Podcasts about attorney general bob ferguson

EP-118 Bob's Task Force Adventure On November 22nd 2024 the Washington State Domestic Extremism and Mass Violence Task Force held the first meeting via video conference call. The meeting introduced the the various members of the task force, contracted consultants, and support staff. Although it was not stated, it appears that Senator Elect Bill Ramos will lead the task force. The task force is follows years of work by Governor Elect, and Attorney General Bob Ferguson. In 2022 his office published the 2022 Domestic Terrorism Study. In 2023, after a failed effort to pass legislation HB-1333 that would have created a commission to single out and reeducate victims of misinformation, propaganda, and hate speech, the legislature budgeted funding for this task force within Ferguson's office. Representative Bill Ramos was the lead sponsor of that bill. This podcast takes a listen to the various members of the task force and tries to understand the genesis of its origins. Many believe that the legislative push for government social engineering surrounding "domestic extremism" has been lead by Bob Ferguson as Attorney General, and now Governor. However, during this meeting Senator Elect Ramos, Luis Moscoso, and Jaun Peralez all claim responsibility together. Perhaps the most intriguing member of the task force is the contracted consultant from Illinois and American University, both with PERIL - The Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab. Link to Attorney General's Office Active Groups - Domestic Extremism and Mass Violence Task Force I reached out to Juan Peralez to clarify his comment about the "oncoming Fuhrer" during the Zoom call. He responded to confirm he did use those words. You can hear the voicemail on Twitter using the link below. Credit for Music: Tenebrous Brothers Carnival - Act Three Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ "Circus Waltz" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Recently released polling on the Washington initiatives to the ballot indicates voters may not be in the mood to support three of the four measures. Backers of the initiatives aren't swayed by the results, adding that language included by Attorney General Bob Ferguson paints a partisan pall over the measures. The SurveyUSA poll was conducted online Oct. 9-14 and was sponsored by The Seattle Times, KING 5 and the University of Washington's Center for an Informed Public.

Washington initiative backers are pushing back against Attorney General Bob Ferguson's ballot language, claiming it unfairly sways voters. With the election approaching, polling shows that many of these measures may fail, but backers remain confident. Find out more by reading the full report at https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/wa-initiative-backers-say-ags-one-sided-language-deceiving-voters-polling on www.ClarkCountyToday.com. #WashingtonState #ballotmeasures #LetsGoWashington #elections #ClarkCountyWa #localnews

Voters in Washington will soon get their ballots in the mail for the general election, with voting opening on Friday. About half of the statewide races in Washington are open contests this year. That includes the governor’s race where Democratic candidate and Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson is facing Dave Reichert, a former U.S. Representative and sheriff of King County. Reichert is emphasizing his law enforcement credentials on the campaign trail, while trying to shore up support among voters who identify as moderates. During the second gubernatorial debate last month, the two candidates clashed over crime and public safety, the state’s abortion protections and education policies.   Four statewide initiatives are also on the Washington ballot this year. They include I-2117 which if passed, would repeal Washington’s landmark Climate Commitment Act. The law, which went into effect last January, establishes a cap-and-invest program that requires refineries and other polluters to pay for their greenhouse gas emissions with a target of phasing them out by 95% by 2050. The CCA has raised $2 billion so far to fund statewide efforts to mitigate climate change, including making free bus rides for youth, issuing $200 utility credits for low and middle-income households, and expanding electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Jeanie Lindsay is the Olympia correspondent for our partner station, KUOW. She joins us to talk about the Washington governor’s race, the initiatives on the ballot and the issues that are top of mind for the state’s voters.  

The WAGOP, led by Chairman Jim Walsh, has filed a lawsuit against Attorney General Bob Ferguson and Secretary of State Steve Hobbs, challenging the removal of Washington's 30-day voter registration waiting period. The lawsuit claims this was an intentional move to undermine election integrity. Read more at https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/wagop-files-election-integrity-lawsuit-in-franklin-county/ on www.ClarkCountyToday.com. #electionintegrity #WAGOP #ClarkCountyWa #localnews

A local news station posted a story on how Attorney General Bob Ferguson is working to keep sexually violent predators from being released. The entire thing was copied verbatim from a government press release. Climate Scientist Cliff Mass explains why he's voting YES on I-2117. Coors becomes the latest company to drop DEI. 

Supporters of several citizen initiatives, some already adopted into Washington law, and others to appear on the November ballot are not buying Attorney General Bob Ferguson's transparency claims following last week's surprise ruling from the State Supreme Court. The ruling went in the favor of initiative supporters, but the surprising part came in the fact those supporters had no idea there was a legal challenge. Brian Heywood with Let's Go Washington, the group behind the initiatives, and supporters held a protest rally Wednesday in front of the Seattle office of the attorney general, demanding to know why they were not notified of legal challenges that could have invalidated every single one of the initiatives.

There's a fine line between corruption and indifference – and Attorney General Bob Ferguson is walking it. Key conservative voice puts his support behind Dave Reichert. San Francisco throws the book at pro-Palestine demonstrators. Trump on X tonight. Biden flubs answer on peaceful transfer of power.

What’s Trending: Young Washington voters tell KOMO News how they feel about Kamala Harris. Democrats are pretending that Kamala Harris is extremely accomplished and experienced. Neighbors near Rainier Avenue South in Seattle are raising concerns about an epidemic of reckless driving. // LongForm: GUEST:  Bob Scales (Police Strategies LLC) filed a $42 million tort claim against Attorney General Bob Ferguson and WSU. // The Quick Hit: Kamala Harris will skip Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress in favor of a campaign event.   

The Washington State Attorney General's Office has drawn criticism for providing legal advice to the Secretary of State's Office regarding a request by Attorney General Bob Ferguson through his campaign attorney to alter the order of candidates on the November election ballot. Last month, two men also named Robert Ferguson filed to run for governor. State election laws has the order of candidates listed on the ballot to be chosen at random. Both Robert Fergusons would have appeared above Attorney General Ferguson on the ballot.

Former Congressman and King County Sheriff Dave Reichert has raised a substantial amount of cash and shows well in polling against Democratic frontrunner and state Attorney General Bob Ferguson in Washington's race for governor. But as Seattle Times' Jim Brunner reports, Reichert may be lacking sizzle with the base heading into the state Republican Party's convention next week.

Alan Gottlieb joins Cam to discuss Washington State's ban on "large capacity" magazines, which was recently ruled unconstitutional by a state judge, as well as Attorney General Bob Ferguson's claims that every other court in the country has "either rejected or overturned" rulings that have declared similar bans unconstitutional.

Our live town hall with Attorney General Bob Ferguson, Democratic candidate for WA Governor. Recorded in Tacoma on March 17th, 2024.

Guest Rick Jaffe, Esq. discusses the lawsuit against against the Washington Medical Commission (WMC) regarding free speech violations. The complaint filed in Federal Court, Eastern Washington District, lists NBA hall-of-famer John Stockton as the lead plaintiff, along with many doctors, and Children's Health Defense. Attorney General Bob Ferguson and Executive Director of the WMC Kyle Karinen are defendants, accused of suppressing the speech of medical professionals.Also, Xavier Figueroa and Lori Martin Gregory discuss the launch of the World Society for Ethical Science, a sister-organization of the Institute of Pure and Applied Knowledge (IPAK).Reference Links:https://wa.childrenshealthdefense.org/home-page/chd-basketball-legend-john-stockton-and-censored-doctors-sue-washington-medical-commission/https://ipak-edu.org/registration/e/WORLD-SOCIETY-FOR-ETHICAL-SCIENCE-p634724328 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Guest Rick Jaffe, Esq. discusses the lawsuit against against the Washington Medical Commission (WMC) regarding free speech violations. The complaint filed in Federal Court, Eastern Washington District, lists NBA hall-of-famer John Stockton as the lead plaintiff, along with many doctors, and Children's Health Defense. Attorney General Bob Ferguson and Executive Director of the WMC Kyle Karinen are defendants, accused of suppressing the speech of medical professionals. Also, Xavier Figueroa and Lori Martin Gregory discuss the launch of the World Society for Ethical Science, a sister-organization of the Institute of Pure and Applied Knowledge (IPAK). Reference Links: https://wa.childrenshealthdefense.org/home-page/chd-basketball-legend-john-stockton-and-censored-doctors-sue-washington-medical-commission/ https://ipak-edu.org/registration/e/WORLD-SOCIETY-FOR-ETHICAL-SCIENCE-p634724328

Guest Rick Jaffe, Esq. discusses the lawsuit against against the Washington Medical Commission (WMC) regarding free speech violations. The complaint filed in Federal Court, Eastern Washington District, lists NBA hall-of-famer John Stockton as the lead plaintiff, along with many doctors, and Children's Health Defense. Attorney General Bob Ferguson and Executive Director of the WMC Kyle Karinen are defendants, accused of suppressing the speech of medical professionals. Also, Xavier Figueroa and Lori Martin Gregory discuss the launch of the World Society for Ethical Science, a sister-organization of the Institute of Pure and Applied Knowledge (IPAK). Reference Links: https://wa.childrenshealthdefense.org/home-page/chd-basketball-legend-john-stockton-and-censored-doctors-sue-washington-medical-commission/ https://ipak-edu.org/registration/e/WORLD-SOCIETY-FOR-ETHICAL-SCIENCE-p634724328

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, long time communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank! Crystal and Robert dive into the open machinations of the big corporate donors to appoint their preferred candidate to a Seattle City Council vacancy and how the messy process has leached its way into Seattle School Board politics. They then discuss the qualification of a right-wing initiative to dismantle the state's plan to take on the climate crisis. Robert gives a rare kudos to The Seattle Times for their presentation of a debate over homeless encampments, they both are dismayed at the depressing and infuriating news that the Tacoma officers in the Manuel Ellis case are getting paid $500k each to voluntarily leave the police department, and the show rounds out with analysis of some media's treatment of AG Ferguson's lawsuit to block a merger between Kroger and Albertsons. 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, Robert Cruickshank, at @cruickshank.   Resources RE-AIR: The Big Waterfront Bamboozle with Mike McGinn and Robert Cruickshank from Hacks & Wonks   “Harrell Administration Consultant Tim Ceis Urges Businesses to Back Tanya Woo for Open Council Seat” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   “Business, labor lobby for open seat on Seattle City Council” by David Kroman from The Seattle Times   “Seattle City Council candidate has residency conflict in School Board role” by Claire Bryan from The Seattle Times    “Initiative 2117 (repealing Washington's Climate Commitment Act) gets certified” by Andrew Villeneuve from The Cascadia Advocate   “‘Should Seattle remove encampments?' Advocates debate” by Greg Kim from The Seattle Times   “Tacoma cops acquitted in death of Manuel Ellis will get $500K each to resign, city says” by Peter Talbot from The News Tribune    “Kroger-Albertsons merger would hike grocery prices, create near monopolies in some Washington communities, AG says” by Helen Smith from KING 5   “WA suit to block Kroger-Albertsons merger gets cheers, raised eyebrows” by Paul Roberts 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 walks 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 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. 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, one of our audience favorites, and today's co-host: Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, longtime communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank. [00:01:12] Robert Cruickshank: Hey - thanks for having me on again, Crystal. [00:01:14] Crystal Fincher: Hey, excited to have you on again - here in 2024. Well, we've got a lot to talk about - things are getting spicy in the City of Seattle, with regards to this upcoming Seattle City Council appointment to replace Teresa Mosqueda's seat. Because Teresa was elected to the King County Council, which created a vacancy - so now it needs to be filled. So what happened this week? [00:01:38] Robert Cruickshank: Well, I think a lot has happened with the machinations around this appointment process - and in fact, things we're learning about how the new regime at City Hall is conducting itself - and they come together. I think this is basically Tim Ceis - who is former deputy mayor to Greg Nickels back in the 2000s, corporate lobbyist, close to established power in Seattle - and Council President Sara Nelson, who, of course, just became council president after the new council with a bunch of her allies got sworn in at the beginning of the month. They seem to be conducting a purge of anyone progressive in the City Hall, in City staff, and are determined to consolidate power around what is actually, I think, a fairly radical agenda for the city that most voters didn't really actually select, especially when it comes to cutting taxes for big businesses and slashing public services. But in order to try to achieve that, they know that they need to try to push out and keep out anyone who might disagree, anyone who might even be remotely progressive on anything. I think it's a pretty significant misreading of the results of recent elections in Seattle - their candidates won often narrowly on questions of public safety, not on cutting taxes for big businesses. In fact, most of their candidates hedged on the questions of taxes when they were asked during the campaigns. But I think you see a real desire to consolidate power around a small group of loyalists, no dissent allowed. And this is a approach to governance that I don't think Seattleites expect or want. I mean, most people in Seattle assume and want a fairly technocratic, go-along-to-get-along government where everyone is sort of driven by data, gets along with each other, and try to do things in the public interest. Now, you and I, a lot of our listeners, know that's not really how the city operates. But what we're seeing now is, I think, a much more aggressive and - in some ways, unprecedented for Seattle - attempt to impose a radical agenda on the city from the right. [00:03:26] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, this isn't what voters thought they were signing up for. This isn't what anyone campaigned on. Voters are looking at what the candidates are saying, they're looking at the mail, the commercials - again, definitely talked about public safety, talked about homelessness. But what we saw in Sara Nelson's first statement was austerity - we're cutting taxes for business. But voters didn't weigh in on this at all. And I don't think people are going to have a great reaction to this. [00:03:55] Robert Cruickshank: When Seattle voters weigh in on questions of taxes, Seattleites pass almost every tax put in front of them. When it comes to state ballot initiatives to tax the rich - they might fail statewide as they did in 2010, but they pass with wide support in Seattle. When it comes to money in politics, Seattleites approved taxing themselves - raising their property taxes slightly - to create the Democracy Voucher program. This is a city that does not want corporate money in politics and yet, that is exactly what's happened here. The reason we're talking about all this right now is not just because there's a council appointment, but because Tim Ceis, this aforementioned corporate lobbyist, sent out an email at the beginning of the week urging all of the people - whether they're wealthy individuals or from big corporations - who donated to the independent expenditure campaigns to help get a lot of these councilmembers elected last year, telling them - Hey, we need you to mobilize right now to stop Vivian Song, who is currently on the Seattle School Board, who's seeking the appointment - Ceis says, We got to stop her. She held a fundraiser for Teresa Mosqueda. She endorsed Ron Davis. She's friendly to unions. And gosh, we can't have that on our council. And the way Ceis put it was to basically act as if these wealthy interests had bought the council. They now own the council - it is theirs, not ours. Not ours in the sense of "we the people." And they can do whatever they want with it. So Ceis' attitude - and I think Sara Nelson shares this - is that it's theirs now, nobody else can tell them what to do with the city council. They have the absolute right to pick whoever they want to and impose this agenda on the city. I think both that attitude and a policy agenda they want are not what the city wants at all, and they are going to run into a big backlash real fast. [00:05:30] Crystal Fincher: Real fast. And the brazenness with which he stated this was wild. This is from the email that Tim Ceis sent - "While it's been a great two weeks watching the outcome of our effort as the new City Council has taken office, the independent expenditure success earned you the right to let the Council know not to offer the left the consolation prize of this Council seat." Okay, they're just admitting that they bought this seat. They're just admitting that - Hey, yeah, it was our effort that got these people onto the council. And we spent a million dollars plus in this independent expenditure effort and that gives us the right - he said the "right" - to tell the council what to do, which I don't recall seeing something this overtly stated before. [00:06:17] Robert Cruickshank: There's an important contrast we can draw - both Bruce Harrell and Eric Adams, mayor of New York, were elected in 2021. And at the time, Eric Adams was hailed as some sort of future of the Democratic Party - center right, tough on crime, pushing back against progressives. Well, here we are at the beginning of 2024 - Eric Adams has a 28% approval rating in New York - highly unlikely to win a re-election at this point. There are a lot of reasons for that, but one of the primary reasons is cuts to public services - libraries, schools, parks, all sorts of things. And the public is just clearly rejecting that. Bruce Harrell is up for re-election next year. And I think Harrell's going to have to decide for himself - does he want to be the one to get all the blame for this? Or maybe he just thinks Sara Nelson takes all the blame. Who knows? Maybe there's a good cop, bad cop approach being planned here - with Sara Nelson being the bad cop pushing austerity and Harrell's try to be the good cop, try to bring everybody together. Who knows? But I think what you see in New York is what you're going to see in Seattle - a significant backlash. I also want to mention - you quoted Ceis' letter talking about giving a prize to the left. Vivian Song is not a leftist. This is the part that just blows my mind about all this. She's as mainstream a Seattle Democrat as it gets. If you read her application letter for the council appointment, she talks about hiring more cops, being careful with city spending. She's honestly probably a little bit to the right of most of the previous city council that just got voted out. But to Ceis and Nelson, she's unacceptable because she's friendly with unions, was friendly with some progressives - what that shows me is that they only want extremists like themselves or who will just do their own bidding. And I think they're setting themselves up for a significant backlash. [00:07:58] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and the final point - in looking at this, there were so many applicants to this - all across the spectrum, right? There weren't just progressive applicants for the seat. There were dozens and dozens of people from across the spectrum - and good choices - people who had experience, who have the right intentions from across the spectrum. This isn't about - Well, we just don't want an extreme leftist from these corporate interests. This is about - You're going to pick our person. Because there are several other choices on there - they're talking about Tanya Woo. Why aren't they talking about Phil Tavel, right? Why aren't they talking about anyone else that seems to align with their interests? They want loyalists - that's the bottom line. It goes beyond what the ideology is. It's - are you going to be loyal to me? Are you going to back me on what I'm doing? And without that assurance - We're not backing you. With that assurance, you're in and we're going to fight. And hey, we spent a million plus to get these other folks in. Now we're using our muscle to get you in too. And we're telling people - Hey, this was our show. We elected these people. It was our effort and that gives us the right to dictate what's going to happen. When you have the primary concern, the primary litmus test being loyalty and not is this going to help the residents of the city? Do they have experience? Can they credibly lead and do this? Wow, we get into a lot of trouble if it's just - Are you going to back me? Are you not going to question anything I'm doing? Are you going to rubber stamp this? So this appointment process is really going to be an opportunity to see where the loyalties lie. Are they serving their constituents or are they serving the business community? Because again, there are lots of picks if they wanted to go with a conservative person, right? I think they probably will. But the point is, it's got to be the one handpicked by business. This is going to tell us a lot about where the heads of these new councilmembers are at. Yeah, it [00:09:49] Robert Cruickshank: will. And I think it's also setting up 2024 - not just in terms of the policy discussions we'll see in City Hall, but the campaigns. This seat that gets filled in this appointment process later this month will be on the November 2024 ballot citywide. And I think Tanya Woo would likely run for that seat if she's appointed to it. If so, then she's going to have to go to voters - not as someone picked for her qualifications, at least in the way the public will see it. The public will see it as - she was picked by business because she's loyal to business. Vivian Song may want to run for that seat too - last night got endorsed by the King County Labor Council to hold that appointment. It sets up a very interesting - not just 10 days between now and when this appointment gets made, but 10 months between now and the November election, where I think you're going to see real contests over the future of the city. [00:10:35] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Another interesting dimension with this about Vivian Song is about her residency and her existing Seattle School Board position. What's going on here? [00:10:45] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, so we'll go back to 2021 - where there was an article that appeared in The Stranger when Vivian was running for the school board, questioning her residency - that she had changed residencies and changed voter registration - and questioning whether she was eligible to run for the District 4 seat for the school board. Now, the school board districts don't line up exactly with the city council districts, so listeners should keep that in mind - but Vivian won, won citywide. Because in school board, you are first elected out of the primary in just the district. Then the top two from that district go on to a citywide election in the school board. So Vivian won citywide in 2021. Last summer, it emerges that some of her critics and opponents on school board were questioning where she lives now - that she might not actually live in the district she technically represents. This is brought to the school board legal department, which looked at it and did not see a need to kick her off the school board, or declare her seat vacant and force an election. People move around for personal reasons, and they don't have to be told to tell those personal reasons in public. But Vivian is not someone who is manipulating the system for political gain - there are legitimate reasons she was moving. And yet this comes out in a Seattle Times article this week and gets mentioned at a board meeting last night - the only board meeting during this entire council appointment process. This has been under discussion behind the scenes at the school district for months. But why does it emerge now? I think it's the obvious reason why it emerges now - because some of Vivian's critics on the school board, whether they're working directly with Tim Ceis and Sara Nelson or not, are certainly helping Tim Ceis and Sara Nelson try to torpedo Vivian Song's candidacy. Now, from a progressive perspective, this doesn't necessarily mean that Vivian's the right pick for the appointment process. We should take a look at everybody. But I think the relentless efforts to destroy her, both in her position on the school board and to keep her out of the city council, suggest to me some real problems with the way both the city council and the school board are now being governed by small little cliques determined to hold on to their own power, to push austerity, unfriendly to labor, and hostile to public input. I think it's a really shocking and disturbing development that we're seeing in our city. Away from small-d democratic governance. I think everyone in the city should be really concerned about these developments. [00:13:05] Crystal Fincher: Completely agree. And statewide news - big news - it's going to impact our November 2024 ballot. The second right-wing initiative qualified for the 2024 ballot. What does this do and what does this mean? [00:13:21] Robert Cruickshank: So background here is that the far right chair of the state Republican Party, State Representative Jim Walsh - hardcore MAGA Trump guy - became State Party Chair last year and is working with a wealthy mega-donor, a guy named Brian Heywood, to try to repeal the main accomplishments of the Democratic majority in the legislature of the last few years. So we've got six initiatives so far that they've submitted to the state to qualify - two of them have made it to the ballot. One of them you just mentioned, which will be Initiative 2117 to try to destroy our state's climate action plan. They want to repeal the carbon pricing piece of it - sometimes known as cap and trade, cap and invest, whatever you want to call it. Their argument is - Oh, it's why gas prices are so high in Washington state. Well, no. One, we on the West Coast have always had higher gas prices than the rest of the country. And in fact, the reason Washington has high gas prices is because of King County. I did an analysis a few weeks ago that shows - if you cross the river from Portland to Vancouver, Washington, the average cost of gas is the same. If you are in Tacoma, you're paying less than you pay in Portland, Oregon. So if carbon pricing was causing gas prices to soar across Washington state, you'd see it everywhere - but you don't. What that suggests to me is you might actually be seeing oil companies gouging King County - that's worth investigation, which the oil companies don't want. But point being - Jim Walsh, who's a Trump guy, Brian Heywood, who's the wealthy funder, want to destroy our ability to tackle the climate crisis. They want to destroy our ability to fund the things that are needed to help people get off of fossil fuel. And so they're putting this on the ballot. They're going to put some other initiatives on the ballot to try to repeal our capital gains tax on the rich, that funds schools and early learning. And this is going to be one of the big battles that we're seeing this year - an effort to impose, again, a far-right agenda on the state of Washington. And I think that progressive organizations, the State Democratic Party are maybe a little slow to respond to this - I think they will engage, but now's the time to start letting people know what's happening here, what this attack is, how dangerous it could be, and the importance of stopping all six of these initiatives. [00:15:30] Crystal Fincher: We've seen Republicans have an increasingly hard time winning statewide and legislatively over the past few years - they've lost power, they tried the courts. The Supreme Court actually just rejected a case trying to come to the Supreme Court about the capital gains tax. So this is their only recourse now. And unfortunately, because of the way our political system is, money gets you really far. And so if you have these multi-hundred millionaires, these billionaires who come in and say - You know what, this is what I want - they're able to basically make us go through this whole charade. And so we have to fight against it. It's here. We have to do this. But it really is important to talk to people about - not to fall for these cheap lines that, Oh, this is another gas tax. It's the hidden gas tax, as they say. But we've had this price gouging conversation before - I think more people are seeing it, which is encouraging. But we're going to have to go through this whole campaign. [00:16:29] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, and I think that it's worth noting there are reasonable discussions to be had about how to do carbon pricing right and what it should fund. And there were very intense conversations and disagreements about that when this was passed in 2021. And I think it makes sense to take a look and say - Okay, how do we make sure we're doing this right? That's not what this initiative does. This initiative uses voter concern about gas prices to totally destroy our ability to tackle the climate crisis. This is coming from people who don't believe the climate crisis is real. Or if they do believe it's real, they don't really want to do anything to stop it because they think driving and keeping oil companies happy is more important. We see wild weather all across the region - we remember that super hot heat wave from the summer of 2021, we remember the long droughts of 2022 - this is not a time to mess around. If we want to look at how to address needs to ensure that carbon pricing works - great. If we want to take a look at what it's funding - great. But to totally destroy the system entirely because a bunch of right-wingers and wealthy donors want it, I think, is a disaster. [00:17:30] Crystal Fincher: Absolute disaster. I was certainly one of those people who had criticisms of the Climate Commitment Act. There are certainly tweaks that should be made. There are some better ways that we can go about some of these processes. But the option isn't - do nothing. That's unacceptable. It isn't just dismantle and repeal everything. Just like with Social Security, just like with Medicare - these big, important pieces of legislation - that do come with benefits. We're going to have to tweak them. We're going to have to get information back, get data back, and respond to that with some technical fixes, some tweaks to make sure that we steer it onto the best path that it can be. But wow, we cannot afford to do nothing. We can't afford to dismantle this at this point in time. This is one of the most hopeful opportunities we have - really in the country - to show how states can lead and come together to get this done. We can't dismantle this at this point in time. Also want to talk about a debate that we saw, on the pages of The Seattle Times, among homeless advocates that reflects a lot of the conversation going on in communities about how to handle encampments. What was talked about here and what's important to understand? [00:18:42] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, I want to do something I don't always do, which is give credit to The Seattle Times for hosting this discussion. I think it was a really good way to do it - between two people - Tim Harris, who used to be the executive editor of Real Change, and Tiffani McCoy, a leader in the Initiative 135 House Our Neighbors Now social housing effort here in Seattle. These are two progressive people who have long records of advocacy for housing and for the needs of the homeless. So they didn't do the usual thing that media will do - is pit a progressive against some crazy right winger. These are two people, who I think come at this with the right intentions and the right values. And they both made some pretty good points about how we handle this issue of sweeps and encampments. Sweeps - I believe they're awful. They're also popular. The public likes them. We saw the 2017 mayoral race, we saw in 2021 mayoral and city council races, city attorney race. We saw it last year in the city council races. Candidates who back sweeps almost always defeat candidates who oppose them - we're getting nowhere, and the people who are living in these encampments aren't getting help. Now, this doesn't mean we should embrace sweeps. And I thought that Tiffani McCoy did a really good job of laying out, again, the damage that sweeps do to not just the possessions of people who are living in tents, but to their own psychological state. And it often makes it harder for them to escape addiction, harder for them to find stability they need to get a home. I thought Tim Harris, though, made some good points about the problems that happen if you leave an encampment in place - how drug dealers eventually find it. And even the best managed encampments - it just takes one or two people with bad intentions to show up and the whole place kind of falls apart into violence. So leaving an encampment out there doesn't help the people who are living there, especially now we're in the extremely cold winter season. But what happens is, too often, this gets framed as a discussion between - do we sweep or do we leave encampments indefinitely? And when that's the terms of the discussion, sweeps will win every single time. And we've seen that for years now. And I think progressives need to realize that that's the case. We are not going to stop sweeps by trying to argue against sweeps alone, and to argue essentially for leaving encampments indefinitely. We have to get out of that binary that we're losing and the people in those encampments are losing. And I think the only way out is to go to the solution, right? We need to build housing for people immediately. Bruce Harrell took office on a promise to build 2,000 units of housing for folks - homes, shelter, tiny homes, whatever - to get people out. Did that happen? Where did that go? You know, there are some tiny home villages that are out there. They do a great job. But why aren't we massively expanding those? Where are the safe RV sites? Where are other forms of shelter? Where's the permanent supportive housing that we need? Where are the new SROs that we need? I think that's where progressive energy needs to focus - is on getting people out of tents now - into real housing with a roof, with a door that locks that they like, where they can bring all their possessions, including their dog and their partner. And I think that's where the emphasis needs to go. I think if we get stuck in this sweeps versus indefinite encampments, we're just going to keep losing. The people who need help aren't going to get it. And so I thought that this debate that The Times hosted did a good job of really laying out why we need to go in that direction. [00:21:59] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. I think this is another area where - just the classic communications issue - you can't just argue against something. You have to argue for the vision that you want - because it doesn't translate - what people do here is exactly what you said. Well, okay - if we aren't going to sweep, then they're going to just stay there and that's unacceptable too. And it's unacceptable to a lot of people for a lot of different reasons, right? Some people are those crazy right wingers who just, you know - Get them out of my sight type of thing. But there are people who are saying - We need to get these people into a better place. We have lethal cold in the winter. We have lethal heat in the summer. We have public safety concerns. People who are unhoused, who are in these encampments, are more likely to be victims of crime than just about anyone else. This is a hazard to their health, to everyone's health. This is a big challenge. We need to get them into housing. We need more shelter options. We can't have this conversation while we know there isn't the infrastructure to get everyone indoors. Until we have that infrastructure, what are we talking about? We have to build. We have to build more transitional housing. We have to build more single residence occupancy, or those SROs. We have to move forward with housing. And I do believe in a Housing First approach. There's also this preemptive kind of argument that we're hearing from right wingers - Oh, we already tried that. Oh, we so have not tried that. We've never come close to trying that - on more than a trial with 20 people basis - that has never been a policy that the city has pursued overall. We have pursued these encampment sweeps and you can see they aren't getting us anywhere. The problem has actually gotten worse while we're doing this. So we have to make sure that we're speaking with unity and articulating what we want to see, what we're pursuing, what needs to get done. [00:23:50] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, and I think there is another reason for urgency here. Sweeps, under rulings of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals - federal - in the case against the City of Boise, Idaho, and a similar case against the City of Grants Pass, Oregon. The appeals court ruled that you cannot sweep an encampment without offering shelter to the people living there. A lot of cities, including San Francisco and others, have wanted to get out of that. They appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in the last few days. The Supreme Court has said - Yes, we will take up those cases. It is highly likely then, perhaps by this summer, the U.S. Supreme Court will say - You can sweep whenever you want to. You can eliminate an encampment without having to offer shelter at all. And I think a lot of advocates will point out that those offers of shelter, you know, are maybe a fig leaf at best. That fig leaf is going to go away very soon. So I think that just creates even more urgency to push really hard to get the city and the state to step up and provide housing, whether it's, you know, buying more hotels to get people out of tents or put up more tiny home villages. Whatever it takes, we have to do it, and we have to do it now because there is now an actual ticking clock at the U.S. Supreme Court on this. [00:24:57] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And you know what? I do want to recognize what Dow Constantine has been doing with leaning on this issue - with the buying the hotels, working in concert with different cities in the county, offering - even in the Burien debacle, it was really the county who provided the light at the end of the tunnel and real tangible assistance to actually deal with the issue and get people into housing. So, you know, more of that - more of what we've seen from Dow Constantine, more of focusing on getting people housed. Absolutely want to see it. And just absolutely dejecting news - where I wasn't shocked, but certainly dismayed. The Tacoma cops from the Manuel Ellis case are getting $500,000 to voluntarily leave the department. What are your thoughts on this? [00:25:47] Robert Cruickshank: I mean, it's unsurprising and appalling that they're getting half a million dollars after killing Manuel Ellis and getting away with it. I mean, getting away with it was bad enough - the way that the jury ruled in that case a few weeks back. Now they're literally getting money in their pocket after this - being waved goodbye. And I'm sure that this does not come with any stipulations that would make it difficult for them to get a new job anywhere else. I remember when McGinn was mayor in the early 2010s, the Ian Birk case. Ian Birk, the Seattle officer who shot and killed Native American woodcarver John T. Williams. Birk was not really prosecuted. There was an inquest. But Birk left the department, got a job somewhere else. Well, one of the things McGinn did was pursue legal remedies to make it impossible for Birk to get another job as an officer. I do not see any such thing happening here in the Tacoma case. These officers are getting a payday and getting away with it. But I think what this shows, yet again, is the importance of having real teeth in police accountability. And I think it also shows that the criminal justice system is not a substitute for that. We can't assume that the criminal justice system alone is going to hold cops accountable, as we saw in this case - yet again, it didn't. We need reforms at the state level to remove officer accountability from bargaining. We need to make it easier for cities to hold cops accountable who break the law, who commit murder, things like that. And that's where this needs to go, because what has happened here is injustice upon injustice upon injustice. And if this doesn't spur us to act, then what's going to? [00:27:32] Crystal Fincher: There's currently a federal review going on by the U.S. attorney for Western Washington. The family of Manny Ellis is calling for a consent decree for the City of Tacoma's police department with this. So those levers are turning. This issue to me is really - my goodness, this is not a pro-cop or an anti-cop thing, right? How do we hold people accountable who violate the standards that we set for them, who violate the standards that are already in place? This reminds me of what happened in the City of Kent with the assistant chief who had Nazi memorabilia, Hitler mustache, Nazi signs at work - and then got paid a ton, got rich to leave voluntarily. What are we doing when there's no mechanism to fire a Nazi in the workplace? For people who are absolutely in favor of more police, why are you tolerating this? That's my question. Why are we allowing this to fall into the - Well, either you love cops or you hate cops and you're evil if you want to do anything attached to accountability. What are we even doing? I could go on about this for a long time, but this just falls into - What are we even doing? What is the point of anything if we have to pay people who violate our standard to leave? [00:28:53] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah. I mean, we've been told since the summer of 2020 - Oh, we can't defund the police. Okay, then what are we going to do? Because we can't allow this sort of behavior, whether it is Nazi memorabilia in the actual work office in Kent or killing Manuel Ellis on the streets of Tacoma to continue - which is what I fear is actually what critics of police accountability want. They just want cops to be able to do as they please without consequences because in their minds - and these are mostly white folks like me who are saying these things - they don't think they're ever going to have to face those consequences. They want to maintain their hierarchy, their place at the top as much as they can. They see police as part of that. It's really toxic. And I think that it just shows, once again, the urgency of fixing this - including at the state level, to get the legislature out of this idea that some legislators have that - Oh, somehow it undermines labor unions and labor rights if we take accountability out of police bargaining. Well, military soldiers can't bargain, they can't form a union. They have a strict uniform code of military justice. They're held, in many cases, to much higher standards than police officers. I think we could point out ways in which even the military needs to be held to higher standards, but at least there are some. They exist and they operate. Police - they are convinced that they have the right to do as they please and to get away with it - and to be paid well for it, even when they do horrific things. And that is what we have to reject. And I think at this point - cities, we need to hold them accountable and push them. But the state needs to step in and we need to see changes to state law to make it easier to have real accountability at the local level. [00:30:25] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. Final thing I want to talk about today is a lawsuit announced by Attorney General Bob Ferguson to stop the Kroger-Albertsons merger that they have announced their intention to do, saying that this is going to be bad for competition, creating grocery monopolies. Grocery prices are already sky high - this would make it worse. What do you think about this? [00:30:49] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, I think it's absolutely the right thing to do and well within Attorney General Ferguson's right to protect local business and to protect consumers. And people notice that Fred Meyer and QFC are owned by the Kroger company already, and there's not enough competition there - prices there are higher than they should be. You add in Albertsons to the mix, and that's even less competition. I think people understand that more competition helps bring prices down, it's good for consumers. More local ownership - good for consumers. And this is popular, right? I think the public likes it. What's interesting to me is the way this gets covered. There's an article in The Seattle Times today about Ferguson's lawsuit. And to read the body of the article, it makes it very clear that the public loves it, that there's a legitimate reason for Ferguson to sue to protect the particular needs of Washington businesses and Washington consumers - because our grocery market industry is not always the same as other states. And we need to have our attorney general in there fighting for our interests. People get that. The Federal Trade Commission under Lina Khan is doing a great job really finally reinvigorating antitrust law and taking on mergers like this. And she's fantastic. But the article opens with this weird frame, questioning whether this is all a political stunt and saying - Oh, well, Ferguson jumped out and filed a lawsuit before the FTC did. Maybe he's trying to undermine the FTC or going rogue. Maybe it's just a political stunt. Yet the rest of the article makes it super clear that that's not the case at all. The article shows that the FTC says - No, we can work with Washington. They don't seem to be worried about this. In fact, the FTC regularly works with attorneys general around the country in multi-state lawsuits, in partnership with the federal government. So it struck me as a case where the second two-thirds of that article was really useful, but the top of it seemed to be The Times going out of their way to try to spin this against Ferguson. And I think it's a real lesson to the State Democratic Party and to Ferguson's campaign that they cannot trust the media to give him a fair shake here in 2024. The media is going to be hostile. The media is going to try to take things that look potentially helpful for Ferguson and spin them against him. So they're going to have to be ahead of that game and prepare for that, as well as make sure they're doing their own comms, using social media really well to get the story out there. Because the public gets it - the public doesn't want to see Albertsons, Fred Meyer, QFC all owned by the same company. They know it's either going to raise higher prices, fewer staff in stores, or fewer stores outright. We've already seen some stores close across the region. You're going to get more of those bad outcomes. So thank you, Bob Ferguson, for stepping up. And Bob, watch your back, because the media is coming for you. [00:33:28] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. This is a positive thing. This is consumer protection. This is what we ask him to do as our attorney general. We have seen the direction that things go when there's consolidation. There's a lot of people who order delivery now. I don't know if many people have been in stores lately, but it is a miserable experience because they've reduced staff to untenable amounts where you have to wait for someone to unlock half the thing or stand in a special section and a special line. It's just - this is the wrong direction that we're going in. We've already seen this as a result of consolidation. We don't want to see any more. [00:34:03] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, and you can look at another act of consolidation that I wish someone had sued to stop, which is when Rite Aid bought Bartell Drugs in 2020. Everyone knows that's been a disaster. Bartell, locally owned store - you had great locally owned products for sale. You could go and get your prescription filled really quickly and easily. Once that merger happened, all of a sudden people's prescriptions got lost, lines got really long, took you hours to get your prescription filled. And then all of a sudden, stores started closing all over the place. Now Walgreens is closing stores because there's not a lot of competition. There's no incentive for them to keep these stores open. And now we're going to see the same things happen with grocery stores - those trends that are already kind of lurking, accelerating if this merger goes through. So kudos to Bob Ferguson, but he's got to watch out for the people who are coming for him, especially in the media. [00:34:52] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Well, thank you so much for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, January 19th, 2024. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today is the Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, longtime communications and political strategist Robert Cruickshank. You can find Robert on Twitter, or X, @cruickshank. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter. You can find me on all platforms - BlueSky, Threads, anything - @finchfrii. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on Apple Podcasts, 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.

  Trump Wins Iowa Caucus  Donald Trump has won Iowa's leadoff presidential caucuses. The former president's victory with 51% of the vote gives him a strong start in the race for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination as the contest moves to New Hampshire. Secretary Austin Released From Hospital  Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin is out of the hospital following a controversial couple weeks for the Pentagon Chief. Correspondent Clayton Neville reports. Artic Freeze Continues  An arctic freeze continues to blast huge swaths of the US with sub-zero temperatures. Correspondent Julie Walker reports. The National Forecast  The East Coast will continue to have cold and stormy weather today. Meteorologist Carl Erickson has your national forecast.    Iraq and Syria Hit by Missiles  Iran has announced strikes in northern Iraq and Syria as regional tensions escalate. Correspondent Norman Hall has details. U.S. Cargo Ship Hit by Missile  A missile fired from Yemen struck a U.S.-owned ship in the Gulf of Aden. Correspondent Charles de Ledesma reports. Business News  Investors are back at work after the holiday. Jessica Ettingerhas your Monday business report. Search for Missing Navy SEALs  There is a search in the Gulf of Aden for 2 Navy SEALs missing after a mission to confiscate Iranian missile parts. Correspondent Ed Donahue reports. Biden Admin Sends Cease and Desist to Texas  The Biden administration has told Texas to stop impeding U.S. Border Patrol access to part of the U.S.-Mexico border that the state National Guard took over last week. Washington States Sues Grocery Chains  Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson has sued to block the proposed merger of Kroger and Albertsons, two of the nation's largest grocery chains. Big Winnners at the Emmys  “Succession” and “The Bear” took the top honors at the Emmy Awards. Correspondent Margie Szaroleta has more. Deadly Hot Air Balloon Crash  Four people were killed and another critically injured after a hot air balloon crash Sunday morning near Eloy, Arizona, about 60 miles south of Phoenix. Planes Collide on Runway in Chicago  The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating a ground collision of two Boeing planes in Chicago. Correspondent Norman Hall has more. White House Swatted  The White House was the latest target of a swatting attempt. Fire engines and other emergency vehicles responded to a fake 911 call that the White House was ablaze and a person was trapped inside. UN Worried about Gaza Conditions  The UN is issuing a dire warning about a catastrophe in Gaza. Correspondent Rita Foley reports. Top Tech Stories of 2023  Today's tech report is the top 5 tech news stories from 2023, brought to you by Chuck Palm. Ukraine War Continues  The war in Ukraine marches on. Correspondent Charles de Ledesma has an update on the latest with the fighting. Gamestop NFT Market to Close  NFT's used to be all the rage, now, another popular marketplace for NFTs' is shutting down, claiming "regulatory limbo." Chuck has that story in today's tech report. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode of the Elephant in the Dome, Sen. Shelly Short talks about a Democrat bill that could cause property taxes to increase, Sen. Keith Wagoner introduces legislation in response to Attorney General Bob Ferguson's “chicken checks” and Senate Republican Leader John Braun outlines Senate Republican priorities for the legislative session. The post The Elephant in the Dome Podcast: property tax hikes, chicken checks, and Senate Republican priorities appeared first on Senate Republican Caucus.

Attorney General Bob Ferguson's office lashes out at our coverage of the chicken check debacle. Seattle City Council elects moderate as its president. Harvard president resigns, media responds with predictable framing. Problematic priorities in Olympia. 

The UN is UN-ing... lots of talk. Not lots of action. Not unlike the US Congress. Gotta have it.... But I hate myself after I do. Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson has added a feather to his cap: he has successfully sued the nation's largest chicken and tuna producers for engaging in practices he believes caused families to overpay by millions of dollars. Holidays are for feeding our faces. Also, it's for stealing the neighbors' crap.

Attorney General Bob Ferguson joins bipartisan lawsuit against Meta, accuses company of targeting kids. Blaine School District response to controversy over “privilege” worksheet.  Homeless Seattle landlord dealt yet another blow. 

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Seattle political reporter and editor of PubliCola, Erica Barnett! The show starts with the infuriating story of Seattle Police Officers Guild (SPOG) leaders joking about a fellow Seattle Police Department (SPD) officer running over and killing Jaahnavi Kandula - how the shocking comments caught on body cam confirm suspicions of a culture in SPD that disregards life, that the SPOG police union is synonymous with the department, and whether a seemingly absent Mayor Bruce Harrell will do anything about a troubled department under his executive purview. Erica and Crystal then discuss Bob Ferguson officially entering the governor's race with Jay Inslee's endorsement, Rebecca Saldaña jumping into a crowded Public Lands Commissioner race, no charges against Jenny Durkan or Carmen Best for their deleted texts during the 2020 George Floyd protests, the latest on Seattle's drug criminalization bill, and flawed interviews for KCRHA's Five-Year Plan for homelessness. 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.   Resources “Rob Saka, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 1” from Hacks & Wonks   “Maren Costa, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 1” from Hacks & Wonks   “"Write a Check for $11,000. She Was 26, She Had Limited Value." SPD Officer Jokes with Police Union Leader About Killing of Pedestrian by Fellow Cop” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   “‘Feel safer yet?' Seattle police union's contempt keeps showing through” by Danny Westneat from The Seattle Times   “Handling of Jaahnavi Kandula's death brings criticism from Seattle leaders” by Sarah Grace Taylor from The Seattle Times   “Political consultant weighs in on growing Washington governor's race” by Brittany Toolis from KIRO 7 News Seattle   “Jay Inslee endorses Bob Ferguson to succeed him as WA governor” by David Gutman and Lauren Girgis from The Seattle Times   “Rebecca Saldaña Jumps into Weirdly Crowded Race for Lands Commissioner” by Rich Smith from The Stranger   “No Charges Against Durkan and Best for Deleted Texts; Investigation Reveals Holes in City Records Retention Policies” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   “After Watering Down Language About Diversion, Committee Moves Drug Criminalization Bill Forward” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   “Harrell's “$27 Million Drug Diversion and Treatment” Plan Would Allow Prosecutions But Add No New Funding” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   “The Five-Year Plan for Homelessness Was Based Largely on 180 Interviews. Experts Say They Were Deeply Flawed.” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   Find stories that Crystal is reading 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 this week's topical shows, we kicked off our series of Seattle City Council candidate interviews. All 14 candidates for 7 positions were invited. And over the last week, we had in-depth conversations with many of them. This week, we presented District 1 candidates, Rob Saka and Maren Costa. Have a listen to those and stay tuned over the coming weeks - we hope these interviews will help voters better understand who these candidates are and inform their choices for the November 7th general election. 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 political reporter and editor of PubliCola, Erica Barnett. [00:01:37] Erica Barnett: It's great to be here. [00:01:39] Crystal Fincher: Great to have you back. Well, I wanna start off talking about just an infuriating story this week where Seattle police officers - a union leader - joked about killing of a pedestrian by another Seattle police officer - and just really disgusting. What happened here? [00:01:58] Erica Barnett: The Seattle Police Department and the King County Prosecutor's Office actually released this video from the night that Jaahnavi Kandula was killed by Officer Kevin Dave. It is a short clip that shows one-half of a conversation between Daniel Auderer, who is the Seattle Police Officers Guild vice president, and Mike Solan, the president of the police guild - as you said, joking and laughing about the incident that had just happened. And also minimizing the incident - so from what we can hear of Auderer's part of the conversation, he makes some comments implying that the crash wasn't that bad, that Dave was acting within policy, that he was not speeding too much - all of which was not true. He was going 74 miles an hour. The incident was very gruesome and just a horrible tragedy. Then you can hear him saying in a joking manner, "But she is dead." And then he pauses and he says, "No, it's a regular person." in response to something that Solan has said - and there's been a lot of speculation about what that might be. Then he says, "Yeah, just write a check." - after laughing - "Yeah, $11,000. She was 26 anyway, she had limited value." I'm reading the words verbatim, but I really recommend watching the video, which we posted on PubliCola.com, because you can hear the tone and you can hear the sort of cackling laughter - which I think conveys the intent a lot more clearly than just reading a transcript of it. [00:03:23] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, we will link that PubliCola story with the video in our show notes, but it's just infuriating. And just to recap what happened just in the killing of her initially - that was a tragedy and an infuriating event. An officer was responding to a call that arguably police aren't needed at - in other jurisdictions, they don't seem to be needed on those types of calls - but without lights and sirens blaring, going over 70 mph on just a regular City street. And yeah, that's illegal for regular people for a reason - common sense would dictate that would be against policy - we give them lights and sirens for a reason to alert people that they're coming really fast and to clear the way. And it just seemed like Jaahnavi didn't have a chance here. And then the slow leak of information afterwards - just the event itself seemed to devalue their life and the way it was handled - and then to see this as the reaction. If their job is to keep us safe, they seem gleefully opposed to that. [00:04:28] Erica Barnett: Yeah, I think that in the aftermath of the story going national and international, I think that one of the reactions I've heard is - Well, this is how we've always thought - from people who are skeptical of the police, I should say - this is how we've always assumed they talk, but to actually hear it on tape is shocking. And I think what happened in this video, the reason we have it is because Auderer perhaps forgot his body cam was on. 'Cause after he makes his last comment about $11,000, she had limited value, he turns off the camera and we don't hear any more of that conversation. This is a rare look into one such conversation between officers. And I will say too, that there was a - Jason Rantz, a local radio personality, right-wing commentator, tried to pre-spin this by saying that this was just "gallows humor" between two officers, and this is very common in professions where you see a lot of grisly and terrible stuff. And I will just point out, first of all, gallows humor is like making a joke about, I don't know, like a 9/11 joke, you know, 20 years after the fact. It's not on the night that someone was killed, joking about her being essentially worthless and trying to minimize the incident. That's not gallows humor. That's just the way, apparently, the police union VP and president talk amongst each other. It just shows that the culture of the department - we talk a lot about City Hall, which I cover - they talk a lot about recruiting better officers and getting the right kind of police. But the problem is if the culture itself is rotten, there's no fixing that by just putting 5 new officers, 10 new officers at the bottom of the chain. It comes from the top. And that is then - these two officials are at the top of that chain. [00:06:09] Crystal Fincher: It does come from the top. And this also isn't the only time that it seems they have really distastefully discussed deaths at the hands of their officers or other people's deaths. There was a story that made the news not too long ago about them having a tombstone in one of their precincts for someone who was killed. There have been a couple officers who've had complaints for posting social media posts that seem to make fun of protesters who were run over. We have had a protester run over and killed here in the city. This is something that we've talked about that we - as a community - project that is against our values, but we continue to let this police department just mock people's safety in the city. I mean, you know something wild is happening when even Danny Westneat - who I think most people consider to be an extremely moderate, feels in-line with the Seattle Times editorial board, columnist for The Times - even he thinks SPOG has gone too far, and he's notoriously sympathetic to the police department. [00:07:15] Erica Barnett: Yeah, I think that in that article, he almost got there. The article was basically - we desperately need more police, but this darn police union just keeps messing up and saying these terrible things, so we've got to reform this police union - which I just thought was a bizarre note in an otherwise pretty reasonable article because the police union is the top. It is the people that create the culture for the rest of the department in a lot of ways, perhaps more so than the police chief and the command staff. It's made up of cops. The cops vote in the head of the police union, the vice president - they are the ones that are choosing these folks. So if the police union's culture is broken, I think that means that SPD's culture is broken. [00:07:54] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, unions are the culture. I feel like that's a trickle-down effect of anti-labor forces trying to paint unions as separate entities as workers. They are the workers. They're elected and selected by workers. So if anything, they seem to be the distillation of the culture. And there is a problem - I don't think that's controversial to say, I don't think that's even in dispute anymore - widely across this. And there've been, again, lots of people pointing out these problems for years and years. And it feels like this is where we arrive at if we ignore this for so long. As I talked about in the opening, we just got done with a large round of Seattle City Council candidate interviews. And it was really interesting to hear, particularly from a few of them - there's three that I'm thinking of, that people will eventually hear - but who will talk about the need for more cops, who will talk about how important it is to rebuild trust with the community. But over and over again, it seems like they put it completely on the community to be responsible for coddling, and repairing the relationship, and building trust. And it seems like that needs to start on the other side. This is not even something that in polite society would happen, right? These are disgusting comments and disgusting beliefs, no matter who has them or where they come from. And we basically have sanctioned and hand over the power to violate people's civic rights to a department where this happens. And it's just a real challenge. And we have several councilmembers right now who have talked about needing to bring accountability and reform the police department in campaign materials when they were running. And it just seems like that dropped off the face of the earth. This should be a priority. But more than everything else, I wanna talk about the responsibility that the mayor has here - it's like he disappears in these conversations and we talk about the council and we talk about the police department. Bruce Harrell is their boss. Bruce Harrell is the executive in charge here. Chief Adrian Diaz serves at the pleasure of, is appointed by the mayor. This is the executive's responsibility. The buck literally stops with him on this. And he seems to just be largely absent. I think I saw comments that he may have issued an apology this morning, but - Where is he on talking about the culture? Where is his outrage? Where is he in dealing with this? And this is happening amid a backdrop of a SPOG contract negotiation. How is he going to address the issues here in this contract? Or are we gonna paper over it? There's a lot talked about - one of his chief lieutenants, Tim Burgess, a former police officer, and how sympathetic he's been to police - and is that going to create a situation where this is yet another event that goes unaddressed in policy, and we don't put anything in place to prevent this from happening again? [00:10:45] Erica Barnett: Harrell's statement was very much like a "bad apple" statement without completing the thought, which is that a bad apple ruins the bunch - that we're disheartened by the comments of this one officer. As you said, not addressing the culture, not addressing the fact that he can actually do something about this stuff. He is the person with the power. And as you mentioned, he was basically absent - made a statement in response to some questions, but it was pretty terse, and it didn't get at the larger cultural issues that I think this does reflect. [00:11:14] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And I know there were comments, I saw comments from a couple of City councilmembers as of last night - calls to hear from more on their opinion on this issue. I have not seen more - we'll see if those trickle in over the coming day or two. But Bruce Harrell has the responsibility and the power to do something about this. Is he going to use it? - that's the question people should be asking, even more than what Chief Adrian Diaz is gonna do. This is unacceptable behavior. This absolutely speaks to the culture, and it's time we have someone who takes that seriously as an executive. Now, I also wanna talk about news that came out this week - that wasn't necessarily surprising, but certainly a benchmark and a milestone in a campaign - and that is current Attorney General Bob Ferguson officially announced his candidacy for governor and came with the endorsement of Jay Inslee. How do you see him as a candidate and his position in this field so far? [00:12:17] Erica Barnett: It's a big deal. I think Ferguson has been waiting patiently - or not - to run for governor for a while. He's had this trajectory - waited for Inslee when he decided to run again last time - this is the reward. I think it puts him very much in the front of the field as Inslee's successor. Obviously we'll see, but I think Inslee is a fairly popular governor. You see this in a lot of races, where you have an anointed person - the King County Council, Teresa Mosqueda is kind of similar - comes in with all the endorsements and I think is well-placed to win. So yeah, I think this puts Ferguson in a really strong position. [00:12:52] Crystal Fincher: He is in a really strong position. As we know - I wish it wasn't the case, but unfortunately it is reality - that money matters a lot in politics right now. It's the only reliable way to communicate with voters en masse. There's earned media, but there's less reporters around the state than there used to be. So paying to put communications in front of voters is something that needs to be done. Paying a staff that can manage a campaign of that scale is something that needs to be done. And Bob Ferguson is head and shoulders above everyone else - he has more than double what all of the other candidates have combined in terms of finances, so that puts him in a great position. Obviously having the endorsement of the most visible Democrat in the state right now is something that every candidate would accept - I'm sure almost every candidate on the Democratic side would accept right now. It's gonna be interesting. But I do think we still have a lot of time left, there's still a lot of conversation left. It is an interesting field from Hilary Franz to Mark Mullet, a moderate or conservative Democrat. And then on the Republican side, Dave Reichert and Semi Bird - one who I think is trading in on his reputation, at least in a lot of media stories as a moderate, but from being pro-life, anti-choice, to a number of other viewpoints - I don't know that realistically he's a moderate, just kind of a standard Republican. And then Semi Bird, who's endorsed by people like Joe Kent and others, who are definitely on the far right-wing side. So this is gonna be an interesting race. There's a lot of time left. And I still think even though Bob Ferguson - I think it's uncontroversial to say he's the front runner - still important to really examine what they believe, to talk to the voters around the state. And it seems like he's taking that seriously and vigorously campaigning. So we'll continue to follow what this race is, but it is going to be an interesting one. [00:14:54] Erica Barnett: I will say really quickly too, that Reichert does not seem to be running a particularly active campaign. He's not, from what I hear, out there doing a lot of on-the-ground campaigning the way that Ferguson has. So while I think you're gonna hear a lot about him on TV news and more right-leaning publications, I think that we're talking about the Democratic side of the field because it's very unlikely that we'll have a Republican governor - even one who has a lot of name recognition like Reichert. [00:15:20] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. So we'll continue to follow that. And just as an aside, I thought I would mention that in the race, another statewide race, for Public Lands Commissioner, State Senator Rebecca Saldaña jumped into the race - joining State Senator Mona Das, Makah Tribal member Patrick Finedays DePoe, King County Councilmember Dave Upthegrove, and current State Senator Kevin Van De Wege. As well as on the Republican side - I'm not sure how to pronounce her name - but Sue Kuehl Pederson. It's a crowded race that's going to be an interesting one. And I'm really curious to continue to see what Senator Rebecca Saldaña has to say, as well as the other ones. But that's a crowded race, and that one could be very interesting. [00:16:03] Erica Barnett: Absolutely. Weirdly crowded race. [00:16:05] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, very interesting. [00:16:06] Erica Barnett: Or surprisingly - I don't know about weirdly - but surprisingly crowded. [00:16:09] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, surprisingly. Rich Smith of The Stranger did an article about that this week, which we will link in the show notes. Now, I also want to talk about news we received this week about another long-standing issue tied to both public safety and a former mayor. And that's news that we received that former Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan and former Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best will not be facing charges for deleting texts. What was the finding here and what does this mean? [00:16:39] Erica Barnett: Yeah, as we all know, they deleted tens of thousands of texts, many of them during the crucial period when 2020 protests were going on, when they were amassing troops - so to speak - and reacting with force to people protesting police violence after George Floyd was killed. And the finding essentially was that the King County Prosecutor's Office could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these deletions had been intentional and that they were trying to effectively conceal public records. It's a pretty high standard of proof that they have to meet at the prosecutor's office. I read the entire report from the investigator - what was released to reporters earlier this week - I have to say they put a lot of faith, I think, in or at least trust in public officials' statements that they sort of didn't know anything about the City's retention policy for cell phones, for text messages. The excuse was often - Well, I thought they were being preserved in a server somewhere, so it was fine to delete them. And I asked - because I think we all know when we delete our text messages, they're gone. You can't just get them back. AT&T doesn't have a server for us somewhere where we can get our text messages. So I said - Do they not understand how cell phones work? Was there any training on this? - and the response was - Well, I would dispute that they understand how cell phones work and there was training, but it was mostly about email. There's some stuff in here that kind of strains credulity a little bit, but again, it's a high standard of proof they had to meet, so that was their argument. There's a civil case where a federal judge said that it was unlikely that they didn't know what they were doing, but he had a lower standard of proof. So that's why it's a slightly different conclusion from basically the same facts. [00:18:17] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think these are always interesting situation - when it comes to an actual charging decision and what's needed there. I'm sure they're considering - unfortunately in our society today, they can afford significant defenses that are not available to a lot of people - that may have factored into their decision. But overall, it just once again seems like there is a different standard for people with power than those without power. And we're having conversations about people dealing with addiction, about people shoplifting for financial reasons - and even not for financial reasons - people being assaulted and in some instances killed for petty theft, or eviction, or different things. And it seems like we have no problem cracking down and expecting perfect compliance from people without power. But those that do just don't seem to be held to the same standard of accountability. And I think that's damaging and troubling. And I think we need to explore that and make sure we do hold people accountable. And it also just doesn't, once again, escape my notice that these aren't the first controversies that either one of them dealt with that did not have the kind of accountability attached to them. And so yes, it's a slippery slope. And if you keep sliding, you're gonna wind up in a low, dirty place. And once again, this is part of what undermines people's trust in power, and in institutions, and in democracy. And we need to be doing all we can to move in the opposite direction right now - to build trust and to conduct actions with integrity. And it just doesn't seem like that is a priority everywhere - they know they can get away with it - and it's really frustrating and disheartening, and we just need to do better overall. [00:20:05] Erica Barnett: To put a fine point on one of the things that the investigation revealed to me that I was not aware of actually about public disclosure - which is that text messages, according to the City, can be deleted if they are "transitory" in nature. And "transitory" is defined as not relating to policy decisions or things of substance like that, which means that according to Durkan and Best, it was fine to delete anything that was not like - We are going to adopt this policy or propose this policy, or our policy is to tear gas all protesters or something like that. So if it's tactical in the moment, that was not preserved. But I do records requests - I get text messages from officials - and a lot of times they include stuff that Durkan and Best are defining as transitory, like text message - I mean, I'm just making this up - but an official saying this other official is a jerk or somebody. There's all kinds of sort of process related text messages and texts that give some insight to decision-making that would be considered transitory. It is entirely possible that Durkan and Best are deleting all of those kinds of messages, which is not something I think should be deleted, and that I think is in the public interest to know about if people are requesting it. So I found that very disturbing - this notion that you can just destroy records if they aren't related to policy. I think in practice, most officials know better than that - and that's just based on records requests I've done - but apparently that's a big loophole that I think should be closed in the policies at the City, if at all possible. [00:21:33] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now I wanna talk about the return of the drug criminalization bill in the City of Seattle. What's happening with this? [00:21:43] Erica Barnett: The City Council's Public Safety Committee voted this week to basically move it forward to the full council. There's a new version that has a lot of nice language - in the sort of non-binding whereas clauses - about we don't wanna start another drug war and we definitely, for sure for real, prefer diversion. But essentially the impact of the bill is the same as it has always been, which is to empower the city attorney to prosecute and empower police to arrest for people using drugs in public and for simple possession of drugs other than cannabis. There's some language in the bill - and including in the text of the bill itself - that says there will be a policy in the future that says that police should try to put people into diversion programs first. And there's a couple kinds of diversion programs that we fund - inadequately currently - to actually divert the number of people that would be eligible now. So the impact of this bill is, I think, going to actually be pretty limited because - unless the mayor proposes massive investments in diversion programs like LEAD, potentially like some of these pretrial diversion programs that City Attorney's Office wants to fund. But we're facing a huge budget deficit in 2025 and years out, so it feels like a lot of kind of smoke-and-mirrors talk. We really love diversion, but we're not gonna fund it. And maybe I'll be proven wrong in two weeks when the mayor releases his budget, but my bet is that there's not gonna be massive new funding for these programs and that this is gonna end up being mostly talk. [00:23:19] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, mostly talk. And just on that specifically - that the mayor did announce $27 million to help support this effort. Is that $27 million - is it what it sounds like? [00:23:33] Erica Barnett: Yeah, this is like one of the things that I feel like I've been shouting from the rooftops, and all the other local press - I don't know why - keep reporting it as if it is a $27 million check of new money, but it's actually $7 million that's left over in federal CDBG [Community Development Block Grant] grant funding that has to be spent, but the City has failed to spend it so far. So that's a lump sum - some of that's gonna go to an opiate recovery site run by DESC that I wrote about at PubliCola a couple of weeks ago. And then the rest is a slow trickle, over 18 years, of funding from a previously announced opiate settlement. And so that's gonna be on average about $1 million a year. As City Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda was pointing out earlier this week, a lot of that - 20% of that goes to administrative overhead. So you're really looking at more $700,000-$800,000 a year, and it diminishes in out years - that is what they call budget dust - it is not enough to pay for virtually anything. I don't know what they're going to ultimately spend that trickle of funding on, but it's definitely not $27 million. That's what I mean by smoke and mirrors - that's a good example. It looks like a fairly big number, but then you realize it's stretched out into the 2030s and it's not nearly as big looking - actually, sorry, the 2040s, I believe, if I'm doing my math right - it doesn't look nearly as big when you actually look at what it is. So I encourage people to do that, and I've written more about this at PubliCola too. [00:24:58] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. We can also link that article. The most frustrating thing to me about Seattle politics, I think - in addition to just the endless process and reconsideration of things instead of making a decision and doing it - is this thing right here where there is a problem and people seem to actually, in public, rhetorically agree with the problem. Arresting people just for drug offenses does not solve that problem - it destabilizes people more, jail is not an effective place for drug treatment. Does that mean no one in the history of ever has ever become clean in jail? - there have been people, but they're few and far between. And experience and research and common sense, when you look at what actually happens there, really shows that is more of a destabilizing experience, that people who are in addiction need treatment, effective treatment, for that addiction and substance use disorder. And for people who may be recreationally using, sending them to jail doesn't help them when it comes to - and in fact, it's very hurtful - when it comes to finding a job, to securing housing, a variety of things. And that often has a more negative effect when it comes to forcing people into needing assistance, into needing help or completely falling through the cracks and becoming homeless - and dealing with the challenges there that we all pay for as a society. And so here we are again, where we actually did not solve the problem that everyone is articulating - and it seems like we just punted on that. But we're funding the thing that we say is not going to solve the problem, that we're confident is not going to solve the problem - and wrapping words around everything else, but that action isn't there. And I think what's frustrating to a lot of people, including me, it's sometimes - people on the left or Democrats are in this larger public safety conversation get painted as not wanting to do anything. And that's just so far from the truth. This is a problem, we need to address it. I just want to do something that has a chance of helping. And it seems like we're throwing good money after bad here and investing in something that we know is not going to be very helpful, meanwhile not funding the things that will be. And so we're going to be a year or two down the line and we'll see what the conversation we continue to have then is, but wondering at which point we stop doing the same thing that keeps getting us these suboptimal results. [00:27:20] Erica Barnett: And this is one place that you can blame the city council. I know the city council gets blamed for everything, but they are out there saying that this is a massively changed bill and it's changed in meaningful ways - in my opinion, it really hasn't been. [00:27:32] Crystal Fincher: I agree with that. I want to conclude by talking about a story that you wrote at PubliCola this week, talking about challenges with the way interviews for the Regional Homeless Authority's Five-Year Plan. What happened here and what were the problems? [00:27:49] Erica Barnett: Yeah, the new Five-Year Plan for homelessness, which was pretty controversial when it first came out because it had a $12 billion price tag, was based largely on 180 interviews that the homelessness authority did with people who are unsheltered in places around the county. And the interviews were basically 31 questions that they were supposed to vaguely stick to, but some that they really needed to get the answers to - for demographic reasons - and didn't always. The interviews were conducted primarily by members of the Lived Experience Coalition with some KCRHA staff doing them too. I've read about 90 of the 180, so about half of the 180 so far - and I would describe them as primarily being very discursive, very non-scientific. And it's not just that they are qualitative interviews 'cause it's fine for a qualitative interview to ramble - I talked to a couple of experts about how this kind of research usually works - and the idea is to make it more like a conversation, and that was the goal here. But in a lot of cases, the interviewers were doing things like suggesting answers, like interrupting, like talking at great length about themselves and their own experience, making suggestions, making assurances or promises that they could help them with services. There are just all kinds of things going on in these interviews that are not best practices for this type of interview. And then the interviews, which generally, people didn't tend to answer the question - there was a question about what has been helpful or harmful to you - and the goal there was to get people to say things that would suggest a shelter type, for example. They almost never said a specific shelter type except for a tiny house village, but the interviews were then coded by researchers to sort of lead to a specific set of shelter types. And without getting into too much technical detail, the idea was if somebody said they wanted X type of service or they had Y type of problem, that would suggest they needed Z type of service. So you're living in your car, you probably need a place to park your car safely. You're living in an RV, you need an RV safe lot. And the problem is, first of all, you're extrapolating from 180 interviews. And second, some of these solutions are pretty determinative. If you live in an RV, do you wanna live in an RV forever? Maybe not. Anyway, it just, it was not a great process to come up with this plan that ultimately is a plan to spend billions of dollars, even if it doesn't have that price tag, on a specific breakdown of types of service. And so I think they're not gonna do it again this way next year, but I think it did really inform this plan in a way that was not always super helpful. [00:30:23] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and I do know a little something about qualitative and quantitative research. As you said, doing qualitative interviews - in a narrative format, having a conversation - is not in itself a bad thing, but you can't interject your experience. You can't help inform the answers of the people you're talking to and that seemed to happen. And it really did seem like it was - they had an ambitious plan, maybe the training for how to do this was not as comprehensive as it needed to be - that certainly appears to be the case. Initially, they actually did hundreds, multiple hundreds of interviews for this, but a lot of them had to just be discarded - they were so outside of the bounds of what was supposed to happen, they were not able to be included in what they considered their final data set. And that's really unfortunate. It's a lot of time, it's a lot of effort - especially with populations that are harder to consistently contact and follow up with, any chance you have to connect with them is really meaningful. And so if you don't utilize that time correctly, or if you can't do anything with that, that just seems like an extra painful loss. I understand the ambition to get this done, but the execution really suffered. And I hope that there are lessons learned from this. Even in the ones that were done wrong - I say it seems like an issue of training and overambition, 'cause usually there is a lot of training that goes into how to do this. Usually these are people's professions that actually do this. It's not - Oh, hey, today we're gonna do some qualitative interviews and just walk up and have a conversation and check some things off the list. - it doesn't work that way. So that was unfortunate to hear. And the recommendations from this - I don't know if they change or not after review of this whole situation - but certainly when you know that eyes are going to be getting wide looking at the price tag of this, you really do have to make sure that you're executing and implementing well and that was a challenge here. So how do they move on from this? Was it at all addressed? Are they gonna do this again? What's going to happen? [00:32:25] Erica Barnett: I don't think they're gonna do the qualitative interviews, at least in this way again. I think this was something that Marc Dones really emphasized - the former head of the KCRHA - really wanted to do. And it got rolled into also doing the Point-In-Time count based on extrapolations from this group of folks they interviewed. They call these oral histories and really emphasized the need to get this data. I don't think it's gonna happen again based on what KCRHA officials told me, but qualitative data - I mean, I should say, is not as you mentioned a bad thing - it can be very useful. But the training that they received was a one-time training, or perhaps in two parts, by Marc Dones - I don't think they have anybody on staff right now that is trained in the kind of stuff that Dones was training them on. So I think this is probably one of many things that we'll see that happened under - in the first two years of the agency - that's gonna go by the wayside in the future. So doubt we'll see this again. [00:33:22] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I hope - there usually is really useful information and insight that comes from doing qualitative research. I don't think that we should necessarily throw the baby out with the bathwater here overall, but certainly this was a big challenge. And I hope that informs how they choose to move forward in the future. But with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, September 15th, 2023. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is the wonderful Dr. Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today is Seattle political reporter and editor of PubliCola, Erica Barnett. You can find Erica on Twitter @ericacbarnett, or X formerly known as Twitter, as @ericacbarnett and on PubliCola.com. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can find me on multiple platforms as @finchfrii, that's F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. You can catch Hacks & Wonks wherever 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 the 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.

Coverage of a Seattle police officer's words shows rift in media. Attorney General Bob Ferguson touts record on sexually violent predators. More money is the last thing needed to solve homelessness. Washingtonians get the chance to experience low gas prices for a day, hooray! 

4pm - Attorney General Bob Ferguson announces run for governor with endorsement from Gov. Inslee // Ex-coach Joe Kennedy to KTTH: Plan was to stay in Bremerton all year // More than 20% of younger, educated women are refusing to change their names after marriage, while 5% of men now decide to take the WIFE'S NAME // Video released of Mike Lindell Blasting Attorney for Calling His Pillow “Lumpy” See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

6pm - Attorney General Bob Ferguson announces run for governor with endorsement from Gov. Inslee // Ex-coach Joe Kennedy to KTTH: Plan was to stay in Bremerton all year // A boss who uses a 'coffee cup test' to filter candidates in job interviews is being accused by some social media users of playing 'mind games' // Maker of the spicy 'One Chip Challenge' pulls product from store shelvesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this Hacks & Wonks week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Seattle Times politics and communities reporter, Daniel Beekman! They cover the Seattle City Council's defeat of a War-on-Drugs style bill, a judge ruling that Washington's ban on assault-style rifles can move forward, new polling from NPI showing Bob Ferguson with an early lead in the race for governor, Seattle Councilmember Alex Pedersen proposing a capital gains tax for the city of Seattle, Washington state pursuing permanent rules for working outdoors in wildfire smoke, and 1,000 misdemeanor cases being dismissed after Seattle City Attorney Ann Davison ends the city's participation in Community Court. 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 “Passing Middle Housing and Climate Planning with Futurewise's Bryce Yadon & Marcella Buser” from Hacks & Wonks   “Seattle City Council narrowly rejects drug prosecution bill” by Sarah Grace Taylor from The Seattle Times   “WA ban on sale of AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles can go forward, judge rules” by Claire Withycombe from The Seattle Times   “Attorney General Bob Ferguson leads 2024 WA gubernatorial field, new NPI poll confirms” by Andrew Villeneuve from The Cascadia Advocate   “Alex Pedersen proposes capital gains tax in Seattle” by Sarah Grace Taylor from The Seattle Times   “WA taking input on new rules for working outdoors in wildfire smoke” by Jasper Kenzo Sundeen from The Yakima Herald-Republic   AirNow Fire and Smoke Map    “1,000 misdemeanor cases to be dismissed after demise of Seattle Community Court” by Sara Jean Green from The Seattle Times   Find stories that Crystal is reading 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 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 the 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 welcomed Bryce Yadon and Marcella Buser from Futurewise to talk about the For Our Future campaign's success in passing middle housing and climate planning bills for the 2023 legislative session. Today, we're continuing the 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. [00:01:22] Daniel Beekman: Hey Crystal - thanks for having me. [00:01:24] Crystal Fincher: Hey - glad to have you again today. Wanna start off by talking about something that was in the headlines almost all week and made major news throughout Seattle - and that was the Seattle City Council defeating a drug prosecution bill that was proposed. What would this bill have done and how did this shake out? [00:01:45] Daniel Beekman: Oh, okay. So what the bill would have done was allow the Seattle City Attorney's Office to take charge of prosecuting gross misdemeanor illicit drug possession and public drug use, as defined by the Legislature in the session earlier this year - in a law passed to keep drug possession criminalized in the state statewide and to criminalize public drug use. So to make the Seattle City Attorney's Office the lead on dealing with any of those arrests - or prosecutions. And I was fascinated by this. I covered Seattle City Hall for seven years and I've been off that beat for a while now but this was - I think since I left being responsible for that beat at our paper - this was the meeting that I tuned into sort of the most interestedly. I was listening to it at home even though I didn't need to be working, because I was just fascinated by what was going on. And it seemed like this moment where there could have been a real shift in sort of Seattle and Washington State politics potentially, where for many years it was the Seattle City Council trying to push the envelope on what they would describe as progressive issues and legislation and then the State Legislature sort of following that - taking the lead of Seattle. And here - what was proposed, aside from the details of it and the important issues at play which we could talk about, but just in pure sort of politics - this was some Seattle City Councilmembers and the City Attorney saying the opposite of that, saying the state has made their decision going in a certain direction, we wanna follow it in Seattle. And so if the bill had passed that would have been a real sort of role reversal - in my mind, in that way - but it was interesting. And then of course, narrowly the legislation did not pass with Councilmember Andrew Lewis providing the swing vote and saying he was changing his mind at the last minute, but also saying that he wanted to come back and revisit the issue in the future - so sort of trying to play both sides of it. [00:04:16] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And as you've mentioned, this comes on the heels of the state legislation - their second shot at drug legislation following the State Supreme Court's Blake decision, which made personal possession not a crime, kept everything else like dealing and paraphernalia - all that kind of stuff - wasn't changed, but personal possession of a substance was decriminalized. Our legislature stepped in in 2020-ish, 2021 - one of those years - [00:04:46] Daniel Beekman: 2021, yeah. [00:04:48] Crystal Fincher: Thank you - pandemic time is interesting in my head. [00:04:52] Daniel Beekman: For sure. [00:04:53] Crystal Fincher: And made a possession a misdemeanor and included a sunset provision in that legislation. They also included a lot of funding in that initial legislation to implement diversion and support programs throughout the state - that largely didn't end up happening because the pandemic happened. A lot of those plans just weren't fully realized, weren't able to be implemented for health reasons, and for some lack of desire. So when they came back, they actually doubled down on the criminalization - made personal possession a gross misdemeanor instead of just a misdemeanor - they increased the penalty there. As well as making public use a gross misdemeanor. So localities are now faced with how to make their local laws jive with the state law. And a lot of different cities are contending with this in a lot of different ways. We saw overwhelming testimony from Seattle residents saying that while they absolutely agree that substance use, drug abuse, public use is a problem, that this way of solving it - through just prosecutions, criminalization, and the taking over of this locally in the City - marked a return to the failed War on Drugs that they weren't interested in. I think we do hear from a lot of residents that they want this addressed. They just want it addressed in a way that is likely to succeed and hasn't failed before, which some of these punitive, punishment-based policies have been doing. And to really give addressing the root causes of these problems a shot - where we saw the beginnings of the attempt to do that and fits and starts during the pandemic, but really wanting to move forward with this in earnest. And we'll see what happens. Mayor Harrell and Councilmember Lewis both signaled that they want to address this somehow, and maybe it needs some more stakeholdering, community feedback, and support in how to deal with this. So I expect to see legislation coming back that maybe tries to address some of the concerns that the community had, but it'll be interesting to see how this shapes up. [00:07:13] Daniel Beekman: For sure, yeah. The public comment was heavily against the legislation, but then, yeah - there were mentions by, I think, Councilmember Lewis, maybe others on - from the dais - about polling that showed it was popular amongst Seattle voters, and I didn't see that. And so I don't know how it was worded - and caveat - but it was interesting that they mentioned that. And then it also gets complicated because you can have a law on the books, whether it's at the City level or the County level - responsible for, in theory, for prosecuting - but if the police aren't prioritizing those arrests, either because they're told not to, or because they don't have the staffing to do so. And if the jail isn't booking people - then real life can be more complicated than a press release or what's written in the law. It wasn't clear even what would happen if the law had passed. I don't think it's totally clear what's going to happen now, so I'll have to keep watching it. [00:08:13] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. On that polling issue, there is an interesting occurrence afoot in Seattle. There is a firm - I don't know which firm is doing it yet - but have seen a few of these polls that have come out, and they really do not appear to be scientific polls. Maybe this is a different firm, and I haven't seen it, but I have seen a couple of these polls. It looks like they are targeting a political list, as opposed to randomly-selected residents or registered voters, however they're doing that. So I just underscore for people who are going to be covering polling, for the public looking at this - if you don't see all of the details about the poll if a poll is referenced, if you don't see what the methodology is and it's not done by a reputable firm - take that with an extreme grain of salt. There are some polls checking in that seem to be more public relations and marketing stunts than actual legitimate polls. We'll see. Again, there could be a poll that I'm unaware of here that is absolutely legit, but just always it's best to see that. And with this new legislation, it's going to be interesting to see what happens with this. I know there's been a lot of talk about standing up alternatives to just traditional - Hey, we're calling in a cop for this, maybe that's not the best way - looks like that is likely not the best way to address substance use disorder and issues like this. So one of my big questions is - okay, we're focusing on new legislation. But for funding that has already been provided for these alternatives - for stuff to stand up - what is being done to stand up existing capacity, existing programming, existing things that have already been greenlighted? But we'll see what happens. This is in the mayor's lap right now, so are there plans moving forward with this? I know they've talked about doing things under the umbrella of a new Department of Public Safety, but I think lots of people are asking - When is that going to happen? And when are we going to see some of the benefits of that happening? 'Cause although there's a lot of attention put on the pushback against some of these damaging policies, that's not the only thing that's happening here. There are people saying - No, we don't want to return to this bad, expensive process of before, but we do need to help this situation. We do need to stand up some things that have a better shot at working. And I'm wondering when that's going to happen. [00:10:39] Daniel Beekman: Yeah, and then my colleague Sarah Grace Taylor, who covers City Hall for us, has written about this question of Mayor Bruce Harrell. It was very clear that he - with public safety - he wasn't a proponent of defunding the police, but he was, expressed this both-and approach where we want more police officers - and we want the best police officers, the best training - but we also want the best alternatives and the best new kind of public safety person who's not a police officer, but we have not seen that yet. And he got some time at first to adjust to a new administration, but we're deep into his first term now. [00:11:23] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, we're waiting. Other news this week - a judge ruled that the ban, Washington's ban, on the sale of AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles can go forward. What was the controversy here? [00:11:36] Daniel Beekman: I think the various gun lobby organizations, or the Second Amendment rights organizations - they always sue whenever any jurisdiction passes any type of gun control or gun safety measure. And so they were always gonna sue in this case and claim there was an infringement on Second Amendment rights, and so it looks like the state won an initial victory. This was just, I believe, a ruling on whether there could be an injunction in the case - in other words, stopping the law from being in effect while the lawsuit itself is litigated. And the federal court judge, among other things, said - There are various standards for an injunction. And one of them I noticed he said - one of them is - is there gonna be a great harm to the public if I put this, or if I allow this law to keep going forward while we litigate this case? He said - No, there's not gonna be a great harm to the public if I allow this law to be in place while we deal with the lawsuit, because people are using guns to kill people. So that was one interesting piece, I think, from the ruling when I was reading up on it. But it's not the end of the story - the case is still active and who knows, maybe it'll go all the way to the US Supreme Court - we'll have to see. [00:13:05] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, we will have to see - as we've seen with so many things, whether it's the capital gains tax or lots of legislation, a law passes or residents of the state pass a new law. And it's fairly routine these days, especially in some of the biggest cases, to see legal challenges against them. And certainly the gun lobby signaled from the very beginning that they were going to be challenging this in court. There is another voter-passed initiative that is being challenged in court in Oregon also. So although we are passing some nation-leading gun control measures here and along the West Coast, it does have to pass legal scrutiny and be constitutional, both our state and national constitution. And the people who are making that determination are different ideologically than they'd been before, so it's gonna be interesting to see how this continues to carry through the courts - what is permitted and what's not - and the importance of crafting legislation that you do believe will stand up to legal scrutiny. So we'll see how this proceeds. Also wanna talk about a new poll that came out this morning in regards to the 2024 gubernatorial race that's gonna be happening here in the state - with Jay Inslee announcing that he is not going to run for reelection and a whole crop of new candidates in. This poll found that Bob Ferguson was the clear leader here. But as far as that, there's not much more clear beyond that. There's a lot of candidates really close to support - several statistically tied, basically, based on the margin of error of this poll - and about a third of people currently saying they're undecided as well as others. What did you find interesting in this poll? [00:15:01] Daniel Beekman: And of course, with the caveats - we're talking about poll caveats - but this is just one poll. I think the NPI polling, in my experience last couple of years, has been proven to be pretty good, but they are - they're a partisan outfit. And I think they're working with a good polling firm, but just to put that there - it's just one poll. But I would say - not surprising to see Bob Ferguson in the lead, considering that it's very likely that a Democrat would win the office, and considering that he's been so prominent as a State Attorney General who waged legal sort of combat against Donald Trump, and then has continued to be in the news a lot for various initiatives. And just name recognition alone - compared to Public Lands Commissioner Hilary Franz - I think people can debate what either of them has done in office, but I think just name recognition - a lot of Washingtonians don't know that there's even a position of Public Lands Commissioner, especially maybe in the more urban areas. So there's that. I don't know - I'm not covering this race right now - and with these stories that I'm not covering directly, I wanna be careful 'cause I just don't have the expertise of some of my colleagues. But as an outsider, I found the entry of Mark Mullet, sort of centrist Democrat, the most important thing here - just because he may also not have a ton of name recognition, but he's gonna try to pull, I would think, voters from both parties or independents to a center campaign. And whether that could give a Democratic frontrunner some problems, or give the Republican candidate some problems - I don't know - but that seems like the most interesting wild card so far. [00:17:04] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, I'd agree with that. And also absolutely agree with the caveat here - this is just one poll, not a suite of reputable polls that we can feel super confident in. Your point is well taken in that NPI has been performing well with their polling - they are a partisan outfit, but we've seen over the past year that they've been right in-line with other polls or actual results. In this, they found that Bob Ferguson was at 25%, Raul Garcia - a Republican who ran for governor before - at 17%, Semi Bird - who is a more MAGA-leaning Republican endorsed by Joe Kent - is there. I should mention Raul Garcia was supported by some more - what they would describe themselves as - moderate Republicans. Hilary Franz at 9%, Mark Mullet at 7%, and Not sure at 33%. Margin of error in this poll, as said before, was 3.5%. Really important - polls are a snapshot in time - that doesn't mean that this cannot, and I anticipate it will, dramatically change. This race and the dimensions of it, especially with Mark Mullet getting in, are very interesting. I think his theory of the case is, especially if he can - I think most people at this point in time are assuming that with Bob Ferguson's lead in terms of name recognition, which probably comes from him being so active as an attorney general and a lot of the lawsuits that he's brought, most notably against the Trump administration have helped his name ID. He also has a significant financial lead in - because he was able to transfer some of the money from his AG campaign to his gubernatorial campaign. Our state's Public Disclosure Commission is in the process of perhaps modifying rules in that area - which lots of people have done - Bob Ferguson is not the only person to transfer money here. But with that changing, he did rush to get in these transfers underneath, under the deadline of some impending change here. And so he was able to transfer a lot of money, is the fundraising leader by a significant margin. And that matters in the way races are run today. I wish it didn't matter as much, but it does. So a lot of people are looking at this as - okay, Bob looks really likely to get through, who's going to make it through against him? And big question mark - if it's a Republican, we have the dimensions of, I don't know, I would say regular or traditional given where discourse is at today, but a Republican versus Democratic general. But in our top-two system, it could be Bob Ferguson and Mark Mullet, it could be Bob Ferguson and Raul Garcia, Semi Bird, it could be Hilary Franz. Also, we are very early and it's not like Bob Ferguson is guaranteed. We saw an endorsement announcement that got a lot of attention - not much of it positive - with the announcement of former Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best endorsing Bob Ferguson's campaign and kind of poor reactions to that from both the left and the right. But we'll see how this shakes out. And he has a lot that he can certainly run on and advocate for and that people have been satisfied with, a lot that some, especially conservatives, have not been satisfied with - but we'll see how this shakes out. I certainly thought this was interesting, but it is just capturing a point in time. Lots can change - this is not set in stone - although I anticipate to see a campaign email from Bob Ferguson touting these results pretty soon. We will see. Also notable that you talk about Mark Mullet being a differentiating force, a unique force that can change the dimensions of this race. I found it notable that this past week we saw an email from Bob Ferguson going after Mark Mullet's record and pointing out things like he said he wasn't even sure he was gonna vote for the Democrat gubernatorial nominee before, when he was running that very heavily contested race against Ingrid Anderson, and some other controversial things that he had said and done. Which Bob Ferguson pointed out in wanting to say that we don't want a Republican-lite - as many people view Mark Mullet - we want a real Democrat in this seat. We'll see how the dimensions of this race proceed. It's going to be an interesting one. Also wanted to talk about a new proposal for a capital gains tax in the City of Seattle - coming from someone who I think some people were surprised to see - from Alex Pedersen. What did he propose and why is he saying this is warranted? [00:21:42] Daniel Beekman: I think as I understand it, he would take the - basically the logic of the capital gains tax that has been put in place on the state level and apply an extra couple of percentages to a similar tax just for Seattle. And then what he said that he would do - he said, call that a progressive tax, where people with more resources are being taxed. And then he would use those funds to then reduce or eliminate a water tax that's added to water bills for folks in the City of Seattle. So he - which he described as a, I think, as a regressive tax because it's flat, it's not graduated. And so I actually thought it was a classic Alex Pedersen maneuver. He, I remember even - I think, I want to say when he was first running and when he was, worked for Tim Burgess back in the day, he's been - always talked about our regressive tax system and wanting to change that. But also, he's talked about that as wanting to raise revenue, not necessarily to put towards new programs and things, but to reduce other taxes. And this water tax is - it plays, I think it plays to his base of northeast Seattle homeowners. So it felt like a very Alex Pedersen thing to do - to me - in those ways. [00:23:09] Crystal Fincher: No, that tracks. And to your point, this is a very popular idea in the City of Seattle across the board. He points out that regressive taxes are those taxes that place a disproportionate burden on the lowest income households. Like even though we don't have an income tax, he points out utility taxes, property taxes, sales taxes. Those are all taxes that we pay in greater amounts because we don't have a property tax. And the people who are paying the most are those at the very bottom, those who can least afford it. Meanwhile, the people at the very top, the wealthiest 1%, are not paying their fair share - is what he's saying, it's what public polling shows is very popular in Seattle. We just had the capital gains tax passed at the state level and it did survive legal scrutiny. Our State Supreme Court found that it was a constitutional tax - it's not classified as an income tax, which is currently unconstitutional in Washington state. So we'll see if this has legs, if this can proceed, how this proposal will go - but it looks like this is going to be really interesting. Seattle would be the first locality in the state to pass this capital gains tax. So we'll see what happens with this, but it's gonna be interesting. [00:24:31] Daniel Beekman: I saw somebody - I haven't looked into this much, but I've been wondering - oh, is this just gonna sail through the City Council because it's panned as a progressive tax in the city - even though Alex Pedersen on some issues is on the more conservative side, will the more lefty councilmembers get on board with it. And I saw a piece of criticism - just on social media - sort of making the case that because the City has a utility discount program that maybe mitigates the effect of the water tax or water bills on lower income folks, that really choosing that as a place to reduce the regressive tax or give back that capital gains money to taxpayers is actually - would be disproportionately benefiting people who aren't low income. And so I don't know - that was interesting. And yeah, I don't know. Like I said, I would need to look into it more, but we'll see what that conversation looks like. [00:25:34] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, we'll see what this conversation looks like. And again, this is one of those tax that applies to a very narrow slice of people at the top. We've seen organized and well-funded opposition to this. I anticipate we'll see this at the city level too, but the percentage of people who that actually represents is much smaller than normal. Usually we're under 5%, perhaps under 1%. We'll see what the number is for that in Seattle. I assume it's gonna be slightly higher than it may be for the statewide average - but we'll see how that continues, what the reception of this is, and how this is gonna play out. So another story this week, which is timely to discuss - as particularly the East Coast right now is inundated by wildfires raging throughout Canada, even some Western wildfires that have some smoke spreading to the Pacific Northwest interior right now - wildfire smoke in areas that are hundreds of miles away, sometimes thousands of miles away even, is becoming a reality that we're dealing with because of climate change. And so our Department of Labor and Industries is considering implementing some new rules governing how and whether people can work in severe wildfire weather events that are very harmful to people's health. I think this is something that more people are realizing and learning as we deal with smoke more regularly, but breathing in wildfire or particulate matter - sometimes you see it referenced as PM2.5 - is very harmful to health, including - extended exposure can damage the heart, nervous system, respiratory system, and cause cancer or respiratory disease. Sometimes people just initially notice eye irritation, coughing, lung irritation - but these can cause and exacerbate major, major healthcare issues, exacerbate asthma and different things like that. So whether it's kids at school or people at work, this is having a big impact and Labor and Industries is stepping up and stepping in to say there need to be some requirements for employers about this. You can't just put your employees out in smoke no matter what that is with no protection and proceed on. So it's mandating some protection at some levels, at different thresholds - employers providing KN95 or better masks, mandating how people can work, mandating the wearing of masks to protect people's health potentially if wildfire is really, really - if the smoke is really heavy and I think we pass some of the highest threshold levels here. How do you see this and do you think this is gonna make a difference? [00:28:20] Daniel Beekman: Yeah, I think that it does seem like common sense to try to grapple with it because these smoky summers, whether here and now we're seeing it in New York - which is interesting to see people there in New York City deal with something that we've already been dealing with for a while deal with it - but they're here to stay. It seems like it's a new normal of some sort. So employers and workers are already dealing with these things and trying to figure out how to handle them, I think, at least on an ad hoc basis. But figuring out what regulation should be makes sense and can maybe make a difference. And it does remind me that - this wasn't smoke, but last summer I did a story about how Seattle's library branches without air conditioning closed more than 130 times due to heat and concern about workers being too hot for too long inside. And just - I think that was totally unprecedented and I think points to the fact that we're dealing with a sort of new ball game here with our changes in weather, whether it be the results or symptoms are smoke or just the heat itself, and adjustments need to be made - whether it's putting air conditioning in more library branches, or whether it's coming up with new regulations for working outside when it's smoky. [00:29:38] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And just underscoring that this is a rule-making period here - it's a period where they're collecting comment from a lot of people. So if you have thoughts or feelings about this - we will include the link in the resources here - and please get in contact with Labor and Industries to share your opinion. Some people are saying the thresholds as currently stated are too high and adverse health effects can happen much lower than the thresholds and need protection. There are also some industry organizations saying that they wanna make sure that this isn't too burdensome on - perhaps farmers and others - saying that they need to clearly understand what they are. And hopefully paperwork requirements aren't onerous, but it does seem like it is necessary to provide some protection to employees here and make sure everyone understands what the risks and thresholds are, and taking action to mitigate and support employees through this. Also, another element that was making news in the City of Seattle is 1,000 misdemeanor cases are going to be dismissed after the demise of Seattle's Community Court at the request of Republican City Attorney Ann Davison. What happened here? [00:30:54] Daniel Beekman: Again, I think some of this is a little bit complicated in the back and forth - the debate about whether Community Court should still exist and the City Attorney's office should be participating in it or not - but my understanding is that the Seattle City Attorney's Office - there's been several iterations of Community Court, which is basically allowing people with certain misdemeanors to deal with their cases in a non-traditional way, whether it be through community service or other avenues. The Seattle City Attorney's Office said - We're frustrated with the way this has been going, we're pulling out. And once they pull out, then it ceases to be a viable option - they're a necessary player for that equation. And so that was a dramatic termination of that program that even came into the conversation then a few days later about the drug possession and drug use prosecution with, I think, Councilmember Andrew Lewis saying that the termination of Community Court influenced his decision to vote against allowing the City Attorney's Office to prosecute drug possession and public drug use because the Community Court, or something - things like it - would be a helpful tool to have in dealing with those cases and then the Community Court isn't there anymore. [00:32:24] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. This is really interesting - and again, helps to understand and remind people that cities typically handle misdemeanors, counties typically handle felonies. So this is just a conversation about city-level misdemeanor cases. And what evidence has largely found, what has guided some recent decision-making is that for the lowest level crimes, usually addressing the root causes of those does a much better job of eliminating recidivism - re-offense - than strictly punitive policies only focused on punishment and not the cessation of whatever behavior or criminality is occurring. So once again - here in Seattle - Community Court, which had broad support from the public, from the judges implementing this. We talked about this a bit last year during some of the Seattle, or year before last, Seattle Municipal Court battles here and this being an issue that was at play kind of bubbling underneath the surface, but certainly a desire at that time - knowing that the Seattle City Attorney's Office wanted to end the Community Court - they had a person running from within that office who appeared that they intended to wanna do that, that was talked about on the campaign trail. The voters voted for people who said that they would not do that - that seems to be where the voters continue to be at. But we see once again, a pandemic-impacted conversation - Hey, we implemented this, but during the pandemic, everything was turned upside down - from the way court was done, the way Community Court was done, and the way that a lot of the options that required human contact, face-to-face contact and working through these issues were dramatically impacted, cut down, not provided - for understandable health reasons, but this wasn't fully implemented. And some of the justification of this was - Well, it's not working. It's not working 'cause it's kind of not happening throughout the pandemic and not doing that - the things that were going to be helpful were not being provided. But it seems like the City Attorney is continuing to jump on these things and saying - Okay well, we didn't fully implement the thing, but it's not working, so let's just repeal it. It seems like that's the position that the City Attorney is starting from, returning to, didn't deviate from, and is using whatever justifications they can use to do this. Curious that now and previous - there was another mass kind of dropping of cases that they don't seem to think that that's gonna impact public safety or worrying about that, but we need to get harder to make sure that people who do come into the system are put into that traditional, more punitive system. I don't know how this is gonna turn out. I don't know how this is gonna proceed, but it looks like this Community Court is ending, that they're not putting more people into it. They did mention that there were a few new contracts signed with some service providers that maybe are going to be working with this new system. I would love to learn more about that - who those providers are and what they're going to be doing, how that differs from what was being done before. I do not know one way or the other, so genuinely interested in learning more about that - wasn't covered in the article that we read about it, but we'll see how this proceeds and we'll see what public safety and the criminal legal system continues to look like as it evolves in the City of Seattle. [00:36:06] Daniel Beekman: Yeah, there were a couple of details in my colleague Sara Jean Green's story about this Community Court issue that I thought were interesting. One of them being a reason cited, I think by the City Attorney's Office, for being frustrated with Community Court is people not showing up to engage in the Community Court. And folks on the other side, proponents of Community Court, I think, maybe saying - Well, it's true, they're not showing up, but they also don't and wouldn't show up for traditional court. So it's not like you solve that problem necessarily by getting rid of Community Court. And even smaller sort of little detail that I thought was - I'm glad it was included - was even something as small as the - I believe the program had access to a van to take Community Court participants to their community service obligations at some point. And that was a victim of a budget cut. I think it was the presiding judge of Municipal Court talking about this and bringing it up as - something as simple as a van taken away by a budget cut can affect some of the performance here of this program. And so again, there are the big sort of big picture policy, political, philosophical debates on the criminal legal system and things like this. And then there are things as simple as a van. So I thought that was an important note. [00:37:45] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and thank you for bringing that up - that was a really important note. And I hope people who are putting together policy understand how important details like that are, particularly with transportation - something that a lot of people are contending with, a lot of people who, especially a disproportionate amount of people involved in the criminal legal system, don't have access to reliable transportation. We see that in the healthcare setting too - access to transportation significantly impacting patients' adherence to their plans, access to medication. It's a big deal how to get to and from somewhere, so even providing a service like that is really important to this. And the other one - as you said, it's so interesting to hear the objections to one program from the City Attorney also being present elsewhere, which kind of makes it look like a cynical attempt to just end something that they never liked in the first place. But we'll see how this happens, and I do hope that they pay attention to those details. And with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, June 9th, 2023. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today was Seattle Times politics and communities reporter, Daniel Beekman - always appreciate his information and insight. You can find Daniel on Twitter @DBeekman. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks, and you can find me on Twitter @finchfrii. You can catch Hacks & Wonks wherever 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 show 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.

Governor Jay Inslee announced this week he would not seek re-election. Less than 24 hours later, Attorney General Bob Ferguson announced an 'exploratory campaign' for governor. State Lands Commissioner Hilary Franz has been somewhat cryptic about her intentions, and there's talk of other Democrats jumping into the race. But what about the Republicans? After two cycles of having less-than-stellar candidates, can GOP even hope to compete? We'll have an in-depth look at how the races is shaping up. PLUS: State lawmakers will convene in a special session to deal with the issue of drug possession. AND: Just how safe are Washington's banks? Guests include House Republican Leader Drew Stokesbary, political analysts Randy Pepple and Cathy Allen, and conservative talk show host Ari Hoffman of 570 KVI. The Northwest Politicast with Jeff Pohjola: From this Washington to that one, Jeff Pohjola will explore the issues and politics of the week. Frequent guests and top analysts break down the news to get to the heart of what matters most. Subscribe at nwnewsradio.com or on your favorite podcast app.

5pm - Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson announces exploratory campaign for Governor // Are you in Bob Ferguson's Black Book of Revenge? Who else is on his list? The corruption of power // Trump Agrees to Return to CNN, Ending a Long Boycott // Tucker Carlson said Fox Nation streaming service ‘sucks', leaked video shows // We get the verdict from listeners on whether Shari is guilty of being insensitive about John's cabin // LETTERSSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In a video released Tuesday morning, Attorney General Bob Ferguson announced an

This is Garrison Hardie with your CrossPolitic Daily News Brief for Tuesday, March 7th, 2023. I hope you all had a fantastic weekend with you and yours! Before we get to the news… Fight Laugh Feast Conference - Ark Encounter This year, our Fight Laugh Feast Conference is at the Ark Encounter in Kentucky on The Politics of Six Day Creation. The politics of six day creation is the difference between a fixed standard of justice and a careening standard of justice, the difference between the corrosive relativism that creates mobs and anarchy and the freedom of objectivity, truth, and due process. The politics of six day creation establishes the authority and sufficiency of God’s Word for all of life: from what is a man or a woman, when does human life begin, and how is human society best organized? Come hear Ken Ham, Pastor Doug Wilson, Dr. Ben Merkle, Dr. Gordon Wilson, me and more, and of course a live CrossPolitic show! Mark your calendars for October 11th-14th, as we fight, laugh, and feast, with beer & psalms, our amazing lineup of speakers, our Rowdy Christian Merch, and a Sabbath Feast to wrap up the occasion. Maybe an infant baptism while we’re at it! Visit fightlaughfeast.com for more information! In world news, we visit Greece. https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2023-03-05/thousands-protest-in-athens-after-greeces-deadly-train-crash Greeks Protest Over Deadly Train Crash, Station Master Jailed Pending Trial ATHENS (Reuters) -A Greek railway employee was jailed on Sunday pending trial over a deadly train crash that killed at least 57 people, as Greeks seethed with anger over the worst rail disaster in living memory. Protests continued to reverberate days after a head-on collision of a passenger train and a freight carrier on the Athens-Thessaloniki route late in the evening of Feb. 28. Clashes erupted between police and demonstrators in Athens on Sunday, after thousands rallied to protest over the crash. The 59-year-old Larissa station master faces multiple charges of disrupting transport and putting lives at risk. The man, who cannot be named under Greek law, was questioned for seven hours before a magistrate on Sunday before being detained. "For about 20 cursed minutes he was responsible for the safety of the whole of central Greece," his lawyer said. On Thursday, his lawyer said that his client was devastated and had assumed responsibility "proportionate to him" but other factors were also at play, without elaborating. Railway workers say the country's rail network has been creaking under cost-cutting and underinvestment, a legacy of Greece's debilitating debt crisis from 2010 to 2018. The Prime Minister of transportation, who blamed the crash on human error, acknowledged that decades of neglect could have contributed to the disaster. "As prime minister, I owe everyone, but most of all the relatives of the victims, an apology," he wrote on his Facebook account. "Justice will very fast investigate the tragedy and determine liabilities." After protests over the past three days across the country, some 10,000 people gathered in an Athens square on Sunday to express sympathy for the lives lost and to demand better safety standards on the rail network. "That crime won't be forgotten," protesters shouted as they released black balloons into the sky. A placard read: "Their policies cost human lives." Railway workers' unions say safety systems throughout the rail network have been deficient for years as a remote surveillance and signalling system has not been delivered on time. They have called on the government to provide a timetable for the implementation of safety protocols. The prime minister of transportation said on Sunday that if there had been a remote system in place throughout the rail network "it would have been, in practice, impossible for the accident to happen". https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/06/us/boston-flight-exit-door-arrest/index.html Man arrested after allegedly trying to open emergency door on plane and stabbing flight attendant A Massachusetts man was arrested for allegedly attempting to stab a flight attendant in the neck with a broken metal spoon three times during a flight from Los Angeles to Boston on Monday, after attempting to open an emergency exit door, according to the Justice Department. Francisco Severo Torres, 33, faces one charge of interference and attempted interference with flight crew members and attendants using a dangerous weapon. Torres was arrested at Boston Logan International Airport Monday and will remain detained pending a hearing set for Thursday. During a United Airlines flight from Los Angeles to Boston, the flight crew saw an alarm that a door in the plane had been disarmed and, after inspection, a flight attendant saw the door’s locking handle had been pushed out of the fully locked position and an emergency slide arming lever had been disarmed, according to the Justice Department. A flight attendant who saw Torres near the door went to talk to Torres about the door, according to the department, who asked if there were cameras showing he had tampered with the door. “According to court documents, the flight attendant then notified the captain that they believed Torres posed a threat to the aircraft and that the captain needed to land the aircraft as soon as possible,” the Justice Department said. Soon after, Torres allegedly got out of his seat, mouthing something, before thrusting “towards one of the flight attendants in a stabbing motion with a broken metal spoon, hitting the flight attendant on the neck area three times,” the department said. Torres was then tackled by other passengers on the flight and was immediately taken into custody after the flight landed. According to a criminal complaint, Torres told investigators he broke a spoon in half a bathroom on the airplane to use as a weapon. He also told law enforcement that he tried to open the emergency door and “had gotten the idea” to jump out of the plane, according to the complaint. Torres told investigators he was trying to defend himself and tried to stab the flight attendant because he believed they were trying to kill him, the complaint states. The flight attendant felt the object Torres was holding in his hand “hit him on his shirt collar and tie three times,” according to the complaint. United Airlines says it has banned Torres from flying on future flights following this incident. https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/03/06/one-third-biden-2020-voters-do-not-want-him-run-again/ Poll: One-Third of Biden 2020 Voters Do Not Want Him to Run Again More than one-third of Biden 2020 voters do not want him to run for reelection in 2024, a recent survey from YouGov/The Economist revealed. The survey found 58 percent, overall, revealing they do not want President Joe Biden to run for office again in 2024, while 24 percent said they do. Another 18 percent remain unsure. Predictably, opinions are divided along party lines, as 83 percent of Republicans and 59 percent of independents do not want him to run. Less than a majority of Democrats, 43 percent, believe Biden should run in 2024, while more than one-third, 34 percent, said he should not. Another 23 percent of Democrats remain unsure. Notably, over one-third of Biden 2020 voters, 36 percent, do not want him to run in the next presidential race, while less than a majority, 39 percent, said he should. One-quarter of Biden 2020 voters remain unsure. For further comparison, most Trump 2020 voters, 55 percent, want former President Donald Trump to run in 2024, and 53 percent of Republicans across the board say the same. The survey was taken February 25-28, 2023, among 1,500 U.S. adult citizens. It coincides with other polls showing Biden’s inability to win over a majority of Democrats to support his potential 2024 presidential bid. A recent Fox News survey, for instance, found 53 percent of Democrat voters asserting that “someone else” should be their nominee in the forthcoming presidential election, compared to 37 percent who said “keep Biden” as the nominee. As Breitbart News reported: The article added further perspective to Biden’s figures among the Democrat base, noting that Trump saw far more support from his Republican base at the same point in his presidency, as 72 percent of Republican voters wanted to see him as the GOP nominee again in 2020. Similarly, a McLaughlin & Associates survey released last month found just more than a quarter, 26 percent, supporting Biden in a crowded Democrat field. https://www.theblaze.com/news/bob-ferguson-ministry-of-truth AG pushes state level 'Ministry of Truth' critics say could jail conservatives who express mainstream views A state attorney general is advocating for a bill some critics argue could punish outspoken conservatives as domestic extremists, KTTH's Jason Rantz reported Wednesday. "Some conservative views, or anything [Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson] deems as 'misinformation,' are examples of 'domestic extremism,'" Rantz said. It's the "most dangerous bill in legislative history," the Seattle radio host added. Washington is creating a state version of the ill-fated "Ministry of Truth," according to Rantz and others who have analyzed the bill. The controversial bill proposes the establishment of a commission on domestic violence extremism. Rep. Bill Ramos, a Democrat, sponsored the bill which would create the 13-member commission. HB 1333 describes the duties of the proposed commission as involving efforts to "combat disinformation and misinformation" and collecting data on incidents of "domestic violent extremism," the Center Square explains. Though DVE is not explicitly defined in the bill, Ferguson has described the term as including noncriminal activities or speech, the outlet also says. The legislation was spawned by the Attorney General's 2022 "Domestic Terrorism" study, according to Center Square. That study warned that "effective State intervention to address these threats has the potential to implicate speech or association that may be protected by the First Amendment, or the individual right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment." Further, the commission, though charged with examining ways to treat DVE as a public health issue through the state's Department of Health, would have only one member required to be an expert in public health. The basic idea is to "take preemptive measures to stop actual domestic terrorist acts through community intervention." Such "community intervention" could include, for example, compelling people identified as "extremists" to undergo counseling, according to Rantz's interpretation of comments Ferguson made in an interview with PBS in January. How a Washington state plan to fight domestic extremism could be a model for the nation- Play Video 3:13-5:46 Rantz went on to explain that opposing critical race theory, mask mandates, and radical gender ideology could all be seen by the commission as tied to "white supremacy." Now lastly, let’s end on some good news: https://www.dailywire.com/news/walgreens-wont-distribute-abortion-pill-in-21-states-spokesperson-says Walgreens Won’t Distribute Abortion Pill In 21 States, Spokesperson Says American pharmacy chain Walgreens faced backlash over the weekend after announcing it would not sell abortion pills in states where the drugs remain legal after nearly two dozen Republican state attorney generals threatened legal action against the company. Walgreens, the second-largest pharmaceutical chain in the United States, told Politico last week they would not dispense abortion pills either by mail or at locations in 21 states, including Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, and Montana, where the drug is legal. The decision followed a letter from 20 Republican attorneys general last month, who warned of violating state laws if the company mailed out abortion pills. Several other pharmacies, including CVS, Walmart, and Costco, also received a similar letter from those state officials. Following the announcement, Business Insider reported the phrases “Walgreens” and “#BoycottWalgreens” trended on Twitter as critics called on consumers to stop supporting the pharmacy — which cited tweets from one of President Joe Biden’s aides, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, and Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) — all calling on the pharmacy to reverse its decision. Kristi Hamrick, a spokesperson for Students for Life, praised Walgreens’ decision. Students for Life and other pro-life groups have also written to Walgreens and CVS, threatening “legal ramifications” for the pharmacies if they begin filling prescriptions for abortion pills, Politico reported. Other states Walgreens included in the announcement were those that made it illegal to dispense the abortion pill through mail such as Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.

This is Garrison Hardie with your CrossPolitic Daily News Brief for Tuesday, March 7th, 2023. I hope you all had a fantastic weekend with you and yours! Before we get to the news… Fight Laugh Feast Conference - Ark Encounter This year, our Fight Laugh Feast Conference is at the Ark Encounter in Kentucky on The Politics of Six Day Creation. The politics of six day creation is the difference between a fixed standard of justice and a careening standard of justice, the difference between the corrosive relativism that creates mobs and anarchy and the freedom of objectivity, truth, and due process. The politics of six day creation establishes the authority and sufficiency of God’s Word for all of life: from what is a man or a woman, when does human life begin, and how is human society best organized? Come hear Ken Ham, Pastor Doug Wilson, Dr. Ben Merkle, Dr. Gordon Wilson, me and more, and of course a live CrossPolitic show! Mark your calendars for October 11th-14th, as we fight, laugh, and feast, with beer & psalms, our amazing lineup of speakers, our Rowdy Christian Merch, and a Sabbath Feast to wrap up the occasion. Maybe an infant baptism while we’re at it! Visit fightlaughfeast.com for more information! In world news, we visit Greece. https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2023-03-05/thousands-protest-in-athens-after-greeces-deadly-train-crash Greeks Protest Over Deadly Train Crash, Station Master Jailed Pending Trial ATHENS (Reuters) -A Greek railway employee was jailed on Sunday pending trial over a deadly train crash that killed at least 57 people, as Greeks seethed with anger over the worst rail disaster in living memory. Protests continued to reverberate days after a head-on collision of a passenger train and a freight carrier on the Athens-Thessaloniki route late in the evening of Feb. 28. Clashes erupted between police and demonstrators in Athens on Sunday, after thousands rallied to protest over the crash. The 59-year-old Larissa station master faces multiple charges of disrupting transport and putting lives at risk. The man, who cannot be named under Greek law, was questioned for seven hours before a magistrate on Sunday before being detained. "For about 20 cursed minutes he was responsible for the safety of the whole of central Greece," his lawyer said. On Thursday, his lawyer said that his client was devastated and had assumed responsibility "proportionate to him" but other factors were also at play, without elaborating. Railway workers say the country's rail network has been creaking under cost-cutting and underinvestment, a legacy of Greece's debilitating debt crisis from 2010 to 2018. The Prime Minister of transportation, who blamed the crash on human error, acknowledged that decades of neglect could have contributed to the disaster. "As prime minister, I owe everyone, but most of all the relatives of the victims, an apology," he wrote on his Facebook account. "Justice will very fast investigate the tragedy and determine liabilities." After protests over the past three days across the country, some 10,000 people gathered in an Athens square on Sunday to express sympathy for the lives lost and to demand better safety standards on the rail network. "That crime won't be forgotten," protesters shouted as they released black balloons into the sky. A placard read: "Their policies cost human lives." Railway workers' unions say safety systems throughout the rail network have been deficient for years as a remote surveillance and signalling system has not been delivered on time. They have called on the government to provide a timetable for the implementation of safety protocols. The prime minister of transportation said on Sunday that if there had been a remote system in place throughout the rail network "it would have been, in practice, impossible for the accident to happen". https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/06/us/boston-flight-exit-door-arrest/index.html Man arrested after allegedly trying to open emergency door on plane and stabbing flight attendant A Massachusetts man was arrested for allegedly attempting to stab a flight attendant in the neck with a broken metal spoon three times during a flight from Los Angeles to Boston on Monday, after attempting to open an emergency exit door, according to the Justice Department. Francisco Severo Torres, 33, faces one charge of interference and attempted interference with flight crew members and attendants using a dangerous weapon. Torres was arrested at Boston Logan International Airport Monday and will remain detained pending a hearing set for Thursday. During a United Airlines flight from Los Angeles to Boston, the flight crew saw an alarm that a door in the plane had been disarmed and, after inspection, a flight attendant saw the door’s locking handle had been pushed out of the fully locked position and an emergency slide arming lever had been disarmed, according to the Justice Department. A flight attendant who saw Torres near the door went to talk to Torres about the door, according to the department, who asked if there were cameras showing he had tampered with the door. “According to court documents, the flight attendant then notified the captain that they believed Torres posed a threat to the aircraft and that the captain needed to land the aircraft as soon as possible,” the Justice Department said. Soon after, Torres allegedly got out of his seat, mouthing something, before thrusting “towards one of the flight attendants in a stabbing motion with a broken metal spoon, hitting the flight attendant on the neck area three times,” the department said. Torres was then tackled by other passengers on the flight and was immediately taken into custody after the flight landed. According to a criminal complaint, Torres told investigators he broke a spoon in half a bathroom on the airplane to use as a weapon. He also told law enforcement that he tried to open the emergency door and “had gotten the idea” to jump out of the plane, according to the complaint. Torres told investigators he was trying to defend himself and tried to stab the flight attendant because he believed they were trying to kill him, the complaint states. The flight attendant felt the object Torres was holding in his hand “hit him on his shirt collar and tie three times,” according to the complaint. United Airlines says it has banned Torres from flying on future flights following this incident. https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/03/06/one-third-biden-2020-voters-do-not-want-him-run-again/ Poll: One-Third of Biden 2020 Voters Do Not Want Him to Run Again More than one-third of Biden 2020 voters do not want him to run for reelection in 2024, a recent survey from YouGov/The Economist revealed. The survey found 58 percent, overall, revealing they do not want President Joe Biden to run for office again in 2024, while 24 percent said they do. Another 18 percent remain unsure. Predictably, opinions are divided along party lines, as 83 percent of Republicans and 59 percent of independents do not want him to run. Less than a majority of Democrats, 43 percent, believe Biden should run in 2024, while more than one-third, 34 percent, said he should not. Another 23 percent of Democrats remain unsure. Notably, over one-third of Biden 2020 voters, 36 percent, do not want him to run in the next presidential race, while less than a majority, 39 percent, said he should. One-quarter of Biden 2020 voters remain unsure. For further comparison, most Trump 2020 voters, 55 percent, want former President Donald Trump to run in 2024, and 53 percent of Republicans across the board say the same. The survey was taken February 25-28, 2023, among 1,500 U.S. adult citizens. It coincides with other polls showing Biden’s inability to win over a majority of Democrats to support his potential 2024 presidential bid. A recent Fox News survey, for instance, found 53 percent of Democrat voters asserting that “someone else” should be their nominee in the forthcoming presidential election, compared to 37 percent who said “keep Biden” as the nominee. As Breitbart News reported: The article added further perspective to Biden’s figures among the Democrat base, noting that Trump saw far more support from his Republican base at the same point in his presidency, as 72 percent of Republican voters wanted to see him as the GOP nominee again in 2020. Similarly, a McLaughlin & Associates survey released last month found just more than a quarter, 26 percent, supporting Biden in a crowded Democrat field. https://www.theblaze.com/news/bob-ferguson-ministry-of-truth AG pushes state level 'Ministry of Truth' critics say could jail conservatives who express mainstream views A state attorney general is advocating for a bill some critics argue could punish outspoken conservatives as domestic extremists, KTTH's Jason Rantz reported Wednesday. "Some conservative views, or anything [Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson] deems as 'misinformation,' are examples of 'domestic extremism,'" Rantz said. It's the "most dangerous bill in legislative history," the Seattle radio host added. Washington is creating a state version of the ill-fated "Ministry of Truth," according to Rantz and others who have analyzed the bill. The controversial bill proposes the establishment of a commission on domestic violence extremism. Rep. Bill Ramos, a Democrat, sponsored the bill which would create the 13-member commission. HB 1333 describes the duties of the proposed commission as involving efforts to "combat disinformation and misinformation" and collecting data on incidents of "domestic violent extremism," the Center Square explains. Though DVE is not explicitly defined in the bill, Ferguson has described the term as including noncriminal activities or speech, the outlet also says. The legislation was spawned by the Attorney General's 2022 "Domestic Terrorism" study, according to Center Square. That study warned that "effective State intervention to address these threats has the potential to implicate speech or association that may be protected by the First Amendment, or the individual right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment." Further, the commission, though charged with examining ways to treat DVE as a public health issue through the state's Department of Health, would have only one member required to be an expert in public health. The basic idea is to "take preemptive measures to stop actual domestic terrorist acts through community intervention." Such "community intervention" could include, for example, compelling people identified as "extremists" to undergo counseling, according to Rantz's interpretation of comments Ferguson made in an interview with PBS in January. How a Washington state plan to fight domestic extremism could be a model for the nation- Play Video 3:13-5:46 Rantz went on to explain that opposing critical race theory, mask mandates, and radical gender ideology could all be seen by the commission as tied to "white supremacy." Now lastly, let’s end on some good news: https://www.dailywire.com/news/walgreens-wont-distribute-abortion-pill-in-21-states-spokesperson-says Walgreens Won’t Distribute Abortion Pill In 21 States, Spokesperson Says American pharmacy chain Walgreens faced backlash over the weekend after announcing it would not sell abortion pills in states where the drugs remain legal after nearly two dozen Republican state attorney generals threatened legal action against the company. Walgreens, the second-largest pharmaceutical chain in the United States, told Politico last week they would not dispense abortion pills either by mail or at locations in 21 states, including Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, and Montana, where the drug is legal. The decision followed a letter from 20 Republican attorneys general last month, who warned of violating state laws if the company mailed out abortion pills. Several other pharmacies, including CVS, Walmart, and Costco, also received a similar letter from those state officials. Following the announcement, Business Insider reported the phrases “Walgreens” and “#BoycottWalgreens” trended on Twitter as critics called on consumers to stop supporting the pharmacy — which cited tweets from one of President Joe Biden’s aides, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, and Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) — all calling on the pharmacy to reverse its decision. Kristi Hamrick, a spokesperson for Students for Life, praised Walgreens’ decision. Students for Life and other pro-life groups have also written to Walgreens and CVS, threatening “legal ramifications” for the pharmacies if they begin filling prescriptions for abortion pills, Politico reported. Other states Walgreens included in the announcement were those that made it illegal to dispense the abortion pill through mail such as Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.

On this week's edition of CASCADE OF HISTORY – heard LIVE Sunday nights at 8pm Pacific Time – Feliks is joined once again by interesting people doing interesting things around the Pacific Northwest for live conversation about regional history. Guests include Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson on the ongoing efforts to keep the Seattle branch of the National Archives at Sand Point; Stephanie Johnson-Toliver of the Black Heritage Society on architect Benjamin McAdoo and a new exhibit at MOHAI; and Megumi Nagata of 4Culture on the upcoming Heritage Projects grant opportunity for King County. This LIVE broadcast of CASCADE OF HISTORY was originally presented at 8pm Pacific Time on Sunday, February 26, 2023 via SPACE 101.1 FM and streaming live via space101fm.org from studios at historic Magnuson Park – formerly Sand Point Naval Air Station - on the shores of Lake Washington in Seattle.

On this Hacks & Wonks week-in-review, political consultant and host Crystal Fincher is joined by long-time communications and political strategist and Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, Robert Cruickshank! They cover Governor Inslee's State of the State address, the legislature's responsibility to provide urgently needed resources for public education, plans to address our state's housing crisis in the 2023 legislative session, multiple controversies involving Walgreens, Seattle Public Schools suing social media companies, and why the "refusal" of services by people experiencing homelessness is largely a reflection of those services' inability to meet their needs. Governor Inslee's State of the State address focused on housing and homelessness, following a mandate from voters in last year's elections to solve with progressive reforms. Crystal and Robert discuss how our state's housing crisis is fueling displacement and homelessness, and talk about proposals pending in the legislature that could help. Alongside this, Washington's public education is straining under a lack of funding, and needs more resources to hire essential teachers and public health professionals. Both housing and education could be better solved by the legislature if they enact progressive revenue, such as a wealth tax, to fund new programs and battle a potential revenue shortfall. A debacle occurred over the preservation of a Seattle Walgreens building that's been designated as a landmark. The council reversed a decision last week and significantly limited new construction in order to preserve parts of the building, which will limit the ability to develop the remaining property into much needed housing, and seems misaligned with the city's stated goals of rapidly increasing housing stock and reducing harmful emissions. A Walgreens executive also made news when they had to apologize for overstating the impacts of shoplifting on its stores. Exaggerated crime narratives like these, pushed by candidates and media outlets, were used to undermine progressive reforms in recent elections, even though they were never supported by real data. Returning to education, Seattle Public Schools announced their plan to sue various social media companies for the negative impacts on students' mental health caused by social platforms. While social media has a role to play in our national youth mental health crisis, some students and parents argue the district's resources would be better spent on acquiring more direct mental health support for students. Finally, Crystal and Robert look at some excellent reporting from Tobias Coughlin-Bogue at Real Change News, explaining why services are refused by people experiencing homelessness. Refuting narratives that people living on the streets don't want shelter, the data show that in fact, when offered private, non-congregate shelter and housing, they largely accept it. Congregate shelters that lack privacy and security are often unable to meet the needs of people experiencing homelessness, often lacking the ability for people to bring their possessions, partners or pets with them, and are most frequently cited as creating harmful or negative experiences for the people who use them. 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 Robert at @cruickshank.   Resources “Seattle's I-135 Social Housing Initiative with Tye Reed and Camille Gix from the House Our Neighbors Campaign” - Hacks & Wonks   “Gov. Inslee leans into housing and homelessness in 2023 State-of-the-State address” by Dyer Oxley from KUOW   “Washington Should Tax the Rich to Save Our Public Schools” by Robert Cruickshank from The Stranger    “How WA's legislature is addressing the housing crisis in 2023” by Josh Cohen from Crosscut   “In Reversal, Council Poised to Preserve Landmarked Drive-Through Walgreen's” by Erica C. Barnett from Publicola   “Walgreens executive: "Maybe we cried too much" about shoplifting, thefts” by Herb Scribner & Hope King from Axios   “Seattle Public Schools Sue Social Media Companies for Detrimental Effects on Youth” by Vee Hua from South Seattle Emerald   “Seattle Public Schools sue TikTok, Meta for youth mental health crisis” by Julie Calhoun from KING5   “Service refusal is not a myth, but it is surrounded by them” by Tobias Coughlin-Bogue from Real Change News   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. Be sure to subscribe to get the podcast, to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show 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 midweek show, we had a great discussion with Tye Reed and Camille Gix from the House Our Neighbors campaign. Tye and Camille told us about the origins of the campaign, what the I-135 initiative - the Seattle Social Housing Initiative - they're championing accomplishes, and how they plan on getting the votes for the February 14th ballot. Find it in your podcast feed or on our website. Today we are continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show - one of the smartest political minds on the West Coast and today's co-host - Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, longtime communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank. [00:01:32] Robert Cruickshank: Oh, Crystal - thank you for having me. I think you're one of the smartest people in Seattle and Washington State politics, so you're the one who deserves the accolades. [00:01:43] Crystal Fincher: I appreciate that, but - decade and counting - you've always been on target. So I think we will start out talking about what the Executive of the State of Washington has laid out as his priorities as we start this legislative session - what he's calling on the Legislature to do and pass and the path that he's setting for the state. What stood out to you about this? [00:02:08] Robert Cruickshank: I think Governor Inslee is going big and bold on homelessness and housing. A $4 billion housing bond to build affordable housing - to help address not just the homelessness crisis but the crisis at the lower end of the housing market - is a big step to take and I think it's the right one to take. We haven't seen the state do anything like this in quite some time, but it's a recognition that for too many decades now, we haven't been building enough housing, haven't been building enough housing of all kinds at all levels. And what that is doing is fueling displacement, fueling gentrification, and fueling homelessness. I think Governor Inslee's taken a look around the country - he could even look just south of the river to Oregon where the politics of housing and homelessness really seemed to threaten Democrats - but Democrats like Karen Bass and Tina Kotek have stepped up and said, No, we're going to lead on this. And I think Inslee's taken a page from that and recognized that that's where he needs to be to do an effective job of governing Washington state. Combined with the legislation we're seeing from Jessica Bateman bringing the missing middle bill back and other things pending in the Legislature, it's shaping up to be a potentially big, big year for finally addressing Washington state's housing crisis, which then feeds homelessness. We'll see what happens in the Legislature - we have, though, in past years seen big proposals get whittled down, but I'm hopeful based on things I'm reading and hearing from legislators that this might actually survive. And obviously it has to go to the ballot - voters have to approve an affordable housing bond in the fall, but polling from Stuart Elway and others shows that it's likely to pass. So it's an exciting start. [00:03:43] Crystal Fincher: It is an exciting start, and it looks like the state is ready for this - both based on the polling and on action that's been taken across the state for quite some time. There's been a question from a lot of people - certainly in the Seattle region and from leaders in our Legislature - wondering, Hey, is the state ready? that we've heard in the past several sessions. And in that time we've seen cities like Spokane, Olympia, Tacoma take action on increasing their housing supply - really looking at increasing middle housing in those cities. It looks like other areas of the state have been more ready and willing to take action than even the Seattle area. So it looks like there's a broad recognition across the state that this is a crisis and that people are expecting action. Another area where bold action was on the agenda is certainly in terms of gun reform and gun laws. Inslee spoke about requiring permits for people having guns, requiring training, and moving forward on a lot of the steps that they've been talking about before - certainly they've taken action - but the call to go further and addressing violence and tragic outcomes from guns is high on his agenda. [00:05:06] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, and I think it's time - in fact a long past time - for the state to finally enact an assault weapons ban. California's had one for decades. Illinois just passed one this week. It's been pending in the Legislature for some time, but it's been Democrats who've been hesitant to act - maybe afraid of how it might play in swing districts - but I think polling has shown pretty consistently the public understands that these weapons should not be in the hands of the general public. Inslee's called for it, Attorney General Bob Ferguson has called for it. This should be finally the year, especially after Democrats did well in an election year that they were not expected to do well in here in Washington state. It should give them the confidence that they can do bold things like this that are also popular. There's no reason to hesitate, but we'll see what happens in the Legislature. Will they get cold feet yet again and fail to pass an assault weapons ban even though it's something the public really, really wants? [00:05:59] Crystal Fincher: It is absolutely something the public really wants. I do wonder what impact events in Oregon are going to have. Certainly they have taken an initiative in moving forward that's been challenged in the courts and is currently going through that process - we'll see if that has an impact here. I did appreciate his broader words on public safety, which were more forward-thinking and more in-line with what the data say is effective in reducing crime - and the acknowledgement that public safety is so much broader and bigger than policing. That behavioral health, that addressing root causes, that addressing poverty is actually critical to the longterm safety and resilience of our communities. In addition to protecting abortion rights - which we'll see how much of a fight Republicans put up against this. This is certainly an area where they did not connect with voters in the November elections that we just saw, but they do still seem willing to push some of that legislation to ban abortion in various ways and to fight against what may be proposed, so that's going to be very interesting to see. What did he have to say about education? [00:07:10] Robert Cruickshank: He had a little bit to say - not a great deal. The governor's budget proposes some money to help recruit and retain teachers - it's part of a larger workforce problem, but there's been a teacher shortage since the late 2010s. He has a little bit of money to spend on special education - I think he's proposing around $150 million statewide for that, which is somewhat helpful. But the need to provide special education services is much greater than the state funds. The state currently caps the amount of money it will give districts for special education funding at 13% of the overall student population. So what that means is - in a district like Seattle, about 15.5% of students receive some sort of special education services. The Legislature says, Sorry, we're only funding up to 13%. It's also an issue in smaller districts - rural districts face this cap as well. It's absurd that the Legislature tells districts we will only pay for a small fraction of the special education services your students might need. And that creates incentives for districts to try to deny services to students. And coming out of a pandemic, it's worse than ever because students bring new mental health issues to schools, there are longstanding special education needs, disabled students who have other issues that weren't getting addressed and are now getting recognized - but their districts don't want to pay for it, so they find ways to not provide the service. And it's really a root problem at the Legislature. So while it's nice that the governor does have a little bit for education, it seems that overall the Democratic leadership in Olympia isn't really taking what is their constitutional paramount duty as seriously as they need to, even as districts across the state - large and small, urban and rural, east and west - are facing a growing number of cuts in the coming years. This was never supposed to happen under the McCleary decision, but it is because the Legislature got away with underfunding schools overall. [00:09:08] Crystal Fincher: And you, in fact, had an op-ed - a column - in The Stranger this week, talking about what needs to happen to save our public schools. What did you go through in that? [00:09:19] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, so the Legislature was sued 15 years ago by a family from Chimacum, which is near Port Townsend. And the McCleary family brought the suit after levies failed and classes were cut, teachers laid off, and saying - This is a denial of our constitutional right to an amply, fully-funded public education. The State Supreme Court agreed - ordered the Legislature to fully fund our schools. The Legislature hemmed and hawed, dragged their feet, eventually held in contempt by the Court. And finally, in 2017, they passed a new education funding system designed to comply with the McCleary decision. But at the time, Senate Republicans were in the majority. And they demanded a solution that relied on the largest state property tax hike in history and that also didn't fully fund schools. And at the time, there were articles quoting the superintendent of Seattle, of Tacoma – this is the summer of 2017 – saying, This is going to underfund special education services, it's going to underfund our ability to retain teachers, it's going to underfund our ability to serve multi-language learners. All of that has happened. And now we're at a point where districts across the state are facing cuts. Seattle - in two years - faces $150 million in deficit. Chimacum, the district that started it all, where the McCleary family is - is running on reserves. They're running about a $1 million/year deficit and they're likely to face cuts next year. I saw on social media this week - a parent in Everett posting that the Everett district sent out a survey to families basically saying, We have to make budget cuts. What is more important to you? Safety and security at schools, your students' mental health, after-school programs, student electives in high school? And it's - this is not what was supposed to happen. You can look at Marysville, just north of Everett, where levies failed twice in 2022 and they had to make $13 million in cuts. The entire point of the McCleary decision was to end reliance on local levies for basic education. That hasn't happened. And last week when the legislators had their preview sessions - meetings with the media - and they would be asked about this, it turns out it was the Republicans who said public education was a big issue for them and that they were going to focus on it. Now their solutions are all terrible - they want to slash taxes, they want to privatize schools, give everyone vouchers - it's a disaster. But at least they recognize there's a problem that they have to respond to. Democratic legislators either didn't mention it at all or did only in passing and saying, We've done a lot of great work over the years, but there may be a little bit here we have to do in 2023. It just struck me and struck others in the media, like Danny Westneat at The Seattle Times, that - where is the Democratic leadership on public education right now, especially going into a year that a biennial budget is written - so the budget over the next two years is written in this session - coming off of a successful election where Democrats did well. They have a mandate. There's a wealth tax that Senator Noel Frame and others have proposed that could go quite a long way in fully funding our public schools. You could even make it large enough - affecting no more than 2,000 taxpayers, for example - that you can fund our public schools better and even have a little bit of a cut in the property tax to your average Washingtonian. This would be sensible to do, but it's unclear if the Democratic majority in Olympia is going to go down that road - that road is wide open for them and it's just mystifying why they're not interested in taking it. [00:12:48] Crystal Fincher: This was highlighted so much by the number of teacher strikes that we have had and them all reinforcing, Hey, we need more funding for special education. We need to address the shortage of teachers, the shortage of staff - even bus drivers are in short supply in many districts. A lot of those frontline workers who are serving our kids in our public schools are being stretched to the point of breaking. And so I certainly hope to see decisive action. And in our battleground districts where a lot of times we hear, Hey, we want to take action on this, but it's going to be pushing too far and we're going to be jeopardizing our members in these districts that are swing districts. And we saw them make the case for the value of public education - funding public education, standing strong with teachers unions - during the campaign and voters agreed and said yes. So the mandate and expectation to take action is absolutely there. [00:13:55] Robert Cruickshank: It is. And there's polling from the Northwest Progressive Institute that shows - taxing the rich to fund public education is popular in every region of the state, and that includes Eastern Washington. You can look at the swing districts in the 42nd in Whatcom County, the 26th district in Pierce and Kitsap counties, and those are just a few examples where taxing the rich to fund our schools is popular. People get it, they like it, they want it. And the Legislature did deliver finally in 2021 by passing a capital gains tax. That's a good start. And it's notable to me that the effort to repeal that fizzled last year when it became very clear to its backers that they would lose if they went to the ballot. So the Legislature has a mandate, they also have the responsibility. I liken the paramount duty clause of the Constitution to someone being given a job description - they start a new position and in big, bold capital letters at the top of that job description says, this is the number one thing you must focus on. For the Legislature, that parallel is a paramount duty clause of the State Constitution that says amply and fully funding public schools is your paramount number one duty. And it's not happening right now. And I support all the other investments they're planning to make - and they're all connected - there are a number of students who are homeless, students whose families experience intermittent housing insecurity, students who have mental health needs, students who have health care needs and their families have health care needs. All this is connected. So we're not saying fund public education at the expense of anything else, but pass a wealth tax that gives us billions of dollars more a year to start funding all these things, including public education. [00:15:37] Crystal Fincher: That's certainly on the docket as our legislative session just began. Is there anything else that you're keeping your eye on as we start the journey through the next hundred days or so of legislation that's hopefully going to impact the state positively? [00:15:52] Robert Cruickshank: I think there's another reason to look closely at a wealth tax - and that is we have to look at the revenue forecasts for the state. Gavin Newsom, down in California earlier this week, announced his budget for the year - $22 billion shortfall due to declines in the stock market. Washington is a little more insulated because we aren't as dependent on stock market revenue, but that is one of the first things that comes back - is revenue from taxes based on the stock market. If there is a recession this year or if unemployment rises - and it's starting to rise with tech layoffs - you start to see spending go down, and that affects sales tax receipts, it affects business and operations tax receipts, and maybe even property taxes. So we'll see what the revenue forecasts show in a couple weeks. If it shows potential deficits, then I think that makes a case for a wealth tax all the more important and all the stronger, because then you have to prevent cuts from happening as well as do these new investments that are still needed. [00:16:51] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Switching gears a little bit - we saw two interesting developments this week - both, oddly, involving Walgreens. One, regarding a preservation debacle in the City of Seattle. What happened here? [00:17:08] Robert Cruickshank: It is a debacle. So there's a drive-through Walgreens on Denny - and I think it's at 6th or 7th, it's not far from the Space Needle - and it is in an old bank building that got landmarked a few years ago, even though it is not that unique. It turns out that almost every city in Washington state, even some smaller ones east of the mountains, have the same exact building dating to the 1950s. It's old, but old doesn't necessarily mean historic or that it's really important to preserve, but the Landmarks Preservation Board said, Yes, this is a landmark. The City Council's then asked to handle the development rights at this property, and last week they voted that - just because it's a landmark doesn't mean we have to prevent new housing from being built here - and they looked poised, at least in committee vote, that they would allow a significant amount of housing to be built here. In the week between last week and the vote this week, things shifted. Councilmember Herbold put out a proposal that would actually significantly limit development here, saying - You can build on the parking lot if you can fit it in there. Most housing builders say, There's no way we're going to fit anything more than a couple stories there. You can't build a tall building, with the ability to have the building be self-supporting physically, on such a small footprint. And so the council suddenly did a 180 and said, Actually, we're going to ensure that most of this property is off-limits to growth and development in housing. Councilmembers Mosqueda and Morales strongly objected and voted against this. Councilmember Lewis tried to play middle ground, as he often does - but I don't know that that worked in practice, and I don't know if that's going to work to satisfy his supporters. And, of course, you have councilmembers like Sara Nelson and Lisa Herbold seeing an opportunity to try to prevent new housing from being built. And that's ultimately what happens - a 7-2 vote to have a very limited ability to build on the parking lot there, which is - not much housing is going to go in this location, even though it is zoned already for tall towers. It's surrounded by tall towers there - Denny and Westlake - and it's a couple blocks from a planned light rail stop for the ST3 line that will go out to Ballard. It's just an absurd situation, all in all. I think the council made the wrong decision, and it also raises serious questions about how the landmarking process works - for something that's actually not really that historic to be given protections - to prevent hundreds of homes from being built and to prevent at least $1.5 million from being put into the affordable housing fund that would have happened if it could be built to its maximum zoning potential. [00:19:56] Crystal Fincher: And conversation about protecting the drive-through - and this is happening while the Council and the City is saying, Hey, we're in a housing crisis. We need to desperately, as quickly as possible, add as many housing units as we can in the City - that's a key element of addressing housing affordability and homelessness. And saying we need to accelerate our pursuit of meeting our climate goals. We are having regional discussions about how we're behind schedule in meeting our 2030 climate goals, and certainly we need to do more to address that. Having more dense housing, reducing - especially in the most metropolitan, urban environments - the necessity of cars. This is also against the backdrop of public safety and a pedestrian and road safety crisis we're in the middle of. And it just seems like preservation in its current iteration and how it's operating is just not aligned with any of those goals. And so it really begs the question - what are we doing here? It doesn't seem to make much sense. These are buildings - I'm in Kent right now, I'm pretty sure Kent literally has five of these buildings. It's hard to find a suburb that doesn't have at least a couple. And so what is special about this, or is this really just a proxy for preventing development? [00:21:37] Robert Cruickshank: Oh, it's a proxy - no doubt. A proxy to prevent development on that site and an opportunity for people who are dead set against new housing from being built in the City - an opportunity for them to try to stop it from happening. You mentioned Kent, you mentioned climate. And one of the reasons we're in a climate crisis is because after World War II, rather than build in urban centers and build more density, we sprawled everywhere. Rather than add more housing in Seattle, we paved all that farmland there in Kent. We cut down all those trees on the hills in Kent. And not just Kent, obviously - all over the Puget Sound region we did this. All over the country, honestly. And so in 1990, the state passed the Growth Management Act designed to stop that from happening, to prevent our forests and farmlands from being destroyed by development. But the trade-off there to protect those places - and we absolutely must protect them - is that we agreed that there would be more density in the cities, and that just has not happened. So this is where I think the conversations we're having this morning are great because we're talking about what's going on at the Legislature and Governor Inslee's proposals, legislation to add missing middle housing, and how that affects cities and why it's necessary because cities keep doing stuff like this. They keep finding ways to prevent sensible housing projects from being built in places that make sense for them to go - it's Mercer Island trying to prevent new housing from coming there, even though they are in the center of the Puget Sound region. We clearly need the state to step in and address this because cities won't. There is a bill that's been proposed in the Legislature this year that would significantly limit the ability of design review boards to mess with housing. There's a notorious example up on the top of Queen Anne where Safeway wanted to build 200 housing units there, and it took years to get through the design review process. They'd come back and say we don't like the color of the brick on the building. It's absurd. Now, historic preservation is important. There are things that have to be protected, right? Everyone agrees protecting Pike Place Market was the right thing to do. But you have to use those sparingly in order to ensure that you still have value in what you're protecting - are you just protecting anything that's old? And to ensure that you're not undermining your other goals, as you mentioned. Historic preservation should go hand-in-hand with solving our climate crisis, with solving our housing crisis - it should not be oppositional. [00:24:00] Crystal Fincher: And speaking of proxy actions, Walgreens also admitted this week that they exaggerated the impact of crime, the hysteria they stoked - saying, Oh, we have to close these locations, we're dealing with challenges, this is really impacting our bottom line, talking about retail theft - they absolutely overstated it. They overstated it to such a degree they had to admit and apologize for overstating it. And it's so insidious because so many stories - to anyone who, to many people who didn't have a financial interest in the criminalization of poverty and telling this story, it was really obvious that that is not the reason why Walgreens is taking these actions - while they're announcing historic revenue and profits - doesn't seem to be impacting the bottom line. In fact, wage theft seems to be a bigger problem in that industry - a much, much bigger problem. But that was the justification used by so many candidates at the local level across the West Coast. And we've seen this here in Washington state and our local cities saying, Look at these businesses saying that they're having such a problem with theft. We need to crack down on it. We need to deploy resources to make sure that they're happy. And we need to act against what the data say is effective for reducing crime and making people more safe, making our community healthier, and just enforce these laws and jail people and hold them accountable. And it turns out it was all fake. [00:25:43] Robert Cruickshank: It was. There is a public safety issue in our country - there has been for a long time, but it's, as you just described, overstated, exaggerated for political effect. And that's problematic in numerous ways, one of which is it's used to - quite deliberately, I believe - in order to undermine more progressive candidates, to support more regressive candidates, whether they're conservative Democrats or Republicans. And it also distorts the way we talk about public safety. It distorts the way we treat public safety. When Walgreens is out there in 2022 saying, Oh, my gosh, we're having a huge shoplifting crisis. Somebody help us - our elected officials are nowhere to be found. That affects the way politics happens, it affects who wins elections, it affects where money gets spent. So for them to come out publicly to acknowledge here in 2023, after the elections are already done - Oh, actually, we were just overstating that. There's a little bit of an issue, but it's not nearly to the degree we were saying it is. It's just clear that this is being manipulated for political effect. I think one of the places it was manipulated most effectively and successfully was in New York. And one of the reasons Republicans now control the House by just a few votes is because New York Democrats got hammered on public safety and crime, even though, as it turns out - New York - a lot of it was just hype. And when you have corporations hyping public safety for political purposes, it's just hugely problematic because it makes it so much more difficult to actually address things that people need, to actually address the root causes of public safety issues. [00:27:15] Crystal Fincher: I also have to call out the media's role in this whole situation, and the seeming willingness to just dictate without any question what comes from people whose job titles start with, C's. The CEO says public - they're having a problem, and then we see headlines across the city and all of these papers saying that, Oh, crime is an issue. And others seemingly catching on - Hey, we can blame this. We can blame anything on crime. We saw Starbucks union bust basically - attempt to union bust - saying, Crime is an issue. We're going to shut down this store. It so happens that the stores that they're shutting down are the ones that are unionized - unless unionization just attracts this special kind of crime, which it does not. This is just a cover. But the lack of curiosity, the lack of interrogation, the lack of attention to data from many in media, and just repeating and parroting what they're saying without really examining the truth of these claims is a problem that needs to improve moving forward. [00:28:26] Robert Cruickshank: It is and there's not any accountability for that when it happens. When The Seattle Times or KOMO have these breathless headlines or TV broadcasts that talk about a huge wave of crime in Seattle and turns out - well, actually it's not that huge, and actually crime's been going down for a while, and the other disruption of a pandemic - things got a little out of hand for a bit because everything was disrupted, there are ways to solve this without panicking. No one's going to - there's not going to be any accountability or change - you're not going to have editors at The Seattle Times or ownership at KOMO look at themselves in the mirror and think, Gosh, we got this wrong - mea culpa, we're sorry - here's how we're going to do better going forward. They're just going to keep finding new ways to exaggerate issues in order to attack their political opponents. [00:29:12] Crystal Fincher: And it's sad. We even saw The New York Times basically acknowledge that there was a problem, without acknowledging their direct role in that problem, in the litany of headlines that occurred during that election talking about how much of a problem crime was - although it turns out New York is safer than most small towns. We hear a lot of this talk, especially from the right side of the aisle and right wing forces, saying, Oh, it's this - everything is really dangerous in Democrat-run cities and these large cities are really horrible. And literally the exact opposite is true. [00:29:49] Robert Cruickshank: Here's how it plays out in The New York Times - they're so busy covering a supposed crime wave that doesn't actually exist, that they're missing actual law breaking from a Republican candidate like George Santos. His opponent - his Democratic opponent - tried to draw attention to what appeared to be a litany of lies from this candidate, tried to get The New York Times to cover it, and they wouldn't. So you have a guy who's now in Congress - and people in Congress are thinking, How do we get this inveterate liar out of our ranks? There's a way you could have prevented this from happening, but The New York Times was more interested in spinning up a story about crime than they were about really investigating a really shady candidate for office. [00:30:29] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. We will continue to pay attention to what they say. We - at the time - certainly talked about how those claims were dubious and we'll continue to call that out. We also saw this week an interesting development in Seattle Public Schools, which is a suit that they're bringing against social media companies. What is this suit about? [00:30:52] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, this is interesting. It came out of the blue to a lot of us who are parents, even those of us who follow the district closely. They announced a lawsuit against TikTok, Facebook, Google - which runs YouTube - for the way in which their social media apps, in their words, are undermining the mental health of students. And they're not wrong about that. That is an issue that many people have observed over the years. Social media is structured in a way that it preys upon fears and concerns in kids, the way that the algorithms work are designed to get kids hooked, the way that they get them hooked are appealing to their most base instincts, getting kids to fight with each other on social media. There are problems here. But the reaction from parents and especially from students at SPS is one of kind of dismissiveness towards this lawsuit. The leaders of the Seattle Student Union have been quoted in media saying, Yeah, there are problems with social media for sure, but where is the mental health support that we need from our schools? They have been arguing for months and had a walkout in late 2022 over the issue of a lack of mental health counselors in schools. The Legislature still does not fund mental health counselors at every school - they don't even fund a nurse at every school. The Seattle Student Union asked for $9 million to be spent to hire more mental health counselors. The City of Seattle stepped in and said, Well, we'll add $4 million. The district says we just don't have any money, which you have to question where the district spending priorities are. And so what you're seeing the students say - I've heard this from parents as well - and I think they have a really good point, is that the school district seems to be blaming the tech companies and not looking at what the district can do itself to help solve this. Parents even point out that in elementary grades on student computers, you can still access YouTube in the classroom - just without any filters or restrictions. So while I do believe that there is an issue here with the way the tech companies operate, I think social media does harm kids - the district has a point in this lawsuit. They might well lose it because it's not going to be very difficult for the social media companies themselves to point to the fact the district isn't doing all it needs to do, or all it could do, to address student mental health needs. [00:33:12] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. And that seems to be the most confounding part of it to me is that in a district that is saying it has limited resources - in fact, does not have the resources available to adequately provide mental health services for students, which has been well-documented and well-talked about at all levels - that a lawsuit, although valid, is the most effective expenditure here. These are expensive and you're going against some of the deepest pockets in the world. This is at minimum going to be a very long and protracted legal battle. And I just don't know that spending this money on a lawsuit versus spending it on actually helping these students with these issues that - while they may include social media, certainly go far beyond social media - and that they can take direct steps to address. It just seems very questionable and I'm really curious to see how they arrived at this being the solution they're going for. [00:34:12] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, I wonder as well. And the district in Seattle sent out an email to families this week saying, We're not spending district money on it. It'll only be funded - the attorney's fees will be paid out of a settlement or a victory. But that doesn't really answer the question of what happens if we don't win. What happens if, for example, the district wins in lower court and these companies appeal all the way to a Supreme Court? So I find the district's claims that public money isn't going to be spent on this very skeptical and very - it's hard to believe. I saw the Kent School District join the suit, so clearly districts are talking to each other. And again, there is an issue here. But it's hard to see the districts doing this with a serious intent to address student mental health needs when there's so many other things they could be doing, such as funding more counselors, and they're not. [00:35:07] Crystal Fincher: I hope to learn more about the deliberation process here. Maybe there's something that I'm not seeing - that's certainly possible. But without that information, this seems questionable. I also want to talk about a very good article this week from Real Change - really diving into the issue of service refusals by the unhoused community. We've certainly talked before on the program - and this has been a big topic of discussion overall - that a lot of times when they're talking about encampments and saying, We need to clear this. And you hear in the reporting, We made offers of service to people that were refused. Therefore, they just decided not to do that. They don't want services and evidently they want to be outside, and this is the life they want to live, and we just can't have in this area - so we're completely justified in sweeping them. We tried to help and they refused. And the truth is much more complicated than that - and really examining how appropriate, how effective, how valid is the help that they're looking at. What did you see from this? [00:36:19] Robert Cruickshank: It's a fascinating article. And what it showed is that people who are currently living out on the streets - whether it's in a tent, in an RV - they want private shelter. They want a tiny house. They want a room in a hotel. Ultimately, of course, they want housing - stable, permanent housing. The congregate shelters where they're like dormitories, cots on a floor - that model exists but it's unsafe for a lot of people. They don't feel safe there. People are concerned that their possessions will get stolen. A lot of these congregate shelters have rules preventing people bringing their possessions or their pets in. They can't go in with a partner. So what the article showed is that when the offer of shelter was made for a tiny house, it was over 60% uptake. People said, Yes, I will take a tiny house. When it was a cot on a floor in a congregate shelter, the rates of refusal went up. And that's not because people are refusing services. People who are living on the streets are normal human beings and I think the discourse often, especially coming from the right, neglects that point. Normal human beings who want privacy, who want to feel safe in the place where they sleep at night, who find a tent or an RV to be safer than some of the conditions they experience in congregate shelters. So what this suggests is that - whether it's at the city level, the regional level, the King County Regional Homelessness Authority, or the state level, and this is something that hopefully the governor's bond would address - you need short-term and permanent private housing. Private in the sense - not privately owned - but private where someone feels that that room is their own, that they are secure where they're sleeping at night, there's a roof over their head and a lock on the door. And I think that that is the direction we need to be heading in. We need to spend more on things like tiny houses, but those are always intended to be transitional. We put someone in a tiny house so that we get them off the streets where it's still not safe, where they're still subject to exposure to conditions, whether it's cold or smoke in the summer - cold in the winter, smoke in the summer. And then we also need to really get serious about building more housing. It just comes back to the conversation we had at the top of the show. Housing is essential. It's the root of almost everything. But that article showed that if you approach folks who are unhoused and treat them like normal human beings - which they are - people who want dignity, privacy, and security, which all of us want, you can get folks into shelter if - assuming you've provided it. And this shows that contrary to what the right-wingers claim, the problem isn't with people refusing. It's our government isn't providing shelter. [00:39:10] Crystal Fincher: This has been a problem that's repeatedly been talked about and that people who've been unhoused have been saying for quite some time. In the article, it talks about it boiling down to the three P's - being able to bring your pets, your partners, and your possessions. And when you think about it, of course it does. Of course it does. It also talks about how many people have had negative, harmful, traumatic experiences in congregate shelter for the same reasons that you or I would be hesitant about spending a night in a room full of people we don't know, who are dealing with a wide variety of their own challenges, leaving people who you are relying on to keep you safe. With a variety of things that are a danger to your life and health, having that community to rely on is key to survival. And if you have to give up everything you own or put it at risk of being stolen, which has happened quite a bit in congregate shelters, that's going to give you pause for doing that. For the offer of shelter - for sometimes one night - that you have to be in by a certain time, be out at 7 AM in many of these situations. And it just is not there to meet the need. This congregate shelter model - while a lot of people have been well-meaning, while people operating them are certainly doing good jobs, which - this can fill a gap when there's absolutely nothing else available, when we need hazardous weather or conditions shelter. But for a reliable, effective option, we have to have non-congregate options available to where - you said - people can lock the door, can feel secure and safe. And because of moving to this model and being forced to move to this model sometimes during the pandemic, we were able to get a lot of data that showed, Hey, people stabilize much more effectively when they can feel safe, feel secure - have that baseline - to then start addressing their other problems. If people don't feel safe and secure, that just can't happen. And of course it can't - that's common sense. So I hope that we move towards models that have a chance of working and that serve the population that we're attempting to address. [00:41:43] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, and it comes down to providing housing. There's a new book that is out that's called Homelessness is a Housing Problem. There's a recognition growing, finally, that homelessness is caused by and will only be solved by providing more housing. And not just temporary shelter, not just a tiny house - although tiny houses are great. It has to be permanent housing. This comes back to everything we've been talking about today - the need for housing. And Seattle has another opportunity - you mentioned at the top of the show Initiative 135 - that comes up, we'll be getting ballots in the mail shortly asking Seattleites to vote to create the opportunity to build more social housing. And we need all these different types of housing in our community. Our failure to build stuff like this over the last decades is the reason why we have a homelessness crisis. Acting quickly to fund it and build it is the way we get out of it for good. [00:42:38] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And with that, I thank you all for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, January 13th, 2022. Hacks & Wonks is co-produced by Shannon Cheng and Bryce Cannatelli. Our insightful co-host today is the Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, longtime communications and political strategist, Robert Cruikshank. Thanks so much for joining us and sharing your wisdom today. [00:43:00] Robert Cruickshank: Oh, thank you so much for having me. It's always a pleasure to talk with you about everything that's going on in our community. It's always a great conversation. [00:43:06] Crystal Fincher: You can find Robert on Twitter @cruickshank. That's C-R-U-I-C-K S-H-A-N-K. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. And you can find me on Twitter @finchfrii - that's F-I-N-C-H F-R-I-I. You can catch Hacks & Wonks wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our full versions of the Friday almost-live shows and our midweek 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.

The Washington Supreme Court has rebuffed Attorney General Bob Ferguson's request that it refuse to accept an amicus brief Ferguson deemed “offensive.” https://bit.ly/3I00jYo #TheCenterSquareWashington #WashingtonSupremeCourt #BuildingIndustryAssociationOfWashington #BIAOfWashington #WashingtonRetailAssociation #AmicusBrief #DepartmentOfRevenue #WashingtonStateLegislature #VancouverWa #ClarkCountyNews #ClarkCountyToday

The Washington Supreme Court on Wednesday morning granted Attorney General Bob Ferguson's request to allow the state Department of Revenue to collect the capital gains income tax before a final ruling on the tax's constitutionality next year. http://bit.ly/3AXP5iP #TheCenterSquareWashington #WashingtonState #CapitalGainsIncomeTax #TaxCollections #WashingtonStateSupremeCourt #AttorneyGeneral #Plaintiffs #DepartmentOfRevenue #BobFerguson #VancouverWa #ClarkCountyWa #ClarkCountyNews #ClarkCountyToday

Washington V. Meta, brought to court by Attorney General Bob Ferguson against Meta, Facebook's parent company, concluded that Facebook ran local political advertisements throughout Washington state without properly disclosing information about who ran them. In response to Facebook's argument that the disclosure law is unconstitutional, King County Superior Court Judge Douglass North called it "very constitutional."

Catherine McNiel joined Aubrey Sampson to pinch hit for Brian From. Catherine is the author of the new book “Fearing Bravely: Risking Love for Our Neighbors, Strangers, and Enemies”  (00:00-09:41): Seattle Pacific University is suing saying its rights are being violated by Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson, whose office launched an investigation into the school's hiring practices. Aubrey and Catherine talked about what the situation means for religious institutions around the country. (09:41-17:30): What can the church do to better include single women? (17:30-27:26): The end of Choco Tacos has generated a lot of strong feelings online. Aubrey and Catherine talked about how it presents a learning experience about what we get outraged about. What discontinued items do you miss the most? (27:26-35:26): Kate Boyd posted on twitter “Everyone thinks they're the table flipper and not the one who's table is being flipped. Everyone thinks they're the righteous remnant in a see of unfaithfulness. And some of us are wrong. The least we can do is proceed with humility.” Aubrey and Catherine shared their thoughts. (35:26-44:35): Social Media Water Cooler: Commonly misheard song lyrics (44:35-53:43): Aubrey and Catherine wrapped up the show by sharing some positive news stories.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Monologue: Here's Pierce County's $50M plan to house 200-300 of its chronically homeless residents, The Interview: Joe Kent (WA-03 candidate) makes the final pitch and analyzes whether or not a Democrat can squeeze by with Republican votes being splintered. He says he's not worries., The Monologue: n/a, The Interview: Reagan Dunn (WA-08 candidate) notes the irony of his bill making fentanyl a county emergency, and urges people to vote early -- not late.//  LongForm: Haylie Bergstrom is a US Air Force veteran. Attorney General Bob Ferguson fired her -- which she learned while on maternity leave -- over the vaccinate mandate. They demanded, she says, she get vaccinated and comply while she was on maternity leave. //  The Quick Hit:  Dr. Oz on Being Out-Fundraised: Democrats ‘Cleverly' Donate Based on Issues, While ‘Republicans Get Mad and Mow the Lawn', The Last Rantz: Get more involved in voting See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

At a live Civic Cocktail event, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson and an expert panel discuss the Supreme Court's decision to end federal protection for abortion. Roe v. Wade established the right to a safe and legal abortion nationwide. Its reversal means that each state in this extraordinarily divided country of ours will need to decide for itself whether to keep abortion legal, ban it or severely limit it.  Washington state decided decades ago that abortion access would remain in the state even if Roe fell. But the impact of this decision extends far beyond access.  What changes lie ahead for clinics and service providers as demand grows from other states? Will legislators reinforce Washington's laws as other states rewrite theirs? And what should Washingtonians know about the broader implications to their rights going forward?  For this episode of the Civic Cocktail podcast, Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson, Planned Parenthood regional CEO Rebecca Gibron and State Senator Manka Dhingra attempt to answer those questions. This conversation was recorded on June 22, 2022. Civic Cocktail is a production of Seattle City Club and Crosscut. To receive future conversations like this one in your podcast feed earlier, subscribe to the Civic Cocktail podcast on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Amazon, Podbean, or wherever you listen. --- Credits Host: Mónica Guzmán Podcast production: Mark Baumgarten Event production: Jake Newman, Andrea O'Meara Audio support: Sara Bernard

Attorney General Bob Ferguson and an expert panel discuss the Supreme Court's decision to end federal protection for abortion. Roe v. Wade established the right to a safe and legal abortion nationwide. Its reversal means that each state in this extraordinarily divided country of ours will need to decide for itself whether to keep abortion legal, ban it or severely limit it.  Washington state decided decades ago that abortion access would remain in the state even if Roe fell. But the impact of this decision extends far beyond access.  What changes lie ahead for clinics and service providers as demand grows from other states? Will legislators reinforce Washington's laws as other states rewrite theirs? And what should Washingtonians know about the broader implications to their rights going forward?  For this episode of the Civic Cocktail podcast, Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson, Planned Parenthood regional CEO Rebecca Gibron and State Senator Manka Dhingra attempt to answer those questions. This conversation was recorded on June 22, 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

In the wake of the Uvalde, Texas mass shooting, people like Attorney General Bob Ferguson, are hoping so.

In this episode, we look at important action in the 2022 legislative session. Attorney General Bob Ferguson talks about protecting against frauds and scam robocalls. Bea Rector from Washington DSHS updates us in improvements long-term care services and help for all of us to age in our homes with dignity and purpose.

It's not just abortion. With the current makeup of the Supreme Court conservatives see an opportunity for more victories in the Culture Wars. One such case out of Tacoma involves a challenge to Washington's ban on gay 'conversion therapy' on minors. The case was heard in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals this past week. Attorney General Bob Ferguson joins us to defend the law, as does Jake Wheeler with the Alliance for Defending Freedom which represents the Christian therapist at the heart of the case. PLUS: Candidate filing week has concluded in Washington state. Two republicans face several primary challengers who say the incumbents aren't conservative enough. AND: Congress takes up the issue of UFOs and cannot rule out the possibility that some are from outer-space. Guests include Paul Queary of the Washington Observer, Laura Reiley of the Washington Post, and ABC's Faith Abubey. The Northwest Politicast with Jeff Pohjola: From this Washington to that one, Jeff Pohjola will explore the issues and politics of the week. Frequent guests and top analysts break down the news to get to the heart of what matters most. Subscribe at nwnewsradio.com or on your favorite podcast app.

Washington's attorney general discusses his post-Trump workload and the future of reproductive rights in the state. For many Americans opposed to the policies of then-President Donald Trump, the litigation brought by Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson was an essential part of their resistance. By the time Trump left the White House, Ferguson's office had won 50 out of 52 decisions in cases against the administration, a record highly touted at the time.  But with Trump's departure from the White House, Ferguson's star turn on the national stage has ended, for the time being. His work hasn't.  Under his direction, the Office of the Attorney General made headlines recently for successfully taking prescription opioid distributors to trial and for battling the Biden White House, which is challenging a state law that seeks to protect workers at Hanford. The office has also helped shape state legislation that impacts gun sales and police accountability.   This episode of the Crosscut Talks podcast features a May 7, 2022, conversation from the Crosscut Festival in which the attorney general spoke with former KIRO-TV journalist Essex Porter about the reasoning behind these decisions, as well as the possibility of the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade. --- Credits Host: Mark Baumgarten Producer: Sara Bernard Event producers: Jake Newman, Andrea O'Meara Engineers: Resti Bagcal, Viktoria Ralph

Non-compete clauses, and the lesser-known no-poach agreements between franchises, are shockingly common for low-wage workers. Although these contracts were originally intended to protect trade secrets among high-level executives, they have spiraled into an unfair labor practice that keeps wages low, limits employee mobility, and decreases competition. Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson explains how non-competes and no-poach agreements violate the law in many states, what his team did to get hundreds of huge employers across the country to cease and desist, and why you should tell your state's Attorney General if you know of any low- or middle-income workers who are being forced into signing these agreements.  This episode was originally recorded and released in May 2021. Bob Ferguson is Washington State's 18th Attorney General. As the state's chief legal officer, Bob is committed to protecting the people of Washington against powerful interests that don't play by the rules.  Twitter: @BobFergusonAG Noncompete agreements have pushed U.S. wages even lower, says a new Biden administration report: https://www.fastcompany.com/90729820/noncompete-agreements-have-pushed-u-s-wages-even-lower-says-a-new-biden-administration-report  Why aren't paychecks growing? A burger-joint clause offers a clue: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/27/business/pay-growth-fast-food-hiring.html Workers in Washington state win big under new non-compete law: https://www.emeryreddy.com/2019/09/workers-in-washington-state-win-big-under-new-non-compete-law/  Attorney General Bob Ferguson stops King County coffee shop's practice requiring baristas to sign unfair non-compete agreements: https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/attorney-general-bob-ferguson-stops-king-county-coffee-shop-s-practice-requiring  AG Report: Ferguson's initiative ends no-poach practices nationally at 237 corporate franchise chains: https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ag-report-ferguson-s-initiative-ends-no-poach-practices-nationally-237-corporate  Website: http://pitchforkeconomics.com/ Twitter: @PitchforkEcon Instagram: @pitchforkeconomics Nick's twitter: @NickHanauer

Meta-analysis affirms association between omega-3 fatty acid intake and lowered inflammation   Zhejiang University (China), February 1 2022   A review and meta-analysis published in the journal PLOS One adds evidence to a reduction in pro-inflammatory eicosanoid levels in association with supplementation with marine-derived omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) by adults. Several arachidonic acid-derived eicosanoids exert their significant influence on the inflammatory response. Prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) is involved in the classic signs of inflammation and possesses both proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory actions; thromboxane A2 (TXA2) (precursor of TXB2), formed by platelets, macrophages and polymorphonuclear leukocytes, can induce vasoconstriction and promotes aggregation of platelets as well as adhesiveness of polymorphonuclear nutrophils; leukotriene B4 (LTB4) can not only increase vascular permeability and enhance local blood flow by stimulating neutrophil secretion, but also stimulate other inflammatory substances.   (NEXT) Lifestyle more likely to affect a child's BMI than the weight of their mother   University of Bristol and Imperial College London, February 1, 2022   Researchers from the University of Bristol and Imperial College London have found that a high Body Mass Index (BMI) of a mother before and during pregnancy is not a major cause of high BMI in their offspring—indicating that childhood and teen obesity is more likely to be a result of lifestyle factors. It is known that greater maternal BMI before or during pregnancy is associated with a higher BMI in children, however the extent to which the mother's weight causes obesity in childhood, or whether this is caused by environmental and lifestyle factors post conception and birth is unclear.   (NEXT) Iron accumulation linked with age-related cognitive decline   Northwestern University, February 1, 2022   Breakdowns in regulatory mechanisms cause iron to build up in the brain as organisms grow older, increasing oxidative stress and causing cellular damage, according to a Northwestern Medicine study published in the journal eLife This mechanism may explain some age-related cognitive decline and contribute to neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease. "There is tight regulation of iron homeostasis in the brain, but it appears that this regulation is disrupted as we age," said Ardehali, who is also director of the Center for Molecular Cardiology at the Feinberg Cardiovascular and Renal Research Institute. "There are studies planning to use iron chelators in coronary artery disease and exploring these in the brain and aging is the next step."   (NEXT) Modern diet destroys gut health and causes irreversible damage for generations   Stanford University School of Medicine, February 1, 2022   More Americans than ever are struggling with gut health issues. And, it's no wonder, thanks to the typical American's diet, loaded with processed, low fiber foods, chemicals and denatured ingredients. Some of the symptoms of compromised gut health include constipation, too much (or too little) intestinal gas, diarrhea, chronic bad breath, hormonal issues, menstrual problems, allergies and vitamin deficiencies, just to name a few. Poor gut health will lead to serious digestive issues, autoimmune conditions and even cancer. A study conducted by the Stanford University School of Medicine showed that the typical American diet consisting of mostly low fiber foods produces a range of internal deficiencies. Even worse, these deficiencies tend to get passed down to future generations. After four generations in this study, the losses were shown to be irreversible.   (OTHER NEWS) Why I'm leaving the cult of wokeness   Africa Brooke. 07 Jan 2021   If there's one thing I'm NOT afraid of, it's being 'cancelled'. If being cancelled means me living in integrity as a human being who thinks for themselves, CANCEL ME TODAY! I repeat; I am not afraid.What I'm truly afraid of is existing in a world that forces me to submit to an ideology without question, otherwise I'm to be shamed (or pressured to shame myself) and cast out of the community. A world that tells me that because I inhabit a black body; I will forever be oppressed and at the mercy of some omnipresent monster called 'whiteness'. That because of the colour of my skin; I am a victim of an inherently racist system by default - and me rejecting the narrative of oppression means that I am in fact, in denial. How empowering! *You know, as someone that comes from Zimbabwe, a country where the general population is truly oppressed, it perplexes me that oppression is now being worn as an identity piece in most parts of the West, especially by those who claim to be 'progressive'* What I'm truly afraid of is existing in a world that forces me to consider the colour of my skin and my gender (and that of others) at every fucking turn, instead of living by Martin Luther King's teachings and prioritising the content of mine and other people's character. I dread the prospect of a world where context, nuance, critical thinking, meritocracy, mathematics, science, and rationality are considered tools of 'white supremacy', and the rule is that you're not allowed to question or argue this senseless statement - especially if you're white. A world that is conditioning you and I to believe that we will always be trapped in some weird hierarchy because of our race, our genitals, our physical abilities, our neurodiversity, our sexuality, and our politics. And that if we do not agree on every single thing, it's a sign that we are interacting with an enemy - or at the very least, someone to be wildly suspicious and judgmental of...instead of another complex human being worthy of being seen and heard. I wish this world I'm speaking of was just a figment of my imagination, but we are already inside it. Our suitcases have been unpacked here for quite some time. This absolutist, authoritarian world is being fiercely crafted under the guise of 'social justice', and I want no parts in this. I AM OUT. As someone that, politically speaking, leans left on most things (although I'm neither left or right) - the current state of affairs and this push for obedience at all costs is NOT what I signed up for. I never signed up to be hit over the head with disempowering narratives that tell me that I need to refer to myself as a 'person of colour' (how is this different being called a 'coloured' person?), a minority, a marginalised person, and BAME (UK version of BIPOC). I cannot stand any of these terms. Please, if we ever need to address my racial identity, which we really don't need to do as often as you might think...BLACK works just fine, it's not a dirty word. And remember; it's okay if the language I mentioned before is affirming for you, we are allowed to disagree - but for ME, it does nothing but give me false reminders of my supposed oppression...which rubs me the wrong way entirely because I AM NOT OPPRESSED. I think it's key that we begin to accept that black people don't all share a singular experience, nor do we share the same brain. Shocking, I know. 'We are not a monolith' has become a common statement within communities that identify as marginalised, and while I wholeheartedly agree, we're definitely not a monolith... I've noticed that despite this being a popular mantra - when someone 'steps out of line' or dares to think differently...it's a different story. You will often have the pleasure of being told that you are in denial and have some kind of internalised disorder; 'internalised racism', 'internalised anti-blackness', 'internalised misogyny', 'internalised sexism', 'internalised homophobia', 'internalised transphobia', 'internalised white supremacy'... Meaning NOTHING can be questioned. Fun. Culty. Vibes. Honestly, I want better for us because it's all getting a bit much in these social justice/woke spaces, and it scares me to know that it's become controversial to address any concerns or express a differing viewpoint. It's becoming dangerous to address reality. You either agree and comply, or you shut up. I'm so happy that these are conversations that are now happening with many black people in my life, including my family who spend very little time online, are willing to have healthy debates, and couldn't give a crap about identity politics. These are the people who have really helped me free myself from the dogmatic thinking. It's necessary for me to mention that I'm having these conversations with black people because some individuals think that it's only white people who are pushing back against wokeism, and it's far from the truth. What is worrying though is how many more of us feel afraid to talk to our own friends, our partners, our spouses, our colleagues, our family - of fear of being branded as 'wrong-thinkers'. How are we supposed to understand each other if we're living in constant fear of saying the 'wrong' thing? It's even harder if you're white because there's usually someone just waiting to call you racist. And according to the woke manual, if you're white you're supposed to just accept that label. If you do question it or defend yourself, it's taken as confirmation that you ARE in fact a white supremacist. If you DARE express any fears or signs of being rightfully upset, you'll be accused of 'centering your white feelings', and of exuding 'white guilt' or 'white fragility'. With all disrespect, I don't understand the purpose of these cultish, degrading, racist terms. How are they helping us move forward? Is this true social justice? How is this helping the black community? How is this shaping a world where you and I aren't judged by the colour of our skin? Are we really trying to eradicate racism with racism? The LITERAL definition of racism is "prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group". And yet some people have suddenly decided that white people cannot experience racism, nor are they permitted to dispute this insane claim. This then leads to most white people choosing to not say anything at all (which creates resentment because that's the nature of suppression & self-censorship), and some choose to comply and pretend they are on board with anything and everything (whilst also secretly resenting that they can't truly express their thoughts, ideas, feelings, etc). To me all of this confirms that when it comes to 'wokeness', critical social justice, and the beast that is cancel culture, you will never win. You will NEVER get it right. If you choose to stand back, 'educate yourself' privately and quietly; you'll be accused of being violent via your silence... And if you speak out, ask questions, or express valid confusion from the dehumanising generalisations and character assassinations; you'll be denounced for centering your 'white feelings'. This sounds like psychological warfare to me. I can't be the only one that also finds this language eerie. This is cult behaviour! And for saying the above I'm sure someone out there will lovingly label me a 'white apologist'... This is where we're at people. And like I said at the beginning, when it comes to this - I am unafraid. This is my open letter detailing some of the things that have led me to this point, because if there's anything that this past year has taught me; it's that my wellbeing and that of those around me (including the collective), is infinitely more important than any temporary discomfort that might come from me doing what I know to be right. I also want to let you know that I'm not writing this to convince you of anything, your agreement is welcome but it's not a requirement. I'm not writing this from a place of animosity or anger. I'm not writing this on behalf of any individual, group, movement, organisation, or community. I am not an activist, a social commentator, a feminist, an academic, or any other label apart from the ones I claim publicly. I am writing this to free myself. I am writing this for myself. And for you if you need it. Just like you; I am entitled to my own opinions, I have every right to question things that don't feel aligned with my values, morals, ethics, and beliefs. I have every right to push back if I recognise that I'm being forced to comply with ideologies and practices that don't make sense to me (which is how I've felt this past year). I don't want to live my life in a fearful and paranoid state. I don't want to spend my life thinking that everything that doesn't go my way is because of my skin colour, I don't want to spend the rest of my life unable to have insightful conversations with those that think differently to me...I really don't. I'm tired of hearing that because I'm black I should feel victimised. That because I'm black I should agree with everything that black people do and say (surely NO ONE should have this expected of them). None of these narrow definitions of human existence or blackness help me. None of it helps my community. It's keeping us small. It's keeping us stuck, afraid, and defensive. I reject the idea that I am a victim. I reject the idea that I am oppressed. I reject the idea that white people only exist to oppress and should be reminding me of their privilege every 2 seconds, while simultaneously telling me that they are above me. How is this helpful!? If anything, it's deeply offensive and condescending. There's no question about it; being black is a beautiful part of who I am, but it's not all I am - not even close. My identity (race, gender, sexuality, body parts) will never be more important than my humanity, my spirit, and my wholeness. EVER. Because of this, I fervently reject the idea that all white people are racist and must be shamed into confessing their sins and admitting complicity in all of their ancestors indiscretions...simply because of the colour of their skin. I reject this bullshit idea that every white person walking this planet is 'inherently racist'. Do we even know what we're saying? or are we just regurgitating/parroting things, and now it's gotten out of control. I honestly struggle to see how shaming others (or shaming yourself) for having white skin is an essential part of fuelling true social change. Surely this is regressive? It also sounds a little like the very thing we've spent years moving away from... The truth of the matter is that my own ancestors have participated in some FUCKERY and I would not want to live the rest of my life being punished for their actions. A lot of what I'm seeing in the woke/critical social justice spaces is not about creating a better world, it seems to be about punishment and revenge. And it's doing nothing but trampling on the work true Activists are doing and have been doing for centuries! I do have to take a moment to acknowledge those who are doing fantastic work and making a long-lasting impact in their communities, instead of perpetuating fear and manipulating people's emotions by convincing them they will always be victims. I'm done with the insidious brainwashing of wokeness. I'm committed to understanding human behaviour (this is also at the core of what I do professionally), I'm committed to compassion and kindness without excusing that which must be acknowledged. I'm well aware of the systems we live under. I know what's happening in the world. I've lived it. I acknowledge reality, but I refuse to be a slave to a disempowering narrative that rarely focuses on actual solutions. I never want to forget that you can still be compassionate with those you don't agree with. And this way of thinking is what I CHOOSE because it makes my time on planet earth better, you don't have to take it on if it doesn't work for you. I want to live a life that isn't centred around identity politics and all that comes with it, so much more in my life takes priority. I want to remain open to new ideas, perspectives, and thoughts - so that I can grow, course correct where necessary, and make a genuine impact on a local and global level. I want to give people the benefit of the doubt and continue using discernment instead of making sweeping harmful (often lazy) assumptions based on the colour of people's skin or their gender. I refuse to take on the black or white thinking because I've seen and experienced the grave harm that does. As I move into this next season of my life, I'm more interested in the grey area - where we all exist. The nail in the coffin for me was all the events that took place last Summer. Last Summer in the height of the Black Lives Matter movement, I noticed a shadowy part of me emerging and although I didn't judge it, I wasn't comfortable with what was coming up. All the critical social justice dogma I'd been consciously and unconsciously imbibing over the past 2 years began taking a HUGE toll on my mental health, and I hadn't even realised that I wasn't functioning as a full human being - until it reached it's peak. The unpleasant internal experience I had is what led me where I am now, which is why I'm a firm believer that welcoming discomfort in is one of the most loving things you can do for yourself. On social media at that time I was DEEP is various social justice echo chambers that shared more than enough infographics, stories, feed posts, IG LIVES, to make my fight or flight response go nuts. I was in constant fight mode, and wasn't aware. I was being indoctrinated; this means "to teach a person or a group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically". I found myself subconsciously looking for things that would piss me off, which is a symptom of wokeness that seems to show up in many people - hundreds of you have shared your own experiences with me in the past month alone and the similarities in our stories are alarming. Before reacting to things, I did ZERO in-depth research of my own. It's almost as if facts were an unwelcome guest. Anything that didn't align with the beliefs I held about race, sex, gender, politics, etc - I rejected (this was all unconscious). I didn't question the sources I was getting information from, it was all taken as objective truth. It was ALL reactionary, I was on autopilot. I didn't realise I had many people on pedestals that they shouldn't have been on in the first place (no fault of their own, I put them there), I was operating purely based on emotions and feelings that gave my nervous system the signal that I was under threat. And that's the energy I acted and spoke from. I rashly unfollowed some people on my social media who I'd decided should have 'spoken up' in support of Black Lives Matter (an organisationI have now done my own extensive research on, but that's a whole other story) - simply because (based on my egos time frame) they weren't responding as and when they 'should' have. I'm sure I re-shared something about 'white silence' being 'violence' (an oversimplified and unfair statement I no longer agree with, and you can watch the lengthy live I did with Rukiat where I go into some of this). I also publicly shamed an unsuspecting man who had messaged me to question me about my conduct (I immediately assumed he was white...he was mixed race). And even though his approach was not a welcome one, he wasn't unkind to me - which is why I'm not proud of the unkind way in which I reacted...not responded, reacted. What frightened me was the applause I got from over 4,000 people when I called out this man in an Instagram post - I didn't say anything wild, but I did deconstruct his direct message publicly with the intention to embarrass him, not to resolve anything - to embarrass. I was honestly shocked by how many people used the environment I had created to exercise pack mentality, and to casually shame and scold a stranger - of which I take responsibility for as the person that created that environment. I now know that publicly shaming someone is a common tactic used in most woke spaces and echo chambers on social media, and it's so normalised. This is the kind of thing that quickly leads to bullying, doxing, stalking, and harassment...and sometimes ends in suicide. After seeing the responses applauding me, I removed the post and started asking myself some questions; who am I doing this for? why did my interaction with this man need to be publicised? what is really the root of the anger I feel? is this a performance on my behalf? what research have I done to support the ideology I'm leading with? are there any alternative sources that can give me more information or provide clarity on the situation I'm reacting to? do I really believe this or am I regurgitating something I read/heard/saw somewhere? I'm of the thinking that there is such a thing as justified anger, and I believe that all emotions and modes of expressions have their place - but I know myself well enough to know that the way I handled that particular situation was not necessary. This incident led me start evaluating my own behaviour and doing more research around the cancel culture phenomenon. And it's just one recent example of how some of this stuff has showed up in my life over the past 2 years. SO, why am I calling 'WOKENESS' a cult? Well, first lets start by defining what the term woke even means. It's a term that been around for a very long time but has (in my eyes) lost all of it's credibility and meaning in recent years. Woke: a term embedded in US Black History and social justice which originally meant being aware, well-informed, and up to date with what was happening within the community. "Stay woke became a watch word in parts of the black community for those who considered themselves self-aware, questioning the dominant paradigm, and striving for something better" - and these are the sentiments I will always stand for, however... This is NOT how it's playing out these days, and you can read this interesting article to get a timeline of how it's evolved over the years, and I'll continue sharing with you the specific pockets of 'wokeness' and social justice that I have divorced myself from. I can no longer be an active participant in any culture or movement that encourages groupthink, outrage on demand, fear and violence, revamped segregation, fabricating history, cancellations masked as accountability, self-centredness... normalisation of racism towards white people, the disempowerment of black people masked as social justice, the constant redefining of existing language, ignoring self-responsibility, constant pathologizing, oppressed vs oppressor mentality, and the pressure to conform and comply... It's exhausting. And honestly, I have better things to do with my time. Not to mention, it's killing us. I also find it very telling that people who are married to these woke spaces will immediately assume that those that are requesting for more compassion, understanding, room for discussion, removal of censorship - only want these things so they can have free reign to be bigots, sexist, 'fascists', racists, homophobes, etc. As a free-thinking black woman who most definitely wants more compassion, understanding, healthy discussion, empathy, removal of censorship, more tolerance and acceptance when it matters most...I can guarantee you that my final goal isn't so I can be a racist sexist fascist alt-righter extremist. LOL. And if you can understand this, what makes someone who happens to be white any less sincere if they want the exact same thing as me? Which many people do! I hope you can sort of see just how oversimplified and flawed this madness is. I often laugh about the ridiculous nature of it all, but what's concerning is that it's spreading like wildfire, it's causing lasting harm, and it's distracting us from the very real work that needs to be done to tackle injustice and unite us as human beings. I will stick to my guns by saying that the turn we're taking because of critical social justice and this current strain of branded monetised wokeness - is not going to take us to the promised land (SPOILER: there is no utopia, I'm sorry to break it to you). As someone who will never stop advocating for human rights (fairness, equality, access to resources, respect, independence - for ALL, not just for people who share my skin tone and gender), I have come to realise that I do not need to be part of any groups or wear any labels to make a positive contribution to this planet of ours. This is also why I do not identify as a feminist. Just like everything else I've spoken about so far; the current wave of commodified feminism is so far removed from my core values; honesty, respect, interconnection, equality, individuality etc. There's a lot of self-righteousness, virtue signalling, self-centeredness, and a lack of empathy in most of what I see being presented today as feminism - and again; it seems to be about revenge, superiority, and personal branding. It's also not uncommon to be made to feel unintelligent, wrong, and inferior in a lot of these supposedly 'safe spaces' - simply because you don't identify with the label or agree with all the view points of the group. IT'S TIRING, and I wish more people knew that you can still believe in and advocate for equality and fairness without wearing a label like a badge of honour. My mission isn't to be superior to anyone, nor do I want to see the demise of any gender. I believe that we should all have equal rights and opportunities, and I'm also realistic about the differences we have as human beings - I celebrate those differences. In a world obsessed with labels and titles, I would rather let my values and actions speak for themselves. These are the times when I am incredibly grateful for the upbringing I've had, both in Zimbabwe and here in the UK. I'm grateful that I was raised to think for myself, and that's what I'll continue to do. I was raised to not judge people based on the colour of their skin, gender, class etc - no matter what. And that's what I'll continue to do. YES, I could choose to carry animosity in my heart based on the pain my ancestors experienced and the injustice still taking place in many different parts of the world - but what does that do for me, my mental state, my community, and those I interact with in the present day? I'd rather acknowledge reality, and focus on solutions. I wasn't really raised to ask many questions, but in adulthood asking powerful questions (even when they are simple) is something that has become a non-negotiable - and that's what I will continue to do. I will continue to trust myself and question things. I will do my own research before responding purely based on emotion. I will keep myself open to having challenging conversations if I have the capacity to do so, and if I don't have the capacity to engage, I will still not shut anyone down - unless absolutely necessary. My biggest realisation has been that most of these people that pose as Social Justice Warriors, Activists, Agents of Change etc - don't actually want to improve and repair society. They don't want a better world. For some the goal is to make things worse. A lot of the people I know in these spaces have brands, careers, and management teams from this. Their livelihood depends on them playing this role, which often means that they will continue to find everything wrong with society instead of making consistent efforts to unite and truly empower. There's a sinister side many people aren't comfortable speaking about because of the potential backlash, and it's unfair to those of us who end up being sucked into these echo chambers and movements through the promise of community and betterment. Most of us just want to help. We want to see change! In our personal lives, and in the world we exist in. This leaves us vulnerable to questionable 'leaders', influencers, and organisations who set themselves up so that you cannot question their practices or agenda. The similarities of wokeness/critical social justice to fundamentalist religion (something I'm VERY familiar with) is why I choose to call it a cult, the framework and tactics are eerily similar... It usually goes a little like this; find/attract a vulnerable person, make them feel like they belong so they can trust you, tell them exactly what they want to hear, and once they become loyal - it is easier to sell them outlandish concepts and to make them 'repent' for 'sins' they have supposedly committed... the person then regresses and begins to rely on their 'leader' or the ideology to shape their thoughts and their world view. They are introduced to an enemy and are encouraged to cut themselves off from the outside world and anyone else who doesn't agree with or follow the ideology (us vs them mentality). Once cut off from everyone, the individual is more dependent on the leader or the group, and then it becomes increasingly difficult to leave. Just like an abusive relationship! This is exactly what I'm seeing in the woke/feminist/critical social justice spaces. Despite it all, the individual is often unaware of what's really happening and will continue to believe that they are acting on their own accord. The prison walls remain invisible. But it's possible to break out! It's why I've decided to speak out. And if you don't agree with what I'm sharing, and this has not been your experience - that's okay. I will always respect your right to own your experiences and perspectives. I ask that you do the same for me. We live different lives, we have different views. It's normal. What ISN'T normal, is forcing people to comply and bow down to an ideology, simply because YOU think it's the right one. If you resonate with what I've shared in this letter, please know that you are not alone. You are allowed to change your mind. You are allowed to grow. You are allowed to walk away. You are allowed to put your foot down. There is no one way to 'do the work'. You don't have to pray to a single political idea, movement, or group - nor do you have to agree with EVERYTHING presented to you as the absolute truth. You are not morally inferior or superior to anyone else. And remember that we still have to co-exist on this planet, so expecting everyone you encounter to agree with every belief or view that you hold - is fucking wild, LOL. If you have read this far, I appreciate your time and your attention. Any typos you see, represent the sheer passion flowing through me. I'll stop here because I could go on, there is always more to say. I feel like this letter is just the foundation of the conversations I REALLY want to have so I will likely explore some of the specificities in podcast form and through my newsletter. I'm considering producing and hosting a limited podcast series that specifically talks about these themes. Don't worry, my existing podcastBeyond the Self won't be going anywhere! In the meantime; you can find me on Instagram if we're not already connected. Although my work as a Mindset Coach, Speaker, and Consultant has nothing to do with social justice, cancel culture, wokeness etc - this is something I'll continue to speak about because it directly speaks to 2 of my biggest areas of focus, which in this case are collective self-sabotage and psychological manipulation. I encourage you to break out of any echo chambers (especially on social media) and explore yourself BEYOND your race, your pronouns, your genitals, your sexuality, your physical capabilities, your politics - those things have their place but there is so much more to you. And in fact, when you do go beyond those neatly prescribed boxes, you become more secure within your identity. I urge you to unsubscribe to anyone and anything that is stripping you of your humanity, your agency, and is proving to be detrimental to your mental wellbeing. You deserve better, let's never stop speaking up! Love always, Africa   (NEXT) Lawsuit accuses COVID-19 testing company of faking results   Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson has filed a lawsuit against an Illinois-based COVID-19 testing company, accusing it of improperly handling tests and providing fake negative results.   The Associated Press, January 31, 2022   Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson has filed a lawsuit against an Illinois-based COVID-19 testing company, accusing it of improperly handling tests and providing fake results. It describes how the company expanded to about 300 locations throughout the United States and collected tens of thousands of tests a day. “Center for COVID Control contributed to the spread of COVID-19 when it provided false negative results,” Ferguson said in a statement. “These sham testing centers threatened the health and safety of our communities. They must be held accountable.” The lawsuit also said the Center for COVID Control stored tests in garbage bags — rather than properly refrigerating them — backdated sample-collection dates so stale samples would still be processed and instructed its employees to lie when Washington residents asked about delayed results. The lawsuit asks the court to order the Center for COVID Control to pay civil penalties of up to $12,500 per violation of the Consumer Protection Act and relinquish any profits the company made from its “unlawful conduct,” in addition to permanently closing all locations, the statement said.

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.

We go in-depth with State Attorney General Bob Ferguson -- on his lawsuit against opioid manufacturers, police accountability, the Arlene's Flowers case, and much more.

Friday's With Dori: Seattle Public Schools having a hard time enrolling students and they made a song trying to attract students, caused by graphic pornography used in schools, Drug cartels are having great success with getting drugs across the border and it makes its way to Washington, Attorney General Bob Ferguson made many campaign violations and got no repercussions, Dori predicts that we are at the ends of justice in America ahead of the Rittenhouse verdict, // TEXTS & WRAP // PERSONAL NOTE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today Hacks & Wonks Week in Review is back after a brief hiatus! Crystal is joined by Co-founder of the Mercury Group and previous Chief of Staff to Mike McGinn, Julie McCoy to discuss the charges filed against Pierce County Sheriff Ed Troyer by Attorney General Bob Ferguson for falsely accusing his Black newspaper carrier of threatening his life leading to an overwhelming police response, the case for the Attorney General conducting an investigation into Jenny Durkan's deleted text messages, and analysis of new polling out this week of the election coming up on November 2nd and what the campaigns should be doing to reach the voters they need to win.  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, Julie McCoy, at @mcjulie87. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources “Pierce County Sheriff Ed Troyer charged with false reporting in January confrontation with newspaper carrier” by Jim Brunner and Christine Clarridge from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/pierce-county-sheriff-ed-troyer-charged-with-false-statements-in-january-confrontation-with-newspaper-carrier/  “Criminal charges filed against Pierce County sheriff” from the Washington State Office of the Attorney General: https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/criminal-charges-filed-against-pierce-county-sheriff  “Durkan Destroys 10 Months of Text Messages in Apparent Coverup” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist: https://www.theurbanist.org/2021/05/13/durkan-destroys-10-months-of-text-messages-in-apparent-coverup/  Polling results from the Northwest Progressive Institute, via The Cascadia Advocate: https://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/category/elections  Candidate Forums: Previously Recorded: Seattle Mayoral Public Safety Forum conducted by the ACLU of Washington: https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?ref=watch_permalink&v=1228402674346629  Upcoming on Saturday, October 23rd: The Great Debate 2021 conducted by Urbvote, Rainier Arts Center, and The Emperors Group: https://www.facebook.com/events/529623018366265/   Transcript:  Transcript will be uploaded as soon as possible.

Today, our town hall with Attorney General Bob Ferguson. He has served as Washington's AG since 2012, and was named one of Time Magazine's 100 most influential people. We cover a wide range of issues, from the fight for reproductive rights, to protecting our elections, to his many recent wins on behalf of the state of Washington (including the state's civil suit against LuLaRoe, the subject of the recent Amazon Prime documentary).

Saul discusses the incompetence of Seattle city officials. // Saul explains why he thinks Attorney General Bob Ferguson  will be our next Governor. // Saul & Shane discuss Hockey Posers and there excitement for the Seattle Kraken. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Non-compete clauses, and the lesser-known no-poach agreements between franchises, are shockingly common for low-wage workers. Although these contracts were originally intended to protect trade secrets among high-level executives, they have spiralled into an unfair labor practice that keeps wages low, limits employee mobility, and decreases competition. Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson explains how non-competes and no-poach agreements violate the law in many states, what his team did to get hundreds of huge employers across the country to cease and desist, and why you should tell your state’s Attorney General if you know of any low- or middle-income workers who are being forced into signing these agreements.  Bob Ferguson is Washington State’s 18th Attorney General. As the state’s chief legal officer, Bob is committed to protecting the people of Washington against powerful interests that don’t play by the rules.  Twitter: @BobFergusonAG Show us some love by leaving a rating or a review! RateThisPodcast.com/pitchforkeconomics  Why aren’t paychecks growing? A burger-joint clause offers a clue: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/27/business/pay-growth-fast-food-hiring.html Workers in Washington state win big under new non-compete law: https://www.emeryreddy.com/2019/09/workers-in-washington-state-win-big-under-new-non-compete-law/  Attorney General Bob Ferguson stops King County coffee shop’s practice requiring baristas to sign unfair non-compete agreements: https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/attorney-general-bob-ferguson-stops-king-county-coffee-shop-s-practice-requiring  AG Report: Ferguson’s initiative ends no-poach practices nationally at 237 corporate franchise chains: https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ag-report-ferguson-s-initiative-ends-no-poach-practices-nationally-237-corporate  Website: http://pitchforkeconomics.com/ Twitter: @PitchforkEcon Instagram: @pitchforkeconomics Nick’s twitter: @NickHanauer

On today's show Crystal is joined by Port of Seattle Commissioner candidate Hamdi Mohamed. Hamdi gets into her path to running for Port Commissioner, prioritizing worker's rights issues at the Port, and the importance of the Port of Seattle in creating a just economy in our region. Additionally, she underscores the importance of reducing the air and noise pollution experienced by communities around SeaTac.  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 guest, Hamdi Mohamed, at @hamdiforport. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources Why the Port Commissioner Races Actually Matter: https://southseattleemerald.com/2017/06/13/why-the-port-commissioner-races-actually-matter/  Carrying coffins, Sea-Tac airline catering employees demand better wages on eve of busy travel day: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/carrying-coffins-sea-tac-airline-catering-employees-demand-better-wages-on-eve-of-busiest-travel-day/  Port of Seattle Human Trafficking Awareness Campaign Results in Higher Call Volumes to National Human Trafficking Hotline: https://southseattleemerald.com/2021/01/23/port-of-seattle-human-trafficking-awareness-campaign-results-in-higher-call-volumes-to-national-human-trafficking-hotline/  Links between air pollution and cancer risk: https://www.fredhutch.org/en/news/center-news/2017/08/air-pollution-boosts-cancer-risk.html  Little understood, unregulated particles pollute neighborhoods under Sea-Tac flight paths, UW study finds: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/little-understood-unregulated-particles-pollute-neighborhoods-under-sea-tac-flight-paths-uw-study-finds/  Federal study confirms racial bias of many facial-recognition systems, casts doubt on their expanding use: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/12/19/federal-study-confirms-racial-bias-many-facial-recognition-systems-casts-doubt-their-expanding-use/  King County Code 2.15 Immigrant, Refugees and Language Access Ordinance: https://kingcounty.gov/elected/executive/equity-social-justice/Immigrant-and-Refugee/LanguageAccessOrdinance.aspx  New Public Maritime High School to Open in September, Applications Are Open for Prospective Students: https://southseattleemerald.com/2021/01/14/new-public-maritime-high-school-to-open-in-september-applications-are-open-for-prospective-students/    Transcript Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] Welcome to Hacks & 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.  I want to welcome to today's show - very excited to have Hamdi Mohamed with us, who is a candidate for the Port of Seattle Commission. Thank you for joining us. Hamdi Mohamed: [00:01:01] Thank you for having me. I'm happy to be here. Crystal Fincher: [00:01:04] Happy that you're here, excited about your candidacy. I guess I just wanted to start off asking you - what brought you to want to run for the Port? What motivated your decision to say, This is where I want to make a difference? Hamdi Mohamed: [00:01:21] Yeah, Crystal, that's a great question. I honestly never thought I would be running for elected office. That wasn't the thing that I would say as a child, right - What do you want to be? It wasn't, I want to be a politician. I came to the US when I was three years old, as a refugee from Somalia, and one of our first ports of entries into the United States was at Sea-Tac Airport. My family came without a dollar in their pocket, and was just entering the country to find refuge, just to survive.  My mother actually started working at Sea-Tac Airport, it was one of her first jobs. And I watched her growing up, juggle her job at Sea-Tac Airport. I started working when I was 15 years old to help my family make ends meet. And I was always close to seeing - I was always seeing my family struggle and my community struggle. I was always that person that was always trying to figure out how to resolve some sort of issue and ended up going to the University of Washington, studying Law, Societies, and Justice there. Then I went on to work for a number of our local nonprofits, I went on to work for US Congresswoman Jayapal. Now I work for our County Executive Office of Equity and Social Justice as a policy advisor.  And when this pandemic hit, I just saw a lack of leadership. I think now more than ever, we need strong leadership at all levels of government. There is really no going back to the way things were. For me, this is a moment to re-imagine and rebuild a new economy that works for all of us, that works for all of our communities. And I believe that the Port can do that, it is our largest economic engine in the region. It creates jobs and opportunities for our community. And I decided to run for this position because I feel like I can make a big impact there.  I also ran for this position because of the lack of regional representation. The Port of Seattle's operations significantly impact cities in South King County. The Port's largest asset is Sea-Tac Airport. Over 70% of the ports' revenue comes from Sea-Tac Airport. And currently none of our port commissioners live in South King County. So for me, it's time that we have regional representation, that our voices are at the table, a community that's significantly impacted.  Also I want to be able to bring my expertise in equitable economic development, in job creation to the Port of Seattle,and I have some exciting ideas around how we can help our communities build back better, how to help them re-enter the workforce. So many people have lost their jobs and have been hurting during this pandemic, I've seen it very up close. I have been serving on King County's COVID-19 response team since the pandemic hit. And so I've seen the devastating impacts that this pandemic has had on our whole region. And I've seen the data when you look closely, there are certain communities and neighborhoods that are heavily impacted. And so now more than ever, we need strong leadership, we need leadership that are going to have their boots on the ground doing the work. And that is what I'm known for, and that's what I do - when I see a problem, I think of a way to resolve it and I do it with community, I do it in collaboration. And so I want to be able to bring my expertise, and skills, and lived experience to the Port of Seattle. Crystal Fincher: [00:05:23] Well, and I appreciate that, and that's really important. And you talked about how important the Port is economically to our region. And there has been long-time conversation about the need to make sure that the entities that the Port supports and interacts with remain competitive, how important trade and tourism are and how the Port interacts with that. But also how critical it is to treat employees fairly, to make sure we are not leaving anyone behind as we seek a better economy, more stable economy, more prosperity for everyone. And so often the conversation around that pits those in conflict with one another. Do you think they have to be in conflict with one another, or can we make sure that we grow our economy, support tourism, travel companies, trade organizations, and provide a livable wage for folks and a secure living? Hamdi Mohamed: [00:06:32] Yeah. No, I agree with you. Those things should not be in competition, those things should complement each other, right? In order to have good businesses that are functioning, in order for us to have tourism and trade, we have to be able to have workers - employees keep these things functioning and keep the airport moving. The Port in itself, the seaport and the airport, are able to function and bring - add to the economy because of employees. Everyone must be paid a living wage. Businesses should be invested in ensuring that their workers are protected. And elected officials who are elected by the people, that should be their number one top priority. They get put in those positions by the people to ensure that, to keep our government transparent and accessible. For me, those things - they don't compete with each other, they complement each other. We have to make sure that we have strong recovery plans for small businesses, that we are ensuring that we have a seaport that its operations are moving, that we have a smooth operations happening at our seaport, and investments are being made there to ensure that folks do want their containers to come through the Port of Seattle, and that we're being competitive nationally and on a global scale. To me, these things are things that go together, but I think for a long time, we've seen leadership that do not step up for workers who've helped elect them. And I really do think that needs to change, we need to stand with working families and support them, and I think it is in the best interest of businesses to do that. What I hope to do is bring that sort of lens, that sense of partnership to the Port of Seattle. To ensure that our businesses and communities and workers are working well together. This is a time where we need to come together. If we are going to truly build back better, we've got to get on the same page, and we need to align our systems, align our workforce systems, and to ensure that resources are getting out to our communities, and that we're addressing issues and looking at where the needs are greatest. So that's the spirit and the sort of lens I will be bringing to the Port of Seattle. Crystal Fincher: [00:09:15] You've talked a lot about running because you felt like current leadership hasn't stepped up and there does need to be a change of direction. You chose to run against an incumbent, so I'm wondering why did you choose to run for the position you're running for and against the incumbent that you're running against? Hamdi Mohamed: [00:09:37] Yeah, that's a great question. The decision that I made was based off of ensuring that we have strong leadership in place, that brings a strong equity lens, that can address the needs of this moment. Crystal, I don't know if you've looked at some of the data, but just recently in March 1st, 2021, there were over a 100,000 folks who received unemployment benefits in King County. And if you look closer at those numbers, the top zip codes in King County with the highest unemployment UI insurance claims, are cities that surround the Port's largest operating site, SEA Airport. A lot of the people who live within those communities also go to work for the Port or the airport. Nearly 60% of those claims come from folks who were working in our food service industry. These are folks who are my neighbors - I live five minutes away from Sea-Tac Airport.  And I have worked closely with individuals who've been impacted by COVID-19, in my position at the County as a policy advisor. And I've led initiatives that invested $1.5 million in small businesses that have been impacted by displacement, and fundings to our community-based organizations that were on the frontlines of this pandemic. Really, these numbers and the issues are devastating. And they're devastating our communities and disproportionately BIPOC folks, immigrants, refugees, women, poor white folks with lower educational attainment. The data is showing us that, and to me, we have to have a sense of urgency to address these issues and that's what I bring. I bring that vision to the Port of Seattle, so when I was deciding to run, it wasn't necessarily me deciding to run against one particular candidate, it was running because I have a vision for the Port of Seattle. But the question about the incumbent, when you look at the incumbent that I'm running against also, we differ on a number of things. On votes that she's taken - the incumbent voted to use taxpayer's money to file a legal challenge against SeaTac's $15 minimum wage. And that is a position that I would never have taken. I stand with working families. When I look at the workforce that that $15 minimum wage was going to help, it's a workforce that looks very similar to me, that our histories are the same, my mom was once part of that workforce. So $15 minimum wage we know is not even a living wage. So taking positions like that, I think, really goes against my beliefs. Most recently, the incumbent voted against the leasing of the Duwamish Valley Community Resource Center. That resource center was going to go to creating green job programs, internship recruitment, supporting small businesses and workforce development. I just think we would have taken different votes and we bring a different vision for the Port of Seattle.  Right now, I've been talking to rideshare drivers and truck drivers, who've been sharing stories with me about how they don't have access to restrooms on the job. To me, everyone should have access to a restroom at their workplace. Truck drivers who've shared not having adequate access to testing and vaccination sites. And so these are all really issues that I would lead and ensure that we were addressing, whether that is standing up vaccination sites for truck drivers at truck stops, ensuring that they have PPE and adequate equipments to keep themselves protected. Also today, there are a number of workers at Sea-Tac who actually do not get paid $15 minimum wage, catering workers at Sea-Tac who do not get paid $15 minimum wage. I think it's these type of issues where right now, now more than ever, we need strong leadership around it, we need folks who are going to protect those workers, who are going to stand with them, and to ensure that they have the sort of support that they need to continue to help build our economy. Crystal Fincher: [00:14:39] Right. And so Stephanie Bowman is the incumbent that you are running against. Certainly you just talked about your issue with that $15 an hour vote of hers. So are you saying that you will ensure that all workers that are directly employed by the Port of Seattle, you would want to vote to ensure that they make $15 an hour at minimum? Hamdi Mohamed: [00:15:04] Absolutely. As a Port of Seattle Commissioner elected by the people, one of my top priorities would be to advocate for living wages and to support workers by showing up intentionally for them, and also co-creating with them to bring solutions. So absolutely I would definitely advocate for living wages and truly support working families. Crystal Fincher: [00:15:30] Excellent. Now there is a lot of conversation, and justifiably so, about the Port's contribution to, and ability to help fix, the amount of pollution in our region and overall. Is that a priority for you and how do you address that? Hamdi Mohamed: [00:15:53] That's a great question. I am committed to addressing that, right, as someone who lives in the airport community - working to reduce things like noise pollution from planes, and investing in quieter jets, and ensuring that we transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy - is a top priority for me. Right now there's research that has been done by the University of Washington that found a specific type of pollution in the air called ultrafine particle pollution, which is basically a pollution that has been connected to multiple types of cancers. It is a pollution that comes from aircraft that has huge health impacts for people. I know so many people in our community that live around the airport community who struggle with all types of health situations, who have high blood pressure, asthma, and we know that the aviation contributes to that.  So we have to think responsibly, move aviation to being more sustainable. There are projects that's happening right now to invest in alternative jet fuels, I'm in support of that. We need to be doing that - we need to reach the Port's Century Agenda goals to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy a lot faster. I'm in support of accelerating the implementation of sound installation programs for airport communities and advocating for federal investments in noise and emission mitigation. That's an FAA issue as well, and so I've been talking to our Congressional delegation about that. I've been endorsed by US Congresswoman Jayapal, I've been endorsed by US Congressman Adam Smith, and talked to the both of them about that.  And really, I think we need a strong regional leader in this position that's going to bring our elected officials and communities together to help address some of the most pressing issues that are impacting our community and thinking creatively about it. We shouldn't just wait on the FAA to help mitigate some of these situation, but what can we do as a Port? How can we bring our business community together and think of different pots to help address these issues. And also thinking about the communities that we are impacting, and how do we support them. Crystal Fincher: [00:18:38] You also talked about, just going back a little bit, supporting workers and certainly supporting families, supporting the region. You are very strongly in support of making sure workers for the Port of Seattle will be making $15 an hour. You also referenced a lot of the gig workers who are not directly employed by the Port of Seattle, but rely on the Port of Seattle, who are servicing and working in conjunction with rideshare drivers and other vendors. What can actually concretely be done? What could you enact to help increase their standard of living and their working conditions? Hamdi Mohamed: [00:19:27] Yeah, that's a great question. Well, one, the access to restrooms, I think is - it's one that we need to address and address that quickly. The fact that our rideshare drivers and truck drivers, both, don't have adequate access to restrooms is a big problem. It's one that I'm currently even talking to some of our port commissioners about, to help them address that. But it's also making sure that we are making the Port's operations accessible to them and transparent, that we are supporting them, providing opportunities - whether that is job training opportunities, whether that is standing up COVID testing sites or vaccination sites, providing them with the appropriate PPE so that they are protected and can keep showing up to work and doing the work, giving them the sort of tools that they need to be able to be successful on the job.  And so really, showing up for our gig workers is so so important. And being a port commissioner that listens, that brings their voices into the decision-making process. Standing up advisory groups that are made up of our gig workers, to help us make those decisions at the Port that also benefits them and benefits the businesses that are at the Port. So I would be hosting regular listening sessions and town hall meetings to have those conversations with them, in addition to attending the monthly commission meeting or study sessions. But really being able to engage with them and being intentional about it - most folks already know what their needs are and the solutions to the problem. We just have to bring folks to the table and give them the opportunity to engage with us so we can resolve some of the most pressing issues that they're facing. Crystal Fincher: [00:21:43] That makes sense. Looking at a lot of what the Port is responsible for, and the Port is a very large entity - what the Port is responsible for and just the size of the jurisdiction is quite vast. And the Port has its own police department and also interacts with Homeland Security, ICE, Customs and Border Patrol, in a variety of ways. And so how, when you consider, I guess starting off with just the issue of policing and sharing data with immigration authorities, Customs and Border Patrol. Obviously that has been something that a lot of local cities within the Port's jurisdiction have prevented. What do you think needs to be put in place? Do you think what's currently in place is adequate, and what is your stance on making sure that data isn't inappropriately shared with ICE and Homeland Security? Hamdi Mohamed: [00:22:49] Yeah. That is a great question, I think it's one that sometimes people forget that the Port - how large the Port's operations are. They manage billions of dollars, there's the partnership between the Port of Seattle and the Port of Tacoma as well. And so, there's the marine terminals and they have a fire department, in addition to a police force. It's a good point that you bring that up, because I think sometimes a lot of people don't even realize that the Port is a government entity in a lot of ways. So that's a good point that you bring up. As far as - how does the Port engage with the community around police reform, or just thinking about the Port's police department, we have to ensure that they are accountable, that they're also listening to recommendations on the national level and locally. Also for me, as a port commissioner, it's really important to partner with that police department to ensure that we are addressing really urgent matters that face our region like human trafficking. Human trafficking is one of the fastest growing criminal industries in the world today. And we are, as a state, Washington state is a hotspot for human trafficking because of the abundance of ports, the vast rural areas that we have, there's the international border with Canada. So really ensuring that we are protecting people is so so important. I've been talking to Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who've endorsed our campaign, around combating human trafficking at the Port of Seattle and to build on existing work. Right now, if you look at the Port's Century Agenda, it doesn't include language access. If we are truly wanting to combat human trafficking, we need to make sure that the Century Agenda includes language access, we have to be able to address language barriers. A lot of the times, folks end up getting trafficked or not able to report being trafficked because of language barriers, or lack of awareness to services, or the fear and suspicion of law enforcement that folks have.  So addressing that is important and I bring strong skills around that. When I was working for US Congresswoman Jayapal as her Deputy District Director, I oversaw her Constituent Services team and carried the immigration and international relations portfolio for her. Often I worked very closely with US Customs and Border Protection and our US consulates to address issues like child abduction. We worked on bringing political prisoners home and we successfully helped reunite so many families. Also I had to work with ICE when someone was detained at the Tacoma Detention Center. Constituents would call our office and want to get in contact with their relatives, figure out what sort of legal support that they can provide to them. And often I was picking up the phone and calling those agents, officers, to ensure that folks' rights were not being infringed on. So I will continue to do that, I will continue to work very closely with our immigrant advocacy organizations to ensure that our family and communities are protected and continue to address some of the most pressing issues that are facing our immigrant refugee populations. Crystal Fincher: [00:26:42] In that vein, also the use of biometrics is a big concern. Basically going and using eye scans or face scans to identify people within the airport, and that data also being fed to or shared with federal authorities. We had a conversation with another port commissioner recently, who talked about the work being done on this. And a huge concern, certainly overall and specifically impacting communities of color, is that biometrics are less accurate for people with darker skin. People are misidentified more, there are more errors. And with that information being shared with law enforcement authorities - more misidentification, and people experiencing harm and impacts and adverse effects from being misidentified. So as they consider whether or how to use that, certainly that should be a huge consideration. Do you feel like the work group, or the work that they're doing to address that right now is adequate? And what, I guess, work and protections do you feel should be put into place to make sure people are feeling secure that their data isn't being collected without their knowledge or consent, and also shared with authorities that they may also not consent to? Hamdi Mohamed: [00:28:22] That is a great question and it's one that I think we really need to ensure that we are protecting folks' information, that we are upholding privacy laws, and also working with our Congressional delegations. It is a federal issue and so as a port commissioner, it will be really important to work with those federal agencies and to work with our Congressional delegation, to ensure that information is not being breached, that folks' - whoever gets a hold of these information are not misusing it and are not profiling our communities. So that will be a priority of mine. I have experience working with our federal agencies, as well as our Congressional delegation.  And also around immigration. King County has an ordinance in place right now, King County Code 2.15, which is the immigration and language access code, which basically says that the County will not share information with federal agents, unless it's accompanied by a judicial warrant. What we know is, often when there are those sorts of protections put in place, people are - especially immigrants and refugees, are more likely to access County services, government services, healthcare services, and they're likely to report things like crimes against themselves or their community. And so for me, it will be a priority to be able to ensure that we have policies in place that are protecting the privacies of all of our residents that contribute to our economy and our whole society here. That is something that needs to be addressed and it is a federal matter, and it's one that requires partnership, and I'm prepared to do that. Crystal Fincher: [00:30:31] Well, thank you so much for joining us today. We are at our time, but I'm so happy to be able to hear from you. I guess just as a very last closing, and in evaluating this vote between you and your opponent, what do you think voters should weigh the most in making that decision? Hamdi Mohamed: [00:30:51] Yeah, no - that's a good closing sort of statement. I think what - if folks understand that we are in the middle of a pandemic, and this is a moment where we have to re-imagine and rebuild a new economy that works for all of us. And recognizing that we can't do business as usual. We truly need new leadership. We need a regional leader that will make the Port's numerous operations accessible and transparent, a leader that will be a strong voice for working families and businesses impacted by COVID-19. I will be that leader. We didn't talk about this, but I'm proud to serve on the Maritime High School Advisory Board, and will be a strong advocate for expanding educational opportunities for our youth to ensure that they are also prepared to enter the workforce. After this pandemic, we're seeing labor shortages all across this country. And so really investing in the next generation is so important.  And we're truly running a grassroots campaign. A 100% of the donations that we have received so far have come from individuals. We've been endorsed by over 30 elected officials, including US Congressman Adam Smith, Attorney General Bob Ferguson, our County Executive Dow Constantine, US Congresswoman Jayapal, and so many of our community leaders. Folks are ready to see a regional leader, and I'm ready to step up and do this work. I have the lived experience and the work experience to be a strong commissioner that works for the people that have elected me, or when I do get elected. I hope they base it on that, and they also look at records - look at the work that we've done and the facts - that will be really important. I have over 15 years of experience working in King County, and I bring the experience of advising on our County's $12 billion budget and have led initiatives that invested millions of dollars into our community. And so those are the sort of skills and work experience that I will put into the Port of Seattle. Crystal Fincher: [00:33:06] All right. Thanks for joining us and have a wonderful day. Hamdi Mohamed: [00:33:10] Thank you so much. Crystal Fincher: [00:33:13] Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks. Our chief audio engineer at KVRU is Maurice Jones Jr. The producer of Hacks & 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 & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you got your podcasts. Just type in "Hacks & Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe, to get our Friday almost-live shows and our mid-week 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.

What's Trending: Lawmakers want elected officials to be the ones to OK police to use tear gas, and Washington is in a fourth wave of COVID, how will you handle it? Gov. Jay Inslee has formally directed state Attorney General Bob Ferguson to open an investigation into Pierce County Sheriff Ed Troyer, and Cori Bush dishonestly accuses America of stereotyping all black people. Paul Krugman says the GOP made up riots over the summer. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

As part of our town hall series in partnership with the Washington Indivisible Network and Indivisible Tacoma, we present a conversation with Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who is running for re-election in November. We talk about that status of some of his current legal actions against the Trump administration—to date he's won 34 out of 35 lawsuits—and we get his thoughts on a number of hypotheticals concerning Trump and the November election. This conversation was recorded live on the evening of Tuesday, September 15th. Links: http://www.bobferguson.com

This week, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson. Perhaps best known for his fight against Trump's travel ban, he's recently announced his reelection campaign for 2020. Ferguson joins us for a wide-ranging discussion about the breadth of his work in office, about his vision for a third term, about his life-long love affair with the game of chess, and of course, about fighting back against the Trump administration. Links: Bob Ferguson Campaign Website: https://www.electbobferguson.com/ Info on the Global Climate Strike in WA: https://www.washingtonclimateweek.org

Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson's successful effort to block President Donald Trump's travel-ban executive order has catapulted the Democrat into the national spotlight. But he tells political reporters Jim Brunner and Dan Beekman he's also grappling with the federal government over coal and national monuments. Plus, Ferguson uses chess to explain Trump's governing approach.

Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson has become the face of the resistance to President Trump's travel ban. As a federal court considers his lawsuit against the administration, we talk more about Ferguson's quest and how Washington was poised to challenge Trump. Host Geoff Norcross is joined by OPB's senior political reporter Jeff Mapes, and Austin Jenkins, Olympia correspondent for the Northwest News Network.

We hear from Seattle Times environment reporter Lynda V. Mapes about her on-the-ground coverage of the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, including a herd of bison thundering past demonstrators, and host a debate about the $54 billion Sound Transit 3 ballot. Plus, state Attorney General Bob Ferguson notches a win over a trade association for grocery giants.

This week, we look at the food fight over Washington Initiative 732, which would create the nation's first state carbon tax to fight climate change but which has divided environmentalists and progressives. I-732 proponent Yoram Bauman says it's great policy. Critic Rebecca Saldana argues it's a product of a "white-privileged" environmental movement. Also: why Attorney General Bob Ferguson and Seattle taxpayers lost big this week.