Podcasts about jessyn farrell

Jessyn Farrell, J.D., Seattle's Sustainability Director, and Rajiv Ravulapati, IMT's Associate Director of Government Engagemen (IMT); Seattle's new building emissions performance standards. Planet Philadelphia airs on 92.9 FM in NW Philadelphia & gtownradio.com, 4-5:00 PM ET the 1st & 3rd Friday/month. www.planetphiladelphia.com. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/kay-wood9/support

In line with Crowdsourcing Sustainability's monthly theme of organizing for climate action in your community, we recently had the pleasure of interviewing Jessyn Farrell!Jessyn brings a unique and helpful perspective to community climate action as she has been involved with it from several different angles - first as an advocate, directing a transportation-focused nonprofit, then as a lawmaker for the state of Washington's House of Representatives, and now as the Director of Seattle's Office of Environment and Sustainability.We covered a lot of ground in this interview including:The most effective ways for people to influence local politicians.How policy actually gets written (for better or worse).Advice for anyone running for office.The importance of meeting people where they are, listening, and addressing injustices.A story about the time she prevented fossil fuel lobbyists from destroying a multi-billion dollar bill by hiding in the bathroom…Crowdsourcing Sustainability links: - Sign up for the Crowdsourcing Sustainability newsletter! https://crowdsourcing-sustainability.ck.page/c34a46ed01 - Join the Crowdsourcing Sustainability Community! https://crowdsourcingsustainability.community/- CS Website: https://crowdsourcingsustainability.org Crowdsourcing Sustainability is a 501c3 nonprofit. Please consider supporting us so we can keep educating, inspiring, and empowering more people to act on climate where they live and work! https://crowdsourcingsustainability.org/donate And a huge thank you to Diego Rentsch as always for editing!!Support the show

Missed the Hacks & Wonks consultant roundtable? Never fear! On today's show you'll catch up on the first half of it. Consultants Riall Johnson of Prism Consulting, Michael Charles of Upper Left Strategies, and Heather Weiner join Crystal to discuss the results of the primary elections earlier this month, and what we can expect from the rest of election season. On today's show they discuss the mayoral primary election results, Charter Amendment 29 / Compassion Seattle, and the primary results for City Council Position 9 (City Wide). 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, Michael Charles at @mikeychuck, Heather Weiner at @hlweiner, and Riall Johnson at @RiallJohnson. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources Watch the entire consultant roundtable here: https://twitter.com/finchfrii/status/1425987129218240517?s=21 “Bruce Harrell, M. Lorena González eye November race after dominating Seattle's mayoral primary” by Daniel Beekman from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/bruce-harrell-m-lorena-gonzalez-eye-november-race-after-dominating-seattles-mayoral-primary/ “2021 Primary Precinct Results Show Familiar Rich vs. Rent-burdened Battle Lines” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist: https://www.theurbanist.org/2021/08/19/2021-primary-precinct-results-show-familiar-rich-vs-rent-burdened-battle-lines/ “The C Is for Crank: Correcting the Record on Compassion Seattle” by Erica C. Barnett at Publicola: https://publicola.com/2021/07/13/the-c-is-for-crank-correcting-the-record-on-compassion-seattle/ “Seattle mayoral race filled with ads, PAC money, and cash” by David Hyde and Gracie Todd at KUOW: https://www.kuow.org/stories/as-candidates-court-voters-with-campaign-ads-pac-cash-flows-into-seattle-s-mayoral-race “Where This Year's Campaign Money Is Coming From” by Erica C. Barnett from Publicola: https://publicola.com/2021/06/15/where-this-years-campaign-money-is-coming-from/ “Seattle's 2021 primary just set up a ‘battle royale' in November” by Angela King from KUOW: https://www.kuow.org/stories/seattle-primary-sets-up-battle-royale-in-november “Nikkita Oliver overtakes Sara Nelson to assume the lead for Seattle City Council #9” by Andrew Villeneuve: https://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2021/08/nikkita-oliver-overtakes-sara-nelson-to-assume-the-lead-for-seattle-city-council-9.html Carolyn Bick's coverage of policing for the South Seattle Emerald: https://southseattleemerald.com/?s=carolyn+bick   Transcript Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm your host Crystal Fincher. On this show, we talk to political hacks and policy wonks, to gather insight into local politics and policy through the lens of those doing the work. And, provide behind the scenes perspectives on politics in our state. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at OfficialHacksAndWonks.com, and in our episode notes. Hello, welcome to the Hacks & Wonks Post-Primary Consultant Round Table. I'm Crystal Fincher, the host of Hacks & Wonks, and a political consultant. And today, I'm thrilled to be joined by three of my favorite political consultants, to break down what happened and last week's primary election. First, I want to introduce Riall Johnson. Hey, Riall, thank you for joining us. Also, Heather Weiner. Hello. And, Michael Charles. So, I just wanted to start off by letting you give a quick synopsis of what you've been doing, what you're working on this cycle, and the types of races that you work on. So, I will start with Riall. Riall Johnson: Hi, thanks for having me. Riall Johnson, manager of Prism Washington. We've work on a lot of progressive campaigns around the region. We had about 16 candidates running this year for office. 12 of them were people of color, 15 of them ended up making it through the primary or didn't have a primary. So, we count those going through. So, hopefully, all 50 of them can win the general, but a lot of, just really focused on helping candidates that usually don't have the institutional support getting that leg up, especially at the beginning of the campaign, to make it to overcome those hurdles, and making more people from the community run for office. Crystal Fincher: Thank you. And, Michael Charles. Michael Charles: Great. My name is Michael Charles. I'm the managing partner of Upper Left Strategies. We have about eight candidates this cycle, which I did 15 before Riall, That's why I don't have any hair anymore. But yeah, we're excited. But we're similar to Riall. We work with progressive folks. We really like challenging the establishment and taking on tough races that people don't expect our folks to win. And we really like to do good job and get out there and win. So, we're excited this cycle, to have a lot of good candidates, countywide and citywide, and we're just excited about the work we're doing. And, thanks for having me here today. Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And, Heather Weiner. Heather Weiner: I am so honored to be here with you Crystal and also with Riall and Michael, who have just been kicking some serious butt over the last few years, and particularly, in this cycle. In contrast, I'm only working as a consultant with Lorena González. Who's running for mayor in Seattle. And most of the campaigns that I'm working on, are not on the ballot this year. They're mostly issue in legislative campaigns. Crystal Fincher: You said that super, all modest, only working on Lorena González. Basically, if you want to win a ballot initiative, you call Heather Wiener, is basically where we're at. Well-known for so many big progressive wins. So, thrilled to have you along with Riall and Michael Charles here, with Crystal Fincher with Fincher Consulting. I have worked with a lot of candidates. Now, mostly focusing on ballot initiatives and independent expenditures, but I wanted to kick off this conversation, starting off, looking at the Seattle mayoral race. Heather, you just mentioned that you're working with Lorena González, who was one of the two candidates who made it through, along with Bruce Harrell. So, starting off, what do you think of the results? Was this what you were expecting? And? what do you think this says about the voters in Seattle? Heather Weiner: Well, let me give you, first, my spin answer. Oh, yeah. We knew that Lorena was definitely going to be in the top two, and come within two points. That seems totally natural and we just totally thought that that was what's going to happen. Okay. Now, let me give you the real answer. Oh, my God. We were blown away. We knew we were going to be in the top two, but we thought that Bruce Harrell would have a larger lead, at this point, that he would have coalesced some of the Republicans/more conservative elements. And, particularly with the results that we saw in some of the other races, we definitely thought that Lorena would be in the twenties. So, we were very surprised at her great showing there. And, I do have to say a lot of that had to do with name recognition, of course. Also, the amazing amount of support that she got from labor. And also, I think the people who are informed voters in the primary being concerned about, Bruce Harrell, making it through. So, I was very excited. And in fact, I think, made a fool out of myself in the party, some bloggers and reporters reported on somebody running around cheering and making an ass out of herself. And that, I will 100% admit, was me. Crystal Fincher: So, for Michael and Riall, we all saw the public that was done in this. So, I'm sure we all heard about some of the internal cooling from the campaigns that showed a lot of voters, the majority of the voters undecided heading into the final stages of the primary campaign. But, I think it's fair to characterize the polling as showing Bruce and Lorena González in the lead. Bruce, usually, leading those as Heather mentioned, by a wider margin. Then, we saw in the actual results. But, we also saw that Colleen Echohawk seem to have more traction in polling, then resulted in the final election tally that Jessyn Farrell was talking about different stuff. So, what do you think accounts for the polling that we saw and the difference in the results that we got? Michael Charles: I do think that these folks were really independent, or they were undecided at the time, but as I've stated many times on your show, that I think there's two parties in Seattle now, it's the Seattle Times and it's The Stranger. And, those two make up the bulk of voters in Seattle, now. And if you get The Stranger vote, you're going to make up the mind to a lot of those undecided voters that were deciding between Colleen. And I thought that The Stranger actually, devastatingly for Colleen, made a pretty good argument for why you wouldn't want to vote for her. Crystal Fincher: What do you think, Riall? Riall Johnson: Yeah. The Stranger and the times are really big forces in terms of the primary vote and who else gets through. One thing I know is, I worked with Andrew Grant Houston (Ace). We had a lot of people that gave vouchers to Andrew, but they still voted for Lorena. Basically, out of a lot of fear for someone, they feel that Lorena was the person that could beat Bruce. And, it's a valid argument, that you're afraid of giving us some money and then and then voted for someone else, because they didn't probably didn't feel Ace had the name recognition to get to the general. Well, like I said, it's disappointing. And of course, on my end, but also, you see why it happened. And I think what's like other candidates, people always talk about wanting to change and new, but also experiencing new recognition still hold strong in a lot of things.   Riall Johnson: And I think that's what Lorena did. She did a great job of wrapping up a lot of the union support, I think coalescing in progressive organizations show that she built a good coalition of progressive establishment support, which I think, really carried her through. And, that's what The Stranger saw. I think Colleen, I was actually, even when we first heard about Colleen, excited about, I think you saw like who was supporting her and the policies. There wasn't really a lot lining a lot with Bruce, I think, which made people fall off in the end, and then when people, primary numbers do look at platforms and they see what that Lorena's platform was more of on progressive side, than they were with Colleen. And I think that's what helped, in the end, probably steer people away from Colleen towards Lorena.   Heather Weiner: I really wanted to find out from you two, what you thought about some of the negative messaging that was out there, from people on the right who were sending out, the Seattle is dying type mail. Seattle had enough, was a mail that I saw. Did you think that that would depress votes, do you think that's motivating to voters? What do you think is the interaction with that kind of campaigning?   Riall Johnson: It probably depresses you, because voter turnout was low. Way lower than I expected. I was hoping there would be some residual voter turnout increase from the 2020 election, where 75%, 85% of Seattle voted. And now it's down to, 36% right now. Something like that, but we're going to probably crack for you hopefully by the end, maybe. So, it's lower than it was two years ago, I think, it looks like, so far. The Seattle is dying message has been going on for 100, years as we've seen it. It's like, if it's not dead by now, then Seattle is just immortal. And, I think that the whole point is like, people are catching on, that it's just right-wing propaganda to say, like, the fastest growing in the country, is dying.   Riall Johnson: And it's just like, if it's dying, how come there's so much economic boom here? The only thing that I'll say is, Seattle is actually choking and it's choking the poor, and it's choking the working-class because people are getting priced out, because the rich here, are thriving so much in this booming the city. And, that's why we see people just... you If anything is dying, it's like, we're getting pushed out because of just the unfair... If anything is the right wing haven. I always joke about Seattle just because there's no income tax, billionaires live here for a reason. They get to crap on poor. I'm not allowed to cussing here, I would. And, the police get to get away with anything they want. It's just like, this is not the progressive city we live in. And I think, that narrative of Seattle dying, it's just more just demonizing homeless and demonizing poor people that make it feel like, people feel just because they see homeless is icky, and they want to just sweep them away with police. One thing that resonate is that, I think-   Michael Charles: Yeah. That's what I was going to say too, Riall, around the homelessness. And I think that, this election is so much about homelessness. It's the top issue. Everybody wants to talk about homelessness. And, I think if anything, that messaging drove people to think, who has the vision that's in line with me about how I think homelessness can be solved in the region. And I think that, especially considering that I feel like this electorate is probably the most conservative electorate you'll see every four years, which is post presidential election, primary in a city. It's going to be the most conservative electorate we can see, which I also think speaks to how powerful, or what strong positioning Lorena's in. And, that was literally the most conservative electorate we're going to see. And if she's only two points behind, that really makes me feel like she's connecting, clearly, on some issues with some folks, that otherwise wouldn't feel the same. And if anything, I think that actually helped Lorena in that case, to be honest, where a lot of the people that are tired of this messaging of Seattle's dying or like, I'm just tired of hearing it. So, they're going to vote for somebody that they think, actually, is the opposite of that. And so-   Heather Weiner: It's so interesting, because we know we did some polling about public safety issues. Because we saw some of the polling that was coming out of other... I was in the public polling that was talking about, oh, people are really scared. There's a big safety issue going on. People are really scared about crime. And certainly, you would think so, in seeing KIRO, KOMO, Q13, some of the mainstream media coverage of this, but when we actually ask people, "Well, how safe do you feel in your neighborhood?"   Heather Weiner: 83% said they felt very safe. So, we feel scared about what's happening somewhere else because that's what we're being told to feel. But, what we see with our own eyes and our own neighborhoods is, yeah, there are people who are living on the street and they are human beings and they are my neighbors, and I feel compassion and empathy to them. And we can also talk about Compassion Seattle. I hope that's on the agenda.   Crystal Fincher: It is on the agenda.   Heather Weiner: Before I give up the mic, let me just say, shout out to Riall, who helped his candidate max out on vouchers. He was the first one to help his candidate max out on vouchers, in the mayoral campaign, which is mind boggling hard, particularly for a candidate that most people haven't heard of. And then the second thing is, your candidate, Andrew, was so smart. So on-message, so unapologetic about the positions that he was taking. I think he did drive the narrative and drive the message and drive the debate on it. And so, I'm going to be able to say sorry. I'm sorry to not have him at those the upcoming forums. I really enjoyed having him there. I was totally into his headbands.   Michael Charles: And, Riall is unquestionable at getting vouchers at this point. I just think everybody needs to know that, that is undoubtedly the case.   Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. There is not anyone who is in the same tier, as Riall and Prism, when it comes to voucher game. Extends into regular signature gathering. Just fantastic, incredible job. And you just set a new bar throughout this cycle. The other thing-   Michael Charles: When you're making an establishment, you're managing to do something right.   Crystal Fincher: Yes.   Riall Johnson: They only had a few hearings about it.   Crystal Fincher: Change some rules in the middle of the cycle. One thing I wanted to just circle back on a little bit was, talking about the whole Seattle is dying narrative, which clearly didn't carry like people thought it would carry. And I think we've talked about this on the show before, but that is such a narrative. I think people confuse that narrative. I think sometimes, there are some entities when you look at historically like their cost per vote are very bad. A lot of times the more, business focused chamber candidate ask those ies, a lot of times, they're are not the most efficient at driving out votes.   Crystal Fincher: And it takes all that money that they throw at candidates, to drag them across the finish line. But that Seattle is dying narrative, does not work in Seattle. And I think, sometimes, people have some blinders on, within Seattle, thinking that that's an effective thing, when really that narrative works for people who are not familiar with Seattle, who don't live in Seattle, who are outside of Seattle. That's where that's gaining traction. But as you mentioned, Heather, that polling matches up with everything that we've seen before. And that, people who live in Seattle, don't feel that. They don't feel that as they're walking through their neighborhood, that they feel like they're in danger. They don't feel like, "Oh, the city that we thought we knew that this was utopia, is now this barren wasteland." And, there's lawlessness and anarchy and seeing the...   Heather Weiner: Well, let's be honest. There are a lot more people who are living on the street. And, with people living on the street, we are seeing, we are visually experiencing more trash or seeing people who are suffering more, we're seeing more drug use. And as a result, we all feel very uncomfortable. But, let's go back to what Riall was saying, which is, when you're talking about who's to blame here and what really the problem is, the problem is that, the money that was taken out of housing, out of mental health, out of treatment services back in 2011 by the State Legislature, was never put back into those budgets. And the cities and counties have then been left with the bill. And they are the ones who are now responsible for taking care of people who are being evicted, who can no longer pay the rent because of the recession, for the expansion of substance use disorder, because of trauma. And as a result, who's got to pay? And let me just go here and channel Andrew Grant Houston and say, big corporations are the ones who have got to pay, because they are the ones who are hoarding the wealth. Okay. I'm not running for office.   Crystal Fincher: Well, so I guess that, that is an interesting conversation. And looking at some of the other candidates, I guess a couple things. One, it appears that candidates who did favor the Compassion Seattle amendment, got more votes than candidates who did not favor the Compassion Seattle amendment, with the caveat that this is a primary election that we-   Michael Charles: But it was only Jessyn and Bruce, right, that really we're in favor of it, right?   Crystal Fincher: And Casey Sixkiller.   Michael Charles: And Sixkiller.   Crystal Fincher: Yeah.   Heather Weiner: Oh, yeah. Okay. That's right. That's probably true.   Riall Johnson: Colleen was, and then she wasn't.   Heather Weiner: And then she wasn't.   Michael Charles: Yeah. She's like half.   Heather Weiner: Yeah, yeah. Pretty close. Somebody who's listening, do the math.   Crystal Fincher: Yeah. It was there, but it was a primary electorate. There is not much messaging about Compassion Seattle. To your point, Heather, we're just getting started with the citywide conversation on Compassion Seattle. And, I think part of the challenge of it, as someone people who listened to Hacks & Wonks are not going to be surprised that I oppose the Compassion Seattle Charter Amendment 29, because it's codifying suites and doesn't do much to actually solve the root problems that cause homelessness. But, the messaging on it, the name, Compassion Seattle, the headlines that you hear on the evening news, it guarantees money to be spent on services and provides a humane, compassionate way to address the problem. Those are all things that people want. And, we haven't really gotten into a wide discussion city-wide or communication to people who don't pay attention to politics that much, on what the details of this actually are, and how might differ from the rhetoric there. So, candidates like Jessyn Farrell and Bruce Harrell, supported it. Do you think that is going to help or hinder them in the general election?   Riall Johnson: I think it's going to hinder them. We had to contend with these people on the streets and it was just a horrible initiative there. One night on the streets. And it was just like, they would try to take over terse on where people gathering voters were. Heather experienced it. So, you just use people. The way they did about that, they were just trying to bully their way into this initiative, and then bully in their way on the ballot. And it was really easy to get someone to see the side of things, if you pitched things right...   Riall Johnson: Because, that messaging, they would just say, it's going to help the homeless. Anything you can say can help the homeless' assaults objective. And, everyone wants to help the homeless, but the question is, what are they going to do about it? This whole thing about guaranteeing money, we've already been spending money on the homeless. Question is, what we do with it. People keep trying to blame the council for the problems. At this point, I can blame the council for, or get mad at them. But the thing is that, council is only like 20% of power, in the city. The rest of it resides in the mayor.   Riall Johnson: And we have had a corporate conservative mayor, for the last three decades. Maybe with the exception of Mike McGinn, he had his issues. With Ed Murray and Jenny Durkan, Tim Burgess and Bruce Harrell, who was also here, the last five mayors, and any before that. It's just been, corporate supported backed mayors, have just done with the corporations, one of them to do with Seattle and always giving police more money, giving corporations whatever they want, and then stripped funding. Even if when they get funding, they just don't spend it on housing or homeless situations. They just spend it on sweeping them, and sweeping money the other way. So it was like, we said we'd put money in it. We've been putting money at the sweeps, not even foreign money, actual housing. And, the mayor is the plane for all that, because council has given the mayor money for this, and mayor just doesn't choose it use it.   Riall Johnson: And people need to realize, the power resides in the mayor's office. That's why Andrew ran the first place. He's like, "We can be the most progressive City Council ever. We can be nine out of nine progressive City Council." Well, I think unless the mayor actually does what we ask them to do, which they have the choice not to. And, Durkan has been declining these choices in the county, misusing this money. There's not much a council can really do in the city. And, the thing is, unless they get they can do more to approve both, but we don't have that full progressive council. It's funny how they only try and blame Kshama or Tammy or the three per actual progressive, or the councils, or four progressive... But, they don't have the full power. Lorena has given money and shepherded a lot of bills, just doesn't get spent right. And even to that, I don't want to blame Bruce for everything the council do either, because the council can only do so much. Heather Weiner: Yeah, it's not a weak mayor, government that we have. It's a very strong mayor form of government that we have here. On C29, one of the things that's in the news, I don't know if you guys have seen, is that ACLU and some homelessness advocates and Transit Riders Union just filed a lawsuit yesterday, challenging C29. And, I am a lawyer. I don't play one on TV, but I think they have a good chance. And I don't want to bore your listeners by telling them why they have a good chance, but actually, I think they have a good chance. And, I think it also helps by ACLU, getting their name into the press, talking about how they oppose this, I think that also weakens that unofficial backdoor IE, that the Downtown Seattle Association and the chamber have going, right now.   Michael Charles: Well, polling has backed up that people are actually like, when they hear this on the surface, it's actually not a bad idea. And so, it's, I'm worried that with no official... We have a small amount of opposition, but I think Heather's right. I think that there's a good chance this gets through right now. And, without the right information, without people really understanding what's in the bill here, it's a really good chance it's going to pass. People are looking for a plan. People are looking for a vision. People want just something done on homelessness.   Heather Weiner: Right. And, if you look at their messaging, it's very much about the council, the council, the council. So, pointing the finger at them. So, yeah, I think C29 is going to be really interesting. I know you guys don't want to talk about Seattle politics the whole time, so I'll be quiet.   Riall Johnson: Isn't that what we're here for?   Crystal Fincher: Yeah.   Heather Weiner: Well, there are, actually, other cities in King County.   Crystal Fincher: There are, and we will get to them.   Michael Charles: Crystal lives in one of them. Just throwing that out there.   Crystal Fincher: I live in one of them, and I'm excited. We had one primary race. And, the candidate shares the same last name with me in Kent, and her results as the local paper record said, she dominated her two opponents. So, pleased with that, but-   Michael Charles: With minimal spend, mind you.   Crystal Fincher: Minimal spend, that cost per votes. It's pretty impressive. Nice work on that, Michael Charles. But, I do want to just put a bow on Charter BIM at 29. I'm looking forward to that lawsuit. I agree with the panel here, that the anti-campaign has a tough road, just because of the simplicity of the message favoring the pro-campaign. The devil really is in the details, significant devil in the details. But, you have to get to the details. And that's really hard without a concerted communication effort, which takes a lot of resources. And, the pro-campaign, clearly has the resource advantage. Doesn't mean it's impossible. Just means that the work is cut out for the anti-Charter Amendment 29 campaign ahead, but I'm sure they're going to have a lot of eager and talented people willing to put in that work.   Riall Johnson: Yeah. All you gotta do is tell people, "He's following the money. Look at who's funding him."   Crystal Fincher: Seriously. And, there was a story I think, by Jim Brunner this past week in the Seattle Times, talking about Trump's number one booster in the state giving to both the Bruce Harrell campaign, and the Charter Amendment 29 campaign.   Heather Weiner: Yeah. And, Bruce Harrell's IE. Let's make sure to give credit where credit's due. That was Danny Westneat, of all people.   Crystal Fincher: It was Danny Westneat.   Heather Weiner: Yes. Danny Westneat published that, just when I think I broke up with him.   Michael Charles: George Petrie is also one of the people that are fighting the eviction moratorium the most, that wants to end that. So, I would just throw that out there as well. Heather Weiner: Yeah. The landlord.   Crystal Fincher: Yeah. I hope to see covered in the general election, the story of campaign spending. It's an undertold story. And so many, especially Seattle campaigns and mayoral campaigns, I think that we have ignored to our detriment, the story of donors. Certainly, during the past two with Durkan and with Ed Murray, their rhetoric said one thing, their donor listed something completely different.   Michael Charles: I would add Dow Constantine to that list as well, as somebody who takes money from Amazon and lots of other places as well.   Crystal Fincher: It's something I think is a fair question to ask candidates. These are investments for access and policy from businesses, and you just have to ask them, why do they feel it's a good investment in that candidate? What return do they think they're getting? It's fair to ask that, for a lot of different ones. But, I think that one lesson we need to learn in politics is that, it's not that candidates are bought and sold, but organizations, companies know where a candidate stands, and they're giving with an expected result. And usually, that turns out to be correct. When you look at how someone governs, usually, there are no surprises when you look at their donors. That's something that Seattle voters have a history of ignoring. I hope they pay attention this time. And, I hope the media pays attention this time. That story by Danny Westneat, I thought it was excellent. I hope to see more.   Heather Weiner: Yeah, don't say that too loud. If he hears you, he's going to write something completely opposite of it.   Michael Charles: And shout out to like Erica. Erica Barnett, normally does a really good piece every year. I don't know. I didn't pay attention as close to this year. She did one on the mayor's race or City Council, but she normally does an excellent job on this, every year.   Crystal Fincher: She's been on top of it in covering that, in addition with Charter Amendment 29 also. So, PubliCola has been on that. The Urbanist has been doing more coverage of that, and has had a lot of great stories throughout that, in addition to the South Seattle Emerald. So, a hat tip to local Seattle media for being engaged in helping to hold candidates accountable and help to inform voter.   Heather Weiner: And to City Hall reporters, it is a thankless job but there's new people coming out. New people, you're sitting on Twitter who are following what's happening in City Hall. And, I really appreciate that, as a thankless job. I want to hear what you guys have to think about council race nine. Crystal Fincher: Yeah.   Riall Johnson: So first off, shout out to Carolyn Bick, as well for in South Seattle Emerald.   Crystal Fincher: Excellent.   Riall Johnson: Council race nine, this is like a lot of hopes and dreams you've been thinking about a little bit, that someone that doesn't have to follow the party establishment framework can actually win. And so, Nikkita getting through the primary gives hope that, we could actually break free of those two party system. And, that's my biggest joy from seeing Nikkita get through. It's just like, not only is that seeing someone from the community that's put in so much work in that leading movements, or imagine, leading protests, showing that and seeing that reflecting the electorate without party support, without party politics. Started their own party, and getting through and leading is just hugely exciting to watch the potential of that.   Riall Johnson: It's not the first person, obviously, Shannon did as well, Andrew did as well, but city-wide, was getting that much support. It's a testament to the community organizer that Nikkita is. And of course, I'm really good friends with the campaign manager, Shaun Scott, who's an amazing organizer. He's just knows how to get people without... You see their posts, you see 100 people coming up to campus. Because, they just got excited for that person. And that resonates with voters regardless of party. I think the side of that campaigns has been very contagious.   Heather Weiner: I love just to see some of the volunteer art around town. I had my two nieces visiting here from Florida, and all they could talk about was Nikkita. They're both 14 and 16, and they saw the art around town, and they were starting to tell me about this candidate named Nikkita. It was really inspiring and really interesting. I want to hear the T though. Let's say, I'm not involved with either DSA or the People's Party, what is going to happen if we have Nikkita and Shaun, both on the City Council? What do you think will happen? Will they work together? Do you think there's going to be tension? What's happening there?   Riall Johnson: I wish I could tell you. I don't know.   Michael Charles: Well, obviously, they represent two different things, right? DSA is not the same as People's Party. I feel like there's a big separation in their approach, and how they're going to go. Or, not even DSA, but what is it? What's Shaun's-   Riall Johnson: Socialist Alternative.   Michael Charles: Socialist Alternative. Yeah. I feel like they're totally different approaches. The way they go about problem solving, is a lot differently. And I say that in the way that, I think Shaun's approach is to throw bombs, right. And I don't know that Nikkita's approach is necessarily to throw bombs, but to speak truth to power. And I think those are two different things. And I know that Shaun's approach is about speaking truth to power, for sure. But, it's through the lens of capitalism versus everything else. And Nikkita's is more around equity, and how are we genuinely pushing equity in government?   Michael Charles: Not to throw too much, but I want to step back just from the D9 race itself. And I felt like that was like two things. One thing being, the day after punditry needs to be dead. We need to just stop doing a day after punditry. This is ridiculous. I can't tell you how many posts we read that was like, Nikkita underperformed. Sara Nelson was up by all these numbers. And then, here we are. Nikkita's clearly in the lead. And, it's switched, but secondly, there's no room for middle politics right here. And I think the mayor's race proved that. I think this race was the clearest example of, there's no room for anything, but you got to pick a team at this point. The voters have no room for nuance. You are either on the side, that's going to fight what's going on in this city, or you're cool with everything that's going on. You want more of the same. So, there's just no room for nuance. There's no room for, if they think you're the policy person or that you work for them. That's just not important in these races any longer. It's about, are you on our side or not? And, I think we're really clear.   Heather Weiner: No, Michael, you worked for a candidate in this race, right. For Brianna Thomas, who was very much in that lane, and wasn't able to break through both of those. And, I am a huge fan of Brianna Thomas. I voted for Brianna Thomas, and I know she's a friend of the show. Tell me, how it would have been different if either Nikkita or Sara was not in the race. I'm sorry. Am I sounding like I'm trying to host right now? Crystal, feel free to kick me-   Crystal Fincher: No, you're fine. This is a conversation.   Heather Weiner: All right. Sorry. I'm just really interested. Yeah.   Michael Charles: No. The thing is that Brianna has integrity. And, what she needed to do once Nikkita got in the race, was not like, if she wanted to get through, you had to pick a team. And, the fact is, Brianna's also really progressive, has progressive ideas. But if what you were looking for was that, you chose the person that had more history with that lane, that clearly was less intellectual about, explaining, you need to know this about city politics and you need to know this about city politics in order to get things done. And I think voters really with that of like, I don't care about the insider ball game. I just don't care. What I want is people that are going to stand up for these issues.   Michael Charles: And I think that for Brianna, it was hard. If Sara Nelson wasn't in the race, Brianna would have gotten through. If Nikkita wasn't in the race, Brianna would have gotten through. Traditionally, we look at Lisa Herbold. We look at Andrew Lewis. She's in the mold of a lot of the candidates or a lot of the current council members of a former staffer. She is what traditionally we have done in Seattle for politics. And so, I just think that it was a repudiation of the idea of more of the same. And they said, we want somebody that's more extreme to get done what we want done.   Riall Johnson: Also, I think it came down to name or condition. Nikkita has just been done a lot of work, been on the spotlight, led a lot of things, and people recognize. And also, you don't have DNS on the ballot. So, it was a nonpartisan race. People saw the progressive candidate that voter's pamphlets, all that stuff added up. And Brianna has been just doing a lot of great work for years. And, I hope people come away, recognizing the stuff that she's done behind the scenes. She's been that person behind the scenes, that workforce has just got things done. Like, the minimal wage. Even the very first minimum wage organize the SeaTac one, not just the statewide, but the SeaTac wage. A lot of policies that we are thankful that we pat ourselves on the back for, the progressive policy and City Council, Brianna got done.   Riall Johnson: So, I think you've got to give credit where credit's due. And hopefully, I don't think Brianna was done with Seattle, because she's just someone who…When we actually do turn this place into the progressive ****hole that Fox News thinks it is, we're going to need people like Brianna to get things done. So hopefully, we see more of her and her career, one way or another. She's sharp as they come. Hopefully, she's not done with Seattle.   Michael Charles: Brianna is not done with Seattle politics. In my opinion, I think that she's going to be an important part moving forward.   Heather Weiner: There's so few women of color who were running for office in the City of Seattle, and there's so many who are starting to run now, thanks to the three of you, in all of these other cities, and in King County. But, to have two women of color, running against each other in that race was painful to watch. Right. Because, we want to raise up women of color, as much as we can, everywhere.   Crystal Fincher: Go ahead, Michael.   Michael Charles: I was just going to say, I think it's good that we have multiple women of color running for office. I'm excited about that. I don't think we have to coalesce around the one or anything ever. Actually, I wish we had four women of color running in every race, always. That would be amazing. We would feel we're doing something right, if that's point.   Heather Weiner: And, that's a good point. We had two women of color running in this mayor's race with Lorena and Colleen Echohawk, which was fantastic. Yeah.   Michael Charles: And to have two Black women running, is almost even cooler.   Crystal Fincher: It's really cool. And I think it impacts the quality of the discourse. I've heard from several journalists who commented on the quality of the policy discussions in that Position 9 race, and the detail of Nikkita's policy, Brianna's policy. I don't know that Sara Nelson brought a lot of detail in policy to the table. But certainly, between Brianna and Nikkita, really talking about, not just a vision, but the plans to get there. I think in the mayoral race, multiple women of color running, and having more nuanced conversations and better conversations, I think that's a positive thing. I'm with Michael on that, I don't think that there can only be one. And I also appreciate it, because we don't have enough women of color running yet, we're still excited when it happens because it happens too infrequently.   Crystal Fincher: But, there's this tendency to be like, well, there could only be one who is the true and authentic person of color who can speak for all of the people of color. Right. And, we're definitely not a monolith. We have a lot of different perspectives. And I think the more people of color, women of color, more black women that run, we get to see the richness of how varied we are, how many different perspectives and solutions we can bring to the table. So, I like seeing people run. I wish that we could be able to elect great people, and not have to choose between two, if it would be great if they both could wind up an office? Sure. But when they end up running against each other, is it okay? And, do I think it is necessary? Unfortunately, no. I think that it's good to see those perspectives. And I agree that we have not seen the last of Brianna Thomas, and will be better for it, if she stays engaged.   Crystal Fincher: Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks. Our chief audio engineer at KVRU is Maurice Jones Jr. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I, and now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your Podcasts. Just type in Hacks & Wonks into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost live shows and our mid-week show delivered to your Podcast feed. You can also get a full text transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced during the show, at OfficialHacksAndWonks.com, and in the Podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in. Talk to you next time.  

Today Crystal is joined by a very special co-host and KIRO 7 political reporter, Essex Porter! They cover what happened in this week's primary elections, whether or not there were any real upsets or surprises, and we may see over the next few months heading into the November general election. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal on Twitter at @finchfrii, and find Essex at @EssexKIRO7.    Resources “Harrell, González will likely compete to be next Seattle mayor” by David Kroman from Crosscut: https://crosscut.com/politics/2021/08/harrell-gonzalez-will-likely-compete-be-next-seattle-mayor  “Incumbent Pete Holmes slips to third place in Seattle city attorney race after Thursday's ballot count” by Jim Brunner from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/incumbent-pete-holmes-slips-to-third-place-in-seattle-city-attorney-race-after-thursdays-ballot-count/  “6 takeaways from ballots counted Tuesday in Seattle area's 2021 primary election” by Jim Brunner from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/6-takeaways-from-ballots-counted-tuesday-in-seattles-2021-primary-election/  “Primary election results: Harrell, González lead mayor's race” by Crosscut Staff: https://crosscut.com/politics/2021/08/primary-election-results-harrell-gonzalez-lead-mayors-race  Read Hacks & Wonks interviews with candidates that are likely to move on to the November election: Mayoral candidate, Lorena González: https://www.officialhacksandwonks.com/listenpodcast/episode/f9428eab/conversation-with-lorena-gonzalez-city-council-president-and-mayoral-candidate  District 9 City Council candidate, Nikkita Oliver: https://www.officialhacksandwonks.com/listenpodcast/episode/300d5a84/nikkita-oliver-activist-organizer-city-council-candidate  District 9 City Council candidate, Sara Nelson: https://www.officialhacksandwonks.com/listenpodcast/episode/29584c47/discussion-with-sara-nelson-city-council-candidate  City Attorney candidate, Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: https://www.officialhacksandwonks.com/listenpodcast/episode/20c5baf6/nicole-thomas-kennedy-candidate-for-city-attorney  King County Executive, Dow Constantine: https://www.officialhacksandwonks.com/listenpodcast/episode/1e6eecae/a-chat-with-dow-constantine-king-county-executive  King County Executive candidate, Senator Joe Nguyen: https://www.officialhacksandwonks.com/listenpodcast/episode/1e38d0ac/meet-senator-and-kc-exec-candidate-joe-nguyen-again    Transcript Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington State through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows, where we review the news of the week. Welcome to the program - I'm extremely happy and excited to welcome today's co-host, KIRO-7 political reporter, Essex Porter. Hey Essex! Essex Porter: [00:00:54] Hello, and good to be here. Crystal Fincher: [00:00:57] Excellent to have you here. Well, I'm thrilled to have you on the program. You are known to everyone as the person who lets us know what's going on with politics here locally on TV. So we just had a big primary election earlier this week and we have vote-in-mail here in the state, so we don't get all of the results on Election Day. We get them in batches in the days - on Election Day and throughout the week. Usually most races are clear by the end of the week, and most races are clear with one or two hanging in the balance. So I guess, starting with the mayor's race, what was your feeling on just the result that we got? Essex Porter: [00:01:45] The result was not surprising. We expected former City Council President Bruce Harrell to be in the lead on election night and he is. We pretty much expected current City Council President Lorena González to come in second and make the November ballot - and she did. The other two - three and four - Colleen Echohawk, number three, Jessyn Farrell, number four. That was pretty much expected as well. And the Northwest Progressive Institute poll pretty much nailed where they would come in. I think they were tied pretty much in that poll, or close to tied in that poll. And that's exactly the order they showed up in. So we have the November election matchup that we expected, but we'll see if there are surprises between now and November. It's a long time away. Crystal Fincher: [00:02:41] It is a long time away - a lot of communication yet to go. Where we stand today, and today we're recording this Friday morning - people will be starting to listen to this on Friday afternoon. We still have yesterday's results. We don't have the Friday results in yet. There are probably going to be another 20,000-ish votes counted today in Seattle is what we're anticipating. But as it stands right now, Bruce Harrell is just shy of 37% - 36.9%. And then Lorena González is at just shy of 30%, so 29.6%. With Colleen Echohawk further behind, in third place, but at 9% - I think that's further behind than a lot of people expected her to be. Some of the polling showed that she was closer, that she had a potentially significant upside after people heard her message and how she talked about herself. Why do you think that that result didn't line up with expectations? Essex Porter: [00:03:46] Well, yeah, interestingly and the only poll I'd really seen, was the public one by Northwest Progressive Institute, which had her roughly where she is ending up, as I recall. I think it had her right at 8%, but there was a large number of undecided people in the race. Perhaps for Colleen Echohawk, who has been a very strong candidate when you see her in person - but of course it's hard to meet everybody in person, and you really have to get a message out there when you are someone who has not been in the headlines of the public eye for as long as Councilmembers Harrell and González had been. Now Colleen Echohawk has a very public profile, she's just not as well-known. And I think the result can be heartening for her and her supporters, and can point certainly to a future in Seattle politics, even if she's not going to be on the ballot this November. Crystal Fincher: [00:05:00] Absolutely, and I think you nailed it. It really is, for people who pay attention to politics - a number of people who listen to this podcast are more plugged-in than the average person when it comes to political news. So we can - we're more exposed, we're more in tune with all the news coming out - where the candidates stand, who they are, what their histories are. But the average Seattle voter is not us. We are abnormal. The biggest opponent for a candidate is not the person or people who they are running against. It's everything else in a voter's life that is competing for attention. There's a lot going on right now in the world. We're dealing with a pandemic, people are figuring out what they're doing with their kids and school and work and home and remote, and just a lot going on, in addition to everything else that's going on in life. And so lots of people don't start paying attention until they notice that they get their ballot in the mail and their voter's pamphlet. And in that time, you really have to communicate really effectively with a message that penetrates and captures people's attention. Certainly that's simpler to do when there's familiarity with a candidate. So people who had been Councilmembers and incumbents enjoyed that. They'd been on ballots before, voters were already familiar with them. People who voters weren't very familiar with in the mayor's race, they just didn't seem to - their message didn't seem to penetrate. So, but as we've seen with a lot of other races, this can certainly set someone up for a future successful race, now that they're more widely known, more broadly known, and people have gotten a little bit more of a chance to get to know who they are. Essex Porter: [00:06:44] I got to talk to a few voters on the day before the election and on Election Day. The sense I got from voters was certainly - coming out of this pandemic and having a nice weather summer, and for, at the time before the election - things were relaxing and people were enjoying getting out, enjoying maybe taking a little bit of a vacation trip. I talked to one person, I asked him why he was voting so late, "I'm voting so late because I just moved and I needed to get the ballot at the new address. Soon as I got it, I came and I voted." People have things going on in their lives. But what's one of the thoughts I have is that - I wonder if the atmosphere will be changing. Because in the last few days of the election and this week and continuing on, there is more concern about COVID. There is more of a restrictive attitude as the highly contagious Delta variant of COVID begins to impact our lives here in the Seattle area and the Northwest. There is a concern that the psychological, if not physical opening we have, will be closing back down. That may also be on voters' minds as they go into November. That will be one of the things that's overhanging that vote as they make choices. Crystal Fincher: [00:08:12] The Delta variant is here and prevalent. So we'll see how that continues to line up. Another interesting thing I was looking at is obviously - we have the Compassion Seattle initiative coming up on the November ballot, and we had the major candidates basically all line up on one side or the other of the initiative. And that acted as a dividing line between where candidates stood. Are they more of a law and order-focus candidate, looking at issues that may bring more criminalization or certainly codify some criminalization of homelessness into the City Charter with sweeps, in addition to some other elements and in that - Essex Porter: [00:09:01] And I have to say, that's one of the arguments over Compassion Seattle - as to whether it does criminalize homelessness and poverty. Whether it does make it more likely and give more approval to sweeps. I mean that's going to be one of the big debating points. There are supporters of Compassion Seattle who don't necessarily see it that particular way. Crystal Fincher: [00:09:27] Absolutely. And certainly the language about it, right? Compassion Seattle - this is a compassionate solution to this challenge that we're facing. Everyone seems to agree that it's a problem. Which part of that they find to be the problem is up in the air. Is it that they have to see and deal with people being homeless? Is it that they are feeling uncomfortable about it and wanting them to be removed, or swept, or other things happen? Is it an issue of services? Certainly the initiative does address services. People talk about how effective that is and is it really more than what we're doing now? And many people say that it is 1% more perhaps, but perhaps more restrictive, but - Essex Porter: [00:10:18] And as I talk to voters - and again, this is a small number of voters I'm talking with, as I'm working on deadline and meeting people at random at the ballot box. But as I talked to voters, when they mentioned homelessness, all the voters I talked with started out with a feeling of compassion for those who are homeless, who may be forced to sleep on the streets, or camp in a tent. And then as you listened to them, even if they didn't say who they liked in the mayor's race, it was clear that they kind of divided. There were people who spoke compassionately about those who are homeless, who felt to me - is that they would be more inclined to support Bruce Harrell. There are others who talked very much the same way, who felt to me - they would be more inclined to support Lorena González or Colleen Echohawk. The Northwest Progressive Institute poll has Compassion Seattle at, I think, it's 61% support. So it just seems to me, there's a lot of people across the mayoral candidate spectrum who support Compassion Seattle. It may not be that a vote for one person as mayor is a vote against Compassion Seattle. That's what it will be interesting to see work out in November. Crystal Fincher: [00:11:48] It'll be interesting to see it work out in November. And interesting to see how the vote share was turned out based on where the candidates were at. Candidates who supported Compassion Seattle got more votes than candidates who didn't in the primary. But we do have Bruce Harrell who said that he is supportive of Charter Amendment 29 and Lorena González who opposes it. Essex Porter: [00:12:16] Yeah, that's going to be one of the key things that differentiates those candidates, because there's actually a lot that's alike about those two candidates. But we'll be looking for what the differences are. Crystal Fincher: [00:12:24] Will be interesting to see how that turns out. We also got results in the City Council races. I don't think many people are too surprised to see Teresa Mosqueda, the incumbent, in Position 8 with 56%. Kenneth Wilson is going to also make it through to the general, at 17%, but that race is looking pretty settled. In the Position 9 race, Sara Nelson is in the lead as we speak, with 42%, followed by Nikkita Oliver - they have 36%. And then Brianna Thomas in third place, with just about 14%. So it looks like Nikkita Oliver and Sara Nelson are making it through to the general - two very different candidates. Two other candidates who line up on opposite sides of the Compassion Seattle debate, they're on different sides on the JumpStart tax, the head tax, many different things. So that certainly is going to be a race where voters have a clear choice. Essex Porter: [00:13:31] Yeah. Now that is absolutely true, and I talked briefly with Sara Nelson before the election, because by total coincidence, she doorbelled my house. And you look through the doorbell camera and think, "Hey, that's somebody I recognize," but when we talked, at least the public polling did not have her in the lead in this race. She sounded very concerned, and while I haven't spoken with her after the election, I suspect there are few people as surprised as she is, that she did so well in this race - that she has a strong lead at over 40% of the vote. And this race, I think, will be probably more for the folks who are interested in policy, and follow policy - because they do differ so much on policy. They are both seasoned at creating policy, and evaluating policy, and taking stance on policy. So it's going to be going to be a very policy-oriented City Council race. Because they diverge very much, ideologically, people are going to have that choice you're talking about. Crystal Fincher: [00:15:05] Yeah, I mean, Nikkita has certainly talked a lot about policy. And one of the nice things about that race is that it has been so policy-focused - in their debates, especially with Brianna Thomas, there were definitive policies, plans laid out. I think it's going to be interesting to see the contrast between Nikkita and Sara. I interviewed both of them earlier, we'll link both of those interviews in the show notes to this show, but very different approaches. It feels like they're taking different stances to even the conversation about policy. Essex Porter: [00:15:45] I think Sara Nelson will be running a message that, "I'm a business woman. I've been at City Hall. I've worked policy in City Hall. I'm a business woman too. So I know how what happens at City Hall impacts business. I don't necessarily have all the answers, but you can be comfortable with my approach and my thought process." I suspect that's the kind of message that she'll be trying to get out there. Crystal Fincher: [00:16:17] I anticipate the same, and I anticipate to see a lot of the downtown and business interests that have traditionally been associated with the Chamber to consolidate around her. And to see a lot of the more progressive interests consolidate around Nikkita. We'll see how that goes. Essex Porter: [00:16:38] That might be the race that's not going to be settled by Friday after the November election. Crystal Fincher: [00:16:43] After the November election, that may be tight, but we'll see. Now there is a race that, as we sit here on Friday morning, still is not decided. Not enough for either, for any of the candidates, to have definitively declared victory or conceded and that is the City Attorney's race. And my goodness, is this a race? So as we are sitting here, after the results release on Thursday - Ann Davison is at 34.5%, Nicole Thomas-Kennedy is at 33.19%, Pete Holmes is at 32.02%. Talking to the campaigns, it looks like they're anticipating 25,000-40,000 more ballots perhaps. But this is an unusual situation, in that the incumbent Pete Holmes is now trailing - unless he significantly improves his vote share in today's count, it's looking like he's not going to make it through the primary. Essex Porter: [00:17:54] This is, at the moment, the classic example of late votes lean left. The total on election night had Holmes in third place. The total on Wednesday night had Holmes moving up just barely to second place. And now, the total on Thursday night, where the late ballots are finally counted - those ballots that went in the mail on Monday maybe, or went in the mail on Sunday, some of the ballots that went into drop boxes late on Tuesday - those are the ballots that have been counted. And they push Nicole Thomas-Kennedy ahead of Pete Holmes again. We both have seen it often - once that trend gets started, it doesn't reverse - the Friday ballots just confirm it. Crystal Fincher: [00:18:49] Yeah, they do. So it is looking highly unlikely that Pete Holmes is going to end up making it through. The other thing is that they're strongly trending for Nicole Thomas-Kennedy in yesterday's count. If you look at just yesterday's count, there were just over 28,000 ballots counted yesterday. Nicole Thomas-Kennedy got 37% of those ballots, Ann Davison 33%, and Pete Holmes 29%. So it's just - that trend is going to have to move sharply. And when you start thinking about what it's going to take to close that gap, you start looking at numbers, he's going to have to clear 35% to closer to 40% of the remaining ballots to look like he has a shot. That just doesn't seem consistent with anything that we've seen so far. Essex Porter: [00:19:45] Yes, exactly. So now we have to contemplate what happened to Pete Holmes? Here's a three term incumbent, taking a position on criminalizing poverty, basically, that a lot of people favor. I mean, his criticism is that he is not tough enough on people for petty crimes like shoplifting or petty theft. But his stance has been to focus on those he perceives as true dangers in society, and that's not most of the people who come across for misdemeanors. Most of those are not necessarily violent crimes. So he's taken a stance that a lot of people on the left would support, but somehow that wasn't enough? Crystal Fincher: [00:20:40] Well, it's interesting, because he certainly, when he came into office, he certainly came in as someone who was more reform-minded from his predecessor - in talking about stopping prosecuting some marijuana, crimes, stopping - being more friendly to nightlife and entertainment venues, that kind of thing. But what Nicole Thomas-Kennedy spent a lot of time talking about was there have been certain areas where they stopped that focus, but my goodness, there's still a lot of criminalization of poverty. And prosecutions of what seemed to be misdemeanors that are so minor that it's certainly costing the City more to prosecute it, than they're getting from the prosecution. And that criminalizing people in that situation actually is more likely to make the problem worse and more expensive to solve, than to fix it. So she has talked more about addressing root causes, taking an approach that helps get people on the right track, as opposed to just criminalize people and have them going in and out. So he took heat for not being progressive enough and for criminalizing poverty too much on one end. On the other end was for people who think he's just been too soft on crime, look at everything happening, you've got people going for that, "Seattle is dying" narrative. And just on the hard side saying, "Oh, he's a liberal and letting everyone off, and crime is running rampant." But then there's also people saying, "I just see ..." I think it doesn't help that a lot of people associate, wrongly, I should point out, wrongly associate homelessness with criminality. People who are unhoused are more likely to be victims of crimes, than they are to perpetrate them. I also think a lot of people don't understand that he is dealing with misdemeanors and that felonies, or most serious crime, is handled from the King County Prosecutor. So I think he's also taking heat for a lot of people's perception that crime is up, and some types of crimes are up. Overall crime is down, some violent crimes are up. So he's also taking heat for that perception. And then also, he just didn't really seem to care about campaigning for a while, until it became clear he was in danger. And then it seemed to be too little too late, with some faux pas added in some late interviews and statements. Essex Porter: [00:23:20] Yeah, I haven't taken a look at the crime numbers, even for the non-violent crime, so I can't immediately confirm that overall crime is down. And it may not matter, unfortunately, exactly what the numbers are, because it is what the feeling is, right? Crystal Fincher: [00:23:45] The perception - exactly. Essex Porter: [00:23:47] It's the perception. I spoke with Ann Davison after the election, and one of the phrases that she uses and I think is going to be at center of her campaign, is that she's going to, "Center the victims," and that's the language she uses. It's going to be a victim-centered approach. I think that's the kind of approach on public safety issues - because we're going to have public safety issues that are going to be headlines about some terribly unfortunate things that happen between now and November, that will be happening every week. When she talks about centering victims, I think that is going to be a strong counter to Nicole Thomas-Kennedy if she is in the November election, who is going to be talking about a wholesale change. She calls it abolition, and people are going to be weighing again, the stark contrast between Ann Davison, who maybe will take a more conservative approach than many people would like, and Nicole Thomas-Kennedy, who may be taking a more progressive approach than many people feel comfortable with. It's going to be which person can make people feel comfortable with their approach to public safety. Crystal Fincher: [00:25:22] Yeah, absolutely. And basically, Pete Holmes not making it through the primary, as looks likely - certainly we'll have a much clearer idea about that after today's results. But if you're asking me, it doesn't look good for Pete Holmes. It's - there's an admission that what is going on now hasn't worked. And so people want a new approach - is that new approach more of a, "Hey, let's just crack down on people and arrest them, get them in jail," or is it, "Let's treat some of the root causes." And I think, as you articulated, Ann Davison's position and what she may be talking about. I think Nicole Thomas-Kennedy is going to be focusing a lot on what we have done hasn't worked. And what we hear proposed is more of exactly what has not worked on this level. A lot of clarifying and educating that we aren't talking about violent crimes. And that's where a lot of the disdain and discomfort comes, when people think, "Well, we can't just have people assaulting people on the street and facing no penalty. And what are we doing?" And that's a scary prospect for a lot of people. So I think hearing her talk about, "Okay, what does this mean in the role of City Attorney. And how do we change our approach?" I think that's going to be a really interesting and enlightening dialogue. I think people are going to hear some things from both candidates that are different than what they were expecting. So it'll be interesting to see how this continues to evolve through the general, but I'm excited about the conversation that will happen because of this race. Essex Porter: [00:27:11] Yeah, and I think it's going to get some national attention as well, because I think, more than the mayor's race, it'll be a clearer choice of where Seattle wants to go. Crystal Fincher: [00:27:23] Absolutely. And I mean, Hey, we're in the City who has a socialist on the City Council, who the DSA is not just a synonym for the Downtown Seattle Association, it's the Democratic Socialist. And they are a significant force here. We have a candidate who identifies as an abolitionist proudly, who is making it through a primary, beating the incumbent. So, I mean, this is, even for people in a primary election, which is usually a more conservative voting group compared to a general election voting group, there's a lot of receptivity to Nicole Thomas-Kennedy's message, which I think was surprising to a number of people. But I think people need to understand that there is a feeling that what has happened isn't working. And people do want reductions in crime, people do want to feel safer. But it's just, what is it that actually does make us safer? And that conversation and the details and the contours of it are one I'm excited to have. Essex Porter: [00:28:39] Yeah. Crystal Fincher: [00:28:41] Well, I think we are coming up on our time. I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to join us today, Essex on July ... Geez, listen to me - Essex Porter: [00:28:52] It's already August. Crystal Fincher: [00:28:52] I'm going to edit that. Essex Porter: [00:28:55] Don't edit that. Crystal Fincher: [00:28:57] I'm totally editing that. Maybe I'm editing that. I'm all over the place, but I appreciate you listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, August 6th, 2021. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler and our wonderful co-host today was KIRO-7 political reporter, Essex Porter. You can find Essex on Twitter @EssexKIRO7. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I, and now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts. Just type "Hacks & Wonks" into the search bar, be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our mid-week show delivered to your podcast feed. While you're there, leave a review, it really helps us out. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in. We'll talk to you next time. Essex Porter: [00:29:50] Bye-bye.

Today Crystal in joined by Tiffani McCoy, Advocacy Director at Real Change, to discuss Charter Amendment 29, commonly known as Compassion Seattle. This amendment will appear on your November ballot, and would codify encampment sweeps into our city charter. Tiffani and Crystal discuss the misleading way this amendment is being messaged, what the actual cost of the amendment would be, and why its backers should make us wonder if it's really intended to solve the homelessness crisis, or just remove houseless people from our sight. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal on Twitter at @finchfrii, and find Tiffani at @TiffaniMcCoy1. You can also find updates on the work of the House Our Neighbors Coalition at houseourneighbors.org, or follow them on Twitter at @houseRneighbors.   Resources ”Compassion Seattle Amendment Faces Scrutiny from Democratic Group and Homeless Advocates” by Chetanya Robinson from the South Seattle Emerald: https://southseattleemerald.com/2021/06/24/compassion-seattle-amendment-faces-scrutiny-from-democratic-group-and-homeless-advocates/ “Seattle chamber appeals dismissal of lawsuit against city's ‘JumpStart' payroll tax” by Daniel Beekman from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattle-chamber-appeals-dismissal-of-lawsuit-against-citys-jumpstart-payroll-tax/ “Sweeps Continue in Seattle: Perspectives from the Street” by Luke Brennan from the South Seattle Emerald: https://southseattleemerald.com/2021/06/14/sweeps-continue-in-seattle-perspectives-from-the-street/ “Interim Guidance for Homeless Service Providers” from the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/homeless-shelters/plan-prepare-respond.html “'Every Community Should be Using FEMA Dollars' for Hotel-Based Shelter. So Why Isn't Seattle?” by Erica C. Barnett from Publicola: https://publicola.com/2021/03/18/every-community-should-be-using-fema-dollars-for-hotel-based-shelter-so-why-isnt-seattle/ “The Cost of ‘Compassion'” by Kevin Schofield from the South Seattle Emerald: https://southseattleemerald.com/2021/07/17/weekend-long-reads-the-cost-of-compassion/#:~:text=Compassion%20Seattle%20Cost%20Analysis&text=Here%20is%20their%20report.,annually%20in%20ongoing%20operational%20costs. “The C Is for Crank: Correcting the Record on Compassion Seattle” by Erica C. Barnett from Publicola: https://publicola.com/2021/07/13/the-c-is-for-crank-correcting-the-record-on-compassion-seattle/ “How many homeless people in Seattle are from here?” by Scott Greenstone from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/homeless/do-homeless-people-come-to-seattle-for-help/ “Regional Homelessness Director Marc Dones: ‘The Driver of Homelessness Is Economic.” by Erica C. Barnett from Publicola: https://publicola.com/2021/07/26/regional-homelessness-director-marc-dones-the-driver-of-homelessness-is-economic/ “Myths and Facts of Homelessness in Washington State” from the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance: https://www.wliha.org/sites/default/files/myths.pdf   Transcript Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm your host, Crystal Fincher. On this show, we talk to political hacks and policy wonks to gather insight into local politics and policy through the lens of those doing the work and provide behind-the-scenes perspectives on politics in our state. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, I'm thrilled to be joined by Tiffani McCoy who's the Advocacy Director at Real Change, and I wanted to have Tiffani on to talk about Charter Amendment 29, the Compassion Seattle - so-called Compassion Seattle - Charter Amendment to address homelessness in Seattle. Thank you so much for joining us, Tiffani. Tiffani McCoy: [00:01:13] Crystal, thank you so much for having me to talk about this important issue. Crystal Fincher: [00:01:17] Absolutely, I appreciate it. So I guess, just to start, what is Charter Amendment 29? Tiffani McCoy: [00:01:26] Yeah, Charter Amendment 29 is being peddled as a solution to the homelessness crisis in Seattle - that's verbatim what people heard on the street when approached by a paid signature gatherer. But Charter Amendment 29 includes no new solutions, no new funding, and would codify the forced removal of our unhoused neighbors into the City Charter, which is basically the same as our City's constitution. Crystal Fincher: [00:01:56] Okay, and so they're saying, "Hey, this will solve homelessness and we're going to do it in a compassionate way. After all, our name is Compassion Seattle. It dedicates resources for services that are badly needed. It guarantees that there's going to be housing built. And it makes sure that we can do something to actually take care of people and get them off the street." Is that accurate to you? Tiffani McCoy: [00:02:24] Yeah. So if the backers of Charter Amendment 29 - which are real estate developers, millionaires, and corporations - if they were true about solving this crisis, they would compassionately put their money where their mouth is. And they would stop recycling the false claim that we simply just need to spend our dollars better to solve homelessness. And they would also stop trying to characterize sweeps - the forced removal, the displacement of unhoused neighbors - as compassionate. And the question really is - should real estate developers dictate who lives in Seattle? Should millionaires dictate who lives in Seattle? Because according to this Charter Amendment, these folks who are bankrolling this are saying that they get to dictate who lives in Seattle. Crystal Fincher: [00:03:15] Well, and it certainly has been reported on - that it is primarily funded by downtown Seattle business interests, who frequently talk about taking a more hard line or more criminalized approach to addressing homelessness. And I guess starting at the point of, "Okay, what does it actually do?" They're saying, "Hey, we're dedicating resources to addressing homelessness that have not been there before." I think the number is 12% of housing dollars going towards being mandated to be spent on this. Is that tangibly better than where we're at? Is that a significant improvement? Tiffani McCoy: [00:03:55] Yeah, what you're saying is really important to kind of suss out, and I really think that this tweet by Erica C. Barnett captures it just really specifically. This Charter Amendment doesn't fund anything. It merely says that the City must shift existing resources to create 2,000 new shelter beds so that parks can be clear for housed people to use. That's the essence of this Charter Amendment. It doesn't fund anything. Right now, the City of Seattle spends roughly $11 million a year already on housing and homelessness. This Charter Amendment requires 12%, so $18 million more to allegedly "fund," and I say "fund" in quotes - wraparound services, mental health treatment, diversion programs, parks cleanup, sweeps of folks, and also to build 2,000 shelter or permanent housing units. That's fanciful thinking. That's why this is an empty promise. There's absolutely no way that this will fund all of those mechanisms. And actually, recently, a lot of City Council members actually asked the Seattle central staff - it's the City Council's research body - "What would this actually cost us if it were enacted?" And those figures are daunting, and I think that all listeners should go and look for that report - because it looks like to enact Charter Amendment 29, it would cost between $20 to $180 million a year to do. And the lower end of $20 million is assuming that the funding of diversion programs, the funding of mental health services, the funding of wraparound services, is already happening in the City. So those boxes are already checked and that's how you get that low end number. So, no, this doesn't fund anything. This would fund shelter beds over permanent housing, which we know under a housing first model, is the preferable range. That's the true way to get folks off the street - getting them into housing. So, no, this isn't something. This is nothing. And it is being pushed by these big business interests that just very clearly want to influence City Council and mayoral races through buying a law and putting it on the ballot at the same time. Crystal Fincher: [00:06:23] Well, I mean, there definitely have been people who have speculated that the reason why Charter Amendment 29 is on the ballot is to help the more conservative candidates, or candidate for mayor, as it will turn out, in the general election. So, the motivations have been called into question, especially since a number of the donors previously simply advocated for more sweeps before, but then came back with the language of compassion wrapped around this. And some of the issue that you brought up about the funding - really leading with saying, "Hey, this is going to provide so much funding. We are dedicating so much to this," without mentioning that, "Hey, almost all of that money is already allocated on being spent - that is already in effect - and the new funding, any new funding that is provided for it, doesn't necessarily mean that it will provide 2,000 new units." We don't know exactly - there's no mandate on what those units have to be. There's no mandate on what the service has to be. And we're in the midst of a situation where money has been allocated, for actually years, in the City of Seattle to build more housing - and delays and bureaucracy in the mayor's office have prevented that from coming to fruition. So I know one of my initial concerns looking at it was, "Okay, so you say that you've allocated money for doing it, but we are currently in a situation where the money can be sitting there for years with nothing happening." Meanwhile, we would have codified in our City Charter, which is basically the city's constitution, that you can now sweep these people off of the streets - which is important because these sweeps have been ruled in several courts to be unconstitutional because there is no place else for them to go. So if the City doesn't provide some option for people to go, it can't outlaw people's existence in public and say, "No matter how you exist, if you can't afford a house, its going to be criminal." As you look at this, what are, I guess, the biggest barriers that we need to address overall to get this fixed and does the Charter Amendment make any attempt to address those or not? Tiffani McCoy: [00:08:51] Yeah. So you brought up a lot in there, a lot of really important points. And I want to really kind of hone in on the funding aspect and how you've aptly described kind of the blocking of progress by the backers of Charter Amendment 29. I mean, these are the same folks that have stepped in full-on to stop any progressive revenue measure to actually fund the crisis. The Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Seattle Association have a lot of overlap, but actually we're litigating against the JumpStart progressive revenue source - that about $150 million a year would go towards building deeply affordable permanent housing, which we know we desperately need. And they litigated against that to try to not have that go into effect. The judge ruled against their efforts to block that funding, but they've appealed and they are still trying to fight to make sure funding for housing doesn't happen. So that also calls into question their flowery, slick PR, "We want to get everyone inside." If you truly did, you wouldn't be blocking a progressive revenue measure. You would be helping to support that. I also think that getting into this - is this something? Sure, I'll admit that 2,000 more shelter beds would be helpful, but I'm also going to tell you, based on vendors that we've talked to at Real Change, mutual aid folks that go out and do outreach - shelter bed, mat on the floor, congregate shelter is not at all wanted. It's not desired. It is not taken. Even though we've moved in positive ways during the pandemic away from congregate shelter, there's nothing in this that guarantees that that won't happen - that these won't be mat on the floor, in at 8:00p, kicked out by 6:00a, not being able to bring a pet, not being able to bring your belongings and your partner, et cetera, et cetera. So this is a false solution. And not only that, it does absolutely nothing for 50% of our unhoused neighbors currently living outside, and it does nothing to deter the inflow of homelessness. It has nothing about eviction protection or just deeply affordable housing. Generally, it's an empty promise to end homelessness and it grossly sensationalizes our most vulnerable residents for political gain. Crystal Fincher: [00:11:21] Well, and I think you raised some important points - one, looking at really criminalizing the most vulnerable residents - putting them at risk of being swept - and really it's important to think about - when you are unhoused and you are really carrying all of your belongings with you, being swept means someone coming and just taking all of your things, and oftentimes, despite assurances that have happened in the past saying, "Well, we try and spare people's belongings," frequently they do not. So someone who is just trying to cobble together anything that they can, maintain their few possessions, have some kind of sense of continuity and history - we look at all of the things that we keep around our houses and imagine you just trying to keep a few things and someone just deciding one day that they're going to come and remove it all, when you have nowhere else to go and don't have ample time or opportunity to move or to relocate. And as you said, this also doesn't mandate any kind of productive housing. We were actually able to get a lot of data throughout this pandemic as congregate shelter - people just kind of in one room on cots or mats all together - became a public health risk because of the pandemic. And so there was a shift to housing people in hotel rooms. And the difference between being among a bunch of other people who you don't know - concerns about your safety potentially, your belongings, whether or not they're going to be stolen, it not being a place where you can just be, like in your house all day long, you have to clear all your stuff and leave and then come back oftentimes. The difference between the stress and anxiety that causes, and then being able to have a room to yourself, a door that locks, a place where only you have access to your belongings - just that measure of peace and ability to exhale, just removing that really mental health barrier of the burden of not having any privacy, set people up for so much more success and there are much better outcomes. So being that this doesn't even mandate that, "Hey, we're going to make sure that we provide the type of shelter and housing and individual rooms that increases the likelihood for success," seems like that's a big glaring oversight to me. And one of the criticisms is that, "Hey, this was crafted by the people who just want to sweep people." They actually did not include the impacted populations in this group. Sure, they had a couple people from service providers who may stand to profit from this initiative and see revenue result from it, but people who are actually living on the streets - who can provide great feedback on what would actually be helpful, what can actually get people over the hump and into, not just housing, but be stable in their housing - were excluded from this process. And so a lot of what we're seeing that has been helpful in other circumstances is not even included in this. As you look at it, what do you see as some of the major oversights? Tiffani McCoy: [00:14:48] I mean, all of those oversights you just mentioned are critical and point towards the pretty clear fact that this isn't about housing our neighbors. This is not about building housing for folks to have inside. This isn't about stemming the economic impact, which is creating homelessness in the first place - rising rents, wages that are decreasing, the pandemic. This isn't about any of that. This is truly just about buying a law to influence City Council and mayoral races. I mean, the Chamber of Commerce had a stunning defeat - and the Downtown Seattle Association - in the 2019 races, spending millions of dollars to try to influence and they lost most of those seats. So they're doing it in this backdoor way, again, by sensationalizing homelessness for political gain. I also like to think of this as just very clearly, Mayor Jenny Durkan's dream scenario for sweeps. This is how she has moved the City since she has stepped into office. We used to have mostly 72 hour sweeps and now the predominant amount of sweeps are very last minute - no services, no outreach there. You've got to throw your stuff away and just get on with yourself. And I mean, incredibly traumatizing. Sweeps are traumatizing all the time, no matter what, no matter if you have 72 hours, if you have a week, two weeks. It's the City, it's the state telling you, "You don't belong here. You need to find somewhere else to go, and we're not going to help to actually stem what brought you into this position in the first place." So it's just overall just smoke and mirrors and it's just so unfortunate and deeply disturbing and gross because we do know what can address this crisis. And instead of being able to focus on that, these corporations and big businesses are still trying to operate like a parallel government in that they get to decide equally with folks that we elect into office how the City should run. Crystal Fincher: [00:16:57] I think a lot of this fundamentally goes down to the - I think there's just "conventional wisdom," which is not tethered to reality - but just that, "Hey, people shouldn't be on the streets and for some reason it is more of a problem for me to see people who are homeless than for people to actually be unhoused. And they just need to go somewhere else and they just need to move somewhere else and it's their fault anyway. They're probably using drugs. They're a source of crime." And I think we really have to grapple with the amount of people who are underneath this impression - sometimes media coverage and what gets sensationalized exacerbates that impression - that homelessness, really when a lot of the interests, especially pro Charter Amendment 29 interests talk about it, they talk about it in terms of a crime problem. As if, one, this is a major or significant source of crime in that people who are unhoused are somehow not victims more often than perpetrators of violence, and some of the most vulnerable people in our society that need protection. But how do you address to people that, "Hey, just step back for a second - just criminalizing this. Here is why throwing someone in jail if they're in a tent on a sidewalk doesn't work?" How do you talk about that? Tiffani McCoy: [00:18:35] That gets into a lot of the framing that Charter Amendment 29 is using around this. They always highlight one of the first couple things is one, that this is about us getting people off the streets, and then the second and third thing is usually about, we need more mental health service and addiction treatment. So they are perpetuating the myth that the vast majority of people are living outside because of a drug and alcohol problem and mental health problem. And we know that's not the case. In fact, just this last week, Marc Dones was interviewed by PubliCola. Sorry, I'm in the office so there's a phone ringing in the background. But Marc Dones, who's the new head of the Regional Homelessness Authority, just said that it's really about 15 to 20% of those living outside have severe behavioral health or substance use issues. The vast majority of folks experiencing homelessness can't afford to get into housing. He says it is an economic issue and not at all because of - that the main driver is not drug and alcohol issue, as Charter Amendment 29 backers would have you believe. So, in the face of all of this evidence, we know again the political impetus for Charter Amendment 29 is about sensationalizing those things that you mentioned about people not wanting to see visible poverty, about people seeing mental health issues happening in public when they're walking to get coffee or to lunch. It's not about a humane approach and look at how our economic system is failing humans. It's about, "You are a bother to my eyes. I don't want to see it. Let's sweep you off to somewhere else." So we need to get back into realizing and absorbing and embracing that this is an economic issue through and through - not just even in Seattle - nationwide. We don't have housing as a human right. We don't allow housing to meet your needs based on your income. It's just like a completely gross upside down system and until we start to truly realize that this is an economic issue, that rent is too high, that we don't have deeply affordable housing - at the end of the day the question is, who gets to decide who lives in Seattle? That's what I would say to that person. Crystal Fincher: [00:21:01] I think those are all excellent points and I do think that we have work to do and that we need to hold more of our media accountable in the wider ecosystem. There's been a lot of excellent reporting on this from some of our local papers and local media outlets, but there's also been some problematic local reporting. And so we really have to, I think, call out when there are obviously misleading, obviously non fact based, non data based narratives that frequently make homeless people increasing targets of violence and absolutely stigmatize it. Because to your point, and there was just another study that came out - I think it was this past week - that yes, homelessness is an economic problem. More people are homeless because they cannot afford to pay for a place to live than any other problem. And in fact, being homeless exacerbates all of the other problems. So allowing people to become homeless actually makes all of the other problems worse. It's not that those other problems start and then homelessness suddenly spontaneously erupts. This is a problem of affordability fundamentally and prioritization of making sure everyone does have a home and that this is accessible to live in. So I guess one of the biggest issues to me is that I think there is a considerable - polling continuously reinforces that there is a huge percentage of the population who, I think, a lot of times feel like, "Hey, I don't know what the ultimate decision is to fix this. There have been a lot of people trying for years. I've heard it talked about for years. It's been declared an emergency and only got worse. And I hear this bickering about it. And it seems like no one who's been elected whose job it has been to fix this has been up to the task of getting this fixed, so at least this is something because what's the alternative?" So when you hear that, and what's the alternative - what should be happening for people sick of seeing nothing happening - what should be happening? What is possible? What can be done in the short term to make a big impact? Tiffani McCoy: [00:23:34] Yeah, I want to go back to that media accountability, because I think it's key. We have to, as a society, move past this idea of respectability politics and call it out as we see it. We're in a climate crisis. I have a young daughter who's two. I'm terrified for the next generations and myself, all of us, for what's going to happen. There are massive things that we should be focusing on instead of me fighting a bunch of rich people who want to influence city politics by buying a law. That's what I'd like to do, but back to the media - we have to hold them accountable. The Seattle Times is playing a really, really egregious role in not being objective whatsoever in this. They very much want this to pass. They make that super clear in all their writing. They aren't publishing any op-eds that shows, like the House Our Neighbors Coalition who's fighting to defeat this Charter Amendment. They're not running any op-eds from anyone in the community and we've had several people send in. They're not going to run that, just not at all going to give that viewpoint. We also need to hold the people that are in power accountable, like truly, truly accountable. If you look at the mailers that are going out for City Council races - one of these mailers by Jessyn Farrell shows the list of neighborhoods that are going to be the priority for encampments should she become mayor. That is a very clear dog whistle and violent actually. And it's a dog whistle that everyone- Crystal Fincher: [00:25:11] Wait, she released a sweep priority list? Is that what you're saying? Tiffani McCoy: [00:25:14] I'm going to show you it. Crystal Fincher: [00:25:15] Okay, so we can see each other on video on this podcast. So... Oh, look at that. There's a whole map. Tiffani McCoy: [00:25:25] These are the priorities. Crystal Fincher: [00:25:28] I am looking at this. It does exist. And so looking at Jefferson Park, Lake City Park, Occidental Square, Haller Lake, Ballard Commons, North Aurora, any public school property with unsheltered people. What that tells me is that, once again, although they seem to be bending over backwards to avoid talking about the one thing that this actually does that's new or significantly different, and that is codify sweeps in the City Charter, which is basically the city constitution - which I continually, and we're deep into this podcast now, but I also have to say is against King County Public Health guidance in the middle of a pandemic and against CDC guidance in a pandemic as being very unhealthy and likely to spread the virus doing sweeps. And we see this determination to not just move forward, but to make it impossible for anyone to keep people from being able to sweep and to basically enact a criminalized or just basically razing people's abodes. So we have a challenge here, but I guess I'll go back to the question. For someone who's saying, "I am so fed up with this problem being this problem, and it's not my job to fix it. Elected people haven't fixed it. This seems like it may do something new to address the problem." What are the alternatives? What should people be pushing for? What do we know works? What can be done in the short term to make a significant impact? Tiffani McCoy: [00:27:17] I'm glad that we were able to go back to that. Thank you for going on that tangent of that dog whistle to all of those neighborhoods, "I will be there for you to make sure you don't see visible poverty." That's across many different candidates. You can tell which ones have adopted Charter Amendment 29 language and are putting it in their mailers. But to what can happen now - I think that we just do have to take a step back and look at how disastrous this mayor has been for this crisis and for, I mean, lots of things, but let's just stick to this crisis. She has left time and time again money on the table from the federal government to bring people inside. She decided not to take up FEMA money to put folks inside and COVID-19 money to put folks into hotels. She's just left millions of dollars on the table and folks, I encourage you, if you want to read more about that to just Google anything about Seattle and COVID money being left on the table. So that could have put hundreds of our unsheltered neighbors inside, into a room of their own, where they have that agency and safety. So we just didn't take that money that would be basically no strings attached from the federal government. What also can be done right now is folks can, especially if they're in the business community, demand that the Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Seattle Association drop the litigation against the JumpStart progressive revenue because that will put into the hopper thousands of units. We also just need to look at zoning, just have to be very real about it. There's a recent racial equity toolkit analysis that came out on, I can't remember the name of it, The Urban Village Strategy. Not only is it showing the deep racist roots of so many in the city of Seattle, but how it makes it impossible to solve the housing crisis because of all of the single family zoning. So we have to look at that. That is starting to happen immediately at the City Council, so getting involved in those fights to make sure that we change zoning so that we are able to... Sorry, a phone is going on in the background. So that we're able to actually create density and affordable housing across the whole city and not just have these very white dominant spaces that are protected. I would also say, RV safe lots. Real Change fought for some of the federal money that just came through for RV safe lots. We have about 1,500-2,000 folks living in their vehicle and we just always forget them. We don't do anything to meet their needs. So we need to like massively expand those. We did win some funding through the federal money that came down. There is a second round, so Real Change is going to keep fighting for that, so stay tuned. We need to get like thousands of those. We need to start talking in the thousands, not the hundreds or the dozens of units. And then I would say investing in housing first. I mean, we'll see what House Our Neighbors becomes after November 3rd, but those are a couple of things to plug into now. But I also recommend folks look at the House Our Neighbors Twitter because we are actively plugging people into fights that will make a difference right now. Crystal Fincher: [00:30:21] Perfect. So where can they find you? What is the House Our Neighbors Twitter? Tiffani McCoy: [00:30:27] I think it's just house and then the letter R... Yeah, it's @houseRneighbors, and neighbors is spelled out, on Twitter. Same with Facebook. Our website is houseourneighbors.org, but the our is spelled out. And yeah, we're on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook. Get involved. We've been tabling for a couple of weeks now. We also did some decline to sign petitions and we had people actually remove their signatures as well, because just going back to something you said Crystal, this is a slick PR campaign. They have millions of dollars behind them. They paid $180,000 to get signatures collected and when people are starting to learn about the disingenuous nature of this and who's backing it, they reached out to us to remove their signature. And one woman was crying and not to like politicize this, but she just felt ashamed that she was duped, as she says, by this. But we do want to solve this crisis as a community - you're completely right - it's just this is not the way to do it and it would actually cause a lot more harm and, as you said, it would cost way more money. Crystal Fincher: [00:31:37] I mean, this seems like it's going the way of several other issues - whether it's how we address substance use disorder and substance use, to how we just address issues of general affordability in society and workers' rights. There are very well-funded efforts afoot to keep things the way that they are and the way that they are has been harmful. And the attempt to move in a more positive way, which in this situation is not throwing people into jail or throwing away all of their belongings and just telling them to move somewhere else. That actually does nothing to address the issue, the fundamental problem, which is that that person does not have a place of their own to stay. For most people, the reason why is because they can't afford it. That is the primary reason. Nothing else is more of a cause. And that this population is more at risk of being victimized and harmed, not more likely to do harming or to be victimizing others. And so to prioritize taking care of people who need a home, and as you said, there is no substitute. We have to build places for people to live. There are not enough places. There are not enough affordable places. We have to address all of that. There's encouraging conversations happening within the mayoral race right now and City Council races. Certainly, there are candidates like Bruce Harrell and Jessyn Farrell and Casey Sixkiller who are supporting Charter Amendment 29. But there's a lot who aren't. Basically, the rest are not. And so those conversations and really giving the investments that are being made, like you said, even the JumpStart tax that was just passed with investments there, there is actually action being taken. I think part of the issue is some of the stuff that is taken and that we are seeing is working is very contrary to the narrative that has been set out by some of the hard line interests that we've seen come out of downtown from the DSA and the Chamber. So, part of the answer I think is to see the investments that are now being made through, to see now that the Regional Homeless Authority has a leader and direction for that work to be done and to continue with the work of building homes for people and addressing affordability. There really is no other sustainable solution. So thank you so much for joining us today. And again, if anyone has any questions, wants to get involved, we'll put all of this information in our show notes and they can reach out to you again on the House Our Neighbors Twitter or Facebook or website, I assume, and reach out to you there. So thanks so much, Tiffani, for joining us today. Tiffani McCoy: [00:34:47] Thank you Crystal. I appreciate the opportunity. Crystal Fincher: [00:34:47] Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks. Our chief audio engineer at KVRU is Maurice Jones, Jr. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I, and now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts. Just type in "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar, be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. You can also get a full text transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced during the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in. Talk to you next time.

Today on the show, Marco Lowe, Professor at Seattle University's Institute for Public Service, joins Crystal to discuss recent polls that have come out about Seattle's mayoral, city council, and city attorney races, the importance of understanding poll methodology and margin of error, and the historic and tragic impact of Seattle's recent heatwave and our governments responsibility to act to protect people from the impacts of climate change.  Key takeaways: Seattle's population has changed so much in the past 10 years that incumbents can't run just on their past popularity - a lot of folks who live here now won't remember it. Polls are just a snapshot in time, and it's important to contextualize them.  Climate change is here, and there is no more neutral ground. All policy and legislation needs to be evaluated through the lens of helping or hurting the environment. 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, Marco Lowe, at @MarcoLowe. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources “Bruce Harrell, Lorena Gonzalez lead in 2021 Seattle mayoral race with many undecided” from the Northwest Progressive Institute: https://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2021/07/bruce-harrell-lorena-gonzalez-lead-in-2021-seattle-mayoral-race-with-many-undecided.html  Poll released by Echohawk campaign:  https://www.dropbox.com/s/pvy5wwbipq2ln4t/Seattle_Primary_Mood_Q1-9.pdf?dl=0&fbclid=IwAR2szALLpK5ndk6lUQfD4faPero_XajzTUU7g83EByX95iF_zLhwFBtXmmc  https://www.dropbox.com/s/abts97djtqhv08i/Seattle_Primary_Issues_Q11-17.pdf?dl=0&fbclid=IwAR1BG9eSNaZi0wvM2c-2o92fHHynGUd7HXbM28lcnWU8go55oLtAMJW48po  https://www.dropbox.com/s/t387o51ncqqr8ia/Seattle_Primary_Q18-22.pdf?dl=0&fbclid=IwAR2e-n1Jl6tnIp99yZWVZZF8_gwczGlMhimhLIVRblDB_jmSpQGqoSBHB44  “A three-way race for Seattle City Attorney: Pete Holmes barely ahead of two challengers” from the Northwest Progressive Institute: https://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2021/07/a-three-way-race-for-seattle-city-attorney-pete-holmes-barely-ahead-of-two-challengers.html  “Nikkita Oliver has a big lead over Sara Nelson for Seattle City Council Position #9” from the Northwest Progressive Institute: https://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2021/07/nikkita-oliver-has-a-big-early-lead-over-sara-nelson-for-seattle-city-council-position-9.html  Endorsements The Stranger: https://www.thestranger.com/news/2021/07/14/59065522/the-strangers-endorsements-for-the-august-3-2021-primary-election  The Urbanist: https://www.theurbanist.org/2021/06/28/the-urbanists-2021-primary-endorsements/  The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/who-supports-who-in-seattle-elections-endorsements-roll-in-for-mayoral-council-races/   350 Seattle: https://350seattleaction.org/2021-elections  Publicola:  Mayor: https://publicola.com/2021/07/19/publicola-picks-lorena-gonzalez-for-mayor/  City Council Position 9: https://publicola.com/2021/07/19/publicola-picks-brianna-thomas-for-seattle-city-council-position-9/  “2021 heat wave is now the deadliest weather-related event in Washington history” by John Ryan at KUOW: https://www.kuow.org/stories/heat-wave-death-toll-in-washington-state-jumps-to-112-people    Transcript:  Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington State through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening and what you can do about it. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows, where we review the news of the week with a cohost. Welcome back to the program friend of the show and today's co-host: professor at Seattle University's Institute for Public Service, Marco Lowe. Marco Lowe: [00:00:52] Thank you for having me. Always love being here. Crystal Fincher: [00:00:54] Always love having you here. Always very insightful. I thought we would get started talking about polling that was released in the past week about Seattle races, including the Mayor's race, City Attorney's race, the City Council races - the Northwest Progressive Institute actually sponsored a whole slew of public polling - some of the only public polling that we've seen regarding these races this cycle. We've heard a lot about internal polls at various points from different campaigns, but this was really interesting. So, I guess, starting with the Mayor's race, what did you glean from these polls? Marco Lowe: [00:01:39] I think that they're reflecting what we've seen some of the campaigns release quietly, maybe through back channel communication. That it looks like, currently - and again, Not Sure is the winning candidate in most of these races - but Bruce Harrell seems to have coalesced a good group behind him that gives him a very good chance of getting into the general. And then Council President Lorena González is probably in that second spot behind him. But what I think we've been watching is the jockeying with Colleen Echohawk and Jessyn Farrell that are trying to jump into that second spot as the weigh-in days of the campaign commence. Crystal Fincher: [00:02:17] Yeah, absolutely. And so, just for the percentages that were in this poll that has a 4.3% margin of error and a 95% confidence interval. Not Sure, Undecided at 54% - more than half of the people there. So to your point, Undecided is the winner here and really how they break will be how this race breaks, it looks like. Bruce Harrell at 15%, Lorena González at 8%, Colleen Echohawk at 6%, Jessyn Farrell 4%, Andrew Grant Houston 3%, Arthur Langlie 3%, Casey Sixkiller 2%. Lance Randall 2%, and everyone else has not broken 1%. The rest are at 0%. So really what that says is even though, technically, Bruce Harrell is - looks to be leading in this poll for people who've made a choice - one, more than half of the people who are still Not Sure. And it really is still a race for second place, if not first. It's certainly still a race for second place, and by no means decided. Marco Lowe: [00:03:27] I agree. And just to say that sometimes there's a tactic that you think you're going to push all the Undecided into the current levels and that's not often true. If people aren't deeply engaged in a race - when they enter and get educated, it doesn't follow that pattern. They will find other candidates. So I would agree with you entirely. This is an open race. Crystal Fincher: [00:03:48] Yeah, absolutely an open race. And there usually are a percentage of Undecideds who, unfortunately, end up not voting. Also, sometimes they just do not end up feeling strongly about any candidate and don't wind up pulling the trigger at all. But certainly, even with that percentage accounted for, this race is still wide open. But I think a number of the candidates certainly view the two front runners in the poll as front runners. And you see a number of candidates taking aim at the leader in their lane. And we've talked about lanes on this before - who is the more progressive candidate in the race who are aiming for that lane. Who is - again, I always talk about conservative in Seattle does not equate to a conservative in other areas - but Seattle's version of a conservative or a moderate Democrat, certainly, Bruce Harrell in that lane and people looking at that. And so, you have people like Colleen Echohawk, really seeming to take the fight directly to Lorena González, which led to another quasi poll released that we saw this week, that came from Bill Broadhead and people affiliated, it appeared with the Colleen Echohawk camp. But who released a portion of a poll, which upfront means that we need to take it with a grain of salt, because we don't see the methodology. I mean, there are best practices around how to release polling, so other people can, basically, check your work and verify that this is a legitimate poll - polling is an actual science. And we didn't get all of the information from this poll that purportedly shows that Colleen Echohawk performs better head-to-head against Bruce Harrell than Lorena González. And they certainly were pressing that point very hard online, but, unfortunately, the actual poll information that they released was scant. How did you view that? Marco Lowe: [00:06:06] It was an interesting release, because they did not, as far as I can tell, formally release it from the campaign. I saw it on Facebook from Bill Broadhead. And I think the way that you normally see these laid out, it looks a little different. Not bizarre, but just it was a little more informal, might be the right word. And I don't know exactly what they were trying to do, but there is potentially this effort to show that she could possibly win in a head-to-head. And that, again, we're trying to see her move into second place. So, I think this may have been more an insider game to show to donors or larger groups, versus a wider - because you see campaigns release these with press releases and press conferences and framing for the race. And this seemed to be a much more subtle effort. Crystal Fincher: [00:06:53] Yeah. I agree with that. And certainly, this brings to mind conversations - I've had a number of these conversations in real life with people - but polls as marketing versus polls as actual research. And this certainly seemed to be on the side of a marketing effort. Now I say that, and I certainly would not be surprised at all, to see that Colleen Echohawk polled more favorably against Bruce Harrell than Lorena González. I actually don't think that's a wild and ridiculous outcome if it were to happen. That could be the case. It's just making that conclusion from the data that we've seen publicly seems to be a stretch. Especially given as I read it - the bios as they were constructed in this are not consistent with the bios that people have heard to date. Now this can certainly have been message testing and "Hey, this is how we will message him and paint him if we do get through the primary. And so we can create these conditions." Maybe that's part of the conversation. And to your point, maybe part of that insider conversation, but we just haven't seen this information publicly. So, and given just the platform that it appears that the poll was done on, based on the watermarking, is one for corporate market research, commercial market research, not necessarily public opinion polling. So there are challenges there. That doesn't mean that the result is wrong, but it does mean that it's hard to accept that conclusion based on the information that we see here. And clearly the campaign was comfortable just releasing this information. So, I mean, I assume it's accomplishing their objectives, especially with some of the coverage of it that I've seen is certainly advancing this narrative. But it'll be interesting to see how this continues to play out over the final weeks of the campaign. Marco Lowe: [00:09:02] And it's worth saying - even just putting this poll aside, head-to-heads are tough until you're really in a race. And if you're in the last month of a presidential race, where there's been so many TV stories and everything about it, that's one discussion. But I remember in the second round for Dino Rossi and Governor Gregoire, he was polling very well into the spring against her. And one of her campaign folks, when I called them asking about it, they said, "Let's get them both in the ring and then let's see what happens. This is all just subjective data at this point." And so, it does just always with every poll - put it in its place in time. Crystal Fincher: [00:09:35] Yeah, absolutely. And it is worth reiterating that polls are in fact, just a snapshot in time. These polls are a snapshot of what people thought when they were fielded - which for the NPI poll was week before last or going into early last week, and it finished in the field early last week. So that certainly is before a lot of voter communication has happened, it's before a lot of the messaging from campaigns that are happening in these final weeks and campaigns making their closing arguments for this primary have happened. And that's going to impact how a lot of people wind up making a decision for this, in addition to a lot of endorsements that have come out and people seeing organizations that they like or trust, or dislike or distrust - see who they wind up supporting. So, certainly not conclusive. It would not be a shock if the results don't wind up lining up with these polls, because there's a lot that can change. And again, it's worth noting that the more than half of the people, the biggest vote getter were people who were Undecided. So, anything can happen. We're still in a wide open situation. Speaking of wide open situations, though - one race that really caught my eye in this polling that I think has to be causing some consternation for the incumbent is the polling in the Seattle City Attorney race. That race is extremely close in this poll with - again, 53% of people not sure who they're going to vote for, but Pete Holmes coming with 16%, which as a three term incumbent, not the number that you are aiming for. I mean, either he has not made an impact, has not been notable, or people have not noticed the work that he's done, or they're just unhappy with it. Either way, a tenured incumbent is never going to be happy with a number like 16%. Marco Lowe: [00:11:46] As a creature of City Hall, I will defend City Attorney. If you stopped cars on Fourth Ave in downtown and rolled down the window and put a mic in and said, "Who's the Seattle City Attorney?" I think you'd be lucky to get 16% to name any - maybe going back to Mark Sidran in the 90s and early 2000s, you had somebody who was on the press a lot. But Tom Carr, in the middle, lost to Pete Holmes - I think by his second re-election in '09. And I do agree with these numbers. I don't think anybody on Mr. Holmes' teams are saying this is a good news, but it's a challenging place to be. But that knee-jerk reaction aside - yeah. I agree with you. Going into a primary with these numbers and having three people so close together - you made a great point that with three - we were talking prior to the show. They can pitch somebody out really easily and it raises the bar for what he needs to get to now to close. I think that may be the first race I look at it on election night when the numbers drop. Crystal Fincher: [00:12:44] Yeah, same here. And so Pete Holmes is at 16%, Nicole Thomas-Kennedy at 14%, and Ann Davison at 14% also. So a race within the margin of error. The interesting thing about Pete Holmes is he used to be well-known. When he first came onto the scene, it was with a lot of pomp and fanfare - and he had looked at doing what, at that time, were some progressive things. Certainly, working with the nightlife community - there were a number of issues that were important to people involved in nightlife - owners of bars and cultural establishments, arts establishments, who definitely preferred him over his incumbent. And being willing to decriminalize, at that point in time, pre-legalization of marijuana, that they were going to de-emphasize prosecuting marijuana crimes. And they were on the front end of doing that. So when he came in, it was with progressive fanfare. But I think that, one, what we've seen from him in the preceding years was a lot less vocal, a lot less upfront, and he has been in the background. And a lot of the conversations where previously he has been in the foreground with, he was also well known for having some disagreements with Mayor McGinn at the time when that came in. But also - yes, there's been a lot of population change since he first came in. So there are just a lot of people in the City who never experienced that Pete Holmes, and never experienced what he hung his hat on. And so he's just a name that's part of this unpopular administration. And so looking at these numbers for his opponents, and especially given that The Times has endorsed Ann Davison, his opponent to the right. And The Stranger has endorsed Nicole Thomas-Kennedy, his opponent to the left. So, I would not call his position comfortable. And he certainly has to campaign and deliver a message to the people in order to get through this primary. Marco Lowe: [00:15:03] No, absolutely. And it is a low turnout - those endorsements matter a heck of a lot more right now. And it's interesting - boy, that point on population growth - we've added 30,000 people since '14. That's an incredibly good point. And he may be - you could almost look at his campaign like he is a new entrant into the race and we have three first-timers. That's a really interesting way to look at it. Especially when you're in an office that just isn't watched. I mean, there hasn't been high profile cases, they work a lot behind closed doors as attorneys do. Boy, when I'm hitting refresh on Tuesday night, it's going to be looking at that race. Crystal Fincher: [00:15:43] That's going to be one of the first races that I'm looking at. And who knows how that's going to end up? One and two could be anyone in that race. It could include Pete Holmes, it could not include Pete Holmes. Just really interesting. And the polling shows that it's completely up in the air. So, that's interesting. The other race that we saw some notable polling in was in the City Council race, with Brianna Thomas, Nikkita Oliver, and Sara Nelson - where Nikkita seems to be in a comfortable position in the lead. I'm actually pulling up this polling to get the exact numbers as we speak. Marco Lowe: [00:16:33] 26% was- Crystal Fincher: [00:16:36] Yeah. And so look, especially comparing this with the numbers in the other races - I mean, we're looking at Pete Holmes at 14%, Bruce Harrell at 15%. Seeing Nikkita Oliver at 26% - that's a big number. It's a big number, especially compared to a number of the other numbers. Certainly helps that Nikkita had been on a citywide ballot before - with this has Sara Nelson at 11%, Brianna Thomas at 6%. Again, Undecided - still 50%. So, again, when you're looking at this, it certainly is a race for number two, it appears, that could go any way. And with 50% of people Undecided and looking at Seattle ballot return - Seattle was trending a few percentage points behind the full King County number, which in my opinion, Seattle usually - well, I guess the fact that Seattle usually ends up with higher turnout numbers, but I feel like they may be lagging behind a little bit, because there are some tough choices for Seattle residents to make that aren't as tough in other cities, and in terms of City Council and mayoral races. So it just may take people a little longer to decide, but I anticipate that we'll see a Seattle number probably higher than the overall King County number. But this is going to be another interesting race to watch. And seeing Brianna Thomas and Sara Nelson - seeing how they both make their final statements. Sara Nelson ended up with The Times endorsement, Nikkita Oliver got The Stranger endorsement. Just saw today, PubliCola endorsed Brianna Thomas in the race. So we will see how this finishes out. But again, another one of those races that is not sold and that has a big Undecided number. Marco Lowe: [00:18:36] And you're seeing it's an open seat - when Nikkita Oliver, when they ran last time - if somebody agreed with them or not, oh my gosh, they were amazing. That King 5 debate - they owned the stage on numerous answers. And so, we have that name ID for them. Sara Nelson did not get through the primary last time. This is Brianna Thomas's first race. 26%, I mean, that's- Crystal Fincher: [00:19:06] Second race actually. Marco Lowe: [00:19:07] Second race. Oh, I apologize - so second race. So yeah, they're in a real strong position. And then you get to the general and it kind of resets, but I agree with you. Compared to the Mayor's race, it'd be hard to see them not going to the general. City-wide race to city-wide race, this is how people get into elected office. Crystal Fincher: [00:19:30] Yeah. I would agree. It is - this more than any other situation, that's hard not to see Nikkita getting through to the general. This seems like it would be the least likely to wind up in a surprise for the person in the lead in this poll to not make it through. But I do think that it's - we're up in the air for number two. Certainly a Times endorsement - countywide, a Times endorsement is a big deal. This could be something that really helps, or actually hurts - in terms of a Seattle race. But I also think an interesting dynamic there, because the voters who that would probably hurt most with are probably leaning towards Nikkita. But there is a lot to be talked about just in terms of people's records, whether they've been honest and forthcoming about those records. And I think that there may be more to come about that in the race. We will see. Marco Lowe: [00:20:39] Agreed. And also, you see this if Seattle breaks into, I call it, the outer ring and the inner ring. And the outer ring, homes with a view, tend to be the more conservative Seattle Times voters. And the inner ring tends to be the more progressive candidates. And you see the progressive candidates win when they push out the ring and the conservative candidates win when they compress the ring. And that's where I think you're going to see if Sara Nelson can attract the outer ring voters or not. Crystal Fincher: [00:21:07] Absolutely. And we will put in the show notes a review or links to different organizations and the endorsements that they've made. I know, certainly, it helps me sometimes to read through how other organizations are making their decisions, if I'm undecided about something. And I certainly have spoken to a lot of Seattle voters who still don't know which way they're voting in a number of races. So, this is still a critical time for making the case and people are still trying to decide. There's still a lot of communication that campaigns have to do. And that's also still making a difference. So the race is still shaping up. Marco Lowe: [00:21:49] If I can throw in one quick thing too - for all the races in Seattle, I think these three candidates have done an excellent job of articulating what they want to see in the City. This is as issue-based race as I've seen in a long time and I appreciate it. There's a lot of, "Here's what I'd like to do." And I just really appreciate that. A lot of races tend to say, "Look over here, look over there, but not right at what I'm trying to do." That is not the case. All the mail has been very specific. Crystal Fincher: [00:22:21] Yeah. Which I appreciate and I think is actually necessary at this point in time - not just that someone has a vision, and we've heard lots about people's visions. Or even that they're supported by, "I've got a ton of endorsements." Lots of candidates can tout that, but what do you actually plan to do with your power and authority and your jurisdiction? What are your plans? Not what we can do regionally, not what we need partners to do, or what we can study and learn more about doing, but what are your actual plans? What action will you take? I really do hope voters take a look at what candidates have said on that. And to your point, in that City Council race, there certainly is a lot that have been talked about for what the candidates actually plan to do, the action that they plan to take. And I hope they look at the mayoral race through that lens to say, "Okay. It's one thing to say, 'Yes, I believe in equity and treating people well, and we can have a better Seattle tomorrow,' but what have they committed to doing? What are our concrete steps and concrete actions beyond 'A lot of people support me?'" Marco Lowe: [00:23:42] And I give a little bit of credit to Nikkita Oliver on that. Anytime they're on stage, they are ticking off boxes. And even on Twitter, they said with a retirement of Seattle police officers, this money should be going to these kind of community groups. And again, this is a constant statement of what they would do in office. So, just - you kind of set the example - and the other candidates, it's hard to be on stage if you're not doing that as well. Crystal Fincher: [00:24:13] Very hard to be on stage if you're not doing that. I mean, just drawing on - we had conversations with all three of those candidates on Hacks & Wonks, and I heard a lot of information in detail and frankly, leading by example, from Nikkita Oliver, Brianna Thomas. Heard a lot of" I don't know"s from Sara Nelson and "We'll have to study that and figure that out." it's also interesting to see how campaign candidate rhetoric evolves throughout the campaign. So, a little bit more polished, but I certainly think that it is more natural for some candidates to be more action and ownership focused than others. And I think that's really important, especially at a time like this, when so much needs to be done to get us on the right track. Marco Lowe: [00:25:09] Sometimes just where they are in the race too. They're kind of - I mean, where I've started with some candidates early on at positions and later they may get better, but I agree, that's going to be a really interesting race. Crystal Fincher: [00:25:23] Going to be a really interesting race. So, we've covered races. Another thing that I wanted to talk about this week is it's taken a little bit for the state to compile all the numbers on what the impact of the historic heat wave that happened as a result of climate change was, but 112 deaths is the current toll. Throughout the entire Northwest - hospitalizations up over 60x. Not 60%, but 60x higher than what they normally are. So, the toll that the heat took on our communities was huge and devastating. It was the most lethal weather event that Washington State has ever had. And by all accounts, more extreme heat is something that we have to be expecting, because of climate change over the coming years. So this is something that our state and local governments have to prepare for. And frankly, it seemed like a lot of them were caught flat footed with, "Oh, heat coming. Oh, it's just another heat wave." We have some of these occasionally, but especially with the amount of folks that we have who are unhoused, who are vulnerable with a low percentage of air conditioning in homes and apartments now. This - you could see it coming - was a major threat to people's health and wellbeing. And it just seemed like a lot of governments were viewing this as something that was happening, that they didn't have to prepare for, that they weren't responsible for. And I think that we have to have a massive shift in attitude that, "Hey, this is something that is predictable - the consequences, the deaths, and the casualties are preventable. And we actually have a responsibility to prevent it." How did you see that play out? Marco Lowe: [00:27:30] I agree. A lot of local governments looked very flat-footed and we saw this temperature coming over a week away. And that's just irresponsible to not have both cooling centers, and how you get people there. The humans that are most vulnerable to this heat, whose bodies can't cool themselves. And at 105°, nobody's cooling themselves. Crystal Fincher: [00:27:47] No one. Marco Lowe: [00:27:49] But the most vulnerable aren't often driving. We have a whole issue with seniors in America that are somewhat stranded. Whether they can't drive, they live in a non-walkable community, what have you. So it's not just that you open the centers, but you get people in the center. And you staff them and people may be sleeping in those centers, because the night did not get better. So we have this immediate tactical response that we need to have better going forward, because we're not done. 2021 has been a B-roll for a disaster film - Texas mold, China and New York rain, Northwest heat, the fires in Oregon, in Washington, California, and the smoke that's gone all the way to New York City. We are in climate change, people are dying, and we have to react now. The other thing I'll throw in is that we are watching a fight in Washington, D.C., over an infrastructure bill that has in it more money towards renewable energy, so we can decarbonize this world. And America has to be a leader on it, because we are most of the carbon. So, to have both this tactical response and strategic response is essential and immediate and there's not a this or that. It is all of the above. Crystal Fincher: [00:28:53] It is all of the above. And I forget who it was on Twitter, but someone very astutely tweeted like really there is no neutral action on climate change. Every piece of legislation that every City Council person advocates for, passes, mayor legislator, there is no neutrality on climate change, on pollution. We have to examine every piece of legislation and say, is it hurting or is it helping? And to that point, we have a transportation package coming up in our State Legislature, where this has been a big point of conversation and contention - in that, are we going to continue to push for highway expansion and building and road expansion, which is the number one source of pollution. Over 40% of greenhouse gas emissions and a lot of air pollution is directly attributable to the transportation sector. So, are we going to continue and move in that direction? Are we going to start to move in the other direction? And to your point, climate change is here. We are dealing with it. And we also talked about, before the show - a point you made, which is very true - a lot of people have been pushed out of the city, because of affordability, into suburbs. A lot of our most vulnerable people now live in suburbs. And what people always hear talk about the "inner city," which is really a relic of the past, especially here on the West Coast. And that extreme poverty and some of that hardship is now in suburbs, who do not have the human services infrastructure that was built and developed in cities. And so, access to transit, access to assistance and help, just the visibility and prioritization of human services and health, in a lot of these suburbs and rural areas just does not exist. And it's not something that they've even factored in before and thinking in conversation. So, we're so behind. And so, experiencing these lethal challenges with some governments who just up to now aren't up to the task, we just need a rapid redeployment of resources, a rapid getting electeds up to speed, and demand from people in every city that you're in, that this is an essential service of government. Fundamentally, they're there to protect their residents and to keep them from foreseeable harm. And this is a threat that we know exists. It's so interesting seeing how heat and climate related disasters are covered in comparison to a lot of other things. Because there's this tendency for media to just cover it as an extreme weather event, disconnected from anything else, and like, wow, that was wild. Who could have predicted that? Or that was a once in 100 year event. We've seen these once in 100 year events, several times a year, all over the place. This is what climate change is. We have a responsibility to prevent it from getting worse. And man, we're already in for it getting worse and more just trying to prevent Earth from being uninhabitable for a majority of its people and for mitigating those impacts. So, we have to take action. I've certainly been vocal about this and the responsibility that local governments have to their residents to protect them. And that deaths and injuries that result are really a matter of negligence at this point, because we know what these consequences are. And either we choose to act and protect people or ignore the risk, and people should be held to account for that. Marco Lowe: [00:32:53] And if U.S. and, frankly, human history teaches us anything, when a crisis hits the wealthy will be taken care of. I mean, I have to - in my head, Exxon has a Dr. Evil lair some place, where they know they're going to be okay. I know that sounds crazy, but they know the data better than we do. They've been looking at it for 40 years and continued on their path. So if they're comfortable, it's not that they don't see the change, it's that they don't worry that it's going to impact them. And that has to be part of it. I will also just really - you said something that's worth putting a light back on. Legislation all needs a lens - is this making it better or worse? There is no middle land. I just think that's a really, really great idea. Crystal Fincher: [00:33:35] Well, thank you so much - we are at this time - certainly, issues that we both feel very passionately about. But I just want to thank you, the listener, for listening to Hacks & Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM, this Friday, July 23rd. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler. And our wonderful cohost today was Professor at Seattle University's Institute for Public Service, Marco Lowe. You can find Marco on Twitter @MarcoLowe, it's M-A-R-C-O-L-O-W-E. 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 or wherever else you get your podcasts. Just type "Hacks & Wonks" into the search bar, be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live show and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave us a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in. We'll talk to you next time.

Primary ballots are in mailboxes now! Today friend of the show, former mayor of Seattle, and Executive Director of America Walks Mike McGinn joins Crystal on the show to discuss the front runners in the mayor's race, how candidates need to be making the case to the public in these remaining weeks before the primary, and the psychology and emotion that drives Seattle's voting decisions. And Mike delivers a fundamental election rule: Message quality multiplied by message delivery equals impact. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @frinchfrii and find today's co-host, Mike McGinn, at @mayormcginn. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources: “No incumbent in Seattle mayoral race, but candidates still running against City Hall” by Daniel Beekman: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/no-incumbent-in-seattle-mayoral-race-but-candidates-still-running-against-city-hall/  “Poll shows many voters still undecided, Bruce Harrell leading race for Seattle mayor” by Daniel Beekman: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/poll-shows-many-voters-still-undecided-bruce-harrell-leading-race-for-seattle-mayor/  “For the first time in years, there are 2 serious candidates for the King County executive” by David Guttman: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/race-for-king-county-executive-pits-experienced-well-funded-candidates-against-each-other/  “Seattle's mayoral candidates have plans for homelessness, but they're staring at an uncertain future” by Scott Greenstone: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/homeless/seattles-mayoral-candidates-have-plans-for-homelessness-but-theyre-staring-at-an-uncertain-future/  “The C Is for Crank: Correcting the Record on Compassion Seattle” by Erica C. Barnett: https://publicola.com/2021/07/13/the-c-is-for-crank-correcting-the-record-on-compassion-seattle/  Publicola Elections Coverage: https://publicola.com/category/elections/ South Seattle Emerald Elections Coverage: https://southseattleemerald.com/tag/2021-elections/ We the People Power Voter Guide: https://www.wethepeoplepower.org/voter-guide-2021   Primary Elections Endorsements: The Stranger: https://www.thestranger.com/news/2021/07/14/59065522/the-strangers-endorsements-for-the-august-3-2021-primary-election  The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/who-supports-who-in-seattle-elections-endorsements-roll-in-for-mayoral-council-races/  The Urbanist: https://www.theurbanist.org/2021/06/28/the-urbanists-2021-primary-endorsements/  350 Seattle Action: https://350seattleaction.org/2021-elections    Transcript: Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington State through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening and what you can do about it. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: activist, community leader, former mayor of Seattle, and Executive Director of America Walks - and a fire Twitter follow also, the excellent Mike McGinn. Mike McGinn: [00:00:59] Yeah, you can find me on Twitter @mayormcginn. I just can't let go of that handle - it's just too good. But I'm really many years past it now, so thanks for having me on the show, Crystal. Crystal Fincher: [00:01:11] No, absolutely. But you know what, you're always there to provide context and an informed opinion - and it's usually insightful, and useful, and often spicy. We get spicy McGinn a lot of times, and I like it. Mike McGinn: [00:01:25] I'm not running for anything anymore so I'm just pure truthteller mode. No, 95% pure truthteller mode. I pull some punches. I do pull some punches still, Crystal. Crystal Fincher: [00:01:35] Well, what I want to talk about is - ballots should be in your hands today, tomorrow. If you're listening to this, ballots are arriving in Washington State for primary elections. So it's a big deal. We've seen a wave of endorsements be released from major political organizations, media organizations - both The Times and The Stranger. So it is now time to vote - a lot that we've been talking about, all the candidates that we have been talking about - now the rubber is hitting the road and communication plans are in full effect. Mailers are hitting mailboxes, commercials are on TV, digital ads are all over the place, so how are you seeing this race standing right now, Mike? Mike McGinn: [00:02:23] Mayor's race - I think at this point we're really down to three viable candidates - is where I would start. You can look at - fundraising numbers is one way to look at it, major endorsements is another. And Bruce Harrell has the Seattle Times and in early polling, he was what, at 17% or 18% or something like that, which is when you think about it, kind of low for an incumbent, somebody that the City knows. He's not incumbent in the office, but for being known. Lorena González has The Stranger endorsement and lots of labor endorsements, got a big IEC from labor coming out. The theme of her campaign is her personal resume primarily is what she's running on. But she has the drag of being from the City Council. I don't know whether it's 29 or 39 City councilmembers that have run for mayor, and only Norm Rice actually pulled it off. And he had the tailwind of the Rainbow Coalition from Jesse Jackson running for president. And when he announced that coalition, that was the following year from the Jesse Jackson race, and he just vaulted in. And also a very skilled elected official. I mean, "Mayor Nice"? Who gets that nickname, "Mayor Nice"? Crystal Fincher: [00:03:44] You didn't get that nickname? Mike McGinn: [00:03:51] [Laughter]. And the other thing is - when you look at it is the right track, wrong track numbers in the City have been off the charts on all of the polls that have come out to date. And so if you're associated with what's been going on, that's going to give you a headwind. I think that the third candidate in the race and full disclosure, I've endorsed Colleen Echohawk in the race. She's talking about the issue that people say is the most important one - homelessness - that comes out on top of almost every poll. That's the focus of her campaign. She organically raised a lot of money through vouchers - got there first, didn't have to hire people to collect them as opposed to the other candidates, and is the outsider. The other candidates in the race are credible and have been treated as credible, but I think at this stage when you look at the fundraising numbers and the endorsements, I think it's going to be very hard for Andrew Grant Houston or Jessyn Farrell or Casey Sixkiller to come out of this primary with where they stand right now - the combination of institutional endorsers, dollars, message and political base that they're bringing into it. Crystal Fincher: [00:05:10] So based on the polling that's come out, a number of people are looking at this as, okay, on the - conservative and progressive are different when used in Seattle than when used in outside of Seattle- Mike McGinn: [00:05:24] Let's use right lane, left lane. Crystal Fincher: [00:05:26] Right lane candidate being - looks like it's going to be Bruce Harrell, by polling and indications there, it appears to be that he is leading the right lane. And the left lane as you just talked about, it looks to be Lorena González, with potential Colleen Echohawk on her heels. How are both making the case that they can run against a right lane candidate and when? Mike McGinn: [00:05:59] Well, and that's interesting. Part of the reason I think Bruce - well, the right lane always consolidates more than the left lane. It's like that Will Roger's joke about, "I don't belong to any organized party. I'm a Democrat." So the left is never powerfully organized and the right tends to consolidate. The other right lane candidates didn't really take off. And the left lane candidates all have a little more juice in them. And actually, given that Jessyn decided to endorse the Compassion Seattle Initiative, I'm not sure what lane she's in at this point, but both. Crystal Fincher: [00:06:32] Well, and I think that's been a problem for her. Mike McGinn: [00:06:34] Yeah, I think that's been a problem for her because this is a year that unlike prior years in which you had the Chamber of Commerce uniting with the King County Labor Council to decide on a candidate - that's what they did with Durkan, that's what they did with Murray. We're now back to - that's what they did with Mallahan, as I think about it. Right, and I got some union support but the Labor Council and a lot more of the unions went with Mallahan because labor was for the tunnel. Labor was for the tunnel and I actually heard from service worker unions that ended up endorsing him and they said, "We're taking a risk, all of our brothers and sisters are mad at us for supporting you because they really want the tunnel." Crystal Fincher: [00:07:15] That tunnel. Mike McGinn: [00:07:17] Yeah, that tunnel. So even though I was clearly the candidate for transit and working people against what I believed was a corporate bureaucrat who was running in the right lane, they still went with him. You still see that happening in politics today. The construction unions still have a lot of influence. So do the firefighters - they're quite conservative. And the Labor Council. In this case, we don't have that - where the Labor Council and the Chamber are ordaining a leader. So we're seeing a business backing Bruce - they're consolidating behind Bruce. You're seeing labor consolidating behind Lorena, but you're not seeing all of the progressive left consolidating behind Lorena. You see it breaking up into more pieces there. So the argument as to, against Bruce, is insider versus outsider. And I think that's going to be a huge challenge for Lorena in the general - right track, wrong track numbers. It's about the mayor but it's also about the Council. I ran in 2013 and I wanted the electorate to say, "Well, if you see conflict between the mayor and Council, look at what people are advocating and pick the person on the right side. By the way, that's me." That was my argument. But if you're close to City Hall, you might be able to do that - but people who are further away, they paint everybody with the same broad brush and it can be hard to distinguish yourself. And I just think that when you look at the polling to date and how low Lorena's numbers have been for somebody who's run city-wide multiple times, it really suggests she still has to go out and get a lot of votes. You probably got to get to 25% or so to get out of the electorate. So she's got to get from wherever she's starting - a long way. Everybody does, and Bruce has a shorter path to get there, but everybody's got to go a long way and the question becomes, does Lorena have a ceiling because of the negativity towards the City Council? Crystal Fincher: [00:09:34] That's a really interesting question. I guess the variable that I'm also looking at in this is looking at candidates independently. It's always a different scenario than looking at them head-to-head with another candidate. Bruce, also being an insider, does that neutralize that whole insider argument? Really, and to be real, Colleen is a former head of the Downtown Seattle Association-ider. So it's not like she's a radical outsider. Mike McGinn: [00:10:03] I don't think she was the head of the Downtown Seattle Association. Crystal Fincher: [00:10:05] Was previously. Mike McGinn: [00:10:07] I think she was just on the Board, but maybe I'm wrong. Crystal Fincher: [00:10:09] On the Board, on the Board. Mike McGinn: [00:10:10] She was on the Board, right. But just for the record, that's a spot that's given to the Chief Seattle Club. They are automatically on it because they are downtown and the DSA wanted a homeless provider on their Board. Crystal Fincher: [00:10:22] Which is the case for a lot of different organizations. They have different spots there but also not known as a left-leaning organization at the same time. So looking at their policies and being associated with that from a policy standpoint does not quite paint the picture of an outsider in the way that a lot of people think of outsiders in terms of politics. A lot of people would view that as a more establishment qualification on the resume, but neither here nor there. I think the bigger point I was making is that - does the fact that Bruce was formerly a Seattle City Council member, briefly mayor also - does that negate an insider argument if both people are former Councilmembers within Seattle-elected government, or does that more even the playing field and get to more of an issue-based stuff, or does the insider versus outsider argument still carry? Mike McGinn: [00:11:22] I think that Bruce carries that baggage too. He's helped by the fact that he's been off the Council a couple of years, but he does carry that baggage too. There's no question about that. I think if the question is how would Lorena - if Bruce has consolidated the right lane and people are fighting for the left lane, the question becomes how would Lorena do against Bruce in a head-to-head and how would Colleen Echohawk do in a head-to-head? And I'll bet you, that in those types of heads, Colleen would do a lot better than Lorena. I would bet you that. But of course, we're only going to get to run one of these. That's the way it works. But if there were polling done, I bet you what those head-to-heads would show as well. Crystal Fincher: [00:12:10] Always an interesting conversation on if there was polling done. And one of the things that we both have browsers refreshing right now is that the Northwest Progressive Institute, NPI, is actually going to be releasing public polling in the Seattle City Council, the mayoral races, several Seattle races. So that's going to be interesting to see actual public polling come out. They anticipated it being near the end of this week. Let's see if that actually comes out today. It wouldn't surprise me if it wound up being early next week, but we certainly are keeping our eyes on it. Mike McGinn: [00:12:47] I also think you have to take a look at the messaging of the candidates. Bruce's messaging is, "I'm a decisive leader. I know how to get things done." That's also Lorena's messaging - "I'm a decisive leader, I know how to bring people together to get things done. And look at my resume, I'm a progressive." Colleen's message is, "I've dedicated my life to helping homeless people in Seattle, and I'm an expert on homelessness which is the most important issue in the city." And I think that the headwind that both Lorena and Bruce face in the general is that they're saying that they know how to get things done, but the public says, "Yeah, but you had your shot." And that's the biggest headwind that both of them will face in the general election. Crystal Fincher: [00:13:35] Yeah. I'm also curious to see how much attention is paid to their donors and what their donors say. Because one, I think - continuing issue that we have in Seattle elections is ignoring that, and then being surprised that candidates vote pretty consistently in line with where many of their donors are at. That does not mean that their votes are necessarily bought. It just may mean that, "Hey, people see someone who has values that they feel are similar, that they feel is representing them." Not necessarily that they're buying it but that they see kinship there. And it really is telling where corporate interests see their candidate, and where labor and progressive interests see their candidate. And looking at the overlap between where major donors to Ed Murray, major donors to Jenny Durkan - and then look to see where those are at in the current races - a lot of them with Bruce Harrell. So is what we're signing up for really different if the traditional backers, if the coalition of donors looked similar to a profile of prior coalitions of donors? I wish we paid more attention to that in Seattle politics. Mike McGinn: [00:14:58] I agree. And clearly the kind of the business side donor class is consolidating behind Bruce and they're going to have an independent expenditure for him. Labor is consolidating behind Lorena and they're going to have a big independent expenditure campaign for her. And it's hard to cross your base. It's hard to tell your base they're wrong. That's like an axiom of politics and you're absolutely right. It's not that it's pre-negotiated or bought, but it becomes hard. And we saw that in play with Lorena when the police contract came up and the King County Labor Council urged a Yes vote on the contract, Lorena voted Yes on the contract because that's what labor wanted at the time, and the Community Police Commission wanted a No vote on that. We saw it very recently with the vehicle license fee. A stakeholder group came forward and said 75% of the $20 vehicle license fund, like $7 million a year - real money, but not big money in infrastructure. And the climate advocates and the alternative transportation advocates asked for, so the Council respect that. And labor said, "No, put it into bridges." The laborers, the carpenters and the King County Labor Council went down and said, "Nope, take the money from walking, biking and transit, put it into a bond for bridge repair." And that's basically what Lorena did on that one as well. So you get the situation where the base, the people that pay for your elections - it gets hard to cross them on tough issues, on high profile issues. Crystal Fincher: [00:16:47] I would just ask that as people are voting, consider that. Consider where their base is and what their history is of voting in line or not in line with those considerations. And certainly I know a number of people who agree with Lorena on a number of issues and that issue for a lot of people is the most challenging one. It's like, "Oh, but that police contract vote." is a sticking point for a number of - particularly further left-leaning progressives and where they're having a challenge in there. But there's issues with that with every single candidate almost - although I did - someone referred to Andrew Grant Houston as - what did they call him - the Elizabeth Warren of the race because he has a plan for everything, like well thought out and well organized. But I would say, aside from him, most - just anecdotally, a lot of people are like, "I love this candidate except for major issue where there was a problematic vote or a problematic issue." Jessyn, it's Compassion Seattle. With Lorena, it's that police vote. People got stuck with Colleen on the initial indication of support for Compassion Seattle, which she later said she's not going to be voting for and she does not support. But that gave people a lot of pause. So there's a number of those with candidates. Mike McGinn: [00:18:16] And I think over on the progressive side, that's absolutely right, and there's a little bit of - kind of arguing over who's in fact the most progressive. Although I think we can say that all of them have very strong progressive credentials. You don't represent homeless downtown, or come from Lorena's background and she's done great things in other areas. But clearly, your point about labor is good. By the way, Bruce Harrell voted for that contract too. And Colleen asked for them to vote No. It's an interesting thing getting elected as I did in '09 without a lot of institutional endorsements. It meant that I actually had a lot more freedom of movement. Everybody was trying to figure out where I would land. At the same time, I also didn't have a whole cadre of people behind me who were looking to back me up and stand up for me when I got in. Crystal Fincher: [00:19:14] That is the thing. Mike McGinn: [00:19:15] It's an interesting mix. But it really did - people were really wondering when I got in, in 2010, well, where is he going to land? Because in the primary- Crystal Fincher: [00:19:25] I was one of those wondering in 2010 where you were going to land. Mike McGinn: [00:19:25] On the other hand, it gave me - it meant that I didn't - this is going to sound a little trite, but honestly, my biggest concern was responding to the voters because I had gone around the institutional endorsers for the most part to get to win. The Stranger endorsement was big, and I picked up some service worker unions and other individual endorsements but nothing like anybody else in the race did. So that makes a difference in governance as well as you pointed out. Crystal Fincher: [00:20:01] Yeah, absolutely. And to be clear, the City of Seattle races are not the only races happening. We have a number of races. One, King County Executive race where certainly the two front runners are Dow Constantine, the incumbent who's been there and certainly in a strong position, versus Senator Joe Nguyen. What's you're read on where that stands right now? Mike McGinn: [00:20:23] It's hard to say. I think that Dow, after 12 years in office, is going to be facing the same time for a change sentiment. But I think Joe has to make the case for change. I think if you look at - and Joe Nguyen has got a great progressive record in the legislature and you can hear his values when he speaks. Dow has to explain the Youth Jail, he has to explain the Mariners Skyboxes, he has to explain the bailout of the Convention Center. He's got to defend his record and explain why he is the agent of making things happen now after 12 years based on where things stand. So I think that's going to be a big challenge for him. I think that is somewhat of a lower profile race. It doesn't necessarily deserve to be a lower profile race. It just is - the mayor's race is going to use up a lot more of the media coverage than the County Exec race will. So Joe has to make the case. He's got to aggressively pursue the change argument and what his values were. But it can happen. Look at Girmay vs Larry Gossett - it can happen. People can make a decision that it's time for a change even if they're not particularly angry at the incumbent, but they just think that the incumbent isn't delivering to their expectations of what they want to see at that time. Crystal Fincher: [00:21:59] Yeah. This is going to be an interesting race to see, especially at the primary point. I think looking at the point where Joe Nguyen got into this Executive's race - before he got in, Dow, obviously incumbent not challenged by major Democratic candidate before that, was running away with all of the endorsements. After Joe declared, they've really split most of the endorsements. It has not been strong one way or the other. They've really been splitting a lot or just blocking each other's endorsements. There isn't enough for a consensus in a lot of places. So I think the insider, more activist, more involved, and people who pay attention to those stuff all the time - which is a small percentage of people - are indicating that they view this certainly as a race. It's a whole different thing than communicating with voters who don't pay attention across an entire county. That's a heavy lift, a really heavy lift. And so for me, the question is can Joe Nguyen communicate that same kind of thing that makes the insider race competitive county-wide before the primary? Certainly, they have a lot more time for the general, assuming he makes it through which he should. But man, that's a lot of communication to people who don't pay attention. Mike McGinn: [00:23:29] Who will be low information voters, right - which is why that kind of background, that insider or outsider thing takes on a larger influence in races like this. It comes in and they already have a frame for deciding the race. And what you were just talking about is something I call the "perception primary". Some people might call it the "money primary". But it's not just money - it's a perception and it's spread by the insiders. And the thing about the perception primary is that people can be entirely wrong, in the perception primary. And that's, I think, one of the things you're highlighting here. Again, I'll go back to my own experience. In 2009, Greg Nickels had almost all the major endorsements and a lot of money. And the idea that he was vulnerable was actually the reason that I could get in the race. Nobody else would get in the race. He couldn't be beat. So the perception primary was keeping people out of the race. They said, "Well, we can't win the perception primary. We can't even get out of the perception primary." So I think that's always a challenge for a candidate is - can you survive the perception primary and I barely did. I barely did, let's be really clear about that. But I did survive it, but then once you got into the actual primary, I took first place. So I think there's a thing that happens where we all get sucked into the perception of the race. So clearly, Joe has political insiders or the politicos, whatever you want to call them. People are like, "Yeah, Joe has got a shot." But now, he's got to take his case to the voters. That's a very perceptive observation. And the same thing is true - I'll circle back to the mayor's race. There was a whole lot, I was doing a whole lot of - same thing happened in my '09 race. Remember when Jan Drago, a longtime City Councilmember got in the race, it was almost literally a headline of "Now it's a real race". Well, her highest polling numbers were the day she got in. And the two highest vote getters in the primary were two people who had never been in office before, me and Mallahan. So that was a case where the perception primary was just way off. And mayor's race, there's been a perception primary but this is a remarkably wide open race, more wide open than I think we've ever seen in my time watching. Crystal Fincher: [00:25:57] It's pretty wide open. One thing that we talked about in terms of, hey, who appears to be leading here based on polling - the leading vote getter in polling is Undecided, really at this point- Mike McGinn: [00:26:10] By a lot. We are engaging in some of that perception primary stuff too by saying message, dollars, institutional support should lead to votes based on what we know. But we could be wrong - because the nature - yeah. The biggest leader right now is Undecided. So, once the paid media lands and once the media decides how they're going to frame up the race in the last few weeks - will really decide which candidates can propel a little bit and get to that finish line. Maybe they're starting in a different place to get to the finish line. I think two weeks before the ballots drop, I was polling 7% in the mayor's race, ended up at 28%. And Greg Nickels was polling at 22% and he ended up at 25%. So, he spent a lot of money, it just didn't move his numbers because he was in a context where he just couldn't. And I was. And in 2017, I said, "I'm going to do this again," and the exact opposite happened. I started with a higher number and I went down because these people heard about the other candidates and they wanted someone new. So, it really drove home to me just how important the context of the race is, not what the early polls show. It all happens when the money drops and when the voters start paying attention - what movement do you start seeing then? That really happens. Crystal Fincher: [00:27:48] Yeah. Now is when the race for real regular people begins. A lot of people realize that the race is happening once they get their ballot in the mail. It's like, "Oh, this is a thing." And usually along with their ballots, they're getting four mailers a day from here on out most of the time. So, it's going to be real interesting to see how effectively people can get their message across. And that's not an easy thing to do. It takes - you have to penetrate people's consciousness at multiple points, multiple times - in order to make a real impression. And so that takes - certainly a significant budget and just good message execution. Mike McGinn: [00:28:40] Well, good message too. That was part of the point I was making about '09. But I really learned it in 2007 when I worked on the - Roads and Transit campaign. So, to refresh people's memory, the legislature decided to - that a regional Roads and Transit ballot would go in front of the public in 2007. And it included money for light rail but it also included money for highway expansion. And the Sierra Club - we decided to fight it because we believed it was bad for global warming. And I think we got the Cascade Bicycle Club with us and no other institutional endorsers. A few elected officials joined us late. But it was all the elected officials, business, labor, most of the environmental groups supported the Roads and Transit ballot measure. They said it's the only chance to get light rail. They had $5 million to spend and the polling had them at like 56%. They ended up, I think, at 44% on election night. And we spent about $50,000. We had no money, but we had a really good message. And they spent $5 million, they didn't have a good message. So, here you go. I now feel like I'm in Marco Lowe's Politics class. It's a mathematical equation, it's really simple. It's Message x Message Delivery = Impact. And if your message is - it's the only math you have to know in this. If you got an awesome message and zero delivery, no impact. And if you got a billion dollars of delivery and your message is a zero, zero times a billion dollars is still zero impact. It's both. You got to have a good message. You got to deliver it. And now, we're going to find out who's got the message in these races that actually moves voters. Crystal Fincher: [00:30:40] Yeah. And a lot to learn from it and that will certainly inform how the message is developed in a general election. Certainly, your race - a number of races - have been instructive just for me personally in terms of how effective a message can be. But in a singular rallying issue, certainly you and transit- Mike McGinn: [00:31:02] Kshama and 15 in her race- Crystal Fincher: [00:31:06] Yeah. And Kshama was the other one - 15 Now. Mike McGinn: [00:31:10] 15 Now, yeah. And I think that- Crystal Fincher: [00:31:12] That was huge. That was very instructional for me. Mike McGinn: [00:31:15] I think that Bernie Sanders got into that first race against Hillary Clinton, thinking he was just going to be a message candidate. I mean somebody to carry this message and use the race as a way to distribute a message. And he discovered his message about the power of Wall Street and the power of billionaires was really powerful. And all of a sudden, he was in a real race. The reporters say he didn't think that was going to happen and maybe if he'd realized that sooner, he might have won that one. Because you want to race differently when you're trying to deliver a message and when you're trying to win. But it's another example of how someone can have tremendous amount of institutional support, but somebody can come in with a better message and lap 'em, or at least give them a good run. Crystal Fincher: [00:32:04] Well, Obama versus Hillary was message versus establishment. Mike McGinn: [00:32:08] Great example of that. And so it's not necessarily about experience, or resume. It's about what the voters are looking for right then in a candidate. And you can run a race that - it's the context that's going to decide it, ultimately, more than the candidates. Crystal Fincher: [00:32:33] Voting is an emotional decision. Voting is not a logical decision. And to your point, it really is about how you can connect, how your message and the vision that you're painting connects with voters. And if you can tap into what they're feeling, both their frustrations and their aspirations, that is the key. Like - "We don't have to be here. We can be in a better place. I can bridge that gap and get us there." Make that connection to the voters - that sticks. And helping to have, I think, in your case and Kshama's case and certainly looking nationally in Obama's case, but on a local level with a number of people, to be able to paint a very clear image of where you can go. You were very clear on your vision. Kshama was very clear on her vision, to the point like other people have no problem repeating and defining where you stand. And I actually think that's kind of the crux of where people have challenges with candidates. It's like, "Okay, explain the candidate to me." And if they have a hard problem doing that, that's a problem for the candidate. They need to be able to say, "Oh, Kshama is 15 Now candidate. Mike is the transit candidate." Mike McGinn: [00:33:56] The fact that I rode a bike actually delivered a lot of message. I was an environmentalist who cared about transit and walking and biking and alternatives. Those things really mattered. And if your supporters can't explain why you're running, you have a problem because so many votes are actually gained by your supporters carrying the message on your behalf. So, it's got to be really simple - people complain about sound bites and I understand, because they feel like it oversimplifies the issues, but the reality of somebody running for office or running an advocacy campaign is they have to be able to boil their message down and express it in a way that actually has impact and conveys meaning to people. It's a lot harder than it looks to do that. It's a lot harder and I think people don't fully appreciate the role that a few words can play in delivering a message that moves voters, or moves people to action in an advocacy campaign. I think of "Defund the Police", everybody is picking on Defund the Police - that it hurts Democrats, and it may well hurt Democrats. But that wasn't a message invented by Democrats to a bunch of people in swing districts. That was a message invented by activists to call attention to the role of policing America. And by that measure, it seemed like a whole lot of people were repeating their message. And again- Crystal Fincher: [00:35:38] A whole lot of people repeating the message functionally. In several areas, including here in Seattle, more movement both in rhetoric and in policy than we have seen in the past 20 to 30 years in most instances. And a clear delineation between action that is inconsequential and what is just rhetoric - like a reform conversation - versus Defund is a clear bright line of if we aren't addressing the resources involved with this, if we're just tinkering around the edges of maybe some trading and stuff, that that actually is not getting us where we need to go. Mike McGinn: [00:36:17] And I think that is just completely on point, Crystal. It came from a constituency that's been yelling for decades, if not longer, at not being heard. And somebody is now hearing the message and having to confront it and respond to it - the criticism that, "Well, it's not a perfect message and it might hurt somebody else over there," that's kind of a secondary concern to the activist who's been ignored already. Crystal Fincher: [00:36:45] 100%. 100%. Mike McGinn: [00:36:47] Now having said that, I've noticed that that's not a prominent phrase in this year's City Council or mayoral elections. Crystal Fincher: [00:36:57] No - no it's not. Mike McGinn: [00:36:58] But it served its purpose in the moment and now people have to move and find a different way to try to move the debate. And actually, I think that is- Crystal Fincher: [00:37:05] But it actually set the stage for the debate that we're having now - and determine the lanes and set the parameters. So now, there are discussions about what percentage of funding, how're we going to divert. And so it's not an explicitly Defund conversation - but starts with where are the resources, what are we doing with the actual funds, what are the budget numbers and items. And so kind of like talking about the bridge, or the tunnel - the tunnel, the tunnel, the tunnel was an issue that stood for a whole set of policies. Mike McGinn: [00:37:43] It stood for climate. It stood for using tax dollars wisely. It stood for equity - that transit was a better investment than highways. All of that was in play there. Boy, it kind of takes me to another topic I hesitate to bring it up, but there's a little bit of a test. This year is a test. Two years ago was a test too of where is the electorate right now on a lot of these things. The Compassion Seattle Initiative is an example of that. Now, it's written in such a way that people can see things in it that aren't there or not see things in it that are there. The vote is happening. It's become a little bit of a litmus test for left to right, but not completely. I saw former City Attorney Mark Sidran speaking up - I saw an article he was speaking up at a Belltown forum - saying you can't support Compassion Seattle, it's too lenient on the homeless. So, I think this why I'm laughing because there's such a swirl around this issue. But I think that's kind of one of the issues out here - is homelessness is clearly the most important issue in the city right now. That's what's showing up on the polls, and that's what people care about. But then you have to dig a layer deeper, what does that mean? What kind of city are we? Do we go to, "Yeah, so we need to build more housing," or do we get to, "We need to kick them off the streets and parks"? And that's the other thing that's kind of really very much in play this year. And the fact that Compassion Seattle is on the ballot and who's backing it - now that we see who's backing it, now that its contours become a little more clear - you can see that in a way it's designed to try to boost voter turnout of those who might vote for the right lane candidate. Crystal Fincher: [00:39:50] Absolutely. Mike McGinn: [00:39:50] That's what it feels like to me. This is a political ploy more than a reasoned solution. And we declared an emergency on these six years ago, for crying out loud, but we haven't really treated it like an emergency in that six years. It was just - and there's only so many task forces or government structures and emergency resolutions you can pass before the public goes, "Well, what the hell are you going to do?" And that's really a big issue. Is it a progressive response to homelessness or not a progressive response to homelessness? That's going to be a task for the Seattle electorate in the City this year. I know which side I come out on, and I hope the City comes out on the right side of that too. Crystal Fincher: [00:40:34] Yeah. I mean it is in reality. And Erica Barnett, in PubliCola, actually did a great piece this week on - what do its advocates say versus what does the text actually say? They're very different things. It is clearly not a progressive policy. It is clearly being, trying to be - it's dressed up in progressive clothing - from the name on down and what they're saying. So, it will be very interesting to see, but that's one of those where the simple messaging on that - the easiest way to message, the simplest way to message is very deceptive and it makes it seem like, "Hey, this is finally going to do something and take care of something and people who don't just want to see people swept. But hey, there's money for this and they're going to help." You can message all of that in a way that a lot of media organizations are carrying without question, and the text doesn't jive with what their messaging is. Mike McGinn: [00:41:38] I have a sense that the confusion about what it really means will hurt it in the same way that it hurts many initiatives. That initiatives always often suffer from the public response if it's not well thought out, it's not well-thought through, that the legislative process enables things to be a more nuanced approach. And I think that that is going to be a drag for the proponents of this getting it through, which is good, from my perspective. But even so, its level of popularity overall even without those negatives of we're not quite - maybe it's not built right, maybe it's got some bad provisions in it, maybe it's not well-thought through. I still think the level of support is going to be so high, even if it fails, that it kind of shows how fed up people are with no action from government on this issue. Crystal Fincher: [00:42:37] I agree with that. The issue is that people are so tired of this problem not being taken care of. It's been declared a crisis in overlapping jurisdictions - that it's been the top priority - and people have seen the issue get worse, not better. So, it is something. It's doing something, and some people I think are just willing to say, "Well, it's time to do something, and we've seen politicians dither for years. And so we have to do something." That is the challenge, I think the biggest challenge. Mike McGinn: [00:43:10] I don't know whether it passes or fails. Even though I was kind of leaning on it, I think it might fail, but I also think it might pass. Back then, maybe here's a close. Maybe we've reached the end. I think that that we have to do something kind of feeds back to the County Exec race we talked about, feeds back to the mayor's race - how that will affect people that were more in the position to do something and those that weren't. And even how it affects the race between Nikkita, Sara Nelson, and Brianna Thomas. Granted, none of them are incumbents but one worked for a City Councilmember and one is clearly the right lane and one is clearly the left lane. Crystal Fincher: [00:43:52] Technically, two have worked for City Councilmembers, but Brianna currently- Mike McGinn: [00:43:56] Oh that's true - Sara did for many years. I shouldn't say that, but Brianna more recently. Actually true - Sara worked for City Councilmembers for quite a long time and was working for Councilmember Conlin when I was mayor and we interacted with her quite a bit. So, yeah, I think that this overarching sense is something that's going to be feeding into all of the races and what's the power of that - given the specific people in the race and their personalities and their platforms and their supporters and their messaging - remains to be determined in each one. But I think it's a powerful driver in all of the races. Crystal Fincher: [00:44:32] Yeah, I agree with that. I think people are fed up and impatient at the moment. For what is the question - they are unhappy with where things are at. Most people do feel like things are on the wrong track for one reason or another. And so what to do with that is the question. Mike McGinn: [00:44:53] Never seen wrong track numbers this high, never seen them this high in my years of following it. It's really astounding numbers on the wrong track. Well, let's Crystal, you and me, we're trying to get the City on the right track in our own ways. And maybe not everybody agrees with our ways, but I'm for all the people out there fighting to make it get it back on the right track. So, maybe we'll lead back with everybody. Crystal Fincher: [00:45:21] Yeah, I'm with you. Getting things on the right track, taking action. I do think people have to - I do think people owe an explanation, who have been in power - an accounting of what they have done with that power. And I think that we are seeing in a lot of different places - certainly, with - Republicans are not hesitant to use whatever power they have and wield it in whatever way they can. I think a lot of frustration with Democrats is that a lot of people say, "Hey, you have the power to enact so much change and not much is happening," and feeling frustration with that. Certainly, that's not universal. Republican inaction is notorious. But people have to account for the power that they have. And I think people are like, "Dude, I'm electing you to use your power to do something." And I think people who can make the case that they will do something with the power that they have will fare well if they can communicate that effectively. Mike McGinn: [00:46:23] And I'm not running for office, so I'll say this. I think the voters too, have to hold themselves accountable as well. There's a little bit of, it's not easy to cut through all the rhetoric and the misrepresentations and all the rest. But ultimately, get out and vote this time - like we get the elected leaders sometimes that they get past us or they get in. And it's up to the voters to really hold them accountable. So, take your time. You don't have to take my word for who the right candidate is, or Crystal's, or any endorsers. Take your time to dig in and definitely take your time to vote. It's a low turnout election year. Sorry for just being - but it's a low turnout year. And what we know is people are calibrating their arguments and their policy positions based on who they think is going to vote this year. So, you get out there and you vote and upset the applecart a little bit. Maybe you can get some people in there who are more progressive. Crystal Fincher: [00:47:26] Yeah. And I think I said it in another show - vote your conscience. For me, I am a strong believer that in primary elections, a lot of people are like, "Well, am I throwing away my vote if I vote for someone who I feel is not in the lead?" And that's a whole host of people because right now, there's lots of talk about who's in the lead - although to be clear, Undecided voters are the plurality of voters right now. But vote for the candidate who you feel most closely matches your values because whether or not that candidate makes it through, that is a statement of values and that's a statement that all other candidates pay attention to. If X candidate that stands for a range of values doesn't make it through, but they're 15% of voters, especially in a general election where more than likely no candidate is going to be approaching 50%, probably not 40%, probably closer to 30%. They're going to have to put together a cohesive platform that can consolidate the other voters. And if they see that, "Oh, man, I am not going to get out of this without addressing climate. I'm not going to get out of this without meaningfully making sure people feel safe, without meaningfully addressing the issue of unhoused people on our streets." Make sure that they take notice of where you actually stand in terms of your values. And you don't have to compromise in a primary election. The choice in the general will be between two people and that's where you have to kind of look at, "Okay, what's the better choice, neither of them probably are going to be ideal on everything but the best choice." But vote your values now, please. Mike McGinn: [00:49:11] Let me put it this way - 90% of the elections, I'm with you. And boy, would I love some ranked-choice voting in a race like this. I would love to see ranked-choice voting in - so order the ones you want. So, you won'thave to worry about the strategic vote. But I think there are sometimes some races you want to vote for the person who you think stands the best chance of winning the general too. And I think this might be one of those as we talked about earlier. I think sometimes you have to look at that one too. And that certainly I think was a factor in getting Biden through the election. I think one of the reasons that the Black voter supported Biden so much, in addition to having a relationship with him and knowing where he stood, was also knowing they didn't want to take a chance on Trump. And they thought Biden had the best shot. Crystal Fincher: [00:50:03] And mistrust of other voters that they would vote progressively and not betray the vote that people might take if they voted their conscience. Yes, yeah. Mike McGinn: [00:50:13] Yeah, and so it's a tricky one. I wish strategic voting weren't a thing. I think there are sometimes when it is. And so that may be where we are this time too, but you can't and you shouldn't vote for somebody if you don't feel good that they're going to advance the causes you believe in at the end of the day. That's the thing that matters. So, do your homework, folks. Crystal Fincher: [00:50:38] Do your homework. We'll certainly include a lot of links - lots of organizations have endorsed - we'll include links from a variety of organizations - Times, Stranger, Urbanist, PubliCola, Transit RIders Union. There are a number of organizations and you can read through their rationale about why they made the decisions that they made. I find that helpful in sometimes trying to wade between which candidates I'm debating on. But please do that. We thank you so much for taking the time to listen to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, July 16th, 2021. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler with assistance from Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today was activist, former Seattle mayor, Mike McGinn. You can find Mike on Twitter @mayormcginn - that's M-C-G-I-N-N. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. And now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you 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 show and our mid-week show delivered to your podcast feed. You can also get the full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show today at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in. We'll talk to you next time.

This week - with primary ballots starting to arrive in mailboxes next week! - Erica C. Barnett of PubliCola joins Crystal to discuss what's going on in Seattle's mayoral race. They discuss the unpredictability of a crowded primary, how funding caps get raised, and why primaries are really the time to vote your conscience. Additionally, they cover the potential firing of two Seattle Police Department officers who participated in the January 6th insurrection, and the harsh and punitive nature of Washington State's work release program which renders it useless for the purposes of reintegrating the incarcerated back into society. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Erica C. Barnett, at @ericacbarnett. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources: Access all mayoral candidate interviews in the PubliCola Questions series here: https://publicola.com/category/elections/  “Floodgates open, as trio of Seattle mayoral candidates get spending limit lifted” by Nick Bowman: https://mynorthwest.com/3014891/seattle-mayoral-candidate-andrew-grant-houston-spending-cap-lifted/  “Investigation Implicates Two Officers in January 6 Riots, Test Limits of Investigators' Subpoena Power” by Paul Kiefer: https://publicola.com/2021/07/08/investigation-implicates-two-officers-in-january-6-riots-tests-limits-of-investigators-subpoena-power/  “Investigation of Work Release Centers Spurs Some Changes, But Advocates Proceed with Caution” by Paul Kiefer: https://publicola.com/2021/07/07/investigation-of-work-release-centers-spurs-some-changes-but-advocates-proceed-with-caution/?utm_campaign=Notes%20from%20the%20Emerald%20City&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Revue%20newsletter    Transcript: Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work, with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, we're continuing our Friday almost live shows where we review the news of the week. Welcome back to the program friend of the show and today's co-host Seattle political reporter, editor of PubliCola, and author of Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse, and Recovery, which is now out in paperback. Erica Barnett. Erica Barnett: [00:00:56] Great to be here, Crystal. Crystal Fincher: [00:00:58] Great to be here, excited that you're now out in paperback, the book is popular. And so just want to encourage everyone to get that. It's great. I recommend it. You should get it. And now you have paperback option. But in starting off the news of today, I wanted to just get started talking about the Mayoral race. You've been doing a fantastic series on PubliCola, the PubliCola Question series, interviewing candidates, especially ones for Mayor. So I guess I just wanted to start off talking about what has that process been like and are there any insights that you've gained into the candidates that you didn't have before doing that series? Erica Barnett: [00:01:45] Thanks. Yeah, I think one thing that we really wanted to do with this series was ask some questions that people were not getting asked at all of these campaign forums and in other platforms. And so we asked about things like instead of do support Charter Amendment 29? Which is the Compassion Seattle initiative. Assuming it passes, what are you going to do? What are you going to cut to make up that 12% in the general fund that is mandated under this initiative. Everybody's focusing on downtown, what would you do to help other neighborhoods, non-downtown neighborhoods, with COVID 19 recovery? And so I think we've gotten some really interesting questions or answers rather. So far, we've published four of them so far. There are two more coming today with the six leading candidates. Andrew Grant Houston had a really interesting answer to a question about public safety. He said that his first priority and the quickest thing that he could do to replace some functions with the police would be to expand access to bathrooms and running water. And Andrew is a candidate who has sort of a plan for everything, and it's all very much on paper at this point. And I think it's important to note that Mayors cannot act unilaterally on most issues, but I do think that his sort of white paper platforms point in a direction that is very, very different than what the city is doing right now. Casey Sixkiller, who supports Compassion Seattle was somewhat defensive on that issue. I believe he wants to pass a very large bond measure, a billion dollars, to build 3000 new apartments. Again, Mayors cannot act unilaterally, but he really focused on the fact that Seattle's homelessness problem is not really Seattle's homelessness problem. It's a regional issue, which is the parroting, his former boss, Mayor Jenny Durkan to a certain extent, who points out all the time that 40% of the people who are homeless in Seattle did not become homeless in Seattle. Now, there's certainly a debate over whether that matters. I mean, they're here now, but that kind of speaks to just his approach on homelessness. So that's just a couple of them, I would encourage people to go read them all. We ask them all eight questions and the answers are pretty enlightening. Crystal Fincher: [00:04:23] Yeah. And we will link to all of those interviews in the show notes and love the approach that you took to that with trying to expand the conversation to help inform voters and not just asking the stable questions that people hear, which obviously every organization is doing their best in these forums. And not everyone may have heard all of the prior answers. So it is not always bad to ask people the same questions again. But I do love that there's the opportunity to expand this conversation and get some of these answers and dive a little deeper into this. So you talked about there being some unique answers. How are you seeing the race, I guess, shape up overall at this point now that ballots are coming out in about a week next week and campaigns are starting to advertise and communicate directly with voters? Erica Barnett: [00:05:19] Well, I mean, I've said on the show before, I am the worst at predicting how anything turns out. I mean, the common wisdom, the consensus answer to that is, "Well, it's going to be Bruce Harrell, followed by Lorena González, and they're going to make it through the primary." I mean, just in talking to people in my circles. I have seen a lot of folks supporting Colleen Echohawk. So I wouldn't count her out, and Jessyn Farrell is also a contender. I think she ran for Mayor four years ago and did not make it through the primary. So I'm not good at predicting. I have no idea how it's going to turn out, so I could parrot the conventional wisdom. And that may very well be right. But there does seem to be some momentum, particularly for Echohawk. Crystal Fincher: [00:06:11] I would agree with that. I'm also not a fan of making predictions. I like looking at what the available data is and listening to what's going on within campaigns. I guess I would say within my circles, I've heard a lot of the same, but at the same time, this is still a crowded primary and crowded primaries can get real unpredictable, real quick. I have heard the same conventional wisdom that you have and results of some internal polling probably has backed that up. But in crowded primaries, I mean, Mike McGinn was on the program before and reminded people, "Hey, six weeks out of the primary, where he eventually won the election to become Mayor, he was polling at 7%." A lot has to do with how you wind up communicating with voters, how you make your case, how people make a case against you. So there still is some jostling that can happen in the race. So sometimes I will get people asking me, "Well, if my candidate is not in the lead, is it going to be throwing a vote away on someone if I vote for someone who's not in the lead?" I would continue to say, "No, it's absolutely not." Primaries are the time that's most appropriate to vote your conscience to vote for the candidate who you feel most closely aligns with your values. I still think it is very, very important to do that regardless of whether you feel like they're in the lead or not. Because right now, the lead is all theoretical. The only lead that matters is the one on election day in a crowded primary where there's a lot of people jostling and trying to determine what lane they're going to be in and running it. You know, lots, lots of interesting things can happen. Mike McGinn was certainly one of those interesting things. So there certainly are candidates with momentum who can wind up breaking into the top two. We'll see how this turns out. Erica Barnett: [00:08:19] Let me just push back a tiny bit on that McGinn analysis. I mean, obviously self-serving analysis on his part, which I understand, but what's really interesting about this primary and what actually I think makes it more competitive and less predictable is that there are a lot of candidates who could potentially actually be Mayor and in McGinn's primary. I mean, besides Mayor, then Mayor Greg Nichols, who lost in the primary, there were not a lot of major, major candidates or candidates who were particularly viable. In this race, I mean, you've got a lot of real contenders, people who have served in office, people who you know, Lorena González , council president, Jessyn Farrell, former state legislator, Colleen Echohawk, who ran the Chief Seattle Club, a homelessness organization. It's an impressive, dare I say, field, and I think that's kind of a contrast to 2009 where you had McGinn running against Joe Mallahan, who was a T-Mobile guy who had never held public office and I think didn't really light the world on fire. Crystal Fincher: [00:09:30] I mean, there was Joe Mallahan. There was Jan Drago. Remember Jan Drago? Erica Barnett: [00:09:35] I do. We share a pea patch. Crystal Fincher: [00:09:39] Do you share a pea patch? Erica Barnett: [00:09:40] Well, we're in the same pea patch, yeah. Yes. I see her all the time. Crystal Fincher: [00:09:43] Elizabeth Campbell. I mean, I don't know. I think a really interesting thing is the conversation of who could become mayor. That really is, it's so subjective, right? But I think it's interesting. I do think that at the time, an unpopular incumbent... At that time, the incumbent was running for reelection, which certainly inhibits a lot of other people from running and can impact the field. Certainly did then, I think, and took people who almost by definition viewed themselves as outsiders who were not part of the Nickels crew to say, "Hey, we can actually stand up and challenge this guy," where this dynamic is not happening in this mayoral race, because Jenny Durkan is not running for reelection. So it's an open field and has brought in a lot of people who maybe would not have run against Durkan, but now that the field is open, they're here. So it'll be interesting to see, but I do think that people should still get educated about the candidates, vote for who you feel most closely aligns to your values. Because even if your candidate doesn't finish on top, people are still going to be analyzing and looking at, okay, where does the vote distribution per issue fall? And it's going to be consequential if... For something like charter amendment 29, if there's overwhelming support against that, and, hey, one person who gets through the primary got 30%, but the other 70% of votes went against that. That's going to be a bit telling and how the candidates approach their support or opposition of something like that charter amendment campaign. So vote your conscience. Let's see what we have going on there. The other news that is interesting is that the fundraising race just, I guess, got a new dimension with Andrew Grant Houston being granted a democracy voucher fundraising lift. How did that happen? Erica Barnett: [00:11:56] Well, another candidate in the race, former city council member, Bruce Harrell, has a PAC... I mean, I shouldn't say he has. There is a PAC working on his behalf. And so they've raised a bunch of money, and in combination with Harrell's own fundraising, that is above the cap. And so what happens, the cap is $400,000 of basically how much a candidate can raise. When a candidate's fundraising combined with any outside fundraising is above $400,000, any candidate in that race can then say, I want the cap to be lifted. And once it's lifted, that candidate, and eventually most candidates will probably pile on and also ask for lifts, that candidate can spend any amount of money, just like a PAC. So it sort of defangs a major aspect, I think, of the Honest Elections Initiative that we passed a few years back because effectively it says that PACs... We know that PACs can spend unlimited amounts of money, but PACs unlimited spending can spur candidates' unlimited spending. So we sort of have a situation in every election now where basically the caps are meaningless. Crystal Fincher: [00:13:11] Yeah, it is an interesting situation, because as you said, now for Andrew Grant Houston and for other candidates who come in following requesting the lift, there is no more fundraising limit in the primary. And certainly there've been some candidates who have stacked up their... Kind of been collecting but not cashing in additional democracy vouchers and additional money in anticipation of this being lifted. So it'll be real interesting to see how that then translates into communication because the other element is... I mean it's Friday, July 9th today. Ballots are coming out next week. So it's not like there's a ton of time left to do a lot of communications. So the planning of that had to have happened prior to this, and now it just becomes a matter of execution and seeing how much they're able to afford and expanding their communication plans. Erica Barnett: [00:14:13] Sure. And I think we'll see even more of this in the general election because the caps are the same. It sort of resets and you can spend $400,000 in the mayor's race, and so when you just have two candidates... I mean, spending in the mayor's race in recent years has just gotten out of control, in my opinion, and I think we'll see that again. Crystal Fincher: [00:14:35] Well, I think so. It is not cheap to communicate with an entire city full of people, but there really is no other way to do it than raising and spending this money in our current composition, but it would be interesting to examine what would it mean have a more tiered system or what other controls could be put into place to avoid just this all out fundraising blitz and air war that we get ourselves into that initially, talking to people, which I still think is helpful, to have to talk to people to get democracy vouchers. Talking to residents is never a bad thing when it comes to informing policy, but how do we prevent this from becoming just another unlimited spend-a-thon? I don't know. I hope there is a way. I would like there to be a way, but I don't know if there's going to be a way. And to your point, we get into this situation every time now. So it seems like the residents voted to address this issue and kind of took a step one with the Honest Elections Initiative. Is there a step two to try and control this seemingly unlimited spending situation that we get ourselves in? Erica Barnett: [00:15:57] Yeah, because it would be unfair, on the flip side, for PACs to be able to spend unlimited amounts of money and to limit the candidates. So there is a logic behind it. It's just an unfortunate logic that is based on the fact that PACs can spend any amount of money or independent expenditure campaigns can spend any amount of money. Crystal Fincher: [00:16:16] Yep. So we will be keeping our eyes on the spending in coming weeks. If you, listeners, get any campaign collateral, mail, screenshot online ads, take pictures of mail, tag us in it. It's always interesting to see who is getting what and what the messages are. We've seen very creative, sometimes disingenuous, advertising in prior campaigns, and it's always interesting to see how candidates are making their own case and cases against other candidates. So please, just continue to stay informed. There is still a number of forums that are going to be happening. So tune in, and we'll certainly continue to talk about them here on the show. Another issue I wanted to talk about was some news that just came out yesterday, and that an OPA investigation implicated two officers who participated in the January 6th riots and insurrection in Washington, DC. We'd previously known that there were at least six officers in attendance in DC, and a question that a lot of other people have, we've talked about before I think, that the fact that they were in DC for what was billed as a Stop the Steal event says a lot, really enough about their mind frame, that their ability to complete their job in a fair and honest way is seriously called into question. But there was a question about, did any actually participate in the insurrection? Were they on grounds that they should not have been on? Did they break any other laws? And the answer is yes. There were two officers who were found to have done that. So what actually was uncovered in that investigation? Erica Barnett: [00:18:02] Well, essentially what they discovered, what the Office of Police Accountability discovered was that two officers, as you said, apparently a married couple, were trespassing in a restricted area. They did not breach the Capitol, as in actually going inside the building and the rotunda. But they were trespassing on the Capitol steps. And the Office of Police Accountability was not convinced that they just didn't know, which is what they claimed. To your point, I think the Seattle Police Union has said that it would be discriminatory to discipline any of the other four officers, at the very least because they're just expressing their political opinions and this is just free speech. But I think you also have to look at the question... OPA looks at things like professionalism, and I think it calls into question their professional judgment if they believe sincerely, and to the extent that they're willing to go to this rally, in a huge lie, in a huge political lie that the election was stolen, and that Donald Trump should rightly be president now. That's a judgment call. And that speaks to their ability to make good judgments on the job. And so, in deciding that those officers were effectively exonerated, that is the city and the OPA saying, "We don't care about that aspect of their judgment. We agree, in a sense, that this was just an expression of a political view." And I think that it's obviously a political view. But we don't ban people from being cops for being conservative, but we do discipline them as a city for not being professional. Crystal Fincher: [00:19:57] Yeah, absolutely. And clearly what they have to believe in is that, not only was there fraud, predominantly in Democratic cities, and among constituencies of color, predominantly among them. But to believe that to a degree that that would have flipped the election, and the dozens, upon dozens, upon dozens of court cases that have sought to challenge and pursue this in court that have been just flat out, both laughed out of court, and just rejected in every way. This has played out. Again, people can appeal to different courts. Every court, from state courts and federal courts, to district courts and appeals courts, and the Supreme Court have taken up various election issues, and this has been found to just have no basis in reality. And to still persevere is really troubling to me, that someone within the system is in effect saying they don't trust it, they don't believe in it, they're acting in defiance of it, to the point of traveling to DC to make this stand and to make this point. Very, very troubling and concerning. I would be highly concerned in discovering, and wondering if there are patterns of unfair treatment that have come specifically from these officers. It is a big question. But as for the two, the investigation was pretty unequivocal that there does not seem to be a question that these two officers just flat out lied. The investigation said that they lied. That they said they weren't aware that they were in an area where they shouldn't have been. Evidently, video provided by the FBI clearly shows that not only was there plenty of signage indicating that they shouldn't have been there, there were police officers there who not only were directing people away, who were using force in various capacities to try and get people away. And these officers witnessed that, and witnessed their fellow rioters using force against the officers, and did not intervene, did not do anything. Which is really curious, talking about supporting officers, and you have officers standing by watching other officers actually get beaten by this insurrectionist mob. So, they just seem to have been busted from A to Z. And the chief had previously said, if there was someone found to be taking part in those activities, they would be fired. So it's going to be interesting to see if the chief follows through on that. And then what SPOG does to try and address that. Erica Barnett: [00:23:02] One aspect of the story that PubliCola covered that I want to just point out, reporter Paul Keifer did a story on this, is that although Chief Adrian Diaz did order these officers to turn over information, receipts and bank records, photographs and texts from January 6th, and they did comply, except for one who still has not complied. The police union is fighting that, and they believe that this was a violation of their rights. They have filed a grievance. And so, the question of whether the OPA, the accountability office, has the authority to subpoena and to demand these records is still very much on the table. So, we could see a scenario in the future, hopefully not as dramatic as the January 6th insurrection, but a scenario in the future where police officers refuse to hand over this information, or this kind of information, and the public could just be in the dark. Crystal Fincher: [00:24:08] And we're already in the dark about so much already. It's very, very troubling. And I hope, as we continue to have these conversations with a new perspective mayors, and council members in the city of Seattle, and in other cities, that this is talked about. That transparency and accountability, apart from people loving to ask, "Do you support or oppose defund?", there's so much more in this conversation that we need to talk about in detail. And I hope this continues to be centered in those conversations, because really it's just unacceptable. Erica Barnett: [00:24:46] Absolutely. Crystal Fincher: [00:24:48] And with that, and related in our criminal legal system, there was an excellent PubliCola story this week about the work-release program. We'll link to it in our show notes. I highly encourage everyone to read it. But do you want to give us a rundown on what that story was about? Erica Barnett: [00:25:08] Yeah. Paul Keifer, again, our police accountability reporter, did a story about work-release violations, and how they are used, how the violations of the terms of work release, which is a program where people get released from prison, but they live in a facility. They participate in programs, including job programs. And it's essentially, it's a little like parole. And so they have to comply with a bunch of different rules. And lack of compliance can send you back to prison. And so, what Paul's story revealed is that in a lot of cases, very small violations of the conditions of work release, which is supposed to prepare you to get along, and be a productive citizen in the outside world. But these very small violations were being used to send people back to prison for things as small as having... One woman had a drill bit, a small drill bit in her bag that she said was her boyfriend's, and she was sent back to prison for that. So, the story reveals that it's a system that sets people up to fail in many cases because it's more about following the minutiae of rules than actually getting rehabilitated, and getting ready to succeed in society in the outside world. Crystal Fincher: [00:26:36] Yeah. And the story detailed a lot of instances, people being sent back to prison for missing a bus. And for that being used, basically, in retaliation for personal issues that people working for the Department of Corrections had with various people. A couple had made complaints about potential abuses of power and were retaliated against. There was someone who appears to have been retaliated against because their family members were in a protest. Just very, very punitive, choosing to exercise extremely harsh judgment to take away someone's freedom. And if we are really sitting here trying to act like this system is about rehabilitation for everything from non-violent seemingly... Whether it's some possession of a controlled substance or whatever the case may be, they have served their sentence. This is a kind of midway point, like you said, to prepare people to live, in regular life. For a lot of people who wind up in prison, they may not have had the most stable life. They may have made a mistake, got caught up in the system and they may not have the best tools for coping. This is billed, supposed to be at, "Okay, this is to help you reintegrate into society." To help you build positive habits, positive routine, get a job, get on your feet, get some money coming in the door so that when you do get ultimately released and are free of all supervision, that you are prepared to live on your own and in society. And coping with the everyday challenges of life is part of preparing to be back in society and managing through that. Because Lord knows, all of the rest of us make mistakes. All of the rest of us has missed a bus at some point in time, or forgotten to take something with us, or have been late to a meeting. That is regular life stuff. So to expect people to live more perfectly than everyone else on the outside is just not a realistic expectation. Then to tie sending someone back to prison, losing a job, losing progress, losing momentum, when that is the difference between someone potentially being back on their feet and not repeating any offenses, is, like you said, it's setting people up for failure. It's absolutely unacceptable. And this system is a trap. It is a trap. And- Erica Barnett: [00:29:26] Yeah it is teaching people to essentially, to learn compliance. And that is not the skill that is most important in life to succeed. Because if you're sending people back to prison over and over again, or even once, for one of these minor violations... And note, the missing the bus issue or the bus doesn't show up, one reason people have to take the bus is they're not allowed to own cars in work release. It's really forcing people to run a race in a full leg cast. Then you learn through that process that you're supposed to be compliant no matter what. There's so many reasons that that is not a great lesson to learn, to succeed in life. But one is just that discrimination exists in the world and if you're being taught to be compliant with it, that is a racist system. One of the people that Paul talked about was a woman who said that she was retaliated against for filing a sexual harassment complaint. So again, the lesson there is, "Whatever happens, don't complain because you'll be punished." Crystal Fincher: [00:30:49] Absolutely. And it's a system that is primed for abuse when that situation and circumstance occurs. There were recommendations made by this working group or task force that was predominantly made up of Department of Corrections people, had a couple of people on there who were related to people who were formerly incarcerated and in the work release program, no one directly impacted. There was resistance to even rewriting a mission and vision statement that really centered, "Hey, our job is to rehabilitate people and not to teach them compliance to Department of Corrections rules." They did agree to some retraining, to some standards and standardization of some policies, but my goodness, is there just such a long way to go to fix this. It just underscores that beyond just how things are handled and initial contacts with police, and whether or not someone is arrested and how that happens, what they're charged with and how they're sentenced and how that happens, on the other end, how they're treated while they are incarcerated. Then on their path to getting out is there are just so many traps in there. You marvel, looking at all of these different elements in the system, about how anyone makes it out unscathed. And if not unscathed, just the ability to successfully reintegrate because so much is working against them. The overwhelming majority of people who go to jail or prison are coming back out. We have an interest as a society, one, because they're people and we don't throw away people, we shouldn't throw away people, but they're also going to be reintegrating into our community. So let's make sure that people are prepared to become thriving members of our community and not set them up for failure, or have them constantly deal with, "If I sneeze the wrong way, I can wind up back in prison." We have to do better to rehabilitate people and to really focus on restoring them and their ability to be a thriving member of our communities. And with that, that's our time today. But we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, July 9th, 2021. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler, and our wonderful co-host today was Seattle political reporter and founder of PubliCola, Erica Barnett. You can find Erica on Twitter @ericacbarnett, that's Erica with a "C", and on PubliCola. And you can buy her book, Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse, and Recovery, now on paperback. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I, and now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts, just type Hacks & Wonks into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost live shows and our mid-week show delivered to your podcast feed. While you're there, leave a review, it really helps out. You can 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 and we'll talk to you next time.

Jack goes in on how to change people minds with policy's. // Former Washington state lawmaker Jessyn Farrell takes another shot at Seattle mayor's race. // More police K9s forced into retirement following legalization of recreational marijuana.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today former Seattle mayor and Executive Director of America Walks Mike McGinn joins Crystal  to dissect the most recent finance numbers in the mayor's race and break down what they mean, and discuss how Seattle mayoral candidates are seeking to position themselves in this year's race. Then tea is spilled about how Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes doomed the SPD consent decree from the start, how his challenger, Nicole Thomas-Kennedy, looks to be qualifying for Democracy Vouchers sooner than him, and how that race might unfold.  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, Mike McGinn, at @mayormcginn. More info is available atofficialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources “Effort to Expand Hotel Shelters Has Broad Support, Recycled Statements Replace False Endorsement Claims on Compassion Seattle Website” from Publicola:https://publicola.com/2021/06/09/effort-to-expand-hotel-shelters-has-broad-support-recycled-statements-replace-false-endorsement-claims-on-compassion-seattle-website/ “Police Make Mass Arrests at Protest Against Oil Pipeline” by Hiroko Tabuchi, Matt Furber, and Coral Davenport: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/07/climate/line-3-pipeline-protest-native-americans.html Campaign finance reports from the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission: http://web6.seattle.gov/ethics/elections/campaigns.aspx?cycle=2021&type=campaign&IDNum=749&leftmenu=collapsed “Democracy vouchers play crucial role as candidates compete for cash in Seattle mayoral race” by Daniel Beekman and Jim Brunner:https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/democracy-vouchers-play-crucial-role-as-candidates-compete-for-cash-in-seattle-mayoral-race/ “Pete Holmes to seek fourth term as Seattle City Attorney” by David Kroman:https://crosscut.com/politics/2021/02/pete-holmes-seek-fourth-term-seattle-city-attorney “Abolitionist Nicole Thomas-Kenney Announces Last-Minute Run for City Attorney” by Mark Van Streefkerk: https://southseattleemerald.com/2021/06/10/abolitionist-nicole-thomas-kennedy-announces-last-minute-run-for-city-attorney/ “Seattle police funding debate turns to flawed officer behavior system” by David Kroman:https://crosscut.com/news/2021/05/seattle-police-funding-debate-turns-flawed-officer-behavior-system “Can the Seattle Police Department Consent Decree Be Fixed?” by Paul Kiefer:https://publicola.com/2021/06/03/can-the-the-seattle-police-department-consent-decree-be-fixed/ “Court Monitor Bobb Helped Create Seattle's Police Reform Mess” by Doug Trumm:https://www.theurbanist.org/2020/09/14/court-monitor-bobb-helped-create-seattles-police-reform-mess/ “Seattle police had a chance to prove abolitionists wrong. They didn't.” by Shaun Scott:https://crosscut.com/opinion/2021/05/seattle-police-had-chance-prove-abolitionists-wrong-they-didnt   Transcript Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with Policy Wonks and Political Hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work, with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes.  Today, we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a cohost. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show, former mayor of Seattle, and today's co-host: activist, community leader, and current Executive Director of America Walks, the excellent Mike McGinn. Mike McGinn: [00:00:57] I always enjoy being here Crystal and I am a subscriber to Hacks & Wonks on the podcast platform of my choice. So go to the podcast platform of your choice and subscribe and support Crystal and KVRU.  Crystal Fincher: [00:01:14] Well, I appreciate that. I appreciate you. And we always get a lot of comments whenever you're on the show, because you kind of bring the heat when it comes to context and history of like - okay, lots of people moved to Seattle in the past 10 years. I mean, we've had a population explosion - so a lot of people listening today and here in the City were actually not here when you were mayor, and don't have the memory of what happened, and are missing the context of a lot of what happened. How did we get into this Consent Decree situation? What initially happened back when Jenny Durkan was a federal prosecutor and Pete Holmes was running for office, and how did we get into the situation we find ourselves in today? You have a lot of that context, so we appreciate it.  Speaking of that context, we have some - a lot of news this week. Looking over - just lots of items have happened this week - Compassion Seattle having to take down its webpage listing false endorsements, we got tax documents on billionaires. Big items this week with - the Olga Park encampment sweep by the City,  Durkan vs. Seattle Public Schools on the encampment in Bitter Lake, hybrid work models coming back with Amazon, the state reinstating around a 100,000 driver's license and halting the practice of revoking licenses for non-payment of traffic fines, three pipeline protests - the Line 3 pipeline protests, Keystone XL pipeline finally dead - which is great and awesome.  But we'll start out with - we just got new fundraising numbers in the mayoral race. Well, in all of the Seattle races, but I guess we can start with the mayoral race and just for the breakdown - where we are currently at. The top six mayoral candidates right now, in terms of contributions - Colleen Echohawk and Andrew Grant Houston are right neck-and-neck at $399,987 and $[399,]978 respectively. There is a $400,000 cap initially on the ability to accept Democracy Vouchers, and so they are at that cap and can't cash in anything beyond that cap. Following that, Bruce Harrell at $308,000, Lorena González at $299,000, Jessyn Farrell $134,000, and Casey Sixkiller at $43,000.  So, you know, Colleen Echohawk and Andrew Grant Houston are just - they're just getting more cash than they know what to do with. And I think both of them - certainly Andrew Grant Houston has reported a significant amount of vouchers, basically in waiting, that he has banked if and when the cap on those expenditures gets raised. So I guess, how are you looking at this? Just on that number - the contributions and what they're doing, Mike. Mike McGinn: [00:04:15] I think it's very, it's really interesting. You know one of - there's a few things that are interesting. One, it is worth noting that there is a $400,000 cap on expenditures for those that are in the Democracy Voucher program, and if an opponent or if an independent expenditure campaign tips the balance over $400,000, then Ethics and Elections can give permission to people to do more. I think what really jumps out at me though, is that the two people in the race that are not office holders seem to have had the most success just collecting vouchers. Now Andrew Grant Houston hired people to do it, and they're out there canvassing and collecting them. And so that's one technique. I think Colleen Echohawk - they've just been coming in.  And it's kind of surprising because you'd expect that the people that had held office before - Jessyn Farrell, Bruce Harrell, Lorena González - they all have, should have substantial mailing lists. They should all have a substantial base of donors who are used to giving them money for their campaigns. They both, all three of them, have run multiple times and - but none of them have maxed out. None of them have hit the cap. Theoretically, they have a more sophisticated campaign operation, including the database and donors, to hit that first. So if these numbers are affirming what some of the polling that we've seen has shown, which is that there's a sentiment out there that the City's on the wrong track - the right track, wrong track numbers are very much leaning towards wrong track from multiple sources. And so that's favoring outsiders. And I - in 2009 when I ran, I was an outsider and it ended up - and I was running against an incumbent, Greg Nickels. There was another outsider in the race, Joe Mallahan - he was a businessman who put in his own money. And everybody always looked at fundraising, and I didn't fundraise that much compared to the others, but I fundraised enough. But the incumbent had the most money. Another candidate in the race was a long-time City Councilmember, Jan Drago, and they both finished out of the - neither of them made the top two out of the primary. So in a lot of ways, honestly, this feels to me like 2009 in that political dynamic of the outsider is going to do better.  I had to wait for the votes to actually show that there was public sentiment for me. The use of the Democracy Vouchers is a measure of public sentiment. And it's kind of fascinating to me 'cause political types, before Democracy Vouchers, just were meticulous at looking at who donated to who, and how much money they had - and they would use that as a metric for success. Now that Democracy Vouchers are out there, they're like, "Ah, money doesn't really matter anymore." Well, hold it. The outsiders are maxing out with regular people handing over the vouchers, and the insiders with all of their political apparatus are struggling to get to the finish line. Something's going on out there - that's what this is telling me.  Crystal Fincher: [00:07:35] Yeah, it is really interesting to see this dynamic. And as you point out, it is not the people who you would think have very established mailing lists and contacts and donor bases from the campaigns that they ran to get elected in the first place. And this may be a measure of insider money versus outsider or regular people who typically aren't intimately involved, particularly early in campaigns and this process. So it is really interesting just to see the effect that Democracy Vouchers have had. And as you point out, it really is a measure of, "Hey, where are regular people at" - that you have to actually interact with the residents, in some form with your campaign, to get these Democracy Vouchers. And my goodness, they have gotten a lot more of them than their opponents at this point in time.  But also, related to this conversation, and you talk about in your campaign - you didn't raise as much money as the other candidates, but you certainly had enough to execute your plan. Yeah, and get your message out. And so having the cash-on-hand in order to do that is important. And so - one, is just looking at the contributions, but really what a lot of people are looking at in politics is, "Okay. But how much money do you have - meaning you try and keep your expenditures on other items down, because the more you can spend directly communicating with residents and voters in the City, the better you are when it comes - to be able to turn out that vote. The cash-on-hand story is actually a very different story. Colleen Echohawk actually has not spent much on the race - she has spent $83,000. Her cash-on-hand is $316,000 - so that's in the bank still able to be spent. Andrew Grant Houston has actually spent the most so far out of the top six candidates in the race. And so even though he's raised $400,000, his cash-on-hand $134,000, which is less than the next two people in terms of fundraising. Bruce Harrell has $220,000 in cash-on-hand. Lorena González has $149,000 in cash-on-hand, then Jessyn Farrell with $58,000, and Casey Sixkiller with $26,000 on-hand. So that's a very different story than just that top line of fundraising, and really impacts how many people you can communicate with outside of free media models like news - in the paper and online - and communicating with people that way. What do you see when you look at that?  Mike McGinn: [00:10:20] Well, you're right.  Obviously cash-on-hand is the metric that matters. And the fundraising from Democracy Vouchers and from donors is some measure both of the degree to which you have support from some base of supporters, as well as the degree to which you have support from people that are used to giving money. So it's a little bit of an indicator as well.  So that's - so what's interesting to me when I look at that and you see the two bottom people - Casey Sixkiller doesn't appear to be a very serious candidate right now. Like if he was a credible challenger from - so I'll back up a little bit - we've spoken about this before. You know, there's generally a right lane and a left lane in Seattle politics. There's an assumption here that Casey is in the right lane - looking for more support from the business communities, a former - he is the deputy mayor to the incumbent. Well, whether it's the business community or the public, it doesn't appear that people think that a current deputy mayor to Jenny Durkan is a really good investment of their Democracy Voucher or their hard-earned dollars, either one. So not looking like he's getting much traction there for people who are - who might be more sophisticated about who to back. I think that Jessyn Farrell is down at this low level - kind of says the same thing. I mean, she's run multiple times in Seattle. She had a mayoral race four years ago, in which she ran a credible race, and she's just not kind of getting the support. And something else jumped out at me - and it was listening to your podcast, Crystal - is that she's a backer of the Compassion Seattle measure, which is starting to become a real indicator of what lane are you in. And when she says that she supports the Compassion Seattle - tells me that she wants to run in the right lane. And actually we spoke about this at length in a podcast a while ago. I said, she's not running in the left lane.  Crystal Fincher: [00:12:27] You called it first.  Mike McGinn: [00:12:28] I called it first - right! She's working the right lane because the Compassion Seattle is very much backed by the business community as their solution. And what we see is that Echohawk and Houston and Lorena are opposed to it and so they're over there in the left lane. And Harrell and Farrell and Sixkiller are for it, so that's the right lane. Well, it just kind of speaks a little bit to the fact that Jessyn can't quite figure out her lane. And I could talk more about this concept too, but that's just really fascinating to me. And I think there's another thing - that's if you'll permit me just to do a little bit of analysis.  Crystal Fincher: [00:13:04] Have at it!  Mike McGinn: [00:13:05] I'll just do a little more analysis here that comes to mind. You know, when I was working within the Sierra Club and endorsing candidates, what really became clear to me was that there was a - there were kind of two sources of candidates as well that don't map exactly with the left lane-right lane, but mostly. And the Chamber of Commerce and the downtown business community was one source of dollars in support for a candidate, and labor as a whole was another source. So in 2001, it was Nickels versus Sidran, and that was a classic business candidate versus a labor candidate. Every other constituency in town kind of has to decide who - where do we go with that? And social services tends to go with labor, and environmentalists go with labor, but sometimes there's a business candidate they like. The neighborhood people - where are they going to go. But all of those other constituencies or communities, and it might be immigrant and refugee communities, or the Black community - they don't necessarily run their own candidates. They tend to have to line up behind the business candidate or the labor candidate. Now when I ran, Greg, at that point - Nickels had been in office for eight years, and he pretty much had both. That's one of the things that an incumbent can do, right? What'll happen is - everybody's getting just enough out of the incumbent that they don't want to take a risk on a challenger. So he had the Chamber of Commerce, which I think was a little shaky on Greg Nickels. He wasn't their guy from the beginning and he had a big chunk of the unions, and I was coming in without either of those. And so was Joe, but then he got business, and I got a little bit of labor in the general.  By the time we got to 2013, we saw a really interesting phenomenon, which was a traditional Democrat in Ed Murray. He had the Chamber support and he had a bunch of labor support. I had some too, but we split labor. And now we, all of a sudden, we saw this business-labor alliance in '13 anoint Ed Murray as the candidate. And this was worked out by the kingmakers and the power elites of the city, right. And I know that sounds a little exaggerated, but trust me - there are specific people who sit down and pick who their candidate is. Same thing happened with Jenny Durkan, who was the named candidate. She picked up the Labor Council endorsement, the Construction Trades - which like highways and other things, backed her. The police officer's union was part of that at the time. So for two cycles in a row, we got these coalitions of labor-business candidates.  And now in this race, all of a sudden, we have a very clear labor candidate in Lorena González and a pretty clear business candidate in Bruce Harrell. And going back to Jessyn, I think she was running as if she could be one of those business-labor hybrid candidates of the last two cycles, but that coalition has broken apart. Now it's a straight business and a straight labor. But what's fascinating is that in the years, the same forces that have now - give us two different candidates, right. But business and labor can't find common ground now - that's too much inequality, too much issues around taxes and homelessness - for them to be able to find a candidate to bridge that. And I, again, I think Jessyn was trying to run as that candidate. They can't do it, but the same forces that produce that dynamic also means that candidates that are outside of those two bases are credible.  So, if you look at the - if you look at the citywide City Council race, we kind of have the same dynamic. We have a business candidate in Sara Nelson, we have the labor candidate in Brianna Thomas, and then you have the neither-of-the-above candidate, Nikkita Oliver, who's coming with a base of support that's completely outside of those two usual centers of gravity and power in the City. So that's kind of the question in this race - is does Colleen Echohawk come from her background as a social services provider, Native American woman? Does Andrew Grant Houston somehow or another slingshot off of the urbanist base. And again, neither of them are going to get very many endorsements from labor, business or a lot of the other traditional players, because everybody's kind of used to - you got to go with one of those. I didn't get any of those in the primary in '09 and I won, right? So it's a very interesting dynamic this year and I think Democracy Vouchers really pushes that even more. And there's no room left for somebody who's trying to be like progressive enough for progressives, but a dealmaker enough for the conservatives. There's no room for that candidate in this cycle - anybody's trying to run that way is like - there's no base for them.  Crystal Fincher: [00:18:30] Well, and as you've mentioned before and mentioned earlier today, what were you polling at before you won the primary, like six weeks out?  Mike McGinn: [00:18:38] Yeah, no, this is really important stuff - like people see the polls, and the fact that what it shows right now - and these are candidate polls, so take it with a grain of salt. But it kind of shows that Bruce and Lorena are doing better than others, but they're also better known than others. About five to six weeks out before the primary, maybe three weeks out before ballots dropped - and I was at 7% in 2009 in the primary, Greg Nickels was at 23% or something like that, Joe Mallahan was at 7%, and a former City Councilwoman Jan Drago - or current City Councilwoman at the time, Jan Drago - was like at 15% or 16% or something like that. But when Election Day came around, Mallahan and I were - I was first, he was second, and Greg was third and he hadn't moved.  And the point is that polls right now - the voters aren't paying attention yet. And all of the materials, all of that money we were talking about - hasn't been spent on campaign communications yet. The messages have not been delivered, right? Like the articles about who should I vote for, the conversations that are just going to start occurring around town of who you're for and why - none of that's really happened yet. And when that happens, that changes those numbers dramatically. And that's why, you can try to crystal ball it and say - no pun intended - but you can try and crystal ball this and say, "Well, here's what I think is going to happen." And we've been doing a little bit of that here saying, "Oh, it's an outsider year, right?" Like that's what the hints are telling us, but it's - this is really an up-in-the-air election, I would say. And having polling at 20% right now, or 15%, if you're a relatively well-known politician in town - that may be your lid. That may be as high as you can go, and your numbers might go lower once they hear about another candidate. Crystal Fincher: [00:20:37] Yeah, and it's an interesting dynamic - you certainly raise a lot of very relevant and helpful issues for context in how to think about this race. When I look at these numbers, I think about what you mentioned earlier in terms of the right track-wrong track polling, and for me, how insufficient it is just to ask that question and make an assumption on that answer. Because right now people ask about the right track-wrong track and the media, I think, has created a popular impression that the City's actions are those of the City Council. But actually when you look at the City Council and Jenny Durkan, both of whom can be characterized as the City - those are two very different viewpoints, two very different philosophies and stances on issues. The City Council has vetoed what Durkan has done, so there's polarization there. And so when someone says things are on the right track, the thing that I see a lot of people doing is concluding - "Well, therefore it means that real people want the issues and the stances that I personally agree with, and this is the proof because people say things are wrong and bad right now."  But looking at - if we're using these fundraising numbers and others, especially with Democracy Vouchers from real people as a - some kind of indicator as to where people are really at. The people, as you talked about, if we're using Compassion Seattle as kind of the most visible proxy for which lanes people are in, those that are not supporting are just dominating in terms of fundraising and Democracy Vouchers. So in terms of the wrong track that the City is taking - is it that some of the inaction and opposition to being able to execute the direction that the City Council has given - is that the frustration? Like, "Hey, at least do something instead of just vetoing stuff and saying stuff is unacceptable, but not doing that much about it." Or is it that people are unhappy with the direction of the Council - looking at the available polling, and to be clear - undecided is the top vote-getter right now in every single poll that's been written, internal and otherwise. So to your point, lots of movement yet to come. But with that, it would suggest that people aren't that unhappy with the Council, as some media narratives suggest, with Lorena making it into the top two, but also not being tied to an insider or wanting to go further to the left if you look at Andrew Grant Houston, or even some of Colleen Echohawk, stances. So it's to be determined where people are at in ultimately deciding what they prefer the direction of the City to be. But I don't think it can be gleaned from a right track-wrong track number. I think that's probably a poor indicator. Mike McGinn: [00:23:40] Yeah.I think that there's a few things in there. One is the - I think for people that are more involved in politics, there's very definitely a Council-versus-the-mayor dynamic that's been going on for the last number of years. And for people who side with the Council in that fight, and for the most part - for the most part, almost everything - I do. That matters in the race. But there's a lot of other people who can't parse that, who don't really feel like they're in a position to figure out who's really right or wrong in that discussion. And I think that's one of the challenges then if you are a current City Councilmember, or even a former one in Bruce's case, right? He was in office in the years in which homelessness went up - and to say, "I'm the person who can come in and fix it." - that's going to be a challenge.  And Lorena will have the same challenge. Having said that, she's probably and is drawing support in particular from labor - unions - for the things that she has delivered for them. Like she has stood up on issues that have led for labor to support her. So it is a mixed bag. I guess I would - speaking from personal experience, I wish that the public had taken a closer look at what was the underlying issues between the City Council and me at the time I was mayor, but I have to say, I know a lot of voters didn't. And a lot of those were just like, "You know what. It seems like the mayor and the Council aren't getting along. We need to get someone new in there." And not only did they - not only did I lose a close race to somebody who said, "I'm going to do everything McGinn did, except I'll do it better." Both of them were false - you'll grant me the opportunity to say that opinion. But, uh - but that was -  Crystal Fincher: [00:25:35] I agree.  Mike McGinn: [00:25:35] - that was his pitch - no ideological issues. "I'm just gonna, I'll just be better at doing it." But they also delivered districts - elections - which was a repudiation of the City Council in the same election. So when the mayor and the Council are fighting, the pox on both your houses thing is real and strong. And so the last point I'll make is - these right track-wrong numbers I've been seeing are really high. They were far higher than they were in 2009 when I ran. And again, an incumbent lost then - and right then the right track-wrong track weren't that far apart then. So these are very - these are historically high right track-wrong track if these polls are accurate. And I think we'll  see more polls that will show it to be that. Which is why I think it's an outsider election, but I also know it's also wide open. And I think the candidates know that too, right now. If you're a mayor watcher, everybody's going to be trying to figure out how do I grab my votes out of that pool of undecided voters? What do I have to do to get some votes? And I think you're going to see candidates working harder to stand out in the next few weeks.  Crystal Fincher: [00:26:47] All right. So we have covered the conversation about the mayor's race in more detail than we thought we were going to get into, but I definitely also want to make sure to talk about the City Attorney race. And so how are you looking at this - with Pete Holmes currently there, but with his challenger, Nicole Thomas-Kennedy, at this point actually qualifying for Democracy Vouchers. Even though she entered the race much later than he did, she's qualifying for Democracy Vouchers before Pete Holmes. Why do you think that is? Mike McGinn: [00:27:22] Well, I think this is really fascinating. I mean, it's pretty clear from her own words that Nicole Thomas-Kennedy got into the race pretty much at the last minute, because she thought it was really important to raise issues, about police reform in particular. And like candidates have discovered before - they get into the race just because they feel they need to carry a conversation, then all of a sudden they discover that maybe there's some momentum behind that. I think that was true with Kshama Sawant against Richard Conlin - I think she got into that race the first time she was elected to the City Council to make sure there was a debate and discovered she had momentum. I think that happened to Bernie Sanders when he entered the race against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic primary and all of a sudden he discovered he had momentum. And I think the same thing has happened to Nicole Thomas-Kennedy.  We were talking about insider or outsider - Pete's been in office for 12 years. And, you know, he, he came in as a progressive reformer on a variety of issues, very much supported by the nightclub industry at the time, because of the way the Nickel's administration was harsh to nightclub establishments. But he came into office - it's been 12 years and it looks like the public is ready for someone different, if the voucher numbers are to be believed. Now I'm not saying that that's how this race is going to turn out, but that there was more support for a challenger than probably Pete anticipated or Nicole Thomas-Kennedy anticipated.  Crystal Fincher: [00:28:54] And a lot of people in the public anticipated. Why do you think there is seemingly this much of an appetite, even an early appetite - looking at early endorsements and meetings and how those are going among insiders. Even those are turning out to be tougher for Pete Holmes than I think a lot of people anticipated. What's going on? Mike McGinn: [00:29:16] Well, you know, I think Pete's found himself in a - well, if you want to try to pin it down - he's been in office 12 years. And I was thinking about this the other day - I think since I signed the Consent Decree in 2012, that there've been 5 mayors, if you count a couple of interims. I think there've been 5 police chiefs, counting interims. Several City Council presidents, we've even had two Monitors - but during that entire 12 years, we've only had one City Attorney and that's Pete Holmes. And he positions himself as a reformer, and essential to reform. In fact, I've heard him say, "You can't ask me to leave now because we have to finish the job of reform." Well, we've been told - we were being told for years by the Monitor and mayors - that reform was on track and Pete was joining that chorus. And what we saw with the protests, and the police behavior, and tear-gassing the public - leading to a federal court order against it. What we see is that reform failed. And Pete says he was at the helm of that, but now he has to be there to help fix it. And I think that from the progressive side, they see that he's not really solving the problems that he says he's for. And I had my own experiences with Pete, obviously, but he has been throughout this entire process, a big supporter - he basically chose the Monitor we ended up with. I wanted a different Monitor. He got 5 members of the City Council to vote for Merrick Bobb - this is the Monitor who brought us this software system, which everybody says costs millions of dollars, and it's completely ineffective, but we have to keep using it - it's useless. In fact, when he proposed that and I objected to it - and Pete supported it in front of the judge. And helped bring it - that was in the monitoring plan. That software - people don't know this - that software was not in the Consent Decree. That software was brought up by the Monitor, put into a monitoring plan, objected to, but Pete said, "No, that's my monitor, and that's his plan and we have to support it." So Pete needs to take responsibility for that waste of money too.  He delayed, for years, the adoption of the accountability legislation, because he had to put his hand in to deal with the Community Police Commission's recommendations. And he never had good relationships with the Community Police Commission.  And here - I'll share news with you that probably no one knows 'cause I don't know that I've ever shared it before. Breaking news. When we mediated - when I mediated the Consent Decree with the Office of Civil Rights, the mediator kept two people out of the mediation. Nobody had to ask her, she just chose to do it. There were two people not allowed in that mediation. One was Jenny Durkan. The other was Pete Holmes.  Crystal Fincher: [00:32:26] Oh what! Okay - Mike McGinn: [00:32:28] Yes. Yes! He signed the agreement, but he did not negotiate the agreement. And it was really interesting because the mediator - I had visited in DC, I'd met with the head of the Office of Civil Rights, Tom Perez. I had to go to DC and meet with him to try to get the negotiations on track because at that time, Jenny Durkan was refusing to negotiate with us. Well -  Crystal Fincher: [00:32:55] As the US attorney at the time.  Mike McGinn: [00:32:56] As the US attorney at the time, while simultaneously sending letters saying that we weren't agreeing to things fast enough. But there wasn't a real give and take. There wasn't a real dialogue about how to settle the case and how to come up with a good productive Consent Decree. So I went to DC, met with Tom Perez, we agreed to re-open negotiations with their office taking more leadership in it. And we ended up with a mediator. The mediator came and visited me and said, "Look, here's the problem. We need the principals in the room. We're going to get the chief litigator from the Office of Civil Rights and you - both need to be in the mediation so that we have the people with the authority to make a deal."  And I said, "Okay, that makes sense. I understand that." I was a lawyer in private practice. And then I said, "What about - hold it, what about Pete Holmes?"  And she said, "Nope, Pete Holmes is not invited. And by the way, neither is Jenny Durkan." So the mediator, from her own decision-making, had already decided how it was going to run. And we had someone from the City Attorney's office there. The mediator would talk to Pete periodically to keep him updated, but the very clear intent was that we needed to keep them - both of them - a little bit away from the negotiation so it could have a chance of success. The two of them were, just honestly, just politicizing the hell out of it at the time. My opinion. And so -  Crystal Fincher: [00:34:21] I agree.  Mike McGinn: [00:34:22] Yeah, no - it was a really challenging environment and we managed to hold a mediation without the leaks to the press about what was being discussed on a daily basis. I'm sure the press would have loved more information about what was going on on a daily basis, but it provided the type of environment in which we could come up with an agreement that everyone could sign. As soon as the agreement was signed, next step was the discussion about who the Monitor would be - critically important decision. And that was the point at which Pete insisted on Merrick Bobb, and did everything in his power to block the people I would have supported, and to get the Council to line up behind Merrick Bobb. I ultimately would have to give way, and we ended up with Merrick Bobb - and Merrick Bobb didn't get along with the Police Commission, wasted money on the software, said everything was going great and it wasn't. And Pete was backing him the whole time. So Pete - you had 12 years to do police reform, maybe it's time to give somebody else a shot. Crystal Fincher: [00:35:22] Well, I think a lot of certainly insiders, at this point as it looks, and the regular public is going to have an opportunity to hear the conversation and to hear that maybe it's time for another choice. So I certainly appreciate all of the background. See, the wonderful thing about having you on is that you come with receipts from way back when, and there certainly is a lot that I remember from, certainly, working with you at the time. But you just have all of the detail and all of the intricacies from what happened.  Mike McGinn: [00:35:57] A lot of years ago, now. The years are adding up, Crystal.  Crystal Fincher: [00:36:00] Well, the years are definitely adding up, but I appreciate the context, and the time, and just being able to go back. Because also - it is so - like now, having a progressive Council to people is normal. It so was not this. It so was - Tim Burgess and Bruce Harrell and Richard Conlin and it was a conservative Council who was mad - who was salty on a daily basis, with the support of the Seattle Times on a daily basis - at this outsider, loony, progressive, McSchwinn mayor. Was coming in and trying to do all these crazy things like trying to do Road Diets, and things that now have been - that are viewed as normal and not controversial. But at the time, when I tell you that, like the whole War on Cars discourse that started for you and during you, that was - it was hyperbolic. It was just - it was extreme. So we're at a very different place today than we were then, but we still have people who were intimately involved and aligned with that conservative Council, like Jenny Durkan, who were very instrumental in setting things up to land exactly where they are right now - which is frustrating for some of us looking at like - this was predictable, that this wasn't the progressive champion that a lot of people thought when they were running. But of course we have the benefit of doing stuff like this for a living and having the time to know when to dive into this. And a lot of people just don't have access to that information.  Mike McGinn: [00:37:43] Well, it's really, and this is a really a good example of that. Like the way in which police reform can be politicized and was politicized. I mentioned the selection of the Monitor. I remember Bruce Harrell like, "Mayor McGinn is anti-police reform because he won't support Merrick Bobb." We had three candidates we supported, that we submitted to the judge, for a monitor. We - I signed a - negotiated a Consent Decree that called for a Monitor, but we were in this place where it was very easy to say who was for and against reform at the time.  And that process of reform - it's so fascinating to watch now a decade later, right? Almost 10 years later - to see that we now have this bizarre situation really where the Council doesn't have authority to change the police budget because the judge wants something different. They don't have the authority to get rid of a software program that doesn't work. Where the Community Police Commission - they warned the Council not to vote for the police contract, and they did vote for the police contract that wiped out the accountability procedures. And all of that was being overseen by the judge. Like the judge is saying, "Who gets to decide what the accountability procedures are? It's me, I'm the judge."  So what started as an attempt to engage the community in a dialogue with the City and the police department about what reform looks like - with the belief that it should be homegrown because it's more likely - let's listen to community - has now turned into this very, very top-down thing, being run by a judge, in which so much of the local control has disappeared. And who's the one person who could go into court on behalf of the City and say to the judge, "No, the Consent Decree called for the Community Police Commission to have power. Not for the judge to have all the power, right? It called for the City Council to be able to pass accountability reforms without having to check with the judge." That is what the - that is basically what the decree provided. But you need a City Attorney who would have the guts to actually go into a federal judge and say, "You don't have all the authority in this instance." And so since there was never any pushback on the judge - now the ability of the community as a whole to influence police reform has been taken away and resides in the judge. And there's really only one place that - there's only one person under the City Charter who had the authority to go in on behalf of the City and say, "Do something different." And that was Pete Holmes. And he never was willing to challenge the Monitor, never willing to challenge the judge, never willing to stand up for the community in that way. So Pete, you've been at this - I go back to - been in there 12 years, said he's necessary to police reform. He has to take some accountability for how he's not gotten it done overall. Crystal Fincher: [00:40:49] And the point that you're making now is a point that he couldn't make enough, 10 years ago, while challenging you with his authority that he was claiming under the Charter - for the Monitor, for taking a different stance than you were in the negotiation. And at that time saying, "Well, you know, it is my duty and responsibility. I have this ability, I'm an independently elected official. I am not just simply operating at the will of the mayor. I am my own entity, and I can and should." So he is claiming this authority, and at that time to challenge you with the support of the conservative Council, and that's why it was so striking to me and I commented a number of times during this past year. During the protests, seeing everything that SPD was doing, all of these challenges that we're having with the judge, all of the challenges that we're having in who can order what between Durkan and the police chief and that, the subpoena-ing of media records and video on behalf of the police. I am just sitting here going - how is Pete Holmes standing silent? This is consent to this - because he made a point of telling everyone he had the power to challenge things like that a decade ago. And now he's just quiet as a little mouse and escaping the accountability that is - that Jenny Durkan was encountering, that the Council, that the police chief - everyone was under the microscope, except Pete Holmes, just quiet in the corner over here. And it's like, if there was one person who could change this, it is Pete Holmes. Just a little frustrating. But, you know, we've talked about that before.  Mike McGinn: [00:42:37] Well, and it is - we have talked about that before - and yeah, something like subpoena-ing records of the media. Like how did that become City policy and how could Pete go and defend that as an action, as if SPD was not a part of the City? And so -  Crystal Fincher: [00:42:53] Yeah. As if the media is just an investigative arm of SPD that they can use at their will - it doesn't work. Democracy doesn't work that way, the City Charter doesn't work that - like, that's not how things work.  Mike McGinn: [00:43:07] And, you know, I think the same issue, honestly, can be raised with respect to homelessness. Now, I'm not saying a City Attorney can solve homelessness alone. It's something that will take the executive branch, the legislative branch, the judicial branch - a lot of the issues for homeless people have to do with dealing with compliance with the laws about being outside, and people ending up being prosecuted, and ending up in Municipal Court. So I don't want to say that Pete can solve homelessness, but a City Attorney is at a really unique and central position on the homelessness issue, because they are standing - 'cause they are in relationship to the City Council, the mayor, the judicial system, and the police department, specifically in a very unique way. And interacting also with the County Prosecutor as well. And to me, it's just noticeable that in 12 years of being at that central point, we really haven't seen - what's the leadership to solving homelessness. He has certainly leaned in on specific things - like I will not prosecute this, or I'll change the penalty for that - and those are oftentimes the right direction to go. But in terms of demonstrating some type of leadership in that space and helping us solve the problems, it's just like you were saying with the other issues - he doesn't want to put himself into that position of being associated with the homeless response. And it's just really hard to do that if you're not going to - it's really hard to have a homelessness response when somebody in that position isn't going to be a really strong collaborator in the solutions.  Crystal Fincher: [00:45:03] Yeah, I agree. I appreciate the time that you've spent with us today. This is probably the longest episode that we've ever had. But like this is - just for people listening - a lot of times there's a conversation before the show, there's a conversation after the show. So this just captures more of some of the types of conversations we have on the sides. And we just decided to keep, to keep rolling.  Mike McGinn: [00:45:28] Just kept rolling, we just kept going. We couldn't help ourselves, Crystal.  Crystal Fincher: [00:45:31] Couldn't help it. And you provide just so much valuable insight and context, so I appreciate it. Well, thanks for taking this time with us today.  Mike McGinn: [00:45:41] Anytime.  Crystal Fincher: [00:45:41] So I appreciate and thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM this Friday, June 11th, 2021. Our chief audio engineer at KVRU is Maurice Jones Jr. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler. And our insightful co-host today was activist, former Seattle mayor Mike McGinn. You can find Mike on Twitter - it's a fire Twitter feed, by the way - @MayorMcGinn. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. And now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts, just type "Hacks & Wonks" into the search bar, be sure to subscribe to get full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. 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.

Today Crystal is joined by candidate for Seattle mayor, Jessyn Farrell. They discuss why she supports the Compassion Seattle charter amendment and how she would uniquely respond to Seattle's affordable housing crisis, how she would go about hiring a new police chief and negotiating the new SPOG contract, the importance of transit in our region, and expanding our idea of green jobs. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's guest, Jessyn Farrell, at @jessynfarrell. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources "Homeless Advocates Launch Campaign Against ‘Compassion Seattle' Charter Amendment" by Natalie Bicknell https://www.theurbanist.org/2021/05/28/homeless-advocates-campaign-against-compassion-seattle/   Why we're challenging “Compassion Seattle” https://transitriders.org/blog/2021/05/07/why-were-challenging-compassion-seattle/   "Homeless Advocates Challenge Compassion Seattle Ballot Initiative" by Erica C Barnett https://publicola.com/2021/05/06/homeless-advocates-challenge-compassion-seattle-ballot-measure/   There is no Compassion in Seattle's Proposed Charter Amendment by Kshama Sawant https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2021/05/21/57559745/there-is-no-compassion-in-compassion-seattles-proposed-charter-amendment   “Mayor Durkan, if you care about public health, stop the sweeps” by Julianna Also, Omid Bagheri Garakani, and Miranda Vargas: https://southseattleemerald.com/2020/05/27/opinion-mayor-durkan-if-you-care-about-public-health-stop-the-sweeps/    “Would Compassion Seattle lead to fewer tents or more? Nobody knows” by Katie Wilson: https://crosscut.com/opinion/2021/05/would-compassion-seattle-lead-fewer-tents-or-more-nobody-knows    “Timeline of Seattle Police Accountability” from ACLU Washington: https://www.aclu-wa.org/pages/timeline-seattle-police-accountability    “Union negotiations loom over the future of policing in Seattle” by David Kroman: https://crosscut.com/news/2020/10/union-negotiations-loom-over-future-policing-seattle    “Eight big things the Washington State Legislature passed in 2021” by Melissa Santos: https://crosscut.com/politics/2021/04/eight-big-things-washington-state-legislature-passed-2021    “Seattle Times sues City of Seattle over Jenny Durkan's missing text messages during protests” by Asia Fields: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/seattle-times-sues-city-of-seattle-over-missing-durkan-text-messages/    ‘Major area' of Seattle could forbid most cars under city's new, greener transportation plan” by Michelle Baruchman: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/seattle-releases-goals-to-electrify-transportation-system/    “What Seattle's Permanent Stay Healthy Streets Could Look Like” by Ryan Packer: https://www.theurbanist.org/2021/05/07/permanent-stay-healthy-streets/    Transcript Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm your host, Crystal Fincher. On this show, we talk to political hacks and policy wonks to gather insight into local politics and policy through the lens of those doing the work and provide behind the scenes perspectives on politics in our state. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today we are thrilled to have Jessyn Farrell, who is a candidate for Seattle mayor joining us today. Thank you so much, Jessyn. Jessyn Farrell: [00:00:58] Thank you so much, Crystal. It's really exciting to be here. Crystal Fincher: [00:01:02] Thank you. Exciting to have you. So what caused you to want to jump into this mayor's race and with everything going on in Seattle, say this is the right time for me to step in and lead? Jessyn Farrell: [00:01:13] Yeah, that's a really -- that is the question. And I'll just start by saying, I think this is a real existential moment for this city. Are we going to really become that city of justice and shared prosperity that I think we all hope for in our hearts, or are we going to keep going in this status quo way where we are not able to get in front of our biggest challenges? Whether it's homelessness or truly re-imagining public safety, the affordability crisis. A city needs people. And if people can't afford to live here, that's going to be really hard. Climate change. And then also just the basic city services like being able to fill potholes and fix those high accident locations on Rainier Ave, or deliver sidewalks to those communities like Pinehurst that have always wanted them and have never had them. There's just this real sense that I share that we are just not living up to our potential. And when Seattle is at its best, we are truly showing the rest of the country how to do things. And so I'm running because I believe deeply that we can do that. I think we need a leader that has the chops, that's done this before, but at the same time is not mired in the same old city hall stasis and infighting that we've been stuck in for years. So I'm running because I think I can tackle the job. And again, I just think that we're at this real inflection point for the city and we need to do better. And we can. Crystal Fincher: [00:02:49] So thinking specifically about Durkan's administration, current mayor, Jenny Durkan, what can voters expect to see reverse in terms of her policies? What differences will be most noticeable in a Farrell administration than they saw in the Durkan administration? Jessyn Farrell: [00:03:06] Well, let's start with some of the biggest issues and then we can go down to the more day-to-day issues. We've now been in a crisis around public safety for years. And of course, it was really instantiated and a laser-like focus became put on ourselves in the social justice uprising of a year ago, but we've had literally a year to make progress on transforming public safety. And to me, the core value is that every single person in our community should be able to go about their day-to-day lives and feel safe. And for our Black and Brown friends and neighbors and family members, that too often isn't the case. And I think about Charleena Lyles, for example, who was calling for help and was killed by police. I think about friends who might be hesitant to get in their car because they're fearful of getting pulled over. I also think about the public safety issues. If you're a small business owner, facing theft. If you are facing domestic violence. There are a lot of different ways that people don't feel safe in our community. And we had this opportunity to build a shared vision and that was just a real failure of leadership from the Durkan administration to lay that out and to help get us there. The public wants to do this. It is so clear. And so that's a real key failure and that's something very clearly I would do different, laying out a vision based on some of those things I just said and then really tackling the specifics. Sweating the details really matters. How are we actually going to do crisis response so that people are helped rather than harmed? How are we going to do transportation enforcement? And I should just take out the word enforcement, how are we going to do transportation safety without the enforcement piece that can often be a consequence or having harm be a consequence? So though that's a real particular area, but we can talk about homelessness, we can talk about climate change, and I hope we get a chance to. But I'll stop and let you ask some follow-up. Crystal Fincher: [00:05:14] Well, so you talk about that. You bring up homelessness. There have been a number of excellent forums, one last night, which I hope a number of the viewers also watch and partake, but you had the opportunity to speak alongside other candidates about homelessness in particular and issues such as using FEMA funds and the mayor's office's failure to fully take advantage of those funds, the issue of homelessness sweeps, Compassion Seattle. So I guess I would say starting with that Compassion Seattle initiative, do you support that? Do you not? And looking at the approach that's been taken with sweeps, how do you address just the issue of people immediately on the street and people looking to address that by simply sweeping them, and how do we actually get people into homes? Jessyn Farrell: [00:06:12] And those are really among the core questions of this campaign. So I'll just start with the short answers. I do not support sweeps. They are inhumane and they don't work in terms of helping people move into housing. And the thing that is shocking to me is that we have now been doing sweeps for years and years and years. And again, when I talk about this status quo in City Hall and this inability to really stop doing things that are both harmful and ineffective, that's what I'm talking about around what's compelling me to run and why we need a change in leadership. Now, Compassionate Seattle, I'll just say I support it. I have taken a very close read and it, in my reading, does not mandate sweeps. At the end of the day, it's a little bit of a Rorschach test for the mayor. It is only as good as the next mayor's commitment to helping people get into housing, connecting them with the supportive services, and then finding the funding. That's another place where there is a gap in the Compassionate Seattle initiative, because to really get to that place where we've built the 3,500 units that we need for permanent supportive housing, you have to have new funding. That said, to me, Compassionate Seattle is more of an indictment of the politics around our inability to move forward. For those of you who are transit nerds or were around 15 years ago during the Monorail era when we voted on the Monorail over and over and over again, we turned to the initiatives and the initiative process in this community to bypass failed leadership. We do that at the state level, we do that at the local level. And that to me is what this is about. The thing that Compassionate Seattle does that is positive on the policy side, I talked about a couple of the deficits. So I think it charts a pretty consensus path around what it is that we need to do, which is to say, we need more homes, we need more places for people to be, and we need more permanent supportive housing. And so to me, the question then is what person in this race is best positioned to actually deliver and turn words into action? We don't need another election cycle of empty promises and Seattle process. It's really time to help people get into stable housing because that is what every human deserves. Crystal Fincher: [00:08:46] Well, that's really interesting because I do agree with you in that initiatives are generally a response to a failure in elected leadership and saying, "Hey, our electeds aren't getting it done." We evidently have to put together something to do ourselves. And certainly this administration, Jenny Durkan had laid this out as one of her top priorities. We have an emergency declaration about homelessness and we still seem to be stuck certainly not making the progress that we seem to need to make. You identified some of the major deficits of it. Even with the funding, there are many people and lots of writing that has critiqued it for only being a couple percentage points above the current level of funding that we have. And it's very dicey about the timing of that funding and the mix of housing or the lack of mix of housing that that would then provide. If an initiative like this is a response to failed leadership and you're touting your ability to bring strong leadership, would it be better then to not have to codify these deficits and significant problems, especially amid a lot of the criticism and say, "You know what? We don't need this initiative. We don't need to settle for some of the problems that it has. I can handle this. I'm making this promise that I'm not going to fail you like other prior leaders have failed and I can actually address this in the most beneficial way without those deficits." Why are you choosing to support the initiative instead of maybe taking that route? Jessyn Farrell: [00:10:15] Yeah, I think that there definitely is a critique of is the initiative process the best policy-making tool, right? It's a really blunt instrument. But what I would say is the benefit if this passes, and my sense is that it quite likely will, it creates a very clear consensus around what the policies are that we need to be doing and it codifies them. And we can then stop arguing about, well, is it housing first or is it mental and behavioral health services? Actually, it's both. And we need to be deploying our resources in a way that is the most effective to get people the services and housing they need. So to me, the biggest benefit is the rhetorical benefit of being able to say, "Look, Seattle has a lot of consensus on what it is that we need to do." We can stop arguing about navigation teams, which have been controversial and ineffective. We can stop arguing about, again, that housing versus services discussion. To me, it provides the framing up of the path that we need to go in. And again, the reason I say it's only as good as the next mayor because you still have to do the work of implementing it. You still have to do the work of filling and building on the funding issues and not eviscerating other important City services, whether it's the fire department or parks or -- actually, parks are held harmless I think in the initiative, very cleverly I suppose -- but libraries for example. So again, to me, it provides the rhetorical benefit and it means that we can then move off of the policy debate that we have been spinning in for the last six years and we can dive into the implementation and funding debate, which is where we really need to be putting our time. Crystal Fincher: [00:12:10] I see. And you actually do raise a point in there about needing to implement and actually deliver. That has certainly been an area that has been critiqued in the current administration. And, hey, we're announcing a policy and just the details of that policy and getting it implemented, working alongside the city's partners and vendors and through various departments seems to be consistently yielding troublesome feedback and delays and seeming miscommunications or lack of communication. One element that people have noticed with prior mayors, this one and that I have spoken on also, is the executive position is different fundamentally than a legislative body like the legislature, which you were a part of, or the city council. It is an executive position. The buck stops with you and you're actually in charge of managing the operations of the city and making sure everything gets done. And at the end of the day, people are looking to you. If something doesn't happen, it's on you. How do you, coming from a legislative body, think that you're well-equipped and well-suited to handle an executive position and the management of the city? Jessyn Farrell: [00:13:28] Well, it stems fundamentally from my belief about what politics is. And at its very best, it is the mechanism that allows us to collectively solve our problems through governance. And that the skillset that a mayor has to have is really twofold. It is the political arts that actually really matter, again, because government is about collectively solving problems, at least my belief about progressive, effective government is. And then it absolutely is administrative. And I am a former legislator and we can talk all about that piece because being able to work with the legislative body matters. I have also worked at the executive level in a large agency. I worked at Pierce Transit during the Great Recession where we had the heartbreaking job of having to cut service by 30% because of the sales tax decline. And that was a large agency with a large budget, a unionized workforce. And so I have a real appreciation for the administrative side and how important being a great leader of an organization matters. And to me, it starts from the administrative standpoint. And again, that is not the only skillset that a great mayor needs. You need to be able to run the organization, run the city. You need to be able to work and respond to and iterate with the public because fundamentally the public is your boss. You need to be able to do the work of getting your priorities through the legislative body, the council. So the skillset of a mayor is more complicated than that of a legislator for sure. But I just would say that I do have experience in the large organization front as well as, again, the legislative piece, but also the community engagement and receptivity and, fundamentally, collaboration. Crystal Fincher: [00:15:37] Well, thanks for that. And that certainly is management of a large organization and a complicated organization. Another area that you mentioned you had a difference of approach with the current administration was public safety. It looks like a lot of people are talking about a different approach. One item just kind of on the top of the agenda is the SPOG contract coming up, the police union contract that is being negotiated. And we've been having a lot of conversations about police contracts, about how we need to reimagine and restructure policing. So I guess one general -- what are you looking at in terms of a difference? And specifically, what policies would you look to implement or change? And then in terms of the contract, are you going to draw bright lines in terms of accountability like codifying the 2017 Ordinance in a contract or refuse to sign it if it doesn't? Where do you stand on that? Jessyn Farrell: [00:16:36] Let's start with that because that, to me, was one of the biggest travesties of that 2017 contract. And just to go back to a theme we talked about a little bit again, the public weighed in on police accountability through 940 because the public was angry that the elected officials at the city level in Seattle and other places were not addressing the deep harm that is occurring, particularly in Black communities. And so I just point to that because that's another example of that kind of bypassing elected leadership, but then I just can't... It was just shocking that the mayor would negotiate and the council would approve a contract that undermined those very things the public had weighed in on saying this is something that we care about. So number one, I am committed to not signing a contract that is not codifying and does not -- let me put this in the positive:  I will sign a contract that is building on the good work that the legislature did around accountability, whether it's de-certification or use of force or many of the other things that they worked on. Our city contract has to be building on that and furthering that. So that's something that is really important. And I'll also say that I don't go into a negotiation with SPOG lightly. Public negotiations are really hard. And having a background in negotiation, I have negotiated lots of tough bills. I didn't negotiate a contract at Pierce Transit, but have some experience at that level. So the negotiating skillset actually really matters. Even if the mayor isn't literally at the table, but being able to oversee and be held accountable for that, that really matters. Crystal Fincher: [00:18:44] I just want to clarify real quick, you mentioned the work that the legislature had done. I think you also meant the work that the city council did with the 2017 Ordinance. Is that accurate? Jessyn Farrell: [00:18:53] Yes, it is. Thank you. Crystal Fincher: [00:18:54] Okay. All right, thanks. Jessyn Farrell: [00:18:56] Thank you for clarifying that. Yep. Crystal Fincher: [00:18:59] And then as far as just specific policies you would look at, including how we approach staffing, where do you plan to act in moving forward with SPD? Jessyn Farrell: [00:19:11] So I think that, again, the priorities specifically for me would be - number one, building on, again, what the legislature did around -- and I'm talking about this current, this most recent legislature -- around use of force decertification. I think there's another world around really tightening up our management of overtime. That is something that really drives the budget and that really matters. But then beyond the contract, the contract is really important and having the four corners of that contract reflect our city's values is important. But then the staffing level conversation really has to be driven by our values. And that's why I started out at the beginning of this conversation kind of laying out this idea of what it means to feel safe in this community, because that means that we have to stop doing the things that are making people feel unsafe and we need to continue to do those things that are working. And again, I can be very specific because this is where the details really matter. Crisis response, we do not need armed, uniformed police officers in many, many, many kinds of crises. We need to be working with community-based organizations, we need to be working with a caseworker style model. And there are really great things that are happening on the ground already in Seattle and we need to be scaling those. And we need to be recognizing from a government standpoint that as we are relying and shifting the work of particularly crisis response onto community-based organizations, we need to be partnering with them to build up their own internal capacity. We need to be recognizing that building relationships with -- maybe if we're talking about the homeless population, for example, takes time, and we need to be creating our budgets and accountability mechanisms based on that knowledge. We can't flip a switch and expect suddenly we have trusted relationships. You have to take time to do that. So that's crisis response. And I talked about transportation enforcement and transportation safety. Specifically, what that means - there's disparate enforcement based on your race in this city - jaywalking, transit fare enforcement, bike helmet laws. We need to be looking at other mechanisms to make sure that people are safe. Like getting rid of jaywalking laws, for example -- it doesn't really promote pedestrian safety. So we should be doing other things. Same with speed. Speeding cars in neighborhoods, for example. There's actually a lot of stuff we can do with the built environment to slow down cars, give drivers the signals that they need to be going at a lower speed, whether it's curb bulb-outs, roundabouts, street trees, those kinds of things that remove the need for an armed police officer enforcing speed. Traffic safety cameras, for example. So those details really matter. And those are two areas that I would really focus on in year one, because I think that's where a lot of harm is happening. Crystal Fincher: [00:22:24] Sure. And what's going to be your approach for hiring a new police chief? Jessyn Farrell: [00:22:31] Number one, the first and core value that a new police chief has to have is to be a partner in the project of transforming public safety - and has to embrace that and see the role of the police chief as being someone who is able to build bridges and really be a change leader. And that's hard, right? But there are people who have track records of being able to do that within organizations, who have that skillset. And again, I think that the biggest thing that we need to be doing is to say we have transformed our public safety model in Seattle so that we are prioritizing what it means to truly feel safe. And again, it's that going about your day-to-day lives, but one thing I didn't mention is it is also all of those economic, social, and cultural supports that create a thriving community. And the police chief fundamentally has to see himself or herself or themself as a partner in that. Crystal Fincher: [00:23:37] That makes sense. Are there any litmus tests that you're requiring of the chief or any chief that would serve in your administration? Jessyn Farrell: [00:23:49] That is a good question. Again, I think the litmus test for me is show me that you have done hard things. Show me that you have led an organization from point A to point D. We don't need to just get to point B, say we're doing our reforms and stuff like that. We need to fundamentally get to a place where our police response is not necessarily the first response for every single 911 call, right? That said though, I do want to mention there are things that I think a police response still really matters in. The detective work that goes into things like that spate of catalytic converter theft. That requires a lot of background work, or the work, and this is really important, the Regional Domestic Violence Unit. They are tasked with implementing our Extreme Risk Protection Order law, which takes guns away from abusers. And that requires a lot of work and it's upfront work that's not in the moment of crisis. And that's why I think that's the kind of work that you need to keep. And city council and the mayor cut that unit in the summer in that kind of reflexive moment, again, where we had an opportunity to really say, this is what we mean by public safety and we're going to really build budgets that actually go to that. But we haven't done that in this last year. Crystal Fincher: [00:25:16] I think you raised a good point. I think that there is absolutely a conversation for, especially in the investigative work in trying to stop activity like that. There is certainly a case for that. Part of that question is - did the city council and mayor actually cut it, or did the department say that they were going to have to divert officers away from it, thereby closing those and that becoming part of the conversation and conflict around staffing levels and needing to have patrol cops out. And if staffing drops, then patrol cops take precedence over those other specialized, like elder abuse and domestic violence investigation roles? Jessyn Farrell: [00:25:58] Right. All I can say about that is, "Show us the texts." We really actually need to see how those decisions unfolded so that I can answer that question because that actually matters, right? And then related to that, that gets back to that point to me around the police chief needing to be a true partner in the transformation, and that is hard. Crystal Fincher: [00:26:23] I have to say, I love your response of, "Show us the texts." I was watching a forum when you brought that up again when the deputy mayor, Casey Sixkiller, disputed what had been reported through several investigations and news reports about FEMA funding and whether or not they spent what was available to them in full. And you bring up a relevant point and that so much of accountability and the ability to understand what happened is tied to those texts and information that, for some reason, has been deleted or hidden or is unavailable or whatever. So I just appreciate that. Jessyn Farrell: [00:27:09] Yeah, I just have to underscore that trust in government is a real issue in this city. And part of that is because institutions have not worked for people, particularly Black and Brown communities, low income communities. And can we pause for a moment because my cat is really -- Crystal Fincher: [00:27:31] I am so amused by your cat and the meows in the background, but sure, we can pause. I think it's fine. Jessyn Farrell: [00:27:37] So I just want to talk a little bit about that issue of trust in government and how important it is in this moment because our institutions have simply not worked for a lot of people in our community or have actively harmed them - and particularly Black, Indigenous, communities of color, low-income communities. And so this issue of truth actually really matters because truth is a really core element of trust and it's a really core element of healing. And we're in this moment in this city where we actually need to be talking truthfully about many things, right? Whether it is race or wealth, but also how we are making decisions and how people in power are making decisions. And we shouldn't be afraid of the truth. The truth becomes a mechanism, again, for our ability to solve problems together. And at the end of the day, that to me is what government is really all about. Crystal Fincher: [00:28:39] I agree. Now, we are still in a pandemic. There is light at the end of the tunnel. We are doing, especially compared to the rest of the country, pretty well in Seattle and in King County in terms of vaccination rates. We're looking at a full reopening coming up in around a month it looks like, on June 30th I think is the date that has been targeted. But here in the city, we're still seeing a number of people struggling directly because of the pandemic. There are still many small businesses, the ones that have survived because a lot certainly haven't, struggling and people still looking for work. The service industry certainly has been struggling in several sectors and our arts and cultural communities have been absolutely devastated. I guess one is the question of the JumpStart Tax, which certainly has a lot of relief available for those specific entities and people struggling with housing, especially as we approach the end of the eviction moratorium. So do you support that? And then what is your approach for helping people who are struggling, businesses who are struggling to get back on their feet? Jessyn Farrell: [00:30:01] This to me is a moment where the lack of creativity and willing to be big and bold and try new things is most lacking. And because the crisis is so profound and the small business community is the heart and soul of so many of our neighborhoods, having a city where artists can afford to live and perform and create is another thing that is the soul of our city. So these are real -- like, I started out at the beginning by saying, we're in an existential moment for this city. Those are things that are existential. And we could have come up with solutions that really were able to put money in the pocket -- to help small businesses get through this. Really transform affordable housing. Like we've done the eviction moratorium. That has been the right thing to do, but what are we going to do about the rent debt? What are we going to do about the slow rolling eviction crisis that may start happening? We've had this opportunity to really leapfrog over -- we talk about the pandemic shining a light on all of these societal problems. We have not used this moment to leapfrog over the policy solutions that have been inadequate. And honestly, even the old progressive checklist -- by old, I mean now like a year old -- but the older progressive checklist of what we need to do isn't good enough anymore. And so that to me was just -- this has been a missed opportunity. Now, I was the chair of the governor's Safe Work and Economic Recovery Taskforce and we focused on small businesses. And there were a lot of businesses that were left out of the federal PPP program, particularly Black and Indigenous-owned businesses that did not have traditional banking relationships. So I worked with that group to come up with a $50 million program targeted at those businesses that were left out of PPP, but that $50 million program needs to be $500 million. And again, going forward, we know that the relative capitalized value of Black-owned businesses is so much less than white-owned businesses. The mayor can be taking a really active role in creating access to capital, not necessarily with city dollars, but doing the work to convene and create access to banking relationships, the technical support and expertise, that startup capital. There are just so many things that small businesses want and need. And just like the delivery of city services, it should be really easy to get a business license. You should not have to worry about going out of business because the city's closing your block to fill in a pothole in front of it, right? There are all these street-level issues that the city can be doing much better on. So that's one area I'm really passionate about. And same thing with artists. Artists have really suffered, especially performing artists. And attacking the affordability crisis mattered pre-pandemic and now it really matters because we need to make sure this is a city that artists can live in. Crystal Fincher: [00:33:14] Completely agree there. So do you support the JumpStart Tax? Jessyn Farrell: [00:33:17] Oh, sorry about that. Yeah, I absolutely support the JumpStart Tax - for a couple of reasons, not just because of what it's being spent on, but it really gets at, I think, our shared values of everybody in our city should be participating in helping pay for the high quality services that we all want, right? We all know we have the most upside-down tax code in the country -- although maybe we've now moved down a couple of notches because of the capital gains tax that was passed by the legislature -- but to me, it's just this basic idea that our corporate community, our highest, most wealthiest folks in the community should just be paying into the basic social contract so that we have services that make this a really great city. And to me, that's not controversial. Crystal Fincher: [00:34:06] It certainly shouldn't be controversial in my opinion, but for some reason it is. Jessyn Farrell: [00:34:11] I know. Crystal Fincher: [00:34:12] Well, another thing that I don't think should be controversial is wanting to make sure that people can travel throughout the city even if they don't have a car. And regardless of whether they are walking or biking or driving or some combination, that they can safely and reliably get to where they need to go and get to where they want to go. What are your plans for ensuring that happens? Jessyn Farrell: [00:34:38] Yeah, that is such a great question. And obviously you know my love language is transit and transportation. So I think that the core animating values for me around transportation and mobility are that it's a way to create freedom and agency and access for all of us. For people who may have special needs, for our youngest community members, for our oldest community members, for folks who can't afford to have a car. And then you have the added benefit and urgency of actually having to address climate change. So let's figure out how to help everybody have true mobility while reducing climate emissions at the same time. And so we have a really robust climate plan that really talks about these issues around equity and agency and mobility for everyone on my website, jessynformayor.com, but some of the hallmarks are 100 miles of Stay Healthy Streets. One of the things we found out in the pandemic is that people really like the Stay Healthy Street model. It's been awesome. And we should be vastly expanding them and I think really using a mobility-based model like -- where do people need to get to in their neighborhoods? What does a Stay Healthy route to your park look like? What does a Stay Healthy route to your business district look like to be able to get to a medical appointment? So that you're really focusing on not just like active transportation and being able to remove cars from the environment, but really helping people get to where they need to go. So that's something that is really exciting. Another piece is adding 100 miles of bus lanes and moving into free fares. Crystal Fincher: [00:36:24] Free fares! Jessyn Farrell: [00:36:25] Yeah, free fares. Here's the thing - farebox recovery, to use our transit speak, hey, it funds some of our transit services. There's no doubt about it. But it's a range - on so-called less productive routes, it's 11%. Maybe to the very most productive route, it's in the lower 20s. So it's just to say -- it definitely has a budget impact, but these are dollars that we can figure out how to supplant. And the benefits are so profound because we know that you look at the U-Pass model at the UW and what the UW did in the early '90s. They had 70% of people driving alone. They came up with this awesome program called the U-Pass program where they provide a very cheap or free bus pass. They'd contract with Metro and have awesome transit service from all around the region. They'd jack up parking prices and they'd have great walking and biking infrastructure. And lo and behold, their mode shift completely flipped. So in a few years, they had just 30% of people driving onto campus. And that set of policies actually revolutionized transportation in our region and across the country because those are the things that give people great options for getting out of their cars. And part of that is that free transit piece. So that has to be part of our suite of policies. And then it gets at the equity piece, it removes the fare enforcement and the harm and the potential for harm, again, that Black and Brown friends and neighbors and community members may experience. So there's a lot of benefits. Crystal Fincher: [00:38:07] Well, I appreciate it. And I guess, following onto that, that also has the benefit of helping to reduce emissions that are both damaging to climate and also emit harmful pollutants in the air, which also tangibly, demonstrably hurt people. So how are you going to be pushing towards further meeting our climate goals and reducing the harm caused by pollution in our city? Jessyn Farrell: [00:38:38] This is something that I am 100% committed to. We need to achieve Net Zero by 2030. And there are several very specific actions that I would take. Number one, I would hire a deputy mayor who is solely focused on climate and climate justice and is empowered to work across every department, to work with stakeholders, to work with the community, to really craft and help prioritize policies that promote resiliency, that create better health, that actually reduce climate emissions, and that are really focused on cutting family costs. One of the things I know you know so well is that in the broad environmental movement, we often - we, particularly the traditional white environmental movement - don't spend enough time focusing on the cost side of this and how we are really focusing on cutting family costs as we're doing things like designing new transportation improvements, right? And making sure that we're not raising people's costs and creating economic harm as we're trying to solve and get in front of our climate crisis. Crystal Fincher: [00:39:49] Right. Jessyn Farrell: [00:39:49] So that's one thing, having a deputy mayor that is really focused on that. Obviously, all these great transportation things. The affordable housing crisis is also climate crisis. People need to be able to live in the city, live close to where they work, and that is inherently more carbon efficient. And so that's a piece of it. Also the green economy. One of the things that I think is really important is that we expand what we mean by the green economy. I love green infrastructure jobs. They're awesome. But we also need to be thinking about all those jobs that are inherently low carbon. What if we looked at caregiving jobs as green jobs and created the same commitment for living wage jobs for caregiving jobs or artists? Creating art is inherently low carbon - I guess, unless you're like doing a performance art piece of burning a field of petroleum, right? But that's not typically what's happening in Seattle as performance art, but it really -- art should also be part of this idea of what a green job is so that we can be building out economic plans that are also prioritizing the economic stability and the ability of people who are in these jobs to thrive. And that's something to me that is also part of the climate conversation. Crystal Fincher: [00:41:07] Well, I agree. I certainly also thank you for taking the time to spend with us today and have an extended conversation about your plans for the City of Seattle. And I hope that as we continue to move forward we have more opportunities to share a dialogue like this. But thanks so much for joining us today. Jessyn Farrell: [00:41:25] Thank you so much. It was a real pleasure. Crystal Fincher: [00:41:31] Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks. Our chief audio engineer at KVRU is Maurice Jones Jr. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I, and now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts. Just type in Hacks & Wonks into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our mid-week show delivered to your podcast feed. You can also get a full text transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced during the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in. Talk to you next time. 

On today's Week in Review, Crystal is joined by Seattle Times political reporter Jim Brunner. They discuss congressional races across Washington State, how the GOP's shift to Trumpism may impact Republican incumbents, how redistricting might change the calculus of political races, and the González and Farrell campaigns touting internal polling in the Seattle mayoral race. Stay tuned at the end of the episode for an update on police accountability and participatory budgeting from Shannon Cheng, Chair of People Power Washington - Police Accountability and member of the Hacks & Wonks team (and U.S. Mixed Veteran Rogaining Champion)!  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, Jim Brunner, at @Jim_Brunner. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources “Republicans target Washington state to help flip U.S. House as Matt Larkin challenges Rep. Kim Schrier” by Jim Brunner: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/republican-matt-larkin-to-challenge-rep-kim-schrier-as-gop-looks-to-flip-house-in-2022-midterms/  “An earthquake warning for politics? Not yet, but you can feel some tremors.” by Danny Westneat: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/an-earthquake-warning-for-politics-not-yet-but-you-can-feel-some-tremors/  “What's next for the two WA Republicans who voted to impeach Trump?” by Melissa Santos: https://crosscut.com/politics/2021/01/whats-next-two-wa-republicans-who-voted-impeach-trump  “Redistricting shows how far incumbents go” by Peter Callaghan: https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/politics-government/article125095439.html  “Gonzalez and Harrell Essentially Tied for Top Spots for Mayor” polling results: https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/politics-government/article125095439.html  Participatory Budgeting Advances from the Office of Civil Rights: https://council.seattle.gov/2021/06/01/participatory-budgeting-advances/  “Seattle City Council Votes Against ‘Tough Compromise' Bill to Trim SPD Budget” by Nathalie Graham: https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2021/06/02/57933742/seattle-city-council-votes-against-tough-compromise-bill-to-trim-spd-budget    Transcript: Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] 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. And stay tuned at the end of this episode for a quick update with Shannon Cheng, the Chair of People Power Washington, for updates on Participatory Budgeting and a bill to trim the SPD budget.  Today, we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows, where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome to the program, Seattle Times political reporter, Jim Brunner. Jim Brunner: [00:00:58] Hello! Good to be here. I always enjoy talking with you about politics.  Crystal Fincher: [00:01:02] Always, and I've just followed you for years, decades - long time, long time - here in Seattle. So, you know, I wanted to start off - you've been covering the congressional candidates and we have not yet talked about congressional candidates. Certainly a lot has happened this week - including the banning of police from the Pride Fest and parade, Democracy Vouchers - new news and a rule change that's going to be moving forward, King County banning use of facial recognition technology, a study about civilians potentially being able to take over police work in Tacoma, and new vaccination news including incentives.  But also there's been news in these congressional races and challengers that have presented themselves, and these races are really shaping up. So I guess starting with the eighth congressional district with Kim Schrier, who is a Democratic incumbent - the first Democrat to hold that seat in the eighth district and now tasked with defending that seat against Republicans who are really eager and excited to take that on, and especially looking at redistricting to potentially help them. What is going on in that race and how's it shaping up, Jim? Jim Brunner: [00:02:24] Well, yeah, like you said, this was a Republican seat up until about four years ago when Dave Reichert decided to step down or retire - I think he was not super eager to remain in the party and the Trump era, frankly. And when he stepped out - Dino Rossi, who everyone in Washington politics knows - is a very well-known Republican figure, but has not had much success winning statewide or high-profile elections. He was their candidate and Kim Schrier emerged - she's a pediatrician. She emerged from a pretty crowded primary and then beat Dino Rossi. And so that was a big deal - it helped the Democrats flip that seat, and help the Democrats flip the House.  And I was a little surprised - in 2020, the Republicans didn't really make a big push to flip it back. You'd think that in that first go round, maybe there, they would take a big shot. They had a candidate I think was - had some merit. His resume had some good qualities on paper - Jesse Jensen. He was a decorated combat veteran and a tech administrator, but he just could never get his fundraising going, and there was no evidence that the GOP was really going to back him. But this time around, we're coming up on midterms next year, and there's usually a backlash against the party in the White House. And so Republicans, I think, sense an opportunity. And so I wrote about recently this guy, Matt Larkin, who ran for Attorney General as a Republican in 2020. He's set his sights on the eighth district now and announced, and it looks like the national Republicans are actually going to make a play this time. And then Jesse Jensen, who I mentioned, might also run again, but my sense now is that Larkin might be the guy that they're going to coalesce behind.  So - potential for another big money race. The race in 2018 was like a $30 million race. It was crazy, you know - you might remember the ads blanketing TV screens, so we could see a redux of that. And I'll say quickly about Matt Larkin - his campaign, much as his Attorney General campaign did - this district does not cover Seattle. It's East King County, Pierce County exurbs, and then it goes over the mountains to Chelan County, Kittitas County - but Larkin has made his early campaign entirely about scenes of violence and protests in Seattle, which, you know, I've pressed him on that and I understand why he's doing it. It is very much a play for the Fox News audience. In fact, he, I think, did his exclusive announcement on Fox News and then he had a pretty friendly interview on Fox and Friends. And so that's where he's going, you know, in the early going.  Crystal Fincher: [00:05:16] Yeah, certainly and you - we certainly have noticed and you've talked and written about, as you said, him citing the issues in Seattle, which is not included in his district, and taking those on - including homelessness and the Republican whole shtick of Seattle is Dying, and it's being overrun by lawlessness, and crime-riddled - this caricature of homeless people that's like violent and vagrancy and often not true. But we've talked before on this program about that being - it's not ringing true in Seattle, but it is being used in suburbs and suburban areas around the country as really a symbol to run off of and kind of really a totem of the culture wars, basically. And citing - what they love to cite is - Democratically-run metropolitan cities and increases in crime, which in fact that whether it's a Democratic or Republican-led city - crime is rising uniformly across the board. But it's really interesting to see if that works. The law and order message seemed to fall pretty flat in 2020. Do you see that gaining any speed or traction? Jim Brunner: [00:06:40] I don't know like you - and I've watched it, and you're right. . It hasn't - the Republicans have tried that in multiple cycles in this state - running against Seattle is a super common thing and it really just has not worked for them, generally speaking. However, I do think that there is a possibility that nationally and in certain areas in districts, including in Washington, that this kind of sentiment can be stirred up and that there are people who, you know, you see these things on TV, on local TV news, for example, or on Fox news or whatever - burning police cars, attempts to burn police precincts. And there's a reaction to it. And I think there is a danger if Democrats are perceived as being indifferent to it. I mean, I've asked Kim Schrier about this before - last year when she was running for reelection - because her opponent then, Jesse Jensen, also raised some of these same issues. And she said, Look, I don't want to be drawn into the trap of having to respond to everything that happens in Seattle, but she pointed to - I think some statement she made where - she's not endorsing attacks on police. She hasn't - I don't think isn't personally endorsing the defunding of police in Seattle. It's not in her district. But she - she's supportive and Democrats are supportive of reforms to policing. And so I think it'll be interesting to see how that goes.  I will say that my sense is that the scenes of chaos in Portland, for example, I feel like may have had an impact on the challenge to Jamie Herrera Beutler this last cycle from Carolyn Long. She'd also run two years earlier and didn't make it, so there's - it's not necessarily like she was going to win, but given the nightly chaos there in that media market, I think that you could make an argument that it did have some impact. So we'll see, but I think it's important to, like you said, fact check things, like, is it true? You know, is the violence the responsibility of this politician or that politician, or is it going up uniformly? And what is actually behind this and what is your actual solution other than to say Kim Schrier should be speaking out about this more, which is right as of this point, and again, it's an early stage - that's been kind of the extent of the argument right now. Crystal Fincher: [00:09:09] Yeah, it'll be interesting to see and as you also mentioned in the article about this - redistricting could potentially play a role in this race. How is that looking?  Jim Brunner: [00:09:20] Yeah, it's interesting. Nationally, you've seen a lot of stories about redistricting helping Republicans in a lot of states' legislatures, whoever has the majority controls it. And they'll do gerrymandering and they'll draw all kinds of weird districts. And then sometimes they get struck down in court. We've seen states where the Republicans have internally literally admitted, We're doing this because we want to break up the vote of people of color, for example, or Democratic constituencies. And they've gotten - some of those maps have been thrown out because they're violating the Constitution, essentially.  In Washington, of course, we have our Redistricting Commission. It's a bipartisan commission, I always like to say. It's not non-partisan - you got two Democrats, two Republicans, and then a fifth non-voting chair. And so here - they have to hash out a map by November, and the changes probably won't be as dramatic as last time around because we got a new congressional district then. But, unlike other states, there's not a chance - I don't think - for Republicans to just redraw the district, the eighth district, for example, to their advantage. But I think the Democrats - what usually goes on is each party tries to protect their incumbents. So when Dave Reichert still had the eighth district seat, it got redrawn to make it safer for him, but politics shifted so much that once he was gone, the Democrats were able to take it. If I'm the Democratic redistricting commissioners, I'm probably looking at shaving off some of the more conservative parts of the district, if you can, and try to shore up Kim Schrier's support. And the Republicans will probably try to not let that happen. So yeah, this race isn't until next year, so we'll know the real map that they're running for by the end of the year.  Crystal Fincher: [00:11:18] Yeah, it's really interesting with that - and politics has shifted, and also demographics in many of the areas have shifted. There's been a lot of population growth and diversification, certainly in the western area of the eighth district. And so it'll be interesting to see who's district that winds up in and what they do. And then there's also just an interesting effect of drawing districts to protect incumbents and making them more Democratic or more Republican. Does that then make those districts safe and the Republican's one redder and more extreme? And if it's a safe Democratic seat, does it get more progressive? Sometimes that happens, sometimes it doesn't - but it's also interesting to consider the consequences of districting around incumbents - and how that sometimes has some short-term benefits, but long-term drawbacks. Jim Brunner: [00:12:22] ] Yeah. I think there's people who have advocated - and I think some other states have moved this way way - to really take the parties completely out of the redistricting. And just have it be a more independent citizen-led panel. I haven't seen that move here, but you can make an argument - why should you consider the incumbents when you're redistricting? It's supposed to be about equalizing the number of votes in each district, trying to adhere to political boundaries, natural county/city boundaries, to the extent you can. And so maybe where the incumbent lives shouldn't, maybe in an ideal world, be part of the calculation. On the other hand, I've heard people say, Well, look, the people have voted for this person. There has been a democratic sort of endorsement of this incumbent, so maybe they should have some deference. And then, you know, politics, I mean, it's just - the incumbents are all going to be lobbying the commission and the parties who control the commissioners, basically, to take them into consideration. Crystal Fincher: [00:13:28] Yeah well, certainly a party with the majority wants to try and lock that in as much as possible. Other states, especially as you cited - the Republican states - definitely do all they can to make sure that they lock that in. States like ours, where both parties do have to agree - things usually don't turn out quite as lopsided as they do in those other states, but it'll be really interesting to see - including in a race like the one we have with Adam Smith, who's drawn at least three challengers to his left, in the ninth congressional district. Which is interesting and Danny Westneat wrote about earlier this week in the Seattle Times - have you looked much at that race?  Jim Brunner: [00:14:12] I haven't really dived in, and Danny wrote an interesting column about it. It sort of - he framed it right - it's not evidence that the Democrats are tearing themselves apart, necessarily. But it is evidence of this just continuing debate - tension, if you want to call it - between progressives and the more - I don't know if you want to call it mainstream or what do you want to call it - moderate wing, or just the incumbent? You know, Adam Smith has been there for a long time now in the ninth district and it's funny - in redistricting - he is the Chair of the House Armed Services Committee and his district used to include the military base down in Pierce County. And in redistricting, he no longer has that in his district, but he has this vestigial influence in that realm that he's continued to hold, but because that's where he came up. And it's been interesting - his district is more liberal than it was when it - before the last round of redistricting. And I think he has signaled to voters that he's trying to be progressive too on issues like immigration. I mean, it's very apparent that he is trying to make it known that he's with them, but these progressive challengers saying, You know, it's not enough. You're part of the old guard. It's time for new voices.  Crystal Fincher: [00:15:42] Yeah, absolutely. And one thing that I think also influences some of the further left-leaning candidates and constituency - that is the fact that Pramila Jayapal is also right there, and so visible and so vocal on many issues that are important to several areas of the district in a way that they didn't see her predecessor or Adam Smith before. And a lot of people going, Okay, well, comparing to that - Adam looks real moderate. And as you said, he's certainly been trying to signal that - and say things in some areas - that seem to be more progressive than they were before. And another is he's maintained, so it's going to be interesting to see how that race shapes up - how the incumbents gain traction, but it seems like - from some institutional forces that they aren't uniformly aligned necessarily with Adam Smith. So he certainly is going to have a bottomless war chest with his donors, and it really is going to be about - do people see him as the leader that they want moving forward, or is it time for a change as has been in so many other areas?  Jim Brunner: [00:17:02] And will he lobby the Redistricting Commission to shift around his district again - maybe get rid of some of the Seattle portions or something. The former, great Tacoma News Tribune columnist and reporter, Pete Callaghan, who's in Minnesota - he wrote a really good story after the last round of redistricting that I was kind of jealous of - where he got all the emails that went to the Redistricting Commission and wrote a story about how Adam Smith was the most active lobbyer - he wanted his district to get moved. He wanted to have, I think, Mercer Island and Bellevue, where he lives now, and that happened. So there's a varying level of people - politicians - keeping an eye on it and being active in it. So it'll be interesting to see if he moves in that direction this time, or if he feels sort of content in - with the boundaries where they are. Crystal Fincher: [00:17:59] Yeah, it'll be interesting. I live near the border of the eighth and ninth congressional district, so we'll see where I end up.  Jim Brunner: [00:18:06] You might get shifted. Yeah, absolutely.  Crystal Fincher: [00:18:09] It'll be interesting to see. Now this is really - these races are really important, particularly races in - like that one in the eighth congressional district, with Kim Schrier, because the majority is narrow in the House right now. The Democrats only lead by five - is it five seats?  Jim Brunner: [00:18:26] I think that - yeah, I think the Republicans need to flip five seats. And people are projecting that, just given their advantages in legislatures for redistricting around the country and some of the population shifts, they may already be on their way to taking the majority back in 2022 - like they're favored. Crystal Fincher: [00:18:49] They're definitely favored. It's going to be a fight and Democrats are going to have to win competitive seats - and some competitive seats that are currently held by Republicans to hold on to the House. And the Senate. So it'll be really interesting to see what Democrats do right now, just in terms of voter protections and making sure people have fair and equitable access to the vote and the ballot. And whether they take action or not now - with Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin saying that they are not in favor of ending the filibuster - that's not looking likely unless that changes. So this is going to be interesting.  And then - you've been covering races on the Eastern side of the state, where some more moderate Republicans have held seats, but they're being challenged by people further to the right - challengers who publicly will not say whether Joe Biden really won the presidency, they're major Trump supporters, they're into conspiracy theories and at least not refuting them publicly. That's a very different place than we were 10 years ago. What do those races look like? Jim Brunner: [00:20:12] Yeah. So of course, Dan Newhouse, in the fourth district - a Republican incumbent - and Jaime Herrera Beutler, incumbent in the third district, voted for the Trump impeachment, the last, the latest Trump impeachment. And then they supported the January 6th commission. And so - but their impeachment vote immediately set off a lot of anger among the Republican base, who - a lot of people in the Republican base think that's a betrayal. And say it was kind of extraordinary - the only member of Congress in Washington who didn't vote for impeachment was Cathy McMorris Rodgers, out of Spokane. So it was 9 out of 10 of our House members - it's kind of extraordinary and bipartisan in that sense. And so, yeah, both Jamie Herrera Beutler and Dan Newhouse have some pretty, you know, fair to say, Trumpy challengers who are running because they made those votes. And people might remember Loren Culp, who ran for governor - he's declared against Newhouse. And he's definitely somebody who has even tried to claim - just falsely without evidence - that his own 500,000+ loss to Jay Inslee in 2020 was somehow - might not have happened, or in some cases I think he said, Well, I don't know if you know - I could have got all that back. But he's tried to raise doubts about the electoral process - even though, of course, it's Secretary of State Kim Wyman here, who's our top elected official, or elections official, who's Republican. And then in - I think State Rep Brad Klippert, very conservative, also running against Newhouse. And there's a third guy who is kind of along the same vein.  And then against Jamie Herrera Beutler you've got three, at least three, very pro-Trump challengers. I would say two of them are really fighting it out to be the one. I think it's most likely that Joe Kent, who is on a daily basis still saying, Yes, we should audit - we should examine, Congress should examine - the 2020 election as though it's still up in the air. He's an ex-special forces veteran. His wife was actually killed by a terrorist bombing. She was in the military and in intelligence too, and she was killed overseas - so it's a pretty interesting background story that he has. And he definitely has been outspoken about endless wars. And so he thinks he's aligned with Trump on that sort of isolationist, you might call it, foreign policy. And then he has just bought into some of the conspiracy theories too. But he has been - he was out in Florida, I think he did a rally with Marjorie Taylor Greene, he's met with Donald Trump. I think he might get the full-on Trump endorsement. Billionaire Peter Thiel, I think, has indicated he might back him. And so that'll be interesting if they marshal a bunch of forces against Jamie Herrera Beutler, who not only voted for impeachment, but then offered to be like a star witness. And really kind of ignited the end of the impeachment proceedings. And then really quickly, the other main competitor there, is a woman named Heidi St. John, who's a kind of a Christian self-help author, homeschooler, very anti-mask, very dismissive of the coronavirus pandemic - is calling masks "face diapers" and things like that. And she's out there organizing, and has some support too. So again, it'll be really interesting to see how that race plays out and where the Democrats fit in, because Democrats haven't been able to compete there, but, you know, I just don't know - it's a very chaotic situation that's going to play out.  Crystal Fincher: [00:24:19] Yeah. I think it's going to be a chaotic situation. I still think - out there, Republicans have the advantage. And I think there's a lot of wishing and hoping, especially from people in Seattle on the west side of the mountains, that like logic and reason will prevail. Surely it has to - this is Washington state. We've had, you know, moderate Republicans and that's just not who we are. And I think that we are far past the point of recognizing that this is where the Republican party is now. The Republican party is the party of Trump. If there is someone self identifying as a Republican, that's more than likely what they're identifying as - as a supporter of Trump, and what you've seen from him, and all of that. And that's what we're close to. And we haven't just seen these challengers rise up and have support - but also the censure from Republican local parties and the state party of people who took the impeachment vote and who wanted to do that. And we just saw the January 6 commission be not voted and supported - and those challengers saying - some of them are saying, "I don't know if I would have voted yes or no on that. Others are just like, no, it's a witch hunt." That is where we're at. And really, it's hard to see how that doesn't take over in 2022, just based on redistricting. So I hope people get involved and get engaged with these - hopefully there is real engagement and activism on the Democratic side, just to not have that conversation be so focused on that element of the conversation. But it'll be a show to watch - it will be interesting to see.  Jim Brunner: [00:26:19] Yeah. I think another thing that's interesting is, I dunno - I find it kind of funny sometimes - Democrats in places like Seattle will get excited about, Oh, you know, we're gonna, you know, take off, take out, Ted Cruz or something. Or Mitch McConnell. And they'll spend a whole bunch of money and send checks out there, which I understand - I mean, Republicans are doing the same things if they think that, you know, they could take out Nancy Pelosi or whatever. But it is kind of interesting to see how just, I don't know, everything is so nationalized. And I think sometimes people aren't paying attention to what's in their backyards necessarily. It's interesting - Dan Newhouse - you do see kind of this cross-party admiration among people who are alarmed by Trump - that they're like, Thank you, Dan Newhouse. Thank you, Jamie Herrera Beutler. But you know, Dan Newhouse is very conservative and he's not a Democrat. I mean, he has his ideals and he's - I think he's been very consistent actually, whether you agree with him or not. And he voted - he's voted like, you know, 90+ percent with the Trump agenda - which is in Congress was mainly just a pretty standard low taxes and cut back regulation agenda. So to see him potentially get ousted, just because he said this insurrection was a step too far is pretty interesting. I still think he can probably get re-elected, but we'll see.  Crystal Fincher: [00:27:51] I still think they have the advantage, but that could change. I think that we - we don't yet know what's gonna come from the Trump camp, leading up here through the summer and into next year. I think these conversations may move and the ground may continue to shift under them. I think that the pressure is also on them to move further to the right. So I think where we've seen people be consistent before, there may be a challenge with that in the future. And in the same way that Adam Smith is trying to signal that he's moving further to the left, we may see these once, you know, people who were considered moderate Republicans start to take on a different tone.  The one thing I wanted it to touch on before we head out was, speaking of local races - there were a couple of polls that some of the Seattle mayoral candidates referenced - specifically Jessyn Farrell and Lorena González. Now they did some polling - they were internal polls, they were pollsters hired by their campaigns. They did not release the full polls, which is standard in polling, and so we don't know what all the questions were, how they were all asked, or anything in that. So when that happens, automatically, you're taking the polls with a grain of salt because you don't know what they're really saying. But there were some consistencies between them and the biggest consistency was that Bruce Harrell appears to be in first place. And Lorena González appears to be in second place. Is that how you read them, Jim?  Jim Brunner: [00:29:32] I mean, from what I've seen, I think that was the common thread. I, like you, I'm pretty skeptical about internal polls, candidate polls - because they usually don't release the whole thing. And even when they do - generally I won't, I don't write articles on them - just based on internal polling, but I do love to consume them, and I'm fascinated by them - and how, not only what the results are, but how they're deployed to try to move the campaign. So from what I've seen - yeah, I think Harrell appears to be in first place in this race. And as we're getting closer to the August primary and the - people like Lorena González and a few others are competing for second. But you know, this is - this could all shift. The messaging is just starting to happen. People are trying to carve out their identities. People like Jessyn Farrell, Andrew Grant Houston - who's in - really raised his profile because of his Democracy Voucher haul.  Crystal Fincher: [00:30:37] Absolutely. And it is early on. And the third common thread between them is that - both of them, I think, had at least 40% and above of the electorate is undecided. It is early in a City race, which doesn't get all the nightly attention on the news. The campaigns really haven't started, people haven't gotten mailers yet, they aren't seeing commercials, they aren't hearing radio ads or anything like that yet. And that can certainly change the dynamics of the race. And as more forums happen and some of the contrast between the candidates are known, we will see that.  Also Casey Sixkiller was a late entrance into the race - seems to be more - closer to Bruce Harrell, who a lot of people consider to be the most moderate candidate in this field. And so is drawing support there and people are wondering, Okay, so in terms of the Times endorsement - the Chamber itself is not going to be doing endorsements or supporting candidates, but all of the entities will be supporting in the same way, just through different means. So where does that support go? And I think Casey Sixkiller is looking to see if he can put a dent into that, and we'll see how that turns out. Jim Brunner: [00:31:57] Yeah. I think it's interesting. There's some candidates fighting through the sort of - within the Seattle sort of bubble, to be on the more progressive side. And then there's people like Harrell who are still, I think, liberal Democrats basically, but are talking to businesses. And I think Harrell has a - and they're trying just to talk about the City's homeless encampments in a way that attracts support. And that's going to be a big issue in this race. And to what extent are people going to talk about encampments in a way that - where they're trying to attract support from people who were just alarmed by seeing them, and versus trying to get people housing and how we can solve the problem. And it's a mix, it's a balance - I think for everybody. It's going to be interesting to see how that goes. I think with Harrell and the - if you call it like the business support side or the moderate support side of the equation - you mentioned Sixkiller who is a well-known name in Seattle. And there was another guy who jumped in that I wrote a short story on, Art Langlie, also has a well-known name in Seattle - never really been involved in politics, but he's the son or grandson of Arthur Langlie, who was Seattle mayor long ago and the governor long ago. And I don't really see a path for him, but I could see him taking a few points out of Bruce Harrell's totals, just as I can Sixkiller.  The other dynamic, I think - I'd be curious to hear what you say, think about this - there's a whole inside-outside game here. You know, you had people like Sixkiller declare and he's been a Deputy Mayor under Jenny Durkan, but he's saying I'm a fresh outside voice or I can bring fresh, independent outside voices. And I think that's kind of gonna cause some eyebrow rolling or whatever. And then you've got like Bruce Harrell - he was at City Hall for a long time, but then he stepped away. So now, you know, to what extent can he credibly say, I am sort of an outsider, but with also some insider knowledge - in a way, that's a good position to be in. And then you've got Lorena González, who's City Council president, also has expressed ambitions to run for Attorney General. So, it's going to be interesting to see her honing her message. And all of them - like you said, it's going to be kind of a scramble. I'm curious what your take on that is too.  Crystal Fincher: [00:34:32] You know, it's going to be interesting. I think that - I think people kind of uniformly reacted with raised eyebrows to Casey Sixkiller saying, You know, I'm an outsider. It was just like, you're the Deputy Mayor right now - for homelessness actually - the number one issue in the City for a lot of people. And I think there has been a challenge in him trying to independently define who he is, then there's - I don't know if he's going to wind up ensnared in this text controversy or not. There are a lot of people in the mayor's office - I don't know if Casey Sixkiller has been pressed on that, but it seems like a relevant question. I also think that there - I don't know that it was wise for him to say, No, we absolutely have spent all that FEMA money. I think that - we certainly saw Colleen Echohawk take exception to that online and dedicate an entire Twitter thread to debunking that with a variety of independent  reporting. And in a forum, Andrew Grant Houston saying, Hey dude, you're lying about that, and I personally worked on it - because even Andrew Grant Houston works in the office of a Seattle City Councilmember. So this whole conversation about insiders and outsiders is interesting and unique - and a lot of insiders who are claiming to be outsiders, and outsiders who are insiders and -  I think it's really gonna come down to how people are talking about the issues. I think one thing that's going to be telling, and that's going to be used kind of as a proxy and dividing line is whether or not they support the Compassion Seattle initiative, which Casey Sixkiller and Jessyn Farrell have said that they do. Bruce Harrell has signaled mixed support - I'm not exactly sure. I feel like he said yes before, but he definitely said no in a forum, but then asked to explain himself and, you know, seemed like he wanted to hedge that. So I'm not sure, but that'll be, I think, what helps to separate and define where people look to see where they are on homelessness - is where are you at on the Compassion Seattle initiative. Which is viewed very differently by people. Jim Brunner: [00:36:51] And that's why people talk about defining yourself. I mean, that initiative campaign is trying to define itself - for the charter amendment, I guess.  Crystal Fincher: [00:36:59] Yes.  Jim Brunner: [00:37:01] Yeah, and we're at Seattle Times - we're trying to press the candidates, trying to get some clear answers on where they stand on issues like that, doing some voter guides and things like that. But yeah, there've been some forums out there where people are starting to get to see the candidates answer those questions. And I sort of feel like people know the field here, of the top candidates, even though there's more than - like there's 15 people that will be on the ballot. You know, we can name the 5 or 6 who are really being invited to the big forums and are part of the conversation. So it's good - it's good to have, to be able to winnow it a little bit, because realistically there's not that many who have much of a shot - that they should all have a chance to make their case, but we should focus on the ones who have demonstrated some support. Crystal Fincher: [00:37:52] Yeah, some minimum viability. I also think that now there are two people who have communicated polls that show Bruce and Lorena as the frontrunners - that that in effect put a target on their backs for other candidates in the forums who are now saying, Okay, I have to take one of them out and leapfrog them in order to be, in order to make it through the primary. So I think we're going to start to see where a lot of people were making their case. Some people feel like someone has got to do the work of drawing some direct contrasts on some other issues and that'll be a new dynamic. Jim Brunner: [00:38:28] Yeah. It kind of reminds me of the presidential, Democratic presidential debates, when you had so many, and then it got winnowed and then it became clear that at one point - well, I mean, at some point, of course, Biden was the frontrunner and had a big target on his back. People came at him and he just kinda, amiably sort of, not always excelling in the debate, but got through it. So I've had somebody - I can't remember who I was talking to - claim that they think they see sort of a Biden-esque position or quality in Bruce Harrell in a weird way, you know. I don't know. What do you think?  Crystal Fincher: [00:39:13] Uhhhh -  Jim Brunner: [00:39:13] In terms of his positioning.  Crystal Fincher: [00:39:14] You don't see the look on my face right now, but you know -  Jim Brunner: [00:39:17] In terms of his positioning in the field is all -  Crystal Fincher: [00:39:19] You know, I guess - especially, I think for - I think that could be fair to say. Especially if you think back to how that was viewed during the campaign. I think that Biden has actually governed a bit more progressively than people expected so far. Partly because bipartisanship isn't really a thing at this point, certainly not as people think about it 20 years ago. So potentially, I think that just in terms of - Biden was certainly viewed as one of the most viable moderates. And Bruce is viewed as a viable moderate. I don't know that I would go much further down that road, personally. You know -  Jim Brunner: [00:40:08] And then there's no Trump to run against at the end of the primary, which is different. Although, I believe there - I've heard some mayoral candidates continue to talk about Trump. Crystal Fincher: [00:40:19] Yeah. I don't know how much that helps or not in Seattle. I don't think that's really relevant to the City race. I think it's going to be interesting as candidates look at, especially the last election in 2019 and the backlash to some of the Amazon control and corporate control, income inequality, workers' rights and conditions - that candidates who have been more closely aligned with those corporations may take some heat coming up. I don't know if that's going to come up in these races or not, and certainly some candidates have more of a vulnerability on that than others, but who knows.  Jim Brunner: [00:40:58] Yeah. And I'm sure that that will be part of the conversation. Absolutely.  Crystal Fincher: [00:41:03] Yeah.  Jim Brunner: [00:41:04] You know, it feels like Amazon and the Chamber kind of got stung by playing their big money hand too extremely a couple of years ago. Of course, I know that they resent that to some extent, because they point out that unions and others spent a lot of money too, but it was a big splashy - a million dollar push - and it arguably backfired. So they're trying to be much more strategic -  Crystal Fincher: [00:41:33] Covert.  Jim Brunner: [00:41:33] Or covert - yes - this time, but they clearly will have a preference, like everybody who's watching this race, every interest that is.  Crystal Fincher: [00:41:44] Yes. And a handy PAC to support Bruce Harrell is already in existence. So, he certainly looks like he will have support. Jim Brunner: [00:41:52] I asked him about that - he said, you know, like candidates always say when you bring this up, Well, I didn't start it. You know, it's people like me so much. You know, what can I do? You know? So we'll see others - it's not going to be the only one.  Crystal Fincher: [00:42:05] Yeah. Yeah. It'll be - this will be an interesting race. And certainly just because a poll said this today does not mean it's going to stay that way. Polls are snapshots. We don't even know if those were legit polls and followed the standards of regular polling, or more just a marketing project. So -  Jim Brunner: [00:42:26] I mean, I think the campaigns - they want good data, they want good polling - but is that what they're releasing to us? Yeah. I don't know.  Crystal Fincher: [00:42:36] Yeah. So we - there's a lot of conversation we could have about that, especially how they released it, and what they were telling about those candidates. Which was interesting and not necessarily what you would expect, particularly from one of them. But they did tell the same top line story, so I found that interesting. But we have talked for a while today - we'll spare you more conversation, but I do want to thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM this Friday, June 4th, 2021. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler and assisted by Shannon Cheng and Lexi Morritt. And our wonderful co-host today was Seattle Times political reporter, Jim Brunner. You can find Jim on Twitter @Jim_Brunner. That's B-R-U-N-N-E-R. 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, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks & Wonks" into the search bar, be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our mid-week show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review whenever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thank you so much for joining us today, Jim - appreciate having you and your perspective and enlightening us about the congressional races.  Jim Brunner: [00:43:57] Thank you. It was a lot of fun - we could keep going.  Crystal Fincher: [00:44:00] Yeah, absolutely. And we'll talk to you all next time. And now, I'm super excited to have Shannon Cheng, who not only works with me at Fincher Consulting, but is the Chair of People Power Washington - Police Accountability. And is - really has been involved for years in all things police accountability, including in the city of Seattle. And so I just wanted to have her on real quick to talk about two big items this week. One, the Seattle City Council voting against the tough compromise bill to trim the SPD budget. And then two, the Council unanimously passing the Participatory Budgeting bill. So starting with that bill to trim the SPD budget, Shannon - what happened?  Shannon Cheng: [00:44:49] Yeah, that bill has been "tortured", I think, is the word I've seen used to describe it. So it started - all the protests that broke out last summer and people seeing how SPD treated peaceful protesters egregiously - there was a lot of call for wanting accountability for SPD and kind of their overspending. And so what happened is that at the end of last year, SPD came to City Council and said, "We need $5.4 million extra dollars for our 2020 budget" - because basically they had spent too much on overtime. And this angered both City Council and a lot of community activists, who had been spending the whole budget cycle wanting to cut back funding for SPD. And so what City Council ended up doing was - they needed to give them the money last year, but they said, "What we're going to do is take that same amount of money away from your 2021 budget. And so you need to do better next year and make sure to not overspend."  But then what has happened is that that money has - then the federal monitor who oversees the consent decree got involved and expressed concern that the Council was taking money away from the department. And so it's just gotten very complicated. There's been a lot of arguments with people wanting to take the money and the intent being about accountability, whereas other people are saying, "Hey, you can't take that money away because we need the police to provide a certain level of service." So the bill has gone through many, many different amendments and in the end - nothing happened. They ended up voting against it - and it was interesting because some councilmembers voted on the same side, but for very different reasons. So for example, Alex Pedersen voted against it because he doesn't believe in defunding at all, whereas Councilmembers Mosqueda, Morales, Sawant voted against it because it wasn't defunding enough. Crystal Fincher: [00:46:49] Interesting. And where was Lorena González on that?  Shannon Cheng: [00:46:52] She was kind of on the fence. She did vote against it, but she said something more along the lines of that we need to wait and see. And maybe this needs to get taken up during the normal budget cycle in terms of seeing how things play out with budget questions. So a less clear statement, but she did vote against it.  Crystal Fincher: [00:47:14] Okay. So nothing happened. So does this mean that there were basically no penalties for SPD intentionally overspending on their overtime budget?  Shannon Cheng: [00:47:26] I think that is still TBD because they don't - so basically nobody gets the money still. I think the money is still under proviso - so originally the intent was to take the money away from SPD and put it into Participatory Budgeting. And now it's just still on hold. So the bill that had been addressed had talked about a compromise where - okay, maybe only $2 million was going to be taken away and given to Participatory Budgeting, whereas the rest was going to go to other SPD priorities, such as community service officers and funding public disclosure request office budget needs. But - yeah, basically nothing is happening and they're tabling it for later.  Crystal Fincher: [00:48:12] So it may be taken up in the regular budgeting process. It may not be taken up at all. We'll just have to stay tuned and see, basically?  Shannon Cheng: [00:48:20] Yeah. Yep.  Crystal Fincher: [00:48:22] All right. So you also mentioned the Participatory Budgeting, and some of that money might have gone to it if it would have passed, but it did not. But what did pass unanimously with the Council was the entire Participatory Budgeting bill. What happened with that? Shannon Cheng: [00:48:38] Yeah! So that was huge and exciting - you know,  community activists have been working towards that for a very long time. And so last year, $30 million got promised for Participatory Budgeting that was going to be centering community. And it had been held up for a long time. I think that's been talked about on this show previously - there had been kind of tension between the mayor's office and City Council - and in the middle of all that were just the City staff trying to work on this problem and figuring out, Okay, how do we actually implement the program? And so what finally happened is Councilmember Morales introduced a bill where the Office of Civil Rights is going to be given money to hire some full-time employees to run the Request For Proposal process to find somebody, who will then run the Participatory Budgeting program. So, it's not like an immediate step. We're not going to get Participatory Budgeting happening tomorrow, but it is at least a step forward in direction of something where we had been kind of spinning in circles for basically six months.  Crystal Fincher: [00:49:48] Well, this is big news. And what does this do then, or how does this affect the Black Brilliance Project? Shannon Cheng: [00:49:57] So the Black Brilliance Project had put in the time and the research to propose a plan for how the implementation could happen and they submitted their proposal, so that was one of the things on the table. But one of the big things that came out of their report and that they mentioned was that they - there are certain City departments they don't necessarily trust - that have not done the best job of kind of truly representing community voices before. And so one of those was the Department of Neighborhoods. And so they had specifically asked that the Participatory Budgeting not be handled by that department. When the mayor's office released their counter proposal of how this should be handled, that was their suggestion - was that Department of Neighborhoods had already handled a much smaller Participatory Budgeting project in the past, so they said that we should just let them have it. It will save a lot of money because you know, they already have expertise there. But the problem is they don't have the trust. So this is kind of why things are being handed to the Office of Civil Rights instead, where that was the preferred office from the Black Brilliance Project to handle setting up the implementation. Crystal Fincher: [00:51:13] All right. Well, we will stay tuned to developments on this, but thank you so much for the expertise and information. Those, you know, were one big development and one big non-development, but important, especially as we consider these Council and mayoral races moving forward, but also in just how we consider public safety and how we're treating each other as community members in Seattle and beyond. So thanks so much, Shannon.  Shannon Cheng: [00:51:43] Yeah - thank you!  Crystal Fincher: [00:51:44] And if people want to get more information about People Power Washington, where can they go?  Shannon Cheng: [00:51:51] So our website is wethepeoplepower.org - it will get updated soon. We're going to be doing a voter guide for local elections coming up. So stay tuned - that will be updated in the next couple months.  Crystal Fincher: [00:52:05] Perfect. Thanks so much.

This week Erica C. Barnett joins Crystal to review further revelations in the mishandling of public records requests by Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan's office and the psychology of offering vaccination incentives. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's guest, Erica Barnett, at @ericacbarnett. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com. Resources: “Public records requests mishandled after Seattle mayor's texts went missing, commission finds” by Daniel Beekman: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/public-records-requests-were-mishandled-after-seattle-mayors-texts-went-missing-whistleblower-investigation-finds/ “Not just the mayor: Text messages of Seattle police and fire chiefs from June 2020 also missing” by Daniel Beekman and Lewis Kamb: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/not-just-the-mayor-text-messages-of-seattle-police-and-fire-chiefs-from-june-2020-also-missing/ “Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan had phone set to keep texts only 30 days, her office says” by Lewis Kamb and Daniel Beekman: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/seattle-mayor-jenny-durkan-had-phone-set-to-delete-texts-older-than-30-days/ “We asked for Mayor Jenny Durkan's text messages, and this is what we got” by Ashley Hiruko: https://www.kuow.org/stories/we-asked-for-jenny-durkan-s-text-messages-and-this-is-what-they-gave-us “Durkan Destroys 10 Months of Text Messages in Apparent Coverup” by Doug Trumm: https://www.theurbanist.org/2021/05/13/durkan-destroys-10-months-of-text-messages-in-apparent-coverup/ “Should Mayor Jenny Durkan Resign Over Those Missing Texts?” by Nathalie Graham: https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2021/05/13/57321148/should-mayor-jenny-durkan-resign-over-those-missing-texts “Black researchers say Seattle Mayor's Office has undermined their work to help reimagine public safety” by Liz Brazile: https://www.kuow.org/stories/black-researchers-say-seattle-mayor-s-office-has-undermined-their-work-to-help-reimagine-public-safety “Seattle partners with businesses to offer COVID-19 vaccine incentives” by Christine Pae: https://www.king5.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/vaccine/seattle-free-incentives-for-people-who-get-covid-19-vaccine/281-b2dce03d-f083-4f6a-9b24-1f1f176f5234   Transcript: Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] Welcome to Hacks and Wonks. I'm your host, Crystal Fincher. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on politics in our state. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. And if you like the show, please throw in a great review. We really appreciate that and it helps the show. Today, we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week. Welcome back to the program friend of the show and today's co-host: Seattle political reporter, editor of PubliCola and author of Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse, and Recovery, Erica Barnett. Erica Barnett: [00:00:53] Thanks, Crystal. Great to be here. Crystal Fincher: [00:00:55] Great to have you back. So we've had a little bit of news this week. When we talked last Friday with you folks - when I was talking with Marcus Harrison Green - news about a whistleblower complaint that had been filed had just broke about 12 hours before. And we were just beginning to learn about the details of the news of, evidently, missing texts from the mayor's office and intentionally not being responsive to public records requests. We've since learned a lot more about the details behind those missing texts. And it looks like this was an intentional action and very problematic. What have we learned about this? Erica Barnett: [00:01:40] Well, a couple things since last week and one thing that was reported by the Seattle Times, I believe, just yesterday. Both of the records request officers who filed this whistleblower complaint initially are no longer working for the mayor's office. One stepped down and the other was put on administrative leave in an action that many are interpreting as retaliatory. Sure looks that way to me. And, I mean, the basics are that 10 months of texts from, to and from - the mayor herself, Mayor Durkan herself, the Fire Chief Harold Scoggins, and then Police Chief Carman Best - disappeared. And the mayor's office is saying that it was because of some sort of technical glitch. Those 10 months, of course, included the period of protest, the period when the East Precinct was abandoned by the Seattle Police Department, and just probably the biggest, you know, news weeks of last year. There are no texts available from any of those really relevant and involved public officials for that period. Crystal Fincher: [00:02:50] Well, and this is just mind-boggling. One, the length of time that this covers. And two, this actually looks like it's an intentional action. It is hard to see how this wasn't an intentional hiding or destruction of records. Jenny Durkan's a former US Attorney. She's intimately familiar with the law and with requirements for preserving communications and evidence. This is not someone who's a novice and had also been in a - I don't know how to characterize it - a warning action in relation to another issue that her office had - even had to take a refresher course on disclosures. What in the world! She knows how to maintain this. And it came out that she had changed a setting, or setting on her city-issued phone was set to destroy texts after one month. And that's not the default setting. You have to change that setting. Erica Barnett: [00:03:52] I don't even know how to do that, to be honest. I mean, I have texts going back to, you know, 2016 on my phone, which I probably got in 2016. So I - yeah, that is something that takes some doing. Crystal Fincher: [00:04:05] Yeah. So someone who should be more knowledgeable than just about anyone else from her profession and certainly touted her skills and qualifications when running for office - now wants us to believe that she doesn't know that she somehow accidentally, very coincidentally, somehow changed the setting on the phone to destroy texts after a month that she knew needed to be maintained. And now we're just supposed to not question, and deal with the aftermath, and let her seemingly retaliate against employees who brought this to light - that this is actually potentially a crime. Erica Barnett: [00:04:47] Yeah, it's potentially a felony to destroy this information and what's also - I mean, first of all, the issue of not destroying communications has been around for a very long time. I covered it in 2003 with emails from the City Council and that was addressed at the time. There is ample training at the City. I mean, the lowest level city employee knows you don't just go around deleting your text messages and deleting your emails. But what's really kind of frustrating about this for, from a media perspective, is the Seattle Times can probably sue for these records if they want to because they have, compared to everybody else, fairly infinite resources - they've got lawyers. But if they don't do that, we're just - I certainly can't sue for all the texts that I was denied over the years, because it costs money and because I don't have any standing to demand them at this point. And that is true of any member of the public, who sought messages during that time period too, which I'm sure there are many, because there was tons of speculation about who shut down the East Precinct, who gave orders to do various things - tear gas, blast balls - was this coming directly from the top? And all that information is, as it pertains to the mayor's phone, is gone. And the only way to really get it is a subpoena in a lawsuit at this point, if I'm not mistaken. I mean, unless they were retained somewhere at the City level, and unless the mayor's office decides to release them right now. So the problem - our records law is very strong, but it's also very fragile, because it depends on, to a certain extent, the goodwill of people who are obliged to follow it. And if they decide not to follow it, it takes some doing to force them to do so. Crystal Fincher: [00:06:46] It does. And you bring up, with this issue of accountability - okay, there is a law, there is potentially a felony that's been committed. Do we care to look into it? Is there a method for that? We have to rely on a private entity to bring a lawsuit, as you said it appears at this time, in order to do that. Or we have to rely on other people within the system to hold them accountable. Now, whistleblowers certainly did their part. We appreciate them standing up for a process and the rule of law and saying, Hey, we're aware of something that is potentially illegal and wrong, and we want to do this. We hope they are protected against retaliation. It is very concerning that one of them has been placed on administrative leave. And that certainly is consistent with other reports that we've heard from employees, including one covered in a KUOW report this past week about the participatory budgeting process, where other employees have raised an alarm saying, Hey, we feel pressure to go along with a program and processes and dictates from the mayor's office that we feel are misrepresenting our work or that are not completely forthright and honest. And if we don't go along, we are afraid of retaliation. We've heard that theme, we've seen people leave. You even covered some of that - I was reading one of your Twitter threads talking about how some people feel like they don't have the freedom or ability to do their jobs in communications roles. And they feel like there's no longer a place for them, because they are not able to, in good conscience, or to do their jobs. Erica Barnett: [00:08:34] Well, yeah, and they - I mean, the thing with the communications folks is everything from the very beginning - everything has had to be micromanaged by this mayor's office. And so just the Twitter thread you're referring to - just getting the absolute most basic or technical information from departments has required this long process where everything has to go through several staffers at the mayor's office, several kind of comms people - who pretty it up and doctor it up and make it tell a positive story, no matter what it is. I mean, even just the most mundane stuff that I asked for. And so you get these emails back that are in like five different fonts, 'cause they've gone through five different people. Well, it's like, well, can I just have the answer to my question? 'Cause all I actually wanted to know is - what is the length of this bike lane or whatever it may be. And yeah, it's been - I mean, it would almost be comical, except that it's frustrating because a lot of times you don't actually get the answer that you were originally asking for 'cause everything has to be processed through so many layers of people. Crystal Fincher: [00:09:43] Yeah, and I think it's important for people to know, who may not be familiar with the process of getting information from government, that that is not normal. That is not usual. And that is not just a result of, Oh, this is just a different administration and people are unhappy with the policies, so they're finding things to nitpick about. This was not the case with Murray or with McGinn or with - Erica Barnett: [00:10:08] Or even Nickels. Yeah, even though Nickels had a very tight shop - you could call the deputy mayor and the deputy mayor would call you back. That is not the case for me. I mean, I'm sure it's certainly the case for the Seattle Times, which has given, frankly, over the years, quite a lot of flattering coverage to the mayor. They're doing great work as well, but there's a question of access. And that access just simply does not exist for the likes of me, or for adversarial media in general. Crystal Fincher: [00:10:40] Right. And just the control of information from departments where - before you could call up SDOT and ask a question, a fairly basic question, "Hey, why are we doing this change on this street?" and get an answer. Where now, all of that kind of communication is routed through the mayor's office. They have been told not to answer. That that answer - that that question needs to go to the mayor's office and only they can answer. And who they choose to answer and how they choose to answer has been completely inconsistent. And the answers that they give have not always been the truth. And now, as we are uncovering more, seems like they were hiding a lot of information and it's certainly concerning. Then also concerning is - so what happens now? And so we have seen some candidates - one in particular, Jessyn Farrell, came out with a statement, "Hey, you know what, this basically, this - we need to elect a mayor who will follow the rules. And so, we need to elect someone like me, who will just follow the rules." And that was met with a lot of people saying, "Hey, with all due respect, it is great. We definitely want to elect someone who will follow the rules, but we want people, we want the policy and the rules to actually mean something. So if someone breaks them, the answer isn't just to say, 'Aw, man, that's really sad. I guess we have to go with someone else.' It's to hold that person accountable. So what are we going to do with Durkan? Are you calling for her resignation or not? What is the role of accountability?" And then even from the Council perspective, I believe, Council President Lorena González has talked about creating a new office or system to handle disclosures and to wrap more - I say bureaucracy and sometimes that has a negative connotation - but to stand up an administrative authority to more independently handle disclosures. Which may turn out to be great - I am not intimately familiar with those details yet. I'm sure we'll have more, but a lot of people said, "That's well and fine, but what are we doing with Durkan? Are you calling for her resignation? How are we holding Durkan accountable for breaking these rules?" And it just seemed like people skipped over that fact. And like we just really haven't talked about - a felony was potentially committed in the mayor's office. This actually is not a partisan issue at all, aside from the fact that most people in Seattle identify as Democrats. This is just a really simple process. Anyone who has worked in government, been adjacent to government, understands how overt the disclosure process and awareness is. Some people who may be further away from this, they're like, "Big deal. I delete texts all the time. Like how - why is someone going to save a text that's years old? I have deleted mine." When the culture of government is the preservation of records and being hyper-aware that everything that is going on is potentially disclosable to the public. And frankly, people are very careful about what they say in emails and texts because of that. Because they're so aware of that. So to act like that's not a big deal - she may not have known, changed a setting accidentally - just flies in the face of logic and reason, and is not believable at all. And it's really concerning - we were making national news daily during that time - for decisions that were made and not having questions and orders given to SPD, that were then seemingly ignored, and asked, "Hey, why - if you said don't use tear gas and then they're using tear gas. And you're just like, 'I don't know. Are they - are they using tear - I don't know what's happening.'" We have to be able to hold our leaders accountable for how they govern. This is a major element of how we make that possible. And to intentionally subvert that - I really do think there needs to be real questions. Is this something that other people who are candidates or who were on the City Council - do they feel like this is worthy of holding someone accountable? Do we not? I think - Erica Barnett: [00:14:52] Yeah. Crystal Fincher: [00:14:52] - we just saw Trump and the problem with not holding people accountable. Erica Barnett: [00:14:55] Well, and what is so bad about this - the mayor is not running for reelection. I think there is - it's debatable whether this is a resignation-level offense. That's pretty - if indeed a felony was committed and all of that. But beyond that - first of all, accountability means owning up to what you did. And, personally, I'll just say - my personal opinion is, I'm not calling, just personally, for the mayor to resign. I think she should say what happened and be honest about it, instead of sort of giving all these defensive responses, frankly, about how they didn't do anything wrong and it was all an accident, because that is not believable. But in a long-term sense, it really speaks to public trust of institutions and of government, and of city government in particular, when you just have no idea if the government is being honest with you. And I am one of those people - I just somewhat naively believed that public disclosure officers - well actually, this part I don't think is naive - public disclosure officers generally are very interested in providing you the information. And as we've seen with these whistleblowers, they were dogged about it in a lot of cases, but ultimately elected officials and department heads and people in departments have the ability to hide stuff from the public. I mean, they just do. And so we can't go down that road where they feel empowered to do that. And we also can't go down the road where - even if this is a one-mayor kind of situation, the public just doesn't trust the City anymore to tell them the truth about things. And I think that is the long-term risk here - is once Durkan's out of office in a few months, that the public simply doesn't believe that the mayor and City Council are accountable and are telling them the truth about what's going on at the City. Crystal Fincher: [00:17:02] Yeah, I would agree with that. And whether or not Durkan resigns or people call for that, I think that there is much more of a responsibility and obligation that the City has to get to these texts, to exhaust every option, and to have or hire an independent entity who is capable of getting at this, and not to force a private entity to sue - the Times could do it, a number of the TV stations could probably do it, or consortium of them. If it comes down to that, I hope that would be the case and people would pursue that action. It seems like there is - that's a very worthy effort and there's a lot of newsworthy information and a lot of questions that would be answered by getting access to those texts. But I do think that the city has an obligation to get to the bottom of this, and we can't skip over that and start working on a new bureaucracy without first saying, How do we actually address this problem? How do we look at how existing policies are contributing to this problem or not? Maybe the issue is that there just is not enough of an incentive or disincentive to not hide information. And people just don't feel like there's any penalty for that. So why not do it? Let's make it painful if someone's going to do that - politically, policy-wise sanctioned painful, not physically painful. These days I always feel the need to clarify that. But certainly we'll be continuing to pay attention to this - quite the issue, quite the conundrum that the City finds itself in. And I just hope we can get to these texts and get the answers to these big questions that we've been asking for a year now and still don't have an answer to. Another issue in the City and that we're facing overall, I guess, is two questions. One, reopening the state. And then, the status of vaccine and vaccine incentives. And we're at the point now where vaccine supply is appearing to exceed demand, but that doesn't mean that there is no demand. And that doesn't mean that everyone is still vaccinated. There are lots of people who are not fully vaccinated, still looking for shots. We're just on the front end of having drop-in and pop-up clinics, which a lot of people need - who can't schedule around a job, or need childcare, and need more flexibility in when they can make it to get vaccinated - that certainly has been a barrier for people I know. So we're still making our way through this, but there's also a significant portion of the population who is hesitant to get a vaccine for one reason or another. And the use of incentives, whether it's a free Krispy Kreme donut, or a free beer, or some free tickets, has become popular, has been in some people's view effective. A lot of people are like, "Hey, whatever it takes to get someone to take a vaccine, let's do it." You have looked at this and thought about this and it's like, are we - is this the most productive way to go about this? How have you viewed this? Erica Barnett: [00:20:23] Well, look. I certainly agree. I mean, if the difference between somebody not getting a vaccine and getting a vaccine is a beer for a dollar, which I think is about the best that breweries can offer because of some obscure liquor law or other, I mean, okay. But to me - is that a rational - first of all, is that a rational response to a public health emergency, but also, Yeah, my reaction to it, just kind of emotionally and as a person and as a citizen of a society, is like, Dude, you don't have to get a cookie when you go to the dentist's office. You don't have to - you don't demand free tickets to a Mariners game for getting your annual checkup. And this is like, this is literally just basic healthcare. It's getting your vaccine the same way you get your flu shot hopefully every year. And it's also benefiting all the people around you. So I personally traveled, drove down to Federal Way - I'm very fortunate 'cause I work my own hours and I could afford to spend the time - drove down to Federal Way, got my first shot 'cause it was hard to get shots at the time. It got a little easier by the time I got my second one. But I don't think we should encourage, in general, a culture where we have to pat people on the head and call them a good boy to do the most basic - to brush their teeth essentially. I mean, that said, sure, if ice cream gets you out - great. I think that the fact that we live in a society, and the fact that you don't want to die, and you don't want your grandmother to die, and you don't want strangers to die, and maybe strangers who can't get the vaccine for various health reasons - that should be incentive enough. And the idea - it's a minor thing, ultimately. Because it's fine - if Husky Deli wants to give away ice cream, go for it. But I find it kind of silly and disheartening that that's apparently what it takes for people to do their basic civic duty. Crystal Fincher: [00:22:35] Yeah. I mean, I'm looking at this and ideally, absolutely. But what should be and what is are two very, very different things, in the same way that, you know, it's like, Hey, just like you go to the dentist. I think you might be surprised by how many people don't go to the dentist for a variety of reasons. Erica Barnett: [00:22:54] Sure. Crystal Fincher: [00:22:54] Some of it is just, Uh, I just haven't gotten around to it. Some of it is cost and access. Some of it is they had very painful experience. Like there's a lot that goes into how people interact, specifically with the healthcare system. And for a lot of things, there are a lot of - it seems like civic duty in one area, absolutely. And I'm fully vaccinated. I participated in a vaccine trial that I'm still in. And so clearly I would hope that people would do that. But I also understand that some people have not - a significant percentage of the population has not. And given that this is a public health issue, and we are relying on most people to do it, and our safety is in numbers, and that we're having trouble with those numbers, that we are at the point where anything helps because that is actually making the rest of us safer. And I also want to acknowledge, we look a lot at individual actions. And as a society, I think we are conditioned to look at an individual and how their actions impact others. But I think that we are - we cannot overlook how poorly as a public health administration and bureaucracy overall, most things about this pandemic - the vaccine, masking, you name it - have been communicated. Erica Barnett: [00:24:21] For sure. Crystal Fincher: [00:24:22] They've done a poor job overall. And we know that impacts how people perceive this. We know that, Hey, this is with the mRNA vaccine - it's been touted in news coverage as, Hey, this is brand new and this is the fastest ever, which if that is not messaged consistently and carefully, and people are not consistently educated, and messaging is very consistent and strong - that people are going to think, Oh, this is a brand new vaccine that, you know, just was rushed out. Why should I take this? Erica Barnett: [00:24:51] But here's the thing. I feel like - what I would really love to do is just have an exit interview at all of these places where you go to a brewery where people are getting vaccinated, then sitting around for a couple of hours and drinking a beer, and ask them why they didn't want to get vaccinated before. And my guess - this is just a hypothesis that I would love to test - is that they would not say it's because I am low-income and I didn't have, or I have a job that didn't grant me access to, during regular working hours, I couldn't get out to get the vaccine. Or like I had a problem with an mRNA vaccine, and then I got this beer and decided it was okay. I mean, I just wonder, and I really wanna know - who it is that is responding to an incentive that is worth a few dollars. And who is still not getting vaccinated for all these other reasons that you mentioned that are, that I totally get. But I just think if you're going to drive out of your way in the middle of the day to go get an ice cream, and wait in the line, and sit and eat the ice cream, like, I don't know. I would be curious to know if all of the sort of disadvantage-related demographic issues and whatever apply in that case. Or is it a bunch of guys who don't like to get a shot because they've never kind of been forced to do things like that in their life. I don't know. I don't know. It's just my hypothesis is that it is not, by and large, people who lack access or information. Crystal Fincher: [00:26:33] Yeah.... Erica Barnett: [00:26:34] I could be totally wrong. Crystal Fincher: [00:26:35] I - you know, I don't know that it's access, especially now that we are providing wider access. I think that there certainly are - have been issues around people's work, and childcare, and just being able to get there at times that certainly appointments were a hindrance to. And there has been some data collected on that elsewhere. I think the biggest issue that we have is vaccine hesitancy and people are trying to add an incentive to say, Okay, some people are hesitant because they're just - they just are unsure that this is safe for whatever reason. I think that there is a lot of information that people can access to be clear, to have confidence for that. The groups that have been tested - it is widely and broadly looked at as safe, certainly in comparison to getting COVID - that taking the vaccine seems like a much safer route to go than getting COVID. But I also think that there's a number of people and there has been, at least covered in some study of this, and particularly talking about among healthcare workers who were hesitant initially to get the vaccine - that after seeing a number of people get it, you know, now people usually have friends and family members who they've seen get it. They haven't keeled over. And, you know, like we aren't all turning into 5G robots and tauntauns - that people are okay. So now it's just like an extra kick and incentive to get it out. Is that getting most people over the hump? I don't know. I always think it's useful to do exit interviews and to collect data, so I hope that's happening everywhere regardless. I also understand that resources are an issue in that. And so who has the ability to stand that up and collect that in a reliable way is always a question of funding and capacity, but I don't have a problem with it. If we're throwing that on, just trying to do anything it takes to get more people vaccinated - particularly after the news that we just got from the CDC yesterday, that not only are they saying, Eh, you don't need masks anymore in public in outdoor spaces if you are vaccinated. But hey, indoor spaces - if you've been vaccinated, most indoor spaces were also fine. And guidance rapidly changing for that also. And what that means in terms of the potential for the spread of the virus now, especially since we still have variants going around. We are still in a pandemic, we're making our way out of it, but we're still in one. So it'll be interesting to see how this proceeds. I think you bring up some good points and like - it is a shame that we are here. Erica Barnett: [00:29:15] Yeah, and I just very quickly, I think this also might be a bit of a hangover from all the sort of stories about, Well, why do people vote for Trump? I don't know. Let's go interview 900 more people in the Midwest. And it's like, well, ultimately, I mean, we have an answer. We have answers to this question. We don't need to keep asking it. And we know why some people don't get the vaccine and it's because they believe in 5G and because they think it's - I mean, my parents will not get the vaccine because they think it's doing something to their DNA. And so I know people who are not, in fact most of my family, is not getting vaccinated for various reasons. And it's - so this is very close to home for me, but it's also the case that I don't ask them about it anymore. There's no incentive that's going to get a certain percentage of the population to vaccinate. And so I, so I feel like it's a little bit like asking Trump voters why they voted for Trump. I mean, we know why most people voted for Trump and there's people on the margins that we can convince otherwise and we can get to get vaccinated. And I agree with you. I mean, ultimately any incentive is fine. I just, I just personally find it a little bit silly. Crystal Fincher: [00:30:24] I got it. And I appreciate the conversation and your perspective. I thank all of you for listening to Hacks and Wonks on this Friday, May 14th, 2021. The producer of Hacks and Wonks is Lisl Stadler and our wonderful co-host today was Seattle political reporter and founder of PubliCola,. Erica Barnett. You can find Erica on Twitter @ericacbarnett, that's Erica with a C and on publicola.com. You can buy her book Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse, and Recovery. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, spelled f-i-n-c-h-f-r-i-i. And now you can follow Hacks and Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts. Just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar, be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our mid-week show delivered to your podcast feed. While you're there, leave a review, it really helps us out. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in and we'll talk to you next time.

This week Marcus Harrison Green, publisher of the South Seattle Emerald and columnist for the Seattle Times, joins Crystal to discuss the whistleblower revelation that Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan's office intentionally mishandled public records requests, Deputy Mayor Casey Sixkiller's announcement that he's running for mayor and trying to position himself as an outsider, and the one thing everyone seems to agree on: the King County Sheriff Mitzi Johanknecht should resign. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's guest, Marcus Harrison Green, at @mhgreen3000. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources: “Public records requests mishandled after Seattle mayor's texts went missing, whistleblower investigation finds” by Daniel Beekman: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/public-records-requests-were-mishandled-after-seattle-mayors-texts-went-missing-whistleblower-investigation-finds/ “Deputy Mayor Sixkiller Joins Crowded Mayoral Race; Police Union Joins Calls for Sheriff's Resignation” from Publicola: https://publicola.com/2021/05/04/deputy-mayor-sixkiller-joins-crowded-mayoral-race-police-union-calls-for-sheriffs-resignation/ “King County Police Officers Guild calls for Sheriff Johanknecht to resign” by Chris Daniels: https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/king-county-police-officers-guild-calls-for-sheriff-johanknecht-to-resign/281-d4361f0a-0df9-4bf4-8d92-d49f7b123289   Transcription: Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] Welcome to Hacks and Wonks. I'm your host, Crystal Fincher. On this show, we talk with political hacks and policy wonks to gather insight into state and local politics and policy through the lens of those doing the work and provide behind-the-scenes perspectives on politics in our state. For full transcripts and resources referenced in the show you can go to officialhacksandwonks.com and view our episode notes. Today we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a guest cohost. Welcome to the program today's co-host publisher of the South Seattle Emerald and columnist with the Seattle Times, Marcus Harrison Green. Marcus Harrison Green: [00:00:49] Hi, thank you for having me here. Crystal Fincher: [00:00:51] Love having you back - always love having you on the show. I, you know - there's a few things that we could talk about this week. I guess, starting out - I wanted to talk about news that broke yesterday about Jenny Durkan and the mayor's office - and public records requests that were handled in an inappropriate way. And the whistle was actually blown by public records employees in the City. Have you had the chance to catch up on this at all? Marcus Harrison Green: [00:01:25] I have not, unfortunately - it has been quite a hectic week, but, I'm definitely waiting with bated breath to see what else comes across out of this so - Crystal Fincher: [00:01:37] Yeah, this was a story by David Beekman of the Seattle Times - we'll put the link in the show notes along with others, but her office mishandled several public records requests. And after discovering about 10 months of Durkan's text messages were missing.  And just as a kind of recap for people in public office, what people are doing with taxpayer money on the public dime as our elected representatives and public servants is subject to view by the public. And this is how we hold our people in power accountable, our elected officials accountable. This is how we understand what work they're doing and to see if we're getting our money's worth, if they're following laws. It really is a tool of information and accountability - and it's routine for anyone in the public, but quite often members of the media will submit public disclosure requests saying, Hey, we would like to see correspondence about a certain subject involving the mayor or from peoples in the mayor's office. And so if you specify what the subject is, who you're looking to hear from it from, the City or any public entity is responsible for turning over the information requested. Sometimes that can take a long time, sometimes there is a fee attached to that, but basically it is the law that those are public records and whether it is something on the computer - I sound so old, something on the computer - whether it's written communication or a text message - if it is discussing City business, regardless of the medium, it is a public document and can be requested. Everyone in government knows this. Everyone adjacent to government knows this. So this isn't a surprise or a secret. And there are people employed and this is their job - it's to process these requests, to find and track down all of the documents and communications that apply, and to give those to the requested parties. Now, sometimes there's information that is sensitive or can be redacted. So sometimes we get documentation that has stuff blotted out, or they say they can't turn it over for privacy or one of the acceptable exemption reasons. But these communications did not fall under that. And it looks like they were playing really fast and loose with terminology to hide, or to avoid turning over communications. And so it just is one more thing on the very long list of behavior from the mayor's office that doesn't just look inappropriate, shortsighted, and unethical, but in this situation also illegal - and is troubling. Have you dealt with public records requests in your time reporting and writing? Marcus Harrison Green: [00:04:33] I certainly have. I mean, it's - this has been a huge issue, I just say in general, in terms of getting full transparency from local government. I mean, obviously there's issues at the federal government level, but that's a whole 'nother story. But certainly I, with local government, whether it's been the mayor's office, governor's office, or the school board. And I just think - at end of the day, right? These folks work for us, they're paid by us, and everything else. And should obviously be accountable to us, and a part of the way that they are accountable to the public that they at least ostensibly serve, right, is to be fully transparent and transparent in a very timely manner when it comes to public records requests. And unfortunately it appears that this has not been the case and that it is - it seems like it could potentially have deliberately not been the case. Crystal Fincher: [00:05:40] Yeah, it is. And it looks very deliberate. And just to be clear, the article says that the allegation is that the mayor's legal counsel, Michelle Chen, engaged in improper governmental action when she excluded Durkan's missing texts from certain requests. And again, these are - this is according to a whistleblower complaint, meaning that there are people in this process - there are people who were working for the City and who are basically filing a report and a complaint of misconduct against their employer. And so there are certain protections provided to whistleblowers. This is another way that we hold people in power accountable. We have to give people who call out illegal activity protection from retaliation, intimidation, and harassment. Otherwise, people in power could always intimidate people into being silent. That's still an overarching dynamic, but in specific situations, definitely those that involve illegal activity - there are now and have been laws and protections in place for people in the process who are specifically calling out illegal behavior of their superiors and their workplace. And so this is a whistleblower action. And so saying that they hid the existence of those texts, that they diverge from best practices when they wouldn't inform requesters of those texts. And again, this is a city issued phone, so it's not - this is not a gray area of they did not know that this should have been subject to disclosure. This is a public asset, talking about public business - you know, no ambiguity there. They just decided to hide it and also play fast and loose with terminology saying that, You know, well, communications in the mayor's office don't necessarily apply to the mayor. And providing - recreate a text - only to requesters who asked for Durkan's communication specifically, and not those who asked for mayor's office communications - obviously, mayor's office communications do include the mayor. They decided to act like they didn't, and only to requesters who asked for communications as opposed to correspondence. Correspondence - you know, according to most common terminology, is included in communications, but just - it seems like this office has bent over backwards to try and skirt rules and to get around issues. And it's like, if you would just apply that same effort to just doing the thing that you should be doing, or that you actually promised you would do, you could get that done. But they seem to be working so hard not to - it is just another confounding thing. So I'm certainly interested in following this reporting by Daniel Beekman at the Times to see how this unfolds and to see if there is accountability tied to this. One thing that is not particularly encouraging is that there doesn't really seem to be a method for accountability in this process. That they will just have to figure out how to do better, which is just another thing that I think the public is consistently frustrated about. We watch blatant, unethical behavior, or illegal behavior, and there just doesn't seem to be any accountability attached to it. So frustrating. But we will see.  I also think it's notable how many people from inside this administration are speaking out against it. People who are currently inside, or who were inside and subsequently left, it seems like there are more people than average who seem to be very dissatisfied with operations, practices, and just the general direction that this mayor's office has taken. Even from management, to communication, to you name it, people seem to have an issue with it.  Not fun, but I guess that leads into the other piece of news this week. The deputy mayor announced for mayor this week, Casey Sixkiller. What is your view on his announcement and how do you think that's going to change the dimensions of the race? Marcus Harrison Green: [00:10:28] I don't know if it will change - this announcement will change too much, too many of the dimensions of the race to be quite honest with you. It just seems that it's - obviously, he's been deputy mayor so he has, for the most part, tracks with obviously, with what Durkan had - you know, the Durkan administration, and her actions, and agenda, and so forth. And I think he'll obviously continue to do so. I mean, I know he is sort of trying to present himself as somewhat of an outsider, but it's hard to do when you've been inside for so long. I think you see it as - you'll be seen, rightfully so, as a very status quo establishment candidate. I don't think that they're - though although I know that he did say that he was going to, as a person of color, he was going to try to govern as such. So, or excuse me - allow it to influence his decisions, I believe is what he actually said. That being said, right, I mean, it's - he's been deputy mayor for this long, I think you would - if him as a person of color, if that was his guide in governing, I'm not sure that bodes too well necessarily for the rest of the City here and folks of color. So anyway. Crystal Fincher: [00:11:53] I mean, there seems to be one issue after another that has come out of the mayor's office. As senior leadership in the mayor's office, it certainly is interesting to hear his take on how he would run in this situation. I think it's also interesting, as you said, trying to paint himself as an outsider - that seems to be the buzzword. And in the same way - you know, I always crack up when you see these, you know, 30, 20-30 year Republican incumbents be like, I'm an outsider. I'm like, You're the insider-iest insider that there could possibly be. You are the status quo. And it reminds me of this situation, in that you are the deputy chief of operations, deputy mayor of operations here - have you know, homelessness is in his portfolio and handling that.  I think that there is universal agreement that we have not made the progress - one, that was promised in this administration. So just according to their metric and what they campaigned on and laid out - that wasn't achieved. And to be fair, Jenny Durkan is the mayor. He is not the mayor. So, it will be interesting to hear where he disagrees with the mayor. If there is a point where he would have differed in the implementation, or in the handling, or even in relationships with people within departments, departmental leadership, and the Council - that will be really illuminating to hear. Because what we have heard from him so far has been obviously, complete consistency with Mayor Durkan. And continued challenges - one of the biggest recent ones about whether or not to take FEMA money to help reimburse the costs of sheltering people without homes. So this'll be really interesting, but I think the outsider label - I don't know that I would have attempted to even try that. It actually seems like one of those where it's like - Marcus Harrison Green: [00:14:05] You call it false advertising, right? I mean, God. Crystal Fincher: [00:14:06] Oh yeah, like that - it doesn't quite ring true and it's not quite credible. And maybe speaking about a specific issue might be a little bit more on the nose. In terms of the race, I think this is an interesting dynamic. I actually - this is me as an outsider, I'm not working with any of the mayoral candidates. I'm not doing any of that. So I can just look at this as a spectator. It's been interesting, with the mayoral race, the dynamics of Lorena González being on the Council and being another insider, who - it's hard to say that Lorena is an outsider coming from, as the president of the council. But a lot of people reading every frustration that they have with anything that's happened in government with someone on the inside - Well, they're an incumbent, therefore we want a change. And they're on the inside, so we want a change. Certainly Lorena González is an insider on the Council perspective, being the Council President - and a lot of people are running against what the status quo is. But because she was the only insider in the race in that kind of position - very visible and policymaking - it made the status quo seem like what - anything that happened.  But what was happening from the council perspective is very different than what was happening from the mayor's office. And you have two very different perspectives. So if someone is unhappy with the direction that things are going in city government - they can be unhappy with the general direction of things, but be pretty happy with members of the council. Or conversely, be pretty happy with the direction of the mayor, because the council and the mayor have not seen eye to eye on several issues. There have been - Council passed policy, the mayor's vetoed it, Council has overwritten that veto - more than one occasion. And so you can't say that city government is unified and if you're unhappy about an issue, then automatically voting against Lorena González would make you happy. Maybe that would make you more unhappy. Maybe it would actually make you happy. But it's just not as clean of a conversation. It goes beyond insider and outsider, and gets more to policy. And then there is someone in the race who is going to be defending the Durkan position, because a lot of people have been, frankly, running counter to what the mayor's office has done in some situations. So it's going to be - go ahead. Marcus Harrison Green: [00:16:41] I was going to say, yeah, I mean, I think you have it. Sixkiller acts as a proxy, essentially, for Durkan and so now, I think you have a "villain" for central casting that some other folks can now point to and say, Oh, well this is Durkan - you know, essentially Durkan Lite, or Durkan with, in sheep's clothing, so to speak. And if you didn't like anything that Durkan did, Well, hey. Then why in the world would you go for him? Why don't you go for me? And so at the very least, even if you're not high up on another candidate, at the very least you can say, Well, you want to vote for more of the same, or you want to at least try something different. I'm not promising you more of the same. And so, I think like you said, it does maybe potentially boosts the prospects of someone like a Lorena González, or someone else who is certainly trying to put themselves in opposition to the Durkan administration. Crystal Fincher: [00:17:34] Yeah. Yeah, I think so. And I think there are going to be some people who are happy to hear Durkan administration policies being vigorously defended. There are certainly people who agree with the direction that things have gone, or who feel like the Council has been on the wrong track, and who agree more with the mayor. But it's really - to me, this is just going to be really interesting. And I'm going to be - interesting to see how fundraising shapes up, how this impacts where people affiliated with the business community - and the Chamber donations that are not going to be coming from the Chamber, but certainly going to be there and with other names plastered on them. That's going to be interesting to see how that turns out.  And where endorsements go. Like the Times. Lots of people, you know - we were having a conversation about this. I've had several conversations with people about where's The Times going to go, where is people in the business community going to go? And that's an open question. I mean, we've heard people thinking that Jessyn Farrell was angling for that, certainly Casey Sixkiller, Bruce Harrell - are all names thrown about - can they make it? And I think people are trying to see who's going to take a lead, or who feels like they're taking a lead, and see if they can hop on a winning horse. Marcus Harrison Green: [00:19:11] Right. And you got to factor in too, right? Especially as it comes to the primary with endorsements - which is, you know, typically primary is the low turnout race, because it happens in August. It's also the fact that this will be the first summer that's post-pandemic and more folks will be - it's predicted that more folks will be going out and traveling and so forth in August. And just getting out of the confinement of the geographic location of Seattle for a little while. And so I think endorsements like the Seattle Times, and to a certain extent, The Stranger, obviously, may have even more outsize weight than they've had in previous years. And I'll say this - I think the three previous mayoral elections have had - it has pretty much ponied up the Seattle Times endorsee versus The Stranger endorsee. And I don't have any reason to think that that won't be the case again this go around. And so, it should be interesting to see, in terms of jockeying for endorsements and so forth, and also jockeying for the narrative, right? What is the narrative that is going to stick to a particular candidate - insider outsider, policy person versus I-feel-your-pain person. And we'll see, I mean, it's somewhat intriguing, especially with this field - how can you distinguish and differentiate yourself? And I quite frankly, I don't know if anybody has truly done that at this point. I mean, I - Crystal Fincher: [00:20:49] I don't think so yet. Marcus Harrison Green: [00:20:50] Yeah. I don't know what your gauge is on like the enthusiasm factor, but I just don't see it out here. It just doesn't seem that there's a ton of people who are super enthused about things. Crystal Fincher: [00:21:00] No, I'm with you. I don't think there has been a big distinction or delineation yet. I think that is certainly what a lot of candidates are trying to figure out how to do - for several different positions. But it's also this weird time in that campaigns kind of start playing an insider game and then they finish with the outsider game. So right now people are chasing endorsements and chasing fundraising - certainly chasing donations, chasing democracy vouchers. And there are people who are looking strong in that arena, in fundraising, and who may not look as strong in some of the coveted donations, but we will see - coveted endorsements, I meant. But it's going to be hard.  I think that as we progress in the next couple of months - give it a month or two, and people are going to be speaking to the public more consistently. There'll be some forums where people get a chance to see candidates speaking plainly on the issues and compare them side-by-side. I think it's really challenging to not be able to kind of stack them up one against the other and say, Okay, now I hear them all talking about the same thing at the same time. And this is who - I'm feeling it, this is who I'm definitely not. So, you know, we have yet to get there. But I think it's hard for people to look at this crop, much of this crop, and to really point out obvious differences between many of them, except in cases where someone coming from the Durkan administration is going to be different than someone coming from the Council and certainly a number of those pushing from the outside. So we'll see how it continues to unfold. Marcus Harrison Green: [00:22:48] Yeah, I - unfortunately, I don't see - it's my opinion that we need somewhat of a transformative candidate in this upcoming race. And I don't know if the field contains anyone like that. So - Crystal Fincher: [00:23:05] I think it might. And you know, jury's out - we will see. I think that what - that there is a space for someone to say, You know what? We've been talking about all this consensus, and working together, and being all happy, and waiting until everyone agrees. And you know what - everyone is just not going to agree. And as we sit here just trying - to be paralyzed, waiting for a consensus that is never going to happen - the problems keep getting worse. So, you know what I'm going to do. This is my plan. And when I get elected, regardless of whether or not everyone agrees, or if I'm catching criticism from people who lost and didn't get as many votes, I'm going to move in this direction. This is my plan. I'm going to implement it. It's okay if the Chamber doesn't agree. Or it's okay if this constituency doesn't agree. We're going to move forward and push forward and do this and not wait for everyone to be on board. You can count on me to make a difference - this is going to look different at the end of my term than it did at the beginning. You can count on me - if it doesn't, then I won't run again. Like hold me accountable, I'm holding myself accountable.  I feel there's a space for that - Hey, I'm ready to actually get something done. Not talk about it, not put a task force on it, not wait for people to agree, and have more meetings about it. We know what the issues are, there's been lots of data, lots of hand-wringing, and it's time for action. And I'm actually equipped to take action. I understand what needs to happen from a policy perspective. And I understand what needs to happen from an implementation perspective. Because I do think that we've seen some implementation challenges in this administration and the prior administration. Marcus Harrison Green: [00:24:51] Well, I just yeah, well I'll say this. I mean, I just wish somebody would actually articulate that - stick to that being the message the whole time. This is what I'm sticking to whenever I'm out doing my stump speech. And we talked about people trying to draw clear distinctions earlier. I mean, I think that would be - if somebody were to say that and stick to it the entire time, I think that would definitely draw a clear distinction in this particular field.  Crystal Fincher: [00:25:18] I think it would and I think there are some people who can credibly say that in this race, but we will see. It's gonna be really interesting. I think there's also the space for - this dynamic is different than the Council. The Council is a legislative body - you actually do need a majority of the members on the Council to move in a direction. You can't have one person say, I'm going to do it. I'm going to get this done. Because you can't get something done with one person on the Council. It's irresponsible to suggest that's possible. You can certainly have people lead and work with colleagues. And working with people in that capacity is also important, but the mayor, the buck stops there. That's an executive position. You do have the ability to command what is going to happen in many different areas. And to say, We are moving forward with this. I'm going to make this decision - we're going to move forward and that's just going to be how it's going to be. Marcus Harrison Green: [00:26:22] Oh, sorry. I was just gonna say, I mean, to your point, right? I mean, I think, you don't need everyone, you just need enough people, right? And I think we, unfortunately, we don't want to - a lot of our politicians have not made peace with just moving forward with enough. And we need to. Crystal Fincher: [00:26:41] Yeah. I have conversations with clients and people all the time, but the election is the mandate. If you were straight about who you are and what your plans are when you get elected - which is why it's honest to be transparent about who you are, it's prudent to be transparent about who you are when you're running - then you getting elected is the mandate to do exactly what you want to do. And you don't have to be afraid of, Well, maybe if I do this, people are not going to be happy. Like they elected you knowing full well that's who you were and were going to do. And so you get that done and then they're happy that they got what they voted for. It's when you get scared about doing what you were elected to do, that that creates the problems. So we will see what happens with that. But I am hoping to see someone really take the mantle and say, I'm ready to get something done. And it's okay if people don't agree. I'm ready to implement some strong leadership here. Marcus Harrison Green: [00:27:44] I wholeheartedly agree. And hopefully, that will happen. But as you said, we shall see. Crystal Fincher: [00:27:52] We shall see. Well, we certainly - as is always the case on these shows, we have a long list of things that we can talk about. And then we get into talking about something and then we run out of time. We were going to talk about everyone in the world wanting the King County Sheriff to resign. Marcus Harrison Green: [00:28:07] Yes. I mean, it grows by leaps and bounds every day. So. Crystal Fincher: [00:28:14] Yeah. I mean, yeah. Everyone from King County Councilmembers, both the King County Executive and his challenger Joe Nguyen, in addition to the King County Officers Guild. I mean, every - the call's coming from inside and outside of the house. Everyone is calling. Everyone is like, please leave. Please just go. Get out - we have no confidence. Marcus Harrison Green: [00:28:39] Yeah, one point of agreement on - it seems, you know, that we're able find these days. And so, there you go. Crystal Fincher: [00:28:45] Yes. Bi-partisan, united agreement on the fact that Sheriff must go. We thought we weren't going to unite around this, but here we are. Well, with that, we are at time today. We thank you for listening to Hacks and Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM this Friday, May 7th, 2021. Our chief audio engineer at KVRU is Maurice Jones Jr. The producer of Hacks and Wonks is Lisl Stadler. And our wonderful co-host today was South Seattle Emerald publisher and Seattle Times columnist Marcus Harrison Green. You can find Marcus on Twitter @mhgreen3000. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii (that's f-i-n-c-h-f-r-i-i) and now you can follow Hacks and Wonks for the full versions of the show on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts, just type “Hacks and Wonks” into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live show and our mid-week show sent directly to your podcast stream. We appreciate you continuing to tune in. We'll talk to you next time.

Show Notes On this week in review, Heather Weiner joins Crystal to analyze progressive revenue being passed in the state legislature, developments in fundraising in the Seattle mayoral race, and more on the “compassionate” charter amendment seeking to make encampment sweeps in Seattle more prevalent. 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, Heather Weiner, at @hlweiner. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources Learn more about the Working Families Tax Credit here: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/washington-lawmakers-passed-a-tax-credit-for-working-families-in-2008-is-this-the-year-they-finally-fund-it/  Track several of the bills mentioned in this show, including capital gains tax, here: https://crosscut.com/politics/2021/03/bills-were-tracking-2021-washington-state-legislature#taxes  Learn more about the background of the capital gains tax here: https://southseattleemerald.com/2021/03/29/democrats-include-capital-gains-tax-in-state-budget-proposals/  Read the Hugh Spitzer article mentioned by Heather in the show here: https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/whatever-your-opinion-about-a-state-capital-gains-tax-its-constitutional/  Get to know more about candidates in the Seattle mayor's race here: https://southseattleemerald.com/tag/2021-seattle-mayoral-race/  Learn more about the proposed chart amendment meant to address the homelessness crisis here: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattle-begins-to-digest-proposal-that-would-change-city-charter-to-address-homelessness/    Transcript Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm your host, Crystal Fincher. On this show, we talk with Policy Wonks and Political Hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy through the lens of those doing the work with behind the scenes perspectives on politics in our state. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. 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, and today's co-host, local political consultant, Heather Weiner. Heather Weiner: [00:00:44] Hi, Crystal. Crystal Fincher: [00:00:45] Hey. Heather Weiner: [00:00:46] Hey. Crystal Fincher: [00:00:47] So happy to have you back. Heather Weiner: [00:00:48] I'm so glad to be here. We have so much to talk about as usual. Crystal Fincher: [00:00:53] So much to talk about. And I guess the first thing that I'd love to talk about is... You know what? We're about to get some progressive revenue, it looks like. Capital gains in the legislature ... Heather Weiner: [00:01:03] Yeah - just minutes ago! Crystal Fincher: [00:01:04] ... is moving to the floor in the House. Heather Weiner: [00:01:07] Oh gosh, there's two really exciting things happening right now. So the first one is the legislature has finally included the Working Family Tax Credit in the budget process, which means that thousands and thousands of families in Washington state will get a cash infusion starting soon, coming from the state. And that'll be every year, not just during the pandemic. So that is great news. The second thing that's great news is we are taking a second step in balancing our regressive tax system and have just passed, out of the House committee - just minutes before this recording, hot off the presses - a capital gains tax. So that just passed out of committee 11-6, out of the House Finance Committee. That's Chair Noel Frame's committee. Go, Noel. Crystal Fincher: [00:01:59] Go, Noel. Heather Weiner: [00:01:59] And with Vice-chair April Berg, they have passed, really, a historic bill that will tax the extraordinary profits made by exceptionally rich people on the stock market. So this does not affect retirement accounts, it does not affect sales of small businesses, or any real estate at all. It's just people who are getting passive income from selling their stocks and bonds. And you would think, $250,000, wow. Who's selling $250,000 worth of stock? That are making $250,000 off of stock sales at a time. And the answer is not that many people, actually. It's really just the 0.02 per top 2%. Wait, 0.2 top percent. Am I saying that correctly? Crystal Fincher: [00:02:53] Yeah, not even 2 - 0.02 percent. Heather Weiner: [00:02:55] Yeah, right? So that's 2 out of 1,000 people who will be paying this tax. And it's just 7% of everything that they make over $250,000. Doesn't sound like that much, but we have enough billionaires in this state that that will raise $500 million for childcare and early learning every year from now going forward. And that's amazing. So Crystal, here's how the process works. The bill passed out of the Senate, came to the House, just passed with some amendments out of the House committee. The full House has to vote on it. It then goes back to the Senate and the Senate's got to decide if they're going to vote on the House version or not. It's all got to happen in 10 days. Only geeks like us - think this is exciting. Crystal Fincher: [00:03:44] We think it's super exciting. I think that there's a lot of people even beyond geeks. I mean, only the geeks are following along to every step in this process of the legislation moving, certainly, but my goodness, this is going to help a lot of people. And just thinking about, in this entire conversation about taxation, which is actually pretty popular - polls very well now, people are understanding, now more than they ever have, about just how wide the gap is between those who are regular working class. Whether it's lower, middle-class even upper middle class - completely different conversation, completely different universe, than the ultra wealthy, than the billionaires. And we have our fair share of billionaires here in Washington state because they have gotten off scot-free for so long. This is a great place, has been a great place for billionaires to live and to hoard wealth, and that they make so much money that just taxing 2 out of every 1,000 people can change lives of thousands of families in this state. That's what the stakes are in this conversation. Heather Weiner: [00:05:02] Right now, I'm looking at this spreadsheet with the Department of Revenue data. Okay. Okay. We will not spend the entire half an hour talking about this. [laughter, crosstalk] Nothing more sexy than talking about a spreadsheet you can't see. That's hot. But let me just tell you, look, according to the Department of Revenue, there are over 3.7 million households that file taxes every year. And of those 3.7 million, I'm going to tell you exactly how many people out of those 3.7 million are going to actually have to pay this. Are you ready? 8,000. Crystal Fincher: [00:05:43] Jeez. Heather Weiner: [00:05:44] 8,000. And you know how much money those folks make or have every year - just that's taxable? Crystal Fincher: [00:05:53] How much? Heather Weiner: [00:05:54] No, wait. $9.8 billion, just for those 8,000 people. Crystal Fincher: [00:06:04] Of taxable income? Annually? Heather Weiner: [00:06:08] Taxable capital gain income. [crosstalk] That's not money that they're making by selling gadgets or gidgets, right? Crystal Fincher: [00:06:19] Just money from capital gains. Okay. Heather Weiner: [00:06:20] It's just money from capital gains that they put into the stock market, where rich people trade money back and forth with each other. And then they take it off the top, right? It's basically gambling money, because when you're putting that much money into the stock market, what you're essentially doing is playing poker. And so, you're putting it in, you're trying to see if that bet works, and then you win off of that gambling money. So this is money that is [crosstalk] basically gambling winnings that we should be taxing. Crystal Fincher: [00:06:46] Every year, almost $10 billion of taxable capital gains income. Okay. Heather Weiner: [00:06:52] Okay. All right. All right. Let's not talk about this the whole time. Crystal Fincher: [00:06:55] That was a bigger number than I was prepared for. That was - I knew it was big. I did not know it was that big. That is obscenely huge. Heather Weiner: [00:07:03] Yeah, obscenely huge. Just off the stock market. Crystal Fincher: [00:07:08] Tax it, tax it. Tax it long and tax it hard. Tax it, Tax it. Heather Weiner: [00:07:12] Oh, you're saying the words to me that make me so excited. Let's tax it. Nearly every other state in the country, including our next door neighbors - Idaho, Oregon, California - all tax capital gains. It's time for us to do the same thing. And don't give me that BS argument about how it's an income tax. It's not an income tax. Income is something that you earn. This is from the sale of something. This is essentially a sales tax on the sale that you just did of your stocks. So it is an excise tax. It's a sales tax. There was a great op-ed written by Spitzer Hugh. Spitzer's a renowned constitutional lawyer here in the State of Washington, who said, "Not only is this going to pass a constitutional test, this is actually going to help a whole bunch of other issues." Now, here's what I think is going to happen next, Crystal. I think this is going to pass the House, going to pass the Senate, the governor's going to sign it. And then, conservatives - who want to protect the interests of these super wealthy, uber rich people - are going to try to do a referendum to repeal it. Just like what we saw with sex ed last year. So I think we may be in for a referendum fight. We'll see what happens. Crystal Fincher: [00:08:28] Bring it on. Heather Weiner: [00:08:29] Yeah. Bring it on. You tell people who are still struggling. You tell people who are still unemployed. You tell people who don't have childcare, whose children are being set back by the last year of not getting education, that you don't want to tax 8,000 super rich people in the State of Washington. Crystal Fincher: [00:08:49] Yeah. I think conservatives are - we saw it in last year's elections, I think, where for years and years and years, the kind of knee-jerk reaction to any revenue is - Taxes, taxes are bad. Say taxes, and it's scary, and people are going to run in the other direction. And that actually worked, but it worked too well for too long. And taxes actually fund things that collectively we need and have decided are valuable and necessary and beneficial to our entire society. And we robbed cities and states and localities of tax revenue for so long and created a situation where income is so unequal that we are seeing the effects of that and people have put together that, "Hey, this is actually what happens when not everyone is paying their fair share." When we ask people at the bottom to shoulder the burden for everyone, and then the work and all of the benefits just skyrocket to the people at the top and leave everyone else behind. People are not in the mood for it anymore. Public polling shows that's the case. Last year's elections show that that is the case. People are no longer afraid of the word tax. That's an old, tired boogeyman that does not play anymore. So - Heather Weiner: [00:10:04] No, and in fact, nationally, when now we are talking about Biden administration investing billions and billions of dollars into infrastructure, roads, broadband, repairing our bridges, trains, buses, transit, everything. People really support it. And then the support increases when you tell them the money is coming from big corporations and the super rich. So I think when it comes to childcare and early learning, I think that you say you want to cut funding for people to get childcare because you don't want to tax these 8,000 people? Bring it on. All right. So that's just one hot thing that's moving right now, Crystal. What else do you want to talk about? Crystal Fincher: [00:10:44] One hot thing. Well, look, let's talk about the Seattle mayor's race. Let's talk about what's going on in the realm of spending and fundraising. Heather Weiner: [00:10:54] Oh boy. Are you paying much attention to the Seattle mayor's race or you've got other things going on in your life? Crystal Fincher: [00:11:00] I am not working on anything in the mayor's race. I'm happily not working with anyone or on anything in the Seattle mayor's race. I'm just a bystander. I'm just watching, and looking, and learning, and listening, and doing all of that. I'm just over here in my corner, watching everyone. Heather Weiner: [00:11:19] Well, I'm excited to hear your take on these things, then, as an outsider. Because I am in it deep. I just can't quit Lorena González, I'm sorry. I just think she's fabulous. So full disclosure, I am doing a little bit of work for Lorena González who's running for mayor. So take everything that I say as the extremely biased point of view that it is. Nevertheless, I'll try to be still professional and honest when I say fundraising is very interesting right now. So if you'd just look at the plain SEC data and what's been filed - and filings just came in a couple of days ago - Colleen Echohawk is kicking ass. She's really out-fundraising everybody else right now. And she's doing that mostly through democracy vouchers, which is the way it was intended to work. As someone who helped pass democracy vouchers, I'm thrilled to see how many people are using it. Excuse me. Echohawk's numbers currently say that she is close to $300,000 and remember the cap for people taking democracy vouchers is $400,000 for the primaries. So she's about to max out. I think González - Lorena - is not that far behind her. She started a little bit about a month after Echohawk did. So, Echohawk got a little bit of a month lead there, going and picking up vouchers first - smart of her and González is not far behind her. Then there's Andrew Grant Houston, who has raised $137,000. And this is phenomenal - really great activist, architect, housing activist, homelessness activist, and also 100% behind defunding the police. And so, he's really captured people's attention on that. He's raised $137,000. Although if you look at his spending, he spent about half of it on fundraising, or half of it already. And really, when you're in a race where you have a cap like this of a very low amount, the race isn't so much who can raise the most, because everybody will get there. The race really is about who can spend the least until the moment when they're ready to start talking to voters. So I think it's interesting that Houston has already spent half of his, half of his funds. Crystal Fincher: [00:13:34] Just a pause in that, when you say, until the moment they're ready to talk to the voters, people are like, "Well, aren't they talking to voters right now?" And early on in campaigns, a lot of it is trying to fundraise, trying to get endorsements, establish credibility. And so, early on, there's a lot of talking to insiders, talking to people who are involved in the political process, are involved in organizations in one form or another. There are hundreds of thousands of voters that need to be talked to. And usually, that happens later on in a campaign as you get closer to the primary. So throughout June and July, as we get closer to the August primary, that's when campaigns are really focused, almost exclusively, on just making sure voters know who they are and understand their message. So that happens later. It's really expensive. And you need a lot of resources, a lot of money, to do it. Heather Weiner: [00:14:33] Yep. That's absolutely right. Direct voter contact is really what candidates should be spending the majority of their money on, not on fundraising and not on consultants like me, to be honest with you. Crystal Fincher: [00:14:43] Not on consultants. Yep. Heather Weiner: [00:14:45] Don't spend it on me, spend it on voter contact. Crystal Fincher: [00:14:48] Spend a little, but don't spend much. Heather Weiner: [00:14:50] No, don't even spend that much. Because I'm going to give you a lot of advice, but when it really comes down to it, what you want to be spending your money on is mail, you want to be spending it on advertising, you want to be spending it on people knocking on doors, on materials, on events. You want to be spending it on things where you can reach the biggest number of likely voters who are likely going to vote for you. And that's what we talk about when we say, "Get out the vote." So in this race, because it's going to be capped at $400,000, I am very interested to see who's going to be spending money on advertising, who's going to be spending it on mail, and who's just going to be spending it on grassroots door knocking during a pandemic. It's going to be really interesting to see what happens there. Now, you're going to ask, Crystal, because I am Crystal's crystal ball. You're going to say, "Well, is anybody going to do an independent expenditure?" And under the Seattle rules, if somebody comes in - if everybody is using the voucher system, which is what's happening right now. Bruce Harrell's using it, everybody's using it. If an independent group comes in and starts spending money for one candidate or against a candidate, the Ethics and Elections Commission will then lift that $400,000 cap and allow people to continue to raise more money, to keep up with the influence of that independent expenditure. So I'm very interested to see who might be spending money in this. Crystal Fincher: [00:16:11] Also very interested to see who might be spending money in this. And one entity who has announced that they won't be involved in the race, as we've seen them be involved before, is the Seattle Chamber of Commerce. That was an interesting announcement. What was your read on that? Heather Weiner: [00:16:30] As I said to the reporter, Daniel Beekman, about the... No, it was Paul Roberts in the Seattle Times, who wrote - they had this headline, Seattle Chamber Executive Director Rachel Smith Calls for a Truce. I was like, "I think it's more of a surrender." Because you don't call a truce after you've lost over and over and over again. And they really had a big misstep under the leadership of Marilyn Strickland when they raised millions of dollars, spent it to try to defeat a progressive slate of candidates, and the voters had a big backlash against that. So I don't think it's really... Crystal Fincher: [00:17:11] [inaudible] . Heather Weiner: [00:17:11] What did you say? Crystal Fincher: [00:17:12] Soundly and thoroughly rejected them after they spent a ton of money. Heather Weiner: [00:17:17] A ton of money. So, I also don't believe it. I mean, I think that we're not going to see money being spent directly from CASE, the Chamber's PAC. But I do think we're going to see it coming through some of those other groups, again, like Moms for Seattle. And I think the charter amendment is a proxy for that. Because - Crystal Fincher: [00:17:37] It's 100% of proxy for that. Heather Weiner: [00:17:38] Do you think so too? Crystal Fincher: [00:17:39] Oh my gosh. That's absolutely what it is. And to your point, the spending isn't going away. The title above the spending is going to change, and it's going to be just funneled through other groups and other means. So it's not going to come through through the Chamber's PAC but it's going to come through others. Heather Weiner: [00:17:59] Yeah. I mean, we're already seeing it in terms of the money that is currently going into the new PAC that's going to try to pass this charter amendment. So for your listeners who don't know - Crystal Fincher: [00:18:10] Compassionate Seattle, Heather ... It's compassion. Heather Weiner: [00:18:12] Yeah, okay. Compassionate Seattle. So for your listeners who don't know - Tim Burgess, bless his heart, is a nice guy. But served as the president of the Seattle Chamber, not Seattle Chamber, of the Seattle Council. And nevertheless, despite the fact that he was on the Council, now thinks that the Council is horrible, and blames the Council for everything that's going wrong. Really what he means when he says that is Kshama Sawant. So what he is doing, because he knows he can't run people directly against the Council, is he's trying to attack the Council by running a charter amendment. And the charter amendment, for your listeners who don't know about this yet, it's called Compassionate Seattle. And it claims to address the homelessness emergency that we have had - well, it's been declared for more than five years now, but it doesn't have any source of funding. So it sets a whole bunch of lofty goals - most of which are already in place and are being implemented with some success, some without success, by the current mayor. Have been authorized by the current City Council. And this, I think really, brilliantly - in a bad way, brilliantly - turns the table on the City Council by blaming the City Council and then saying, "We're going to make a charter amendment that requires the City and the City Council to do X, Y and Z." X, Y and Z, the City Council's already doing. And then it says, "But we're not going to give you any money to do it. You've got to take money from other programs." And I don't know what the voters are going to think about that. Crystal Fincher: [00:19:49] Well, it's interesting. So we've talked about this the last couple of weeks on the show and have certainly talked about how, from its title to how they're trying to spin this charter amendment change, it is wrapped in the language of compassion, wrapped in compassionate language. There's very much - that is the rhetoric direction that they've decided to take. Because although it's a lot of the same people who last year were talking - and frankly offensive, just very blatantly offensive and incorrect terms about people who are unhoused - equating them with crime, and everyone just wants to be, and they're refusing to get help, and they should be swept, and just get them off of the sidewalk. And viewing the problem with people being unhoused as one that the people who are looking at them - who have homes and warm places to be, and food, and are comfortable - they're the ones who are being inconvenienced by having to look at people and encounter people who do not have homes. Very much from that group. And so, they were defeated soundly, decisively. Seattle voters just wholesale rejected that. So now, that group is back, with prettier language this time, saying, "No, this is compassion. And what we're going to do is we're going to make sure that there are 2,000 new units built, that there's some money available. And then we're going to sweep everyone and have the police get them off sidewalks and confiscate the few belongings that they do have, and so on and so forth." Except that one, the amount of housing that they've identified does not come anywhere even close to what the actual need is. It is largely planned for already, from both the mayor and Council. There is no disagreement that there needs to be a lot more housing than they have planned. But what they have planned looks like what is proposed here. There is nothing substantively new or innovative. And in the timelines that they propose - as we've seen with this Durkan administration and the Council - you can appropriate money to be spent and the mayor can choose not to spend it and they can not act on it. It can take a long time to actually have policies that are approved and funded actually implemented. Certainly the case with housing. So yeah, we can say, "Hey, we've authorized the building of new units of housing." But those new units of housing may not materialize for years, as we have continued to see. Meanwhile, today, you're going to say, "Well, there is new housing appropriated. I know that you have nowhere to go, and that doesn't help you, or change this conversation in any way, but you need to get out of here and go somewhere else, mysteriously, just not here in this area, even though you have nowhere else to go." Heather Weiner: [00:22:58] Yeah, I think it's interesting to see what the positions are of the mayoral candidates. So Colleen Echohawk, who, of course, comes from a homelessness advocacy background, is in favor of it. And interestingly, a lot of the organizations, including the Chief Seattle Club that she is Executive Director of have been listed as endorsers of it. So that's really interesting. Jessyn Farrell has said, "It really depends on the next mayor." Kind of implicitly saying, a lot of the problems are this current mayor who has not been implementing or spending the money that the Seattle Council has authorized. Lorena González has said, "Great first step, but we need to go a lot bigger than this. We need to actually have a big source of funding in terms of progressive revenue. We need to make these goals much bigger so that we are able to keep up with the rising needs of people who need housing." That's not going to go away, particularly with the ending of eviction bans. And she's also said, "We need to deal with the lack of affordable housing and the way that the City is zoned." That such a large percentage of private property is zoned single family housing. And there's very little way for us to build multi-family and affordable housing. Bruce Harrell has said that he's in favor and Houston has said, "Absolutely not. 100% against it." So I think, again, it is going to be an interesting litmus test for mayoral candidates, and it is a proxy for attacking the City Council, which is going to also be very interesting to watch. Crystal Fincher: [00:24:45] It is going to be interesting to watch. I'm definitely very curious to see how the candidates for both the mayor and City Council talk about this charter amendment moving forward. You mentioned that there are some groups that have been helpful in areas, and who have been helpful in providing services for unhoused folks - who have signed on, notably Lisa Daugaard and the Public Defenders Association have been supportive of this bill. We had a conversation with Erica Barnett, who has been covering this at PubliCola for quite some time. And she brought up an excellent point - was that service providers, who actually stand to benefit from this in terms of revenue and contracts - we've seen service providers, some of them, come out in favor of it. But people who aren't - we haven't seen much of that from that community. Certainly, advocates, we've seen a lot of opposition. And there seems to not be communication or input that was gathered from people with lived experience. And from a lot of other very valuable, very knowledgeable expert resources on not just the issue of homelessness. But specifically in Seattle, and what we're dealing with in terms of the service and provider ecosystem, in relation to the need and how that's all playing together. So it certainly seems like there are a lot of voices missing from this conversation that should have been included and that should continue to be included. It will be interesting to see how people talk about, and account for, and respond to that. And how organizations who stand to profit from this, frankly - receive a lot of revenue from this and certainly, that helps the security of the folks in those organizations. No one wants people to wind up on the street or struggling themselves financially because of this. And even people who oppose this amendment don't want that. But how do you talk about that and account for that? And is that a motivator? That, if that were not a factor, may have impacted whether or not they chose to support this charter amendment. And certainly with the voices that have been left out of the conversation, and with some of the inadequacies of its - part of its stated intent - which I think people question is genuine or not. But it certainly seems like there's a lot more work that needs to be done on the housing and shelter end of this, for that conversation to be taken seriously. Heather Weiner: [00:27:35] So look for ads about the Compassionate Seattle charter amendment, as it's moving forward, that say things where the bad guy in this case is pictures of the City Council, and particularly people who are currently running, right? So Teresa Mosqueda, who's running for re-election, Lorena, who's running for governor - mayor, sorry, I skipped a step. Running for mayor. And Brianna Thomas, who is also running for City Council, who currently is Chief of Staff for Lorena. So that is who this charter amendment is going to be targeting as the bad guys, all women of color. Instead of really naming what's really happening here, which is that we have a massive wealth inequality. And going back to my first topic, no revenue to pay for all of the things that need to happen. And that happened 10 years ago during the great recession of 2008 and 2009, when our state cut funding resources for mental health, housing, and a whole bunch of other services. And that is why we are now seeing a homelessness epidemic in the state. Thank you so much, by the way, giving me a big soap box because this is - I think everything and every problem that the state is currently facing comes down to wealth inequality, and that we do not tax the rich enough. And I think we have a great solution in front of us right now, and I'm really excited about it. Can you tell, Crystal? I'm such a geek. Crystal Fincher: [00:29:04] I can tell and I'm absolutely excited about it. I think that this is a reflection of - I think, obviously, we work in politics. Conversations in politics have been different. They are different today than they were 10 years ago, 15 and 20 years ago. I think a lot of people are still hesitant to really acknowledge the reality that has been made apparent from - whichever type of data point you want to look at, whether it's polling or just general public sentiment, whether it's who's being elected, whether it's who the most vocal people are. No matter how you slice it, people are infuriated about the issues that are driven by income inequality. They know that is the cause and they are upset that people are not doing more to fix it. They are demanding action and showing up and holding people accountable who are not taking action. And so, this is long overdue and I'm happy to see that it is finally here with this one issue. And hopefully, this is the beginning of a conversation and not the end of it, when it comes to more fair and progressive taxation. Heather Weiner: [00:30:32] Well, we did not talk about the recent horrific shootings and murders of people by police, the horrific shootings by lone gunmen across the country. I mean, we've got a lot more to talk about. So are we going to stay on for an extra hour? No, we got to go. Don't we? Crystal Fincher: [00:30:51] We do have to go. Certainly that is being talked about in a lot of arenas. I'm very online. You can see my thoughts on Twitter about most things. Heather Weiner: [00:31:03] [crosstalk] Why don't you remind us of your Twitter account? Crystal Fincher: [00:31:09] Wait, what'd you say? Heather Weiner: [00:31:10] Remind us of what your Twitter account is. Crystal Fincher: [00:31:12] Oh, it's @finchfrii, F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. But, I mean, it's been a tough week, and when you have to ask, which police shooting? Which police shooting of a child? Which mass shooting? Which - we can't even keep them straight, they're coming so frequently, they're coming so relentlessly, and they're just so blatant and obvious and egregious. And the accounts that differ. Yeah. I won't get into all of that. That's - that's a lot. And - Heather Weiner: [00:31:50] Well, thank goodness for the people who we have elected to our State Senate and our State House who are changing the laws so that juries can hold police accountable for murders, which has been almost impossible for juries to do because of the way that the law has been written. So thank goodness we have elected those fantastic people, and I'm really looking forward to seeing what happens there. Crystal Fincher: [00:32:16] Absolutely. And as you mentioned, that is our time. So I do want to thank you for listening to Hacks and Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM this Friday, April 16th, 2021. Our chief audio engineer at KVRU is Maurice Jones Jr. The producer of Hacks and Wonks is Lisl Stadler. And our wonderful cohost today was Seattle political consultant, Heather Weiner. You can find Heather on Twitter @hlweiner, W-E-I-N-E-R. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, that's F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. Now you can follow Hacks and Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts. Just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our mid-week show delivered to your podcast feed. And you know what? Reviews actually make a really big difference in the discovery of podcasts. If you like the show or whatever your thoughts are, please feel free to share a review on iTunes or wherever else you are listening. And if you would like to get a full transcript of the episode, it's available as well as links to the resources referenced on the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. So thanks for tuning in, and we'll talk to you next time.

This history of police reform in Seattle is long and winding, and today Crystal is joined by former Seattle mayor Mike McGinn to get in to how we got to our present point. Additionally, they cover what may come next in Seattle policing, and how this will affect this year's mayor's race. 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, Mike McGinn, at @mayormcginn. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources: Read about the city of Seattle needing assistance from the state in order to regulate the police here: https://crosscut.com/news/2020/11/seattle-seeks-states-help-reduce-power-police-unions  Explore a timeline of police accountability and reform in Seattle here: https://www.aclu-wa.org/pages/timeline-seattle-police-accountability  Learn more about Seattle's current situation with the consent decree here: https://publicola.com/2021/02/05/federal-judge-gives-forecast-for-future-of-seattles-consent-decree/  Find more about Seattle's city attorney, Pete Holmes, here: https://crosscut.com/politics/2021/02/pete-holmes-seek-fourth-term-seattle-city-attorney  Read about the Seattle PD's attempt to subpoena journalists recordings last summer here: https://crosscut.com/news/2020/08/seattle-police-subpoena-tests-washingtons-reporter-shield-law  Read the South Seattle Emerald's profiles of Seattle mayoral candidates here: https://southseattleemerald.com/?s=mayor    Transcript: Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] Welcome to Hacks and Wonks. I'm your host, Crystal Fincher. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy through the lens of those doing the work with behind the scenes perspectives on politics in our state. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes.  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 and today's co-host: activist, community leader, former mayor of Seattle and just all-around cool and knowledgeable guy, Mike McGinn. Welcome.  Mike McGinn: [00:00:52] You're awfully nice to me. Also, Executive Director of America Walks - that's my new gig.  Crystal Fincher: [00:00:57] Absolutely. And a cool new gig.  Mike McGinn: [00:01:00] It's a national organization that supports local advocates who are trying to build inclusive, accessible, and equitable communities. So it's a fun new job to be able to support people, you know, who are kind of like me, you know, when I was trying to get sidewalks in my neighborhood, or trying to get better transit service, or trying to get more housing in a neighborhood. I get to support people like that around the country, which is a lot of fun.  Crystal Fincher: [00:01:29] Yeah. And really cool. And I've seen you - I've seen your support of advocates here in Washington which is really useful and necessary. And especially someone who would love more connection and walkability in our neighborhoods. And especially my father is blind and, you know, has been reliant on transit and sidewalks and making sure those connections are safe and accessible. Really appreciate that work 'cause that literally makes the difference between some people being able to go places and live life and not. But here in Washington on today's show, I wanted to talk with you - you've been through so much and have so much experience and historical knowledge from your time as mayor here in Seattle. And the conversation around policing and specifically around the Seattle Police Officers Guild, known as SPOG - their contract, which is going to be renegotiated here in the near future - has been a hot topic of conversation because we've been talking so much about re-imagining, a word that gets on my nerves, but that is the most relatable word for what we're talking about. Policing here and making changes within the department - we can make changes to the Chief, but a lot of what happens in terms of accountability really is dictated by the contract - and that supersedes what the City or the Chief can do, or has authority over. So this is a big deal if we want to address the issues that we've seen. And in this past week, we just had another story where a well person check was called in and a 70-something year old man was held at gunpoint, abused, had mobility issues, couldn't stand. They would not help him, let him fall, harassed him - just exactly the opposite of what you want to see. We want resources that come in and help and don't cause harm. And in too many instances, that is not the case. The contract has a lot to do with this. So I guess as we're just starting in the negotiation, what is it like to negotiate that contract? Mike McGinn: [00:03:49] So we did have a negotiation of the contract when I was mayor, and I guess, the most important thing to understand is the backdrop against which the negotiation occurs - which is that in addition to the contract, there's also civil service protections for the police union that are the same as for any city or state employee. So it's - both of those exist, but there are more specific things - more specific protections that relate to police officers that are found in the agreement.  And under state law, if you cannot reach an agreement with the union on the terms, then it goes to an arbitrator. And the arbitrator is supposed to look at peer cities to determine what the appropriate result should be. And what I was informed is that in practice, the arbitrator that is chosen will tend to trade money for reforms. So, in order to give both sides something - if the City is asking for reforms, then the - then it'll, you know, if it's going to reward a reform, a change to the ability to fire an officer, you know, making it easier to fire an officer, then they're likely to award more money to the officers in pay. And that's certainly what's put on the table by the union itself in the negotiations. Well, if you want that, how much you gonna pay us for it? So I think you even see in this contract, the latest contract, that there's extra pay if somebody wears a body camera, as an example. So that even tied it together more tightly. But the problem is that the discipline provisions are considered a subject of bargaining, and it's going to go to arbitration, and you're going to be held up against the standard of what other cities are doing, as to what is reasonable to ask for. So that really constrains what you can accomplish. So it really is a case of going to the Legislature and asking them to change some of those things. So that's one piece of it, you know, and the other piece of it is, and it's not been tested yet, but you know, the judge in the - that's overseeing the consent decree has made noises for the City shouldn't have to pay for reforms. Well, is he going to try to make a ruling to that effect? 'Cause, you know, the union will take that one to court and there'll be litigation over which - what governs the consent decree, and the judge and the consent decree, or national labor relations laws - as to how contract should be bargained. So the union protections - the ability of having union protections and the ability to bargain - basically starts to prioritize the protection of officers over changes to the rules and reform. Now, again, we got to avoid much of that in my negotiation, because we were in the midst of  negotiating the consent decree. So rather than attempt to negotiate into the contract certain reforms, because who knew what the consent decree would call for or what was appropriate? We had a reopener to address consent decree issues, and as part of the consent decree we ultimately gave to the Community Police Commission the responsibility to recommend changes. And my thinking at the time was that then we'll have - we'll know what to ask for.  Crystal Fincher: [00:07:34] Yeah. And so that is good and helpful background. One, just kind of explains how we got into the situation today where police budgets just continue to expand, and another insight into why that has continued to happen, or one of the mechanisms by which that's happened. But also looking at - okay, we're comparing ourselves to other like cities - that seems like that's going to be problematic if Seattle is one of the cities on the forefront of making changes. We're one of only a handful of cities that has reduced funding to any degree, by any percentage, in the country. So, we're almost guaranteeing that we're going to be comparing ourselves to cities who are doing less than we are just because we're out front and trying to address some of these issues. So is that going to work against us?  Mike McGinn: [00:08:32] Yeah. No, that's exactly the issue - that's the challenge. Now, one clarification though, the contract addresses the pay and working conditions of the officers, but it doesn't say how many officers - that's a budget decision that the City can make and does make. Um, regularly, in fact. When I was mayor, we let the police force go down through attrition in the first two years that I was there because we were in the midst of a recession. So we let - we didn't replace officers who left and we moved officers around to fill the gaps. So that's an option today as well if you wanted to reduce the budget - was just have fewer officers.  What we're seeing now, though, is we actually have the judge stepping in, overseeing the consent decree, to say, No, that would be a violation of the consent decree. You have to have more officers. So you now got this frankly bizarre situation in which the judge is saying we need more officers to achieve reform. And you've got the public saying, or portions of the public saying, No, we actually think we should have fewer armed officers doing some of these functions and be moving them to other parts of city government or not doing them at all - responding to someone in crisis, as you mentioned at the front end of this discussion, or whether it's handing out tickets to people, or whether we even need people handing out tickets for jaywalking or not wearing a helmet. Like there's things that off-, that should, that maybe don't need to be priorities anymore for officers. And certainly not for officers carrying a gun.  Crystal Fincher: [00:10:11] Definitely. I think this is a really interesting conversation, especially that element about the judge. It's a more conservative judge who has voiced concerns about some of the reforms and changes that Seattle has wanted to make. And it's impacted decisions that the Council has made. I mean, they've - they have spoken about, Hey, that the judge already said that moving in that direction is the opposite direction that they want to see, even though we personally want to move there. And if we don't come up with a solution that is within bounds of what he deems acceptable, he's going to just throw this out and we're going to wind up with something even worse than we have now. So having to operate within the bounds to make this conservative judge who has authority to accept or reject what Seattle, certainly what the Council does, and what happens with the police department is a challenge. Another challenge that I don't think has been talked about much is the relationship between the Mayor and the independently elected City Attorney. And a lot of people are used to thinking about the City Attorney in terms of like the Attorney General in that the Executive, whether it's the president or a mayor, they set - they chart a course. They say this is the direction that we're going, and the City Attorney would then defend whatever the direction that the Mayor says we're headed in. So if they're pushing for a reform, or even for something that may be somewhat new and they know is going to encounter some legal challenge, but they're trying to set a precedent - that the City Attorney would be there to defend it. It's not necessarily the case in Seattle, is that?  Mike McGinn: [00:12:00] No. So here's the deal and, in your example, you said the course that the mayor set. But the City Attorney represents the City. So it might get a little complicated sometimes to figure out the City's position on certain things. But there are processes for doing that. The legislative process, for example, is how we decide what the City's position is on something. The Council debates, the Mayor signs, or vetoes, and it's overridden - like there are ways to get at the City's position on a topic.  I think what's interesting about Pete is that he's decided - Pete Holmes - is that he decided some time ago that, as a separate elected official, he apparently had the authority to decide what the City wanted, meaning the public as a whole, as opposed to the decision - as opposed to the City through its elected representatives and their decision-making process. So it leads to, an interesting  - so for years, the Community Police Commission had basically no representation in front of the Court. They were like, Hey, we want to be heard on this. I experienced it myself, like all of a sudden realizing, Oh my God, there's nobody here to - Pete is now in a position to unilaterally decide what is or is not the City's position on litigation - that's what his position was.  So it's weird, you know? 'Cause he represents himself as - his client is the public. Well, how does he know what the public wants? And so therefore he finds himself without a client, essentially, 'cause he can just divine it from within his own head. So that's a real challenge, I think, in city government when trying to negotiate - work through the litigation issues here with the DOJ or with other third parties. It was a challenge for me. I don't know what it was like for Ed Murray or Jenny Durkan, but it - there may have been a challenge there as well. I certainly know it was a challenge for the Community Police Commission to try to be heard as a voice of the City in the process. Um, you know, Pete would put himself into the process and say, Well, I've got to decide what the City position is first.  Crystal Fincher: [00:14:07] Well, I think it's a challenge that we have seen throughout the last year of protests and police activity - where the Council has taken very strong positions and clearly indicated where they're at. The Community Police Commission has been very clear in indicating where they're at and where they've seen violations. And seeing the City Attorney defend the other side, and defend what the department has been doing, and really not seeing any pushback or any indication, that he would like to see things move in a different direction. And certainly as an elected official, he has the latitude to speak and voice - make his voice heard. And we really heard silence.  Mike McGinn: [00:14:57] Well, I think it's, I mean, now I will say this - there is an expectation that a prosecutor will execute prosecutorial discretion. So when acting as a prosecutor, for example, you would expect the City Attorney to make decisions as to when or when not to charge. And you actually wouldn't want the City Council or the Mayor trying to weigh in on those individuals. Where the City itself is a party to litigation - for example, on the litigation over how we were using, how the City was using tear gas, for example. That does put the City Attorney in a tough position, right? What's the City's position there? How should they respond to those allegations? Where should they defend or not? And I don't really know what conversations occurred between the City Council, Mayor, and Pete Holmes to resolve that. But that is a place where the City Attorney often finds themselves as an advisor to both branches of government and can act in a way to help bring the City together around an issue. And I would say that's a separate challenge for a City Attorney. And I don't know the degree - well, I will say from my experience, that was not a role that Pete embraced - of how do we bring everyone together on a common position. It oftentimes felt to me as mayor, that Pete was more trying to figure out - where's my political, where should I be standing politically in this process? Yeah. When these things are so challenging, you actually - that's a time when the City Attorney, in their advisory role to each branch, can yield a particular benefit or create challenges.  Crystal Fincher: [00:16:37] Yeah, you brought up a good example with the use of tear gas. I also think about the decision to attempt to subpoena journalism organizations, our news organizations, for evidence captured throughout their reporting, which seems like that is a massive violation. They fought back hard against that and ultimately prevailed, but wow, what a challenging position to be in from the City's perspective and -  Mike McGinn: [00:17:06] And that's - something like that is such a clear policy choice. Like that actually should be put to - that type of decision shouldn't rest in the City Attorney's office or with the Mayor alone. That's one where you actually want the City Council and the Mayor maybe hashing that out. What's our position? Do we subpoena? Is it our position as a city government that we're entitled to journalists' notes and videos? That's not a City Attorney's call. As opposed to - is this a misdemeanor charge or a felony charge, or should I send this person off with a lesser charge because that's the right way to handle this? Crystal Fincher: [00:17:45] Well, and I'm surprised that, well, you know, I don't know if surprised, but I would have hoped to - that Pete Holmes, the City Attorney, would have stood up in that instance and said, Hey, we shouldn't automatically move to defend and pursue this here. We should step back a little bit and examine this policy. Is this really what we want to do? And instead of just moving forward with suing our news organizations.  Mike McGinn: [00:18:15] Well, I'm now recalling this issue too. It was portrayed as the police department has requested this information. So I, as the City Attorney, will do what the police department wants. Police department isn't yet another branch of government. The police department - the Mayor report - excuse me. The Chief reports to the Mayor, and the City Council sets policy. So again, this is a place where it's not the SPD's call as to whether or not to subpoena. And it's certainly not the City Attorney's call as to whether or not to do that. If he felt that he was getting conflicting messages, that the executive branch and the Mayor wanted him to do that, and the Council didn't want him to do that, that's a place where he's got to kick it back to them - You guys, go through the legislative process and give me the answer. Or try to bring them together privately and see if there was a chance to get the City on the same page. But again, that's - that would require recognizing who his clients are. And his clients here were not the police department. His clients were the city government as a whole, with their position determined by its elected - by the elected representatives of the people.  Crystal Fincher: [00:19:24] Certainly. And Pete Holmes will be on the ballot again this year. The City Attorney is going to be up for election here - in the primary in August and general in November. And I certainly think that these should be important conversations to have, and have been kind of flying under the radar here in Seattle, even though we've seen the importance of City Attorney's races in shaping the path of criminal justice policy across the country.  Mike McGinn: [00:19:53] Well let's - so let's just close with a larger observation here. Which is that this process of the consent decree and reform started with over 20 community organizations asking for reform. It led to the consent decree that set up a Community Police Commission that had representatives from many of those organizations making recommendations. But now all the power as to what is or is not reform, appears to be concentrated in the judge, in the City Attorney, in the Mayor, in the US Attorney for the Western District of Washington. And you know, it should not go unnoticed that those are older, white people - are now making all the decisions and hold the cards on reform, including Mike Solan, the head of SPOG. And who's left out of the equation? All of those men and women - the Black men and women that were, and Brown and Asian. And the communities of color that were all represented on that Community Police Commission, their voice has been silenced.  And I still look at this process and go, how did that happen? How did that happen? And the answer is it happened the same way it always seems to happen, where we have the media and others saying, Well, I guess those important people, the judge and the City Attorney and the Mayor and the US attorney, they must be the ones with all of the knowledge and power, because look at who they are and look at their status. So if they say it's reform, it's reform. And we were told - we were told for years and years, that reform is on track by those important people. And the media reported it as if it were true.  And now we have officers wouldn't reveal their badges, the police department used tear gas over a judge's order and over the City Council's order. The police department abandoned the precinct, apparently without any orders from above - just did it on their own and then decided not to police the CHOP. Oh, we can't go in, got to wait for hours. Even if that means people are dying. Right? So reform was in fact broken, but we were repeatedly told by the important people that it was not broken, that it was on track. And we listened and believed those important people, rather than listening and believing to the community members who said, No, this isn't working. Don't use - the Community Police Commission wrote years earlier - don't, stop using blast balls. You know, your demonstration tactics are wrong. And they were blown off and everybody was told, Don't worry, we got it. We got this. So, you know, I guess it happens the way it always happens. And it's very, very disappointing. And I guess, you know, if we're looking at the next mayor, it's going to be who's going to have the guts to just say, Look, this process - the process we were in, was broken and we've got to try to figure out how to fix it. And the contract's an important piece of it, but it's a lot deeper than that.  Crystal Fincher: [00:23:00] Well said. And to your point, it's going to take the next mayor bringing them into the conversation, bringing all of us into the conversation. If any of that dynamic is going to change, that seems like it's going to be the only conduit. That the City Council appears to be making attempts to do that. But it's really going to take the Mayor, throughout this negotiation, throughout the consent decree issues, and overall to bring them in. And we do have a mayor's race on our hands with several people who have gotten in the race. And I think in looking at candidates on people's radar - we see Lorena González, Jessyn Farrell, Colleen Echohawk, Andrew Grant Houston, Bruce Harrell, Lance Randall. There are some others who've been there, but I think that the names that we've listed have gotten the most attention and are set up, certainly, to be a central part of the conversation. So I guess as you're looking at this race, what do you see? How do you see it shaping up?  Mike McGinn: [00:24:13] Well, you know, probably the starting point to looking at the race is to kind of consider Seattle's political landscape. You know, the political physics of running a race in Seattle. And first of all, just about everyone's a Democrat. I think over 90% voted for Biden in the last election, almost 90% voted for Hillary Clinton. So, we're so used to looking at things through a national frame. We just have to recognize, well, pretty much everyone in the race is going to be a Democrat and everyone's going to say they're a progressive. So you really have to look at the fault lines in Seattle itself and recognize that there are two different bases. And if you look at any election map in Seattle of any city-wide race - on one end of the spectrum are, you know, single family homes with views of the water. And that's one set of voters. And it's just, again, the map, if you did a blue and red map, and you called the red, the more conservative part of Seattle - all the view homes would be in red. All the view neighborhoods would be in red. The other end of the spectrum would be an apartment building on an arterial served by a bus line. And those, and whether that's an immigrant refugee community, whether that's young people moving to town, that's going to be on the other end. And in the middle, then, are probably well-educated professionals making a decent living who consider themselves quite progressive, but you know, a little bit worried that maybe some people are a little too radical. And that's the middle of the electorate.  And so what happens in Seattle - also kind of looking at political physics - 95% of the time there are two candidates that come out of the primary. One is endorsed by the Seattle Times, who is often also endorsed by the greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce. And one is endorsed by The Stranger. And you'll find a host of environmental and labor unions over there too, but, you know, service workers in particular. But you'll also see some service workers, excuse me, some unions and construction trades over on the Seattle Times, Chamber of Commerce side as well. The unions are kind of in the middle of all this too. So the real question is what candidate is in which lane? Because there's not a lot of room in the middle here. You want to be in the middle to win. You want to be able to get over that 50% to win the race, but you're not going to get through to the primary unless you can claim a lane. And so in the left lane, everyone's going to be looking at well, who's the real progressive with a chance to win. And over on the right lane, they're going to be looking at who's a candidate we can work with. The Chamber knows that they can't get, you know, just some dyed in the wool corporate business person to win the race. This is Seattle. So this is somebody who's progressive enough, looks like a progressive. They can win the middle of the Seattle electorate, but they'll work with us. They'll play ball with us. They'll make deals with us and they sure won't be running around saying they're going to tax the hell out of us. And taxes is probably the thing they care about the most, over there on the Chamber side. So, who's in what lane is the question. I got my ideas about who's in what lane. Why don't you tell me - go take it where you want to take it.  Crystal Fincher: [00:27:30] Uh, you know, what I want to hear is - who you do think are in what lanes. We've talked about the mayor's race on several prior shows. I'm interested to see how things play out. I think that there are going to be - many people are going to be trying to claim that progressive lane. The real issue is who is going to actually have policies to back that up. And I think that it is telling - where we're seeing real passion and specifics in what people are talking about, and where there's a lot of vague speak. So I guess, how do you read it?  Mike McGinn: [00:28:10] Well, and to be clear, the race is still developing. And we were talking about this before the show. Some candidates' platforms fill out a little as it goes. I know mine did. I came in in 2009. I was really comfortable talking about the issues I worked on the most, but I had to learn more. But you can tell something from what people prioritize, or from their history.  I guess it's pretty clear. There are a couple of people that are pretty clear what lane they're in. Bruce Harrell pretty clearly seems to be claiming the right lane and I've got the depth of experience and what he chose to emphasize. Which isn't to say - again, I want to be clear. Bruce has pursued progressive things - protecting the rights of felons to be able to rent property, for example. He upheld my veto of the panhandling statute and I'm grateful for it. But it's very clear that he's much more aligned with the business community than the other candidates and that's his lane.  Over on the left side, Andrew Grant Houston is a really fascinating candidate. He's absolutely an urbanist. On Twitter, his handle is Ace the Architect, and he's for - let's build more housing, let's defund the police, let's build more bike lanes. And he's out there, credibly raising money. So, he's really playing hard, which is impressive for Andrew.  I think a lot of people are looking at Colleen Echohawk because she's - because Durkan appointed her to things and saying, Well, what lane is she in? Full disclosure, the people who helped me on my race are now helping Colleen on her race and she's coming in and saying, homelessness is the highest priority. I've got experience with homelessness. I've got experience with managing things. I represent the poorest people in one of the richest cities in the nation. And she clearly is working to claim, in my opinion, I believe she's working to claim that progressive lane.  Lorena - very interesting. Lorena was endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce, the Seattle Times and The Stranger in her first race. And I think kind of the question has been, what side would she fall on? And obviously, from her background and her, you know, the issues she cared about before running for office, which were police reform. You'd expect her to be in the progressive lane. I think that's where she is. But it's interesting how much time she - I've seen her talking about how she's actually good for business and she can work with small business, and I kind of get it. When I was in the mayor's office and I was criticized for being too progressive, I always wanted to tell people, No, I can work with other people. I can work with everybody. But, so I think she's in that lane.  I think the most interesting here is Jessyn Farrell. Because when you look at Jessyn, she certainly comes out of an environmental advocacy and transit advocacy background.But you know, when you look at Transportation Choices Coalition - the two directors who followed her - one went to work for Durkan - Shefali. Another was endorsed by the Chamber in his city council race, and now works for a big corporation - her former colleague, Rob Johnson.  Crystal Fincher: [00:31:41] That was Rob Johnson. Mike McGinn: [00:31:42] Yeah. Yeah. And Rob, you know, again, this is Seattle. Rob worked to get bike lanes on 65th and more power to him, but he was the Chamber candidate in that race, when he first ran. So, Jessyn's Field Director and Communications Director when she was head of TCC is now head of the greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce. So the politics of Transportation Choices Coalition has always been to work with the business community to get money for transit by also supporting highways. They try to trim back the highways and get more for the transit, but that's always been their politics. And so when I saw Jessyn get in the race, I was like, well, how is she going to out-progressive Colleen Echohawk and Lorena González? And all of a sudden, I realized, Oh, she's not trying to out-progressive them. She's trying to be progressive enough, but also be the candidate who would be seen as the - perhaps the most credible challenger for the Seattle Times endorsement. So - Crystal Fincher: [00:32:49] And that my friends is a hot take!  Mike McGinn: [00:32:54] I'm telling you it's - I think Jessyn's too smart to think that she can out-progressive them. I think she's going to present herself as the type of progressive, and she'd be more progressive. Let's be clear. She'd be more progressive than Jenny Durkan by a bunch. But it's also true that when she was asked who she voted for in the last election, as between Durkan and Cary Moon, she said she voted for Jenny Durkan.  So, it's an interesting play and let's forget - let's not forget, Ed Murray was the champion of gay marriage when he ran against me. And was seen as a very strong progressive because of his position on transit. He was also a huge highway supporter, but he was a transit supporter. And he'd worked to - for certain other things, but he was the type of candidate that the Chamber of Commerce could support because they felt like, Hey, he'd gotten the highway money for them. He made them promises that he would be nicer to them than I would be. And again, the Chamber doesn't get a hard right candidate. They get somebody who's progressive enough to win in Seattle, but will play ball with them. And Ed was that candidate, and those business leaders were standing up with Ed at press conferences, you know, after there were multiple accusations of wrongdoing against him. And they went and chose Jenny Durkan next. And Jenny said she was a progressive, so that's kind of what swings is - how much of a progressive does the Chamber of Commerce have to accept in order to get a credible candidate? And in today's age, maybe Jessyn's that candidate. Maybe she's the Seattle Times candidate, not The Stranger candidate in this time. And it's kind of interesting that the issue she hit on, when she started running. She was on childcare, which is a great issue. She was on affordable housing, which is a great issue, but we didn't really hear her talking in the same way about taxes or police reform at the time. Crystal Fincher: [00:34:51] You know, this is why I enjoy conversations with you, because you come with context and history. And you will come with a take that I have not heard someone make before. And then I'll be like, My goodness. That is actually true. And when you do think about it, you're 100% correct that the Chamber needs someone progressive enough. They're never going to get a conservative candidate. They know that. They don't even try. It's who can credibly message themselves as a progressive or progressive enough, not a conservative, still holding progressive values, and they certainly say, We are totally on the progressive bandwagon on issues surrounding transportation. It's always been that.  They, more than kind of general conservatives, recognize the importance of transit, in addition to advocating for more highways and issues there. They haven't been shy in advocating for transit, which is something that we normally don't hear from conservative voices. And so they'll be like, Hey, we are progressive, just like Seattle. We're different - we're the Seattle Chamber, we love transit too. And people go, Yeah. And then they stand up by, whether it's Ed Murray or Jenny Durkan and they do go - and we are on board with their progressive transit agenda and people go, Yay. That's okay. And then we end up with people making the policies that we have seen.  I hope Seattle learns the lesson that we have to listen to policy specifics and that we can't just accept someone who says that they are progressive or who makes a - can pull off a really good photo shoot with a lot of diverse people in the picture. And actually looks at the policies and experience and history and understanding that, Look, the Chamber does not support people who it does not think are going to play ball and get some usually meaningful reassurance in that area. And they take that seriously this time, because people act surprised when they elect the Chamber candidate and then the Chamber candidate does Chamber things and they're like, Oh my gosh, I can't believe they would do this. So hopefully we see something different this time. Mike McGinn: [00:37:10] The Chamber really got burned in the last election. You know, Amazon put in a million dollars - all of their, all of their candidates lost. You might see the Chamber not publicly endorse for quite some time in this race, if at all. But that doesn't mean that the Seattle Times won't endorse, or that doesn't mean they won't be behind the scenes, doing their best to influence the outcome. So that's just one more observation to make.  Crystal Fincher: [00:37:38] Very interesting. Well, I appreciate you taking this time with us today. I thank everyone for listening to the show today and for just spending your time with Hacks and Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM on this Friday, March 26th, 2021. Our chief audio engineer at KVRU is Maurice Jones Jr. The producer of Hacks and Wonks is Lisl Stadler. And our insightful co-host today was former Seattle mayor Mike McGinn. You can find Mike on Twitter @mayormcginn, that's M C G I N N. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, spelled F I N C H F R I I. And now you can follow Hacks and Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts, just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday almost live show and our mid-week show delivered to your podcast feed. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced to the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in. We'll talk to you next time.

This week gave us some insight into where the Seattle mayor's race might be heading. In addition to two high profile candidates who joined the race last week - former Council President Bruce Harrell and former state lawmaker Jessyn Farrell - speculation grew about former Washington Gov. Gary Locke jumping into the mix.

Today on the show co-host Michael Charles of Upper Left Strategies joins Crystal to go over news of the week, including the need to confront hate and bigotry against our Asian neighbors experienceing racist violence, why it matters when white journalists write inaccurately (and misspell the names of) women of color, the continued marginalization of political consultants of color, and new developments in the Seattle mayoral race. 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, Michael Charles, at @mikeychuck. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Articles Referenced: Read the article in which a Seattle reporter continues to misspell the name of Hamdi Mohamad here: https://www.postalley.org/2021/03/15/port-elections-changing-dynamics-for-getting-elected/ Get to know more about the Political Consultants of Color Coalition here: https://www.pccc-wa.com/press  See Crystal's tweet about a campaign worker of color not being paid for work they've done for a Seattle mayoral candidate: https://twitter.com/finchfrii/status/1372750551952150530  Read about Bruce Harrell's announcement of running for mayor, including his requirement that officers watch the video of George Floyd's death, here: https://www.theurbanist.org/2021/03/16/bruce-harrell-stakes-claim-to-center-lane-in-seattle-mayoral-announcement/  Learn more about the Washington Campaign Workers Collective here: https://www.washingtoncwc.com/    Transcript: Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] Welcome to Hacks and Wonks. I'm your host, Crystal Fincher. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy through the lens of those doing the work with behind the scenes perspectives on politics in our state. Full transcripts, 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 and today's co-host, political consultant and managing partner of Upper Left Strategies. Michael Charles.  Michael Charles: [00:00:46] Thanks Crystal. Happy to be here again. As always. Crystal Fincher: [00:00:49] Yes. Always happy to have you here and, you know, share space with you. We have the opportunity to do that in some other spaces and always love it when you're here on the show.   So there's a lot that has been happening this week. We will certainly get into it. I just want to start, first and foremost, by acknowledging that our Asian community has literally been under attack. Under continuing attack and it's unacceptable. And as we have talked about with so many other things, we have to confront hate in all of its forms, whether it's jokes or fetishism - people are just - feel like it's fine because of model minority myths. "Model minority myth" and all of that. And all of that is racism. All of that leads to this harm and violence, and we have to call that out in public and in private. We have to confront it in order for it to stop, 'cause it's, it is just unacceptable. So I just wanted to start off and say that unequivocally.  And say that also it's not time for anyone else to do any kind of, what-about-ism to, to try and bring other issues or other nuance in this conversation. This is a time to center Asian  voices from the AAPI community.  Michael Charles: [00:02:13] Especially Asian women.  Crystal Fincher: [00:02:14] Yes. Hundred percent. And, and like, that's it. And that's, that's what we need to do. And we just need to listen and support and be an ally.  And most people have heard me, right. Or say, ally is a verb. It's about what you do.  You know, we can - Michael Charles: [00:02:32] We don't need to see pictures of you at rallies. We don't need to see, you know, none of that helps in these times.  Crystal Fincher: [00:02:40] Absolutely. So, so I just wanted to start with that.  And that this is about how we react when we are confronted with jokes and attitude, and hate and bigotry, and violence in our own spaces and our lives. With people we know and interact with, that it is our responsibility to confront it wherever we see it, including  and especially right now, stepping up for the Asian community to make sure that this is not tolerated anywhere.  So I just wanted to start off with that.  And then get to a number of things that have happened this week. I guess we can start  with an article that was written this week about  a couple of Port candidates. And do you want to talk about that a little bit, Michael?  Michael Charles: [00:03:26] I mean sure, and full disclosure, both candidates are my - I work with them through the firm and one is actually my, my wife. So I have particularly strong feelings about it, but you know, looking at it from just a, like a pure analytic perspective and thinking deeply about - like I said this to you when we talked earlier - I really, in some ways appreciated the candor because I think that there are a lot of people that feel that way. And it's kind of, you know, I thought the irony in it, I guess, was that same author writes a lot about Trump and the problems with Trump and the Republican Party. And  I just think, you know, this is that same type of white, like escapism, where they feel like they're being left behind. And I mean, the lines of "Oh, you know, even this is what the voters want now. They care more about DEI than they care about running the economy," as if the two are, for one, somehow separate. And two, to think that you can spew inaccurate information and somehow that makes you better than somebody else is. Literally the things you're decrying  in one hand, and not understanding in another how you're contributing in the same sense and to that, what we'll call it exactly what it is - white supremacy.  Crystal Fincher: [00:04:51] It is white supremacy and to be clear, this was written by David Brewster. It was  Port elections - changing dynamics for getting elected, which is just really curious. Just a title and a premise. And he basically - his premise is, "Hey, in these races that are not getting top billing, including these Port races that have  women of color running for these positions" -  who he one, it is always telling how they choose to describe candidates. Do they refer to them by their profession as they do with so many males and white males? These  women are not described by their profession, none of their qualifications,  their various expertise - they have quite a bit of expertise in several areas - are not mentioned. One is mentioned  because in reference to being  the daughter of someone else. Another one, it just mentions that she's worked on social justice issues with  Pramila Jayapal. So one, we aren't even talking about what their profession is, what their expertise is, what their  history is. None of that - always telling. And then went on to say that these races are "now run as an aspect of DEI - diversity-equity-inclusion politics, with  voters more likely to vote on youth green causes empowering minorities, than rewarding incumbents for focusing on economic issues, the Port's main business."  Michael Charles: [00:06:27] No mention that the Port is doing worse than it's ever done before right now. But you know - we won't go there.  Crystal Fincher: [00:06:35] Yes. And that all of those - you can't separate those elements out. If they all work together, if you're choosing what to buy and evaluating it based on its qualifications, and some of the requirements that you are required to consider when you purchase and you buy and you make these decisions and you  achieve these goals, include these things, then you have to make sense to include these things. These people, the white people, I have also heard talk about these things and somehow they are not coming up for criticism. And also he has made it very clear that he has not read any of the platforms. He actually made an assumption about Hamdi Mohamed, one of the candidates, and has a stance of hers wrong. And clearly made an assumption that because these were women of color, that they must only be concerned about and are only talking about DEI, which has nothing to do with the Port. And this is a bastardization of what running for  election, the quote unquote right way is. And I - Michael Charles: [00:07:40] There's also the part that Toshiko knows about  Asian port operations because you know, she's Asian.  Crystal Fincher: [00:07:47] Yeah. Oh yeah. Yeah. Trade. She's Asian. And her knowledge of Asian trade -  Michael Charles: [00:07:54] But the incumbents know about Asian trade apparently. And she doesn't, you know. So it was interesting to mention one hand that she does and then the other, she doesn't. It's just, you know, it's consistent with the inconsistency of this article. Crystal Fincher: [00:08:09] Yeah, it is a mess.It is very - he thinks he's whispering, but he's yelling.  He also  got - spelled the name of Hamdi Mohamed incorrectly  Hamdi, I mean, it's a phonetic spelling and he - Michael Charles: [00:08:25] It's literally in - it's the only thing in her logo, in case you needed to look it up. It says "Hamdi" - in case you needed to look it up.  Crystal Fincher: [00:08:37] Yeah. Yeah, it is - it is something.  But I will note he has no problem spelling the name of Peter Steinbrueck - definitely not a phonetic spelling.  You know, I challenge people who are not familiar with his name to try and spell that correctly on their first three tries. But somehow her name was too  difficult to spell right, or care to even fact check for a former reporter. So that's just that. I just wanted to start with that and just see - say we see it, we hear it, and yes, as you mentioned -we hear this is a dynamic out there. And  especially when people of color run, we know that people make assumptions about them that have nothing to do with what they say or who they are. They're more about the person and the perspective and the mindset that they're coming from. So that's this - we see it and just wanted to call it out. And we see this.  Michael Charles: [00:09:39] I will say one smart part of the piece that he did engage was that most voters do care about this now because most voters are smart in King County. And yes, that's a good thing for our voters moving forward, so I did appreciate that with a nod. Crystal Fincher: [00:09:56] He was mad about it, but did nail that dynamic and yeah, we do think that's -that's a good thing. Speaking about other things that we saw this week,  I wanted to talk a little bit about some  things that I heard. We are both  - we got together and  with a few of our other consultants of color, most of the Black consultants, started the Political Consultants of Color Coalition. We've talked about that before on the show. And a lot of it was because we were being  like just literally excluded,  despite  you know, not even, "Hey, we're - we want a shot. Like we've done that work. We've shown that we can do that work. We're winning those races where we have records as good of, or as good as, or better than the people who were working." It wasn't a matter of merit. It was  you know, policies that had the effect of excluding  consultants and staff of color. And so that was covered.  They wound up saying, "Yeah, actually that is literally what was happening. We will change it in many instances. " And that was great, but these dynamics are are just an example of where we're at in society, and that permeates all spaces, even spaces where people call themselves democratic and progressive and all of that - doesn't make people immune. So, yes. And in fact, the troublesome part is when they use that as cover to say, "No, no. I'm saying all the right things about including BIPOC communities, and centering BIPOC communities, and being inclusive and welcoming and, you know, having a diverse staff. And no, we are totally doing all of that. I'm doing all that - I care. So how dare you say that I have a blind spot or I could be doing better in an area. Or I'm being hypocritical by doing this." That is a dynamic that we've also talked about before. So, I learned -  because we do talk and talking is good and useful and helpful.  And sharing information among  staff or workers or, you know, classes of workers is, is always useful. Talk about pay, talk about salaries. Talk about conditions, talk about all of that. That only helps people  to - who are in more marginalized positions to help make that more equitable. So we - we have learned that and we do  have a continuing dialogue. And so I learned and ended up  tweeting about -  in one instance, a City of Seattle mayoral candidate  is attempting to stiff a BIPOC  consulting firm for work that they did - significant amount of work that they did, great work that they did. And is really trying hard not to pay them. That's not okay.  And then I  learned of another situation where another City of Seattle mayoral candidate  has offered  general consultants less money  than people in more junior or different roles.  And that's not okay. And, you know, you should pay people  to scale for what they do in the industry, to scale for, you know, appropriately within your own campaign. And if you can't do that, then maybe you should reevaluate whether you're ready to run, or maybe you should reevaluate how your campaign is structured. And certainly what you need to do is reevaluate all of the rhetoric that you're talking about  - equal work for equal pay, and  talking about wage theft, and talking about being fair and including  BIPOC community - just all of the talk, all of the right words, all the things that they know to say. If you are actually not doing that, don't be surprised if you wind up being called out. And so I just mentioned that - I didn't mention names. I figure that - these are still - what prompted me to mention that I knew that is one,  it is appropriate for that to be on the radar - the Political Consultants of Color Coalition, of which I am a member. And so that was one, and these issues have been lingering, have not yet been resolved. And sometimes it can be helpful to say, Hey, you should actually, you know, get this resolved. We are actively interested in making sure this gets resolved quickly. So you can take the initiative and get that done.  So people noticed,  as they do.  And the reaction to that has been very interesting in the responses  that we've heard and not heard. And one of the responses that I particularly wanted to address was -  a campaign followed up with one of the people I was talking about who recognized themselves in that tweet and it was a conversation that we are used to having as people  in spaces who are calling out behavior that is not ideal  of people who often have more power and resources. And the response to that, the appropriate response to that is, Hey, you know, I saw this mentioned, and I think this is about us. And I think this was about the situation.  We would like to, you know, resolve this. We should have handled it - we can handle this differently. You know, we want to make sure we take care of this and all this kind of stuff.  What is not appropriate, but what I know we have both experienced, Michael. And what happened in this was - making the person feel wrong for bringing their bad behavior to light. To be clear, it was me who brought the bad behavior to light.  And it was me who tweeted it publicly. And I decided  to not share names.  But they definitely knew who I was talking about. And my goal is just making sure that people get paid money that they're owed. And that people are treated how they're supposed to be.  Michael Charles: [00:16:26] Accountability, right? Like how do we provide any accountability now? Like it seems like Twitter is our - one of our only tools.  Crystal Fincher: [00:16:36] Yes. And what was conveyed to this consultant was,  Hey, we don't want you to wind up in a position where you can't end up working in your City." We all know what that means. We all have heard that and dealt with that. It's - be careful what you say. Don't cause trouble. That's only gonna make things harder for you, when really the situation is the person who is calling out bad behavior - the bad behavior isn't calling out bad behavior. It's the actual bad behavior. And maybe there was an oversight, maybe there's - there were extra considerations. And that happens. And that's why there weren't names in the tweet.  But what also happens is sometimes people just think they can get away with it and they assume that they can operate like that behind the scenes, which we've seen in several circumstances,  which is why this isn't new behavior. It's just new that this behavior is getting called out. But that it is important to bring accountability to it, because if we don't, then it just continues to happen. And to have the response be, and I don't know if - I can't say, because it was someone on behalf of the campaign and not the candidate. I can't say that the candidate felt that way, authorized that being saying, but no one should feel comfortable saying something like that. What they should feel comfortable doing is making sure people get paid and do their thing.  But not being like, you know, Hey, you should be careful what you call us out for 'cause that might not be cool.  And I'm just past the point because I have been in that situation before,  and right now I am fortunate enough to not be. And I'm in a position where if they threatened to take something, you know, my business isn't constructed like that. So, you know, if they're going to threaten to continue to not work with me then okay.  But that is where the harm is. The harm is in that reaction. We all get called in, and it is how we react to that. And man, that reaction is toxic and I hope that campaigns and people across the board do better. 'Cause this is certainly not an issue limited to current Seattle candidates. It's pretty pervasive, but man, I'm so sick and tired of seeing people mistreated and then treated as if they have done something wrong for sharing that they were mistreated. I don't like it.  Michael Charles: [00:19:28] I mean, we see it through all levels of government right now. We're talking about the Cuomo situation. It's about  when are we going to be living the values that we all say that we want to? And I think, I mean, that's what we ultimately want when we talk about accountability, right? It's to not be hypocritical, to approach  problem solving with the values that we all share and say we share. And I think, you know, it's part of the reason why you think to even do that is that you're asking people to question their own morals and values, and see where do I fall in this and are the actions I'm taking consistent with the morals and values I'm stating publicly? You know, it's  I mean, I think about the Cuomo situation and just how we have so many local politicians that deal in the same business and there's the fear of repercussions, the fear of being ostracized or not believed. I mean, I just think about how that type of situation pervades all types of when, when dealing with race in these situations, when you're dealing with anything that pushes the values and morals of a group, like you begin to get pushback. And I think that it's really cool to see us all, at least some of us, getting together as a group and beginning to say, No, you know, we're stronger when we're together. You know, on Twitter, that's part of what - when people call it, you know, the Twitterati or whatever, and, you know, they're scared they get held accountable in this cancel culture or whatnot. And, you know, it feels very similar in Seattle where people are like, Well, I don't want to get yelled at on Twitter. And it's like, well, You won't if you're not doing anything stupid, you know -  Crystal Fincher: [00:21:18] Yeah and it usually takes - like, it, it is rare where it is just simply doing something stupid. It's usually you have to double down on the stupid and not listen to people who were like, Hey, Hey, reconsider. They're like, I don't need to reconsider. You re like, you know, and they'll just, they double down on it. And, and there's a lot of people now who - we just had a conversation about, you know, activism for profit - McKesson, the Grammy awards and, and you know, who, what are we doing this all for? Is it to, is it to build our personal brands or are we actually trying to make things better for people. To have people  you know, to have less harm happen less often. To, to make the playing field simpler, and to not keep power concentrated in the hands of the few, and opportunities concentrated in the hands of the few, and money concentrated in the hands of the few. To give people a real shot to do what they're  qualified to do, to do what they want to do, to actually be judged on merit and to have opportunities not  completely eliminated because someone just isn't comfortable with you for a reason they can't pin down.  You know,it is that. And so we are all challenged in all of our spaces to say, Okay, is what I'm saying? 'Cause you know, we talk publicly, we are steering campaigns and advocacy, and it is a big deal to say we're  doing things and to be consistent with the values that you're talking about. And I've had conversations with candidates and others before - it's like, Hey, you're -you have this in your platform, or you're saying this, meanwhile, like, look at how you're paying someone right now. Or, you know what you're doing here isn't exactly consistent. So that is actually a signal that you need to stop and reevaluate that position. Maybe that's a sign to you that it isn't as simple and straightforward, and this is more of a nuanced issue. And you need to account for that and how you talk about it. Or that, you know, if this is an absolute for you, for everyone else. It has to be an absolute for you too. Otherwise it's not, and it's just a double standard and you will eventually get called out for it. You - we all have to take steps to be consistent, and we're all challenged continually and confronted with circumstances where  that's put to a test. It's put to a test with how we treat employees, with how we choose to spend money, and, and, you know, in all of these spaces and circumstances. And, and so we all have to do better. And if you're going to stand up and say, This is what I stand for, and this is what I'm holding - what I'm going to hold the City and the businesses within it, and the people within it accountable for, you can't exempt yourself from that. And we're at a time when it's really cool to talk about  supporting BIPOC communities and people are getting a lot of clout and credit for talking about how, you know, like their activist cred and their  community cred and all of that kind of stuff. And they are all for fairness and inclusion and equity yet, if you're like really trying hard to stiff a consultant and silence consultants, that's not right.  By the way. I'm just going to throw this in here for reasons. Yeah. We also need to have a conversation about the role of NDAs in politics in these situations. We've seen both in corporate America and locally, you know, situations with politicians using that to cover up abuse and harassment, like usually it's just not good. We all need to keep secrets within campaigns. Confidential information is confidential. That doesn't change. That's pretty easy to deal with. But using that just as a tool to silence criticism of your own activity and like really doubling down, because you really have something that you really want not talked about. Maybe the solution is addressing the thing that you don't want talked about.  Michael Charles: [00:25:42] That's right.  Crystal Fincher: [00:25:45] But that's what's going on - is lots of people are like name names and one, those are not, you know, the people who are in those immediate situations  can make the call about whether or not they want to do that. That is not my call to make.  I am there to support -  to support people and, and we're here to support each other. So that's -that's where that's at. And, and there were lots of questions about that, but, but in general Michael Charles: [00:26:15] That it's just like, it's, there's a bigger systemic problem than just these specific instances. And I think that's what we're really trying to speak to. And you call some of these things out - is it's like, how do we, like, why aren't we thinking about these in the time being, you know, rather than having to react, et cetera. So.  Crystal Fincher: [00:26:34] Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. And with so many campaigns  kicking off and getting started, these are all conversations that are being had. I mean, the other thing that came up - this was a broad ranging, unpleasant conversation evidently 'cause I'm referring to like, the things from the same conversation that were relayed to me, that are just so familiar - was the assumption also that came through and we've talked about this before. We've experienced it so many times that as  people  In politics, Black people in politics,  we can only speak to other Black people or we only speak to ethnic audiences and somehow we are not qualified to speak to white people, which one never seems to apply in the same way to white consultants. But also how - just how deeply ridiculous is that? And if anyone bothered to take five seconds to check and see the races that we have worked on and one,  you know, you would think that you would want to go with us in like rural and suburban races because we -  Michael Charles: [00:27:40] It always cracks me up because I'm from iowa. You know, I'm like - I lived in Iowa. Why would you not want me to work on rural races? I probably know rural America better than most of you people.  Crystal Fincher: [00:27:54] Yeah. That's the thing - working rural but suburbs are my jam. Like I got suburbs - that has worked out.  And, you know - Michael Charles: [00:28:07] I do understand it.  Crystal Fincher: [00:28:08] Yeah, we actually deal in those areas and especially with challengers, and really having to win messaging fights in those areas more frequently than a lot of other consultants do. So, you know, but this thinking that somehow we can only speak to certain groups or we can't adequately relate to other people is just very revealing  and very telling and disappointing and challenging. And that is automatically a limitation  that those people are telling you that they're, placing on you and  very revealing. It's no mystery why then they're not calling you or saying you aren't quite right. Even though you've won stuff, like just, I dunno, it just doesn't seem like that is the right fit and all of those very vague things that are said that really boiled down to, they just don't feel that we can relate. That we are so different, that we can't understand messaging in different situations when literally that's what we do every day. Michael Charles: [00:29:18] Or you get the, I heard you are hard to work with because you called somebody out for being racist before, you know?  Crystal Fincher: [00:29:24] Yeah. Yeah. And the racist person is never the problem. It's the person who had the audacity to say, Hey, that's not okay - the way that you're acting.  Yeah, it is, that's all toxic. And I don't like it. And I'm old and tired and in a position -  I do think that when we are in spaces and we have.  more privilege that we are there to use it  to make sure that other people don't have to struggle to the same degree because  you know, I, I can't speak for your journey, but I know along my path, I have struggled. I know what that feels like. And other people should not have to go through that. It that's, that's unfair. It is wrong.  And this treatment is really harmful. You don't know if someone is struggling to pay their bills when you're just stiffing them and acting like it's just not a big deal. You know, and it is that serious sometimes. I've, I have known people who have been attempting to do this who have  you know, been evicted over not being paid and who have like really struggled and suffered. And I've certainly experienced that myself. So I'm just not here for it.  And people should know that yes, people are watching and you just can't treat people like that. You just can't. So that's where it's at today. Hopefully those situations are resolved fairly quickly. And hopefully we can talk about issues that matter to people in all of these races, in these various cities and jurisdictions.  But how you conduct yourself matters and people are watching and kind of across the board, there is a new culture and  zest for accountability that I hope people are prepared for. And I'm looking forward to it.  Michael Charles: [00:31:11] Yeah, totally. I agree. I think that  that's part of the amazing things with the internet becoming so prominent. I also, you know, to kind of shift gears, but I also think that it's also lessened the impact of endorsements too, which I think is kind of an interesting piece that like these organizational endorsements - things don't matter as much now because we have the internet. We have all these other measures of accountability from which to judge people by. So I don't know, that's kind of a tangent, but. I think we're all like a very similar wrapped in piece of like, this accountability is actually providing better candidates. I actually think there's a lot of ways it's improving democracy in some ways.  Crystal Fincher: [00:31:51] I agree.  It is. I mean, you know, certainly positives and negatives have resulted from the ways we are able to share information and connect. But one of the dynamics in campaigns is that it is, it does, it can decentralize power. It can distribute power in ways that weren't there before and across the board. You know, you talk about endorsements. Those are really interesting all the time.  Because a lot of times there is a, you know, whether it's a board or committee -  a really small subset of an organization is driving a lot of the  endorsement process. And there has certainly been a long-standing feeling  in some spaces in areas that, that some of the endorsements represent the membership. Yeah. And so the members are like, well, how'd that happen? I don't, you know, like I thought this other candidate was the one who was down for workers, like this other candidate used to be one of us. And they're challenging an incumbent. And for some reason we're endorsing an incumbent that like voted against our interests? How does that, and you know, we've both watched this happen where like they will endorse against their members. And endorse people who've not been with them for some reason.  And sometimes people really like the proximity to power.  But, but it doesn't make sense. And so it has enabled people to be like, okay, but, but for the people who actually care for who is really down for workers or was really down for community or who is principally concerned with who is  voting for the right things in the SPOG contract, you know - name the issue that they can vet for themselves what is happening. And they don't need  a couple people on a board to signal to them who they should support. More information is more accessible and they can do that for themselves and actually even call their own, you know, endorsing board out. So it's an interesting dynamic. I think it's one that's - that we're going to see throughout this  election season. These races are going to be really interesting.  And we just saw Jessyn Farrell and Bruce Harrell - Michael Charles: [00:34:19] Wow. I didn't realize those rhymed until right now.  Crystal Fincher: [00:34:24] That - look, I just said that and I didn't realize it. Michael Charles: [00:34:31] The week of Harrell and Farrell. Yes. The week of Harrell and Farrell. Crystal Fincher: [00:34:34] Yes. The week of Harrell and Farrell has happened.  I certainly found Bruce Harrell's take on how to make communities safer from the SPD interesting.  You know, he had mentioned that he would have people - he'd, I want to say it verbatim because I don't want it to sound like I'm mocking him. I want to say exactly what he said accurately.  And so, and he had mentioned  his first step would be to ask every police officer to watch the video of George Floyd's murder and ask officers to sign a statement saying that inhumane treatment of human beings doesn't fly in Seattle. That's the baseline, he says. That was according to -  Natalie Graham was live-tweeting his announcement.  I am hoping to hear more details about more concrete accountability and actual  policy and institutional and organizational changes.  I think at this time, videos and pledges are not going to get it.  Michael Charles: [00:35:42] I mean, it's certainly ending climate change, that's for sure. Crystal Fincher: [00:35:48] Michael. I mean, we're going to have a robust con-. I can't even tell,look, this has put me all sideways. We're going to have a robust conversation  on, you know, on all of these issues. And, and the one thing I will say, that I am excited about is, is that we're going to hear, like, so often it's hard for people who are not Black, or people who are not people of color,  for white people to be like, okay, there are varying opinions among Black people. So often the tendency is to be like, okay, so what is the Black opinion? What is the Asian opinion? Like, you know, what does this community think? And like every other community, like white communities, we don't all share the same opinion as we just saw, right? We don't all hold -we don't all have the same background and experiences. We are not coming from the same place.  You know, we, we have different takes on things and I think that conversation is healthy. We  are going to have - I'm looking forward to a number of the conversations in  the city-wide city council race  that includes both Brianna Thomas and Nikkita Oliver. They're, they're both people who have done a ton of good work and I like them both. And they're going to have differing opinions on, on things. And I'm interested to hear that and we need to surface more nuance and real conversation from within communities.  Because that, that is a mainstream conversation. People are not aware of it - they should be. And so I'm excited that we're going to hear from a number of Black candidates who don't all agree and, and we're just going to talk about it, and we're going to deal with it as we, as we do. And as we have within the community, but, but to see majority communities and white communities interface with that and, and like experience that, which they don't often get to experience in major metropolitan races. I think that's a positive. A positive thing.  Michael Charles: [00:37:53] Yeah. I mean, as long as it's done in respectful ways, you know, I'm just, we've mentioned many times that people can have positive intentions, but their results can not, can oftentimes lead to, you know, negative scenarios. And I, you know, I'm just concerned with  people who aren't more in tune with the nuanced conversation. I hope they're able to respectfully engage when there are disagreements. Or, you know, understand that the viewpoints are - they're both coming from Black women, are both coming from people of color or, you know, Native and  Black folks. Like I just think there's a whole bunch of different experiences that you need to also consider the source before you begin criticizing the way that - our current political environment usually has allowed for the engagement. That the styles of engagement. So, you know, I'm a little cautious to suggest I'm excited.  I, I think that  I'm cautiously optimistic.  Crystal Fincher: [00:39:04] I -. you know, I think it's going to be ugly, but I think we have to deal with it. I guess I'm just like, well, we're going to have to deal with it. Like this is something they need to engage with. Here we go.  And, and that engagement, you know, as we talked about at the beginning of the show, a lot of that engagement will be ugly and  not respectful or, or, you know, not coming from a place of good faith or genuine engagement. And we need to see that too. Michael Charles: [00:39:38] Yep. That's true. And so how we started this today, you know, and with that, that piece, the Port article, I think it's important to see that viewpoint because we can't grow unless people are being honest with themselves.  Crystal Fincher: [00:39:50] Right.  Michael Charles: [00:39:50] With their viewpoint, so -  Crystal Fincher: [00:39:52] Yeah. And, and just because you - there is kind of like you talked about, well, you know, how can you say, how can you criticize me for doing this? I criticized Trump. I'm, you know, not doing that. And like, clearly dude, you have some blind spots  have to be addressed. Like, why don't we go ahead and correct that name that has still not been corrected. Can we start with that?  And like maybe before you assume what someone is talking about, like read their platform, engage with people of color to the same degree and with the same depth that you engage with these white candidates - to start.  So that's, I mean, that is, is, we're just going to have an interesting conversation. We're going to have another interesting week.  And there is more of a desire to see if people are living consistently with the values that they are espousing. So -  and we have a Campaign Workers  Coalition and union now. That's a new dynamic, which is exciting.  So, so there are people getting together and sharing and supporting each other  increasingly in a lot of spaces.  We're going to get an Amazon vote pretty soon - results. And so  I, I think that is an encouraging, exciting thing that we are seeing - that in spaces that have resisted organization for so long  in both overt  and direct and indirect ways like us, we aren't a union, but we are acting  cooperatively. I think that makes things better for all of us. Michael Charles: [00:41:31] Agreed.  Crystal Fincher: [00:41:33] We'll continue down that road.  Just want to thank everybody for taking time to listen today to Hacks and Wonks.  Today's show - as always a full text transcript of the show is available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the show notes. I wanted to thank Michael Charles, who you can find on Twitter @mikeychuck that's, M I K E Y C H U C K.  And I'm on Twitter @finchfrii - that's F I N C H F R I I. You can find Hacks and Wonks wherever you get your podcasts, just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar and subscribe to get our midweek show, and then our Friday almost live show. Of course, you can find more information at officialhacksandwonks.com. So thanks for joining us. Thank you, once again, Michael -  have fun with the new baby.  Michael Charles: [00:42:21] Thank you! And thank you for living your values Crystal, for doing all the work that you can to do it. So appreciate you.  Crystal Fincher: [00:42:29] Appreciate you. And like we're doing a lot of this work together, so appreciate too. Yeah. And we'll talk to you next week. Thanks everyone.  Michael Charles: [00:42:39] Sounds great. Thanks you all.

Today Crystal and co-host Heather Weiner get into all things Seattle mayoral and city council elections, including: Who has thrown their hat into the mayoral race? Who is likely to in the near future? How will the Chamber and Amazon money affect these elections? Will big grocery store chains, some disgruntled by the $4 hazard pay increase recently passed by the city council, show up as major financial contributors? (Also, Trader Joe's is being pretty cool.) 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, Heather Weiner, at @hlweiner. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Articles Referenced: Follow the South Seattle Emerald's coverage of the mayoral race here: https://southseattleemerald.com/?s=mayor Learn more about Democracy Vouchers, and how you can use them, here: http://www.seattle.gov/democracyvoucher  Learn how to testify remotely before the legislature, and how to follow bills here: https://crosscut.com/politics/2021/01/how-follow-and-participate-washington-state-legislature    Transcript: Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] Welcome to Hacks and Wonks. I'm your host, Crystal Fincher. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on politics in our state. Full transcripts and resources are available in the show notes with the podcast and at officialhacksandwonks.com in the episode notes. Today, we are 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 and today's co-host renowned political consultant, Heather Weiner.  Heather Weiner: [00:00:49] Hi, more like infamous.  Crystal Fincher: [00:00:53] Well, certainly known for doing lots and lots of good work - groundbreaking, nation-leading work. So I am pleased to have you on the program again and eager to dive into these issues.  Heather Weiner: [00:01:05] Oh my gosh. I love podcasts and how they spend the first couple of minutes telling each other how much they love each other.  Crystal Fincher: [00:01:12] Well, see the awesome thing about having a podcast is it does give me an excuse to talk to people who I adore and admire and who are doing incredible work. So this is - this is really a bonus and a perk.  Heather Weiner: [00:01:23] Yeah. I love - I love all the different, incredible guests that you've had on.  All right. What are we talking about this week? Crystal! I'm so excited. Like, it's like, it's kind of like Christmas. It's not quite Christmas. It's more like - I don't know - hmm, more like opening, like Thanksgiving for political folks right now. Crystal Fincher: [00:01:41] For political folks - or maybe it's like Christmas Eve for political folks in Seattle - as we like unwrap the presents, you know? Get the few early ones on Christmas Eve and unwrap the presents that are political candidates for mayor and city council. And we had some more announcements this week. So I guess looking at the mayor's race to begin with, what's the shape of the race right now? Heather Weiner: [00:02:06] Yeah. Well, okay. First, full disclosure - I'm currently working with Lorena González. I'm helping her out with some comms work, but that's only for a couple of weeks just to help her get off the ground on her campaign. So full disclosure there. So you'll know that I'm not biased when I say, Wow, Lorena González is so - but yes, I'm - I think this is pretty big news. You know, the city council president is running for mayor. I think she is definitely has the biggest name recognition of anybody who's in the race right now. But there's also some really great people who have already declared like Colleen Echohawk, Lance Randall, and Andrew Grant Houston, all of whom are people of color, which is just amazing to have that deep of a bench and so many great leaders of color running for mayor. I just think it's wonderful here in Seattle.  Crystal Fincher: [00:02:52] Yeah. And we're seeing that increasingly, and to me it is positive and notable because so, you know, we need representation and power across the board - certainly within the political system and within policy places, in addition to others. And the leaders that we have and kind of also breaking through what so many people do very often - it's assume, you know, well, there is a Black opinion and there is a, you know, Latino or Hispanic opinion. There is an, you know, like Asian people believe - as if, you know, that is one category with an opinion. And to me one of the very healthy things is that we can have conversations about the various experiences we've had and the perspectives that we have and they're nuanced and varied. And that is - that reflects reality. And so to be able to have that seen more widely, hopefully, normalizes that, Hey, you know, I'm just going to look to one person from all of the non-white groups, because we have no problem distinguishing between white people and well, this is an environmental candidate, this is someone who is representing business and everything and in past elections we certainly have - Okay, well, that's - that's the candidate from the Black community. That's a Black candidate and it is not that simple. And so we do have a wonderful representation of Seattle so far, and there's also some other folks rumored at getting in. So who else might join the race?  Heather Weiner: [00:04:32] Well, we're still hearing rumors about Bruce Harrell, former city council member. We're hearing rumors about Jessyn Farrell, who is a former state legislator . Possibly Nikkita Oliver, question mark. So there's a lot of people out there who are still thinking about running. I think it's going to be a crowded race. If you remember, when we had an open seat after Ed Murray, we had dozens of candidates running. Full disclosure - I worked for Cary Moon during that campaign. And here we go again.  Crystal Fincher: [00:05:02] Here we go again. So we're getting to the point where many candidates are announcing here in this February and through March timeframe. Usually candidates are in if they're going to be in by that time, although there could be some after. But how are people, I guess, after their rollouts and their campaign announcements - how are they positioning themselves? Heather Weiner: [00:05:26] Yeah, I was just going to ask you that question. How are they positioning themselves? I mean, who here is the, you know, in that list of people we've talked about is the Chamber candidate? Who is the far left candidate? None of these are really that clear. Even for Lorena, there's quite a bit of conversation about collaboration, about bringing sides together, about not having the yelling and frankly, a lot of hate speech that has been coming towards the Council and between the council and other folks for the last couple of years. It's no secret that the Council and the current mayor have had a rough start - now in year three - on their working relationship.  And you know, there's also confusion among the public about, well, what does the City Council really do? So I wondered - Crystal, if we could just kind of review that for a second. Let's do a quick Civics 101 here and remind ourselves that when you talk about the City Council, it's the same as talking about Congress essentially. The City Council reviews the budget, they make legislation, they make specific policy, they pass laws - but then it is up to the mayor's office and the enormous amount of people who work for the City of Seattle to implement those policies, to spend that budget wisely. And I think that Durkan - and I'm saying this on behalf of myself, not on behalf of anybody's campaign - I think Durkan has done an excellent job of - anytime there was a problem, putting it on , putting the blame on the City Council instead of taking responsibility for herself.  Crystal Fincher: [00:06:55] She is a masterful blamer - I would agree with that. Heather Weiner: [00:06:59] So I think - and I think the public and some members of the press have bought it. I've been making jokes all day today that the cruise ship industry is going to be closed this year. And because of some rules that Canada is putting forward - not allowing them to dock. And why aren't we blaming that on the City Council too? So I'm really very curious to see how these different folks who are running, who are all - seem to be kind of rushing for the middle, except for maybe Andrew Grant Houston - how they're going to handle that. Well, that was not anybody like a candidate calling. Sorry. So I think it's going to be super interesting to see how that positioning is handling out. And I think a lot of what's happening at this moment is people re-introducing themselves to the public.  Crystal Fincher: [00:07:43] And I think the re-introductionis needed and useful. And also, with the rollouts that they have  and the interviews that candidates have done in various places. And I will say the South Seattle Emerald has done an excellent job with the various candidate interviews and getting more detailed than we often see in an initial interview certainly - is that it's not immediately apparent that people are trying to position themselves as, Well, I am the Chamber candidate, and I am the candidate of the people, and the left progressive candidate. And it really has been an issues focused conversation so far. But how do you see things shaping out, moving forward? Do you see front runners in this race? Do you see people starting with clear advantages in their position?  Heather Weiner: [00:08:38] Yeah. I mean, look, I mean, obviously Lorena González is the front runner here. She has the fundraising base, she has the name recognition, she has the knowledge - deep inside knowledge - of how the City Council works. She's well-known as a civil rights attorney in this town. Remember - she was the lawyer who fought for victim - fought for justice for the victim of the infamous "I'm going to beat the Mexican piss out of you" incident with SPD. So she's very well known, but Colleen Echohawk is also very well-known. She's got within certain circles, you know - she's known for her advocacy on housing affordability and philanthropy. She's on the board of the Downtown Seattle Association. So she's pretty well-known too. So I don't know - I think it's going to be interesting to see how that works out. I'm also very curious to see what happens with the independent expenditures. Now, as you remember, because it wasn't that long ago - it was 2019 - Amazon dumped $1.5 million into trying to elect their slate of candidates. And they also put - big businesses also put, including Comcast, put a million dollars into electing Durkan. So who they gonna put their money behind this year is really the question. There's been some rumors the Chamber is going to stay out of it, but we've been seeing a lot of other stuff happening that indicates, Nah, they're not gonna - they can't resist.  Crystal Fincher: [00:10:07] They have never been able to resist and I don't think that this is going to be any different. They certainly seem - while they still may have a question, perhaps, on who they'll ultimately support. They certainly seem to be moving in the direction of preparing that support and putting themselves in a stance to activate for their candidate once they're chosen and official.  Heather Weiner: [00:10:31] Let's - I mean - now the Chamber is going to argue and I think Tim Burgess and Tim Ceis, that people who are really - who are advising, who are the consultants on this, I think they're going to start arguing that things have changed in the last two years. And they have - but not because of anything the City Council has done. I mean, look, we're in the middle of a pandemic, right? Once every hundred years that something like this would happen. Poverty is on the rise because people have been unemployed. There's less money circulating through our economy right now. People are facing eviction, they're facing mental health issues and also substance use disorder issues. Yeah. Crime is going up right now. Yes - people - we are seeing increased homelessness and all of these are symptoms of the larger issue of wealth inequality and what's happening with our economy under COVID. They're going to try to put all of that - the increased visualization of poverty, which is what homelessness is - they're going to try to put that on the City Council. And I don't know if voters are going to understand the big picture macroeconomics here.  Crystal Fincher: [00:11:36] And I certainly do see a tendency - certainly from the mayor - and she seems to have gotten that from those interests as she was running - to blame everything on the City Council. We have seen several times over the past couple years that when the Council and the mayor have disagreed, the Council with the support of the public seemingly behind them, has overridden the mayor. And seemingly won the argument with the support of the public.  Heather Weiner: [00:12:07] This mayor is probably the least enthusiastic about interacting with the public of any mayor - well before COVID - and seemed a little bit sour on the job from day one. And so I'm not surprised that she doesn't want to run again. It is a hard job. And I will have to say that almost every reporter who interviewed Lorena González this week asked, Why do you want this job? It is not an easy job, right? We've got a city that is very much divided. We've got massive wealth inequality. We are seeing the impacts of 100 years of racial discrimination, of gentrification. We are, you know - and expecting a mayor to come in and solve all of those problems. And that's a really big burden. That's a really big job.  Crystal Fincher: [00:12:56] It is a big job and it is coming with more expectation of accountability and accountability in more visible ways than we have seen before. The public seems to be more engaged and less willing to tolerate rhetoric and really looking for action. Someone's going to have to prove that they have a plan that they're willing to fight for and implement. How do you think the candidates are positioned to do that?  Heather Weiner: [00:13:22] Yeah. I think the only candidate - now look, I sound like I'm campaigning, please forgive me, okay? I do think the only candidate, really, who knows how to work with the Council is the current Council President. Crystal Fincher: [00:13:35] You're listening to Hacks and Wonks with your host Crystal Fincher on KVRU 105.7FM. Heather Weiner: [00:13:45] There's two seats coming up, also at the same time - the election - even if both of those seats went to conservative candidates , the mayor, a progressive mayor, would still have a majority on the Council. So I think there is a really good position here to get quite a bit done, at least in the first two years of whoever the next mayor's reign is. And I'm wondering - let's talk about those seats. So Teresa Mosqueda, I think, thought for a couple of minutes about running for mayor, decided not to do it, has already qualified for democracy vouchers in one week, is on a fundraising tear. I think she's scaring off any other challengers to her - I don't think anybody's going to want to do it. She's already pretty popular.  And then you've got the seat that's being vacated by Lorena that's coming open and that's where everybody is flooding in.  Crystal Fincher: [00:14:30] We saw Sara Nelson declare for that seat either yesterday or the day before - this week, certainly. And she has run before. She's a business owner. She's had the support of CASE, the Chamber's campaign arm before. And so how, I guess, as she's running, how is she positioning herself and what did she present as her plan and viewpoint in her rollout?  Heather Weiner: [00:14:56] Yeah. Her talking point was - we need the perspective of a business owner on the Council. People don't remember though - that actually Sara Nelson was a staffe , City Hall staffer for quite a few years. I believe - I know that she worked for Conlin - I'm going to have to fact check this. Anyway, I know that she worked for Conlin and she is trying to say that she needs to be the business representative. I think what's going to happen though, is when people take a look at her positions and also her backers, they're going to see the same big corporate folks that we've always had. So that's going to be interesting. Ryan Calkins is also rumored to be thinking about this. He is currently a Port Commissioner.  Also a small business owner. And has been, in my view, really moving his own positions way to the left over the last year which is interesting - handsome, tall white guy. We've also heard rumors about Scott Lindsay who - former candidate for City Attorney - who lost badly to Pete Holmes. And who also has been working closely with KOMO and SPOG to foment, you know , anger towards the City Council.  And then we've also heard rumors about Brianna Thomas who's a friend of the show - I know she's been on the show before . Who is also a Lorena González staffer, who also has been named as a possible person who might be running. So that's - and I think actually Brianna has, and I'm not just saying this because I personally like her a lot - I actually think she has a good chance. Voters like to elect former City Hall staffers. Lisa Herbold - former city hall staffer. Dan Strauss - former City Hall staffer. Alex Pedersen, former City Hall staffer. All of these folks - Andrew Lewis, right - used to work at City Hall. So all of these folks are folks who have been elected by the voters. I think she has a good chance.  Crystal Fincher: [00:16:44] I think she has a good chance. And I think that particularly with her - especially right now and just talking about - voters want someone who is prepared to get the job done and start executing and delivering without just talking about what is needed without the knowledge and ability to get it done. As that - as Lorena González's chief of staff - she has been intimately involved with getting policy through and implementing the passage and the implementation, the design of legislation that can withstand the legal challenges. You know, it's as important to make sure your policy can stick as it is to pass it. So I think the combination of her experience kind of within that system and also additional experience at the legislative level and then bringing a community-oriented perspective into the office and really being able to fight for what community is standing for. I know that Lorena has talked about how important Brianna has been in not just reaching out to the community which she's been very  helpful with, but also in bringing the community perspective into the office. And to say, Hey, as a Black woman, this is not trivial - being afraid for ourselves and our family, as we walk out on the streets and not knowing if we're going to see someone come home again, or if they're going to be you know, harassed for, you know, either from the police or from, you know, Proud Boys roaming the streets without consequence or a variety of things. So, so being strong in that perspective has certainly, I think, helped policy in Seattle , been valuable for Lorena, and what voters are looking to see in their representatives today. Heather Weiner: [00:18:35] Yeah. And I know you said earlier at the show - that just because you're a person of color does not mean that you just singularly represent the people who you ethnically or racially identify with. But I do - I do think from a just, you know, your average voter perspective, seeing a Black woman on the City Council would be great because we do not have any Black representation right now.  I mean, but let's talk a little bit about what's happening on the money front. So right now, most of these candidates are using democracy vouchers - which I love, it makes me so excited. I mean, Seattle - you're awesome. You are using democracy vouchers to support the candidates that you want. This is the best way to overcome big money in politics. The other thing I want to point out is the rules have really changed for independent expenditures this year. Lorena, actually - don't I just sound like I'm promoting her constantly on this podcast? Are we going to have to declare this to the PDC as an in-kind contribution? You know, she was originally an ethics and elections commissioner. And now as a legislator with the City Council, passed some really remarkable reforms to campaign financing so that corporations that have a significant foreign presence are seen as foreign contributors and cannot participate in independent expenditures. So that is really interesting. And it's going to be interesting to see if Amazon and these other big corporations are legally able to put money into PACs like People for Seattle.  Crystal Fincher: [00:20:06] Yeah. And they, you know, last time around, they basically said, Here, have a blank check - whatever you want to spend, you can. To the point that they were - they were spending so much, they were running out of ways to spend it. So checking the influence of large actors, especially, who may not have the interest of the City of Seattle as their primary motivator , is something. I think that they'll find a way to participate within this campaign, but I do think you made an excellent point about democracy vouchers helping to check the power of corporations  like Amazon and of those with the most money - which buys the most communication and allows you to attempt to drown all of the other voices out. And we saw that firsthand, last city council election, where really it was because the people were engaged and did not appreciate Amazon trying to buy their candidates. And buy their way onto the City Council and influence on it, especially since the policies that they were fighting against were ones that Seattleites supported by a wide margin. You know, the Head Tax is popular among people in Seattle. The only entity that seems to be against it is Amazon and therefore the Chamber, which seems to closely follow Amazon's legislative and policy agenda.  Heather Weiner: [00:21:35] Look, I mean, Amazon still polls high in this city, you know, their political game-playing not withstanding. We - people still like Amazon. We like having our packages coming to our house. We like how the ease of Amazon, like voters still like Amazon. So - but they do not like Amazon trying to deliver a slate of candidates. So I don't know that they're going to be able to do it. And honestly, how do you spend money this year, Crystal? So remember there's no political advertising on Facebook in the state of Washington. Or - and Google says they don't allow it either in the state of Washington although people get through. Twitter definitely doesn't allow it anymore. So in terms of social media advertising and fundraising, that's off the table. You definitely want to have people knocking doors then, right? But how are you going to knock doors during COVID? We saw that Mark Mullet did it. He hired - he hired people and I think that's what helped him - pushed him over the edge. But how are you going to do it? How are you going to spend that money?  You know, I think folksCrystal Fincher: [00:22:33] are going to try it at the doors. I think that is going to happen. I think that we'll see a lot of digital advertising money spent. And so, although it may not be on Facebook and Amazon, it'll be on every other site you go to. And those, you know, customized ads that are served up. And I think that we are going to see, you know, an onslaught of radio and TV and mail and, and kind of going back to the old standbys. And frankly, what a lot of those entities are used to doing and have done for decades, really. And just trying to out-communicate on the airwaves and in the mailboxes.  But we will see - I think that people really saw the power of democracy vouchers before. And I think one thing that's underestimated is that not only does it give people the power to compete with big moneyed interests, with being able to broadly appeal to the residents of Seattle and have that add up. But it also gets people engaged to a greater degree than they did without them. The democracy voucher isn't just, Hey, one transaction, let me hand this over. It really does create a deeper bond or a deeper level of engagement with the candidate. So I think that right now we're going to see candidates have to not just be the candidate of the Chamber or with supportive unions - that they're going to have to speak to people and get the support of the public as much as they ever have before and not rely on, you know, Hey, look at my friends over here. They're going to do the heavy lifting of this independent expenditure communication without them having to make their own case and be a credible candidate that people feel is up to the task of handling the crises that we're facing.  Heather Weiner: [00:24:26] Yeah. You know, I know we only have a couple more minutes left, but I want to just say, I think one of the big players that we might see this year coming into the City Council and mayor's race might be the big grocery stores. They are big in the news this week - suing, well, some of them are - suing to stop their own workers from getting hazard pay in the grocery stores. I mean, these are people who are supposed to be the heroes, the frontline workers. People who are exposing themselves to hundreds and hundreds of people who might have COVID every single day. They are getting sick. They are the ones absorbing the impacts of this. And the grocery stores which are getting amazing amounts of profits during COVID - because we're all buying our groceries and not eating out - don't want to pay that money. And they are going to - they're suing, they're saying it's unconstitutional. They're really raising a fuss. Except - and PCC, which is supposed to be progressive, you know, co-op, awesome place to shop - is one of the people who are screaming the loudest. Except, and this blows my mind - Trader Joe's. You know, LA has done the same ordinance - Trader Joe's just went ahead and said, You know what? Good idea. We're going to do it for all workers across the country. Everybody gets $4 an hour raise.  Crystal Fincher: [00:25:44] Which was incredible to see and really did not do service to their similar, large grocers who as you said, despite reaping windfall profits since the beginning of the pandemic, have said, Well, we can't afford this. This is gonna make the price of groceries go higher. You know, the sky is going to fall. Don't pay attention to our exorbitant executive pay. But if we give these employees on the frontlines who are risking their lives 4 more dollars - things are going to be horrible.  Heather Weiner: [00:26:16] Yeah. We're going to have to raise prices - blah, blah, blah, blah. Meanwhile, these same corporations are buying back their own stock, right? Or giving out big dividends. Their shareholders are making a bunch of money - a grocery cart of money, Crystal. Yeah. Anyway, so look for them to get, to be involved in the play. And again, they're beseeching Mayor Durkan to veto this. I don't know if she is going to do it, but I know the City Council has enough votes to override it. Crystal Fincher: [00:26:43] Well, and my goodness, you would think that Mayor Durkan would be chastened a little bit about, you know, when the Council acts in service of the people and I then move to veto it - it doesn't turn out well, it's going to get overridden and then she's just sitting there once again as someone who tried to get in the way of progress and was just repudiated by everyone. And this seems like, you know, it seems like a bad argument on its face. And one that doesn't really have a shot in Seattle 'cause as you said, these corporate executive shareholders are reaping a lot of profit and have not had the experience that so many regular people, and certainly that many of their employees on the frontlines have, in the pandemic. And struggling to pay bills, and dealing with being exposed and trying not to bring that home to other family members. And to have the CEO of PCC fight against it as she's flying to Australia.  Heather Weiner: [00:27:49] Really?  Crystal Fincher: [00:27:50] Literally. Literally was fighting against the $4 hazard pay as she's tweeting online about loving her second home and getting ready to go to Australia. I'm like, Read the room, read the room. And as you have Whole Foods CEO, again, trying to put a progressive face on a company and him saying, Well, if people would just eat better, they would be healthier - wouldn't even need health insurance. Because certainly eating well prevents injuries from car accidents and cancer and you know, just how ridiculous and detached and entitled these people making these arguments are and it's pretty transparent. So this is going to be interesting, and I do think that they're going to play a greater role in attempting to shift the discourse. And it'll be interesting to see how that is responded to and how they receive that.  Heather Weiner: [00:28:48] Well, I can't wait to talk to you about this more. I think I'm coming back next month. Let's - let's check in and see what happens.  Crystal Fincher: [00:28:55] Absolutely. Well, thank you so much for listening to Hacks and Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM this Friday, February 5th, 2021. Our chief audio engineer at KVRU is Maurice Jones, Jr. and the producer of Hacks and Wonks is Lisl Stadler. Our wonderful co-host today is Seattle political consultant Heather Weiner. You can find Heather on Twitter @hlweiner. You can find me at Twitter @finchfrii. And now you can follow Hacks and Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts, just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live show and our mid-week show delivered to your podcast feed. And you can 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 and we'll talk to you next time. 

Today journalist Erica Barnett joins Crystal to dissect Mayor Durkan's decision not to run for re-election, Renton's continued attempt to use zoning laws to oust homeless folks, shelters, and services, the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce's challenge to the JumpStart payroll tax, and the SPD being held in contempt of court for their use of force last summer. A full text transcript of the show is available below, and on the Hacks & Wonks blog at https://www.officialhacksandwonks.com/post/week-in-review-with-erica-barnett. Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and Erica Barnett @ericabarnett, and on Publicola.com. Find Erica's book, Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse, and Recovery, online or at your local bookseller. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com. Articles Referenced: Anti-Homeless Shelter Bill Moves Forward in Renton from Publicola https://publicola.com/2020/12/09/anti-homeless-shelter-bill-moves-forward-in-renton/ Federal District Court Judge Finds Seattle in Contempt of Crowd Control Injunction by Paul Kiefer https://publicola.com/2020/12/07/federal-district-court-judge-finds-seattle-in-contempt-of-crowd-control-injunction/ Find more work by today's co-host, Erica Barnett, at https://publicola.com/ Full Transcript: Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] Welcome to Hacks and Wonks. I'm your host Crystal Fincher. On this show, we gather insight into state and local politics and policy through the lens of those doing the work and provide the behind-the-scenes perspectives on politics in our state. Today, we're continuing our Friday almost live shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host Seattle political reporter, editor of PubliCola, and author of Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse and Recovery, Erica Barnett.  Erica Barnett: [00:00:40] Great to be here, Crystal.  Crystal Fincher: [00:00:42] And great to have you here. So we will dive right in. And big news of the week that we started off the week with is Jenny Durkan announced that she will not be seeking re-election - very consequential news for the city. And so just wanted to get your thoughts on what drove that decision and what does that mean now? Erica Barnett: [00:01:03] I mean, my thoughts, just having observed Mayor Durkan for three years are that she really didn't like the job. And particularly the job of being mayor in a pandemic, at a time when there is a racial reckoning taking place that involves protests, particularly protest against her and her leadership. And during a time of economic collapse nationwide - it's a time of a lot of bad news, as everybody is well-aware, and it's a hard job in good times and it's a hard job, especially in bad times. And I think she just, in some ways, was not really fully prepared for what the job entailed and the criticism that she would be subjected to in such a prominent position. She'd never held elected office before and, I think, came in believing that this was essentially a managerial job and a communications job. And in fact, it's much, much more than that to be the mayor of a major city with lots of problems, including, I didn't even mention, the crisis of homelessness which has gotten so much more visible on her watch.  Crystal Fincher: [00:02:09] Well, I think you nailed that analysis and kind of put your finger on what a lot of people don't pay much attention to is - what is the job of the mayor? And it's a lot more broad than when someone's just thinking about, off the top of their head - if they don't have much experience with it, there's so much more to it than just managing the city. And also in situations where someone's not used to being under a microscope with every decision that they're making, and criticism is coming, no matter what decision you make - to be able to accept that and deal with it and work with that - it seemed like that was always a struggle for her. Just dealing with criticism and understanding that that's something that happens and instead of trying to avoid it at all costs - not successfully, or adeptly, navigating through that. That seemed to be a continuing struggle for her and I think you nailed it - she seemed to just really not want to be there increasingly as time has gone on. Erica Barnett: [00:03:17] Yeah. I mentioned that I think that she sees being the mayor as largely a communications job and I want to expand on that a little bit. I think that if you look at her messaging and the messengers that she uses to get her message out and just, her general spin on every event, whether good or bad, has been that things are good and getting better. And that just simply doesn't work in 2020, and also it's not believable. And I think that that really hampered her ability to respond in real time to events like the Black Lives Matter protest, for example. Her response was essentially to double down initially and say, We're doing everything right and that Seattle is a model for police reform in the country. She said that many times, and then flipped it at a certain point and said, You know what? Fine. Here's a $100 million that we're going to spend - first, she said on black communities and then she said on BIPOC communities - without actually having any sort of plan for how to do that and just saying, We'll figure it out later.  As it turned out, that was a pretty rash promise because it relied on revenues that were already dedicated and promised to other sources, including by the mayor herself. There's $30 million in there that she had already promised to equitable development - and so, it just felt like a lot of her careening from position to position was based on, if not real polls, kind of an invisible poll in her head about what would make people react to her positively. I, obviously, I'm not inside the mayor's brain, but that's what it looked like from the outside and it often resulted in a lot of really inconsistent seeming policies. And it also led to, I think, a feeling that it's hard to trust what the mayor's position is, or policy is, on an issue and on any given day, 'cause it could change tomorrow, based on who she wants to please on that day. So I think that - no politician can ignore opinion polls and no politician can ignore what people are saying about them, but I'll just give one example. The mayor's office reactions to things on Twitter was pretty extreme. I think that - just the pushback that I would get personally, for stuff that I would say on Twitter, or things people would respond to me saying that I had no control over, was pretty strong from the mayor's office. And my advice about Twitter and I don't always take this is, It's like riding on a waterfall and it disappears after a minute. And, if you make an error, you correct it. If you don't like something, everybody's gonna be yelling about something else in five minutes. But I don't think the mayor was really able to heed that advice. Crystal Fincher: [00:05:53] I think you're right. And the issue of trust - when you talk about the community needing to trust the message that they're hearing from the mayor and from the mayor's office, eventually wound up being irretrievably broken. And I think that she eventually came to see that. But the struggle through that, like you were talking about - her responses to, during the protests, to what the police were doing and our ability to see something that she is denying while we're watching video of that thing happening - it was jarring for a lot of people and a number of her supporters that came in, as she came in, became disillusioned. People who were already frustrated with the messaging and pace of progress became even more vocally disillusioned. And it just continued to be a consistent problem.  We have seen, and it looks like there's going to be another rehashing of the "Seattle is Dying" - fabricated, largely exaggerated, I won't say documentary, but spin - on homelessness and crime in Seattle. And for residents of Seattle that never rang true. And so the effect that people thought that that would have on elections never materialized. I think on the flip side, with a number of the things, as you pointed out, Jenny Durkan saying, Things are great and they're getting even better. We're working on it and it's awesome and don't you believe your eyes. And people are looking around and going, No, it's not - the problem's getting worse and the things that you say are happening are not. And we understand this is a hard problem to fix, but we want to see you try and not just lie to us with a smile on your face. And that was continually a challenge. And especially in municipal positions, from big cities to small, you're living in the same conditions as your residents and you're telling them what's happening on their streets and in their neighborhoods. And they can see, outside their window, if what you're saying rings true or not. This is not like a legislative position or something in Congress where you can make a speech and take a vote and it just seems very disconnected and the expectation of accountability doesn't squarely land on you. That's the case in Seattle and it just seems like she wasn't prepared for her word and her actions to be the end-all and be-all, her needing to take a side, her needing to make definitive decisions and be accountable to those decisions in the public. So now that we are here and she has announced that she's not running for re-election - what does this do to the political landscape in Seattle? Erica Barnett: [00:08:31] Well, I think that it is going to be, I think it's going to be a very crowded mayoral race as it was last time. I wouldn't be surprised to see 20-25 people jumping in. I think that Lorena González - and I'm terrible, I should say, at predictions, I always need to caveat that - but I think Lorena González, City Council president, is likely to get in. And of course, Teresa Mosqueda is another council member whose name is being thrown around - I think that's a little less likely. I mean it's - running for mayor is a tough decision because it's a bad job and so, it's often hard to get that many really qualified candidates out of that 20 or 25 that we've been seeing in recent years. So I think it'll be really interesting to see - Jessyn Farrell, who ran last time and who PubliCola, then the C is for Crank, endorsed, is supposedly thinking about it, as is Brady Walkinshaw, who ran for Congress and lost. And so, I think it's going to be a crowded race with some familiar faces, probably some unfamiliar faces. And yeah, I mean, that's basically all we can predict right now.  Crystal Fincher: [00:09:40] Do you think there's going to be an advantage or a disadvantage to those running from their council positions, if one or more current council members get in? Do you think that's an advantage, a disadvantage, or how do you think that plays out? Erica Barnett: [00:09:55] Well, that's a really good question. The city council is broadly incredibly unpopular and the mayor is also not super popular, but in a way, these are judgements of positions rather than judgments of people. I do think if you're running as an incumbent city council member, that is a tough thing you have to overcome. I do think, though, that the citywide city council members may have a little more popularity - and I haven't seen specific polling on this, I just know that a lot of the district council members are less popular than they were when they came in and certainly than the mayor. So I think it is a disadvantage to run from a council seat, but on the other hand, you do have name recognition, so that certainly helps. I'm trying to think of the most recent council member who was elected mayor, if any, and I am drawing a blank right now. So, I'm not sure - it certainly doesn't convey any obvious advantages other than name recognition, obviously.  Crystal Fincher: [00:10:56] Yeah, that does seem to be the case and I'm drawing the same blank that you are.  Erica Barnett: [00:11:01] I can think of lots of them who've run - Bruce Harrell, Peter Steinbrueck - I mean, plenty of candidates for mayor among the council, but none successful.  Crystal Fincher: [00:11:10] Yeah, certainly going to be interesting to see how this plays out and how they engage with the competing and pressing priorities in the city. Well, talking about other cities, that brings us to Renton, and we talked about this a bit last week on the show, but Renton is adopting legislation that will effectively ban future homeless shelters and set an eviction date for the current tenants in the Red Lion. This certainly - my view is that this is a very bad thing, but also as you have pointed out and discussed, it's also bad for the regional approach to homelessness that's so often talked about. You want to give a bit of background on this? Erica Barnett: [00:11:53] Sure. So the City of Seattle and I believe 39 other suburban cities are joining into an agency called the King County Regional Homelessness Authority. And the idea is that having a centralized authority will create or enable a regional approach rather than the city-by-city approaches that we have had over the years. And that authority has had a lot of bumps along the way. The selection of a director for the authority, known as the CEO is very slow. It's been - it was supposed to happen in September. The latest timeline has it happening now in February. So, hard to say how that's going to go, but the problem with regionalism and the problem always has been that a lot of these cities that are outside Seattle want to have their own approaches to homelessness and a lot of times those approaches are a lot more punitive than what Seattle would like. So that tension does not go away just because you create a regional body and say, We're regional now. The cities did not initially want to participate unless they got a significant amount of leverage on the various boards that are on the governing board that oversees the authority. And they also didn't want to pay taxes to support the authority. They got both of those things, but now as we're seeing, individual cities, not just Renton, but, cities are cleaving off in various ways. One thing that happened recently was a bunch of cities, I think half a dozen, including Renton, adopted their own versions of local sales taxes to pre-empt the King County sales tax that's going to pay for homelessness. And those local versions can pay for things that are not specifically oriented to homelessness, like housing for essentially middle-income people. So I think that tension is going to continue and it's going to continue to hamper the ability to have an actually regional approach. Renton is already talking about sub-regional authority, which is, I think in some ways, a synonym for city authority, which is what we already had before this whole effort started.  Crystal Fincher: [00:13:51] Right. So how is Renton going about trying to evict these people from the Red Lion?  Erica Barnett: [00:13:57] This legislation is land use legislation and it is essentially zoning them out. So the legislation does two things - it says that everybody, that most of the people at the Red Lion currently, have to be out as of June 1st, so the end of May -  by putting a cap on the number of people who can be there. So it would be 125. Right now there's about 235 or so people living there. Then after that, at the end of the year, everybody would have to be out. So no matter what happens with the pandemic, which is the reason everybody was moved so swiftly from the Morrison Hotel and other DESC facilities in Seattle to the Red Lion. No matter what happens with that, they've got to be out. And then the second thing it does is it adopts new rules for - new zoning rules - for shelters, which Renton says - shelters are currently illegal 'cause there's no zoning that explicitly allows them. I think that's a novel interpretation of what zoning is for. We don't have any rules like that in Seattle at all. And the rules say that no homeless service provider can serve more than a hundred people total. And that includes shelters and any other homeless services you might have, either co-located or at a facility. So no more than a hundred - hard cap. And they have to be half a mile from each other, only in certain industrial zones, well-removed from people, and there's also tons of rules around how the shelter providers are supposed to manage the conduct of the people who stay there, which is kind of an outrageous demand in my view, because they are human beings and they have civil rights and I think a lot of the conduct requirements really infringe on those rights.  Crystal Fincher: [00:15:40] I completely agree with that. And this is just a reminder that you're listening to Hacks and Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM. I'm your regular host Crystal Fincher, and today we have a guest co-host, Seattle political reporter, Erica Barnett. And so they are really appearing to use zoning as a tool to exclude. Which, certainly, zoning laws have a history of that use and then being wielded that way. But you talked about one of their interpretations being novel. How standard does what they're doing appear to be overall with how zoning laws are implemented and used? Erica Barnett: [00:16:20] Well, I think it's - I can't speak to every single zoning law in the state obviously. I haven't done a review, but I know that in Seattle, the biggest city in the state, zoning, and traditionally everywhere, zoning is used to regulate things like density and also environmental hazards. So you might have industrial zoning that says the buildings can't include residential and also it has to be far away from people because there are environmental hazards associated with a steam plant, or whatever, or manufacturing business. Zoning is not traditionally used to exclude - well traditionally, it was certainly used to exclude people of color from certain areas of cities - but today in 2020, we use it to do things like regulate height, and regulate density, and regulate how many people can live in an area versus what kind of businesses can be located in an area - do we let big box stores go there? We don't use zoning to say that if people are of the class that is houseless or homeless, they cannot be here. I think that is a really, really dangerous road to start going down, and the reason I say it's a novel interpretation is that the city of Renton, I think, really rushed this legislation. I think it's pretty poorly written and they revised it a whole bunch of times in response to specific legal objections that could open them up to lawsuits. And they have been trying to get the people kicked out of the Red Lion for a really long time. They initially said that this is a violation of a different part of the zoning code, saying that there's a dispute over whether it's a hotel use or whether it's a use that's not explicitly allowed, and that's happening on separate tracks. So, they're trying every tool they can and they don't have a lot of tools to ban homeless people because there aren't a lot of tools to ban homeless people. It's not people's fault that they become homeless, and tools that are laws like sit-lie laws and saying that you're not allowed to loiter, are increasingly considered to be civil rights violations and also racist. So this is a different approach that takes a very kind of, cold and analytical-seeming concept of zoning, and says that it applies here. But what they're really trying to do is send these folks back to Seattle and their comments at council made that pretty clear. Everybody said, This is a Seattle problem. Seattle created it. They need to go back there and that's what's really going on.  Crystal Fincher: [00:18:51] That does appear that is what's actually going on. They're attempting to act like their city doesn't have an inherent problem with homeless people, that they are somehow coming from different cities, and that if you treat them with full humanity and decency, that only entices them and incentivizes them to stay, when we know that's just factually untrue. So it looks like this is going to be taken up again on a meeting with the council on Monday night, is that correct?  Erica Barnett: [00:19:26] That's right. And that'll be a final action. Crystal Fincher: [00:19:30] So it certainly looks like this is what the council intends to do, but for people who are able - making comments, making phone calls, certainly making sure that people are on record saying that this is not the default position of the general public in Renton and in the area. And that this is really an inhumane response to a really human problem. So looking next - issues where residents and businesses are struggling. The JumpStart payroll tax was an attempt to generate revenue to help people impacted by COVID, the pandemic, and everything that has resulted. And the Chamber of Commerce has brought a lawsuit against it. What's happening there? Erica Barnett: [00:20:19] Well, the lawsuit - this is from the Seattle Metro Chamber of Commerce. And essentially what they're saying is that this amounts to, just getting outside of the jargon of the lawsuit, they're saying this is an income tax effectively. Specifically, they're saying it's a tax on the right to do business and they're calling on a 1952 precedent that involved a license that people in Bellingham, I believe, had to get to basically work and that was overturned. And so, again, speaking of novel approaches, I think this is a novel approach and I don't know that it will necessarily be successful. It seems like a pretty weak argument. But it's interesting - I mean, I think a lot of people at the city were surprised that the Chamber decided to take this kind of Grinch-like action, it was described to me by someone at the city, and sue over this. It only affects a small percentage of businesses in the city making revenues of over $7 million and with employees with pay of over $150,000/year. And as you said, the JumpStart Tax for the first couple years, it's COVID relief. And a lot of that is COVID relief directly to small businesses. And so, for the Chamber of Commerce to be opposing relief for small businesses is directly, it seems, conflicting with their mission, which is to support businesses of all sizes and not just the Amazons and the Facebooks and the Googles of Seattle. Crystal Fincher: [00:21:46] Well, and this is certainly that issue brought out into the light. This has been a criticism of the Seattle Chamber of Commerce and of several - saying in larger cities, really saying, Who are you representing? The majority of your membership is small businesses and they oftentimes have fundamentally different challenges and concerns than the largest corporations in the world, like the Amazons and Microsofts and Googles. And the issues that they have pushed hard on or run on, oftentimes seem to have been at the direction of the mega-corporations and not of the neighborhood businesses that many residents patronize and who hire our neighbors to a large degree. And so there really does seem to be a real conflict of interest and a need for a reckoning and accountability for whose agenda are they really pushing. And I hope this is a conversation that the wider business community in Seattle has, because when we only focus on the mega-corporation interests, we all lose out, and it is small business who employs the majority of people. They're individuals and don't individually wield a lot of power, but collectively, they really determine the direction of our local economy. And so to see help - that are keeping the doors open in these small businesses and that are keeping people employed - being directly challenged and Amazon looking to snatch money out of people's hands and the hands of small business is pretty blatant and overt. And people are literally asking, Is this now an Amazon lobbyist? Or is this an organization that represents the biggest, the interest of small businesses in the city? So it'll certainly be interesting to continue to watch how that unfolds.  Erica Barnett: [00:23:46] Yeah, I'll just add one quick thing. I mean, the JumpStart Tax is explicitly designed to go - to have preference for brick and mortar businesses. And a lot of the complaints about what's happening "downtown", and what you're going to see in the latest KOMO propaganda film on Saturday is that there's - is that the downtown is dead, the businesses are boarded up, and there's too many homeless people wandering around, and all that kind of stuff. Well, guess what? This tax pays for brick-and-mortar businesses to help them stay open. It also pays for, specifically for homelessness programs, and homelessness prevention and rental assistance, so that more people don't become homeless. So I would say that even the non-targeted provisions of this legislation would actually help the businesses that are complaining about the state of downtown right now. Crystal Fincher: [00:24:40] Certainly appears to be the case. Now, this week, we also saw SPD have a case ruled against them and they were held in contempt by a judge. What happened with that?  Erica Barnett: [00:24:55] Well, essentially, there were a lot of complaints regarding the protests that started back in June about police use -  indiscriminate use - of weapons, so-called less-lethal weapons, like blast balls and tear gas and pepper spray. And several of those - the judge found several of those to essentially be credible and held them in contempt of this injunction that he issued back in June saying that SPD could not use force against peaceful protestors. So, it's a very, it's a meaningful ruling. I think we'll see what the penalties are and, and whether it has any kind of long-term impact on SPDs practices, but it is unusual for the city to be held in contempt in this way. So it's certainly meaningful in that way.  My reporter Paul Kiefer said that, reported that, the mayor's office couldn't find any similar cases like this in their review. So it's certainly unprecedented and unusual. But we'll see what the penalties are and we'll see what - whether it has any kind of impact on the upcoming police negotiations or on police practices. Crystal Fincher: [00:26:00] That will be interesting to see. And especially with some of the arguments that SPD was making - that as long as they can show that their officers were instructed not to do something - if they do it, then it's not SPDs fault. Even if that appears to be habitual behavior - just the throwing up of hands and say, Well, we told them not to do it. So what - how can we be responsible for that? How are we to expect that an organization currently under a consent decree for an excessive use of force would have officers that do that, despite being told not to several times? So it seems like there is a continuing resistance - none of us are surprised, right - about any kind of accountability, taking any kind of responsibility, for what officers are doing on the ground. And this contempt order also explicitly acknowledged that officers were acting independent of any regard for their own personal safety. So many defenses of this are like, Well, what do you expect if someone tries to assault an officer, which no one is condoning of anyone. But what we have seen several times is that there was no threat - no physical threat, no assault, no feeling scared that something imminent was about to happen - this was just a response and basically, explicitly said, a response to the message Black Lives Matter than to the protestors. Erica Barnett: [00:27:26] Sorry, sorry that I interrupted you there - just to your point - the judge noted that one of the officers ordered an officer to use a blast ball to "create space" between officers and protesters, which is not a response to any kind of use of force or any kind of bad behavior at all from protesters. It's just - it was just kind of indiscriminate - and blast balls are very potentially harmful and damaging weapons.  Crystal Fincher: [00:27:52] Extremely. There are instances of journalists' eyes being put out with blast balls and people of the public's eyes being just exploded by blast balls. There's actually a little support group just for that specific thing throughout protests in the country. It is an alarming and depressing thing. And what a lot of people wonder is, Okay, so a judge has ruled they've been held in contempt. So what happens to them? Is there a penalty? Is there a consequence? Erica Barnett: [00:28:21] I mean, there could be a financial penalty for sure. I think that - that again remains to be seen, but they could have to pay out. There's a lot of plaintiffs in this case, as you might imagine - not just Black Lives Matter of Seattle King County, but the ACLU and a number of individuals who say they were harmed by SPD's use of force. So financial penalties are something that the city is used to dealing with, but they also don't like to pay them. So conceivably that could change officer behavior, but I think, what it's going to come down to ultimately is the police contract, is police leadership. We have an acting police chief right now and ultimately whether we get a mayor, or whether this mayor decides to take a hard political and public stance against some of these actions, which the current mayor has not.  Crystal Fincher: [00:29:14] Got it. But I do want to thank all of you for listening to Hacks and Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM on this Friday, December 11th, 2020. Our chief audio engineer is, at KVRU, is Maurice Jones Jr. The producer of Hacks and Wonks is Lisl Stadler. And our wonderful co-host today was Seattle political reporter and founder of PubliCola, Erica Barnett. You can find Erica on Twitter @ericabarnett, that's Erica with a C, and on PubliCola.com. And you can buy her book Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse, and Recovery on Amazon or through your independent bookseller. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, and now you can follow Hacks and Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type Hacks and Wonks into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our mid-week show delivered to your podcast feed. And you'll notice in the show notes there are now full text transcripts of the audio shows to further the accessibility of the podcast. So thanks for tuning in and we'll talk to you next time.

Bill Radke reviews the week's news with former Washington state Attorney General Rob McKenna, former state legislator Jessyn Farrell, and KIRO-TV reporter Essex Porter.

Bill Radke reviews the week's news with cofounder of The Evergrey Mónica Guzmán, former state legislator Jessyn Farrell and documentary filmmaker Chris Rufo.

Bill Radke reviews the week’s news with former Democratic state representative Jessyn Farrell, Former Republican state representative Chris Vance and former Seattle mayor Mike McGinn.

Bill Radke reviews the week’s news with Seattle Channel’s Civic Cocktail host Joni Balter, former Washington State representative Jessyn Farrell and former Washington State attorney general Rob McKenna.

Bill Radke reviews the week’s news with former Washington State representative Jessyn Farrell, the co-founder of the Evergrey newsletter Monica Guzman and co-chair of Washington Independents Chris Vance.

As newly elected Democrats across the country enter their respective capitol buildings for the first time, Civic Ventures president Zach Silk and former Washington State legislator (and Civic Ventures senior VP) Jessyn Farrell offer advice for what they should prioritize – and it starts with economic policies that help the broad majority. Further reading: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/08/14/democrats-must-reclaim-the-center-by-moving-hard-left-219354 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Bill Radke reviews the week’s news with civic editor for Geekwire Monica Nickelsburg, former Washington State representative Jessyn Farrell and host of Civic Cocktail on the Seattle Channel Joni Balter.

August 1 was the primary election and we've been watching several races here at the Wire, including the crowded race to become the next mayor of Seattle. So Tuesday night, we sent a team of reporters to four election night parties, which just happened to be the four candidates in the lead at the end of the night: Jenny Durkan (31.6%), Cary Moon (15.6%), Nikkita Oliver (13.9%), and Jessyn Farrell (11.8%). Our reporters talked with candidates and their supporters before and after the preliminary results. But with the results not final until August 15, we'll be checking the results for this race, and the other elections in Washington until then.