Podcasts about city attorney's office

In today episode, we interview Marcia Ridley-Shumate, who is a mediator for the City Attorney's Office for Los Angeles, and a coach. She helps women overcome various crises and obstacles they face in life, relationships and their assignments.    The Trainer Who Cares | Help Yourself | Inspirational Video | Life Succes Dr. Anthony McFarland Subscribe and Receive a free Power Session: https://www.abetter-you.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Purchase My Latest Book "How To Master Your Thinking": https://a.co/d/hIpZ13I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check Out My Videos:    / @abetter-you    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stay Connect Through Social Media:  / anthonymcfarland360    / abetteryou360   https://www.tiktok.com/realgamechangers ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Listen in as Amy Dixon, Business Services Coordinator in the City Attorney's Office, talks about our lawyers and the hard work they do.

On this Election 2023 re-air, Crystal chats with Teresa Mosqueda about her campaign for King County Council District 8 - why she decided to run, the experience and lessons she'll bring to the County from serving on Seattle City Council, and her thoughts on addressing progressive revenue options, public service wage equity and morale, housing and homelessness, public safety, transit rider experience, climate change, and budget transparency. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Follow us on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find Teresa Mosqueda at @TeresaCMosqueda.   Teresa Mosqueda As a Progressive Labor Democrat, Teresa Mosqueda is committed to creating healthy and safe communities, investing in working families through job training, childcare and transit access, and developing more affordable housing for all residents. She brings a proven track record of successfully passing progressive policies and building broad and inclusive coalitions. Teresa was named one of Seattle's Most Influential People 2018 for acting with urgency upon getting elected, received the Ady Barkan Progressive Champion Award from Local Progress in 2019; and earned national attention by leading the passage of JumpStart progressive revenue to invest in housing, economic resilience, green new deal investments, and equitable development. Prior to elected office Teresa worked on community health policies from SeaMar to the Children's Alliance, and championed workers' rights at the WA State Labor Council, AFL-CIO, where she helped lead state's minimum wage increase, paid sick leave, farmworker protections, workplace safety standards, and launched the Path to Power candidate training with the AFL-CIO.   Resources Campaign Website - Teresa Mosqueda   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 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. I am very excited today to have joining us - current Seattle City Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda, who is a candidate for King County Council District 8, which covers Seattle - including West Seattle, South Park, Georgetown, Chinatown International District, and First Hill - as well as Burien, part of Tukwila, and unincorporated King County - in White Center and Vashon Island. Welcome to the program - welcome back. [00:01:22] Teresa Mosqueda: Thank you so much for having me back - I appreciate it. [00:01:25] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. So I guess the first question is - what made you decide to run for King County Council after being on the Seattle City Council? [00:01:35] Teresa Mosqueda: I've been really, really honored to be able to serve the full City of Seattle - 775,000 residents at this point - to be able to pass progressive policies like progressive revenue through JumpStart, Green New Deal and affordable housing that it was funding, to be able to quadruple the investments in affordable housing, to expand worker protections. But the truth is, we know that much of the population that I was elected by - the folks that I really center in my public policy - also work and have family outside of the City of Seattle. And in many ways, I want to build on what I've been able to accomplish in Seattle - investments in affordable housing, investments in new career pathways, good union jobs, to expand on the childcare and working family supports that I've centered in my work on City Council. But in order to reach the broader population of working families who are just outside of Seattle's borders but may work in Seattle and come in and out of the City - I want to create greater equity and stability across our region - the County is the place to do it. And in terms of stability, the County is the only place that has purview over public health, has the purse strings for behavioral health investments. And so if I want to complement efforts to try to house folks and create long-term housing stability, especially for our most vulnerable community members, the County is the place to do that - through investments in behavioral health, by sitting on the Public Health Board, by being directly involved in the budget that has purview over public health and behavioral health investments. I see it as an extension of my work at the City to create housed and healthy communities. And it actually goes full circle back to my roots where I started my career in community health. It is exciting opportunity, and I see it as a growth and expansion of the work that we've done in Seattle. [00:03:24] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. You talk about progressive revenue - the JumpStart Tax, which is a really, really important source of revenue that has been so helpful for businesses in the City, for residents, so many people in need - and has been a benefit to the City, especially in this time of a budget downturn in that the JumpStart Tax helped to bail out a budget shortfall there. So this revenue seemed to come just in time. You had to fight for it. You led the fight for it. What lessons do you take out of that fight to the County, and what progressive revenue options are there at the county level that you would be willing to pursue? [00:04:05] Teresa Mosqueda: I think one major lesson is how I've approached building these big progressive policies that have not only earned the majority of votes, but the vast majority - if not unanimous vote sometimes - that have withstood the test of time, have not been overturned, and have not been overturned by legislative councilmatic action nor by the courts. I will take with me to King County the ability to build these broad coalitions. And think about JumpStart - who was there when we launched it? It was ironworkers and hardhats, along with business entrepreneurs from both small and large business, with community and housing advocates standing collectively together to say - We will not only stand by this progressive revenue, we will stand by it knowing that it's five times the amount of the previous policy and it's twice as long. That's a huge effort that took place to try to get people on the same page, and we had to - with growing income inequality, growing needs, an increase in our population. There was no other option. This had to succeed, and so I will take that same approach to King County Council. So much is on the needs list right now in the "wake" of the global pandemic. We have the ongoing shadow pandemic. We have increased needs for mental health and community health investments. We have increased needs for food security and housing stability. There is not an alternative. We must invest more and we must do it in a way that withstands the test of time, like I've done on Seattle City Council. So for me, it's the how I bring people together that I will bring to King County Council. And I think it's also the what - not being afraid to push the envelope on what's possible. Many people said it was impossible to pass the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights - and we got sued, and we won. People said it was impossible to legislate having hotel workers get access to guaranteed healthcare at the gold level, protections from retaliation, maximum workload. We not only passed that in legislation, but we withstood that in the court. And the same is true of JumpStart. We withstood multiple litigation attempts to try to take away JumpStart, and it's withstood the test of time. And I'm excited to see what else we can do in a city that sees so much growth but incredible inequity across our region - to bring people together to address these pressing needs. [00:06:24] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. You talked about housing and homelessness, and one thing called out by experts as a barrier to our homelessness response is that frontline worker wages don't cover their cost of living. Do you believe our local service providers, a lot of whom are nonprofits, have a responsibility to pay living wages for the area? And how can we make that more likely with how we bid and contract for services at the county level? [00:06:54] Teresa Mosqueda: Yeah, two things I would say. One is - absolutely, we need to make sure that folks who are working on the frontline as human service providers - think folks who are the counselors to youth, or people who have mental health or substance abuse needs that we need to help address so that they can get stably housed, think about services to our vets and seniors. These are workers on the frontline who rely on relationships and have skills, expertise in the human service category. They need to have investments in these deeply needed services. And in order for us to create greater stability, we need to be paying them living wages. I say "we" - because this is not about the nonprofits needing to pay them more. It is about we, the public entities, needing to increase our contracts to these organizations who then employ people to be on the frontline. For better or worse, we have a human services system that has largely relied on contracting out critical services that are arguably public services. They are supported by public dollars, and we, public officials, have a responsibility to pay those organizations enough so that they can invest in the wages for frontline workers. That is what I have tried to do at Seattle City Council. The first year that I came in at Seattle City Council, the Human Services Coalition came to me and said - We have not had a cost of living increase in 10 years. To not have a COLA in 10 years for most workers in our region and across the country is unheard of, but it's especially unheard of for the very folks on the frontline trying to address the most pressing crisis in our country right now - and that is housing instability and homeless services. So we worked in 2019, and we passed the Human Services cost of living adjustment - that is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of what needs to be addressed. The historic and chronic underfunding of these positions still needs to be addressed. We are not going to be able to close this gap of 40, 50, 60% turnover in our critical organizational partners, organizations, if we don't address the wage stability issue. So I think actually going to the County and bringing that experience of having worked directly with the human service providers and hearing their stories about why it was so critical not only to have a cost of living adjustment, but to get at this chronic underfunding is going to be really coming at a pivotal moment. Seattle does have a cost of living adjustment. I want to bring that cost of living adjustment to King County and collectively with Seattle, I want to work to address the underpayment for human service providers as well. [00:09:26] Crystal Fincher: There's been a lot of action when it comes to addressing housing and homelessness from the King County Regional Homelessness Authority to new legislation, and potentially even more legislation coming out through the end of this legislative session. We're currently recording this in mid-April, so it may come out a little bit further when there's a definitive answer for everything that happens. But amid a lot of this work that is currently being implemented or has just been authorized, there's a lot in process but still seemingly a lot more that needs to be done. What would your top priorities be to make a noticeable and meaningful difference in both homelessness and housing affordability if you're elected to this position? [00:10:11] Teresa Mosqueda: Resources for housing is critically needed across King County. Resources will help local jurisdictions be able to implement the new requirements that are going to be coming forth from our State Legislature, which - I want to thank our State legislative members - every year they go to Olympia and every year we ask them to be bold - be bold on housing solutions, recognizing that housing is the solution to being houseless. Housing helps people who have multiple compounding factors get healthy, get stable, and be productive members of our community. Housing is the solution to this biggest crisis that we see, not only in Seattle and King County, up and down the West Coast, but across our entire country. We have not built enough housing to house our current population plus the population who will continue to come to our region. So one of the things that I think I can take to the County is the desire to make sure that local jurisdictions, whether it's Burien or Tukwila, or unincorporated areas like in Vashon and Maury Island or in White Center - that they have resources as well to help build the type of housing that's being requested from the State Legislature - to do so in accordance with their Comprehensive Plan so that people can implement it in the time frame that works for those local jurisdictions, but to help them take away the barrier of not having enough resources. Seattle is unique in that we have pushed forward different resources. We have different types of tax revenues - thanks to JumpStart, for example - but in areas that don't have those type of resources, I hope the County can continue to be a good partner, in addition to the state, to build the type of diverse housing that we're now going to be required to build and hopefully we can do even more. The State Legislature is actually creating a new floor. We should be building upon that, and where we can go higher and denser - that is good for the local environment, it is good for the local economy, it's good for the health of workers and small businesses. And it's what I've heard from Vashon Island to Tukwila - people have said, "We don't have enough workforce housing." Small business owners have said, "I don't have enough workers in this area because they can't afford to live here." So I want to hopefully break down misperceptions about what type of housing we're talking about. We're talking about housing for seniors and vets, kiddos, youth, workers. We're talking about supporting the creation of that housing with additional revenue - that's one of the things I'd like to bring to the County. And to also recognize that when we have diverse economies that are prosperous, it's because workers can live next to their place of employment. Workers can walk to their childcare. We don't have time to spend two hours in the car commuting back and forth - that's not good for our health, our family's health, and it sure isn't good for the health of our planet. So it's a win-win-win, and I think that's something that I can really bring in as a County Councilmember - the knowledge that these local jurisdictions want to do more, but sometimes are limited with their resources. And wherever I can, I want to help step up and provide that support. [00:13:08] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Public safety has also been an area where the County continues to make a lot of news, has a lot of responsibility - they operate a jail, and that has itself made a lot of news. Over the past couple years throughout the pandemic, some of the employees of the jails - the guards - other people, the Public Defenders Association have called out overcrowding conditions, unsafe conditions in the jail. There's been times where the jail has not had clean water, several illness outbreaks, people not being treated correctly. It seems to be a really bad situation. Recently, the King County Council just voted to extend a contract to rent additional beds from a SCORE facility in Des Moines. This, during a backdrop of events where the King County Executive has made a promise to close the King County Jail, but it seems like we're getting further away from that, or at least not getting closer to that. Would you have voted to extend the SCORE contract? And should we close the jail? What is your vision for the short term? [00:14:17] Teresa Mosqueda: I think that the move to close down a jail that's both outdated and unsafe is not only good for the inmates, it's good for the folks who are working there. I think this is another example of where there's a false perception of sides. People who work within the jail, as well as those who are incarcerated, have expressed their not only horror when seeing mold and deterioration of the building, but it is extremely unsafe as well - as you mentioned - due to overcrowding. There's a few things that I think we can do. Number one, we should address upstream - who was being sent to these facilities in the first place. In a presentation that the Seattle City Council received from the City Attorney's Office, there was a large number of people who were initially booked and jailed, and ultimately were released because there was no grounds to put forward charges. And I think we need to stop the habit or the practice of putting folks in that situation to begin with. Even if they are not incarcerated for long periods of time, the fact that people are being jailed - especially youth - creates consequences down the road, mental health consequences, consequences for your housing, for your livelihood, your employment. And the negative impact of just being booked in the first place - both for the physical health of somebody, but also the trajectory of their life - is quantifiable. It is known, and we should stop that practice early. I agree with the effort to move folks into a situation that is healthier, but I also want to continue to look at how we can reduce the chance that someone is ever incarcerated in the first place, invest more in restorative justice practices. I'm optimistic by some of the conversations I've heard from folks in the community, specifically in Burien, about the ways in which some of the initial conversations have taken place with the Burien City Police Chief Ted Boe, and some of the commitments that have been made to try to look at restorative justice differently. And I think that holistically we need to look at what leads someone to be in that situation in the first place and back up to see what additional community investments we can be making so that people can have greater access to economic security, community safety, and reduce the chance that someone ever interacts with the carceral system to begin with. [00:16:40] Crystal Fincher: What do you think, or for people who are considering this voting decision and who are looking around and who are feeling unsafe, and who are not quite sure what the right direction is to move forward, or what can be done but feel like something should be done - what is your message to them? And what can make us all safer? [00:17:01] Teresa Mosqueda: There's a few things that I think have really come to light, especially during the pandemic. We tell people to stay home to stay healthy. Well, if people don't have a home, they can't stay healthy. If we can think about the increased situation where many of us have probably seen loved ones in our lives - whether it's family members or friends - who have turned to substances to cope, to self-medicate with the stress, the trauma, the isolation that has only increased during the pandemic. I hope there's greater empathy across our community and across our country for why people may be self-medicating to begin with. And I think if we think about these recent examples of where we have seen people become more unstable in their housing situation or turn to substances because of increasing stress and pressure, that hopefully there's greater empathy for why it is so critical that we invest upstream. It is not an either/or - it's creating greater balance with how we invest in community safety, in what we know equals the social determinants of health. When we invest in housing, it helps reduce the chance that someone is going to engage in criminal activities later in life. When we invest in early learning, in job opportunities, in youth interactive programs, when we invest in even gun reduction and youth violence reduction strategies, it helps create healthier individuals and healthier populations, reduce the chance that someone ever interacts with an officer to begin with. These are public safety investments, and they shouldn't be seen as a separate silo from "traditional safety." It actually saves lives, and there's a huge return on investment when we make some of these upstream program policies a priority. I think it actually creates healthier communities, and for those who are looking at it through the economic lens, healthier economies - knowing that that return on investment has been proven time and time again. And it's good for individuals and community health as well. [00:19:02] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now, there's a shortage of workers across the board - certainly King County is included in this shortage of county workers in several areas, including in many front-line positions that impact public safety - maintenance, care, health - all of those that are crucial to delivering services and help that the residents of the County need. We've seen hiring, retention, and referral bonuses for public safety employees. Do you think we should be considering those for other employees? [00:19:39] Teresa Mosqueda: Absolutely. This is part of the conversation that I raised while at Seattle City Council. There is, I think, a detrimental impact to workplace morale across public servants when we're not uniformly treating people the same. It's not what I feel, it's not that that's my perception - that's actually coming from workers within the City of Seattle who completed a survey that our Human Resources Department, in addition to Seattle Police Department and other Seattle agencies, completed to ask, "What would you like to see? How would you feel if certain employees got a hiring bonus or retention bonus?" And overwhelmingly, workers in public service said that they thought that this would hurt morale - if existing public servants weren't treated the same. I mentioned that in the Human Services category, there's a 40% to 60% turnover rate for our nonprofit organizations who are helping folks on the frontline. There's a huge turnover rate, as well, within our Human Services Department - we've had to freeze the hiring, and reduce hours, and reduce positions. Public libraries, community centers are front-facing programs for the community during COVID and we are slowly starting to scale those back up, but they're nowhere at capacity right now. And what workers themselves have said within the City of Seattle is - they want to see greater strategies for retention. Investments in childcare keeps coming up. Investments in more affordable housing keeps coming up. And if you want to look specifically at the Seattle Police Department, the officers themselves said that they did not think that hiring bonuses was the way to address retention and morale issues - that played out in their comments in the press, as well as the survey results that we saw. I think that there's a more equitable approach that we should be taking. I think that we should be looking at how we recruit and train and incentivize people to come to public service overall, whether that means you're coming in to work as a firefighter or a police officer, or whether that means that we want to recruit you to be serving the public in libraries or as a lifeguard - which we don't have enough of - or as a childcare provider, which we don't have enough of. We should be looking across the board at these public service programs and figuring out ways to both address retention and morale, and to do so equitably. And to listen to what workers have said - they want housing, they want childcare, they want regular and routine transit. And they want us to, especially within the City of Seattle, address disparity in wages for folks of color and women compared to their counterparts. Those are some things that I think we should be taking on more seriously. [00:22:17] Crystal Fincher: Definitely. Now, you talk about people saying they want regular and routine transit. Lots of people want that. Lots of people - more importantly - need that, are relying on that. And there's been lots of talk about the rider experience around safety on transit, but also about the availability and accessibility of service and all-day service - not just some of those commuter-centric commute-time service bumps that we've seen. What would your approach to Metro be as a councilmember? [00:22:50] Teresa Mosqueda: So I appreciate that you raise safety because it is an issue that comes up for riders as well as the drivers. Members of ATU, who drive buses around King County, have expressed increased concern around their safety. Whether they're driving in the day or night - given COVID has increased interpersonal violence across our country, they are on the receiving end of that as well. So I'm excited to talk with ATU, with members who have been out on the frontline as our bus drivers, as well as riders to talk about how we can improve safety for everyone. That is - again, on the preventative side, trying to figure out ways that structurally and through public policy we can ensure that riders and drivers are safe. There's also two things that drivers have talked to me about and folks within King County Metro. They say there's a lot of focus on new routes and how do we expand routes - routes, routes, routes - which I also agree with. But they've also brought up that we need to continue to invest in the people, maintenance, and operation to make sure that there's enough people to be working on existing routes and new routes to come. Similar to housing, we don't want to just build units. We want to make sure that for those who need personnel in those units to make sure that folks stay stably housed, we're investing in the workforce to ensure that that housing, that that unit is successful. We need to be looking at investments in the workforce, recruiting folks to come to these good living wage union jobs, and to be thinking about how we improve retention and stability as well. And for as far as maintenance is concerned - thinking more about how we can invest in greener fleets, greener maintenance opportunities, and ensure that those vehicles are running well and routinely. So those are two of the things that have come directly from the frontline drivers themselves. And then more broadly - workers. You mentioned all-day services. I would also argue all-night services to the degree that we can add additional stops, because many of the childcare providers who are coming in early in the morning, construction workers who are coming in early in the morning, janitors who might be going out late at night, talk about how they have to rely on vehicles because there are not times that the buses are showing up to get them to work and back home in time. So I think that it's multi-prong. But again, I think the common ground here is that the workers in this sector are agreeing with the recipients of the service. And collectively, I'm hoping that we can address safety, workforce needs, and increase routes as well. [00:25:23] Crystal Fincher: Definitely, and I really appreciate you bringing up the workforce needs. I know a couple people who use transit regularly but ended up getting vehicles because of the unpredictable cancellations due to staff shortages, whether it's maintenance or drivers, just making it unreliable to get to work on time. And already the time taken to commute that way is a lot, so that would improve the experience greatly - definitely appreciate that. Transit is also very, very important to achieving our climate goals. And by most measures, we're behind on our 2030 climate goals - while we're experiencing devastating impacts from climate change, including extreme heat and cold, wildfires, floods. What are your highest-priority plans to get us on track to meet our 2030 climate goals? [00:26:17] Teresa Mosqueda: One thing might surprise folks in that category - probably not a huge surprise for folks who have heard me talk before - but I think if we can invest in additional housing, dense housing across our region, it will actually reduce CO2 emissions. And it's really common sense, right? We are the third-highest mega-commuter city or region in the nation. We have more people who are commuting back and forth to work than most of the country. And the reason is because they can't afford to find a house near their place of employment. If CO2 emissions from cars - single-occupancy cars - is the number-one contributor to pollution in our region, I believe that is at the top of our list for helping to reduce our carbon footprint across the country and across the globe. We should be increasing density. We should see it not only as a good economic stimulant, what's right to do for workers and working families, but it is one of the best things that we could also do for our climate. I think that there's - again, a misperception or a false divide between folks who are environmentalists and want to see more trees, and their perception that additional housing or density takes that away. It does not. We can both create setbacks for higher buildings and use the airspace to create living opportunities, while we plant additional trees and preserve old growth. I've gone to at least three ribbon-cutting ceremonies for Habitat for Humanity, who created - basically - townhouses connected altogether. We don't have a lot of row houses in Seattle, but row houses, if you will, around trees created in the shape of a U with old-growth trees in the middle - allowing for greater shade, and a play area for kiddos, and a place to sit for elders. It is very much possible to build dense housing options and preserve old growth while planting new trees. So I think in addition to creating density, we can plant more trees. We can do more to incentivize good living-wage jobs in industries that are cleaner. I heard from our friends in Georgetown Community Center that they had to beg and plead for one of the local industries to incorporate more greener options for a glass manufacturer down there. And we should simultaneously be seeing the opportunity to promote good jobs as a requirement for also promoting good green jobs. And I worked very hard with members of both the environmental community and the labor community in the past to push Just Transition policies - to ensure that as we transition to greener economies or greener manufacturing strategies, that we're preserving good living-wage jobs and, even better, preserving good union living-wage jobs. So I look forward to making sure that we have denser cities, that we have greener cities, and that we have greener industries. [00:29:13] Crystal Fincher: Now, King County does incremental budgeting, making it more challenging for people to understand how county funds are allocated in a base budget. The budget is known as one of your areas of strength. What do you think can be done to make the budget process easier for the public to understand and influence at the county level? [00:29:35] Teresa Mosqueda: I've been really proud of what we've been able to accomplish in Seattle. And coming from working the halls of Olympia on behalf of the Washington State Labor Council for eight years and then for three years before that with the Children's Alliance, I was used to this concept of having these biennial budgets that needed to be seen in full, that you could see the red line to know what was the investment from last year versus the upcoming year. Unfortunately, the City of Seattle doesn't have such a budget document. It's basically like single pages - page after page of narrative descriptions of what the dollars will do. That's fine for some budget notes, but what I think we are working towards in the City of Seattle - a preview for folks who love budget talk - is we're going to one day have a true biennial budget and an actual budget document where you will be able to see the red line, either additions or subtractions to specific programs so that everyone knows what is being invested in, how funding is changing, and where priorities are showing up in the budget. I am excited about being able to build on that work that I've done in Seattle, especially as Budget Chair, in some of the most pressing economic times in recent history, starting in 2020. And have been able to not only allocate millions of dollars from the American Rescue Plan Act, but also to create greater transparency in how we budget. One of the things that I think is maybe misunderstood out there is the way in which we've helped to provide transparency in the entire budget, but specifically the Seattle Police Department. It had not been exposed year-over-year that Seattle Police Department actually had about $40 million that was rolling over year-over-year on top of funding that the chief, that the mayor, that the department had acknowledged they could not use. And in a time where we saw an economic crisis on the horizon, growing needs in our community, and knew that that was $40 million that was not going to be put to use, not going into direct services for the community - and for those who wanted to see additional officers, wasn't even going to be able to use to increase the hiring plan. It's good budgeting to be able to make sure that that funding is transparently accounted for in the General Fund - and where we can deploy it to things like food, housing, childcare, economic security for small businesses that we do so. That's something I'm really proud of - that we were able to show what the full picture was, not only for that department, but for all departments. And to make some important investments in mental health services, behavioral health services, youth violence, gun violence reduction strategies - things that similarly invest in community safety, but we were able to show where those line items move. I will bring to King County Council the ability to structurally push for greater transparency for members of the public, encourage us as the legislative branch to own the separate but equal branch of government that the council is as the legislative branch, and ensure that the public has an opportunity to dive into the proposal that comes from the executive, just like the proposal that comes from the governor to the State Legislature. You receive that, you dissect it, you talk to community about what it means - and then ultimately the legislative branch reconvenes, reconfigures the budget, and presents it to the executive for a signature. It's good governance, it's good transparency. I think it's understandable from folks across whatever political spectrum - it's important to have budget transparency and accountability, and that's what I've been able to accomplish in the City of Seattle. [00:33:02] Crystal Fincher: It is, and I think there are a number of people, especially listeners to Hacks & Wonks, who do enjoy budget conversations, who would definitely look forward to more budget transparency at the County level, like you've been working towards at the City level. As we close here and as people are going to be making the decision about who they're going to be voting for for this County Council position, what is your message to voters and people listening about why they should choose you? [00:33:30] Teresa Mosqueda: I'm very thrilled to be in this race for King County Council. I think I have not only proven that I'm an effective legislator at the council level, but that I know how to center folks who have been left out of policy conversations in the room, but more importantly - follow the lead of those who've experienced the injustices over the years. We have been able to move historic, monumental, national-headline-grabbing policies within the City of Seattle in my now going into six years in Seattle City Council. And it has been done, I believe, in a collaborative way, in a way that has made transformational change, and in a way that I think has always centered - been centered on my progressive commitments to investing in working families, folks of color, and the LGBTQ community, workers to ensure that there's greater opportunity and prosperity. And creating housing and stability - that is something that is good for our entire community. I do this work because it's all about how we create healthy communities. You have to have investments in good living wage jobs and housing stability and opportunity education to have self-determination and control over your own life and your own decisions. And I think through public policy, through investments with public resources, we can create greater opportunity across our county. I am excited, as well, to be coming to this race as a woman, as a Latina, as a Chicana - poised to be the first Latina ever elected to King County Council. And with a King County population that is made up of half people of color and a quarter immigrant and refugee, it is critical that we have more voices with folks who have the lived experience coming from communities of color serving in these positions. I think that's why I've been able to effectively and efficiently move policy through so quickly - because I have put at the front of the line many of the community members who are often left out of policy discussions. I hope to bring in my commitment to working with folks who are workers, women, folks of color, members of the LGBTQ community to hear more about what we can do at King County Council. I know I have big shoes to step into with Councilmember McDermott and his commitment to public health, working with the LGBTQ community, his tenure in the State Legislature - and I'm also excited to add to that and serve our broader region and our growing needs. [00:35:59] Crystal Fincher: Thank you so much, Councilmember Mosqueda, for spending this time with us today and having this conversation. Sincerely appreciate it, and we'll certainly be following your campaign eagerly over the next several months. Thank you. [00:36:13] Teresa Mosqueda: Thank you so much - I appreciate it. [00:36:15] Crystal Fincher: Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks, which is co-produced by Shannon Cheng and Bryce Cannatelli. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or 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 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 episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

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.

Effective Aug. 15, the City Attorney's Office began offering participation in its criminal prosecution diversion program at a reduced price of $50 for qualified community members who have limited financial means. https://tinyurl.com/yckvte9a #CityofVancouver #CityAttorneysOffice #Participation #CriminalProsecutionDiversionProgram #ReducedPrice #QualifiedCommunityMembers #LimitedFinancialMeans #NewFlatFee #VancouverWa #ClarkCountyWa #ClarkCountyNews #ClarkCountyToday

On this Primary Week re-air, Crystal chats with Teresa Mosqueda about her campaign for King County Council District 8 - why she decided to run, the experience and lessons she'll bring to the County from serving on Seattle City Council, and her thoughts on addressing progressive revenue options, public service wage equity and morale, housing and homelessness, public safety, transit rider experience, climate change, and budget transparency. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Follow us on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find Teresa Mosqueda at @TeresaCMosqueda.   Teresa Mosqueda As a Progressive Labor Democrat, Teresa Mosqueda is committed to creating healthy and safe communities, investing in working families through job training, childcare and transit access, and developing more affordable housing for all residents. She brings a proven track record of successfully passing progressive policies and building broad and inclusive coalitions. Teresa was named one of Seattle's Most Influential People 2018 for acting with urgency upon getting elected, received the Ady Barkan Progressive Champion Award from Local Progress in 2019; and earned national attention by leading the passage of JumpStart progressive revenue to invest in housing, economic resilience, green new deal investments, and equitable development. Prior to elected office Teresa worked on community health policies from SeaMar to the Children's Alliance, and championed workers' rights at the WA State Labor Council, AFL-CIO, where she helped lead state's minimum wage increase, paid sick leave, farmworker protections, workplace safety standards, and launched the Path to Power candidate training with the AFL-CIO.   Resources Campaign Website - Teresa Mosqueda   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 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. I am very excited today to have joining us - current Seattle City Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda, who is a candidate for King County Council District 8, which covers Seattle - including West Seattle, South Park, Georgetown, Chinatown International District, and First Hill - as well as Burien, part of Tukwila, and unincorporated King County - in White Center and Vashon Island. Welcome to the program - welcome back. [00:01:22] Teresa Mosqueda: Thank you so much for having me back - I appreciate it. [00:01:25] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. So I guess the first question is - what made you decide to run for King County Council after being on the Seattle City Council? [00:01:35] Teresa Mosqueda: I've been really, really honored to be able to serve the full City of Seattle - 775,000 residents at this point - to be able to pass progressive policies like progressive revenue through JumpStart, Green New Deal and affordable housing that it was funding, to be able to quadruple the investments in affordable housing, to expand worker protections. But the truth is, we know that much of the population that I was elected by - the folks that I really center in my public policy - also work and have family outside of the City of Seattle. And in many ways, I want to build on what I've been able to accomplish in Seattle - investments in affordable housing, investments in new career pathways, good union jobs, to expand on the childcare and working family supports that I've centered in my work on City Council. But in order to reach the broader population of working families who are just outside of Seattle's borders but may work in Seattle and come in and out of the City - I want to create greater equity and stability across our region - the County is the place to do it. And in terms of stability, the County is the only place that has purview over public health, has the purse strings for behavioral health investments. And so if I want to complement efforts to try to house folks and create long-term housing stability, especially for our most vulnerable community members, the County is the place to do that - through investments in behavioral health, by sitting on the Public Health Board, by being directly involved in the budget that has purview over public health and behavioral health investments. I see it as an extension of my work at the City to create housed and healthy communities. And it actually goes full circle back to my roots where I started my career in community health. It is exciting opportunity, and I see it as a growth and expansion of the work that we've done in Seattle. [00:03:24] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. You talk about progressive revenue - the JumpStart Tax, which is a really, really important source of revenue that has been so helpful for businesses in the City, for residents, so many people in need - and has been a benefit to the City, especially in this time of a budget downturn in that the JumpStart Tax helped to bail out a budget shortfall there. So this revenue seemed to come just in time. You had to fight for it. You led the fight for it. What lessons do you take out of that fight to the County, and what progressive revenue options are there at the county level that you would be willing to pursue? [00:04:05] Teresa Mosqueda: I think one major lesson is how I've approached building these big progressive policies that have not only earned the majority of votes, but the vast majority - if not unanimous vote sometimes - that have withstood the test of time, have not been overturned, and have not been overturned by legislative councilmatic action nor by the courts. I will take with me to King County the ability to build these broad coalitions. And think about JumpStart - who was there when we launched it? It was ironworkers and hardhats, along with business entrepreneurs from both small and large business, with community and housing advocates standing collectively together to say - We will not only stand by this progressive revenue, we will stand by it knowing that it's five times the amount of the previous policy and it's twice as long. That's a huge effort that took place to try to get people on the same page, and we had to - with growing income inequality, growing needs, an increase in our population. There was no other option. This had to succeed, and so I will take that same approach to King County Council. So much is on the needs list right now in the "wake" of the global pandemic. We have the ongoing shadow pandemic. We have increased needs for mental health and community health investments. We have increased needs for food security and housing stability. There is not an alternative. We must invest more and we must do it in a way that withstands the test of time, like I've done on Seattle City Council. So for me, it's the how I bring people together that I will bring to King County Council. And I think it's also the what - not being afraid to push the envelope on what's possible. Many people said it was impossible to pass the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights - and we got sued, and we won. People said it was impossible to legislate having hotel workers get access to guaranteed healthcare at the gold level, protections from retaliation, maximum workload. We not only passed that in legislation, but we withstood that in the court. And the same is true of JumpStart. We withstood multiple litigation attempts to try to take away JumpStart, and it's withstood the test of time. And I'm excited to see what else we can do in a city that sees so much growth but incredible inequity across our region - to bring people together to address these pressing needs. [00:06:24] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. You talked about housing and homelessness, and one thing called out by experts as a barrier to our homelessness response is that frontline worker wages don't cover their cost of living. Do you believe our local service providers, a lot of whom are nonprofits, have a responsibility to pay living wages for the area? And how can we make that more likely with how we bid and contract for services at the county level? [00:06:54] Teresa Mosqueda: Yeah, two things I would say. One is - absolutely, we need to make sure that folks who are working on the frontline as human service providers - think folks who are the counselors to youth, or people who have mental health or substance abuse needs that we need to help address so that they can get stably housed, think about services to our vets and seniors. These are workers on the frontline who rely on relationships and have skills, expertise in the human service category. They need to have investments in these deeply needed services. And in order for us to create greater stability, we need to be paying them living wages. I say "we" - because this is not about the nonprofits needing to pay them more. It is about we, the public entities, needing to increase our contracts to these organizations who then employ people to be on the frontline. For better or worse, we have a human services system that has largely relied on contracting out critical services that are arguably public services. They are supported by public dollars, and we, public officials, have a responsibility to pay those organizations enough so that they can invest in the wages for frontline workers. That is what I have tried to do at Seattle City Council. The first year that I came in at Seattle City Council, the Human Services Coalition came to me and said - We have not had a cost of living increase in 10 years. To not have a COLA in 10 years for most workers in our region and across the country is unheard of, but it's especially unheard of for the very folks on the frontline trying to address the most pressing crisis in our country right now - and that is housing instability and homeless services. So we worked in 2019, and we passed the Human Services cost of living adjustment - that is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of what needs to be addressed. The historic and chronic underfunding of these positions still needs to be addressed. We are not going to be able to close this gap of 40, 50, 60% turnover in our critical organizational partners, organizations, if we don't address the wage stability issue. So I think actually going to the County and bringing that experience of having worked directly with the human service providers and hearing their stories about why it was so critical not only to have a cost of living adjustment, but to get at this chronic underfunding is going to be really coming at a pivotal moment. Seattle does have a cost of living adjustment. I want to bring that cost of living adjustment to King County and collectively with Seattle, I want to work to address the underpayment for human service providers as well. [00:09:26] Crystal Fincher: There's been a lot of action when it comes to addressing housing and homelessness from the King County Regional Homelessness Authority to new legislation, and potentially even more legislation coming out through the end of this legislative session. We're currently recording this in mid-April, so it may come out a little bit further when there's a definitive answer for everything that happens. But amid a lot of this work that is currently being implemented or has just been authorized, there's a lot in process but still seemingly a lot more that needs to be done. What would your top priorities be to make a noticeable and meaningful difference in both homelessness and housing affordability if you're elected to this position? [00:10:11] Teresa Mosqueda: Resources for housing is critically needed across King County. Resources will help local jurisdictions be able to implement the new requirements that are going to be coming forth from our State Legislature, which - I want to thank our State legislative members - every year they go to Olympia and every year we ask them to be bold - be bold on housing solutions, recognizing that housing is the solution to being houseless. Housing helps people who have multiple compounding factors get healthy, get stable, and be productive members of our community. Housing is the solution to this biggest crisis that we see, not only in Seattle and King County, up and down the West Coast, but across our entire country. We have not built enough housing to house our current population plus the population who will continue to come to our region. So one of the things that I think I can take to the County is the desire to make sure that local jurisdictions, whether it's Burien or Tukwila, or unincorporated areas like in Vashon and Maury Island or in White Center - that they have resources as well to help build the type of housing that's being requested from the State Legislature - to do so in accordance with their Comprehensive Plan so that people can implement it in the time frame that works for those local jurisdictions, but to help them take away the barrier of not having enough resources. Seattle is unique in that we have pushed forward different resources. We have different types of tax revenues - thanks to JumpStart, for example - but in areas that don't have those type of resources, I hope the County can continue to be a good partner, in addition to the state, to build the type of diverse housing that we're now going to be required to build and hopefully we can do even more. The State Legislature is actually creating a new floor. We should be building upon that, and where we can go higher and denser - that is good for the local environment, it is good for the local economy, it's good for the health of workers and small businesses. And it's what I've heard from Vashon Island to Tukwila - people have said, "We don't have enough workforce housing." Small business owners have said, "I don't have enough workers in this area because they can't afford to live here." So I want to hopefully break down misperceptions about what type of housing we're talking about. We're talking about housing for seniors and vets, kiddos, youth, workers. We're talking about supporting the creation of that housing with additional revenue - that's one of the things I'd like to bring to the County. And to also recognize that when we have diverse economies that are prosperous, it's because workers can live next to their place of employment. Workers can walk to their childcare. We don't have time to spend two hours in the car commuting back and forth - that's not good for our health, our family's health, and it sure isn't good for the health of our planet. So it's a win-win-win, and I think that's something that I can really bring in as a County Councilmember - the knowledge that these local jurisdictions want to do more, but sometimes are limited with their resources. And wherever I can, I want to help step up and provide that support. [00:13:08] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Public safety has also been an area where the County continues to make a lot of news, has a lot of responsibility - they operate a jail, and that has itself made a lot of news. Over the past couple years throughout the pandemic, some of the employees of the jails - the guards - other people, the Public Defenders Association have called out overcrowding conditions, unsafe conditions in the jail. There's been times where the jail has not had clean water, several illness outbreaks, people not being treated correctly. It seems to be a really bad situation. Recently, the King County Council just voted to extend a contract to rent additional beds from a SCORE facility in Des Moines. This, during a backdrop of events where the King County Executive has made a promise to close the King County Jail, but it seems like we're getting further away from that, or at least not getting closer to that. Would you have voted to extend the SCORE contract? And should we close the jail? What is your vision for the short term? [00:14:17] Teresa Mosqueda: I think that the move to close down a jail that's both outdated and unsafe is not only good for the inmates, it's good for the folks who are working there. I think this is another example of where there's a false perception of sides. People who work within the jail, as well as those who are incarcerated, have expressed their not only horror when seeing mold and deterioration of the building, but it is extremely unsafe as well - as you mentioned - due to overcrowding. There's a few things that I think we can do. Number one, we should address upstream - who was being sent to these facilities in the first place. In a presentation that the Seattle City Council received from the City Attorney's Office, there was a large number of people who were initially booked and jailed, and ultimately were released because there was no grounds to put forward charges. And I think we need to stop the habit or the practice of putting folks in that situation to begin with. Even if they are not incarcerated for long periods of time, the fact that people are being jailed - especially youth - creates consequences down the road, mental health consequences, consequences for your housing, for your livelihood, your employment. And the negative impact of just being booked in the first place - both for the physical health of somebody, but also the trajectory of their life - is quantifiable. It is known, and we should stop that practice early. I agree with the effort to move folks into a situation that is healthier, but I also want to continue to look at how we can reduce the chance that someone is ever incarcerated in the first place, invest more in restorative justice practices. I'm optimistic by some of the conversations I've heard from folks in the community, specifically in Burien, about the ways in which some of the initial conversations have taken place with the Burien City Police Chief Ted Boe, and some of the commitments that have been made to try to look at restorative justice differently. And I think that holistically we need to look at what leads someone to be in that situation in the first place and back up to see what additional community investments we can be making so that people can have greater access to economic security, community safety, and reduce the chance that someone ever interacts with the carceral system to begin with. [00:16:40] Crystal Fincher: What do you think, or for people who are considering this voting decision and who are looking around and who are feeling unsafe, and who are not quite sure what the right direction is to move forward, or what can be done but feel like something should be done - what is your message to them? And what can make us all safer? [00:17:01] Teresa Mosqueda: There's a few things that I think have really come to light, especially during the pandemic. We tell people to stay home to stay healthy. Well, if people don't have a home, they can't stay healthy. If we can think about the increased situation where many of us have probably seen loved ones in our lives - whether it's family members or friends - who have turned to substances to cope, to self-medicate with the stress, the trauma, the isolation that has only increased during the pandemic. I hope there's greater empathy across our community and across our country for why people may be self-medicating to begin with. And I think if we think about these recent examples of where we have seen people become more unstable in their housing situation or turn to substances because of increasing stress and pressure, that hopefully there's greater empathy for why it is so critical that we invest upstream. It is not an either/or - it's creating greater balance with how we invest in community safety, in what we know equals the social determinants of health. When we invest in housing, it helps reduce the chance that someone is going to engage in criminal activities later in life. When we invest in early learning, in job opportunities, in youth interactive programs, when we invest in even gun reduction and youth violence reduction strategies, it helps create healthier individuals and healthier populations, reduce the chance that someone ever interacts with an officer to begin with. These are public safety investments, and they shouldn't be seen as a separate silo from "traditional safety." It actually saves lives, and there's a huge return on investment when we make some of these upstream program policies a priority. I think it actually creates healthier communities, and for those who are looking at it through the economic lens, healthier economies - knowing that that return on investment has been proven time and time again. And it's good for individuals and community health as well. [00:19:02] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now, there's a shortage of workers across the board - certainly King County is included in this shortage of county workers in several areas, including in many front-line positions that impact public safety - maintenance, care, health - all of those that are crucial to delivering services and help that the residents of the County need. We've seen hiring, retention, and referral bonuses for public safety employees. Do you think we should be considering those for other employees? [00:19:39] Teresa Mosqueda: Absolutely. This is part of the conversation that I raised while at Seattle City Council. There is, I think, a detrimental impact to workplace morale across public servants when we're not uniformly treating people the same. It's not what I feel, it's not that that's my perception - that's actually coming from workers within the City of Seattle who completed a survey that our Human Resources Department, in addition to Seattle Police Department and other Seattle agencies, completed to ask, "What would you like to see? How would you feel if certain employees got a hiring bonus or retention bonus?" And overwhelmingly, workers in public service said that they thought that this would hurt morale - if existing public servants weren't treated the same. I mentioned that in the Human Services category, there's a 40% to 60% turnover rate for our nonprofit organizations who are helping folks on the frontline. There's a huge turnover rate, as well, within our Human Services Department - we've had to freeze the hiring, and reduce hours, and reduce positions. Public libraries, community centers are front-facing programs for the community during COVID and we are slowly starting to scale those back up, but they're nowhere at capacity right now. And what workers themselves have said within the City of Seattle is - they want to see greater strategies for retention. Investments in childcare keeps coming up. Investments in more affordable housing keeps coming up. And if you want to look specifically at the Seattle Police Department, the officers themselves said that they did not think that hiring bonuses was the way to address retention and morale issues - that played out in their comments in the press, as well as the survey results that we saw. I think that there's a more equitable approach that we should be taking. I think that we should be looking at how we recruit and train and incentivize people to come to public service overall, whether that means you're coming in to work as a firefighter or a police officer, or whether that means that we want to recruit you to be serving the public in libraries or as a lifeguard - which we don't have enough of - or as a childcare provider, which we don't have enough of. We should be looking across the board at these public service programs and figuring out ways to both address retention and morale, and to do so equitably. And to listen to what workers have said - they want housing, they want childcare, they want regular and routine transit. And they want us to, especially within the City of Seattle, address disparity in wages for folks of color and women compared to their counterparts. Those are some things that I think we should be taking on more seriously. [00:22:17] Crystal Fincher: Definitely. Now, you talk about people saying they want regular and routine transit. Lots of people want that. Lots of people - more importantly - need that, are relying on that. And there's been lots of talk about the rider experience around safety on transit, but also about the availability and accessibility of service and all-day service - not just some of those commuter-centric commute-time service bumps that we've seen. What would your approach to Metro be as a councilmember? [00:22:50] Teresa Mosqueda: So I appreciate that you raise safety because it is an issue that comes up for riders as well as the drivers. Members of ATU, who drive buses around King County, have expressed increased concern around their safety. Whether they're driving in the day or night - given COVID has increased interpersonal violence across our country, they are on the receiving end of that as well. So I'm excited to talk with ATU, with members who have been out on the frontline as our bus drivers, as well as riders to talk about how we can improve safety for everyone. That is - again, on the preventative side, trying to figure out ways that structurally and through public policy we can ensure that riders and drivers are safe. There's also two things that drivers have talked to me about and folks within King County Metro. They say there's a lot of focus on new routes and how do we expand routes - routes, routes, routes - which I also agree with. But they've also brought up that we need to continue to invest in the people, maintenance, and operation to make sure that there's enough people to be working on existing routes and new routes to come. Similar to housing, we don't want to just build units. We want to make sure that for those who need personnel in those units to make sure that folks stay stably housed, we're investing in the workforce to ensure that that housing, that that unit is successful. We need to be looking at investments in the workforce, recruiting folks to come to these good living wage union jobs, and to be thinking about how we improve retention and stability as well. And for as far as maintenance is concerned - thinking more about how we can invest in greener fleets, greener maintenance opportunities, and ensure that those vehicles are running well and routinely. So those are two of the things that have come directly from the frontline drivers themselves. And then more broadly - workers. You mentioned all-day services. I would also argue all-night services to the degree that we can add additional stops, because many of the childcare providers who are coming in early in the morning, construction workers who are coming in early in the morning, janitors who might be going out late at night, talk about how they have to rely on vehicles because there are not times that the buses are showing up to get them to work and back home in time. So I think that it's multi-prong. But again, I think the common ground here is that the workers in this sector are agreeing with the recipients of the service. And collectively, I'm hoping that we can address safety, workforce needs, and increase routes as well. [00:25:23] Crystal Fincher: Definitely, and I really appreciate you bringing up the workforce needs. I know a couple people who use transit regularly but ended up getting vehicles because of the unpredictable cancellations due to staff shortages, whether it's maintenance or drivers, just making it unreliable to get to work on time. And already the time taken to commute that way is a lot, so that would improve the experience greatly - definitely appreciate that. Transit is also very, very important to achieving our climate goals. And by most measures, we're behind on our 2030 climate goals - while we're experiencing devastating impacts from climate change, including extreme heat and cold, wildfires, floods. What are your highest-priority plans to get us on track to meet our 2030 climate goals? [00:26:17] Teresa Mosqueda: One thing might surprise folks in that category - probably not a huge surprise for folks who have heard me talk before - but I think if we can invest in additional housing, dense housing across our region, it will actually reduce CO2 emissions. And it's really common sense, right? We are the third-highest mega-commuter city or region in the nation. We have more people who are commuting back and forth to work than most of the country. And the reason is because they can't afford to find a house near their place of employment. If CO2 emissions from cars - single-occupancy cars - is the number-one contributor to pollution in our region, I believe that is at the top of our list for helping to reduce our carbon footprint across the country and across the globe. We should be increasing density. We should see it not only as a good economic stimulant, what's right to do for workers and working families, but it is one of the best things that we could also do for our climate. I think that there's - again, a misperception or a false divide between folks who are environmentalists and want to see more trees, and their perception that additional housing or density takes that away. It does not. We can both create setbacks for higher buildings and use the airspace to create living opportunities, while we plant additional trees and preserve old growth. I've gone to at least three ribbon-cutting ceremonies for Habitat for Humanity, who created - basically - townhouses connected altogether. We don't have a lot of row houses in Seattle, but row houses, if you will, around trees created in the shape of a U with old-growth trees in the middle - allowing for greater shade, and a play area for kiddos, and a place to sit for elders. It is very much possible to build dense housing options and preserve old growth while planting new trees. So I think in addition to creating density, we can plant more trees. We can do more to incentivize good living-wage jobs in industries that are cleaner. I heard from our friends in Georgetown Community Center that they had to beg and plead for one of the local industries to incorporate more greener options for a glass manufacturer down there. And we should simultaneously be seeing the opportunity to promote good jobs as a requirement for also promoting good green jobs. And I worked very hard with members of both the environmental community and the labor community in the past to push Just Transition policies - to ensure that as we transition to greener economies or greener manufacturing strategies, that we're preserving good living-wage jobs and, even better, preserving good union living-wage jobs. So I look forward to making sure that we have denser cities, that we have greener cities, and that we have greener industries. [00:29:13] Crystal Fincher: Now, King County does incremental budgeting, making it more challenging for people to understand how county funds are allocated in a base budget. The budget is known as one of your areas of strength. What do you think can be done to make the budget process easier for the public to understand and influence at the county level? [00:29:35] Teresa Mosqueda: I've been really proud of what we've been able to accomplish in Seattle. And coming from working the halls of Olympia on behalf of the Washington State Labor Council for eight years and then for three years before that with the Children's Alliance, I was used to this concept of having these biennial budgets that needed to be seen in full, that you could see the red line to know what was the investment from last year versus the upcoming year. Unfortunately, the City of Seattle doesn't have such a budget document. It's basically like single pages - page after page of narrative descriptions of what the dollars will do. That's fine for some budget notes, but what I think we are working towards in the City of Seattle - a preview for folks who love budget talk - is we're going to one day have a true biennial budget and an actual budget document where you will be able to see the red line, either additions or subtractions to specific programs so that everyone knows what is being invested in, how funding is changing, and where priorities are showing up in the budget. I am excited about being able to build on that work that I've done in Seattle, especially as Budget Chair, in some of the most pressing economic times in recent history, starting in 2020. And have been able to not only allocate millions of dollars from the American Rescue Plan Act, but also to create greater transparency in how we budget. One of the things that I think is maybe misunderstood out there is the way in which we've helped to provide transparency in the entire budget, but specifically the Seattle Police Department. It had not been exposed year-over-year that Seattle Police Department actually had about $40 million that was rolling over year-over-year on top of funding that the chief, that the mayor, that the department had acknowledged they could not use. And in a time where we saw an economic crisis on the horizon, growing needs in our community, and knew that that was $40 million that was not going to be put to use, not going into direct services for the community - and for those who wanted to see additional officers, wasn't even going to be able to use to increase the hiring plan. It's good budgeting to be able to make sure that that funding is transparently accounted for in the General Fund - and where we can deploy it to things like food, housing, childcare, economic security for small businesses that we do so. That's something I'm really proud of - that we were able to show what the full picture was, not only for that department, but for all departments. And to make some important investments in mental health services, behavioral health services, youth violence, gun violence reduction strategies - things that similarly invest in community safety, but we were able to show where those line items move. I will bring to King County Council the ability to structurally push for greater transparency for members of the public, encourage us as the legislative branch to own the separate but equal branch of government that the council is as the legislative branch, and ensure that the public has an opportunity to dive into the proposal that comes from the executive, just like the proposal that comes from the governor to the State Legislature. You receive that, you dissect it, you talk to community about what it means - and then ultimately the legislative branch reconvenes, reconfigures the budget, and presents it to the executive for a signature. It's good governance, it's good transparency. I think it's understandable from folks across whatever political spectrum - it's important to have budget transparency and accountability, and that's what I've been able to accomplish in the City of Seattle. [00:33:02] Crystal Fincher: It is, and I think there are a number of people, especially listeners to Hacks & Wonks, who do enjoy budget conversations, who would definitely look forward to more budget transparency at the County level, like you've been working towards at the City level. As we close here and as people are going to be making the decision about who they're going to be voting for for this County Council position, what is your message to voters and people listening about why they should choose you? [00:33:30] Teresa Mosqueda: I'm very thrilled to be in this race for King County Council. I think I have not only proven that I'm an effective legislator at the council level, but that I know how to center folks who have been left out of policy conversations in the room, but more importantly - follow the lead of those who've experienced the injustices over the years. We have been able to move historic, monumental, national-headline-grabbing policies within the City of Seattle in my now going into six years in Seattle City Council. And it has been done, I believe, in a collaborative way, in a way that has made transformational change, and in a way that I think has always centered - been centered on my progressive commitments to investing in working families, folks of color, and the LGBTQ community, workers to ensure that there's greater opportunity and prosperity. And creating housing and stability - that is something that is good for our entire community. I do this work because it's all about how we create healthy communities. You have to have investments in good living wage jobs and housing stability and opportunity education to have self-determination and control over your own life and your own decisions. And I think through public policy, through investments with public resources, we can create greater opportunity across our county. I am excited, as well, to be coming to this race as a woman, as a Latina, as a Chicana - poised to be the first Latina ever elected to King County Council. And with a King County population that is made up of half people of color and a quarter immigrant and refugee, it is critical that we have more voices with folks who have the lived experience coming from communities of color serving in these positions. I think that's why I've been able to effectively and efficiently move policy through so quickly - because I have put at the front of the line many of the community members who are often left out of policy discussions. I hope to bring in my commitment to working with folks who are workers, women, folks of color, members of the LGBTQ community to hear more about what we can do at King County Council. I know I have big shoes to step into with Councilmember McDermott and his commitment to public health, working with the LGBTQ community, his tenure in the State Legislature - and I'm also excited to add to that and serve our broader region and our growing needs. [00:35:59] Crystal Fincher: Thank you so much, Councilmember Mosqueda, for spending this time with us today and having this conversation. Sincerely appreciate it, and we'll certainly be following your campaign eagerly over the next several months. Thank you. [00:36:13] Teresa Mosqueda: Thank you so much - I appreciate it. [00:36:15] Crystal Fincher: Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks, which is co-produced by Shannon Cheng and Bryce Cannatelli. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or 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 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 episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

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.

On this midweek show, Crystal chats with Teresa Mosqueda about her campaign for King County Council District 8 - why she decided to run, the experience and lessons she'll bring to the County from serving on Seattle City Council, and her thoughts on addressing progressive revenue options, public service wage equity and morale, housing and homelessness, public safety, transit rider experience, climate change, and budget transparency. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Follow us on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find Teresa Mosqueda at @TeresaCMosqueda.   Teresa Mosqueda As a Progressive Labor Democrat, Teresa Mosqueda is committed to creating healthy and safe communities, investing in working families through job training, childcare and transit access, and developing more affordable housing for all residents. She brings a proven track record of successfully passing progressive policies and building broad and inclusive coalitions. Teresa was named one of Seattle's Most Influential People 2018 for acting with urgency upon getting elected, received the Ady Barkan Progressive Champion Award from Local Progress in 2019; and earned national attention by leading the passage of JumpStart progressive revenue to invest in housing, economic resilience, green new deal investments, and equitable development. Prior to elected office Teresa worked on community health policies from SeaMar to the Children's Alliance, and championed workers' rights at the WA State Labor Council, AFL-CIO, where she helped lead state's minimum wage increase, paid sick leave, farmworker protections, workplace safety standards, and launched the Path to Power candidate training with the AFL-CIO.   Resources Campaign Website - Teresa Mosqueda   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 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. I am very excited today to have joining us - current Seattle City Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda, who is a candidate for King County Council District 8, which covers Seattle - including West Seattle, South Park, Georgetown, Chinatown International District, and First Hill - as well as Burien, part of Tukwila, and unincorporated King County - in White Center and Vashon Island. Welcome to the program - welcome back. [00:01:22] Teresa Mosqueda: Thank you so much for having me back - I appreciate it. [00:01:25] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. So I guess the first question is - what made you decide to run for King County Council after being on the Seattle City Council? [00:01:35] Teresa Mosqueda: I've been really, really honored to be able to serve the full City of Seattle - 775,000 residents at this point - to be able to pass progressive policies like progressive revenue through JumpStart, Green New Deal and affordable housing that it was funding, to be able to quadruple the investments in affordable housing, to expand worker protections. But the truth is, we know that much of the population that I was elected by - the folks that I really center in my public policy - also work and have family outside of the City of Seattle. And in many ways, I want to build on what I've been able to accomplish in Seattle - investments in affordable housing, investments in new career pathways, good union jobs, to expand on the childcare and working family supports that I've centered in my work on City Council. But in order to reach the broader population of working families who are just outside of Seattle's borders but may work in Seattle and come in and out of the City - I want to create greater equity and stability across our region - the County is the place to do it. And in terms of stability, the County is the only place that has purview over public health, has the purse strings for behavioral health investments. And so if I want to complement efforts to try to house folks and create long-term housing stability, especially for our most vulnerable community members, the County is the place to do that - through investments in behavioral health, by sitting on the Public Health Board, by being directly involved in the budget that has purview over public health and behavioral health investments. I see it as an extension of my work at the City to create housed and healthy communities. And it actually goes full circle back to my roots where I started my career in community health. It is exciting opportunity, and I see it as a growth and expansion of the work that we've done in Seattle. [00:03:24] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. You talk about progressive revenue - the JumpStart Tax, which is a really, really important source of revenue that has been so helpful for businesses in the City, for residents, so many people in need - and has been a benefit to the City, especially in this time of a budget downturn in that the JumpStart Tax helped to bail out a budget shortfall there. So this revenue seemed to come just in time. You had to fight for it. You led the fight for it. What lessons do you take out of that fight to the County, and what progressive revenue options are there at the county level that you would be willing to pursue? [00:04:05] Teresa Mosqueda: I think one major lesson is how I've approached building these big progressive policies that have not only earned the majority of votes, but the vast majority - if not unanimous vote sometimes - that have withstood the test of time, have not been overturned, and have not been overturned by legislative councilmatic action nor by the courts. I will take with me to King County the ability to build these broad coalitions. And think about JumpStart - who was there when we launched it? It was ironworkers and hardhats, along with business entrepreneurs from both small and large business, with community and housing advocates standing collectively together to say - We will not only stand by this progressive revenue, we will stand by it knowing that it's five times the amount of the previous policy and it's twice as long. That's a huge effort that took place to try to get people on the same page, and we had to - with growing income inequality, growing needs, an increase in our population. There was no other option. This had to succeed, and so I will take that same approach to King County Council. So much is on the needs list right now in the "wake" of the global pandemic. We have the ongoing shadow pandemic. We have increased needs for mental health and community health investments. We have increased needs for food security and housing stability. There is not an alternative. We must invest more and we must do it in a way that withstands the test of time, like I've done on Seattle City Council. So for me, it's the how I bring people together that I will bring to King County Council. And I think it's also the what - not being afraid to push the envelope on what's possible. Many people said it was impossible to pass the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights - and we got sued, and we won. People said it was impossible to legislate having hotel workers get access to guaranteed healthcare at the gold level, protections from retaliation, maximum workload. We not only passed that in legislation, but we withstood that in the court. And the same is true of JumpStart. We withstood multiple litigation attempts to try to take away JumpStart, and it's withstood the test of time. And I'm excited to see what else we can do in a city that sees so much growth but incredible inequity across our region - to bring people together to address these pressing needs. [00:06:24] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. You talked about housing and homelessness, and one thing called out by experts as a barrier to our homelessness response is that frontline worker wages don't cover their cost of living. Do you believe our local service providers, a lot of whom are nonprofits, have a responsibility to pay living wages for the area? And how can we make that more likely with how we bid and contract for services at the county level? [00:06:54] Teresa Mosqueda: Yeah, two things I would say. One is - absolutely, we need to make sure that folks who are working on the frontline as human service providers - think folks who are the counselors to youth, or people who have mental health or substance abuse needs that we need to help address so that they can get stably housed, think about services to our vets and seniors. These are workers on the frontline who rely on relationships and have skills, expertise in the human service category. They need to have investments in these deeply needed services. And in order for us to create greater stability, we need to be paying them living wages. I say "we" - because this is not about the nonprofits needing to pay them more. It is about we, the public entities, needing to increase our contracts to these organizations who then employ people to be on the frontline. For better or worse, we have a human services system that has largely relied on contracting out critical services that are arguably public services. They are supported by public dollars, and we, public officials, have a responsibility to pay those organizations enough so that they can invest in the wages for frontline workers. That is what I have tried to do at Seattle City Council. The first year that I came in at Seattle City Council, the Human Services Coalition came to me and said - We have not had a cost of living increase in 10 years. To not have a COLA in 10 years for most workers in our region and across the country is unheard of, but it's especially unheard of for the very folks on the frontline trying to address the most pressing crisis in our country right now - and that is housing instability and homeless services. So we worked in 2019, and we passed the Human Services cost of living adjustment - that is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of what needs to be addressed. The historic and chronic underfunding of these positions still needs to be addressed. We are not going to be able to close this gap of 40, 50, 60% turnover in our critical organizational partners, organizations, if we don't address the wage stability issue. So I think actually going to the County and bringing that experience of having worked directly with the human service providers and hearing their stories about why it was so critical not only to have a cost of living adjustment, but to get at this chronic underfunding is going to be really coming at a pivotal moment. Seattle does have a cost of living adjustment. I want to bring that cost of living adjustment to King County and collectively with Seattle, I want to work to address the underpayment for human service providers as well. [00:09:26] Crystal Fincher: There's been a lot of action when it comes to addressing housing and homelessness from the King County Regional Homelessness Authority to new legislation, and potentially even more legislation coming out through the end of this legislative session. We're currently recording this in mid-April, so it may come out a little bit further when there's a definitive answer for everything that happens. But amid a lot of this work that is currently being implemented or has just been authorized, there's a lot in process but still seemingly a lot more that needs to be done. What would your top priorities be to make a noticeable and meaningful difference in both homelessness and housing affordability if you're elected to this position? [00:10:11] Teresa Mosqueda: Resources for housing is critically needed across King County. Resources will help local jurisdictions be able to implement the new requirements that are going to be coming forth from our State Legislature, which - I want to thank our State legislative members - every year they go to Olympia and every year we ask them to be bold - be bold on housing solutions, recognizing that housing is the solution to being houseless. Housing helps people who have multiple compounding factors get healthy, get stable, and be productive members of our community. Housing is the solution to this biggest crisis that we see, not only in Seattle and King County, up and down the West Coast, but across our entire country. We have not built enough housing to house our current population plus the population who will continue to come to our region. So one of the things that I think I can take to the County is the desire to make sure that local jurisdictions, whether it's Burien or Tukwila, or unincorporated areas like in Vashon and Maury Island or in White Center - that they have resources as well to help build the type of housing that's being requested from the State Legislature - to do so in accordance with their Comprehensive Plan so that people can implement it in the time frame that works for those local jurisdictions, but to help them take away the barrier of not having enough resources. Seattle is unique in that we have pushed forward different resources. We have different types of tax revenues - thanks to JumpStart, for example - but in areas that don't have those type of resources, I hope the County can continue to be a good partner, in addition to the state, to build the type of diverse housing that we're now going to be required to build and hopefully we can do even more. The State Legislature is actually creating a new floor. We should be building upon that, and where we can go higher and denser - that is good for the local environment, it is good for the local economy, it's good for the health of workers and small businesses. And it's what I've heard from Vashon Island to Tukwila - people have said, "We don't have enough workforce housing." Small business owners have said, "I don't have enough workers in this area because they can't afford to live here." So I want to hopefully break down misperceptions about what type of housing we're talking about. We're talking about housing for seniors and vets, kiddos, youth, workers. We're talking about supporting the creation of that housing with additional revenue - that's one of the things I'd like to bring to the County. And to also recognize that when we have diverse economies that are prosperous, it's because workers can live next to their place of employment. Workers can walk to their childcare. We don't have time to spend two hours in the car commuting back and forth - that's not good for our health, our family's health, and it sure isn't good for the health of our planet. So it's a win-win-win, and I think that's something that I can really bring in as a County Councilmember - the knowledge that these local jurisdictions want to do more, but sometimes are limited with their resources. And wherever I can, I want to help step up and provide that support. [00:13:08] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Public safety has also been an area where the County continues to make a lot of news, has a lot of responsibility - they operate a jail, and that has itself made a lot of news. Over the past couple years throughout the pandemic, some of the employees of the jails - the guards - other people, the Public Defenders Association have called out overcrowding conditions, unsafe conditions in the jail. There's been times where the jail has not had clean water, several illness outbreaks, people not being treated correctly. It seems to be a really bad situation. Recently, the King County Council just voted to extend a contract to rent additional beds from a SCORE facility in Des Moines. This, during a backdrop of events where the King County Executive has made a promise to close the King County Jail, but it seems like we're getting further away from that, or at least not getting closer to that. Would you have voted to extend the SCORE contract? And should we close the jail? What is your vision for the short term? [00:14:17] Teresa Mosqueda: I think that the move to close down a jail that's both outdated and unsafe is not only good for the inmates, it's good for the folks who are working there. I think this is another example of where there's a false perception of sides. People who work within the jail, as well as those who are incarcerated, have expressed their not only horror when seeing mold and deterioration of the building, but it is extremely unsafe as well - as you mentioned - due to overcrowding. There's a few things that I think we can do. Number one, we should address upstream - who was being sent to these facilities in the first place. In a presentation that the Seattle City Council received from the City Attorney's Office, there was a large number of people who were initially booked and jailed, and ultimately were released because there was no grounds to put forward charges. And I think we need to stop the habit or the practice of putting folks in that situation to begin with. Even if they are not incarcerated for long periods of time, the fact that people are being jailed - especially youth - creates consequences down the road, mental health consequences, consequences for your housing, for your livelihood, your employment. And the negative impact of just being booked in the first place - both for the physical health of somebody, but also the trajectory of their life - is quantifiable. It is known, and we should stop that practice early. I agree with the effort to move folks into a situation that is healthier, but I also want to continue to look at how we can reduce the chance that someone is ever incarcerated in the first place, invest more in restorative justice practices. I'm optimistic by some of the conversations I've heard from folks in the community, specifically in Burien, about the ways in which some of the initial conversations have taken place with the Burien City Police Chief Ted Boe, and some of the commitments that have been made to try to look at restorative justice differently. And I think that holistically we need to look at what leads someone to be in that situation in the first place and back up to see what additional community investments we can be making so that people can have greater access to economic security, community safety, and reduce the chance that someone ever interacts with the carceral system to begin with. [00:16:40] Crystal Fincher: What do you think, or for people who are considering this voting decision and who are looking around and who are feeling unsafe, and who are not quite sure what the right direction is to move forward, or what can be done but feel like something should be done - what is your message to them? And what can make us all safer? [00:17:01] Teresa Mosqueda: There's a few things that I think have really come to light, especially during the pandemic. We tell people to stay home to stay healthy. Well, if people don't have a home, they can't stay healthy. If we can think about the increased situation where many of us have probably seen loved ones in our lives - whether it's family members or friends - who have turned to substances to cope, to self-medicate with the stress, the trauma, the isolation that has only increased during the pandemic. I hope there's greater empathy across our community and across our country for why people may be self-medicating to begin with. And I think if we think about these recent examples of where we have seen people become more unstable in their housing situation or turn to substances because of increasing stress and pressure, that hopefully there's greater empathy for why it is so critical that we invest upstream. It is not an either/or - it's creating greater balance with how we invest in community safety, in what we know equals the social determinants of health. When we invest in housing, it helps reduce the chance that someone is going to engage in criminal activities later in life. When we invest in early learning, in job opportunities, in youth interactive programs, when we invest in even gun reduction and youth violence reduction strategies, it helps create healthier individuals and healthier populations, reduce the chance that someone ever interacts with an officer to begin with. These are public safety investments, and they shouldn't be seen as a separate silo from "traditional safety." It actually saves lives, and there's a huge return on investment when we make some of these upstream program policies a priority. I think it actually creates healthier communities, and for those who are looking at it through the economic lens, healthier economies - knowing that that return on investment has been proven time and time again. And it's good for individuals and community health as well. [00:19:02] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now, there's a shortage of workers across the board - certainly King County is included in this shortage of county workers in several areas, including in many front-line positions that impact public safety - maintenance, care, health - all of those that are crucial to delivering services and help that the residents of the County need. We've seen hiring, retention, and referral bonuses for public safety employees. Do you think we should be considering those for other employees? [00:19:39] Teresa Mosqueda: Absolutely. This is part of the conversation that I raised while at Seattle City Council. There is, I think, a detrimental impact to workplace morale across public servants when we're not uniformly treating people the same. It's not what I feel, it's not that that's my perception - that's actually coming from workers within the City of Seattle who completed a survey that our Human Resources Department, in addition to Seattle Police Department and other Seattle agencies, completed to ask, "What would you like to see? How would you feel if certain employees got a hiring bonus or retention bonus?" And overwhelmingly, workers in public service said that they thought that this would hurt morale - if existing public servants weren't treated the same. I mentioned that in the Human Services category, there's a 40% to 60% turnover rate for our nonprofit organizations who are helping folks on the frontline. There's a huge turnover rate, as well, within our Human Services Department - we've had to freeze the hiring, and reduce hours, and reduce positions. Public libraries, community centers are front-facing programs for the community during COVID and we are slowly starting to scale those back up, but they're nowhere at capacity right now. And what workers themselves have said within the City of Seattle is - they want to see greater strategies for retention. Investments in childcare keeps coming up. Investments in more affordable housing keeps coming up. And if you want to look specifically at the Seattle Police Department, the officers themselves said that they did not think that hiring bonuses was the way to address retention and morale issues - that played out in their comments in the press, as well as the survey results that we saw. I think that there's a more equitable approach that we should be taking. I think that we should be looking at how we recruit and train and incentivize people to come to public service overall, whether that means you're coming in to work as a firefighter or a police officer, or whether that means that we want to recruit you to be serving the public in libraries or as a lifeguard - which we don't have enough of - or as a childcare provider, which we don't have enough of. We should be looking across the board at these public service programs and figuring out ways to both address retention and morale, and to do so equitably. And to listen to what workers have said - they want housing, they want childcare, they want regular and routine transit. And they want us to, especially within the City of Seattle, address disparity in wages for folks of color and women compared to their counterparts. Those are some things that I think we should be taking on more seriously. [00:22:17] Crystal Fincher: Definitely. Now, you talk about people saying they want regular and routine transit. Lots of people want that. Lots of people - more importantly - need that, are relying on that. And there's been lots of talk about the rider experience around safety on transit, but also about the availability and accessibility of service and all-day service - not just some of those commuter-centric commute-time service bumps that we've seen. What would your approach to Metro be as a councilmember? [00:22:50] Teresa Mosqueda: So I appreciate that you raise safety because it is an issue that comes up for riders as well as the drivers. Members of ATU, who drive buses around King County, have expressed increased concern around their safety. Whether they're driving in the day or night - given COVID has increased interpersonal violence across our country, they are on the receiving end of that as well. So I'm excited to talk with ATU, with members who have been out on the frontline as our bus drivers, as well as riders to talk about how we can improve safety for everyone. That is - again, on the preventative side, trying to figure out ways that structurally and through public policy we can ensure that riders and drivers are safe. There's also two things that drivers have talked to me about and folks within King County Metro. They say there's a lot of focus on new routes and how do we expand routes - routes, routes, routes - which I also agree with. But they've also brought up that we need to continue to invest in the people, maintenance, and operation to make sure that there's enough people to be working on existing routes and new routes to come. Similar to housing, we don't want to just build units. We want to make sure that for those who need personnel in those units to make sure that folks stay stably housed, we're investing in the workforce to ensure that that housing, that that unit is successful. We need to be looking at investments in the workforce, recruiting folks to come to these good living wage union jobs, and to be thinking about how we improve retention and stability as well. And for as far as maintenance is concerned - thinking more about how we can invest in greener fleets, greener maintenance opportunities, and ensure that those vehicles are running well and routinely. So those are two of the things that have come directly from the frontline drivers themselves. And then more broadly - workers. You mentioned all-day services. I would also argue all-night services to the degree that we can add additional stops, because many of the childcare providers who are coming in early in the morning, construction workers who are coming in early in the morning, janitors who might be going out late at night, talk about how they have to rely on vehicles because there are not times that the buses are showing up to get them to work and back home in time. So I think that it's multi-prong. But again, I think the common ground here is that the workers in this sector are agreeing with the recipients of the service. And collectively, I'm hoping that we can address safety, workforce needs, and increase routes as well. [00:25:23] Crystal Fincher: Definitely, and I really appreciate you bringing up the workforce needs. I know a couple people who use transit regularly but ended up getting vehicles because of the unpredictable cancellations due to staff shortages, whether it's maintenance or drivers, just making it unreliable to get to work on time. And already the time taken to commute that way is a lot, so that would improve the experience greatly - definitely appreciate that. Transit is also very, very important to achieving our climate goals. And by most measures, we're behind on our 2030 climate goals - while we're experiencing devastating impacts from climate change, including extreme heat and cold, wildfires, floods. What are your highest-priority plans to get us on track to meet our 2030 climate goals? [00:26:17] Teresa Mosqueda: One thing might surprise folks in that category - probably not a huge surprise for folks who have heard me talk before - but I think if we can invest in additional housing, dense housing across our region, it will actually reduce CO2 emissions. And it's really common sense, right? We are the third-highest mega-commuter city or region in the nation. We have more people who are commuting back and forth to work than most of the country. And the reason is because they can't afford to find a house near their place of employment. If CO2 emissions from cars - single-occupancy cars - is the number-one contributor to pollution in our region, I believe that is at the top of our list for helping to reduce our carbon footprint across the country and across the globe. We should be increasing density. We should see it not only as a good economic stimulant, what's right to do for workers and working families, but it is one of the best things that we could also do for our climate. I think that there's - again, a misperception or a false divide between folks who are environmentalists and want to see more trees, and their perception that additional housing or density takes that away. It does not. We can both create setbacks for higher buildings and use the airspace to create living opportunities, while we plant additional trees and preserve old growth. I've gone to at least three ribbon-cutting ceremonies for Habitat for Humanity, who created - basically - townhouses connected altogether. We don't have a lot of row houses in Seattle, but row houses, if you will, around trees created in the shape of a U with old-growth trees in the middle - allowing for greater shade, and a play area for kiddos, and a place to sit for elders. It is very much possible to build dense housing options and preserve old growth while planting new trees. So I think in addition to creating density, we can plant more trees. We can do more to incentivize good living-wage jobs in industries that are cleaner. I heard from our friends in Georgetown Community Center that they had to beg and plead for one of the local industries to incorporate more greener options for a glass manufacturer down there. And we should simultaneously be seeing the opportunity to promote good jobs as a requirement for also promoting good green jobs. And I worked very hard with members of both the environmental community and the labor community in the past to push Just Transition policies - to ensure that as we transition to greener economies or greener manufacturing strategies, that we're preserving good living-wage jobs and, even better, preserving good union living-wage jobs. So I look forward to making sure that we have denser cities, that we have greener cities, and that we have greener industries. [00:29:13] Crystal Fincher: Now, King County does incremental budgeting, making it more challenging for people to understand how county funds are allocated in a base budget. The budget is known as one of your areas of strength. What do you think can be done to make the budget process easier for the public to understand and influence at the county level? [00:29:35] Teresa Mosqueda: I've been really proud of what we've been able to accomplish in Seattle. And coming from working the halls of Olympia on behalf of the Washington State Labor Council for eight years and then for three years before that with the Children's Alliance, I was used to this concept of having these biennial budgets that needed to be seen in full, that you could see the red line to know what was the investment from last year versus the upcoming year. Unfortunately, the City of Seattle doesn't have such a budget document. It's basically like single pages - page after page of narrative descriptions of what the dollars will do. That's fine for some budget notes, but what I think we are working towards in the City of Seattle - a preview for folks who love budget talk - is we're going to one day have a true biennial budget and an actual budget document where you will be able to see the red line, either additions or subtractions to specific programs so that everyone knows what is being invested in, how funding is changing, and where priorities are showing up in the budget. I am excited about being able to build on that work that I've done in Seattle, especially as Budget Chair, in some of the most pressing economic times in recent history, starting in 2020. And have been able to not only allocate millions of dollars from the American Rescue Plan Act, but also to create greater transparency in how we budget. One of the things that I think is maybe misunderstood out there is the way in which we've helped to provide transparency in the entire budget, but specifically the Seattle Police Department. It had not been exposed year-over-year that Seattle Police Department actually had about $40 million that was rolling over year-over-year on top of funding that the chief, that the mayor, that the department had acknowledged they could not use. And in a time where we saw an economic crisis on the horizon, growing needs in our community, and knew that that was $40 million that was not going to be put to use, not going into direct services for the community - and for those who wanted to see additional officers, wasn't even going to be able to use to increase the hiring plan. It's good budgeting to be able to make sure that that funding is transparently accounted for in the General Fund - and where we can deploy it to things like food, housing, childcare, economic security for small businesses that we do so. That's something I'm really proud of - that we were able to show what the full picture was, not only for that department, but for all departments. And to make some important investments in mental health services, behavioral health services, youth violence, gun violence reduction strategies - things that similarly invest in community safety, but we were able to show where those line items move. I will bring to King County Council the ability to structurally push for greater transparency for members of the public, encourage us as the legislative branch to own the separate but equal branch of government that the council is as the legislative branch, and ensure that the public has an opportunity to dive into the proposal that comes from the executive, just like the proposal that comes from the governor to the State Legislature. You receive that, you dissect it, you talk to community about what it means - and then ultimately the legislative branch reconvenes, reconfigures the budget, and presents it to the executive for a signature. It's good governance, it's good transparency. I think it's understandable from folks across whatever political spectrum - it's important to have budget transparency and accountability, and that's what I've been able to accomplish in the City of Seattle. [00:33:02] Crystal Fincher: It is, and I think there are a number of people, especially listeners to Hacks & Wonks, who do enjoy budget conversations, who would definitely look forward to more budget transparency at the County level, like you've been working towards at the City level. As we close here and as people are going to be making the decision about who they're going to be voting for for this County Council position, what is your message to voters and people listening about why they should choose you? [00:33:30] Teresa Mosqueda: I'm very thrilled to be in this race for King County Council. I think I have not only proven that I'm an effective legislator at the council level, but that I know how to center folks who have been left out of policy conversations in the room, but more importantly - follow the lead of those who've experienced the injustices over the years. We have been able to move historic, monumental, national-headline-grabbing policies within the City of Seattle in my now going into six years in Seattle City Council. And it has been done, I believe, in a collaborative way, in a way that has made transformational change, and in a way that I think has always centered - been centered on my progressive commitments to investing in working families, folks of color, and the LGBTQ community, workers to ensure that there's greater opportunity and prosperity. And creating housing and stability - that is something that is good for our entire community. I do this work because it's all about how we create healthy communities. You have to have investments in good living wage jobs and housing stability and opportunity education to have self-determination and control over your own life and your own decisions. And I think through public policy, through investments with public resources, we can create greater opportunity across our county. I am excited, as well, to be coming to this race as a woman, as a Latina, as a Chicana - poised to be the first Latina ever elected to King County Council. And with a King County population that is made up of half people of color and a quarter immigrant and refugee, it is critical that we have more voices with folks who have the lived experience coming from communities of color serving in these positions. I think that's why I've been able to effectively and efficiently move policy through so quickly - because I have put at the front of the line many of the community members who are often left out of policy discussions. I hope to bring in my commitment to working with folks who are workers, women, folks of color, members of the LGBTQ community to hear more about what we can do at King County Council. I know I have big shoes to step into with Councilmember McDermott and his commitment to public health, working with the LGBTQ community, his tenure in the State Legislature - and I'm also excited to add to that and serve our broader region and our growing needs. [00:35:59] Crystal Fincher: Thank you so much, Councilmember Mosqueda, for spending this time with us today and having this conversation. Sincerely appreciate it, and we'll certainly be following your campaign eagerly over the next several months. Thank you. [00:36:13] Teresa Mosqueda: Thank you so much - I appreciate it. [00:36:15] Crystal Fincher: Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks, which is co-produced by Shannon Cheng and Bryce Cannatelli. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or 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 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 episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

On this week's Hacks & Wonks, Crystal is joined by friend of the show, defense attorney, abolitionist and activist, Nicole Thomas-Kennedy! They start catching up with the Seattle City Budget. The City Council revealed their proposed budget earlier this week, and in general it proposes putting back funding for programs that were originally given fewer resources under Mayor Harrell's proposal - most notably restoring the raises for frontline homeless service workers, which were cut in Harrell's budget. The Council's proposal also uses JumpStart funds as originally intended, cuts ghost cop positions, and eliminates funding for the controversial ShotSpotter program. After the horrific incident last week that involved a shooting at Seattle's Ingraham High School, students staged a walkout and protest on Monday to ask city leaders for resources to help prevent gun violence. The students are asking for anti-racism and de-escalation training for school security, assault weapon bans, and more school counselors and mental health resources. What they have made clear they don't want is more cops in schools, but despite that Mayor Harrell and some of his advisory boards are advocating for an increased police presence in schools. Housing updates this week start with positive news: Mayor Harrell is asking for affordable housing to be exempt from the much maligned design review process. Allowing affordable housing to skip design review will encourage developers to build affordable housing, and will help us battle our housing shortage faster than we could otherwise. In frustrating housing news, KING5 released some upsetting reporting outlining some overt racial housing discrimination against Black families in Seattle, including one story about family who received a significantly higher appraisal when they dressed their home to look like it was owned by a white family.  Carolyn Bick from the South Seattle Emerald reported on potential City and State records laws violations by the Office of Police Accountability. The OPA has been manually deleting emails, or allowing them to automatically be deleted, before the two-year mark prescribed by City and State laws. It's another example of a city office failing to hold itself accountable to basic records standards.  The Seattle Department of Transportation seemed to once again be more responsive to concerns about administrative liability than community concerns about pedestrian safety amid rising fatalities. When locals painted an unauthorized crosswalk at the intersection of E Olive Way and Harvard, SDOT workers removed the crosswalk within 24 hours. This is happening while many people and business owners, most notably Councilmember Sara Nelson, have been placing illegal “eco blocks” without removals or consequences.  Finally, the Chair of Washington State Democrats is being criticized for threats to withhold resources against Washington House candidates if they showed support for nonpartisan Secretary of State candidate Julie Anderson. This is a high-profile extension of a question that party groups–big and small–are dealing with: how do we handle Democrats' support of nonpartisan or third party candidates?  As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Follow us on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Nicole Thomas-Kennedy, on Twitter at @NTKallday. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources “City Council's ‘anti-austerity' budget package: Aiming JumpStart back where it belongs, preserving parking enforcement's move out of SPD, nuking ShotSpotter, and giving mayor his ‘Unified Care Team'” by jseattle from Capitol Hill Seattle Blog   “Morales Hopes to Resurrect Social Housing Amendment That Didn't Make Balancing Package Cut” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist   Learn more about how to get involved in Seattle's budget season at this link.   “Care, Not Cops” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger   “Seattle proposal would free affordable projects from design review — and give all developers path to skip public meetings” by CHS from Capitol Hill Seattle Blog   “After a low appraisal, Black Seattle family 'whitewashes' home, gets higher price” by PJ Randhawa from KING5   “Why housing discrimination is worse today than it was in the 1960s” by PJ Randhawa from KING5   “OPA May Have Broken City and State Records Laws By Not Retaining Emails” by Carolyn Bick from The South Seattle Emerald    “SDOT Decries Tactical Urbanism While Allowing Eco-Blocks All Over the City” by Erica C. Barnett from Publicola    “Rent a Capitol Hill apartment from one of these companies? You ‘may have rights under antitrust laws to compensation' as lawsuit alleges price-fixing violations in Seattle” by jseattle from Capitol Hill Seattle Blog “Scoop: State Democratic Party chair under fire for alleged threats” by Melissa Santos from Axios   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 text 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 cohost. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show, today's cohost: defense attorney, abolitionist and activist, Nicole Thomas-Kennedy. Hey. [00:00:54] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Hey - thanks so much for having me. It's great to be here. [00:00:57] Crystal Fincher: Welcome back. Great to have you back. So we have a few things going on this week. We will start with the Seattle budget. The mayor introduced his budget a few weeks back - this is now the Council, and the President of the Council, being able to introduce their own budget and their take on things. What did you see here that was notable? [00:01:21] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: I think the things that were really notable were that JumpStart was headed back to where it was originally planned. That tax was created for affordable housing and things like that, and the mayor tried to take it a different direction that I don't think addresses the City's needs at all - so it was good to see that. Keeping - not giving SPD the money for those ghost cops - the officers that don't actually work there, that haven't actually worked there for a while - their salaries, SPD was allowed to keep for a long time, and so taking that away. And I think really most importantly - to me, given what I do - is taking out the money for ShotSpotter, which is something that the mayor has pushed really hard for, but has shown to not work and actually be detrimental to marginalized communities in other cities. And that was a million dollars, so it was great to see that taken out. [00:02:27] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, that was definitely an improvement, I think, in a lot of people's minds. That was something that did seem to be oddly championed by the mayor and very few other people, regardless of what their political orientation or leaning is. It is just something that - a decade ago, people were wondering if it had some potential, and then it was implemented in a number of cities with a number of very well-documented problems. One thing that it does not seem to be able to accomplish is to reduce gun violence, which is its ultimate goal. But it did introduce a lot of other problems. It was expensive. It seemed to increase surveillance and harassment, particularly of Black and Brown communities, without intervening or interrupting any kind of violence. And that is just an inexpensive and ineffective use of funds. Given a budget shortfall, it seems like we should not be wasting money on things that have proven not to work and not to make anyone safer. I think another notable difference in this budget, between the mayor's budget, was he had proposed a reduction in salary for some of the frontline workers for homelessness services and outreach services there. Those are critical positions and crucial to being able to address homelessness, reduce homelessness. A lot has been covered over the years across the country about how important having comfortable, well-paid frontline workers is so that they're not living in poverty, they aren't in unstable positions - creating a lot of turnover and uncertainty with the workers on the frontline - so that they do have the capacity and ability to do that kind of frontline outreach work and getting people into services that meet their needs. And so there was definitely a repudiation of the idea of reducing their pay and making sure that their pay will continue to rise with the cost of living and the Consumer Price Index. So that was nice to see. A few other things, like you talked about, just making sure that the JumpStart funds, which it seems now everybody is acknowledging, have been very helpful. And even people who previously opposed it are now backing its use to backfill their own plans. But really just making sure that it is spent in a way consistent with its original charter, basically. And so more of a right-sizing and being more consistent with the spending that Seattle voters have backed, that these candidates were elected and reelected with mandates to go forward with - that we're seeing that there. Moving forward here, there was just an opportunity for public comment earlier this year. There is one more opportunity for councilmembers to introduce amendments to this budget before it's going to be ultimately passed. So I encourage everyone, if you have thoughts about the budget, we'll include some links just explaining it. There was a really good Capitol Hill Seattle story just breaking down the budget and what's happening there to make sure we go there. But a few notable other investments from there include $20 million each year for equitable development initiative projects that advance economic opportunity and prevent displacement. $20 million Green New Deal investments each year, including $4 million to create community climate resilience labs. $4.6 million for indigenous-led sustainability projects and $1.8 million for community-led environmental justice projects. $9 million for school-based health centers, which is a really big deal, including a new $3 million across the biennium for mental health services in response to the demand for more health providers from teachers and students - we'll talk a little bit more about the student walkout and strike and their demands later in the show. Also created a combined total of $1.5 million for abortion care in 2023, to ensure access to reproductive care for uninsured people in Seattle. And a $253 million investment into the Office of Housing for affordable housing - and that's over $50 million more than the last budget for building rental housing, more supportive services, first-time ownership opportunities. I know a lot of people are also hoping that Councilmember Tammy Morales' proviso makes it back into the budget to support social housing and securing City-owned property for rental housing that has a much better shot of being able to be affordable for regular people working in the City, especially those who don't have six-figure incomes and can't afford a million dollar home. This is going to be crucial to making sure that we have dedicated land and space and capacity to build permanent affordable housing. [00:07:54] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Yeah, and I hope that makes it back in very - I really hope that makes it back in. The thing that I see with the Council's - what they're proposing to put back in, or the changes they're making from Harrell's budget - is most all of them address things that would enhance public safety. And when I hear about things like old technology that's been shown not to work, that gives more or giving more money to police or things like that, I think people think that that's about public safety, but it's not. Those are reactionary things, those are things that have been shown not to address the problems, we really do need to be looking at those upstream things like housing, helping marginalized communities, mental health - all of these things are things that are actually going to result in more safety for everyone. And so I'm happy to see that their proposals are addressing those things. And I hope that they make it into the final budget. [00:08:52] Crystal Fincher: I agree. And I also think that we saw - with just these past election results that we received - that residents of Seattle, really across the county, but especially in Seattle, once again, show through their votes for candidates who are talking about addressing root causes, the rejection of candidates for the Legislature for King County Prosecuting Attorney who were talking about punitive punishment-based approaches, lock-em-up approaches, which the city and the county continually have rejected. And I think voters are just at the point where they're saying, no, please listen - you have already increased funding for police, but we have these big gaps in all of these other areas that we need you to address and fill, and it's - just talking about police is doing the overall public safety conversation a disservice because it takes so many other things to make sure that we are building communities that are safer, and where fewer people get victimized, and where we are not creating conditions that cause disorder. And so I hope that they are listening. And I hope that that gives both the Budget Chair and councilmembers faith and strength and motivation to move forward with these kinds of investments in community - that center community and that center addressing the root causes of crime, preventing crime - which is the most important thing that we can do. I don't think anyone is looking around and saying - things are great, things are fine - but I think people are fed up with the inaction or bad action and ineffective action taken. So we will stay tuned and continue to report on that. [00:10:47] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Very helpful. [00:10:47] Crystal Fincher: We just alluded to, but talked about this week - following last week's shooting of an Ingraham High School student by another student - extremely extremely tragic situation - that student wound up dying. This is a traumatic thing for the school community to go through, for the entire community to go through. And we saw students walk out to cause awareness and with a list of demands. What were they demanding? [00:11:19] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: I'm not going to get it perfectly off the top of my head, but they want more resources for students. They want more mental health care. They want access to those things. They want things that are preventative. They're not asking for punitive retribution or more metal detectors or cops in schools or something like that. They're asking for things that are actually going to be preventative, that are going to encourage the wellbeing of all students. And they know that that's what's going to keep them safe. And from what I've seen from SPS - they seem responsive to those demands in some way. It remains to see what will be actually followed through on. But the response I've seen so far from SPS, just being the parent of an SPS student, is that they are listening to what these kids are actually saying and what the data actually shows will make these kids safer. So I find that to be hopeful. I hope you can verbalize what their list of demands were more succinctly than that, because I don't want to misrepresent what they're saying at all. But when I read through what they were asking for and saw what they were asking for, it was all stuff that was aimed at prevention - because that's what - they don't want to be shot. And that's very valid. And they shouldn't have to worry about those things. And the things that have been implemented for years, like more police in school, those lockdown drills and things like that - it's not working. It's just like we were talking about with the budget stuff, we need to get to those root causes. [00:13:04] Crystal Fincher: You're exactly right. And what these students want really does, to your point, cover the gamut of preventative measures. So there are a few different things. One, they want the district to increase anti-racist and de-escalation training for any security at Seattle Public Schools. They also demand that the state update safe storage laws and ban assault rifles. Students asked the Council to reroute $9 million from SPD to pay for counselors. They want one counselor - to be paid a living wage - but at least at a ratio of 1 for every 200 students. Right now, the district is averaging about 1 for every 350 students, so that is a significant increase in counselors. But I don't think there is anyone here who does not acknowledge the need for more mental health resources for students. And this is especially pronounced in the middle schools across the district. So that is a pretty substantial one. They did say that they don't want cops in schools. They don't want the introduction of more guns, more people with guns in schools - but they want the things that will prevent them. They want mental health resources and community-based resources, therapy resources, and intentional de-escalation and communication training, DBT therapy training - really for students there, so they can figure out how to use words to disarm and de-escalate conflicts instead of getting physically violent, encouraging gun violence, that type of thing. They really want to - they understand that there's a gap with many kids that they're trying to navigate through and this is a normal thing for students anyway. We need to equip them with the tools to work through conflict, to work through their emotions, even when they're very big. They recognize that and they're calling for that. So these are all things that are backed by data and evidence, that have shown to reduce conflict, to reduce violence of all kinds, definitely gun violence. And that are evidence-based, have worked in other areas - pretty reasonable. And so there are a few areas where this could come from. They're certainly asking the Legislature for action, but also with the City and the mental health money. I think Teresa Mosqueda said that she was allocating $2 million and saying that's a down payment on what the students are asking for. Another source that was talked about by some people online was the Families & Education Levy in the City of Seattle, which is tailor-made for things like this. And so that, I think, should be part of this conversation going forward. But we absolutely do need more mental health resources in the schools. And we heard that post - as students were returning back to school after schools were closed due to COVID, and as they were returning, there were certainly a lot of parents who wanted to reopen schools, get their students back in there, but also talked about the challenges that students were dealing with - with anxiety and a range of mental health needs. They seemed to acknowledge that students, in connection with violent events happening and needing to deal with that - we need to figure out a way to get this done. I think the student demands are entirely reasonable and the entire community needs to listen. Now, one dimension of the story that we have seen, there was a story - and I forget at this point who came out with it - but it was like the district is exploring basically putting armed police officers back in school. Upon reading the story, it was like no, actually the district, no one in the district was considering that. The students specifically said they didn't want that. School board members said that they were not currently examining that. But it does seem like the mayor and some of his advisory boards are advocating for armed police officers to return to schools. It seems like the people directly impacted are saying, no, please no, again, not anymore. But the mayor has a different viewpoint here. How do you see that? [00:17:57] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: First of all - yes, the student demands are very reasonable and it's, I don't know, I'm constantly impressed by youth - just how informed they are, the way they present their ideas, and just - they're deeply rooted in this. They are the ones that are impacted. We didn't have to deal with this growing up. I didn't have to deal with this growing up. I didn't have to deal with COVID. I didn't have to deal with the Internet. I didn't have to deal with guns in schools. This is new territory for these kids and they are the ones that are able to tell us what they need and they do so so well. And it is backed by data and research. And I think the mayor has suggested or wants to do this cops-back-in-school thing, but kids know this isn't what has made us safe. We have seen very, very good - horrible, tragic examples of how school resource officers fail to keep kids safe. And I think a lot of people's eyes have been open to that. And while I see the suggestion, I acknowledge the suggestion, I don't think it's serious. I don't think you can keep talking about more cops, more cops - putting more cops here - and be serious about safety. We know that doesn't work. And I think that there's enough kids, there's enough parents, there's enough people, there's enough people on the Council that know these things that - if he wants to push forward that kind of agenda, I think the pushback is going to be really big. And we can't keep pretending that that's the solution - I think that a lot of people are ready to stop doing that and to be able to push back. And I love this walkout. I think it's so encouraging that these kids are really pushing for what they know to be true. And they're not just sitting there saying, there's nothing we can do about it. They know that there's something they can do about it. So I think that's very encouraging. And I would expect that any sort of really serious pushing forward of that idea of more cops in school, I would expect there to be really very large community and student backlash to those ideas. [00:20:15] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think there would be pretty ferocious backlash to that. We will see how that proceeds and continue to keep you up to date on that. Now, something that Bruce Harrell announced this week, that actually seems like it's going to have a positive reception and that can move things in a positive direction - he's looking to exempt affordable housing from design review - from the much-maligned design review process. What's he proposing to do here? [00:20:47] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: He's proposing sort of a moratorium on affordable housing projects having to go through design review. So if people don't know - design review is a lengthy process where there's - I'm doing air quotes - "community input" on housing design, and it really drags out housing projects for so long. If you see an empty lot and there's a billboard up that says that they're going to build a nine-story building with mixed use - there'll be commercial space on the bottom - and then nothing happens for years and years and years. There's a lot of reasons for that, but one of the primary ones is that really long design review process, which is shown not to be actually that democratic when it comes to the community. So exempting affordable housing from that is such a huge and awesome idea that I think someone said, why didn't we do this before when there was a homelessness crisis declared? Ed Murray could have done this when he declared that crisis, but instead that there's all these projects that are languishing and really upping the price for developers to even build these things. So I think there's - not only is it going to get affordable housing built more quickly if this is actually implemented, which I hope it is, but it's also going to make building affordable housing more attractive to developers because just having that land sit there and having those plans sit there for years and years - it makes it very expensive for developers to undertake projects. And when they do, they're going to want to get as much return on their investment as possible. And so you have to make up for those lost years of the land just sitting there. And so allowing this to go forward is going to provide more housing for the community, which we desperately, desperately need, but it's also going to encourage developers to build affordable housing over other types of housing. So I think this is fantastic and I really hope it goes through. [00:22:55] Crystal Fincher: I think it is fantastic. I think this is a good example of listening to the community. This is a win all the way across for developers who are trying to build projects more economically and more quickly, for just the community who is waiting for housing prices to be more affordable - and not just because interest rates are changing the equation for a lot of people, but to get more supply online quickly. And so this was done with Mayor Bruce Harrell and with Councilmembers Dan Strauss and Teresa Mosqueda. And it would begin a one-year interim period exempting affordable housing projects from design review and then use that trial year to conduct what Harrell says will be a full State Environmental Policy Act review of legislation to try and make this exemption permanent. And so it would permanently exempt, or they're hoping to permanently exempt, housing projects from design review - exempting housing projects that use the mandatory housing affordability program to produce their units on site for a two-year pilot and also allow other housing projects to choose whether to participate in full design review or administrative design review as a two-year pilot. So this is something that hopefully does get more affordable housing units online quickly, cut through the bureaucracy - so a positive development here and excited to see it. What I was not excited to see was a story on KING5 about one of the elements that is part of the wealth disparity, the wealth gap that we see. We've seen stories, sometimes from across the country, talking about whitewashing homes and homes owned by Black people getting lower appraisals than other homes for no other reason, seemingly, than that they're Black. And this happened with a Black family in Seattle who got an initial home appraisal - they had their family pictures in there, they had some African art up. The home was visibly owned by Black people. So with this, this family got an appraisal that was initially $670,000 - under the median home price in Seattle. They thought - well, that seems low, that seems out-of-spec for what we've seen others in this area. So they decided to take down their personal pictures. They put up pictures from a white family. They had a white friend stand in the house presented now as if it was owned by a white family. And instead of the $670,000 appraisal, they got a $929,000 appraisal. The only difference was that it was a home owned by a white person, that appeared to be owned by a white person, versus one that is owned by a Black person - right here in Seattle. What did you think of this? [00:26:09] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Personally, I was not surprised. I saw that this had happened in other areas. I think there was a famous example from a couple of years ago where the difference was half a million dollars. But I think that there's an idea that - in Seattle, we're so progressive, we're so liberal that this kind of thing doesn't happen here. And it does. And I think it's dangerous to think that it doesn't. I think that the Black community gets gaslighted a lot about these things when this is a really clear, very obvious example. But how many other times has this happened? Probably quite a bit. And it's really contributing to the wealth gap. And this is something that Black people have been saying for years has been happening. And it's just now starting to catch on. People are starting to catch on that this is a thing. And when I say people, I mean people who are not Black because they already know about this. But it's really starting to be something that's obvious, that's happening here, that's happening everywhere. And there's all of these little things that happen to maintain that wealth gap - because it's the appraisal value, it's also Black homeowners being targeted for mortgage takeovers by banks, by realty companies. This is not something that a lot of white homeowners deal with - I think in one of the articles, a parent had died. And so then they kept getting calls from different groups asking to buy the home for cash and asking to do some sort of weird backhand reverse mortgage and things like - there's a lot of predatory things out there aimed at Black people and Black homeowners that white homeowners don't deal with. And I'm glad to see KING5 do this story. It's awful that it's happening, but I think the public needs to know that this is something that's happening and that in progressive Seattle, we are not - by any stretch of the imagination - immune to things like this happening on a regular basis. [00:28:23] Crystal Fincher: We are not at all immune. It impacts us in so many ways. Just where we still deal with the legacy of redlining and where Black people in Black communities have been. And then as there is this new displacement happening - that kind of difference in home valuation can very much determine whether that family can afford to buy again in Seattle or be forced out of Seattle. This is just such a major problem and just another manifestation of it here. So yeah, unfortunately not something that I found surprising, but just still really infuriating all the same. And I just hope more people wake up to see what's happening and engage in how they can help make this community more inclusive and do the work that needs to be done because there is work that needs to be done. [00:29:15] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Absolutely. [00:29:17] Crystal Fincher: Other news this week - the Office of Police Accountability may have broken records laws in what - how they've been operating. What happened here? [00:29:29] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: So in this case, I believe Carolyn Bick from the Emerald had put in a public disclosure request for some emails. And what she got back from OPA was that they didn't retain it because they followed SPD's policy of record retention, which is different than the City's policy of record retention, which - they say they're part of SPD or they initially said they were a part of SPD, but they're not. They're not a law enforcement agency. They're a City agency. But I would like to point out one thing too - that the City's record retention policy is wild compared to other bigger entities. If you're a City employee, you're required to archive emails or communications that could be of public interest. So instead of automatically retaining everything and then deleting spam or needing this manual deletion, you have to manually save it. But what's in the public interest is huge. So there should be a default to be saving these things all the time. And of course, we've seen with other communications, like the mayor's texts or Carmen Best's texts, that absolutely those things should have been saved and they set them to delete instead. I think the argument here is about what is the record retention policy for OPA and it's just - it's just interesting that this is the Office of Police Accountability, but yet they're not accountable for their own record keeping. And then the City Attorney's Office said, we can't give you an answer to the question about, do they have SPD's retention policy or the City's retention policy? They said that calls for a legal opinion, so we can't give you one - which to me is just like, what do you do then? Isn't that your job - to make those determinations? So just another way that the Office of Police Accountability is - it's just an HR department for SPD. They just whitewash everything and put righteous complaints through a long bureaucratic process that they tell people to trust in, that ends at being a big old nothing - that even that process - that they can't keep correct records for. So it's shocking really just how much it is all the time that we're hearing about this stuff. [00:32:11] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think that's what is notable to me. It's just yet another thing from a body that is supposed to hold other entities accountable - and seems to have challenges doing that - just seeming to skirt accountability itself and being a hub of so much controversy. Just really makes you evaluate - what is the purpose, what is happening, what is going on? Are we doing more harm than good here? And it just seems like we don't ever receive answers, that there are very alarming things that happen. And the answers are to - well, we'll reshuffle some staff and we won't really address the substance of what happened. We'll just call it a day, wrap it up, put a stamp on it, and close it out. We just won't talk about it anymore. It's just - what is happening, why are we doing this? And jeez, if this is just going to be a farce, can we just save the money and do something else? Why are we investing in something that continues to break rules, and to seemingly break accountability processes? Just really confusing there. [00:33:30] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Yeah, very much so. [00:33:32] Crystal Fincher: Also really confusing this week - SDOT once again very quickly erased a crosswalk - a crossswalk that a community put up at a dangerous intersection, that is clearly an intersection where people are designed to cross - indicated by the curb cut and the ADA-compliant rumble strip. But it was a dangerous place to cross. It was a place where community had brought up concerns that had seemingly not been listened to or addressed. They decided, as has happened before in the City, to put up their own crosswalk to increase the safety of people who need to cross the street. And there are people who need to cross the street more safely. But once again, seemingly - within 24 hours, I think - SDOT appeared and took action, not based off of calls for increased safety and taking action to make this intersection more safe, but came and removed the paint creating the crosswalk, saying for reasons of safety and liability, they can't stand by and let the community paint a crosswalk, even if it is painted to standards. But they immediately removed it. And the new head of SDOT said, hey, we are trying to move in a new direction, but we can't. We'll never be comfortable with people painting their own crosswalks for liability reasons. And then receiving pushback from the community saying, we ask you to take action to make this more safe. You don't. People get killed on the street. People get run into and hurt. Our street designs are nearly exclusively car-centric in most of the City. So hey, neighbors took action to make the road safer for their neighbors, for kids who need to cross the street, for elderly people, disabled people who need to cross the street. And it just seems that the action comes when people take their own actions - [00:35:50] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Sometimes [00:35:51] Crystal Fincher: - to make the street safer. That will get resources out to remove it, but we don't seem to be wanting to deploy the resources necessary to make these intersections safer. How did you see this? [00:36:05] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Yeah, I applaud the effort of the community to make those streets safer. And I thought that the reasoning given - safety and liability - was thin. There's nothing about not having a crosswalk that makes it safer, obviously - that's what the community has been complaining about. And in terms of liability, it's always interesting to me that the liability that they're talking about is liability for a crosswalk that, "shouldn't be there," that they didn't sanction. But apparently there's no liability for people who are continually injured or killed in a place where the community has asked repeatedly for a crosswalk. And I think that it seems disingenuous to me. And yes, and it doesn't really mesh with the other things that they're talking about. So they can have someone come out and pressure wash off something that's supposed to be for community safety - like you said, for kids, for elders, for disabled people, for everyone - because we all walk if we're able. But the streets belong to everybody. But then they'll have someone come out and pressure wash this crosswalk off overnight. But at the same time, we have seen, for over a year, these ecoblocks, the big concrete blocks - that I think the most famous example of them is Councilmember Sara Nelson putting them around her business - so RVs, or people who are unfortunately having to live in their car, can't park near her business. Those are popping up all over the City now. And SDOT says, we're unwilling to pull people off safety projects to move those. But yet, they'll get someone out there overnight to erase something that's making public safety, but they won't do anything about these ecoblocks. And I think that's really another disingenuous argument, because there is more that they could be doing about that. There's ticketing. There's not just going and every day removing whatever's put there. There's a lot of things - there's fines, there's ticketing - that they could do to discourage this, and they're just not doing it. And to me, I think back to 2020 - when SPD built that ecoblock fort around the East Precinct and the West Precinct too. They built a little fort out of these City-owned ecoblocks around their precinct. And when there was things that ecoblocks were needed for, the City said, we don't have any more ecoblocks right now because they're being used for SPD's fort. And so now it seems like we have a glut of ecoblocks in the city - they're just everywhere. So I don't really understand where they're coming from. If they're not coming from SDOT, where are they coming from? And if they're not coming from SDOT and these are people buying ecoblocks and putting them there - on city streets - seems like it would be fairly advantageous for SDOT to go and pick them up. They're on public property. We didn't have enough of them before. Why not just collect them then? Or like I said, especially when they're on a private business, there's so much more the City could be doing about it. And obviously there's someone on the Council that does it. It's never been addressed. And it shakes, I think, people's faith and trust in City government and City agencies when they so clearly don't - their actions don't match up with what they're saying that they want to do. And so I expect more of these sort of crosswalks to pop up. And the community has been having these conversations with SDOT forever and nothing has happened. If this is what's moving the conversation forward, if this is what's creating safety - to me, that's the most important thing. People shouldn't be dying on the street. That's the most important thing. So whatever creates safety, whatever moves that conversation forward to protect people's lives, I think that's great that the community is doing that. I hope it pushes the conversation forward and really creates this infrastructure that we so desperately need. [00:40:45] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I agree. I think those ecoblocks - some people I've seen refer to them now as Nelson blocks since Councilmember Sara Nelson, despite seeming acknowledgement that they are illegal, continues to use and deploy them and exclude others from public space that they are entitled to be in. And that just does not seem to be a priority, like some other things in this community that seemingly have lower costs or impacts. But just, yeah, that the responses don't seem to make sense. The interventions don't seem to be consistent. And I would really like to hear a coherent and consistent approach to safety in Seattle. Or at least start by understanding and acknowledging that what is happening is unacceptable. And instead of running to defend - and I understand that there are concerns about liability, that is a fact - but we do need to expand the conversation to - let's be not just concerned about getting sued, let's be concerned about one of the residents in the City, that we're responsible for, being killed. Because that is happening. And what are we doing to mitigate against that risk? - is really the bottom-line question I think people want some better answers to. [00:42:12] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Yeah, and they deserve them. [00:42:14] Crystal Fincher: They do. Another activity that maybe deserves - some Capitol Hill tenants are suing some landlords. What's happening here? [00:42:22] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: So they are suing - there's, I don't know if people know this, but there are a few corporations, big housing corporations that own a lot of the housing in Capitol Hill and all around Seattle. And so many of them have started using an algorithm, through a company called RealPage, that collects all the information about whatever the company-owned property is, but then also all of the surrounding properties - to raise rents. So to tell landlords the maximum asking price that they can have for rent, based on what's going on around the city, around the neighborhood, from all this data from other places. And it's caused a lot of - and it's something that these big companies can hide behind for rental hikes too - they say, oh, a computer algorithm sets our rental prices and this is what it's set as. And RealPage CEOs have been very open about saying this is more than most landlords could ask for - I wouldn't feel comfortable as a human being asking for this rent, but it's set by a computer, so I can't do anything about it. And it's really caused rents around Seattle and Capitol Hill to skyrocket. There's many factors that go into skyrocketing rents, but this is absolutely one of them. And so the lawsuit is alleging illegal price fixing by these tenants, or by these landlords. And they're not the small mom-and-pop landlords that we're talking about. We're talking about the big housing conglomerates that own so much of our rental housing here in Seattle. And it alleges that it's basically illegal price fixing by having all of these groups that just continuously raise the rent - at the same time, along the same lines - and it's driving up prices everywhere. And I'm very happy to see this lawsuit personally. Rents are out of control in Seattle, and some of that is tied to supply, obviously. Obviously, there's no doubt about that. But what we don't need is businesses taking advantage of data aggregation to make rents go higher and higher and higher. And what I hear sometimes is - the market supports this. And I think that's a really misguided argument. People need housing. It's very, very dangerous to live on the street. Nobody's living on the street because that's a good time. No one's having an urban camping vacation out there in the middle of November. People don't want to live on the street. Housing - like food, like water - is something that we all need. So just because the market supports it doesn't mean it's affordable or good for the rest of the city. When people are paying 50% or 60% of their income to rent, that hurts everyone. That makes it - as food prices go up, as rent goes up, we have people that have to lean on social services. They have to go without things that are - really, it's a detriment to our entire community. So I'm very happy to see this lawsuit. Anything we can do to bring rents down and rebalance the - there's never going to be a full balance between landlord and tenant, obviously, but there needs to be some sort of rebalancing that's going on to make it so people can actually afford to live in this city. [00:46:01] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. We still have areas in the state where people's rent can double. We still have areas just - where we are displacing people in the name of profit. And this is an essential need. This is something that people need to survive. We are seeing an explosion in homelessness because people cannot afford a place to live. Fundamental causes of homelessness are the inability to afford rent. People try and blame - people dealing with substance use disorder or people with mental illnesses - and those are issues and often become worse issues after someone is out on the streets because that is such a rough environment. But the biggest contributor is the inability to pay rent. And that's why we see other areas that have higher instances of people dealing with substance abuse, higher instances of people dealing with those issues - that don't have the degree of homelessness that we do in areas like Seattle, where things are just simply so unaffordable for so many. So we absolutely need to do that. To your point, we need more supply and action - to get more supply is great, but we aren't going to fully address this issue until we bring this landlord and renter situation into greater balance, until there are more rent controls, renter protections in place. That is also a necessary piece of this scenario. And taking this action is necessary - what we've seen has been predatory and has contributed to homelessness. And if we don't get a handle on this, we're not going to get more people housed anywhere around here. So I think this is a justified action. I think that - no, we actually need to stand up and say, you are not entitled to ever-escalating and increasing profits on the backs of people who are providing valuable services and who are valuable people in our communities. We just can't allow that to happen. It's not that - no one can make a profit, right? It's not that we're outlawing being able to be a landlord. But there are responsibilities that should come with that. This is not just a great area for profit and speculation. You're dealing with people in their housing, you're dealing with families in their housing. And there should be a greater amount of care and responsibility that we demand from that. So I am also happy to see this happening. [00:48:55] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Yeah. I also think it's important to realize that when there are so many housing - when there are so many landlords and companies raising these rents - like you said, they are also causing homelessness. These rising prices cause homelessness. So what is actually happening is they are externalizing the cost of homelessness to the community while they make ever greater profits. And as I really like to point out - that this is to the detriment of everyone. So it is the community that is paying for them to make ever greater profits. And that's what we're really talking about. It's not just, people should be able to make money - of course they should be able to make money - but this is something that you can't ignore. This is not like an expensive handbag. People need shelter. And so when we are talking about those things, there will be a community cost if those things aren't brought back in line. And it's important to recognize that the market can't fix all of this. There has to be something else when it comes to things that people - that are basic human needs. And I like the idea that housing is a human right. We need it. We can't live without it. And I think that more and more people are getting behind the idea of that - that housing is a human right, that we all deserve the dignity of living in a home. But I also hope people realize that it is these profiteering landlords that are externalizing the cost of their profits to the community. So yeah, I welcome this too. It's hopeful. [00:50:45] Crystal Fincher: It is. And the last thing we'll cover today - there was a story by Melissa Santos in Axios talking about the State Democratic Party Chair under fire for being a staunch defender of Democrats Steve Hobbs, and really discouraging and going after folks who endorsed non-partisan Julie Anderson and her race against Democrat Steve Hobbs for Secretary of State. You have Joe Fitzgibbon, who chairs the House Democrats Campaign Committee, saying that Tina made threats about withholding resources from Washington House candidates because Democratic House Speaker Laurie Jinkins supported the non-partisan candidate instead of the Democrat. And then you have folks - Tina Podlodowski, certainly, but also others saying that - hey, this is what happens in the Democratic Party. Either you back Democrats or you're not. You're free to support who you want, but not within the Democratic Party. How did you see this? [00:51:58] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: I thought this was a kind of a nothing, really. She's the Chair of the Democratic Party. Think whatever you want about Democrats - the job of the chair of the Democratic Party - there's many things to it, but pushing forward Democrat candidates, Democratic candidates, and a Democratic agenda is what she does. And I was really surprised - the headline of the article, which I know is not written by the journalist, said something about "alleged threats," which makes it sound so much more intense than it was - I think that it's - we really need to get serious about politics and about what we're doing. Republicans are on board with just voting for whoever has an R by their name, and that's something that Democrats haven't necessarily been doing. They've been trying to do that, but they haven't necessarily done it. But to think that the Chair of the Democratic Party is not going to try to push hard for Democratic candidates - I just thought was ridiculous, really. It just seemed like an absurd story. I have a limited - I had a limited experience with politics, but from what I experienced - this was nothing. This was really not much compared to what actually goes on in politics. To me, this just seems like she's trying to get Democratic candidates in there, which is what she's doing, that's what she's supposed to be doing. So I thought it was a kind of a weird story - the way it was framed, the choice of using the word "threat" without really talking about, until much later in the story, about what those "threats" really were - which were not direct, and which were about using Democratic Party funds and resources. And those are things that she's responsible for. I just really thought it was a kind of a nothing of a story, really. [00:54:09] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think what made it a story was that you had a House leader making these accusations directly, and that's something that we don't really see that often. And I think just the - I think it is largely to be expected that a Democratic Party Chair is not going to be happy with the endorsement of a Democrat. I think what caused more of the question is not just saying, hey, Joe Fitzgibbon or Laurie Jinkins, you took this action, and therefore I'm not happy with this - with you - and maybe not supporting you, but the extension to Democratic candidates overall across the state, potentially, because of that. Which Tina Podlodowski and her team said wasn't serious and was par for the course, after being confronted with the existence of them, after I think initially saying that nothing was said. But then, I think this is interesting - not necessarily for this instance - although I do think there's a healthy conversation to be had about is holding the support of unrelated candidates fair play or not. But also just because it does talk about - in this instance, we're talking about a nonpartisan - some of these issues become very simple if we're talking about Republicans. They become a little more complicated when we talk about nonpartisans, when we talk about - especially in the Seattle area - folks from the DSA or People's Party, who may not label themselves as Democrats, but may be aligned on values. And so, is the Democratic Party a party of a label where just the - vote blue, no matter who - if they have a D by their name, great. Or is it a party of principles underneath that label, and you're more searching for someone who adheres to those principles, which may be someone who doesn't necessarily identify as a Democrat. I think that this conversation has been happening within local party organizations for a while, and different LPOs [Local Party Organizations] have come up with different stances themselves. Some are fine with endorsing folks outside of the party if they align on values, and others are very not fine with that. I think we see where Tina Podlodowski and the State Party is on that. But it is, it's not a straightforward equation. Because you do have these resources for the - it is the Democratic Party - doesn't prevent anyone from aligning with another party in doing that. Although that's a flip remark - if you're a Democrat or if you're a Republican, that alignment comes with significant resources that are available or not available with that. So I think, especially with those resources at stake, especially with candidates who may not be affiliated, I understand where people paused and said, wait, what is going on here? But I do think there's a bigger conversation to be had just within the party about - is it about a label? Is it not? Usually that's a much simpler equation when you get to a general election in a partisan race, but we had a situation with a nonpartisan running. And in Seattle - in city council races and other local races, we have situations where non-Democrats run, who are in the same place or further to the left of Democrats. So it just really depends here. But I think there is further exploration and conversation that needs to happen about this, even on the local level. [00:58:21] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Yeah, I think that's - those are all really good points. And I guess, when I was running, I saw people in the LDs going hard for Nikkita Oliver, who didn't identify as a Democrat. And a lot of non-endorsements of Sara Nelson, for instance, who was a Democrat. And to me, it seemed like there was robust conversation in the LDs and they did not all agree. And they did not all do the same thing. And I - yeah, I think there is room for conversation about that. To me, it just - I get a little bit - it seems very - what am I trying to think of? What am I trying to think of when something's pot-kettle-type thing - like the right does this stuff constantly. And there's a total double standard when it comes to liberals, Democrats, progressives, the left. And I ran in a race where my opponent was not nonpartisan, but presented themselves that way. And it's hard to know, as a voter, what you're truly looking at. And so I wish - yeah, I think there - I definitely agree there needs to be a more robust conversation. At the same time, I think the Chair of the Democratic Party should probably be - whoever the Democratic Party has endorsed would be like someone that they would be pushing forward. But yeah, it does get really murky. And you're right, it comes with a lot of resources and access to voter databases and things like that - that has been shared with some groups and not others. There is - it isn't a straightforward situation, like it is with the right, where it's just - he's the nominee, so that's who we vote for - which is also breaking down on the right, it seems like, because they seem like they maybe took that too far. But there's a lot of nuanced conversation that needs to take place. [01:00:28] Crystal Fincher: And with that, I thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, November 18, 2022. Hacks & Wonks is co-produced by Shannon Cheng and Bryce Cannatelli. Our insightful co host today is defense attorney, abolitionist and activist Nicole Thomas-Kennedy. You can find Nicole on Twitter @NTKallday - that's NTK-A-L-L-D-A-Y. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. Please leave us 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 episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time. [01:01:19] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Thanks for having me - this was great.

Slam the Gavel welcomes Keisha Daniel to the podcast. Keisha is going through unspeakable crimes in Birmingham, Alabama. It all started when she was threatened with incarceration by Magistrate A. Teele while getting fingerprints done for her job while at the courthouse. Keisha did not keep quiet about this harassment. This is the story nightmares are made of. The magistrate threatened her and drove her to the precinct to have her booked and then drove her back to the courthouse and it was in the car he assaulted her. Keisha then spent 131 days incarcerated and kept away from her seven year-old daughter. While imprisoned, at Birmingham City Jail, Keisha was then assaulted by officers, denied medical care afterward along with keeping her sleep deprived. However, her one sister helped her get out of prison and has been helping her since. Keisha has signed grievances from the jails. Lt. Bayles stated that she knew of her abuse, but had orders from the Presiding Judge Andre Sparks not to file anything on her behalf. When speaking with Internal Affairs, Sgt. Fisher and Hangler told her that they were given orders by Judge Andre Sparks not to file anything on her behalf and that her claim is frivolous.. Calling upon Mayor Randal Woodfin's secretary who then forwarded Keisha to the City Attorney's Office, she then spoke with Susan who told her to file an affidavit of claim. However, Judge Andre Sparks and Mayor Randal Woodfin are both operating in the corruption to cover up these crimes that have occurred. Finding herself in Family Court with Judge Andre Sparks, along with false allegations by DHR (CPS), Keisha's daughter was placed with her one sister who then handed the child over to the father with a criminal history. There have been multiple calls to DHR on a continuous basis. Now she is labeled as insane in the Family Court. Keisha was hurt badly while imprisoned and no one in Birmingham is willing to help her and other attorneys have turned their backs on her case. Truly a podcast not to be missed. To Reach Keisha Daniel: keishadaniel30@gmail.com Supportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri) http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/ --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/maryann-petri/support

With Election Day looming and ballots due in a few days, this week's show is a Ballot-In-Review! Crystal is joined by perennial favorite Mike McGinn along with the rest of the Hacks & Wonks team - Bryce Cannatelli and Shannon Cheng - to discuss the recent political climate, break down the context of down-ballot races and why your vote matters. Listen in as the crew opens their ballots and thinks their way through the important choices in front of them. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Follow us on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's ballot party attendees: Mike McGinn at @mayormcginn, Bryce Cannatelli at @inascenttweets, and Shannon Cheng at @drbestturtle. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Time Stamps Washington State Advisory Votes - 05:57 King County Charter Amendment 1 and Proposition 1 -  08:25 Federal Races - 16:54 Washington Congressional Races - 18:00 Secretary of State - 32:00 Washington State Legislature Races - 33:13 LD26 - 33:27 LD47 - 35:30 LD42 - 36:57 LD30 - 38:09 LD44 - 38:22 LD46 - 38:55 LD36 - 39:45 LD37 - 39:56 LD34 - 41:05 King County Prosecuting Attorney - 41:32 City of Seattle Municipal Court - 52:40  City of Seattle Proposition Nos. 1A and 1B - 1:01:48   Reminders Don't forget to vote! Visit votewa.gov for voting resources.   Institute for a Democratic Future 2023 applications are live! The initial deadline is November 2nd, and the final deadline is November 13th.   Learn more about how to get involved in Seattle's budget season at this link and about King County's budget timeline here.   Student debt relief sign-ups are live! Visit this link to enroll.   Resources  Washington State Advisory Votes:  “Tim Eyman's legacy of advisory votes on taxes hits WA ballots again” by David Kroman from The Seattle Times King County Charter Amendment 1 and Proposition 1: “King County considers moving most elections to even years” by Joseph O'Sullivan from Crosscut   King County Proposition No. 1 - Conservation Futures Levy Washington Congressional Races: “Congressional candidate Joe Kent wants to rewrite history of Jan. 6 attack” by Jim Brunner from The Seattle Times   Straight Talk bonus round: Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and Joe Kent from KGW News   “Rep. Schrier, challenger Matt Larkin clash in debate over who's extreme” by Jim Brunner from The Seattle Times Secretary of State: Hacks & Wonks Interview - Julie Anderson, Candidate for Washington Secretary of State   Hacks & Wonks Interview - Steve Hobbs, Candidate for Washington Secretary of State   Hacks & Wonks - Secretary of State audiograms - Addressing Democratic criticism of Julie Anderson   Hacks & Wonks - Secretary of State audiograms - Thoughts on Ranked Choice Voting   Hacks & Wonks - Secretary of State audiograms - Experience to manage the broad portfolio of the SoS office Washington State Legislature Races: LD26 - “New ad highlights Washington candidate's past behavior against staffers” by Shauna Sowersby from The News Tribune   Sign up to volunteer for Emily Randall's campaign here on her website.   LD47 - Hacks & Wonks Interview - Claudia Kauffman, Candidate for 47th LD State Senator   “Boyce, Kauffman vie for WA senate in swing district with Kent, Auburn” by Daniel Beekman from The Seattle Times   LD42 - “Sefzik-Shewmake forum highlights abortion, health care” by Ralph Schwartz from Cascadia Daily News   LD44 - Hacks & Wonks Interview - April Berg, Candidate for 44th LD State Representative   LD46 - Hacks & Wonks Interview - Darya Farivar, Candidate for 46th LD State Representative   LD36 - Hacks & Wonks Interview - Jeff Manson, Candidate for 36th LD State Representative   Hacks & Wonks Interview - Julia Reed, Candidate for 36th LD State Representative   LD37 - Hacks & Wonks Interview - Emijah Smith, Candidate for 37th LD State Representative   Hacks & Wonks Interview - Chipalo Street, Candidate for 37th LD State Representative   South Seattle Emerald 37th LD Candidate Forum   LD34 - Hacks & Wonks Interview - Emily Alvarado, Candidate for 34th LD State Representative   Hacks & Wonks Interview - Leah Griffin, Candidate for 34th LD State Representative   Hacks & Wonks Elections 2022 Resource Page King County Prosecuting Attorney: "PubliCola Questions: King County Prosecuting Attorney Candidate Leesa Manion" by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   "PubiCola Questions: King County Prosecuting Attorney Candidate Jim Ferrell" by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   "Leesa Manion, Jim Ferrell tied in the 2022 contest for King County Prosecuting Attorney" by Andrew Villeneuve from The Cascadia Advocate   "Leesa Manion Holds Razor-Thin Lead in King County Prosecutor Race, NPI Poll Finds" by Douglas Trumm from The Urbanist Washington Supreme Court: Hacks & Wonks Interview - Washington Supreme Court Justice Mary Yu   Hacks & Wonks Interview - Washington Supreme Court Justice G. Helen Whitener City of Seattle Municipal Court: Hacks & Wonks City of Seattle Municipal Court Judge Candidate Forum   "Defense Attorneys Say Harsh Sentencing Decision Reveals Judge's Bias" by Will Casey from The Stranger City of Seattle Proposition Nos. 1A and 1B: City of Seattle - Proposition Nos. 1A and 1B   Ranked Choice Voting vs. Approval Voting from FairVote   The Stranger - City of Seattle Propositions Nos. 1A and 1B   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I am Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant - a busy one - 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 text transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, we are continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host - and we're adding a little twist. So first, we want to welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: activist, community leader, former mayor of Seattle, and Executive Director of America Walks, the popular Mike McGinn. Welcome back. [00:01:03] Mike McGinn: Not quite popular enough - Crystal - you have to acknowledge that, but I think we need to go to the other guests on the show today. [00:01:12] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, so we're coming with you with a full Hacks & Wonks crew today. We have the incredible Bryce Cannatelli, who coordinates everything with the show and holds it down. Pleased to have her with us today. Hey, Bryce. [00:01:29] Bryce Cannatelli: Hey, Crystal. [00:01:30] Crystal Fincher: And we have Dr. Shannon Cheng, who is here to enlighten us also with her wisdom and insight, along with Bryce. Hey, Shannon. [00:01:39] Shannon Cheng: Hey, Crystal - super excited to be here. [00:01:42] Crystal Fincher: You could probably hear the sarcasm in that - but this is going to be fun. We are having a Hacks & Wonks little ballot party - we thought it may be helpful - because we talk about several things on the ballot, we talk about several races. But a lot of times we open up the ballot and there are things on there that we haven't seen, haven't heard of, and are trying to figure out. So we thought we would all just open up the ballots, go through them together - some of us in this call are later-voting people because we like receiving all of the voter communication until the last minute, so we haven't turned them in - but we encourage everyone to turn in their ballots as soon as possible. As we go through this ballot, we will add timestamps and let you know when we discuss the different areas of the ballot. So if you have a particular question about a particular area, you can just go to that portion in the show and figure out that, because we actually have taken some time to discuss what is in this ballot and on this ballot. So good luck. Make sure you get your ballot in. If you can't find it, if something happens to it, if you have questions, votewa.gov, V-O-T-E-W-A.gov is a resource. Or hey, just @ the show @HacksWonks to reply to us and we will try and chase down any answers to questions that you have. So vote, make sure everyone you know votes. This is really important and a lot is at stake locally and nationally. And what we do locally is going to dictate what happens nationally. And with that, I will give a few reminders today. And yeah, number one is vote. Don't forget to vote. The election - Election Day is Tuesday, November 8th. You can go to votewa.gov, that's V-O-T-E-W-A.gov to get all of the information about voting. If something has gone haywire, if you can't find your ballot, if you're not sure what you need to do, if you need information about accessible voting, or if you need to figure out about how to register to vote - which you still can do in person if you haven't registered to vote or changed your address or anything like that - go to votewa.gov and you can get all that figured out. Also, the Institute for a Democratic Future is accepting applications for this coming year's new class. The deadline is November 13th and so make sure to get those in there. I've talked about this before on the show, the Institute for a Democratic Future is great for people who lean left and who want to learn about making a difference in their community, who want to learn about politics and policy, or potentially even having a career - it's responsible for my career in politics. So if you want to learn more about that, feel free to hit me up or visit the website, which we'll link in the show notes. Also, it is budget season around the state - and including in Seattle - and so we're going to include resources for the Seattle budget process as well as King County in our show notes, so stay tuned with that and make sure that you get involved in making your priorities and needs known to your elected officials who are allocating money for the next year or two there. Student debt relief - signing up is happening now. Don't forget to do that. Don't wait to do that. We'll put a link to that in the show notes. And Daylight Savings Time ends this Sunday at 2 a.m. We're falling an hour back. We're moving into darkness in dismay and it's a very sad time for some of us here at Hacks & Wonks who like the extra sunshine in the evening. So here we go into the dark months of winter. [00:05:31] Mike McGinn: But Hacks & Wonks will be on every week to bring some sunshine into your life. [00:05:37] Crystal Fincher: We will try. We will try. [00:05:40] Mike McGinn: Stay tuned in on a regular basis. Yeah. [00:05:43] Crystal Fincher: So let's open up our ballots, crew. Let's see what we have here and start to talk through - for those of you who still have to vote - some things that may be useful, helpful. So the first things we see on this ballot that we've opened up are Advisory Votes. Man, these Advisory Votes on every freaking ballot. We have two Advisory Votes here. How did we get into this Advisory Vote situation, Mike? What is this going on? [00:06:15] Mike McGinn: This was part of the Tim Eyman Full Employment Act where he was trying to find yet another ballot measure to put in front of the people. So what this one does - it is passed by the people - and basically they have the opportunity to have a second opinion on every tax that's passed by the Legislature. So that's why you always have all these Advisory Votes at the top. But everybody approves to-date, the public approves the votes that are passed by the Legislature. It's why we elect people, send them to the Legislature. It's really just turned into extra space on the ballot, which costs money and makes the ballot a little longer. And so we could all save a little space on the ballot if the Legislature changed this. In the meantime, don't upset that budget that your Legislature worked to craft - just vote to approve. [00:07:08] Crystal Fincher: I completely agree with that. I cannot wait until we get to the time where we get the opportunity to repeal this. It makes our ballot longer. It confuses people. This is just anytime there is basically revenue passed, it has to appear as an Advisory Vote, which does not have any force of law. It doesn't actually do anything. It is basically a poll about something that has already happened. So yes, vote to approve. But also I would really like a movement to vote to eliminate these Advisory Votes. One thing it does is it makes the ballot longer, which is not pleasant for a lot of people. What do you think, Bryce? [00:07:49] Bryce Cannatelli: Yeah, I wanted to hop in just to say that the choices are Repealed and Maintained. And so the suggestions to vote to approve them are to Maintain them as the maintain option. But yeah, no, I definitely agree. We've talked about it in past shows. We talk about it off the air. Getting people to vote down-ballot is always a challenge. And these Advisory Votes just get in the way of that. I think we'll have more to talk about when we get to the Proposition Nos. 1A and 1B question on the back of the ballot about what length might do to people answering those questions. [00:08:25] Crystal Fincher: All right. So we are here in King County. We all have King County ballots. The next thing I see on my ballot - I think you probably see the next thing on yours - as we travel down from the Advisory Votes, is actually King County, a County Charter Amendment. Charter Amendment No. 1 - even-numbered election years for certain county offices. Question: Shall the King County Charter be amended to move elections for the county offices of Executive, Assessor, Director of Elections, and Councilmembers from odd-numbered years to even-numbered years? Why is it important to move from odd-numbered to even-numbered years according to the advocates for this charter amendment, Mike? [00:09:10] Mike McGinn: The single most important thing you can do to improve voter turnout. When you look at election results in the state of Washington, Oregon, anywhere else around the country, so many more people turn out in an even year because you also have congressional elections or presidential elections. It's just a more momentous ballot than the odd year elections. And so if you think people should vote more, if you think democracy is a good thing, moving it to an even year is great. The county has the option to do that. Cities can't just do it on their own - they need a change in state law. Representative Mia Gregerson has been pushing for that and others have pushed for it. In addition to getting more people to vote, it also really improves the demographics of the ballot. We're getting more young people, more people of color, more immigrant refugees - who are here and can legally vote. We're just getting so many more people voting that we're getting a more representative ballot. So I've been a big proponent of this. You just get a different electorate. You get a better, more representative electorate. And if what you care about, and I do, is more affordable housing - if you get an older, more conservative electorate, they're going to oppose new housing and they're going to oppose new taxes for affordable housing. They're going to be more likely to say, keep the car lane and don't make it easier to walk or bike or use transit. So we need to get an electorate and get elections in even years where we have an electorate that more reflects where we need to go. And hearing from more people, if you believe in democracy, it's great. So big kudos to King County Council for - and Girmay Zahilay, in particular - for championing this. And hopefully we can move all the elections to even years. By the way, we'll save some money too. We'll have fewer elections that the elections offices have to step up for. [00:11:15] Crystal Fincher: I'd love to see it. What do you think about it, Dr. Cheng? [00:11:18] Shannon Cheng: I'm really excited. We talk a lot about - on this show - about how local elections really matter and that local government is really where you feel the actual changes and impacts in people's day-to-day lives. And so having some of more of our local elections in a year where more people are going to be paying attention to it, I think it will be super helpful. I know I talked to somebody recently who felt like they were in Washington state and so their vote didn't matter. And, we're going to get to these other races. And I was trying to tell them, no, we have things on our ballot that really do matter, like the King County Prosecutor and judges and all that. And I think just combining it in a way where people are going to be paying more attention to these things that really matter in their lives will be super helpful. [00:12:03] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Well said - I agree. Next up on the ballot for King County is Proposition No. 1, the Conservation Futures Levy. So the King County Council passed Ordinance 19-458 concerning funding to protect open space lands in King County. The proposition would provide funding to pay, finance, or refinance acquisition and preservation of urban green spaces, natural areas, wildlife, and some salmon habitat, trails, river corridors, farmlands, and forests. And would reauthorize restoration of the county's Conservation Futures property tax to levy a rate that will be assessed for collection in 2023 and use the dollar amount from 2023 for the purpose of computing subsequent levy collections. So should this be approved or rejected? There are some really compelling statements about this, but this is really important for protecting open space lands in King County. There have been lots of conversations just about the preservation of land, the preservation of open and undeveloped land, and how important that is. These are conversations related to sprawl, related to just air quality, related to just people having the opportunity to recreate near where they live and not selling or developing all available land and the consequences that potentially come from that. So it is important, I think, widely acknowledged as important from people all across the aisle. It's important to maintain all of this. I see a statement submitted by Sally Jewell, who I believe is a former CEO of REI and served in a presidential administration, and De'Sean Quinn, who is a Tukwila City Council member, as well as Dow Constantine. And really, we have to take this action to protect climate change, to protect these last best places throughout King County. So far, this program has safeguarded over 100,000 acres of land, including Cougar Mountain, the Duwamish Waterway Park, and Sammamish River Trail. And they can accelerate that with this proposition. Statement in opposition to it really basically says that, hey, parks are having challenges being maintained, and we've already done enough. I don't know that there's a lot of people here in King County feeling that we've done enough to address climate change or that we've done enough to protect local land. Protecting farms and fresh water, and open space seems like a priority to so many people in this area - and what makes this area so desirable to the people living here and those who visit and eventually come here. What do you think about this, Mike? [00:15:08] Mike McGinn: It's a parks levy. I'm for parks levies, generally. I actually got to run one once, and it was just great. And there's so much more in it than you might think. And if we talk about community - that to me is ultimately what this is about. There's clearly the environmental protection, but that's the quality of life and the community gathering places as well. So yeah, and it's a renewal. It's an expansion and a renewal of an existing levy. And I think every time you get to go to a great county facility, you just have to remember that the money came from somewhere, and this is where it comes from. They really have to pass these levies to make it work, given the way finances work for county and municipal governments. [00:15:54] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. And so this will cost the average homeowner about $2 more per month. There is relief available to qualified low-income seniors and other households. And the funding recommendations are made by an independent advisory committee and subject to external audit. So it's not just, hey, willy-nilly stuff happening here. There is accountability and oversight - looks like it is endorsed by the Nature Conservancy, Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust for Public Land, the Wilderness Society, Seattle Parks Foundation, REI, Dow Constantine and council members - just a lot of support there. I find those arguments to be particularly convincing. But this is an important one that's flown under the radar for a number of people, I think. I've gotten a lot of questions from people saying, whoa, what should I do with these county amendments and this proposition? And so just wanted to make sure that we went through that. Next on my ballot are the federal races, which have gotten a ton of coverage. I think if you listen to the show, odds are you probably know if you're going to be voting for Senator Patty Murray or her challenger, Tiffany Smiley, but that is at the top of the ballot right now. Do any of you have anything to chime in with about this race? [00:17:22] Mike McGinn: It's really fascinating to watch how this race is starting to become part of a national narrative about whether or not there's a red wave - going to hit the federal elections. And then there's some counterarguments. And we could pundit all afternoon on this one. And I'm sure a lot of you, if you're politically oriented, have really been watching the national news about what will happen in Congress. Will the Senate remain Democratic or will it turn Republican? Is the House going to flip? Most pundits say it will flip to Republican control, but there are still some folks out there holding hope that it might not. So I think the real message just is - if you cared about the national scene, you have an opportunity to play locally too. There's a Senate election in the state of Washington as well. [00:18:15] Crystal Fincher: All right. And next up on people's ballots - is going to vary based on where we live. It's going to be the congressional races. So I actually live in the Ninth Congressional District. We have a very competitive Eighth Congressional District race between Kim Schrier and Matt Larkin. Kim Schrier, the Democrat, Matt Larkin, the Republican. We have other races. Who's on your ballots? What congressional districts are you in? [00:18:43] Mike McGinn: I've got Seven, which is Pramila Jayapal and Cliff Moon. [00:18:46] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think all three of you are in Seven there. Those races are a bit less competitive. I think two of the most competitive races here are going to be Kim Schrier versus Matt Larkin. And then down in southwest Washington, actually - in the Third Congressional District - between Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and extremist Republican, MAGA Republican Joe Kent, who is just... It's hard to do justice to him by describing him because I've tried to do it and then I've been like, okay, I can't do this. Here, watch this clip of him and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez in this sit-down with a reporter, just answering questions. And it is wild. He does not think January 6th happened in the way we all saw it happened with our eyes. He thinks that it was a CIA false flag operation. He doesn't think that police officers were killed as a result of that. He's deep into conspiracy theories, deep into the election denial of the 2020 election. Just deep into so many things - eager to cut social security, eager to cut so many things, eager to defund Ukraine between Ukraine and Russia, eager to do all sorts of things at the border. This is someone who eagerly and has multiple times appeared on Tucker Carlson. This is not Jaime Herrera Beutler. This is not the type of Republican that people are used to seeing in this district, or even as people think about Republicans in this country now - even the more extreme version that people are getting familiar with. This is the tip of the spear of the most extreme. He models himself after Marjorie Taylor Greene, says he looks up to her and wants to do that, does not want to work across the aisle, doesn't see a point to it. Rarely does media outside of the conservative bubble, does not want to debate Marie Gluesenkamp Perez. This is a race where a lot is at stake. Jim Brunner just wrote an article about it this morning in The Seattle Times. Actually, he shared it - I'm not sure if he wrote it. But this is an important one for people to get engaged in. We've talked about the importance of - even if you don't live in a district, hey, why don't you adopt a district, make some phone calls, do some phone banking, get down there and canvass - do what you can. Don't let this slip away without doing everything possible. The Third Congressional District is traditionally a Republican district, but it's traditionally a Republican district that has elected Republicans like Jaime Herrera Beutler, who were nowhere near as extreme as Joe Kent. This is a closer race than we've seen there in quite some time. If enough people get involved and if enough people get engaged, who knows what could happen? Democrats seem energized down there. This is one where - don't let it go by without everyone pitching in and doing what they can to engage in that race. Any thoughts that you have on that one? [00:22:10] Mike McGinn: This race, yeah, it does highlight just where the Republican Party has been going. I think you see some of this in the Murray-Smiley race as well. I've been really impressed by the campaigning of the Democrat in the race and the way in which she's approaching the race. This is a district that is - it's a swing district, but it's a lean-R swing district, if that makes sense. It has the Portland suburbs, but it also has more rural areas as well. Yeah, maybe this - if this were on the East Coast, people would be looking at this as a bellwether of which way the trend is going in national politics. Who knows? Maybe we'll be able to tell a little bit from the East Coast about how this race might work out by the time they start announcing results from this coast. But really, I think the D in this race - she's run a really solid race, speaking directly to people's economic concerns as a small business owner as well. And there's this thing where reporters want to talk about partisanship or polarized politics or divisiveness. And yeah, I would say the electorate is polarized - there are a hell of a lot of folks nationwide who are going to pull the lever for candidates because they want to see Republicans have charge of the chamber, regardless of the shortcomings of the local candidate. It's a really fascinating phenomenon that's going on. But I'm going to make an argument that it's - the Democrats look a lot like candidates I've seen in the past running. And the Republicans don't, in my mind, in terms of the extremism that we start to see on whether or not the election was stolen. The number of election deniers that are out there for the last election - there's just no credible evidence that there was any voter fraud. It went in front of numerous, numerous courts. It went in front of judges appointed by Republicans and Democrats. There's just no evidence for this. And I don't know that the media knows how to handle this - that when you have one side that just denies reality and the other side is still operating mostly within the frame of U.S. politics, as I've seen it in the years I've been involved in U.S. politics, but they both-sides it so much. And I think this raises a great illustration of that. The Democrat is really a right down the middle-of-the-road type of politician, and the Republican here is espousing things that just aren't so, and it's one hell of a tight race down there, according to all the polls. And portraying this as Americans are divided or the politicians are polarizing doesn't capture what's going on. [00:25:19] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think that is a good point. What do you think, Bryce? [00:25:23] Bryce Cannatelli: Yeah, I just wanted to weave back in something that Shannon mentioned earlier, which is that there are still people who live here and who vote here, who think that they live in Washington - they live in Western Washington - they're pretty safe from things. And I think this race is an important reminder that there are people running with these extreme views. There are these people running here in the state with really far-right priorities and goals. And this is a federal race, so it's gotten a lot of media attention, but it just highlights how important it is to pay attention to local races as well - races that for the State House and for State Senate and other positions - and just pay attention to what people are running on and making sure when we see people coming with extreme and dangerous views, that that's called out, that we let people know. Election Day is still in a few days. There's still opportunities to inform voters in this district about the candidates. There are still opportunities for voters who are really worried about rhetoric like this and candidates like this to get out there and talk to voters and inform them about this race. [00:26:32] Crystal Fincher: This conversation reminds me of one other thing, and actually was having a conversation about this as we were punditing on Kiro the other day. And there are some Republicans who are going - well, they're calling everybody extreme. Yeah, they're calling Joe Kent extreme, but they're also calling Tiffany Smiley extreme. And they're not the same extreme, but they're painting them with the same brush - you're hearing that for everybody, all the Republicans. If you say it about everybody, it's meaningless. And the challenge is, and the thing that the Republican Party has set up, is that they do have these extremists who are out further than a lot of the other Republicans that are elected, at least outwardly, right? And saying things that have been openly covered as white nationalism, Christian nationalism, that have been anti-Semitic, that have been racist, that have been homophobic, anti-trans, anti-gay - just very openly blatant right? And that is absolutely extreme. And no, not every Republican is outwardly openly saying that. They leave that to the Joe Kents and the Marjorie Taylor Greenes. But what is striking to me is how they have not been reined in by the people who have previously been considered as moderate and have previously been considered as the adults in the room. Those adults in the room are doing nothing to contain that extremist element in the party, and in fact, have given them more power, more visibility. The Republican Party, all of their caucuses have pumped money into these campaigns. Their allied PACs and supporters have pumped money into these campaigns and have been apologists for them. So if you will not rebuke when you hear those things said, if you will not stand up and say, you know what, I'm standing for these principles, and that person is not doing that, and we're both carrying the same label - I don't want to carry the same label as a person who is saying that - that is not what I stand for. We're not standing shoulder to shoulder. We're hearing none of that. We're hearing silence. And there are some people who want to interpret that silence as, well, clearly they don't agree. And when I talk to them, they sound perfectly reasonable, and they've been moderate in the past. We're hearing some of the most troubling things that we have in a while. Just the open anti-Semitism, the open racism, the open homophobia and transphobia that we're seeing is alarming. They're passing laws against it. This is not theoretical language. And we're seeing political violence as a direct result. That, of course, was predicted, right? When we hear speech like that, it incites violence. We have talked about it inciting violence, and it incited violence in multiple places, in multiple ways. And we've seen that just in the past couple of weeks - from January 6th to Nancy Pelosi to the Michigan governor - we're seeing this all over the place, right? And so silence is enabling violence. Silence is not moderation. It's enabling this extremism and violence. So yes, when you hear them all being painted with the same broad brush, it's because they're doing nothing to stop this rapid descent into this cesspool that we're on the precipice of, and that some states have already fallen to, right? It's important to vocally stand up against this, against hate, whenever we see it. And that's not a partisan statement. And if a party is trying to say that when you say that you need to call out violence, that you need to call out political violence, that you need to stand up and talk against anti-Semitism and call it what it is, and somehow they're putting a partisan label on that, be very wary of a party that says that speaking against those things is speaking against their party. They're telling you what the party is about if those things they're labeling as a partisan attack. I think that's very important to be said. This is so far beyond a Democratic and Republican issue, and we have to be aware that these Republicans are caucusing together, right? They're voting together for a national agenda, and we've heard this national agenda articulated. We've heard the things that they're queuing up. We've seen the types of policies that they're passing in places like Florida and Texas. We have the preview of what's coming there, and it is ugly, right? And ugly to people who used to consider themselves Republican. So to me, this is beyond the conversation of just Democrat and Republican. This is a conversation that we have to have before we even get to issues, because if we're leading with that hateful rhetoric and we're leading with that extremism, it really doesn't matter what someone is saying about issues, because the things that they are saying about people in their community is already excluding people and already doing that. I think that's extremely important to say, that we can't say that enough, and that trying to dismiss this extremism, and dismiss criticisms of it, and dismiss the refusal to call it out for what it is - is extremism itself. All right. So next on our ballot, we have the state races, starting with Secretary of State, which is a lively race. Now, we have talked a bunch about the Secretary of State race, and have also been posting a lot about it on the Hacks & Wonks Twitter account this week. So for that, between Democrat Steve Hobbs and Non-partisan Julie Anderson, we're going to refer you to those other shows. We'll put links in the show notes. We'll put links to the little audiograms and snippets that we have of the candidates' takes on different things. Steve Hobbs was a longtime Democratic senator known as a moderate for quite some time - and Julie Anderson actually just released a new ad that talks about that and him as a moderate. And then Julie Anderson has been the Pierce County auditor in Pierce County for 12 years, I believe now, and has built relationships around that area. So that's an interesting race to follow. We'll put those links in there, but that's the next one on the ballot. And then we get into the legislative races, which are going to be different depending on which legislative district that you're in. I just wanted to mention a few of the battleground districts here in the state. So one of them is in the 26th Legislative District Senate race - very important - between Emily Randall, Senator Emily Randall, and current Representative Jesse Young, who's running for that Senate seat. Emily's a Democrat with a strong record and has been representing that community and been in the community for quite some time. Jesse Young is one of the more extreme Republicans in our legislature, has - in the mold of the Matt Sheas, who made a lot of news for his activity in domestic terrorism. And if you think that sounds like a euphemism or like a stretch of the truth, I mean literal domestic terrorism like running a camp training people for war and putting tracking devices on law enforcement vehicles, and making threats to political opponents - extremism - and advancing bills to outlaw abortion in Washington state under threat of putting doctors in prison - that kind of extremism. And Jesse Young, as we talked about last week with Pierce County Council Chair Derek Young, has actually been suspended from working with legislative staff because of his past behavior and harassment or abuse. He is no longer permitted to have legislative staff, which is certainly hobbling in one's ability to get their job done. They lean very heavily on those staff. And so not being allowed to have one and having to do or not get done all of the administrative work, preparation work, ability to meet with constituents, ability to review and prepare legislation and represent the community is absolutely hobbled by that. But that is actually a really close race. Another one where it makes sense if you can adopt a race, that 26th Legislative District is a really important one where people can get involved with and make their voices heard. Also, the 47th Legislative District is a hotbed of activity - a competitive Senate race there - open seat left by the exiting Senator Mona Das and is being competed for by former State Senator, Democrat Claudia Kauffman and Republican Bill Boyce. This has been a purple district, a swing district, has elected both Democrats and Republicans. This district has a history of extremely close races. And so we have a race here where we're seeing some of the dynamics that we see in Democrat versus Republican races. Choice is a huge issue here. Bill Boyce - being bankrolled by far-right Republicans - has been giving really mushy responses about what he thinks about a woman's right to choose. And so that is certainly on the ballot, as well as just the history of corporate giveaways, tax - as was quoted in the paper - tax breaks and sweetheart deals given to rich developers and donors. And so certainly looking at the donor rolls there, you get a different story of who those legislators would be based on the activity there. So another very important partisan race. 42nd Legislative District, a very competitive race between Sharon Shewmake and Simon Sefzik - another Democrat versus Republican race - very important here for the Senate and just a variety of things. And again, we're seeing just greater space between the two parties. Here in the state, we, I think, have seen Republicans who have considered themselves moderate and who have been less eager to engage in some of the social wedge issue rhetoric that sometimes we see on a national basis. There have been Republicans who wore it as a badge of honor previously to say, no, that's not me. I'm focused on these other issues, but stand up. And whether it's being pro-choice, whether it is standing up for marriage equality. There have been some before here who have done that, some who haven't, but some who have. We are not seeing that now. Things are following the direction of some of the national races. And so we have that there. 30th Legislative District with Claire Wilson and Linda Kochmar, as well as the race between Jamila Taylor and Casey Jones are close - and so engaging in those is important. And then the 44th Legislative District with John Lovick, the Democrat who was previously a representative, currently a representative, now running to be a Senator, against Republican Jeb Brewer. Republican Mark Hamsworth for the House seat versus Brandy Donaghy, who was appointed to that seat and is running to fill the term, this new term. And then April Berg versus her Republican opponent. So pay attention to those races. Please make sure that you're engaging in these battlegrounds. And then we also have just Seattle races and - that we've covered. So in the 46th Legislative District, we have a classic Seattle moderate versus progressive race. Even though those, when you get into it, the labels might be a little bit simplistic, but certainly someone who seems more resistant to taxation, more resistant to change in Lelach Rave versus Darya Faravar, who wants to take more of an active approach in addressing issues like homelessness, housing affordability, and public safety - and move more in the direction of things that we've seen with the history of working versus those that have not. So that's a choice that we have there. We also have previously interviewed Darya, and so we'll link that in the show notes for your information. The 36th Legislative District features a race between Democrats Julia Reed and Jeff Manson. We've also interviewed both in that race. And we'll link that in the show notes. The 37th Legislative District is one where we did a primary candidate forum, have interviewed both of those candidates there - Democrat Chipalo Street and Democrat Emijah Smith. And we also did a debate in partnership with the South Seattle Emerald and others - hosted by the South Seattle Emerald - an in-person debate, actually. And we will link those there. I think that there are some interesting issues in that race, notable differences. We will also share kind of the lightning round stuff. But also, hey let's make sure that we're recognizing the full humanity of people and that we are not treating people who are in the LGBTQ community any differently than others. And that is an issue of difference in that race. So I encourage you all to do your homework about that and make sure that any candidate that you're voting for fully stands up for the rights of all people in our community. And that you communicate with the candidates about that and make sure all of your candidates know how important that is to you. And then we have the 34th Legislative District with Democrats Leah Griffin and Emily Alvarado. We've interviewed both of them. We'll link both of those shows in the show notes. So there are contested races throughout Seattle. Encourage you to vote in those races and make your choice. If you need help, refer to our show notes or to officialhacksandwonks.com. We have an Election 2022 page there and we'll put all of the resources on there. Next, we go to the County Prosecuting Attorney's race here in King County, that is between Jim Ferrell, who is the mayor of Federal Way, and Leesa Manion, who's the current Chief of Staff in the Prosecuting Attorney's Office. Jim Ferrell has been endorsed by folks like the King County Republican Party, some mayors, King County Council member Pete von Reichbauer, like the Covington and Algona mayor. Leesa Manion has been endorsed by the King County Democratic party, former governor Gary Locke, local labor unions. So there's a little bit of a difference in the profile of their supporters that kind of indicates the approach that they're looking to take. One, being more in line with some of the data that we're seeing in the most effective approaches to addressing crime and accountability - that has yielded some results in what we've seen, especially with youth crime and youth intervention, which seems to be particularly effective with Leesa Manion and her managing this office and hundreds of staff and attorney, which is certainly in line with what the County Prosecuting Attorney needs to do. Jim Ferrell, coming from the mayor of Federal Way, has talked about more of a punitive approach to this and is talking about cracking down on some of the things that we have been seeing as successful. It's interesting in how this race is shaping up and what the candidates are talking about and what they aren't talking about with them. Certainly Leesa has been leaning into her experience, the type of coalition that she's building, whether it's people who are in support of more common sense gun reform and making sure guns don't proliferate on the streets, to those who are looking to maintain accountability but make sure that we're doing the things that give folks the best chance of reducing recidivism, or people returning, or revictimizing people who are committing further crimes. Jim Ferrell seems very focused on trying to apply longer sentences, lengthier sentences, talking about a more, again, punitive approach, prosecuting more, longer sentences - that type of stuff. So with that, what do you think? What is your take on this race, Shannon? [00:44:01] Shannon Cheng: So this race is between Leesa Manion, who's the current Chief of Staff for the outgoing King County Prosecutor, Dan Satterberg - she's been in that position for quite a time. And her opponent is Jim Ferrell, who is the current mayor of Federal Way. So when I look at this race, I see - with Leesa Manion who - it's a continuation of what King County has been doing, which I would characterize as incremental reform of the criminal legal system to be more fair and equitable. I think this can be embodied in initiatives they aspire to, such as declaring racism as a public health crisis or the goal of Zero Youth Detention. So I think with Manion, you will get a continuation of the slow work that the county is doing to try to make our criminal legal system more equitable and fair. Whereas with Ferrell, I see this as a candidate who's trying to throw us back to punitive tactics that have been proven to be ineffective. He wants to be more tough-on-crime and is riding this wave of Republicans pointing to crime as being the reason not to support the Democratic candidate. I think that Ferrell has specifically spoken about being against and wanting to roll back some of the diversion programs that King County has started to try to use, especially for youth. And I also - even if you don't - if you agree on this punitive approach, I think it's also worth considering that right now the legal system is kind of at capacity. So what Ferrell is suggesting is going to put even more strain on it. The courts are already - have backlogs coming from the pandemic and the jails are full and not functioning well and not providing people humane conditions to be in there. So I just fear that that will lead to a lot more suffering for many people across our county. And I think this is a really important race to look at and think about. [00:46:12] Crystal Fincher: So Mike, what's your take on this? [00:46:14] Mike McGinn: It's interesting to see the contrast here. It's a local version of this national debate that we have now seen - that the proper response to crime is to crack down harder. And we're seeing this here as well. I worked with Dan Satterberg and he was a really interesting elected official. And honestly, to me, I may not have agreed with him on every decision - I know I didn't agree with him on every decision he made. But he was a civil servant first and foremost. He was trying to figure out what was the right path forward. He was engaged in the discussion. He led on things like Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion, people returning to the community from jail - getting their records cleared and restoration of rights. So he was really, and it's interesting, he was elected as a Republican, moved the race to a nonpartisan race and then was elected as a Democrat. So he clearly was somebody who was willing to go where the evidence led and not go based on ideology. So that's the experience we've had from that office, which is, I think, what you want in a prosecutor's office. It's a pretty important position. The effect it has on people's lives is immense. I think that really says something that we see someone looking to continue that tradition. And then we see someone coming in with - if only we punished people more. How's that been working? Really? We have some information on that, which is it doesn't really work. It takes a combination of the judicial system and community systems to really try to deal with root causes of crime, to deal with recidivism, to deal with the issues here. And I think that this is a little bit of a bellwether here. Are we going to try to be a progressive place, a progressive county that adopts and looks at new approaches? Or are we going to go to a more regressive approach to this? Because, yeah, that's worked so well in solving crime over the decades. [00:48:34] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think so. What's your take, Bryce? [00:48:37] Bryce Cannatelli: Yeah, I don't know how much more I have to add to this other than just the importance of this race and the importance of making sure we have somebody who's really thinking about the - not just people's emotional concerns about crime, but the actions and the strategies and the programs that have been proven to address the things that actually lower crime. We've talked on a number of different episodes throughout this year about programs that have successfully reduced recidivism. And those are programs that often get criticized by people who claim to be tough on crime. And I just think that's something to interrogate our candidates about for this position, because the county prosecutor has a lot of influence in terms of how the county addresses crime in a way that's going to impact real people in big ways. [00:49:29] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I agree. I will chime in and say that we just got a new public poll here that was just reported on, I think yesterday, showing that this race is basically statistically tied. So turnout is going to be really important. Lots of people talk about - they look at the federal races - they wonder if their vote matters. They're going, okay millions of people are voting. Why does mine make a difference? Really what makes a difference are these down-ballot races, are these local races. If you care about the issues of homelessness, justice, equity, affordability, what our community looks like, who it serves - our criminal legal system is an essential part of that equation. And we're talking about, in so many of these conversations, how we intervene and address victims. And most people who have perpetrated crimes have been victims of them. And how we intervene when people are victims, especially early, and especially when they're young, dictates how their future goes and whether they end up on the path to criminalization and poverty or a better path. So the way we intervene in that makes a difference. The way we treat and handle these cases that come through and how we address accountability depends on whether our streets are made safer, whether our tax dollars are used in a way that makes it less likely that people are going to commit crime and less likely that people are victimized or more, right? And we're seeing the impacts of the status quo of a more punitive approach. And either we choose to keep doing the same thing, and polls keep showing that no one is satisfied with the condition of things today. And so we do need to consider that when we are making these choices. And I hope you take a long, hard look at that. And most of all, get engaged and vote, make sure other people vote. And talk about these races, talk about the county attorney races, talk about the judicial races that we're going to talk about in just a moment, right? These are very important. Turnout is not where we would love it to be. It's lagging behind some previous years here locally, especially among younger people. And I know that is concerning to some. So the more that people can do to make sure that everyone can - and the most impactful thing you can do is just text those close to you, call those close to you, talk to them. Hey, coworker - hey, did you get that ballot in? What are you doing for this race? Remember, this is important. Hey, cousin, hey, brother, sister, mom - it's those connections close to you and those personal contacts that actually make it more likely for those people to vote. External organizations can try and do all the voter mobilization that they can and that work is valuable and good and should happen. But hearing from someone who you care about and who cares about you saying, hey, make sure you do this, you have any questions, you need help - is one of the best things you can do to make sure that people actually turn out to vote. So with that, we can talk about a couple of these judicial races, which are next on the ballot. Now we see the state Supreme Court races and we see Justice Mary Yu, who - you probably hear affection and admiration in my voice because I have affection and admiration for Justice Mary Yu. We also have a great interview with her from a few months back that we will post in the episode notes. Justice Barbara Madsen, also wonderful. Justice Helen Whitener, who is just - look, I'm going to just go ahead and get personal. Justice Helen Whitener is everything. I just need everyone to know that Justice Whitener is everything from - just everything. Her experience - vast, broad experience - in so many elements and areas of the law. The thoughtfulness, the lived experience, the outreach into the community - just a beautiful human being and an effective and intelligent justice. I am a fan of Justice Helen Whitener and we've done a couple interviews with Justice Whitener. And fortunately this time she isn't being challenged by anyone mediocre like she was last time, so this is an uncontested race. And when I say mediocre - I mean just got his license to practice law in order to run against someone with a resume as vast and deep as Justice Whitener's. And so now we'll talk about the contested municipal judge races in the City of Seattle between Damon Shadid, who is the incumbent in that one seat - has been endorsed by a number of Democratic organizations, received Exceptionally Well Qualified by a number of organizations, and is standing on his record. And a new challenger from the City Attorney's Office, Nyjat Rose-Akins, who is endorsed by the King County Republican Party and Jenny Durkan, and is wanting to make changes to some things and talking about the record of Community Court and changes that she wants to make there. In the other race, we have judge Adam Eisenberg, who has been rated Exceptionally Well Qualified by a number of the local and ethnic bar associations, but also has received a high number of negative feedback and surveys from the King County Bar Association and concerns about management and whether women are treated fairly under his management. And then Pooja Vaddadi, who is a newcomer and a new challenger, who has been - received a number of Democratic endorsements, but also has not received any ratings from local judicial bar associations because she has chosen not to stand in front of them for ratings. Bryce, how would you characterize those races? [00:55:42] Bryce Cannatelli: Like Crystal said, we got to hear from all of these candidates in a forum. I'll start with the Damon Shadid and Nyjat Rose-Akins portion of it - they're running for Position 7. Damon Shadid has been a judge in this position for quite a while. And the main point of difference between the two is Nyjat Rose-Akins often talked about during the forum criticisms of Community Court and her interest in making a lot of changes to the Community Court system, whereas Judge Shadid has defended what that court has been able to do and hopes to see it continue in its current direction. As far as Pooja Vaddadi and Judge Eisenberg, that's another kind of longtime incumbent in the position - I can't remember how long he's been in that role - and a newcomer. And Pooja Vaddadi brought up concerns about the way that Judge Eisenberg has handled himself in the courtroom. You can hear her talk about that in our forum specifically at the end - is something that her campaign has been highlighting as of late, but also just the need that she claims there is in the municipal court for some changes. [00:56:52] Crystal Fincher: What's your take on those races, Shannon? [00:56:55] Shannon Cheng: So I think - so for the Judge Eisenberg and Pooja Vaddadi race - Pooja Vaddadi is a practicing public defender. And I think her experience in being in the court with somebody such as Judge Eisenberg presiding - it was a maybe not great experience for her. And so she saw a lot of injustice there and felt called to try to step up and bear witness and call out what was happening and how she has a different vision for how that court could be run. I personally appreciate that because I think judicial races are just very low information. It's really hard - as Crystal just went through, there was a long list of uncontested judges on the ballot - and I often look at those names and I have no idea who those people are. And so it has been interesting in this race to get a window into how courts work. And I know for me, it's been very educational. And I continue to aspire to learn more about how courts are run and what matters. And yeah, so for the Damon Shadid and Nyjat Rose-Akins - as Bryce said, I think it comes down to the vision of how Community Court will be run in the future in Seattle. Whether you want somebody from the City Attorney's Office driving the vision of how to handle low-level offenses in the city versus the path that we had been on to to try to support people in need and not further entangle them in a system that kind of - a system that can snowball on people's lives. [00:58:41] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think that's right on. And I think in these races, we are seeing a little bit of a difference. There has been a lot called out by Pooja Vaddadi's campaign. But in fairness, I think you referred to Pooja talking about how she was partly moved to run for this position based on some of the injustices she saw. But one of the issues in this race that has been brought up is that Judge Eisenberg was the recipient of the highest number of - basically highest amount of negative feedback. King County Bar Association does an anonymous poll of its member attorneys for judges and the highest percentage of attorneys returned negative responses for Judge Eisenberg - higher than all of the other judges and gave that feedback. Judge Eisenberg didn't seem to feel that that had any validity. And he talked about how he had been rated Exceptionally Well Qualified, which is the highest rating given by a number of different bar associations. And it being pretty standard that judges go before different bar associations and get interviewed and they evaluate their fitness for judicial office and provide a rating from Exceptionally Well Qualified, I think Very Well Qualified, just on there. And so he had a number of highest ratings. And Pooja Vaddadi decided not to sit in front of those. And she said it was because she felt that it was biased or tilted or they would automatically give high ratings to incumbents, but not give high ratings to people who weren't incumbents. So she didn't feel the need to sit before them, which is a bit different. A lot of first-time candidates do go before those bodies and are evaluated and come out with decent ratings. I'm trying to think if I recall first-time candidates getting Exceptionally Well Qualified - I think I recall a couple, but also some who haven't. So I don't know, there very well may be a role that incumbency plays in that, but that was an element in that race that came through. As well as prior coverage about whether Judge Eisenberg potentially gave someone a harsher sentence for exercising their right to a jury trial instead of accepting a plea deal. And that being a wrong thing - that is a right that people have to exercise. And whether someone pleads guilty to a charge on a deal or is found guilty on that charge, penalizing someone simply for choosing to go to trial is not something that should happen and is certainly frowned upon. And so there was some coverage in question about that. We can also link that in the show notes. So those are certainly interesting races. And I think Shannon summed up really well just what's at stake moving forward in the Damon Shadid and Nyjat Rose-Akins race. So now let's get into the meat of a Seattle big-time initiative - Propositions 1A and 1B, which are on the City of Seattle ballot. They are not on my ballot, but we've got ballots waving with Shannon and Bryce and Mike over here talking about this question. [01:02:10] Mike McGinn: Do you want me to take a shot at it? [01:02:11] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, go ahead. Take a shot at it, Mike McGinn. [01:02:16] Mike McGinn: Okay. We all know how ballots work - you get a choice between - in the primary, you normally get a whole lot of candidates to vote for and you pick one. And what this is proposing is that in the City of Seattle, whether you want a different way to vote that will give you more choices. So the first question is, and let me tell you what the two choices are. One is called approval voting. So you'd look at your ballot and you'd have multiple people on the ballot and anyone that you approved of, you'd vote for. So you could vote for one, two, three, four, to approve as many as you want. And the idea there is that you don't want to have to restrict your vote to one candidate. And I have to say there have been times when I've had multiple friends on the ballot - I just want to be able to say I voted for all of them. But there are other good reasons to want to maybe approve multiple candidates. The other style is something called ranked choice voting. So in that case, you'd rank the candidates - one, two, three, four, five. And they'd add up the votes, and whoever the lowest vote getter was would get dropped off. And so let's say - I'm standing here with Bryce and Shannon and Crystal - let's say I had ranked them Crystal first, and then Bryce, and then Shannon. If Crystal was the lowest vote getter, she'd be off the list. And my vote would now go to Bryce - my second vote would be counted. And you do this by a process of eliminating the lowest-ranked candidate until you get to a winner. And we'll probably get more into why - what are the differences between the two systems and why they're better. And there's a whole world of election nerddom, which is substantial - what is the best way to represent what the voters really want, but you're going to get to choose here. So the real question is, do you want to keep the existing system - and that's the first question on the ballot - or do you want a new system? And if you vote Yes, I want a new system, you'll also be asked - well, actually, no matter how you vote on whether you want a new system - you're then asked, which one do you like more, approval voting or ranked choice voting? So yeah, it is pretty dense and complicated. You probably want to sit down and look at this. But if I could break it down for you - if you think you want more ways to have your vote count and have more discretion in how to award it to people, you'll want to vote Yes on the initial question. And then you'll get to weigh in and decide which one of those two - approval or ranked choice voting - you like more. And that'll tee it up for people to offer their opinions on what they like more on the rest of the podcast. How was that? Did I do okay, guys, in getting the description out? [01:05:13] Crystal Fincher: You did! You did, in fact, do okay of getting the description out. And I think also just the - functionally on the ballot - what you said was really important and I just want to reiterate. So this - we're talking about - okay, there are two choices there, approval voting and ranked choice voting. But when you get your ballot, you're going to see that it is constructed in a way that's not just that simple choice. There really is an initial question and then a secondary question. The initial question - why don't you just read what's on the ballot? [01:05:47] Bryce Cannatelli: Yeah, I could do that. I can also hold it up to you, so you can see the wall of text that happens beforehand. Shannon is shaking her head on the video feed, because - Seattle voters will know it if they've opened their ballots - there's a lot of text that goes before you can actually answer the question. So please read your ballot from top to bottom to make sure that you vote for everything. But the way that it's formatted is we get an explanation of both of the individual propositions. So it says Proposition 1A, submitted by initiative petition number 134, and Proposition 1B, alternative proposed by the city council and mayor, concern allowing voters to select multiple candidates in city primary elections. Proposition 1A would allow voters in primary elections for mayor, city attorney and city council to select on the ballot as many candidates as they approve of for each office. The two candidates receiving the most votes for each office would advance to the general election consistent with state law. The city would consult with King County to include instructions on the primary ballot, such as vote for as many as you approve of for each office. As an alternative, the city council and mayor have proposed Proposition 1B, which would allow primary election voters for mayor, city attorney and

Today's episode is a recording of a live forum between Seattle Municipal Court Judge candidates - Judge Adam Eisenberg and Pooja Vaddadi for Position 3, Nyjat Rose-Akins and Judge Damon Shadid for Position 7. The forum was live streamed by Hacks & Wonks on October 12, 2022 and moderated by Crystal Fincher.   Resources Find links to the YouTube video and transcript here   Campaign Website - Judge Adam Eisenberg   Campaign Website - Pooja Vaddadi   Campaign Website - Nyjat Rose-Akins   Campaign Website - Judge Damon Shadid   Register to vote, update your registration, see what's on your ballot and more here   Past felony conviction? Information on re-registering to vote at the Washington Voting Rights Restoration Coalition   Transcript [00:00:00] Bryce Cannatelli: Hello everyone. This is Bryce from the Hacks & Wonks team. Today's episode is a recording of our City of Seattle Municipal Court Judge forum which was originally streamed live on October 12. You can find video from the event as well as a full text transcript on our website officialhacksandwonks.com. Thank you for listening! [00:00:34] Crystal Fincher: Greetings, everyone. My name is Crystal Fincher. I'm a political consultant and the host of this candidate forum tonight. Welcome to this Hacks & Wonks 2022 Primary Candidate Forum for City of Seattle Municipal Court Judge Positions 3 and 7. For those who need a refresher, the Seattle Municipal Court handles all misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor crimes, civil infractions, and other offenses authorized under the Seattle municipal Code and Revised Code of Washington statutes. Misdemeanors are crimes where the maximum sentence is 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine. Gross Misdemeanors are crimes that carry a maximum sentence of 364 days in jail and a $5,000 fine, including offenses such as driving under the influence, domestic violence, theft, and trespass. Infractions are acts that are prohibited by law but are not legally defined as a crime, like parking tickets and traffic or non-traffic infractions. And Civil Offenses are filed with the court when the City of Seattle seeks enforcement of its fire code, housing, and other city ordinance violations. The majority of the Seattle Municipal Court Judges' time is dedicated to jury trials and pretrial hearings. They also hear sentencings, arraignments, reviews, non-jury, or 'bench' trials, and can perform marriage ceremonies. Seattle Municipal Court has seven judges who are elected to four-year terms. Every other year, the judges select one judge to act as the Presiding Judge for a two-year term. The Presiding Judge's responsibilities including: overseeing the magistrates, lead the management and administration of the court's business, recommend policies and procedures that improve the court's effectiveness, allocate resources that maximize the court's ability to resolve disputes fairly and expeditiously, and determine judicial assignments. We're excited to be able to live stream this forum on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. Additionally, we are recording this forum for rebroadcast and later viewing. We invite our audience to ask questions of our candidates. If you're watching a live stream online, then you can ask questions by commenting on the live stream. You can also text your questions to 206-395-6248, and that number will scroll at the bottom of the screen. The candidates running for City of Seattle Municipal Court Judge Position 3 with us right now are - in alphabetical order - Adam Eisenberg and Pooja Vaddadi. And for Position 7 we have - again, in alphabetical order - Nyjat Rose-Akins and Damon Shadid. A few reminders before we jump into the forum. I want to remind you to vote. Ballots will be mailed to your mailbox starting Wednesday, October 19th - that's this coming Wednesday. You can register to vote, update your registration, and see what will be on your ballot at MyVote.wa.gov. I want to mention that tonight's answers will be timed. Each candidate will have one minute to introduce themselves initially, and 90 seconds to answer each subsequent question. Candidates may be engaged with rebuttal or follow up with questions and will have 30 seconds to respond. Time will be indicated by the colored dot labeled "timer" on the screen. The dot will initially appear as green, when there are 30 seconds left it will turn yellow, and when there are 10 seconds left it will turn red. You will be muted when time is up. Now we'll turn to the candidates who will each have one minute to introduce themselves, starting with Adam Eisenberg. Then Pooja Vaddadi. Next Nyjat Rose-Akins. Finally Damon Shadid. So starting with our first candidate. [00:04:13] Judge Adam Eisenberg: Good evening. Municipal courts present a unique opportunity for restorative justice and diversion. For many of the people who come before me, this is their first stop in the legal system - I want it to be their last. I grew up with an abusive father and I know that treatment is critical to healing survivors, families, and abusers. That's why I helped create the Domestic Violence Intervention Project, a community-based program that serves as an alternative to jail. DVIP provides individualized treatment to break cycles of abuse and trauma. I'm proud to be the only LGBTQ+ member of the Seattle Municipal Court bench. Before being appointed in 2017, I had 25 years of experience as a prosecutor, civil defense attorney, magistrate and commissioner. I believe my diverse background is why I've been rated "Exceptionally Well Qualified" by the King County Bar and four minority bar associations. It's also why I've been elected Presiding Judge by my peers and why I have the support of Supreme Court Justices Yu, González and Whitener, local district Democrats, the unions that represent our court clerks and many more. Thank you. [00:05:11] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. And next. [00:05:17] Pooja Vaddadi: Okay, sorry - thank you. My name is Pooja Vaddadi and I'm running for judge in Seattle to serve the community that raised me and bring about a positive change in the culture of Seattle Municipal Court. I'm a career public defender and my platform is centered on a recommitment to fairness, compassion, and restorative justice. At this time, I've been endorsed by every Democratic organization in Seattle and King County that has endorsed in this race, as well as the Washington Young Democrats, the Democrats for Diversity and Inclusion and the National Women's Political Caucus. Aside from three legislative districts, these endorsements are exclusive. I always planned to run for judge, but I wish that I didn't have to run right now. Practice at Seattle Municipal Court showed me a toxic and biased judiciary acting against the interest of public safety and undermining the institution of the court. I'm running now because it is urgent that we change direction. This campaign is about the people of Seattle. As a public defender, I came to understand the specific challenges that prevent misdemeanor defendants from interacting productively with the criminal justice system. I'm running to bring the court back in touch with the law and with the circumstances of those it serves. [00:06:17] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Nyjat Rose-Akins. [00:06:21] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Thank you. Good evening. My name is Nyjat Rose-Akins and I'm running for Position 7 on the Seattle Municipal Court bench. I love Seattle. I became a U.S. citizen here, but I've seen the breakdown in collaboration across the city. I'm running to help repair that breakdown to improve the community's confidence in the court and to return to an individualized approach to judicial decision-making. I'm running because I've spent the last 12 years working with victims and managing relationships - the community relationships with police. In my 12 years at the City Attorney's Office, I've partnered with businesses, government officials, community members, and law enforcement. I've seen firsthand that issues affecting communities are rarely resolved in silos. Real change takes collaboration from all those involved, a willingness to listen, and the ability to have the courage to say when things are not working. I am running for Seattle Municipal Court to make it better. Thank you. [00:07:20] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Damon Shadid. [00:07:22] Judge Damon Shadid: My name is Judge Damon Shadid. I've been a judge at Seattle Municipal Court for the past eight years. For the past four years, I've been presiding over the majority of Seattle Municipal Court's therapeutic courts - including Community Court which I helped found, Mental Health Court which I helped expand, and the Consolidated Calendar which I was able to create in partnership with other criminal legal system organizations. All of these programs have one thing in common. Accountability is best sought through rehabilitation, not through holding people in jail. Without rehabilitation, we are not going to make our community safer - and that's what all of my programs do. It is an individualized approach to find out what people's barriers are and to help them connect with the vital social services that will help them exit the criminal legal system. I'm proud to be endorsed by the Progressive Voters Guide, by The Seattle Times, by nine Supreme Court Justices, by many labor organizations, as well as community leaders, including - [00:08:31] Crystal Fincher: Thank you, I believe that's your time. Our first question will begin with Nyjat Rose-Akins, then follow up with Damon Shadid. What is your evaluation of the Community Court system? What is working and what's not working? [00:08:46] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Thank you for that question. My evaluation of the Community Court system that is run out of Seattle Municipal Court is that it is not working. I have been partnering with members in the community as well as businesses and really trying to understand what is happening in that court. As a prosecutor - when I initially started at the City Attorney's Office in 2010 - I worked in Community Court. So I understand how the program is supposed to work. And currently I do not believe it's working because right now it seems as if it's a very indiscriminate approach to low-level crime, meaning it seems as if all types of crimes can come in regardless of what that individual may be doing in the community and whether or not that individual continues to commit crime even after being in Community Court. For instance, an individual - me reviewing the docket in the court, the court dockets - I've seen individuals with six, seven, eight crimes all at one time in Community Court. That shows me that that is not working. And low-level crime should be something very small. However, I'm seeing crimes where individuals are stealing thousands of dollars, $970 from businesses and Home Depot and Target. So my issue with it is that it doesn't seem to be working and we continue to just recycle people in and out without any real solution. [00:10:19] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Judge Shadid. [00:10:22] Judge Damon Shadid: It's interesting. My opponent has never appeared in Community Court, which I founded - she was in a prior iteration of Community Court. But let me give you some numbers to show you how Community Court is working. 80% of the graduates of Community Court have no further criminal law violations - 80%. That's over two years that we ran the numbers and the graduates are not coming back in the criminal legal system - that is results that work. Let me tell you something else - now, Community Court was created in a collaboration with the City Attorney's Office and with the Public Defender's Office. We meet every two weeks, we tweak the program, we make it better. And in all of these meetings - my opponent has never come to the meeting, has never offered any sort of critique of the court, but instead has come from the outside where she's only reviewed dockets, but never actually been in the court, never been in the meetings. If she had been in the meeting, she would know that they work. She would know that we're collaborating and she would know that what we are trying to do is bring accountability through rehabilitation and it is working. Of the people who come to court, 90% of those people enter Community Court. Of those 90%, 75% graduate. And of those graduates, 90% don't re-offend in the next two years. Those are real numbers. Those work and we should keep going with Community Court, make it better, and expand it. [00:11:48] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Pooja Vaddadi. [00:11:54] Pooja Vaddadi: Thank you. I believe a lot of Community Court is working. I've had a lot of clients that cycled in and out of Community Court and have been met with very many resources through that court. What I've noticed that hasn't been working is that a lot of roadblocks have been set up by the City Attorney's Office and a majority of the judges have more or less gone along with what the City Attorney proposes - and that is to exclude everybody off the High Utilizer Initiative list. That list is made up of people who have severe mental illnesses and people who are homeless and struggling with desperation and poverty. And I believe those people are the people that would benefit the most from a court like Community Court. Certain people on that list are also part of the Trueblood class and should just not be capable of being prosecuted because of the severity of their mental illness as well. And so Community Court obviously would not be the right place for them. But again, prosecution or keeping them off of any kind of diversion list is not going to help people who just cannot be prosecuted because of a mental illness. I believe that the Community Court can work better if the City Attorney, the Public Defenders and the Judges - again - decide to work together and come to a policy that works for everybody on the same page. I don't think it's working right now because people are butting heads in the court and in the Public Defenders and the City Attorney. People need to be on the same side and that's the side of public safety and helping prevent poverty and homelessness. Thank you. [00:13:24] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. And Adam Eisenberg. [00:13:27] Judge Adam Eisenberg: Yes. So the thing that's most important to understand about Community Court is it's a triage court. It's meant to get people in the court system and out of the court system as quickly as possible, hook them up with social services, give them - if we can get them to housing, get them to housing - and move them on. The reality is some folks don't fit in Community Court. And while I don't necessarily agree that coming up with a list of 109 people or 110 or whatever is the best solution, the reality is that we need to figure out a way of addressing the folks who commit very low-level crimes, but don't succeed in Community Court. That's what this group is about. The group that doesn't succeed that keeps coming back. So while there's a great success rate as Judge Shadid talks about, how do we address the folks that don't fit? There is a dispute between the prosecutors and the public defenders - the prosecutor has discretion, judges have discretion as well. And I think over time we'll see that those folks will try to figure out more services that we can provide them with. But the reality is not everybody fits in Community Court and that group is the group we have to figure how to target. Thank you. [00:14:31] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Nyjat asked for some rebuttal time. [00:14:36] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Thank you. I just wanted to address the 80% of people who go into Community Court graduate. That number is very skewed because when you do review the court docket, there are also a number of people who fail to appear or don't even show up for court. So I believe that is a skewed number based on the fact that there are multiple Community Court offers, but a number of people who do not show up for court. Additionally, the City Attorney tried to negotiate and opt some people out because they felt they - [00:15:12] Crystal Fincher: That is time there and just another reminder - rebuttal is a 30-second period. Does anyone else want any rebuttal time, or are we good? We will move on to the next question. And we'll start with Judge Shadid. We have seen news of overcrowding in jails, asks from various jail employees - including corrections officers and public defenders - saying that they don't currently have the staffing to safely man the jails, asking to reduce the population. Should that be taken into account by judges when imposing sentences? [00:15:51] Judge Damon Shadid: Well the short answer is "No, but..." And there's a big but there - and that is that the criminal legal system should be steering away from incarceration because we know incarceration doesn't help people... the criminal legal system. And as a deterrent, it is very, very controversial of whether or not a jail deterrent is actually effective. What we need to do is be expanding programs for diversion, expanding programs for rehabilitation - that's what I've spent my career doing. That's why I created the new Community Court. That's why I brought together a Consolidated Calendar where people who are already working in the community with case workers can come on one-stop shopping to a court and can resolve their cases many times without the need of jail. That's why I've expanded Mental Health Court - so that we can create release plans for the most dangerous, most vulnerable in our community - people who need close supervision, and so we can release them with very close supervision with the aid of a court clinician. This is the direction the court should be going. Accountability should come from rehabilitation, from a person's willingness to engage with the social safety net services. I am proud to say that Seattle Municipal Court has not been booking people in jail up to the level of beds that we have available. We consistently come under that and we have lowered that number every year. And one of the big reasons, of course, is because of our diversion programs and I'm very proud of that fact. [00:17:20] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Next up is Nyjat. [00:17:26] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Yes, there has been a lot of issues with King County Jail, and as Judge Shadid stated, the court is not in charge of the jail and can't necessarily tell the jail what to do. I do think the court does have to factor that in when people are trying to be admitted into the jail and the jail is closed. So I think those are definitely some considerations that should be made when you are looking to maybe sentence someone to jail or determine whether bail is warranted. But I think that is done on a case-by-case basis. [00:18:03] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Adam Eisenberg. [00:18:08] Judge Adam Eisenberg: Thank you. I think the reality is judges are very much aware of the crowding in the jail. The job that we have is to decide - in this particular case, is this person a safety threat to the community? And that's really what drives most of the decisions to whether someone is going to be in jail or not. Is there substantial likelihood they're going to commit a violent crime? Are they going to interfere with the administration of justice? And then to a lesser extent, whether they're going to show up to court or if they've failed to show up multiple times. We are very much aware of the limitations of the jail. And there's also issues with staffing in general - because of COVID, they're not able to staff as well. So it's very challenging. We are booking fewer people - we've been doing that ever since COVID started. So I think that that shows that judges are very much aware of it. But at the end of the day, it comes down to - in this particular case, is this person a danger to the community or not? That's the primary driver of why someone's held in jail. And the judge has to make a decision based on that. Thank you. [00:19:06] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. And Pooja. [00:19:09] Pooja Vaddadi: Thank you. I do agree with Judge Shadid. The court should be steering away from incarceration. And so while over-crowding for sentencing should not necessarily be taken into consideration, I do think that sentencing needs to be, that culture around sentencing needs to change dramatically. Studies have shown that public safety is not improved with increased rates of incarceration. In fact, a lot like what Judge Shadid was saying as well, studies have shown that diversion programs really do help to promote public safety. With the increased rate of incarceration, with the increased rate of jail sentences between 15 to 60 days - all it does to the individual is destabilize them. Their mental health deteriorates significantly when in jail. They're faced with the overcrowding problem. They're faced with dealing with individuals that they'd never encounter in the system. And they're also cut off from all resources. I've had clients that have had a lot of problems getting their mental health meds or any other kind of medical assistance while in jail. And all it does is cut them off from the resources that can help them re-enter society more effectively, that can help them not reoffend in the future. We should focus more on diversion programs. We should teach individuals who do touch the criminal justice system to reincorporate with society a little bit better. That is what improves public safety. [00:20:40] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. And for this next question, we will start with Adam Eisenberg. What factors do you consider in granting and setting bail amounts for defendants? Should it strictly be based on whether or not someone is dangerous to society or a safety risk, therefore kind of making bail irrelevant, or does bail have a role to play in your court? How do you evaluate that? [00:21:06] Judge Adam Eisenberg: So judges are guided by Criminal Rule 3.2, which does provide that the least restrictive means is what's appropriate. And in order to set bail, you have to decide that there's a substantial likelihood someone's going to commit a violent crime if they're released, substantial likelihood that they will interfere with the administration of justice or witnesses - which could be violate no-contact orders, or continue to drink and drive after they've been charged with a DUI, or fail to appear. That is the legal requirement that we have. We're also supposed to consider whether the person has the ability to pay or not. The bail system was created over 100 years ago in our state through statutes that seem very out-of-date and don't really apply to the modern world, because clearly people who have financial means are able to bail out easier than those who don't. Although there is the Northwest Bail Fund, which actually is able to bail people out who aren't able to afford it up to a certain level. As a judge, those factors are the factors that are the ones that I'm guided by. In looking at a particular case, is this person a danger to the community? That is the primary concern that I have. The bail system is not a perfect system. California is experimenting with a no bail or bail, so you either decide to hold someone or you release them and there's not an option to bail them out. I don't know if that's a better system or not, but I'm guided by the rules and I apply it in a case-by-case basis. Thank you. [00:22:32] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Next up will be Pooja. I'll just repeat the question. What factors are considered in granting and setting bail amounts for defendants and what do you believe should be the primary consideration? [00:22:46] Pooja Vaddadi: Thank you. So that's correct - the setting of bail is determined by CrRLJ 3.2. It is what needs to be considered when determining whether a person should be released or not, or what the terms of that release are. It does need to be the least restrictive means. What I believe that a lot of judges do frequently forget though, is that the presumption of all pretrial release is actually release. Bail is not at all presumed. What this means is that unless the prosecutor can meet a very high burden in proving that that person is either a danger to the community, at risk of interfering with the administration of justice, or a risk for failure to appear - that person needs to be released from jail. The problem with bail right now is that the danger seems to be - the level of whether that person is a risk to community safety seems to be driven by how much that person can afford. The bail system, as everybody knows, is not perfect. In fact, it is incredibly flawed and it seems to incarcerate more people who simply are poor rather than anybody else. The bail and the setting of bail is also guided by the constitution and it never should be excessive. A judge needs to consider whether the setting of bail is going to do more harm than good. I've seen a client that was bound for diversion and dismissal made homeless by a capricious application of unnecessary bail in this court and I do think that the individual needs to be taken into consideration with this. Thank you. [00:24:19] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Damon? [00:24:23] Judge Damon Shadid: The plain fact of the matter is that all cash bail discriminates against poor people. That is just a fact. There's no getting around it. If you set bail on somebody, a rich person can afford to pay to get out, but a poor person can't. And that's why judges need more tools when it comes to release. That's the whole point of the Community Court, the Mental Health Court, and the Consolidated Calendar - is to give us more tools to allow people to be released on structured release programs that help them connect with services - even predisposition - so that they're safer in the community. Now, I've also started a larger project called the Jail Release Toolkit that I plan to start in Seattle and provide - and that's to try to give judges more options for structured release plans that conform with Rule 3.2, to allow us to follow the laws. Now, it also can't be ignored that the Supreme Court, when COVID started, very much told the judges that we need to only hold people in jail pretrial if they are a substantial risk of committing a violent crime. And so we've been following that, and we've learned really important things from that - and that is we don't have to hold as many people in jail pretrial as maybe we thought we did. And I think a lot of judges have learned from that as well, and so we're really in a great place right now where I believe judges are open to alternative structured releases that can make the community safer instead of just using jail. [00:25:55] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Nyjat? [00:25:57] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Yeah, so the presumption of release is where I start when reviewing a person's case. However, as everyone has said, the court is bound by looking at Rule 3.2. And other than whether or not someone is likely to commit a dangerous offense, you also will have to look at whether or not someone is actually going to come back to court. And if someone has a very high failure-to-appear rate, you have to maybe consider - if I release this person, will this person come back to court? For misdemeanor cases, the point of having alternatives and other types of programs is that these cases need to be addressed relatively quickly, and we can get the services to the people who need it. So in addition to maybe looking at someone's failure-to-appear history, maybe some other examples of things that can be done is maybe electronic home monitoring and/or day reporting, because the point is to make sure that people do not lose contact with the court. And how can we increase contact with people who are committing crimes in our community? [00:27:08] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. And we will start this with Pooja. If you observed a party in your courtroom being poorly represented by an unprepared or ineffective lawyer, how would you handle the situation? [00:27:22] Pooja Vaddadi: So a judge cannot get in between a client and their attorney. It's not my position to do that. All I can do is preside over the law. Now I'll have to rule, however - everything presents in there - and hopefully one of the attorneys speaks up in objection to the way that the representation is going on, but I can't let my personal bias get in there. Just because I think I might do the job differently doesn't mean that I would do it better than the attorney that's doing it right then and there. I should never be the one, as the judge, to substitute my own judgment for how an attorney is handling their case. They have the personal experience with their client. They have the personal experience with their particular case - the victim of the crime, the police officer, whatever it is that they're dealing with - they have that experience to know how to handle that case. Now if I do think that somebody is being unethical or anything like that, that might be a different situation where a judge might have the ability to rule on a particular ethical violation - something that is bound by the law. But again, I would never replace my own judgment nor question the authority of an attorney when they're dealing with their own case - that undermines the credibility of every attorney in that courtroom and it undermines people's confidence in the court. Thank you. [00:28:37] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Adam? [00:28:40] Judge Adam Eisenberg: Thank you. Well, I think that generally what Ms. Vaddadi has said is correct - the judges are not to interfere. However, there are certain circumstances - one day when I was a prosecutor actually, the defense attorney was drunk in the middle of a trial and her own attorney - the client is like, Your Honor, my attorney is drunk. And then the judge said, Judge Eisenberg - or sorry, Adam Eisenberg, I was his prosecutor - do you notice that she's drunk? Well, I'm sitting fairly close by and it put me in an awkward position, but the bottom line is that case resulted in a mistrial. And so there are circumstances where - and they're very rare, honestly - most attorneys that appear in front of us do a really good job. They may make tactical decisions that you might go, Why did you make that tactical decision - after the fact. But that's the area where the judge absolutely cannot invade. If you make a tactical decision to enter, submit evidence or not submit evidence - that's totally within the discretion of the attorney and the judge has to back away. If you have a situation where an attorney is obviously drunk in court or otherwise incapacitated in a way that's severe, you have to take some action. The nicest thing to do is reach out to the supervisor, ask the supervisor to come down, talk to the attorney, see if they can gauge what the situation is. In the case of the drunk attorney, that resulted in a mistrial. So that's an extreme case, I've only seen that once in the 30 years I've worked in the court system, but those things do happen. Thank you. [00:30:08] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Nyjat? [00:30:14] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Yeah, I think if I see someone in the courtroom that is treating their client badly and I'm on the bench - and it seems as if it's more than just a tactical decision, maybe it just seems as if it is just treating someone inhumanely - I would likely take a sidebar or maybe take a recess and take both prosecutor and the defense attorney into chambers and just basically explain what I'm seeing because judges can't have ex parte contact. So I would probably make a note of it to the attorney - that this behavior is not appropriate - especially again, if it's outside of trial tactics and it's just behavior that's just inhumane or treating their client disrespectfully, I would likely address it in chambers. [00:31:19] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. And Damon? [00:31:22] Judge Damon Shadid: We are very lucky in Seattle Municipal Court to have a very high level of representation both from the private bar, the Department of Public Defense, and the City Attorney's Office. I never stop being impressed with the level of representation that we have, but that doesn't mean that sometimes there doesn't come an attorney who comes and is doing a poor job representing their client. And what we have to avoid here is we have to avoid - one, the client not getting a fair shake. And number two, a setup for ineffective assistance of counsel so that all the work that went into that trial, all the jurors, all the court staff, and everyone else who spent days trying to go through this trial only to have it overturned because there was ineffective assistance of counsel. Now, I'll tell you what I wouldn't do. I certainly wouldn't take them into my chambers - I think that would be unethical. It needs to be on the record - everything you say needs to be on the record so the public can hear it. I would very much try not to embarrass the attorney in front of their client, and that's when a sidebar may be appropriate as long as it's recorded. But if the attorney doesn't seem to be catching on, then the case has to be continued so that they can get prepared. Or, as Judge Eisenberg said, sometimes it will rise to the level of a mistrial. So while I would normally keep hands off as much as I can, I'm not going to let a defendant and my court be misrepresented by an attorney. [00:32:55] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. I now have a question submitted from the audience during this forum, and it's a two-part question really. One, do you consider any types of crimes to be victimless? And for those that aren't, how will you work to assure that victims are listened to and considered when imposing a sentence or adjudicating a case? And we will be starting with Nyjat. [00:33:23] Nyjat Rose-Akins: I apologize. I didn't hear the last part. Do you consider any types of crimes victimless? And I didn't hear the last part of the question? [00:33:30] Crystal Fincher: Sure. How does each candidate work to assure that victims are listened to and considered when imposing a sentence or adjudicating a case? [00:33:42] Nyjat Rose-Akins: So do I think any crime is victimless? No, I do not. I think some cases are definitely going to be more impactful to victims. But I believe when people are committing crimes, even low-level crimes - if it's a crime that continues to be done every day, it is impacting the community. The community is the victim if people are calling the police or observing this behavior. So even though all crimes are not going to be created equal, some crimes are definitely going to be more severe than others and impact more people. But I think for - to make sure that victims are being listened to, I think the main thing is to make sure that they have a seat at the table, they understand the process, they understand what the court is doing. What I've realized over the last number of years is that a lot of people really don't understand how the court functions or how it works. So I think the prosecutor's office - they have victims advocates that - I think it's good for them to talk with the victims to make sure that they understand the system and what and how things are happening. And even make sure that they come to court to see the process. [00:35:06] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Damon Shadid? [00:35:13] Judge Damon Shadid: Sure, there are some victimless crimes - failure to transfer title, driving with license suspended in the third degree - I have trouble figuring out who would be a victim there. But I, in general, agree with my opponent that it's a matter of impacting - how does it impact the community? How does it impact the individual? Now in Washington, we have a Victims Bill of Rights. It used to only apply to felonies, but now it applies to misdemeanors as well. But I've always followed it, even before it applied to misdemeanors. If a victim comes into my court and wants to speak at any level of the prosecution, I will allow them to speak because it's difficult to come into court. It takes a lot of bravery to speak to the judge and to face the person who may have abused you. And so that person should be given a high amount of respect. But on the flip side of that, that person should be given a lot of respect if they, for instance, do not want to continue with prosecution. So you have to listen to both sides of it. As far as community crimes like that, there's a reason why we call it Community Court. And the way that we have people give back to the community is through things like community service work, or things like that that are going to actually give back to the community that's been taken from. So yes, victims will be listened to at all stages of the proceedings, and I have tried to do that. [00:36:40] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Pooja Vaddadi? [00:36:44] Pooja Vaddadi: By definition and in general, no crime is going to be completely victimless and especially not in a strictly criminal court. I do agree with Judge Shadid - there are certain crimes like driving while license suspended or any licensing-type situation that is a failure to pay fines - I find it hard to believe also that there would be a real victim attached to that. But property crimes, thefts, whatever - the ordinary administration of justice is the tool by which we address these wrongs. However, the temptation for any judge is to substitute their outrage for the narrow bounds of sentencing permitted under the laws - and it's a challenge that we must rise to be impartial. It's essential not to misapply the law or you do risk revictimizing everyone through a second trial. That includes oversentencing, because you as a judge may think that a certain crime is particularly outrageous, but the worst thing that can happen is for that case to come back to court for a second time for a retrial or a resentencing where the victim has to, again, readdress the court to get any kind of recourse. That's traumatizing for anybody involved in the system. I do think it's important to listen to victims as well, especially when the court is trying to help that individual. Sometimes there are victims that come into court that wish to have the no contact order lifted so that their partner can support their lifestyle and their children. And I've seen this court deny administratively those requests to rescind the no contact order. And I would like to prevent that. Thank you. [00:38:20] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Adam Eisenberg. [00:38:24] Judge Adam Eisenberg: Thank you. Yes, as everyone has mentioned, there are a few categories of crimes that perhaps are victimless, but most of the crimes that appear in front of us have some sort of victim. I'm most involved in the domestic violence cases. And one of the things that's unique about the Domestic Violence Intervention Project, which is the diversion program that I've described in my opening that is an alternative to jail for domestic violence offenders, is an individualized approach and a multidisciplinary team that includes victim advocates. So the voices of victims, not necessarily the victim of the particular crime, but victims - community victims or community advocates who are very familiar with the survivors of domestic violence are able to provide input into how to manage the intervention. The goal, of course, is to make it safer for the victims. We take victims very seriously - I know all my colleagues do when they come to court and wish to explain what they experienced. Sometimes they have to do it through the trial, sometimes they have to do it at sentencing. But I think even low-level crimes - if the victim wants to come to court and present, certainly the Revised Code of Washington provides for that - for them to be able to explain. And I think the court has to hear and consider their opinion, their concerns along with the other evidence that they've heard when they make a decision. So victims' voices are very, very important in our court. Thank you. [00:39:45] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. And thank you to the audience for that question. This next question will start with Judge Shadid. We've had several high profile incidents in Seattle where police officers' accounts of events may have differed from video evidence and other things turned up in subsequent investigations. Do judges have any responsibility or role in interrogating the honesty of police and law enforcement in the court? [00:40:12] Judge Damon Shadid: Well, that is a very difficult question because it depends on what stage of the proceedings that you're in - whether or not you're in a pretrial, a motion, or a trial - and what would be appropriate in each case. What I will say is this - if a police officer breaks the law by perjuring themselves in court, that police officer should be subject to the laws just like any other person who comes into the court and they should be prosecuted. I've never actually seen a police officer prosecuted for perjury, but I have seen police officers lie on the stand in my eight years. And that's pretty shocking to me - police officers not only should be held to the same standard as everyone else, but they should be held to a higher standard. And they should not be coming in to lie in order to get somebody convicted. They need to be able to prove their case just based upon the truth. What I will say is that - at least the prior administration of the City Attorney's Office regularly dismissed cases when they saw a discrepancy between the police officer's testimony and contravening evidence. I think that's the right move. But unless it meets a very high standard, a judge is not able to dismiss the case themselves, it is incumbent upon the prosecutor to do so. If there is a motion to dismiss, then the defense attorney would have to make their proof based upon the rules, particularly 8.3. [00:41:42] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Nyjat Rose-Akins. [00:41:49] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Sorry. I agree with my opponent that everyone has a role when it comes to the court, and the court cannot necessarily just summarily dismiss a case that has been brought by the prosecution. I will say that the court can - there are many points in a case - for instance, if there is information about an officer, for instance, they call it Brady information - so it's information that the prosecution has to turn over and if they do not turn that over, then the court can entertain motions to dismiss because that is a huge violation. So if an officer has been found to have lied on the stand or any other behavior that has been deemed under Brady that needs to be disclosed to defense. So those are some ways that the court can, I guess, intervene when there is an issue with an officer specifically. But yeah, so that is the main thing - I would say that as I myself have actually prosecuted a police officer - because I truly believe that we all should be held to the same standard. [00:43:15] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Judge Eisenberg. [00:43:19] Judge Adam Eisenberg: So you asked the question, can judges interrogate? Well, it's not really our role to necessarily interrogate. However, in certain hearings, we do have the opportunity, as the fact finder of the hearing, to ask questions. I can give you an example of a stage where I did find there was not probable cause for arrest and it was based on how the officer behaved. The officer saw the defendant driving late at night at a high rate of speed - that was pretty clear. He pulled him over and he asked him to step out of the car and he said - I smell some alcohol, I would like you to do some field sobriety tests. The defendant was very polite - I don't want to do any field sobriety tests because I know what happens next. If I do field sobriety tests, you take me to jail. And the officer's like, No, I'm not going to do that, but I just need to know. And what happened was 15 minutes of the officer trying to cajole the defendant to take field sobriety tests and the defendant clearly didn't want to. The defendant was Black, the officer was not. There was some question as to whether this was racially biased or not - it wasn't 100% clear, but it was very suspicious. And at the end of the probable cause hearing, I determined there wasn't probable cause for the arrest - the officer did not have enough information and the case was dismissed. Unfortunately, the officer left the courtroom before he could hear my ruling, but it was a very troubling situation. And that's a circumstance where a judge can see what an officer is doing because my job is to determine whether there's probable cause. And at that point, I could say the officer was inappropriate in what he did. [00:44:46] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Pooja Vaddadi. [00:44:50] Pooja Vaddadi: And so I agree with pretty much what everybody else has said already. It's not necessarily a judge's role to take it upon themselves to litigate a case where an officer maybe is lying or engaging in any misconduct. But I have seen, as a public defender, police officers engaging in racially biased policing, which in my opinion is bad and sometimes in a lot of cases worse than perjury in court. The judge is a gatekeeper for evidence and has the power to address Brady issues or entertain motions to dismiss under circumstances that Ms. Rose-Akins actually described. And they should. There must be some distance between judges and the police so that they don't enjoy a special relationship and show any kind of bias towards any officers that are in that court. I've taken a case to trial actually in which a white officer investigated a scene for 40 minutes before releasing one person and then pretty much deciding that he smelled alcohol on my client's breath. The officer in that situation was a white man. My client was a Black driver. Such a case would raise a suspicion for me, although there is not much I can do in that situation unless the defense attorney does raise a type of motion. And then we are then faced with the ability for me to make a decision on whether that officer should testify or whether there needs to be some other kind of hearing to exclude that kind of testimony. Judges are bound by the law and that is how they need to operate. But we shouldn't let people with a lot of authority just get away with blatant disregard for the law. [00:46:26] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. This next question, we're going to start with Adam Eisenberg. What do your endorsements say about you and what do you think your opponent's endorsements say about them? [00:46:41] Judge Adam Eisenberg: Well, I've been endorsed by The Seattle Times, eight of the nine sitting justices on the Supreme Court, retired Justice Bobbe Bridge, judges across the state who I've worked with on committees on statewide issues related to domestic violence, related to how do we have a jury trial in the middle of COVID - which I was assigned to be on the task force for that - on various rules that I have been engaged with. And I've also been endorsed by the union that supports our court clerks, I've been endorsed by public defenders, prosecutors, defense attorneys - male, female - and I've been rated Exceptionally Well Qualified by the bar associations I listed. I think that says that I try to do the best job I can and it seems like the legal community recognizes that. My opponent has been endorsed by a lot of the - I've been endorsed by some of the legislative districts, she's been endorsed by all of them. And she's been endorsed by, I believe, a lot of the progressive diversity groups. I don't really have a thought on what that says, but I'm very proud of the endorsements that I've gotten, including The Seattle Times - and including former Governor Christine Gregoire and many, many other Seattle City Councilmembers and County Councilmembers. So I feel like I have a pretty diverse background of support. Thank you. [00:48:07] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Pooja Vaddadi. [00:48:11] Pooja Vaddadi: I believe that my endorsements, which are all of the Democratic organizational endorsements - I believe that they say that people are looking for a change in Seattle - they're dissatisfied with the way that the judiciary has been operating, they're dissatisfied with the way that the City is being policed right now. What they see is an increase in crime and a decrease in the amount of services that are there for the people of Seattle - there has been an increase of homeless people on the streets, there has been an increase of encampments. And the judiciary and the leadership in Seattle has been doing nothing about that. And people are ready for a change - people are ready for the type of perspective that I bring there. My campaign is staffed by dozens of defense attorneys who are actually afraid to publicly endorse, or who aren't permitted by their leadership to endorse. My opponent's endorsements do tell me that there are two versions of him. There's the version of my opponent that his personal friends see - I'm sure he is a great friend. But there is a version of my opponent that I know there. And unfortunately, a lot of people are not able to speak publicly about some of the behavior that they've seen on the court. And I have their support and their volunteer, I have their support in private. But I do have the support of a lot of organizations that are looking to make a change in Seattle right now and I plan on doing that. [00:49:44] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Judge Shadid. [00:49:48] Judge Damon Shadid: I am proud to be endorsed by every civil Democratic organization and every one of those are sole endorsements. I'm proud to have the endorsement of eight current and former Supreme Court Justices, and community leaders, elected officials like Larry Gossett - who is my personal hero - Girmay Zahilay, Representative Sharon Tomiko Santos, Senator Rebecca Saldaña, City Councilperson Teresa Mosqueda, Tammy Morales, Andrew Lewis, Debora Juarez. I'm very proud - I've also got community leaders, including the president of the statewide NAACP endorsing me, 75 judges - elected judges across the spectrum. And I've actually gotten The Seattle Times and the Progressive Voters guide to agree that they should endorse me solely, which I don't know how many of us can brag that. So I'm very, very pleased with my endorsements - I think it's great. My opponent's been working hard. She's gotten some endorsements from judges and from former Mayor Durkan - who was a former prosecutor - as well as former Governor Gregoire, another former prosecutor. Her support definitely comes from the prosecution - that is clear - and she's been a career prosecutor all her life and so that makes a lot of sense to me. You go to the people that you know and who you've worked with in the past. But my support comes from across the spectrum - it's not single-focused. [00:51:20] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Nyjat Rose-Akins. [00:51:23] Nyjat Rose-Akins: I think my endorsements say that I'm not a politician. My endorsements say that I decided to run for this office because I believe that I am qualified. I'm endorsed by people who know my work and know what I have done and what I've done for the City for the last 12 years. I've been basically behind the scenes for the last 12 years, and this is my first time saying - I am going to put myself out there and be in the forefront because I know that I can make Seattle Municipal Court better based on all the work that I've done over the last 12 years collaborating and partnering with communities and with government officials. So I believe that's what my endorsements say about me. In regards to my opponent, I believe - he's been a sitting judge for the last eight years, so he has made those relationships. And usually, in all honesty, judicial candidates have difficulty because judges do not like to endorse against a sitting judge. So I think the fact that I've been able to get some endorsements from judges and retired judges - and mainly some Seattle Municipal Court judges, retired Seattle Municipal Court judges - I think that shows that I am more than capable of fulfilling this position. [00:52:52] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Now, we also asked each candidate to submit a question to ask their opponent. We will cover some of those questions right now. We will begin with a question from Judge Adam Eisenberg to Pooja Vaddadi - and I will read it verbatim. Candidates for judicial positions usually get vetted by the King County Bar Association and the minority bar associations. It's a rigorous process in which each bar association reaches out to more than 30 attorneys familiar with your work on the bench, and conducts individual interviews with the candidates. I've gone through the vetting process and have been rated "Exceptionally Well Qualified" for Seattle Municipal Court by a number of associations. Why have you chosen not to be vetted? [00:53:43] Pooja Vaddadi: So the answer to this question comes in two parts. I'm running a lot earlier than I meant to because it's urgent to bring change in the leadership in SMC. The court has been failing the people of Seattle. I saw that when I was a public defender in that court and I'm still seeing it right now. I enjoyed my career as a public defender and I was not planning on doing this quite this soon in my career, but here we are and I'm needed. Second, from what I've seen, judicial ratings seem to measure nothing more than tenure. Tenure and how often you've pro temmed in the court or tenure on how long you've been on a bench. They obviously don't look at practitioner surveys, they don't look at staff reviews and complaints, overturns on appeal for constitutional violations, or courtroom demeanor. I don't know if these bar associations have sat in my opponent's courtroom for a lengthy period of time. I don't think that I would have had a fair shake in front of these judicial ratings because they would have held my lack of tenure against me. I know I can do this job and I know I will be good at it. Thank you. [00:55:01] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Now I'm going to ask a question for Judge Adam Eisenberg from Pooja - verbatim. There's nothing more stressful than representing a client who is innocent and falsely accused; or when an innocent defendant insists on pleading guilty to get out of jail or to avoid a penalty for going to trial. Can you tell me about a time that these have happened in your courtroom and how you were personally impacted?? [00:55:55] Judge Adam Eisenberg: If someone's entered a guilty plea in front of me, I have to read the facts - and if there's a basis to support the plea, I have to accept the plea - so I'm not really sure there's - I understand the perspective of being a defense attorney and having a client who's doing something perhaps that you don't agree with or wish they would make a different choice. But people do make these choices to plead guilty for a variety of reasons and I don't often have - I very seldom have any understanding of why they're doing it specifically and their attorneys don't share that information with me. When someone enters a guilty plea, I try to give - if it involves a jail sentence, I try to give an appropriate sentence. If it's a guilty plea, the vast majority of times I agree with whatever the sentence is because it was a negotiated plea between the defense and the prosecution. If the defendant has agreed to a negotiated plea, I have no basis to disregard that. The perspective of a defense attorney isn't the same as the perspective on the bench when you hear someone entering a guilty plea. That's what I would say. Thank you. [00:57:07] Crystal Fincher: Pooja has asked for a rebuttal to that. [00:57:13] Pooja Vaddadi: Oh, sorry. I guess I needed to unmute. I just want to tell a brief story. I had a client in Snohomish County that was held on a DUI. It was a second lifetime DUI and he was held on a substantial amount of bail, a decision that a judge made. There was no blood test results yet and so we did not know what his Blood Alcohol Content was or if he had any drugs in his system. The prosecutor offered him a sentence that would have taken - and trial would have taken a lot longer to go. The point is - I'm running out of time - the point is he did have to plead guilty - [00:57:49] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Judge Eisenberg has also asked for a rebuttal. [00:57:55] Judge Adam Eisenberg: I just wanted to say that I'm really sorry about this situation that happened with her defendant that she represented in Snohomish County, but that doesn't really have anything to do with me or my court. [00:58:06] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Now I'm going to ask a question from Nyjat Rose-Akins to Damon Shadid. How does the court monitor a participant's connection with meaningful services if multiple cases are dismissed within 14 days of entering into Community Court? [00:58:28] Judge Damon Shadid: Each individual who comes into Community Court is vetted by a judge for their appropriateness to enter the court. They have certain - we call them connections - that the person has to make in order to graduate from the court. There are different levels of connections - 2 weeks, 30 days, and 45 days that the person goes through. But here's what's really important to remember. This is a predisposition court. We connect people with services and then it's the City Attorney who moves to dismiss the case. This is what the City Attorney has agreed to. The City Attorney has never sought to change when they dismiss the case and it is their discretion to do so. We monitor to make sure they've made their connections, to make sure they've done a life skills class, to make sure they've done community service. We individually structure the program to make sure that we're addressing their specific barriers. But this is really important - it takes multiple connections to services for them to take. And so this criticism that - Oh, you're not holding them there long enough - well, how long do you expect someone to keep coming to court for a trespass or for a theft of socks? The actual rehabilitation has to match the crime has been committed and that's what we're trying to do. If a person's not willing to make those connections, they are prosecuted in mainstream court to the full extent of the law. [00:59:59] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. I now have a question for Nyjat Rose-Akins from Damon Shadid. When I ran for Judge 8 years ago, I ran with specific plans for expanding and revitalizing Seattle's Therapeutic Courts. Over the past 8 years, I've delivered on those promises. I've not seen or heard any specific policy proposals that you would enact if you became a judge. Please give specific details of a policy proposal you would enact if elected. [01:00:28] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Thank you. So - when elected, I plan to revamp Community Court - reset the standards of accountability and requirements, review individual case history to determine if they are currently a good fit, limit the number of cases that can be addressed at one time, review the types of cases that are eligible, and redefine what is considered low-level crime. With doing that, I'd like to incorporate more probation and social services support to track and assist with program progress and participant needs. Also collaborate with more social service providers to bring them to the court to create a one-stop shop for individuals. I also want to collaborate more with nonprofits, other government agencies to create a pipeline - a proper pipeline for housing, mental health treatment, and job placement. I also would like to work more with probation services and resources, renew day reporting options - which would allow maybe Zoom options for people to check in with probation and not always have to come into court. And also maybe get more funding - not maybe, really try to get more funding - on electronic home monitoring for indigent defendants. So those are a few of the things I plan to do once elected. Thank you. [01:01:55] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Judge Shadid has asked for a rebuttal. [01:02:00] Judge Damon Shadid: Sure. So the one policy proposal my opponent has is to reform the court that I created, which is very interesting because she works for the City Attorney's Office and she has never come to a meeting [garbled] in court. She's never bothered to actually get to know what the court is. Instead, she's read a few dockets and she thinks she has an opinion on it. But why hasn't her boss ever asked for these changes? They haven't. So if she had been in the court for the past eight years, she'd know that we're already doing these things and that her policy is not policy. [01:02:37] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Nyjat, you have rebuttal time. [01:02:42] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Thank you. I think it is somewhat disingenuous to say that the City Attorney's Office has never asked to make some changes to Community Court. I believe the City Attorney's Office requested trying to opt some people out because they had way too many cases and my opponent said no. And that is why there was an issue with the high utilizers. Aditionally, revamping Community - we had 90 seconds to speak - I brought up one specific thing in regards to Community - [01:03:19] Crystal Fincher: I will allow a second round of rebuttals for both of you since we are in this conversation here. Judge Shadid. [01:03:26] Judge Damon Shadid: Community Court took two years to negotiate. My opponent doesn't seem to understand that all changes to Community Court have to come through negotiation. Her boss came to me with a requested change, which I disagreed with. That is how you negotiate. That requested change then went to the full bench and the bench voted to adopt the change. That's what negotiation is and that's how you create programs. [01:04:00] Crystal Fincher: And Nyjat. [01:04:01] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Yes, thank you. I also had the opportunity to review Community Court outside of Seattle. I went to Auburn Community Court and that program is a model structure for what a community court should be - where individuals actually engage with resources - it's a one-stop shop where they can come in and actually get the services they need and actually check-in with the court, check-in with their defense attorney, and check-in with the prosecution on a weekly and sometimes bi-week, bi-monthly basis based on the type of court. [01:04:37] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Now, these probably will be quick questions, but we'll see - two short ones - and we will begin with Nyjat Rose-Akins. Have you ever been disciplined by the bar association or state commission on judicial conduct? [01:04:53] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Have not. No, I have not. [01:04:56] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. And Damon Shadid? [01:05:00] Judge Damon Shadid: No. [01:05:02] Crystal Fincher: And Pooja? [01:05:05] Pooja Vaddadi: No. [01:05:07] Crystal Fincher: And Judge Eisenberg? [01:05:09] Judge Adam Eisenberg: No. [01:05:10] Crystal Fincher: Okay. Next question - are there any specific types of cases in which you know you'll have to find it necessary to disqualify or recuse yourself? We will start with Damon Shadid. [01:05:28] Judge Damon Shadid: There have been times when I've had to recuse myself. I was a public defender for quite some time before and I've had clients come into my courtroom who I represented in the past and I certainly recused myself from those cases. There have been times when I've made mistakes and I've agreed to recuse myself from a case. It happens to the best of us. It's very important to me that there is not only the fact of an impartial judge, but the appearance of one as well. And so if I even suspect that somebody is perceiving me as not being impartial, I'll recuse myself most of the time, unless I think that the attorney is forum shopping. So yes, a judge should be ready to recuse themselves whenever they feel that it's in the best interests of both the community and the defendant. [01:06:19] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Nyjat? [01:06:23] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Yes, I think the fairness is very, very important in court, so I would likely - I have not had to recuse myself as I've been pro temming in court, but I believe I would likely recuse myself from friends and/or people that I have worked closely with in the City Attorney's Office or even in City government. [01:06:49] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Adam Eisenberg? [01:06:55] Judge Adam Eisenberg: There have been some cases where I've had to recuse myself because I either knew some of the parties, or there was an incident with my neighbor that was reported to the police and I was actually a witness. So I made sure, right out of the gate, that when the case came to our court - because I suspected it would, based on the charge - I went and talked to the Presiding Judge and said, I can't have anything to do with this case because I saw the police arrive last night at the house. So those things happen - obviously, that happens very, very rarely. But otherwise, recusal is normal when you know parties or you have information about the case that you shouldn't have had, you heard - because of a neighbor talking or whatever. But there's not a particular type of case that I recuse myself from. It's really a - it's a case-by-case cir

The Bemidji City Council heard an update from the City Attorney's Office. The work session meeting Monday was informational only.

After taking over for her progressive predecessor, Davison discusses how her office will navigate prosecution and public safety. When Ann Davison was elected Seattle city attorney last November, it flew in the face of the city's progressive reputation. Electoral races in the city are nonpartisan, but Davison's identity as a Republican was well-known, and her platform was firmly tough on crime. Her election was a kind of backlash to the backlash.  Just a year before, in the wake of the 2020 protests over racist policing, Seattle leaders were seriously entertaining the idea of defunding the police. Back then, the idea of a Republican overseeing misdemeanor prosecutions in the city was unthinkable. But in November, Davison defeated a candidate who embodied activist opposition to status quo law enforcement, and in January she replaced a 12-year incumbent who was proudly progressive.  In the months since, Davison has been actively retooling how the city handles misdemeanor cases, while the concerns over public safety that helped get her into office have continued to grow. She has also made news for a recent decision to dismiss thousands of backlogged misdemeanor cases. For this episode of the Crosscut Talks podcast, journalist Joni Balter talks with Davison about how, exactly, she is reshaping the office she inherited, why she dismissed those cases and when voters can expect to see the impact of her leadership. --- Credits Host: Mark Baumgarten Producer: Sara Bernard Event producers: Jake Newman, Andrea O'Meara Engineers: Resti Bagcal, Viktoria Ralph

Therese M. Stewart, Associate Justice of the California First District Court of Appeal, Division Two, chats with MC Sungaila about moving from a high-profile advocacy career to the bench, efforts to diversify the courts, and collaborating with her judicial colleagues. She provides an in-depth exploration of her work prior to the bench in the area of LGBT rights, both in private practice and at the City Attorney's Office. Tune in for an enlightening and inspiring discussion with valuable insights you can use in your practice.

Ann Davison says a long backlog has left cases waiting for a response for an average of 334 days.

Diane Doherty is the Executive Director of Your Safe Place - A Family Justice Center, a division of the San Diego City Attorney's Office that provides wraparound services to survivors of domestic and family violence, elder abuse, sex trafficking and sexual assault. Diane joined the City Attorney's Office in 2002 and soon began prosecuting cases as a Deputy City Attorney in the Domestic Violence & Sex Crimes Unit. She helped launch San Diego's Family Justice Center, which was the first center of its kind in the nation and became an international model for serving survivors of domestic violence. Diane continued prosecuting criminal cases until 2021 when she became Executive Director of Your Safe Place.

KUOW's Amy Radil reports.

Crystal sits down with Amy Sundberg to walk through how the Seattle City budget process works as well as how and when to get involved in making your vision of the future a reality.  Note: This episode was recorded in late September and references parts of the process that have already happened. A key opportunity to provide public comment happens this week on Wednesday, November 10th at 5:30p so listen up and then make your voice heard! 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. Subscribe to Notes from the Emerald City  and follow Amy on Twitter at @amysundberg. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources Notes from the Emerald City - newsletter on Seattle government and policy: https://www.getrevue.co/profile/amysundberg Converge Media - Budget School: https://www.whereweconverge.com/post/understanding-the-city-of-seattle-budget-converge-media-launches-budget-school Seattle City Council - Budget Process: http://www.seattle.gov/council/issues/past-issues/budget-process Seattle City Council - Sign up for Public Comment (opens 2 hours before start of public comment period): https://www.seattle.gov/council/committees/public-comment “Seattle mayor proposes increasing police staffing in 2022 budget” by David Kroman from Crosscut: https://crosscut.com/news/2021/09/seattle-mayor-proposes-increasing-police-staffing-2022-budget Mayor Durkan's Proposed 2022 Budget: https://www.seattle.gov/city-budget-office/budget-archives/2022-proposed-budget Solidarity Budget: https://www.seattlesolidaritybudget.com/   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 thrilled to be joined once again by Amy Sundberg, author of Notes From the Emerald City and co-chair of the Seattle Committee of People Power Washington - Police Accountability. Thanks for joining us again, Amy. [00:00:51] Amy Sundberg: It's great to be here. [00:00:53] Crystal Fincher: Well, I am excited to have you here once again. We have spoken about the excellent newsletter that you have - your coverage consistently of City Council meetings, City meetings and hearings, and your live tweets, and recaps in your newsletter - which is an excellent resource for people who are looking to follow civic processes in the City of Seattle. Today, I'm excited to talk about the budget, which most people generally are not excited to talk about - the budget. But it's actually a really big deal. And that process is just kicking off here in the City of Seattle. And this is super consequential because it affects everything. This is how we determine what gets spent on what, who gets what and where and how, and who doesn't. And there's a lot involved with it - there's a lot of confusion. Because of that, a lot of people typically don't engage. And so I thought it'd be helpful to do this show today, just to give people an overview of what the budget is, how it's composed, just what's going on with it right now, and how they can get involved if they're looking to make a difference in the issues that they care about. And with that, I guess I would just start off by asking, what is the budget? What does it fund? How is it composed? [00:02:12] Amy Sundberg: Yeah. So I also am excited to talk about the budget today. Because you're right, it is very consequential. It makes a huge difference in individual's lives, which is something I think can get kind of lost in the weeds. But it does really impact every one of us who live in Seattle. So the budget, I mean, it is in many ways similar to a household budget that you might have for your own finances - in that it tracks what revenues the City is bringing in and then it tracks the expenditures - how that money is going to be spent over the course of a year. This budget that we're talking about will be for next year - 2022 - and it's a total of $6.6 billion. But only about $1.5 billion of that is in the General Fund, which is most of what the budget process is regarding - still a lot of money though. [00:03:17] Crystal Fincher: Mm-hmm [affirmative]. [00:03:19] Amy Sundberg: And it funds a lot of the services that we enjoy here in Seattle. And I'm just going to give you a - [00:03:27] Crystal Fincher: And some we don't. [00:03:28] Amy Sundberg: And some we don't. Yeah. Some we might not agree with - exactly. So it covers everything from transportation - so that's public transit, building and maintenance of roads, bridges, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, safety features. Funds libraries, one of my personal favorites. It funds parks and recreation. Homelessness services, including both shelter options and wraparound services - childcare assistance, food assistance, rental assistance, developing more affordable housing in our city. A small budget for arts and culture. A lot of offices - so the Office of Construction and Inspections, the Office of Planning and Community Development, the Office of Civil Rights. A lot of administration - so all of the City employees who work to run all of these offices. Public safety, and that isn't just the police department - that's also the fire department, that's 911 dispatch, that's the Office of Emergency Management, Seattle Municipal Court, the City Attorney's Office, and any alternate responses. So all of that is covered by the budget and more. [00:04:55] Crystal Fincher: Okay. And so that's a lot. And a lot of times, one of the questions that I've heard frequently is, "Okay, well, if you've got $6 billion and it's a huge number. If the Office of Arts and Culture is asking for this tiny amount, why can't you just move some money over here, over there?" Can you just take money from one department and give it to another? How does the budget work? How does the General Fund work? [00:05:26] Amy Sundberg: So the reason I specify that only a $1.5 billion was in the General Fund is because that's basically what the Councilmembers are deciding what to spend during this budget process. A lot of that other money is already allocated, and it's not allowed to be spent for anything else. Some of that is because it's - I mean, it comes from various taxes. And as part of those taxes, there was an agreement that it would be spent only on certain things. And part of it is because certain fees that you might pay will go back to fund whatever department they came from. So if you pay a parking ticket, that's going to go back into the Department of Transportation, and that's the only place that money can go. Or if you pay a park fee to rent out a picnic area, that's going to go right back into Parks. So a lot of the money is tied up in various ways. And one of the biggest examples of that is utilities - Seattle Light and also the Public Utilities. They generate a lot of revenue - from your electricity bill - and that's put right back into their budget, so that's not available for other uses. [00:06:44] Crystal Fincher: So some money comes with - by law - with strings attached. You can't decide to spend it in a different way. Some money comes with no strings attached. That no strings attached money is the General Fund. And that is where the conversation centers at times like now, when we just heard that the mayor announced what her budget was. Really, when they're talking about more money for this, less money for this, it is really in that $1.5 billion allocated to the general fund. [00:07:14] Amy Sundberg: Exactly. And the budget that just came out this week - that's the mayor's proposed budget. So she's put together kind of a proposal - she's talked to all of these City departments that I was talking about and heard kind of what they need, what they've been spending. And there's a Budget Office of the City that looks through all these things, thinks about what the priorities are, and puts together this proposed budget - that then is transmitted to the City Council to review and consider. [00:07:46] Crystal Fincher: So let's talk more about the process that is just kicking off now. The mayor proposes a budget - what happens between, "Okay, now this budget is proposed" and when a budget is approved and money starts getting spent? [00:08:05] Amy Sundberg: So it is a about eight week process to approve next year's budget. And it's supposed to be done - I think by law it has to be done by early December. But we're expecting it to be done the Monday before Thanksgiving. So exactly eight weeks. And basically, the Council will go through an eight week deliberative process about the budget. Built into that process are lots of opportunities for the public to weigh in on what their priorities might be. And we can talk about that a little bit more later. But also they - so right now this week, we're going through and having presentations from different City departments - to kind of hear about this proposed budget and why it is the way it is, and what these departments were thinking about in terms of these dollars being spent. After that, we go into Issue Identification. So that's when kind of Councilmembers flag different areas that they want to dig deeper into to see what the impacts might be, different investments they might want to make, things they might not want to spend as much money on, and get a lot of analysis from their Central staff. Then they propose some amendments to the proposed budget and they discuss those amendments. And eventually the Committee Chair, who is Councilmember Mosqueda, creates a Balancing Package. So what that is - is basically, she's kind of looking at these conversations they've been having, and looking at Issue Identification, looking at the amendments that they've been discussing, and she tries to find all the areas in which they have a general consensus as a Council in terms of how they want the money to be spent - what they can all agree on pretty easily. And that will all go into this Balancing Package. And it has to be balanced - so it has to - it can't be - you can't spend more than you have. Then there's another round of amendments and they have to have at least three Councilmembers who will sign on to each of these amendments so that you don't get any - basically to save time so that there's not tons of amendments that only one Councilmember is going to support and have no chance of actually making it into the budget. They vote on those amendments, they vote on the whole package in Committee, and then it moves to the Full Council where they do the final vote. And it's important to remember that that final vote on the budget has to be passed by a three-quarters vote, which is not true of most legislation that goes through City Council. So seven out of nine Councilmembers have to vote to approve the budget in order for it to move forward. [00:11:14] Crystal Fincher: Okay. That's good to know. And that is different than most other stuff, like you just said. And FYI, I mean, this is a lot of detail - it's a complicated process. You are doing an excellent job breaking it down for us in a way that the average person can digest. And I should mention, we're talking about the budget - Converge Media has a very detailed multi-hour series that really gets into the granular detail of the entire budget process. But wanted to just give people, here right now, the opportunity to get an idea of what the overall process is to make it easier to understand and engage with if you want to. Okay. So we're at the point where we understand the timeline. It actually sounds like it's important to get involved earlier in the process so that if you see an area in the budget that looks concerning to you, you can communicate with your Councilmembers, flag that as something that you feel is a major concern. Hopefully, get at least three Councilmembers who are willing to say, "Yeah, what is currently down on paper does not look good to me. Let's actually hold this as something that we're not saying we're good with and that we'd really like to hopefully change and reserve for further discussion and amendment." So what does that timeline look like in there before they have to - when should people be getting involved with this process and when is it best? [00:12:51] Amy Sundberg: To be honest, I think that people should be involved throughout the process for the optimal results. I realize people only have limited bandwidth, but I think there are important things going on throughout the eight weeks. I do agree with you that if you get in earlier, it kind of flags for Councilmembers what their constituents want, right? What is important, what are the actual community values? But, I mean, also sometimes towards the end of the process, the Councilmembers benefit from having a little public pressure to kind of push them maybe a little outside of their comfort zone or to try to just make sure they stick with what they were kind of thinking of. Sometimes they get a little cold feet and need that extra support at the end. So I think, more than a specific time, is if you can get involved at any time, that's definitely better than if you don't get involved at all. [00:13:59] Crystal Fincher: That makes sense. And you just raised another good point - that Councilmembers need to hear from you. They need to know where the community is - and pressure, accountability, communication, whatever you want to call it - is necessary and makes a difference. We saw in the - was it the last budget go around? [00:14:18] Amy Sundberg: It was, yeah. [00:14:18] Crystal Fincher: Here where - [00:14:19] Amy Sundberg: It was a big deal. [00:14:21] Crystal Fincher: Public pressure made the difference between a vote to reduce funding for the SPD - in one of the only cities in the country to actually take that vote - and have the Council united on that with a budget vote that requires seven out of nine members, which is a really big deal. It took every single bit of public pressure to the very last moment to get that accomplished. So it's not something that's futile. It has made a difference. We talk about voting and candidates a lot and I certainly believe in that, but that is not enough. People have to stay engaged throughout these processes and hold Councilmembers accountable to their promises and to their constituents. And so the more involvement - the more consistently people can be involved - the better. Now we just talked about dates for things and when that's going to come about - let's talk about how the budget relates to public safety, which there's actually a lot of news about right now and where a lot of people are concerned. [00:15:29] Amy Sundberg: Yeah. So, I mean, there's been a big discussion in Seattle about public safety overall. And there have been demands from some community members - and specifically the Solidarity Budget - as a group who have been pushing for a divest and reinvest strategy for the Seattle Police Department. And so what that means is basically taking some of the money out of the Seattle Police Department and investing it in other community-led public safety alternatives. The idea is that true public safety is not always supported at its best by SPD. And that there are other solutions that might give us better and more equitable outcomes for everyone that's living in the City. So a big point of contention then ends up always being the Seattle Police Department's budget. I will say that last year, 22% of Seattle's General Fund was given to SPD, which is - 22% is a significant percentage of the overall. [00:16:57] Crystal Fincher: It's a significant percentage. [00:16:58] Amy Sundberg: Of money. And that being said, it was - 2021 was the first year that we saw the SPD budget go down in actual dollars, as opposed to increasing. Now that's not true if you factor in inflation, but it's still very significant. In 20 years, that was the first time that that happened. And that was because of community, because - frankly, because of all of the protests for racial justice that were happening all last summer and fall - put enough pressure to get that change brought into reality. [00:17:40] Crystal Fincher: Mm-hmm [affirmative]. [00:17:40] Amy Sundberg: But that being said, no police officers were laid off. There was talk of doing that - there was talk of out-of-order layoffs. It turned out that wasn't a thing that is legally possible and no officers got laid off. There were increased number of attrition - so a lot of officers were choosing voluntarily to leave for various reasons. So we did get some shrinkage of the force, but that was the primary driver of it. [00:18:17] Crystal Fincher: Okay, so - oh, go ahead - [00:18:22] Amy Sundberg: So I was just going to say - and so this year we have to then revisit that entire conversation when we're deciding how to allocate public safety money. And the mayor's proposed budget kind of gives us a starting point so to speak, of where that conversation is going to start. And the total SPD budget is only - she's only a proposed an increase of $2.5 million. So it would be going up again - but that's a fairly small amount in the grand scheme of how much it often goes up from year to year. [00:19:07] Crystal Fincher: So less than what people say, but still not reducing the funding of the police, which is what- [00:19:12] Amy Sundberg: Yes. It's definitely. [00:19:13] Crystal Fincher: - a number of Seattle voters have voted for - and voted for Councilmembers to enact. And certainly is part of a big conversation that we're having right now. But an area where - Durkan has seemed pretty determined not to reduce funding. So given that it is that amount, it seems like the focus is more on being able to say that she's not reducing funding of SPD instead of having that really fund anything substantial and with that amount of money. [00:19:50] Amy Sundberg: Yes. I mean, and it's definitely not divestment - it is holding fairly steady. And you'll see one of the interesting things in terms of media coverage - you'll see that a lot of media saying she's proposing addition of 35 net officers. What that actually means is hiring 125 officers next year, because they're anticipating 90 separations - 90 officers are going to leave. They're going to hire 125, so that's 35 additional officers - that's what she's proposed. And there's a couple - on the one hand, you can say, "Well, they're hiring a bunch more officers instead of either just letting it stay the same or reducing." And then another narrative that I'm sure people will be hearing in upcoming weeks is, "Well, but there's actually less funded positions for police officers in this budget than there was in the last budget." In 2021, there were 1,357 FTEs - so sworn officer positions funded, not actual officers that we had - but the money was there for them. And this year there's only 1,230 funded. So that's going to be one place that I think we're going to see pushback in terms of - actually we're shrinking the SPD - because we don't have these positions that are open and not filled that we're still pretending might be able to be filled. But I would like to say the counter-argument to that view is that there's a long pipeline for getting new officers into the force because of just all the training and all of the vetting that has to be done, et cetera. So if we're already lower in terms of how many officers we have - we can spend that time building to a higher number of officers again, or we can spend that time and that money instead building alternate community led responses. There is a choice there. [00:22:08] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely - and certainly an area where people can make their opinions heard. And this year is - "exciting" is always interesting to use in terms of a budget for wonky people like us - but this time there actually is a reason to be excited, I think, because there is a budget that's being introduced by organizations in the community called the Solidarity Budget. What is that? [00:22:36] Amy Sundberg: So the Solidarity Budget is really exciting - and it's a coalition of groups who have put together basically a plan of how community would like to see the money be spent in Seattle in 2022. And it's a coalition of many groups. I know they had a goal to get a hundred endorsing organizations - I don't know if they quite reached that yet. But it's organizations like 350 Seattle, Decriminalize Seattle, the Black Action Coalition, the Transit Riders Union, et cetera, et cetera - it's a large number of local organizations. And they have various - basically policy and budgetary goals that they present in this document, called the Solidarity Budget, that asks for various investments into community. And part of it is based on the idea of divesting from the police department, as well as the Municipal Court and the City's Attorney's office - and then reinvesting that money back into community priorities, whether that be housing, Green New Deal - or other priorities - alternate responses for public safety, et cetera. And there's a 65 page document kind of laying out all of their ideas. [00:24:11] Crystal Fincher: So that's really interesting, and we're probably going to be seeing an increased level of advocacy and activism because of that - in addition to just more people being interested, particularly after the activism with recent budgets and what's been going on there. So as people look to get more familiar with the Solidarity Budget, the City budget, and what's going on, what do things look like in the next couple weeks in terms of activity with the budget and how should people go about making their concerns known? [00:24:48] Amy Sundberg: Yeah. There's several options. So this week, we're just having overviews from the departments. So basically, we're all getting up to speed on what this proposed budget is and what the City departments think they need. And then next week we kind of get a breather to process through it all. And the week after that, which is the week of October 11th - then we start diving into Issue Identification, so getting deeper into the weeds of these various issues. There are several opportunities to get involved as a private citizen. There are three public hearings during this budget season, and the first one is October 12th - so a great time to get in early - at 5:30 PM. And then there's another public hearing - November 10th at 5:30 PM. And the last one is November 18th during the day at 9:30 AM. So if daytime is better for you, they wanted to give both options. Also, all of the budget meetings have a 20-30 minute public comment first thing in the morning at 9:30. But even if you don't want to give public comment, you can also - you can call your Councilmember's office, you can email them - I email mine all the time. You can set up meetings with them - some of them have regular office hours. I know some of them go to Farmer's Markets occasionally - I know the weather is shifting, so I don't know how much longer that will be going on. Sometimes they have Budget Town Halls in a district that you can attend and ask questions or make comment at that point. So there are a lot of ways to kind of let your Councilmember know what you're thinking and what your concerns and priorities are. [00:26:41] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. And I think it is really important to understand that your Councilmember is your Councilmember. They're your representative and they need to know what you think in order to represent you. And if something isn't clear, you can ask them questions and ask them to explain some things - they really are there to serve you. And this budget is there to serve everyone in the City - that should be the goal. And so I hope that people engage with this and just start to get more familiar with what's being talked about and what's not. Because they're so used to this process almost being opaque with hardly anyone paying attention. And it's exciting when more people get involved, because generally that produces a budget that addresses the needs of more of the community. [00:27:31] Amy Sundberg: Yeah. And it's exciting when people realize that this actually really affects them personally. This isn't just some abstract cloud that you don't have to think about. It's something that is going to impact your daily life in the future. [00:27:45] Crystal Fincher: Yep. Thank you. So thank you so much for taking the time to speak with us today - appreciate it and we will certainly be providing all of the links to everything we talked about here in the show in the episode notes. And if you have any questions or any specific questions - issues you want addressed - feel free to shoot us a message. Message me on Twitter and we will continue to stay engaged here also. Thanks so much, Amy. [00:28:11] Amy Sundberg: Thanks for having me. [00:28:12] Crystal Fincher: I thank you all for listening to Hacks & Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler with assistance from Shannon Cheng. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H F-R-I-I. Now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, wherever else 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 in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in. We'll talk to you next time.

Good morning, RVA! It's 58 °F, and it rained! The storms have moved through, though, and now we've got a pleasant fall day ahead of us. Expect highs in the mid 60s, some clouds, and dry weather for at least the next couple of days. Water cooler One quick coronaupdate this morning for iPhone users: iOS 15.1 came out yesterday, and that means you can now store your vaccination card in the Wallet app. Just fill out this form on vaccinate.virginia.gov, and you'll end up with a QR code and a link that'll automatically load up your information as a fun card in Wallet.app. I think once you get boosted, you can even update it with that information, too. Neat! The Richmond Times-Dispatch's Chris Suarez has the update from last night's final City Council meeting on the Mayor's proposed ARPA spending plan, and it sounds like Council approved the whole shebang. You can find more details on the City's ARPA page, but the big-ticket investments are parks, trails, and community centers; the Affordable Housing Trust Fund; stormwater infrastructure; and a new Healthy Equity Trust Fund. While the full spending plan is approved, this huge bucket of money will be allocated over two years. Someone should definitely set up a spreadsheet or a Trello or something to track progress on all these rad projects. In particular, I can't wait for some of the new trails! Whoa there is a lot in this piece from Jessica Nocera in the RTD about how Chesterfield County Public Schools' unnecessary and mostly imaginary battle against Critical Race Theory does in fact have a chilling effect on folks in the County working against systemic racism. It's not hard to see how a policy banning CRT-related professional development has already led to the District rejecting a principal's request to take diversity, equity, and inclusion training from VCU. Not great—both scary and embarrassing. Side note: I really love the way Nocera reports this story without a lot of both-sidesism (or as NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen calls it, The View From Nowhere). Tonight at 5:00 PM, Council's Public Safety Committee will meet and hear recommendations presented by the Civilian Review Board Task Force. As a fun pregame to tonight's meeting, you can read the Task Force's recommendations yourself, one of which is "that the CRB will have its own department to avoid conflicts of interest; this is aligned with the recommendations of the City Attorney's Office. As such, we recommend creating a department or office of 'Community Oversight and Police Accountability' independent from other City departments or offices." I don't know a ton about how CRBs should work, but that is exactly why we tasked a taskforce to come up with recommendations! If you'd like to holler at your councilmember in support of the Task Force's recommendations—including the creation of an Office of Community Oversight and Police Accountability—you can find the big list of councilmember contact information here. One final note, and I'll assume that it was not intentional, but it does not seem particularly even-handed to schedule the Richmond Police Department to present on "Police Staffing and Morale" immediately before the CRB Task Force gives their presentation on police accountability. Well, I guess it's official. VPM's Ben Paviour reports that "The Virginia Redistricting Commission has missed a final deadline to draw new state legislative maps, kicking the process to the Virginia Supreme Court." Paviour helpfully lays out the next steps and timeline for the judges to get these maps drawn. This coming Thursday, October 28th, the Community Foundation will host a free, online panel focused on Everyday Nonprofit Advocacy. We've got a lot of issues to tackle in Richmond, and a ton of them are systemic issues requiring big-time policy changes to make our city a better place to live. Nonprofit advocacy (and regular-person advocacy!) plays a big role in that, and I deeply agree with this bit from the event description: "the community needs leaders who engage decisions makers well." Maybe systems-change work is too daunting or exhausting to think about—that's fine! How about this, then: Richmond Public Schools needs volunteers to provide no-contact grocery delivery to RPS families. That's about as finite and concrete of a task as you can get. This morning's longread Could removing parking requirements help revitalize Virginia's cities? I thought I'd move this extensive piece from Wyatt Gordon at the Virginia Mercury down to the longread section—it's packed with the impacts of free parking on a city like Richmond. Luckily, at least one of our councilmembers wants to make some incremental changes to the currently broken system. “People see the language of the resolution and worry I'm getting rid of parking,” said Addison, “But eliminating parking minimums just means we're not putting a burden on business owners and developers to provide and build more parking than they actually need. Parking minimums are a big barrier to housing affordability and people choosing other modes of mobility. Eliminating those outdated calculations on how much parking establishments need gets us closer to a market for shared parking that works better for everybody.” If you'd like your longread to show up here, go chip in a couple bucks on the ol' Patreon.

It's a choice between two very different candidates for Seattle's next city attorney, and a referendum on which way we're heading when it comes to policing and public safety. KUOW's Amy Radil explains.

John's guest is Cam Gordon, who represents Ward 2 on the Minneapolis City Council. First, we get Cam's reaction to the recent legal back and forth over the public safety charter amendment (this episode was recorded before the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision to allow voters to decide Question 2). John asks how Cam assesses the quality of the advice the City Council receives from the City Attorney's Office. And how should voters assess the effect of the "strong mayor" charter amendment? What's the public safety agenda if a charter change fails this November?What is Cam's reelection pitch to voters when he's knocking on doors (especially in light of the doorbell camera footage that's been sent into the Wedge LIVE tipline)? John asks Cam about his too-nice approach to dealing with mean tweeters? And the times he faced off with right wing media figure John Stossel, and local TV lawyer Joe Tamburino. We talk about the Mayor's PAC, the politicization of the chief, disinformation, and a gullible district court judge. Cam responds to John's constant frustration with conventional wisdom around the state of our failing public safety system: "so many officers left there was no way they the department could possibly spend all the money we've given them..." We talk about housing, the 2040 plan, boarding houses (why limit who can operate them?) -- and the history of ending occupancy limits based on the definition of family in the zoning code. What's Cam learned in his nearly 16 years on the City Council? We talk about the Charter Commission's anonymous interviews with city department heads (which the Commission used to promote their strong mayor amendment -- Question 1 on your ballot) and whether there is a rebellion at City Hall. Cam says the way it should work is that staff answers to actions of the Council as a body, not individuals (John suggests those rules don't apply to Lisa Goodman). John pushes Cam on neighborhood group funding. Cam talks about how a strong mayor system would shift power away from lower voter turnout parts of the city. How have personal relationships at City Hall changed over the course of the pandemic and social distancing? We finish the episode with recommendations and a Cam Gordon beard time-lapse. Join the conversation: twitter.com/wedgelive Support the show: patreon.com/wedgelive Wedge LIVE theme song by Anthony Kasper x LaFontsee

The Human Rights Campaign estimates that there are 2 million transgender people living in the United States, today. Yet Kylar Broadus says the fight for human rights is not yet won as long as transgender Americans lack equal rights under the law. Kylar Broadus is a Black trans man that has been a pioneer in the movement as an attorney, long-time activist, public speaker, author and professor. Broadus is known worldwide for his avant-garde work in the LGBT and Trans movements. He was just awarded the Trans Trailblazer Award by the LGBT Bar Association of Los Angeles and issue a Proclamation by the City Attorney's Office of Los Angeles on March 28, 2019. In 2018, he was awarded the 2018 Gentleman of Excellence Award by the Gentlemen's Foundation of Atlanta. Mastercard featured Broadus for Pride Month that same year, and he was recognized by the Prosecuting Attorney's Office of King's County in Brooklyn, New York in 2018 for his contributions to the legal field. Liberty Mutual honored him at the GLAAD Awards for his 30 years contribution to the movement and he was awarded a Certificate of Legal Excellence by the City of New York District Attorney's Office. The Advocate recognized Broadus as one of “25 Legal Advocates Fighting for Trans Rights.” He was honored to stand with President Obama while signing the Executive Order adding protections for millions of workers in 2014. He is the first out transgender American to testify before the United States Senate in favor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in 2012. Broadus was given the Pioneer Award at the Trans faith of Color Conference by the Freedom Center of Social Justice. He is founder and director of the Trans People of Color Coalition the only national organization dedication to the civil rights of transgender people of color and is on the board of the National Black Justice Coalition. He currently serves on the Freedom For All Americans board of directors. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Lawyers for journalist Yashar Ali are asking the L.A. City Attorney's Office to release the transcripts of depositions from a lawsuit filed by former LAPD officer Matthew Garza, who says a former advisor of L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti sexually harassed him. According to Garza, Garcetti witnessed the harassment firsthand and did nothing to stop it. Guest: Yashar Ali, Journalist Members of a newly formed union of childcare providers rallied Tuesday outside the state Capitol in Sacramento. The union is demanding the state show its members the money as it negotiates its very first contract. Reporter: Katie Orr, KQED

Cherie Kerr, who founded ExecuProv in 1983, has provided a variety of classes on presentation and communication skills to hundreds of business professionals from Fortune 100 and 500 companies.  Starting with a single public speaking class, ExecuProv's offerings have expanded to include over a dozen workshops, as well custom-tailored courses designed for the needs of specific clients.  Her clients include BP America, Ericsson, Toyota, Experian, The Hilton Hotel and Marriott Hotel Corporations, Office Max/Boise, Volcom, Nissan, Honda, Kia, Bank of America, BJ's Restaurant Brewhouse, Southern California Edison, Panasonic, Black & Decker, and Office Depot, to name a few. Kerr has also provided classes to various universities and collegiate department including University of Southern California; California State University, Fullerton; UCI Medical Center, Anesthesiology Department; the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis; and the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.  She also has worked for governmental agencies including the L.A. City Attorney's Office, the L.A. District Attorney's office, the County of Orange D.A.'s office, the Orange County Bar Foundation and the Orange County Juvenile Drug Court Program.   The author of 15 books, ten of which feature self-help techniques on presentation and communication skills, Kerr shares her ideas and theories culled from her varied background and expertise in PR and communications. She has ghosted three books for clients and 12 of her own including a critically acclaimed memoir of her father's life as a jazz musician entitled Charlie's Notes which was a New York Book Festival winner in 2011. the film festival circuit. She also is a member of Women in Film. Kerr is a member of the American Society of Composers, Artists and Publishers (ASCAP), and has been honored as an award-winning journalist and publicist.  Kerr was named, along with Disney's Michael Eisner, as one of the "Top Ten Most Sensational People in Orange County" by Orange Coast Magazine. Cherie Kerr resides in Santa Ana, California. She is the mother of three and has five grandchildren.   Support the show: https://theanswersandiego.com/radioshow/8349 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Frey also says he plans to run for re-election as Mayor of Minneapolis.