I understand that for parents and this is even when I - I mean, you can't really get work done at home with a toddler, it's very difficult. So, I understand, and even if you have the ability to work from home. So, I understand that's a huge stress around parents. At the same time, I mean it seems like there should have been a backup plan. There's been remote learning for a long time now, and no one thinks that's ideal for most kids. Although in some cases, I know some students thrive with it more than others, and they can avoid other issues they run into school through remote learning. But it seems like there should have been a backup plan a little bit saying, "Okay, we will go remote if we have reached this threshold." And then again - because it's not like we don't have experience with this now, and it just seems like this patchwork closures of school here and there creates problems and confusion for parents that are dealing with that right now. [00:49:37] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and just the level of anxiety and confusion and just feeling abandoned by the people who were supposed to be responsible for this, who were supposed to plan, is unfortunate. A lot of anger from a lot of corners coming to teachers who are just in the middle of this whole thing, not in control of any of the district decisions, not in control of this pandemic - trying to stay healthy, trying to help their kids, and navigate through this whole thing. I think lots of people are choosing from a menu of bad choices. I think that's where people are at. It does not feel good, but we need better from leadership, we need better from elected leaders, we need at least better communication, right? Communicate clearly with notice, frequently understand that people's lives are upended day-by-day when this is happening. And it's just a lot, and I think that people are frustrated at levels that we haven't seen before, period. [00:50:54] Melissa Santos: Yeah. I mean and I will say I guess for Seattle, they do have a threshold, but it's very high. It says in this one Seattle Times story the district will consider shifting to remote learning for 10 days if the student absence rate is approaching 50% at elementary schools. That's very high and it does seem like there's individual schools that are getting announced that they're closing. And then what does that mean for those students at one school over? That's a confusing situation that's developed, where last minute notifications that one school is closed, but then district-wide, it's not uniform. I think that makes it hard for people, and I don't think it's easy for the district. I don't think it's easy for the teachers. I don't think it's easy for the parents or the kids. It's all very bad. I mean every choice is not great. Okay, that's not much of an observation. Everyone knows this, but - [00:51:47] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. I mean it's a thing, but I also think that while leaders better get to addressing this, people are feeling this in an acute way on a daily basis right now, and to ignore that is not wise. And understanding that speaking to it, trying to do anything possible to let people know that you actually are trying to help them, and not that you've just moved on, is necessary. [00:52:20] Melissa Santos: And I noticed the Governor - this is the state level and that's something the districts say is - we're required to stay open as much as we can right now under state policy. And I don't know at what point the state changes its view, and I don't know - I haven't been keeping up as closely with what the specific requirements down from the state are now, but that's something that districts have said, is that they're hamstrung a little bit by the state. The governor as recently as last week, this week probably, has said we need to do whatever we can to keep schools open. But we have State Senators, it seems like a couple a day practically, or at least - testing positive for COVID. I mean at one point on Monday, it seemed like almost 10% of the State Senate had contracted COVID, and that was just on the first day of legislative session. [00:53:01] Crystal Fincher: And one State Senator died of COVID. [00:53:04] Melissa Santos: And one State Senator died of COVID. Oh well, technically his family will not confirm it was of COVID, but he died after contracting COVID. And he was in the hospital, where he had been airlifted with COVID, so that seems to be the logical conclusion that he died of COVID last month. I don't think anyone disagrees in person is better - [00:53:25] Crystal Fincher: Well, there's some legislators saying, "No, we absolutely should be in person." It's just like, "Well, there might be..." Of course, ideally, people want it in person and I always get this sense, sometimes get this sense from some people, where they think that people are enjoying these mitigation factors, or enjoying being at home, or enjoying schools being shut down, and this is just all a big obviously conspiracy ploy and this is a joyful thing. This is painful for everyone. These are all bad choices that people are faced with. But the bottom line is - if we try and be careful today that minimizes the irreversible damage for a lot of people. I mean, people have died, people are dying, people have long COVID, people are becoming disabled with chronic illness because of this. And if that can be avoided, that is a factor in this. We can't ignore that that is a thing that is happening. [00:54:33] Melissa Santos: And I see the research about how - I mean, especially kids - a year or two years is so long of their life, that the damage of their effects on their socialization and education, I completely get that. I think about it with my kid, but he's also in a class of 6, and not 30 in school. I mean so I don't know. I worry about my kid's language development as well, even though he's mostly in school. And I understand that these are all things that have to be weighed, but I also think that we're peaking with Omicron apparently. Maybe this would really - would be just a month of doing what we've been doing for another... All right. You know what, I don't even know. I don't envy anyone who has to make these choices. [00:55:19] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think that's where everybody's at. I think that's where everybody's at, but it's rough. I feel for all of you dealing with all of this, and I just beg people who are making policy, influence policy, that you really connect with what people are going through on the ground every day, and just try to help that. If we help that, we help everyone. If we ignore that, a lot of bad things happen. With that, I appreciate all of you listening to Hacks & Wonks today, January 14th - Friday, January 14, 2022. These dates are so weird. My goodness - [00:56:05] Melissa Santos: 2022... [00:56:06] Crystal Fincher: - it's January of 2022. This is wild. Anyway, that's because I'm old. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler with assistance from Shannon Cheng. And our wonderful co-host today is Crosscut staff reporter covering state politics and the legislature, Melissa Santos. You can find Melissa on Twitter @Melissasantos1. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii. Now, you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcast. Just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar, be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced within a couple days of the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in, talk to you next time.

On today's week-in-review, Associate Editor of The Stranger, Rich Smith, joins Crystal to discuss the investigation finding that SPD improperly faked radio chatter about Proud Boys and escalated and inflamed tensions as CHOP formed, and a Kent PD Assistant police chief being asked to resign for posting Nazi insignia and his wife hiding critical social media posts on the city's official social media accounts. They also chat about bills to pay attention to as the legislative session starts on Monday, as well as what Mayor Bruce Harrell's inaugural press conference revealed about his plans and priorities.    As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Find the host, Crystal on Twitter at @finchfrii, and find Rich Smith at @richsssmith  Resources “Seattle police improperly faked radio chatter about Proud Boys as CHOP formed in 2020, investigation finds” by Daniel Beekman from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattle-police-improperly-faked-radio-chatter-about-proud-boys-as-chop-formed-in-2020-investigation-finds/   “Kent assistant police chief disciplined for posting Nazi insignia, joking about Holocaust” by Mike Carter from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/kent-assistant-police-chief-disciplined-for-posting-nazi-insignia-and-joking-about-the-holocaust/   “Social media posts criticized how Kent police handled Nazi controversy — but they were hidden by chief's wife” by Mike Carter from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/criticism-of-kent-police-nazi-controversy-was-hidden-on-social-media-by-police-chiefs-wife-who-ran-the-accounts/   “A Big List of Bills to Track During Washington's 2022 Legislative Session” by Rich Smith from The Stranger: https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2022/01/06/64661375/a-big-list-of-bills-to-track-during-washingtons-2022-legislative-session   “Harrell Pledges Bold Agenda in Inaugural Speech” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist:  https://www.theurbanist.org/2022/01/04/harrell-pledges-bold-agenda-in-inaugural-speech/   “It's up to Harrell to Save Renters in Peril” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger: https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2022/01/07/64713950/its-up-to-harrell-to-save-renters-in-peril   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington State through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Full transcripts and resources referenced on the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a cohost. Welcome to the program again, today's cohost, Associate Editor of The Stranger and noted poet, Rich Smith. [00:00:50] Rich Smith: Good to be back - thanks Crystal. [00:00:52] Crystal Fincher: Good to have you back. Well, we have no shortage of things to talk about this week. And you know what? The SPD just keeps popping up into the news - it doesn't seem to end. And this week, we learned that police improperly faked radio chatter about Proud Boys as CHOP formed in 2020. What happened here? [00:01:19] Rich Smith: Yeah. Well, it was June 8th, which was the day that the cops had abandoned the [East] Precinct, and lifted the barriers, and allowed protestors who had been gathered at that intersection in Capitol Hill - for several days being variously gassed and beaten up for making vocal their criticisms to the police, and occasionally throwing a rock or two. They released the barricades, let the protestors walk the block that they wanted to walk, and then yeah, and then left the - and then went about their business, basically. And then after that, the cops hopped on the scanner, where they communicate with one another about crimes stuff, reports - stuff that's going on around town, and invented a hoax. They fabricated a maraudering gang of Proud Boys, a violent group known to brawl people in the streets, seek out anti-fascists and beat them up, suggested that they were armed with guns - and it was four cops who were enacting this ruse. And the ruse was overseen and approved by the two commanders, including the Captain of the East Precinct, which was the one that the cops had just abandoned. On Wednesday, the Office of Police Accountability determined that this ruse improperly - or not improperly, sorry - this ruse added fuel to the fire of the situation - it was not a de-escalation tactic to claim that there was a roving gang of white supremacists looking to crack some Antifa skulls downtown. But there was no recommended discipline for the cops who participated in the ruse, and the two cops who signed off on the ruse are no longer employed at SPD. And so- [00:03:48] Crystal Fincher: It's all good, evidently. [00:03:49] Rich Smith: That's what's going on - right, yeah. [00:03:52] Crystal Fincher: I mean, from the OPA, their finding was just, "Shouldn't happen, but don't do it again. We're not looking at this in the context of everything else that has happened." And I mean, just underscoring that - no, it absolutely was not a de-escalation tactic. Yes, it absolutely inflamed tensions. Because this was not some nebulous threat, this was not some theoretical violent threat - these were people who had enacted violence upon protesters recently before that. There was a legitimate fear. [00:04:32] Rich Smith: Absolutely, yeah. I mean, I walked through with the protesters - the barriers that were lifted - when they were happening. I was interviewing people, hearing the chatter and the gossip as that place where eventually the Free Capitol Hill that became CHAZ, that became CHOP - that autonomous zone around the precinct was forming. And the number one thing I heard, the number one concern I heard were these rumors of Proud Boys coming around the neighborhood. They're armed, they're dangerous, they're looking for Antifa. And there was concern that the Proud Boys were going to burn down the precinct and blame it on the Black Lives Matter movement, so suddenly there was this need to protect, ironically, the precinct from an attack. And a need to kind of hunker down and barricade the zone, and protect themselves against the threat that the cops had just invented over the scanner. And you're right, that they also had further reason to believe that these rumors were true, because the day before, a man named Nikolas Fernandez allegedly drove his car into the side of the protests, had shot with an extended clip a man named Dan Gregory, and then ran to the front of the police line, where he was welcomed with open arms, potentially because his brother worked at that very precinct. Now, the defense for that case says that the guy was just confused, and he was on his way to work, and there was road blockages, and so he didn't know what to do, and he suddenly ran into this protest - yada, yada, yada - he's got his story. But, this is all to say that the protestors were very afraid of people attacking them in cars, were very afraid of Proud Boys coming, burning down the precinct, shooting them up in retaliation for the protesting. And this ruse by the SPD was just bad policing - it inflamed the situation, to quote the OPA, but it also was the reason that CHOP formed. It might not have been the only reason, of course, it was non-hierarchical structures there - everyone was there for their own shit. But, that was the word on the street in the moment - was Proud Boys are coming, we've got to circle up, we've got to protect ourselves - and that was the staging grounds for CHOP. [00:07:21] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and certainly aided the fortification, obviously. Everybody was there, principally initially, mainly, to protest violence against Black lives, particularly from the state. But in the moment, certainly, especially looking at tactics to maximize the effectiveness of this direct action, fortification was what made the most sense when you have an armed threat approaching you, and you're trying to assert your First Amendment right to protest. That is what they inflamed, what they created. And I don't even think, certainly in the aftermath of this, "Hey, this is a commonly used de-escalation tactic." Clearly they wanted to just mess with these protesters and to create chaos, and to provoke action that they could act against. [00:08:26] Rich Smith: Yeah. What was his name - Brian - he was the captain of the East Precinct who now works for ADT, I think, down in Texas - the home security firm or whatever. Anyway, the guy who perpetuated, or who approved the ruse - when asked about it by Myerberg, or investigators with OPA - said that the reason for the ruse was they wanted to let the protestors know that cops were still out there doing stuff, that their position had not been weakened despite the fact that they literally had just abandoned the East Precinct - or a couple hours before - slash, they also wanted to do the ruse because they hoped it would draw protesters away from the precinct, and then, I don't know, maybe give them an opportunity, give the cops an opportunity to retake the precinct that they had already decided to abandon, again, as far as we know, themselves, without telling - [00:09:28] Crystal Fincher: Themselves, yeah. [00:09:30] Rich Smith: - without telling the mayor, who was supposed to be the overseer of the cops. They're Durkan's cops, acting on their own extremely bad, extremely wounded impulses. And they were clearly - it doesn't take a Psych major to determine that they were clearly wounded - and they wanted to show the protestors that the cops were still the top dog, that they still had the power, and the way that they decided to do that was to do what any bully or big brother would do, which is say there's a big, scary monster coming to attack you. And you're going to wish you had us to protect you, you know what I mean? And the protesters - they felt the need to defend themselves, felt the need to suddenly defend the property so that they didn't get accused of burning down a precinct when they didn't even do it, didn't want to hurt the movement. And so, this happened. And then the response from City officials so far has been fun too - newly elected mayor, Bruce Harrell, released a statement saying like, "That sucked. Don't do that, that's totally bad, that's wrong. Don't do this - this ruse was bad." And, what was the action he's going to do? He's going to go down there and talk to Interim Police Chief, Adrian Diaz, and tell him that that's unacceptable behavior, and stuff like that. So, that's nice - the chief is going to get a talking to. And then the Public Safety Chair of the City Council, Lisa Herbold, released a statement saying that what she's calling for is for the cops to fully implement ruse training. [00:11:20] Crystal Fincher: Ruse training? [00:11:22] Rich Smith: Yeah, ruses are acceptable - cops can lie to people in order to arrest them, or get evidence from them - so long as they don't quote the, according to state law, shock the conscience. A cop can't say there's a nuclear bomb headed this way or whatever, just to get someone to move somewhere. They can't do anything that shocking. This maraudering gang of Proud Boys coming to attack you - that would, I think, falls into the bad ruse category. Anyway, OPA - the cops were supposed to fully implement training recommendations on ruses, they had only partially done so according to Herbold. And so, she wants to get those fully implemented - you've got to tell all the cops about how to do ruses properly. And she also wants the ruses fully documented - that was another recommendation from the OPA - every time they do one of these ruses, they should write down that they have done the ruse so that we can go back later and determine whether or not it was a good ruse or a bad ruse. Or, we don't get in a situation like we were in today, where it comes out a year and a half after - like this vital piece of a narrative that the City is telling itself comes out a year and a half afterwards - thanks to, shout out to Omari Salisbury at Converge Media, who asked the cops for body cam footage of these Proud Boys that they were supposedly tracking. When his request turned up nil, OPA initiated their investigation. And also several, I should mention, journalists at the time - particularly Matt Watson, aka Spek - immediately thought that the ruse was a ruse. [00:13:24] Crystal Fincher: He called it at the time, yeah. [00:13:28] Rich Smith: He called it at the time, yeah. And communicated that very clearly, and brought receipts. And so, that prompted questioning from journalists that eventually, through the process of gaining public records and initiating investigations with the OPA, comes out with this vital piece of the story of the protests of 2020. [00:13:53] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. I mean, it's so interesting - one, just the story, and just the - obviously the story on its own is egregious, just another egregious example. But also another example of the loss of control of the department - this was not a mayor directing or controlling anything - nothing in that narrative was directed, influenced, controlled by the mayor. And also, nothing in that narrative, according to the information that's publicly available, was directed or controlled by the Police Chief at the time, Carmen Best. These were officers who had basically gone rogue, and made these consequential, harmful, dangerous decisions on their own with no recourse. We're now finding out about this months, years after the fact - and then following up with laughable accountability, honestly. I mean, if ruse training is what comes out of this, I don't know how people are really looking at that as anything that meaningfully addresses this issue here - both with this specific issue - and with SPD overall. I hope that that was just an idea in the beginning, and we're going to get to the meat of accountability coming up, because that seems wholly just insufficient. [00:15:28] Rich Smith: Yeah, I'm skeptical, yeah, of this reformist answer that the City leaders are currently taking, which is to - you have Bruce Harrell doing an appeal to authority saying, "I know what I'll do, I'll go to the chief, and then we'll have this top-down answer," which is pretty typical, I think, of Harrell's impulse just as a leader. He's constantly talking about how he's going to bring the right people together, he knows everybody in the City, everybody knows him, it's a real top-down kind of coach approach. And so it makes sense that he would be like, "I know what I'll do, I'll go to the lead of the organization, Diaz, and say, 'Hey, this is unacceptable, tell everybody to quit this, whatever.'" Okay, so that's one - that's his approach to this reform. Herbold is saying, "We need more oversight over the cops lying, we need more records of this stuff, we need more training." But, the thing that seems to actually work, and what we're finding out as a result of many of these OPA investigations, is that the cops who perpetuated this bullshit are no longer at the department. And they're no longer at the department not because reformers rooted them out, but because of the Defund movement, which created a culture around policing that is inherently skeptical, that demands real accountability, that says, "You can't be hitting us, and we're going to film you when you do," that demands more of cops, and that doesn't - yeah. And so, that seems to be the thing that worked to root out a number of these officers who've gone rogue, or whose mission as officers don't align with the City's mission - I'll just say that. [00:17:25] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, yeah, pretty much. [00:17:26] Rich Smith: Defund worked - I don't know what to tell you. It probably rooted out more bad apples than any consent decree could have. I really should put asterisks all over that, I don't have any numbers or whatever. But just anecdotally, every time they go to discipline one of these guys, they're not there anymore. And it's for a reason. [00:17:50] Crystal Fincher: I would say increasingly - I think that there's still a number up there. But, certainly increasingly, and certainly it's because there has been pressure applied and accountability demanded, and increasingly made possible by the Defund movement and its demands, and holding other lawmakers accountable for enacting that through policy and through investigation and action. So, we will see how that continues. This is not the only police story that came up this week. In my city of Kent, Washington, we - it came out - have a police chief, an assistant police chief, who displayed literal Nazi propaganda, who was disciplined for posting a Nazi insignia, and joking about the Holocaust. The more that we learn about this, the worse that it gets. He admittedly joked about the Holocaust, he admittedly - this was a long-running thing. He had shaved his facial hair once into a Hitler mustache, and repeatedly told a joke to the effect that - just a horrible joke, horrible anti-Semitic joke, obviously this is all anti-Semitic. And word was given that the discipline for this - for an assistant chief who had repeatedly joked about the Holocaust, who had acted consistent with Nazi behavior and literally posted Nazi insignias on his door in the police department - was a two week suspension. That's what initially came out. [00:19:34] Rich Smith: That'll do it. [00:19:35] Crystal Fincher: Obviously, public outcry. Obviously, a response from other City officials caused the mayor to reconsider and announced that she will be asking the union for this officer's resignation. Now obviously, firing may not be as simple in all of these situations to have it stick, but you can certainly act that way and then be like, "Okay, well, we dare you to try and get your job back, you person who are comfortable with Nazi actions and cosplay, and spreading that nasty infection to the rest of the department." I should note that this was caught because a detective under this assistant chief's command reported him after this insignia had been up for four days. One reported him - everyone else in the department, I'm sure, was not comfortable reporting an assistant chief to this. To me, this speaks a lot about the culture that is currently happening there - that this can happen and only one, thankfully one, but only one reported this. And my goodness, if the recommendation that comes back after an investigation is two weeks, then doesn't that indicate that this entire system is broken? There's a lot more broken here. [00:21:07] Rich Smith: Yeah. I mean, if you can't fire a Nazi cop for putting Third Reich insignia outside of his office door - and he wasn't just like some cop, right? [00:21:22] Crystal Fincher: Nope. [00:21:22] Rich Smith: This guy was the head of the Department of Special Investigations and Detective Unit - [00:21:28] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, Assistant Chief. [00:21:30] Rich Smith: Assistant Chief, yeah. And this guy's safe space sticker is a couple of Nazi patches. It's just - the plausible deniability stretches the bounds of the imagination. He says that he didn't know that the insignia was Nazi stuff, it was from a show. So, if you're fighting an improper dismissal case or whatever, it just - I guess this is where you end up in the process, with a two-week suspension. But you're right, you could try to fight it a little bit harder, and push and push and push on this guy's counter-story, and really continue to gather more of this evidence that he was just flagrantly doing Nazi stuff in the Kent Police Department. [00:22:23] Crystal Fincher: Openly in the Kent Police Department. And if you can't fire a Nazi cop, who can you fire? The investigation found - he tried to say, "You know, despite making anti-Semitic jokes, and despite giving myself a literal Hitler mustache - that Nazi insignia that I posted on my door, I had no idea it was actually a Nazi insignia." And the investigation found that that was not the case, the investigation found that he knowingly posted that, knowing that it was a Nazi insignia. Everything about this screams Nazi cop, because literally Nazi cop. And so, this is a situation - to me - and for a lot of departments when they have egregious actions like this, and then they say, "Well, given the how - with the cop contracts oftentimes are - it's hard to fire them. If they went through arbitration, they'd wind up back on the force." Well, test it, test it. Say, "We're making a stand. And if you force us, perhaps, but we're not doing this willingly." Make that stand. And so, I suppose that is now where the mayor is at, asking for the resignation. If he says no, then what? Kick him off - get him out. [00:23:46] Rich Smith: You know, I think maybe we should do anti-Nazi training. But, anti-Nazi is a little just one-sided, so we probably should do anti-extremist training. [00:23:55] Crystal Fincher: Oh my gosh. And look, I live in Kent - it is not like I haven't noticed the increase in Blue Lives Matter stickers on police vehicles, which has been an issue in other cities. And there's been pushback against in other cities - certainly this has been brought up and basically ignored by City leadership. Would love to hear some accountability on that. There's a lot to find when you look into the City of Kent. [00:24:26] Rich Smith: Yes, yeah, and there should be more - yeah, much more scrutiny on a lot of these, the goings-on in these suburban cities. But, just the whole Nazi cop thing, or alleged Nazi cop thing goes back to this - how do you change the culture in these institutions? And the reformist answer seems to be - you change it by training, you change it by putting pressure on the higher-ups to be accountable to the people they oversee - these are their answers. It just goes back to how challenging it is going to be for reformists to really change the culture of these institutions, especially when the culture right now of these institutions is self-victimization, a feeling like that they're the guardians, literally, against chaos in society. And a number of them are attracted to - everyone goes where they're flattered - and so the cops are going to conservative wings of political thought, where they're bathed and flattered. And this is all contributing to being a little bit more permissive of the old Nazi insignia on the door. I don't know how you rearrange that without drastically changing who a cop is and what a cop does. I think that that's where you have to start making change, rather than saying like, "We're going to tell your boss on you," or, "We're going to train you to not be a Nazi." I think that those reforms haven't worked, as well as- [00:26:09] Crystal Fincher: They have failed. [00:26:10] Rich Smith: Yeah, yeah. [00:26:12] Crystal Fincher: They have failed. [00:26:13] Rich Smith: And yeah, going back to what I said earlier, the Defund movement did more to root out these kinds of cops than any of these reforms seem to. I don't know that for sure, but that seems to be what we're learning anecdotally. [00:26:25] Crystal Fincher: Well, it certainly has brought - it says in no uncertain terms that the resources that we continue to dedicate to the things that have not worked, that have not worked to make us safer - bottom line - and that have not worked to curb this behavior in all of these departments. It has not worked, so why are we continuing to dump more resources in the same types of things? We're at a time now where we just had a lot of new lawmakers sworn in - lots of city councils, new mayors sworn in - and they have the opportunity to lead in a different way than we've seen before. We have a new legislative session that's about to start, and there's the opportunity there for them to take substantive action to fill in the gaps in accountability that exist. And I would just urge these people to look at these situations, and to look at how inadequate our laws, regulations, have been in addressing this - and understanding the need for more accountability. That we've tried training, we've tried all of these types of, "Don't you see how bad this is?" And the only thing that seems to be effective at getting people to see how bad it is is treating them - is acting on our behalf, as if it's actually bad - and holding people accountable. We're having this conversation at the same time that we have a new City Attorney in Seattle who is talking about prosecuting crimes. We are more comfortable as a society talking about the consequences for stealing a loaf of bread than we are for being a Nazi assistant police chief, and I am just sick of it. I cannot stand it, and I urge people to take substantive action. It is time to be bold - this is why people were elected. Please do something. [00:28:18] Rich Smith: Would you mind for a moment if we did see what the legislators are up to over - [00:28:21] Crystal Fincher: Let's look at that - you actually - there was a wonderful article that you wrote about this that covered a lot of this. And one directly ties to - a number directly tie to policing. One, an issue directly tied to the lying - ruses in SPD. What is on tap in the legislative session that's about to start on Monday? [00:28:55] Rich Smith: That's right. We've got a 60-day session coming up - short session - mostly just tweaking stuff going on, mostly just kind of working multi-year bills that people know are going to take a bunch of time to get over the finish line. And of course, we've got to pass, I think, around a $60 billion supplemental budget, so there's some consideration about how to use a lot of one-time millions and one-time federal funding. But, there is some policing stuff going on in terms of the proposed bills, thus far - related to lying - House Bill 1690, if you want to follow it, Rep Strom Peterson, of all people - a Democrat - wants to render inadmissible evidence gathered from cops who lie to suspects during interrogation. So that, if passed - if a cop is interrogating somebody and they invent a ruse or a lie - say, "Your dad told me you did it, your friends told me you did it," and that produces a false confession or some piece of evidence that is going to be submitted in court later. This law passes and says, "We're not going to take that evidence." So, the thinking being that that would deter cops from using this tactic to produce evidence, which would be no good to them in a court anyway. So, that wouldn't stop cops from using ruses of the kind that helped to start CHOP in the City. But, it would potentially lower the use of this tactic, which young people are particularly vulnerable to. For instance, the Central Park Five - they picked them up because the cop lied and said that their friends had already ratted on them. And so, they drew false confessions that way. More recently, in 2019, I think a Seattle police officer was interrogating a guy who they suspected of hitting a bunch of parked cars - didn't injure anybody, but the cop told him that he had left one person in critical condition. A little while after that, the guy, feeling so sad that he had done something that killed somebody - he thought killed somebody - committed suicide as a result of that. So, I don't know if it should be illegal for cops to do ruses. But, these kinds of - I'm sure that they don't want to unilaterally disarm when suspects themselves do ruses to try to escape accountability from laws that we decide that we want as a society or whatever. But, there should be some guard rails around how badly you could lie, to what extent evidence produced through this really tricky, potentially disastrous tactic can be used. And, that seems like a good one in particular. [00:32:15] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and there's a lot of others. I mean, you've rounded up - there's gun legislation to ban high-capacity magazines, close the ghost gun loophole. There's bills to address income inequality - work continues with Rep Noel Frame. And work on the guaranteed basic income policy, sponsored by Liz Berry. Lots of good stuff in there, lots of criminal justice reform, a number of them - bill to allow for the legal grow and therapeutic guiding of trips for psilocybin - which has been legalized in a lot of other places. Certainly, the frequently-talked about Washington Cares Act, and figuring out what to do with that. Environmental bills to reduce emissions from gas companies, to make buildings more efficient, make packaging more recyclable. One that I am tracking closely and in favor of - by Mia Gregerson - to move local elections to even-numbered years with Rep Debra Entenman. A lot of stuff there - are there any other ones that stick out to you? [00:33:26] Rich Smith: Yeah. The big one for me, this year, that I'll probably be screaming about - I won't be alone in it, I'm sure, is Senate Bill 5670, House Bill 1782. They're identical bills - it's just the House bill and the Senate version - sponsored by Mona Das in the Senate and Jessica Bateman in the House. And it would legalize multi-unit homes statewide - I don't know how you want to put it - abolish single-family zoning statewide under certain criteria. That criteria, not to bore people, but everywhere within a half a mile of rapid transit - that is like bus stops that come every 15 minutes, rail, ferry stop - you're going to legalize up to sixplexes, basically. And then cities with lower populations, under 20,000, they'll have to take less density. I think it goes down to quads. And then cities under 10,000, they have to take duplexes. There's an alternative for cities who don't want to do that - where they have a formula - and then they get to put the density wherever they want to, but they can't perpetuate racism in doing so. So, that's kind of the basic structure of the bill. Oregon has already legalized apartments and homes and multi-unit homes everywhere. California has already legalized apartments and multi-unit homes everywhere. Minneapolis has done this. The sky hasn't fallen. It's absolutely necessary because we have a 250,000 unit-strong housing deficit. This has tragicomically - sorry, this has raised the price of homes to tragicomically high levels. The only place a first-time home buyer can afford to live is in like, Ferry County. There's six counties, there's seven counties, in the eastern part of the state where you can technically afford to buy a home if it's your first one. Everywhere else is astronomical and damn-near impossible to own affordably. We're only building 44,000 units a year, so that's not going to keep up with the number of units we need to solve this housing crisis. They've been trying to pass this bill for four years, and this year there's some reason for excitement, because Governor Inslee has put his weight behind it. However, there's still plenty of opposition - you've got the Association of Washington Cities, which represent cities, which are filled by NIMBYs, because they think that adding more density is going to lower their property values, which is going to tank their retirement prospects, because we live in a society that for some reason links the price of our house to whether or not we get to comfortably retire in old age. That's a separate episode. But, there's a lot of strong opposition to this bill, so - at a press conference yesterday, the leadership didn't sound too enthused about it. So, it's going to take a big - if you want to try to save the housing crisis with a market-based solution this year, you're going to want to be tracking this bill. And every time it gets a hearing you're going to want to sign up to talk about it, say how much you can't afford a house in your own neighborhood, et cetera. And you're going to want to push your lawmakers, because right now they're hearing from NIMBYs - the default is, don't allow this density. So, yeah. [00:37:12] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. And many of them live in those neighborhoods, and have those tendencies themselves - [00:37:16] Rich Smith: That's right. [00:37:16] Crystal Fincher: - realistically, and are hearing this from their literal next-door neighbors. So, it is critical that people make a phone call, send an email to your legislator to say, "Hey, absolutely support this. I'm excited about it. I am expecting you to support it and will be paying attention." And to sign in when the bill has a hearing as it goes through the process. People have to know and hear from people who want this legislation, because NIMBYs mobilize for this, always, big time. And, they're in the minority. We see poll after poll that says that they are not the majority here, but the majority isn't used to advocating in the same way and pushing those same levers of power for these issues. And we really need to. [00:38:02] Rich Smith: Yeah. And it's hard to tell - and you've got to do it blanket. You can't assume because you think you have a progressive representative that they're going to be automatically on board. You cannot name one Democratic Senator in the Senate right now who is like - you could name any of them, and then say, "This person is going to vote against this bill," and that would make sense to me. I don't know who opposes it, but there's a reason it hasn't passed in four years. There's a reason why Mona Das has to keep trying, who's a renter by the way. She's also a mortgage broker, but she's also a renter. And, so any one of these people could be problem children to getting this, again, market-based solution. I mean, we're talking about letting people build. I thought that this was what you all were about, you know? I thought you guys were super into this kind of thing. But yeah, so, anyway, this is all to say - don't give your representative the benefit of the doubt because you think they're progressive. They could be a NIMBY in hiding, you know? [00:39:14] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely correct. Well, I just want to take these last few minutes on the show to talk about another event that was covered this week - the Bruce Harrell inaugural press conference. After being sworn in, he made a speech - we now have Mayor Harrell, Mayor Durkan is no more - no more in office, she's certainly around - who knows where she's going to end, like go, I don't know, maybe she's going to run away from Seattle. But, Bruce Harrell is here, and he made a very bold-sounding speech. And I just wanted to talk about a few of the specifics in his speech, or what he brought, and some of them had specifics. One kind of immediate thing - he's still weighing whether to extend the eviction moratorium, which ends on January 15th. Obviously the Rona is here, the Omicron variant is just continuing to dance through our lives. We are in the middle of a pandemic, we aren't beyond it - certainly parents are struggling with how to approach school, schools are struggling to just be staffed at a level that they can have staff in classrooms. Now we're not even at just teachers in classrooms, just any adult staff member is filling in in many places, in many districts. It's a hard thing. And in the midst of this obviously we're still dealing with the same issues of people taking care of sick relatives, people they are living with, living with immunocompromised people. And so, we don't know - he said he would be looking at the data and figuring that out. So, we can expect an upcoming announcement on whether or not that's going to continue, and I'm sure your feedback on whether he should continue that would be helpful. Chief Diaz is - oh, go ahead. [00:41:05] Rich Smith: Yeah, just to add, there was an important report in The Times this morning that the County doesn't have enough money to handle all of the rent assistance applications that has come its way. So, there's 10,000 requests for rental assistance that the County is not processing - [00:41:25] Crystal Fincher: Oh my gosh. [00:41:26] Rich Smith: - as of November. The County asked for $120 million from the Feds to cover the gap. So, if Bruce doesn't - I mean, and so - that's 10,000 people who say that they're behind on rent - in King County - I don't know how many particularly in Seattle. If Harrell lifts the eviction moratorium, that's that. And then those people could face eviction for non-payment of the rent. [00:41:57] Crystal Fincher: That's the trigger, yep. [00:41:58] Rich Smith: And so, that's something to - hopefully that the Harrell administration is considering. And also he says that he wants to strike some kind of balance between keeping vulnerable people housed, and making it so that vulnerable landlords don't feel like they have to sell their rental property and potentially decrease the rental housing stock. That's another conversation, but this is what he's balancing. Okay, he hinted that he was going to maybe rewrite some version of the moratorium, maybe he'll just keep it for another month based on The Seattle Times report, the amount of need that's out there. But, it's a huge problem, it's a big thing that the Harrell administration needs to deal with right now, and it's happening next week. [00:42:49] Crystal Fincher: Yeah - very, very big thing. And that was a very important data point to be considered. Another one - Chief Adrian Diaz might stay - Bruce Harrell didn't say that he was definitely going to leave, that they had some evaluation to do, that he needed to set expectations, and they needed to talk about those. And so it's possible that Chief Diaz stays, or that he embarks upon a nationwide search. He brought up that the City will pursue climate policies towards net zero emissions so that there'd be an early focus on electric cars. But that there weren't many specifics there, so we will wait to see what happens there. You know, another big thing that I was not expecting - that was intriguing, actually - and that could turn out to be very good. He said that he wanted to provide healthcare for every Seattle resident. That would be big, that would be awesome if that actually turned out to be every Seattle resident, if that included mental healthcare - like comprehensive healthcare for every Seattle resident would be great. Announced that as an initiative, where they said that they're coming up with the parameters to evaluate who does and who doesn't have healthcare so far, and figuring that out. So, we still have to see what the specifics of this are going to be. [00:44:15] Rich Smith: Yeah, finding money in the City budget - if it takes any money to provide healthcare for people as a City, finding that money in the City budget sounds like a real challenge. But, it's a worthy one. I don't know of many municipalities that offer healthcare for all in this way. I think New York City - Bill de Blasio did one - I should have looked that up before we started talking. But yeah, it seems like it would cost a lot of money, and he's got Tim Burgess on the case, the Strategic Initiatives Lead that he hired - former mayor, former City Councilman of many years, I think 12, don't quote me on that - and Burgess is a former cop, but he has led, I think, on some health initiatives. He made a big deal out of the Nurse-Family Partnership whenever he was on the Council. So, it's not crazy to have him do this - he's created healthcare policy, or worked on healthcare policy before. There's another person who's working with Burgess on this, I can't remember her name. But, in any event - so yeah, it would be a big deal, it would be cool, it will be interesting to see what they end up doing. From the sound of it, it was like, "We've got to get a dashboard spreadsheet of who's sick first," and yeah. [00:45:44] Crystal Fincher: One of my takeaways was that this is going to be an administration that loves dashboards - there was talk about data and dashboards for everything. We'll see how that turns out, but that certainly was a big, bold proposal that would be a huge win for everybody. [00:46:02] Rich Smith: Yeah. [00:46:03] Crystal Fincher: For residents of Seattle. He also talked about making noticeable change, noticeable progress, on housing people, on reducing our unhoused population - in the first quarter, I believe he said. And so, I'm going to be excited to see how he conducts that. He said that he's excited to get people into housing. And if he can get people into housing and there's a noticeable difference, I don't know anyone who is opposed to that. Now, if this is a sweeps-based solution, I think there's a lot of people who are not going to be happy with that. But it will be very interesting to see - again, they said that they're still collecting a lot of data, but he said that is one area where we can expect to see noticeable improvement. So, I truly hope - I don't think there's anyone who does not want people to be housed who are not housed. And I hope that there's listening to people who are telling people - there's this narrative about "refusing services." When people are offered services - that can be a very misleading statement - because a lot of times those services aren't available or applicable to their situation. But also, there are reasons why the services available may not meet the needs of the people on the ground. And so, I hope we're listening to what people say will meet their needs, and build towards what will meet their needs and solve this issue and house people. If that happens, I think we're all waiting to applaud Bruce Harrell for that. [00:47:33] Rich Smith: That's right. And he also said - on the getting houses for those people to live in, or for everyone to live in - he talked about housing for all, and making sure everyone had an affordable place to live. His first action was going to be to - he did an executive order to look at permitting processes. And it sounded like he wanted to streamline permitting - which is a thing that people say, but that's going to be interesting to see what he gets back. I mean, permitting - what's he going to get? It's a bunch of ideas that sound good on their own. So if he gets a list back and sees what kinds of permitting people need to do to build housing, what's Bruce Harrell administration going to get rid of? Are they going to get rid of design review, are they going to get rid of MHA, are they going to get rid of sprinklers for town homes, are they going to get rid of environmental review? I wonder if the Bruce Harrell administration is going to get rid of any of these processes that have built up around building housing. We know what it's going to take to get housing for all, and it's a billion dollars a year for 10 years, with the current affordable housing scheme that cities have concocted. Or, it's going to take massive investment in public or social housing, so we can put people inside. And so, maybe streamlined permitting can work a little bit, but it'll be interesting to see how we want to streamline that process. Not saying that there's not room for improvement, there definitely is. I don't give a **** about design review, I imagine the Harrell administration does. But, maybe they don't - I don't know, surprise me. Yeah, there's a lot more reporting to do on this. [00:49:30] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I mean, it will be interesting. Also, there is a - on the subject of zoning specifically - was a little bit fuzzy on that, but he said, quote, "We'll fill in the gaps where zoning is already available for housing and construction and density. And our Chief Operating Officer, Marco Lowe (a name that Hacks & Wonks listeners will be familiar with, as he's a co-host sometimes on Hacks & Wonks) who not only has deep experience in City Hall but also actual experience in the housing industry, will lead this critical effort. So, as we embark on a City-wide master plan update - and again, it's time for that master plan update. As many of you are aware, we'll look at opportunities to address every neighborhood to address the shortage of quality housing at every income level." So, not specifics there - a plan to address it, a point person named, and Marco Lowe to do it. And so, eager to see what results from that, but certainly results are needed. [00:50:26] Rich Smith: More power to - let them know, Marco. [00:50:34] Crystal Fincher: Marco's certainly competent, on the case, and I hope that they can make substantive progress. I believe Marco can - hopefully the intentions of the administration are truly to do that. And again - that happens, everybody wins. People are waiting to applaud that. [00:50:55] Rich Smith: It'll be an interesting four years. [00:50:57] Crystal Fincher: It will be, it definitely will be. Well, thank you. [00:51:00] Rich Smith: If he brings back the Sonics, that's going to be eight years. I've been telling you, this is the one thing - anyway, I don't want to start a new topic, but it'll be an interesting four or eight years depending on whether or not Bruce Harrell brings back the Sonics. [00:51:14] Crystal Fincher: Look, you know what? If he brings back the Sonics - yeah, that's going to be a whole thing, that's going to be a whole thing. And my goodness, looking at some of these other clubs around the country. And look, I don't want to take a team from the other city, but they have really messed things up in Oklahoma City. Wow, they did not earn the Sonics, they did not. They are a mess, they are trifling and shady and ridiculous and shameful. And anyway, I mean, I'm a Lakers fan, so you know. But I mean, the Sonics have a place in my heart. Kevin Durant has a place in my heart, we just - we need the Sonics back here. All right. We are more than beyond our time, but I just want to thank everybody for listening to Hacks & Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM, this Friday, January 7th 2022. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler, with assistance from Shannon Cheng. And our wonderful co-host today was Associate Editor of The Stranger, Rich Smith. You can find Rich on Twitter @richsssmith, with three S's in the middle. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, with two I's at the end. Now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts, just type "Hacks & Wonks" into the search bar, be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live show and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave us a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show - all the great articles that we talked about - at OfficialHacksAndWonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in, we'll talk to you next time.

This week's episode we're joined by one of Spain's ice dance teams, which is one of the most watched stoires of this season in figure skating., Olivia Smart and Adrian Diaz the current Spanish National Champions. We talk about how they're partnership began, they're relationship on the ice, the path they've been on. As well as so much more, including what its like training at the IAM school, what the pandemic has taught them. It's a great talk we can't wait for you to hear about!

It is the second senior Grand Prix event of the season and we are already exhausted, and the men's continued chaos does not help one bit. Fortunately in this Skate Canada Men and Ice Dance episode, there were some relieving and joyful moments as well.In the Ice Dance event, we pleaded with Zach Lagha to sell his Rio beak masks, continued to be both 3000 and 8 and 2000 and late with another Boom Boom Pow program, and gave bold predictions about Piper Gilles and Paul Poirier on the Olympic podium.In the Men's event, we were worried about Keegan Messing (although very much appreciated the photos of Lane and Wyatt in the K&C), and surprised by the sudden appearance of Avril Lavigne in the Matrix. We also breathed a collective sigh of relief for Nathan Chen (but not for Raf).Timestamps(00:00) - Intro(01:15) - ICE DANCE(01:55) - Haley Sales & Nikolas Wamsteeker(04:55) - Elizaveta Shanaeva & Devid Naryzhnyy(08:55) - Christina Carreira & Anthony Ponomarenko(10:52) - Lilah Fear & Lewis Gibson(15:08) - Marjorie Lajoie & Zachary Lagha(19:29) - Diana Davis & Gleb Smolkin(26:23) - Caroline Green & Michael Parsons(29:05) - Olivia Smart & Adrian Diaz(31:00) - Charlene Guignard & Marco Fabbri(32:46) - Piper Gilles & Paul Poirier(36:38) - MEN(37:20) - Roman Sadovsky(39:20) - Tomoki Hiwatashi(41:51) - TANAKA Keiji(44:35) - Conrad Orzel(47:16) - Alexander Samarin(51:03) - YAMAMOTO Sota(53:29) - Morisi Kvitelashvili(56:22) - Keegan Messing(1:01:10) - Makar Ignatov(1:04:32) - Evgeni Semenenko(1:06:46) - Jason Brown(1:09:29) - Nathan Chen(1:14:49) - Situation with Rafael Artyunyan(1:16:22) - Outro------------------------------------------------Follow our figure skating podcast on:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lutzgetdownpod/   Twitter: https://twitter.com/lutzgetdownpod And to work with us please contact lutzgetdownpod@gmail.com Logo design by @dezisartvibes on Instagramxx Joce & Clauds

Would it really be a men's event if chaos did not abound? We will never know the answer to that as at Skate America, we again did not see peace. We talked about how everyone should lay off Nathan Chen and how we love happy and confident Vincent Zhou and the benefits of skating to a program with your name as the title. We also questioned who Joce's clubbing buddy is now that Uno Shoma is skating to Vivaldi and Bolero, and cried for and with Kevin Aymoz while joining the audience for a standing ovation.In the dance event, we pondered the placement of Yehor Yehorov's worm-ing on the ice, dated ourselves by revealing how old we were when Boom Boom Pow topped the charts, and learned the true meaning of Too Darn Hot with Evan Bates' highly insulated free dance costume.Timestamps:(00:00) - Intro(01:07) - ICE DANCE(02:38) - Molly Cesanek & Yehor Yehorov(05:06) - Carolane Soucisse & Shane Firus(06:04) - Natalia Kaliszek & Maksym Spodyriev(06:37) - KOMATSUBARA Misato & Tim Koleto(09:28) - Annabelle Morozov & Andrei Bagin(13:11) - Olivia Smart & Adrian Diaz(16:00) - Laurence Fournier Beaudry & Nikolaj Sørensen(17:55) - Madison Chock & Evan Bates(23:19) - Madison Hubbell & Zach Donohue(26:06) - MEN(26:23) - Kevin Aymoz(28:52) - Artur Danielian(30:27) - Adam Siao Him Fa(33:27) - Nam Nguyen(36:15) - Daniel Grassl(39:19) - Michal Brezina(40:50) - Jimmy Ma(44:09) - SATO Shun(46:44) - Nathan Chen(54:28) - UNO Shoma(58:03) - Vincent Zhou(1:02:46) - Outro------------------------------------------------Follow our figure skating podcast on:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lutzgetdownpod/   Twitter: https://twitter.com/lutzgetdownpod And to work with us please contact lutzgetdownpod@gmail.com Logo design by @dezisartvibes on Instagramxx Joce & Clauds

GUEST: Chief Adrian Diaz, SPD, on the spike in gun violence in Seattle and what the city needs from its next mayor // GEE & URSULA AGREE, TO DISAGREE // WE HEAR YOU! and WORDS TO LIVE BY See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of the Niche Website Builders Podcast, Adam Smith talks to Adrian Diaz from Hasta La Vista Boss about leaving his demanding day job to make his dream of earning a full-time income online a reality. Better late than never! Adrian has tried many methods and ways to make money online. He has explored Amazon affiliate sites, lead-gen, selling merchandise, YouTube channels, investing in real estate, and running a podcast while working a full-time construction job. Links: Adrian Diaz on YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/c/HastaLaVistaBoss/ Hasta La Vista Boss on Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/groups/HastaLaVistaBoss/ Hasta La Vista Boss Podcast – https://anchor.fm/hasta-la-vista-boss Hasta La Vista Boss Website – https://hastalavistaboss.net/ Niche Website Builders: Aged Domains – https://www.nichewebsite.builders/domains Niche Website Builders: Resources – https://www.nichewebsite.builders/resources Niche Website Builders – https://www.nichewebsite.builders/ Niche Website Builders Podcast – https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/niche-website-builders/id1548013326 Niche Website Builders on YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDX_rVwDP_IQVx1tjn_h8dQ Niche Website Builders on Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/nichewebsitebuilders/ Niche Website Builders' Email – team@nichewebsite.builders

 What's Trending: The CDC is reversing policy on mask recommendations again, political theater in the January 6th commission, Adrian Diaz notes that gang violence is responsible for much of the homicides, they're stolen guns, and says there's been an uptick in gun shots being fired from homeless encampments. What the hell did Joe Biden say?   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

 Adrian Diaz the Seattle Police chief is a fool for his comments on recent Seattle shootings, FBI agent involved with Whitmer kidnapping assaulted his wife after a swingers party, // Why there was not any more police presence at jan 6. Many requests ignored or rejected, two different stories of the truth from each political side, //  covid injections just sometimes make people less sick, not protection, Bosses in UK want social credit on vaccine passports as a means of ID (circumstantial evidence), Canada Bill 36 is a hate bill See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Abogada laboral Atabey Lamela y Lic. Adrian Diaz: ¿Como protege la ley a empleados de no ser forzados a vacunarse. Segunda parte.

Abogada laboral Atabey Lamela y Lic. Adrian Diaz: ¿Como protege la ley a empleados de no ser forzados a vacunarse.

Listen in as active duty Special Agent Adrian Diaz of the Diplomatic Security Service shares the stories of his 17 years of service at assignments across the globe including Monrovia Liberia, Tallil Iraq, Sao Paolo Brazil, MSD, ATA and others.  Sponsored By: Liberty RisQ Apparel (www.libertyrisq.com) - We Go Above and Beyond. 

Dr. Heena P. Santry and Dr. Adrian Diaz are interviewed on the JOGS article titled "Re-examining “Never Letting the Sun Rise or Set on a Bowel Obstruction” in the Era of Acute Care Surgery" which was published in JOGS Volume 25, pages 512–522 (2021).  

Acting Seattle Police Department Chief Adrian Diaz told KOMO News Tuesday that his department is experiencing a staffing crisis as it looks to fill vacant positions that have resulted from officers leaving the agency to pursue jobs with other agencies.According to new data, the agency has shed roughly 200 in-service officers since the beginning of 2019 but Diaz said they currently have 1,080 officers ready to deploy.Diaz, who was tapped to fill the role after former Chief Carmen Best retired suddenly last summer, said current staffing levels don’t allow for an adequate response to 911 calls.“At this staffing level, no," he said. "We are struggling to making sure we’re responding to all calls for service."Join your host Sean Reynolds, owner of Summit Properties NW and Reynolds & Kline Appraisal as he takes a look at this developing topic.Support the show (https://buymeacoff.ee/seattlepodcast)

What's Trending: The CDC says it is okay to wear masks outside if you are vaccinated, Sen Joe Nguyen announces that he is running for King County Executive, and some states look into new ways to set pot policy by its amount of THC. Interim Seattle Police Chief Adrian Diaz reacts to the mass exodus of police and the outing of the officers who purportedly attended the Trump rally in D.C. Where is the accountability? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today's show dives into the details of policing, with guest David Kroman from Crosscut joining Crystal to go over alternatives to armed police response, what other cities have tried, and what metrics we use to measure policing. Additionally, they cover what the new Seattle mayor and the city council can actually do in the face of Seattle Police Officer's Guild power. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii. More information is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources: Listen to the This Changes Everything podcast, hosted by Sara Bernard, featuring David Kroman here: https://thischanges.podbean.com/. Specifically check out this episode about the political reality of defunding the police: https://thischanges.podbean.com/. Learn about the challenges to fundamentally changing Seattle policing here: https://crosscut.com/news/2021/02/coalition-building-could-be-harder-ever-race-seattle-mayor. Learn about Eugene, Oregon's alternatives to policing here: https://crosscut.com/podcast/changes-everything/2/4/podcast-oregon-citys-decades-old-alternative-police  Read about barriers to police accountability here: https://www.aclu-wa.org/story/barriers-police-accountability-role-collective-bargaining-agreements-and-private-arbitration    Transcript: Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] Welcome to Hacks and Wonks. I'm your host, Crystal Fincher. On this show, we talk to political hacks and policy wonks to gather insight into local politics and policy through the lens of those doing the work and provide behind-the-scenes perspectives on politics in our state. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes.  Well today, we are pleased to be welcoming David Kroman who is a Crosscut Reporter covering Seattle politics and policy. Thank you so much for joining us. David Kroman: [00:00:59] Hi Crystal, thanks for having me. Crystal Fincher: [00:01:01] Well we are really excited to talk to you, because we've been paying attention to what's been happening with the Seattle Police Department - different developments. And you have been covering all facets of policy and events with the Seattle Police Department - and have been doing a wonderful job. So we thought we wanted to have you in to just give us an overview, to start, on where things stand with the SPD right now - after the council voted last year to reduce funding for the SPD, invest in some community alternatives. How is that proceeding right now and what's going on? David Kroman: [00:01:43] I would say that it's sort of in a holding pattern right now would be the best way I can describe it. I mean, there was obviously the flurry of activity in the summer and then to a certain extent in the fall. We saw a lot of officers leave the force and not be replaced, so there was this reduction. And so it was this frantic moment - but now it feels more like we're in this phase where the City Council is still charting its path forward for the year. Which includes working with community groups, figuring out how they're going to be working with those community groups, which community groups. And then questions going forward about how they want to address the size of the police force, whether they want to continue letting officers leave and not be replaced, or whether they want to wait until they have more programs in place before they allow that to happen. I think it's this, maybe eye of the storm you could say - had a lot of activity towards the end of last year and I'm sure we will have a lot of activity in the coming year. But I think for right now it feels a little quiet as people prepare themselves for that. Crystal Fincher: [00:03:02] It does feel a little quiet and so on the issue of staffing - are staffing levels at where they're going to be for at least the next year? Is there any plan to reduce any more or where does that stand? David Kroman: [00:03:16] I think a lot of that actually, it probably depends on the cops themselves. I mean the thing is, I mean - the City Council expressed their desire to reduce the size of the police force but the way it reduced - they never actually had to do that. I mean, the cops left on their own and then because of the hiring freezes that were in place because of COVID-19, they just didn't get replaced. So that achieved the City Council's goal for them but it also means that maybe they didn't have quite as much control over that situation. And so I think it remains to be seen what the staffing level looks like, because we'll see how many cops decide to leave. We'll see what the city does around hiring freezes and its budget with COVID-19. And so the staffing - I think could do anything from actually - grow this year, if they decide that they want to replace people who are leaving, to reduce fairly dramatically, if they don't. And I don't know that we have a great read on how that's going to play out just yet. Crystal Fincher: [00:04:25] There was conversation I know from Councilmember Morales questioning how police are - how, I guess, the funding formula is provided and them using the amount of calls coming in to 911 as the basis for how many police they need to have on patrol. And questioning, well, should we be looking at that as all police calls or should we be limiting that to calls that require an armed emergency response? And has that conversation gotten anywhere, is that policy or the ability to change that on the docket at all? David Kroman: [00:05:05] Yeah, I think that's on the docket and that's also this larger debate around - you get at this point that there are certain metrics by which police departments like to measure their stats - make their arguments for greater staffing. One is comparing it to cities with similar populations, another is 911 response times, that sort of thing. But there's a lot of question as you get at around whether or not those are the best ways to actually measure that. And maybe the better way of thinking about this is priorities - what does or does not need to be responded to. There's not a ton of disagreement that dangerous, violent crime could use a police response, but there is a lot of disagreement around exactly how often what the police department are responding to actually falls under that category. So it goes into this damn lies and statistics saying, People can crunch the numbers in different ways that look differently and serve different arguments. So I think going forward though, the thing that we will probably hear the most about is crisis calls and how cops are responding to people in crisis. In part because there are concrete models that exist already for substituting police response to those calls with crisis calls. I think it'll be less about numbers and response times and more about priorities and what should or should not the police department would be responding to. Crystal Fincher: [00:06:48] Well, you mentioned those concrete models that were already in place and a lot of people are wondering - what are these community alternatives? What are the models that are alternatives to an armed police officer response? David Kroman: [00:07:06] I mentioned crisis calls and a lot of my coverage have focused on crisis calls, I think in part, because a) it seems to be the area where there's the broadest agreement between politicians and even people in law enforcement - that this is a thing that police officers maybe should be doing fewer of and want to be doing fewer of. And b) it's also an area where there are places like, in Eugene, Oregon - CAHOOTS, or Denver - their STAR program. And I think even up in Snohomish County there might be a program, or at least a pilot program, in which they have really made a concerted effort to not send police to a lot of these calls and it seems to be working. In Eugene, again, a much smaller city than Seattle. So it's a little simplistic but something like 20% of their total call volume now goes to these people who are not actually police officers. And so - that I think is the most concrete area, because there are these proven programs or they've been tested.  Some of the trickier stuff, I think, is about community safety and how you change that because that isn't necessarily always about people in crisis or people dealing with substance use. I mean, that's the broader question around when police show up, is it actually making communities safer? A lot of people are arguing, no. That's the area where I think to have these community level programs, or almost community watch groups - that's really new territory that would be genuinely innovative and also in some ways trickier because they don't really have these concrete models that they can follow. There's some talk around it - Community Passageways talking about having rapid response teams that can be ready to respond to even incidents of domestic violence or things like that. So I think those are in the earlier stages because they would be truly new and innovative programs, whereas crisis calls and substance use - they can pluck these programs from other places. Crystal Fincher: [00:09:30] So have any of these been funded or where is implementation standing in Seattle? David Kroman: [00:09:38] Well, there's money - we know that. I mean, the mayor early on promised a $100 million dollars, the Council has increased that amount a bit. And so the money is out there - the question is how it gets allocated and to whom? We've seen the effort to figure out where this money should go splintered into a few different pots. There's the mayor's pot, which is this taskforce. The Council itself has dedicated - I think it was $18 million or something to start looking into alternatives to crisis response, so there's real money there. And then on the community safety level, there's this other $30 million that will theoretically be budgeted out through a "participatory budgeting program" which is basically a highly democratic approach to spending money. That is still in its really early stages and just this last week, there was some hiccups around the organizations that were involved with that and some tension there. But at least in theory, that's what the plan is to get this money out the door - but we're not there yet. The money is not really flowing yet in any super meaningful way. Crystal Fincher: [00:10:59] Where a lot of the conversation is centering right now is on the Seattle Police Officers Guild contract - their collective bargaining agreement and how much control that actually has over the issue of police reform, what's possible with officer discipline. Why is it so important and so consequential when it comes to officer discipline? David Kroman: [00:11:24] Because police union contracts are really unique in how much say they have over accountability measures and discipline. We had a pretty good example of just how powerful - in 2017, the City Council passed a bunch of new accountability processes for police officers that - no one at the time was really even arguing these were revolutionary ideas. They were just strengthening the pre-existing systems that they had, but they never really even got the chance to go into place because even the changes that were made in that 2017 legislation were - a lot of them were weakened or rolled back in a 2018 contract with the Seattle Police Officers Guild. Which I think just goes to show the power that these contracts have, especially at the state level. They're just given a ton of authority - basically meant that the City Council's efforts to close off friendly appeals processes was rolled back, their efforts to insert more civilian oversight into the systems were rolled back. So it was this fairly stark example of just how powerful these contracts can be. So going forward, when talking about accountability measures, getting language into a contract that guarantees that when there's discipline it will stick. And that the discipline that does exist is done independently and not with influence through friends of the officers, becomes really, really paramount. Not - setting aside the question of money, which is obviously a big part of contracts too, just these police officer contracts have a ton of power when it comes to how officers are or are not held accountable. Crystal Fincher: [00:13:16] Does it look likely that in this contract negotiation they will be able to negotiate that out? And what is the path forward if the police union says, "Absolutely not." And the City says, "Well, we're not moving forward without it." What happens then? David Kroman: [00:13:31] We've seen just how politically far apart the City is from the leadership of the Police Officers Guild. I mean, the president of the Police Officers Guild was blaming left-wing provocateurs for inciting the insurrection in Washington DC. So these two sides really could not be more different, and so coming together on accountability measures that the City is happy with is going to be a struggle. I would say as a sign of just how hard people in City Hall think it's going to be, Mayor Durkan has been in Olympia lobbying the State to basically pass a law rolling back how broad these contracts can reach and how easily officers can go to appeals and arbitrators to get out of discipline. Because she understands that without state level changes, that the City is going to have to negotiate these things and it's going to be a really tough battle. The things she's advocating for are almost certainly not going to pass Olympia, which means the City is going to be left to figure out how to deal with the police union. I think it's going to take years, at least. And then at risk of getting too wonky, the extra layer of wrinkle here is a federal judge who is involved because of the City's longstanding obligations to reform its police department under a consent decree. That federal judge is also really unhappy with the Seattle police contracts. So there's a question around what he might do and how he might step in and demand changes to bargaining processes, which would open up a whole new can of worms. I can say that it is going to be one of the most thorny legal and political things to happen. Not to mention - the mayor has not started these negotiations yet with the police union, even though the contract is now technically expired. She has a year to start them. I don't know if that's going to happen, but then at the end of that year, she's not going to be in office anymore. You're going to have a new mayor who might come in and decide that he or she has an entirely new strategy and wants to go a different direction on contract negotiation. So I think it's a minefield of complexities when it comes to renegotiating this contract and yet the stakes are really, really high. Crystal Fincher: [00:16:02] How is it going to be possible for them to meaningfully lay forward or lay down a plan that they feel is achievable when this contract isn't settled? Do you think that they're going to be able to speak credibly and come up with a plan that they can deliver without knowing what's going to wind up in the contract? David Kroman: [00:16:24] Yeah, I do. I mean, I think what they can do - what the contract doesn't prevent the Council from doing is building out the alternatives that we talked about. There are certain working conditions and pay questions and accountability questions that are real, legitimate things that are going to be really hard to get around in the contract. But what it doesn't prevent is budget cuts. I mean, the City Council can cut the police department's budget. And how layoffs happen is a contract issue, so that's sort of thorny. But if a mayor comes in and wants to cut the police department's budget, the contract can't stop that because that's a city level thing. And again, similarly, if the mayor wants to fund replacements for the police department, the contract also doesn't stop that.  What the contract does really make difficult is if there are certain sorts of officers that you want to get rid of and other officers that you want to keep, that's kind of tricky. We've seen some debate around - can you target layoffs at officers that you see as problem officers? I don't know that the contract makes that really hard. Can you prevent officers who have been fired or disciplined from having that discipline overturned? That is something that the contract makes really difficult. As far as wholesale trying to build a brand new public safety system, the City Council and the mayor can do that. That's a policy question. But as far as reforming the police department from inside out, that is the thing that the contract makes really difficult and will almost certainly make the job of the next mayor more difficult. Crystal Fincher: [00:18:22] Well, that's a really good point and in one way encouraging - that preventing contacts that then lead to a variety of things is within their wheelhouse. Working within the existing system, working through officer discipline, seems that's still very reliant on what the contract dictates - but they can move forward with some alternative models, as you talked about. Some of them have some real concrete examples of success in other areas that actually seems like they can accomplish and set forth quite a bit in terms of a plan of how to move forward. David Kroman: [00:19:02] I would say the caveat to that is how the police department is structured - is really just up to the Police Chief. We saw some of the limitations of the Council pretty quickly in the summer and the fall when they started making cuts to the budget and they passed these resolutions saying, "We would like to see these cuts targeted in this way. We want to cut Harbor Patrol and we want to cut Mounted Police." So we could see what their priorities were but the reality was they can't dictate that at all - it's up to the Police Chief to decide. The Police Chief has to absorb these cuts and make do with them, but it's the Police Chief's job to decide where those cuts should be targeted.  And so what we saw pretty quickly is that Interim Chief Adrian Diaz was absorbing some of those cuts and saying, "I'm going to pull people off of specialty units and put them towards 911 response, because that's my priority." Which meant we were seeing reductions in things like domestic violence response or internet crimes response, which were things that actually the City Council didn't want to see cut as much. They were interested in reducing the number of people who were responding to 911 calls. So the contract, maybe doesn't explicitly prevent the City Council from making targeted cuts, but what really prevents it is just that all of that authority really rests with currently, Adrian Diaz. And they can express to him what they would prefer to see, but it is his decision at the end of the day. Crystal Fincher: [00:20:30] And one thing that we're also going to see with the new mayor is an appointment of a permanent chief - looks like after they take office. What's on your radar most as you're looking at what's next with policing in Seattle? What are you watching? And what do you think is going to be most consequential? David Kroman: [00:20:47] Not going to be super interesting but I'm watching how this money is spent. There's money on the table in a way that there wasn't necessarily before. Where's it going to go, and who's going to get it? I think the City Council and the mayor understand that their changes have to be felt on the ground in a meaningful way. I think that was a lot of the frustration that we felt in the protest, which was promises from people like City Hall - we're working on things, things are getting better - but it just was not being felt or perceived in a real, tangible way on the ground. You've made these promises that you're going to create this new public safety system, and it's not going to come at the expense of individuals' feeling of being safe in the city. So are they going to succeed in that? I think a year from now, if they can't point to very specific things and people don't feel like things have improved, it only gets harder from there on out - the clock is ticking. I'm also going to be watching as you alluded to - whoever the next mayor is - is going to immediately launch a search for a new Police Chief. Mayor Durkan didn't formally acknowledge that she would leave it to the next mayor but has made it fairly clear that she's not going to launch a search for a permanent chief right now. So who that police chief is, I think will be a big symbolic and practical statement by the new mayor about which direction they want to head. Not to mention we still have this consent decree, that's been hanging in the background. The judge recently made it clear - he was going to get more involved in the daily budgeting and politics of City Hall, so that could be another wrinkle. Crystal Fincher: [00:22:33] Well, and it seems to be a present wrinkle - it looks like the judge and what he might rule has impacted a decision, even yesterday, on how to proceed with whether to ban tear gas or not. So is the consent decree helpful? Is it putting handcuffs on what the City Council is able to do? How does that impact the whole scenario? David Kroman: [00:22:59] The consent decree has become really interesting recently - you'll remember that over the summer the City actually filed to basically dismiss most of the consent decree, not all of it. I think the timing on that was really bad, because it came right as these protests were hitting their peak. And so it came across as the City trying to get out from underneath the accountability eye of a federal judge. So the symbolism of it was not great, got a pretty bad reaction, and the city backed off of it. At the same time, I was hearing from surprising people, people that you wouldn't necessarily expect to say this, "Look, the consent decree has run its course. What we are talking about in these protests - which is creating this fundamentally new form of public safety - that is not going to be achieved by the consent decree. And in fact, the consent decree could end up being a barrier to it because the federal judge wants to know every single change that is happening to the police department and he wants to be involved." This judge, Judge Robart, he's a really interesting judge. I think some judges pretend as if they live in this sealed capsule in their courtroom or whatever, and they will only consider things that come in via official filings. This judge is not like that - he reads the news, he comments on the news, he makes decisions based on what he reads in the news, he follows city politics and will readily comment on it. And just the other day, he made fairly clear that he was concerned about the way in which the City Council is operating. And you're totally right - the City Council not only was considering this bill on less lethal weapons, it was also considering cuts of another about $5.5 million dollars to the police department to make up for money that they said they needed last year to cover overtime expenses. They tabled that so that they could have more conversations with the Department of Justice and the consent decree. So the fact that this pretty liberal City Council has to run everything they do through - pass it over the desk of a long-serving judge who was appointed by George W. Bush, makes for a really interesting dynamic. And if you're the City Council, I'm not sure it's one that is all that helpful to your goals. Crystal Fincher: [00:25:24] So do you anticipate action, based on especially what we've seen recently, in preventing the Council from being able to pass more progressive policies with the expectation that they can be implemented? Are they going to move to get out from under the consent decree? David Kroman: [00:25:44] I don't know if they're going to move - and frankly, I think if they did move to get out from under the consent decree, he would reject it. I don't think he would grant that - I think he's not pleased with the current moment. He really liked Kathy O'Toole, the former police chief, and then he really liked Carmen Best, the successor. And he made it fairly clear he did not like her exit. He blamed the City Council for the fact that she left, which we could debate - we can have a whole conversation around whether that's a fair interpretation of things, but it is his interpretation of things. And as a federal judge, that's all that really matters. So I'm not sure he would let the City Council or the City get out from underneath the consent decree anymore. Whether or not he issues a ruling or not, I'm not sure. He likes to issue these kinds of threats - he has done blustery things in the past that don't always necessarily come with a commensurate hard-hitting demand or order. But it's possible he could hold the City in contempt of court if he feels like they are moving forward on things without properly checking in with him first. So that itself is going to be a really interesting dynamic to watch and I frankly don't think he's going to go anywhere. I think he's going to be here for at least the next year - we'll see. Crystal Fincher: [00:27:10] Okay, well that's certainly interesting and there are so many factors that we've covered here - that are outside of the City and not the mayor or the City Council - that are highly influential or that can straight up dictate what is going to happen with policing. And so is there any remedy beyond the judge? Can his decisions be appealed or is he just in control? David Kroman: [00:27:40] I don't know - that's a good question. I don't think I'm smart enough legally to know what happens when there's this fundamental disagreement. It'd be interesting to see how the Department of Justice, who is technically the opposition in this case that the city has to deal with. It'll be interesting to see their tone change - because for the last four years, they have been pretty absent from this whole thing because of who was in the White House. Now that there is a new president, it's possible that they might take a little more interest in what the City is or is not doing.  So I don't actually know the answer to that question - if they could elevate this to another level or not. I think at least with the current mayor and the current City Attorney, Pete Holmes, I think that's fairly unlikely. They've always been pretty deferential to this judge and wanted to do what he's asked. If there's a new more lefty mayor who - Lorena González said, over the summer, that she was over this reform stuff and wanted to rebuild in a more radical way. It's possible she would want the City to move to dismiss this in a more complete way - I don't know. But like you said, I think the broader point is that there are the things the City Council wants to do, and there's the things that the mayor wants to do, but the fact that you have both this contract with the Seattle Police Officers Guild to deal with and this federal judge to deal with is a hint that it might not always be up to them, exactly how this goes. Crystal Fincher: [00:29:32] We'll be staying tuned and certainly reading your coverage at Crosscut, to stay up to date on what is happening. You have been so informative, we've filled up the entire half an hour with talk about the police and you cover so much more. So maybe we can have you on again sometime to talk about the election and other events in the City. But sincerely appreciate you taking time to help enlighten us on where things stand and just what the situation is on what is possible and what's in our control in the City of Seattle and what's not. David Kroman: [00:30:02] Thanks so much for having me. I appreciate it. Crystal Fincher: [00:30:07] Thank you for listening to Hacks and Wonks. Our chief audio engineer at KVRU is Maurice Jones Jr. The producer of Hacks and Wonks is Lisl Stadler. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. And now you can follow Hacks and Wonks on iTunes, Spotify or wherever else you get your podcasts just type in "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe, to get our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. You can also get a full text transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced during the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes.  Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

Today Crystal and Ashley Archibald, local reporter and friend of the show, get in to what is going on with Covid-19 vaccine distribution, the local ramifications of the white supremacist insurrection in Washington, D.C., and the Seattle Police Officer's Guild president cosigning their actions. A full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Ashley Archibald, at @AshleyA_RC. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Articles Referenced: Vaccine reserve was exhausted when Trump administration vowed to release it, dashing hopes of expanded access by Isaac Stanley-Becker and Lena H. Sun, The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/01/15/trump-vaccine-reserve-used-up City Council members call for Seattle police union president to resign after Capitol remarks by David Gutman, The Seattle Times https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/pressure-mounts-on-seattle-police-union-president-mike-solan-following-capitol-siege-remarks-city-council-members-call-for-resignation/ SPD confirms two officers at U.S. Capitol riot, CPC seeks documents, and calls increase for SPOG president to resign by Paul Faruq Kiefer and Andrew Engelson, The South Seattle Emerald https://southseattleemerald.com/2021/01/11/spd-confirms-two-officers-at-u-s-capitol-riot-cpc-seeks-documents-and-calls-increase-for-spog-president-to-resign/   Transcript: Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] Welcome to Hacks and Wonks. I'm your host Crystal Fincher. On this show, we talk with Political Hacks and Policy Wonks to gather insight into state and local politics and policy through the lens of those doing the work and provide behind-the-scenes perspectives on politics in our state. Today, we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a guest co-host. Welcome back to the program today's guest, local journalist, Ashley Archibald.  Ashley Archibald: [00:00:25] Hi, thank you for having me.  Crystal Fincher: [00:00:27] Well, there certainly has been a lot that's transpired since the last time we have spoken . You know, so much has gone on - we had the insurrection and attempted coup at the Capitol, we have ongoing talks of violence, Joe Biden is supposed to be sworn in next week and Trump heading out. There is a lot going on locally still - Session just started - there's just so much happening - in the middle of a pandemic. So I guess the first place that we should probably start is just talking about where we stand with COVID and vaccinations. And when thinking about this show earlier in the week - thought, well, you know, we'll talk about how the vaccination - how vaccinations are running under the capacity that we have and we're having a hard time in this state and nationally, kind of across the board, getting all of the vaccine into people's arms. But actually this morning, there was a new dimension and wrench thrown into this story. Do you want to talk about that Ashley?  Ashley Archibald: [00:01:34] Sure. So the Washington Post came out with a story, and if somebody else got it first, my apologies, I saw it in WaPo. The Washington Post came out with a story that basically said that the reserves that we thought we had at the federal level of this vaccine that was supposed to make sure that people who got their first dose would also get their second doesn't exist. So earlier in the week, when the federal government said that they would be releasing all of the vaccine that was available and expanded the ability of people to get it to basically anybody over 65 from the previously a bit more constricted criteria, that was just impossible because they don't have additional doses of this vaccine, which is a little bit mind-blowing. Crystal Fincher: [00:02:19] It's absolutely mind-blowing. And just as a reminder, these vaccines are not a one shot deal. What was studied and what these vaccines are designed for is - two shots, around a month apart , and really designed - for the full efficacy, for the full effectiveness, you need both shots. That's what gets you to the 95% number that they achieved and observed in their clinical trials. So the thought was, Hey, America is starting out with 40 million doses. The federal government, from their own mouth, said, Hey, we're going to hold back 20 million of them, understanding that people need to get the second dose. So we'll get out the 20 million - get the first dose, get them scheduled for the second - but we know that we'll have 20 million people vaccinated with two doses. We're holding it back to make sure that everyone can get their second dose. States made plans based on that information. People have proceeded according to that. In the interim, some conversation did start - because we're in a pandemic that is spreading so rapidly, and this new strain is spreading so rapidly, and reports today say that they expect the new strain to be the predominant one in America by as early as March. And they said, Okay, well, you know, we're going to hold these back. And a lot of people said, Well, maybe just give everyone one and to help speed up the effort, we're gonna reduce the requirements and just anyone over 65 is now what the administration is recommending. And the CDC recommended just to give it to everyone over 65. States are in process, Washington is in process of developing high-volume vaccination sites, mobile vaccination sites, thinking that there is another 20 million doses being distributed throughout the country - we're going to double our supply. Only to hear this morning that, Hey, never mind. There is no more vaccine coming. You actually already have almost all of it. So this vaccination effort is so far behind and now half the small scope that we thought it was going to be. And for just the average person who is not a frontline health worker or first responder, I mean, we may not get the vaccine for, until late this year. What, what does this mean for the overall effort? Ashley Archibald: [00:04:51] Well, it's not good. It's not great, Crystal. I mean, we were already behind, we were already deploying these shots very slowly. There's a writer with The Atlantic whose name is, I believe, Zeynep Tufekci, and she's been very critical of the rollout of the vaccine, not specifically in Washington state, but in general, because people have been fairly precious about how they're releasing this. And it varies so much state by state, but the overall vaccination rate has been quite slow in general. And I understand why they were doing that - because they do want to prioritize people who are most at risk, like healthcare workers, frontline workers, essential workers, people in nursing homes, that sort of thing. And that does make good sense, but sometimes the perfect has been the enemy of the good here and we need people to be getting these shots in the arms. Because at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter if we have the extra 20 million doses of vaccine if we're not actually putting it in needles and injecting it. Crystal Fincher: [00:05:58] Right. And that has been a huge problem - here in Washington state, less than a quarter, less than 25% of the vaccine that we currently possess has been administered to people, has gotten into people's arms. And so, as this is raging, and as businesses are closed, and everything is on pause as we try to get this under control, it's pretty important to try and get this on track as soon as possible. And certainly , localities have been underfunded. They've requested a significant amount of funding from the administration to build out the necessary infrastructure to get this virus, to get the vaccine into people's arms , and have been denied that funding - it's been delayed. There's some that was part of this most recent package passed that is going to start to help the states, but that's just coming now. And so there's still a lot of infrastructure that is in process of being built, but now it looks like we may be - you know, we need to get the existing vaccine out and kind of do a surge with that, but at the same time, we seem to be building infrastructure that there is no vaccine left to use it for. So this just continues to be a mess and depressing and people's lives continue to be affected. People continue to get sick and die. You know, this has major consequences and will cost lives. And certainly a lot of wheels have been spinning - trying to get the infrastructure in place to deliver 40 million doses. And now we have half of that. It's just frustrating to be just a regular person and just to see this spiraling downhill and think, When is it going to stop? Even the light at the end of the tunnel seems to be getting further away again.  While we're dealing with this pandemic, we're also dealing with a wave of very violent and insurrectionist white supremacists that are roving the country. And we are not exempt from this locally , here in the Seattle area, and as a matter of fact, members of our own local police departments made their way to DC to try and overthrow the government. And on top of that, the head of the Seattle Police Guild made horribly false, demonstrably false, unprovable and inflammatory allegations - somehow in his logic, blaming Black Lives Matter for the Trump supporter insurrection at the Capitol. And sticking by it - doubling down on it. So, many people have called for his resignation, including the Seattle City Council, people who've been sympathetic to him in the past. He has been radicalized and his rhetoric continues to prove it. How do you see this week and what is happening within the police department and SPOG in regards to this insurrection and what it says about the state of law enforcement? Ashley Archibald: [00:09:11] It is - I mean, first of all, yes, it is demonstrably false that the insurrection on January 6 at the Capitol building where, you know, the Capitol was taken over and lawmakers were threatened , was a result of Black Lives Matter activists. And we are, we can - even us, who have no special knowledge, I feel, can feel very comfortable saying that - because I've read the articles. I have seen some of the quoted chats - this was planned in some part out in the open, it was encouraged by the President of the United States. You know, this is not, this is not a false flag operation by any stretch of the imagination. There's no evidence to suggest that - it's a little bit wild. At the same time, I think that it was also interesting to watch that information about the participation of SPD officers drop at like 9:30 on a Friday night. The Friday night news dump usually doesn't - usually doesn't mean like Friday, middle-of-the-night news dump, so that, that was unexpected but certainly noted by people who are interested in this information. And I think that, we will see what SPD does with that. It seems from the statement released by interim Chief, Adrian Diaz, that if people were simply there exercising their First Amendment rights in the places where it was legal to do so - they probably will not see consequences for that. It would be more of the actual, you know, storming of the Capitol that people need to have avoided. I think that is - that's basically what he said, right?  Crystal Fincher: [00:10:49] Yeah. That is what I recall him saying. Saying if they were part of the storming of the Capitol, they would definitely be fired, but that would have to be proven. If they weren't part of that activity that - he commented on being fired. I don't know if he commented on there being no disciplinary action, but certainly drew a distinction that just being in DC was not going to be the determining factor. And as I look at this, there are two issues - clearly , you know, someone that was involved in the storming of the Capitol - not only should they be fired, but you know, charges would be appropriately brought as they're being brought in the other cases. I mean, this was done with the explicit intent and, you know, planned intent, as we see with so many of their videos and social media posts leading up to this event. They planned to interrupt the process of certification. They planned, as federal  prosecutors have detailed and reiterated this morning, they planned to violently overtake and physically detain legislators and people working in the Capitol. This was a coup attempt. You know, no - no two bones about it. Not technically - this was literally a coup attempt. So it was literally an interruption and a direct attack on the peaceful transfer of power. And, you know, fortunately employees there had the foresight to take out the elector ballots so they could be counted later on - otherwise we could be in a humongous, constitutional crisis right now. So one, they may not be charged, but certainly the event was billed as Stop the Steal. The only reason to go was if you felt so strongly that there was widespread voter fraud, despite 60 lost elections, and hearing all of the rhetoric blaming massive voter fraud, committed by - coincidentally, conveniently - Black people. And the attempt at invalidating predominantly Black and Latino votes in key states - is scary to think about that mindset, that conspiracy theory taking hold so deeply, that they aren't just spouting that in their conversations here. They're flying to DC to be part of a group whose explicit purpose was to Stop the Steal, allegedly, of the election. This attitude is terrifying - and the Seattle Police Department, and we're finding out that several off-duty cops from several departments across the country, were police. And Capitol police talking about how many of the people in the mob were flashing their police badges at them - that they were off-duty, but they were law enforcement taking part in the activities to interrupt the election on the 6th. To me, we have the information that we need to understand further, Wow, how toxic is that? How toxic is that belief? And if someone believes all the things that are being said - to lead them to fly to DC, because they're so upset at the things that they've heard from Trump mouths and the mouths of other white supremacists, to stand side-by-side with people with Confederate flags and Camp Auschwitz T-shirts - open, proud white supremacists. Law enforcement has been infiltrated. The SPD has been infiltrated. This is not surprising, not shocking. I mean, we've seen this, we've seen them protect people with these beliefs in protests downtown. But it just continues to show how broken these processes are and how urgent it is that there be accountability tied and massive culture changes.  Ashley Archibald: [00:15:07] We exist in a society where people are engaged in two completely different realities. And I don't know what you do to overcome that. I don't think everybody in that crowd genuinely believed that the election was stolen. I don't know that - that's just, I find it difficult to believe - how about that? But some people are true believers. Some people truly believe that the election was stolen, that Trump is here to save us from a cabal of like, Well, I mean, we don't even need to get into the QAnon stuff - that's just a whole other thing. But it's - people live in bifurcated realities and I don't know what to do. I don't know what the answer is - to bring people back to what I consider to be evident on its face, which is Trump lost this election. And what we saw on January 6th can be described in no other ways than trying to overturn a certified election in what we like to call, but I would argue isn't really, the world's oldest democracy. Like it's just - it's maddening.  Crystal Fincher: [00:16:21] Yeah, it is - it is maddening. And I actually want to underscore something and to not minimize it. I mean, to be clear, this was a publicly pre-planned event. You know, this is something that Trump and his cronies organized and paid for. Trump spoke at the event. This was a planned event with the title of Stop the Steal, with the  explicit pre-stated purpose of - come to stop the stealing of the election by Joe Biden. So for anyone traveling to DC for this event, it seems to be a necessary prerequisite that they think that this - that they have fully bought in to the conspiracy that there was widespread voter fraud, widespread enough that it would have changed the election. And it should have been a landslide in favor of Trump, which we know has been rejected, in every legal and serious forum we have in the country. But as you stated, that doesn't prevent people from falling prey to the conspiracy and the depth of disinformation. And of people who are completely separated from the reality as we see it and do genuinely believe that this election is being unfairly stolen from Trump and the QAnon stuff - it is, it sounds almost laughably ridiculous, right? But there are tens of millions of people who believe it.  Ashley Archibald: [00:18:01] And rejected by Republicans - rejected by Republican Secretaries of State - who, I mean, I'm not trying to lionize some of them - they have participated in what I consider to be voter suppression, hands down - especially, you know, look at Georgia. But for their own self-interest they're saying - minimally, you could say, I ran this election. This election was run correctly and you lost. And those people have been, for their  trouble, been given death  threats and told that they're the enemy and that sort of, I mean, it's just, it's amazing. It's a cult of personality that I don't - I don't fully understand.  Crystal Fincher: [00:18:44] Right. And it's hard - it's hard to understand because it is such an extreme view that seems so detached from reality. That it is - that it seems like it should be literally unbelievable, but we have watched, we have witnessed, the increased radicalization of people here. And it's concerning. And the problem we now find ourselves with is that these people are able to remain separated from the reality as we see it - they have an entire media ecosystem. They have an entire social media ecosystem - that was somewhat disrupted this week by the purging of so many QAnon, alt-right white supremacists , Trump conspiracy, election conspiracy  websites. And Twitter, Facebook , Amazon has stopped hosting people, so there has been some de-platforming of some of the most visible people. But this is the Republican party. There are a small percentage of Republicans who have publicly said, This is actually not theft. But the very telling thing is that there are more Republicans who have refused to say, Hey, that's not true - it's a conspiracy. Or they've just flat out promoted the conspiracy themselves and far worse. We have congresspeople and state representatives who are QAnon believers. They were elected really recently. And they're sharing this information openly. We have lawmakers at the federal level who are refusing to go through metal detectors and disobeying orders of police , of the Capitol police, daily. They just do not feel that they are subject to the same laws and rules that we are, and they are operating with the encouragement of supporters, a base that they have cultivated, that cheers this lawless activity on. So they continue.  Ashley Archibald: [00:20:58] Going back to what you mentioned on the social media front - of those accounts being taken down. Obviously, Parler was basically got rid of when Amazon stopped hosting it. But it was one of the funnier things when you saw personalities complaining about how they'd lost tens of thousands of followers. And I'm like, Guys, why are you telling on yourselves? Like, is that really, is that really what you want to broadcast right now? Just shhhh - it's okay. You don't have to say it. Crystal Fincher: [00:21:25] Yes - to see how many open racists and insurrectionists are in your network - and it is wide and vast. But I think that's - that's what we need to contend with - is that these are not people - there were many comments and I've heard a lot of punditry - trying to suggest that these people were downtrodden, economically anxious, didn't really know what they were saying, didn't really know that - didn't plan violence. Who was to see and to know that something like this could happen and subsequently, a ton of video footage, a ton of posts, where they are explicitly, frequently, broadly - planning, explicitly planning, violence . You know, they had blueprints and plans. And we're talking about locations that they needed to get to. They were talking about who they needed to detain. They beat savagely, viciously, several police officers who were there. This was a violent mob and, and yes, and killed an officer. This is a violent mob that was explicit about their violent intentions and that continues to be explicit about their continued violent intentions. And I still feel like so many people just do not take threats of violence from white men, in particular, seriously. Oftentimes because they don't feel like they're a direct threat. And I think the action that we saw was because this was a situation where, Hey, actually, a number of the people who can pass laws and institute consequences for this were directly threatened. They had to shelter and they were in immediate danger of physical harm. I just think that they're detached from understanding that there's a lot of people in this position today, and these people are among us. The people at the Capitol were not downtrodden, poor - the picture of, They're just turning to this because they're struggling and, you know, they're just having a really challenging time. These were CEOs, there were several legislators. These are former military, former and current police officers. This was an upper middle-class  crowd, actually , by and large. And so we need to contend that these are the people that we are interacting with every day. And to somehow act as if this can't permeate your communities, and you don't have a responsibility to say something when someone pops up with a conspiracy theory - to say, You know, actually, no, we're not going to normalize that. We're not going to act like that's rational. It is not and it's dangerous to continue this line of thought. That this has to be confronted and called out. And we can't allow beliefs like this to go on unchallenged because they have for too long and this is the result.  Ashley Archibald: [00:24:25] That being said, I'm kind of circling back to what you had mentioned at the top of this topic. You know, I very much doubt - unless interim Chief Diaz actually takes action, I really don't see the SPOG chief, the SPOG union head going anywhere. I mean the City Council and the Mayor's office and people who are otherwise, I would classify as pro-law enforcement, asking him to step down is one thing. But Mike Solan was elected by  70% of the SPOG membership, if I recall correctly . You know, people have - people seem fine with this kind of rhetoric coming from the head of the union.  Crystal Fincher: [00:25:03] Well, definitely - certainly a number of the police officers, the ones who elect the SPOG head -certainly are okay with it. Unfortunately, SPOG, you know, Solan is paid for by our tax dollars. He is on the public payroll and so there should be some public accountability for what he says. And certainly, he's poisoning the waters for the negotiations that are upcoming. He has continued to take belligerent , violent, mocking stances and using that kind of rhetoric. He has defended  what has been objectively viewed and legally ruled to have been abusive, civil rights violating behavior - has made inappropriate jokes about violence committed by officers. And when you are in a position with so much power, there is a higher standard of accountability that should be instituted. We've talked about this, you know, broadly - just in the overall police accountability conversation, but my goodness, how much more clear and obvious do you need to make it? That there is a dangerous mindset that has taken hold with too many officers within SPD. And to see that these beliefs are being supported by so many officers, that this attitude and stance is not found to be objectionable, and that there have been officers that went to DC to be part of the Stop the Steal activities that Trump called for - we need massive changes.  And we saw with the [King County] Charter Amendment [6] vote that people, not just in Seattle but in a super-majority of cities in the county , want substantive reform. The unique thing is that even when you listen to police talk - they talk about calls that they don't feel that they are the appropriate response for. They talk frequently about not wanting to be social workers and that not being an effective place and way for them to intervene. Why don't we listen to that? But we do need to talk about what the structure and purpose is - what we actually want our officers doing. And if they're in a place where they are indoctrinated with a demonstrably false conspiracy theory that Trump won this election and are taking action, significant action, based on that - how is that influencing the communities that are also being blamed for the stealing? What kind of resentment are they harboring? That that is not only what they believe , but what they are so dedicated to, that they would invest their own resources. And how are they enacting and carrying that belief through their actions and interactions with everyday people. I don't like the implications of that. I think we've seen numerous examples of what happens, and we've seen the continuum of attitude and behavior that leads to people's civil rights being violated and the over policing, over-incarceration of poor communities and communities of color.  So thank you for listening to Hacks and Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM this Friday, January 15th, 2020. Our chief audio engineer at KVRU is Maurice Jones, Jr. The producer of Hacks and Wonks is Lisl Stadler. And our wonderful co-host today was local journalist and friend of the show, Ashley Archibald. You can find Ashley on Twitter @AshleyA_RC. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii. And now you can follow Hacks and Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts. Just type Hacks and Wonks into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live show and our mid-week show sent directly to your podcast stream. Thanks for tuning in. Talk to you next time.

Having an attitude of gratitude can help us recognize the people who have helped us in achieving our dreams and goals. In today's episode, we share with you the people who have helped us, and how they might be able to help you. In this Episode, we recognize Nic Fitzgerald and the Mighty Doers (Vamsi, Tom, Danelle, Dani, Mike, Tony), Adrian Diaz of Hasta La Vista Boss, Kyle Willson of Groove Superheros, Jim Beard of Xs and Os Gameshow, Travis Stephenson of Chatmatic, John-Erik Moseler of Adventure Social, and Steve J Larsen. Like Us On Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/FearlssLLC Connect with us: Twitter: @FearlssLLC Facebook: @FearlssLLC Instagram: @FearlssLLC --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/fearlsstogether/message

INTERMISSION!!! We're back with a new episode this week featuring Adrian Diaz, David's brother. Listen to this episode as we talked everything skateboarding from his first pair of shoes (17:48), best trick at Oakley skatepark (12:45), his favorite skater, Arto Saari (16:14), to starting Bon Voyage with a few of his Brentwood friends (26:23). We also discussed the "dice game" (28:02) to a memory Adrian had of Ricardo on a tricycle (32:57). --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Adrian Diaz and I got together for a live interview on his YouTube channel. In this episode, we give you a little peek behind the scenes along with some fun stories that you didn't know, even if you watched the interview. Don't miss out, this is a feel-good, fun episode! Episode Links: HLVB Facebook Page HLVB Interview with Adrian & Kris Check us out at Fearlss.com! Connect with us: Twitter: @FearlssLLC Facebook: @FearlssLLC Instagram: @FearlssLLC --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/fearlsstogether/message

Sorry for any audio issues; still trying to figure this out. On my first ever episode of the show I am joined by Adrian Diaz. We talk all things Hate Drugs, drums, make some Seinfeld references, and Adrian even says “croissant” at one point. Hope you guys enjoy! Follow Adrian on Instagram @adriaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan and his band @thehatedrugs on all social media. Follow me @ccameronp and the podcast page @convowithcameron.