What's Trending, After repeated break-ins some business owners are worried about losing insurance coverage A 16-year-old is accused of shooting a gun at a King County deputy and is being charged as an adult Big Local: School district use of Warrior image gets approved by Yakima Nation, Clover Park High School looks to change Warrior Mascot, In Tacoma, should people be able to camp on public property GUEST: SPOG President Mike Solan on the new tool they launched: ACLU WATCH. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Erica Wiley, vice president of development for the United Way of King County, explains the brain science behind giving and explains why she thinks people tend to give more during the holidays. Volunteer for free tax prep with United Way of King County, which has a mix of in-person and virtual opportunities. KING 5's annual Home Team Harvest drive to benefit Northwest Harvest is underway. This year's goal is to raise 21 million meals. Ways to donate: Online at king5.com/hometeamhavest, text “HOMETEAM” to 41444 or starting Nov. 1, visit your local Safeway or Albertson's to give $5, $10 or $12 toward grocery cards. Watch the Home Team Harvest broadcast special on Dec. 4 at 10 a.m. on KING 5, king5.com and the KING 5 mobile app.
Learn about the latest in local public affairs in about the time it takes for a coffee break! Brian Callanan of Seattle Channel and Kevin Schofield of Seattle City Council Insight take a final look at the approved 2022 city budget, and an impending land swap between the city and King County. Plus, a look at why the new King County Regional Homelessness Authority will not be doing a "point-in-time" count of homeless residents, a new sheriff selection process, and a new set of regulations for the City Council. Also: a reflection on the deliciousness of tartlet season. If you like this podcast, please support us on Patreon!
Erica C. Barnett from Publicola joins Crystal this week to review the news of the week, including: King County's decision not to count the homeless population this year; Crosscut's opinion section shutting down; Sound Transit continuing its punitive fare enforcement policy; and The continuing redistricting saga. 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 “In a Move with Potential Funding Consequences, King County Won't Count Homeless Population This Year” by Erica C. Barnett from Publicola: https://publicola.com/2021/11/24/in-a-move-with-potential-funding-consequences-king-county-wont-count-homeless-population-this-year/ “Seattle City Council passes a 2022 budget that emphasizes funding for homelessness, affordable housing” by Sarah Grace Taylor from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/seattle-city-council-passes-a-2022-budget-that-emphasizes-funding-for-homelessness-affordable-housing/ “Council Declines to Fund Two Big-Ticket Asks from Homelessness Authority” by Erica C. Barnett from Publicola: https://publicola.com/2021/11/17/council-declines-to-fund-two-big-ticket-asks-from-homelessness-authority/ “Q&A: Two years after her report on Seattle's homelessness, how does Barbara Poppe grade the city?” by Vianna Davila from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/homeless/qa-two-years-after-her-report-on-seattles-homelessness-how-does-barbara-poppe-grade-the-city/ “An Interview with Homeless Consultant Barb Poppe” by Erica C. Barnett in The South Seattle Emerald: https://southseattleemerald.com/2017/03/16/an-interview-with-homelessness-consultant-barb-poppe/ “No Safe Street: A Survey of Violence Committed Against Homeless People” from The National Coalition for the Homeless: https://nationalhomeless.org/no-safe-place/ “Crosscut's Opinion Section is Shutting Down. That's Bad News.” by Katie Wilson from Publicola: https://publicola.com/2021/11/22/crosscuts-opinion-section-is-shutting-down-thats-bad-news/ “After Years of Debate, Still No Fix for Sound Transit's Punitive Fare Enforcement Policy” by Erica C. Barnett from Publicola: https://publicola.com/2021/11/23/after-years-of-debate-still-no-fix-for-sound-transits-punitive-fare-enforcement-policy/ “Mayor Wu Takes Steps to Expand Fare-Free Bus Service” from the City of Boston Mayor's Office: https://www.boston.gov/news/mayor-wu-takes-steps-expand-fare-free-bus-service “A look at last-minute deal-making in WA redistricting negotiations” by Melissa Santos from Crosscut: https://crosscut.com/politics/2021/11/look-last-minute-deal-making-wa-redistricting-negotiations “Critics call for reform of WA redistricting process after commission failure” by Melissa Santos from Crosscut: https://crosscut.com/politics/2021/11/critics-call-reform-wa-redistricting-process-after-commission-failure “Washington's redistricting failure: What went wrong and what happens now?” by Jim Brunner from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/washingtons-redistricting-failure-what-went-wrong-and-what-happens-now/ Transcript The transcript will be uploaded as soon as possible.
The Big Lead: Arbery Verdict & King County rolls out vaccine verification enforcement plan. // Barronelle Stutzman owner of Arlene's Flowers in Richland gives an exclusive update. // Psaki says turkeys are only $1 more. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Tom & Curley are joined by KIRO's own Hannah Scott is in to discuss how Patti Cole-Tindall to become King County interim sheriff; department workers, new hires could get bonuses up to $15K. // A Michigan woman tried to hire an assassin online at RentAHitman.com. Now, she's going to prison. // Washington buyers facing Christmas tree shortage after summer heatwave. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
What's Trending: Dow Constantine announces the interim police sheriff, and King County wants input from rural folks about how to “reimagine” public safety. Big Local: More vehicles stolen in Puyallup, and the Clark County Jail has a 25 person COVID outbreak. King County is skipping the annual homeless count, and Biden tries to reassure Americans before Thanksgiving. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
About BrianI lead the Google Cloud Product and Industry Marketing team. We're focused on accelerating the growth of Google Cloud by establishing thought leadership, increasing demand and usage, enabling our sales teams and partners to tell our product stories with excellence, and helping our customers be the best advocates for us.Before joining Google, I spent over 25 years in product marketing or engineering in different forms. I started my career at Microsoft and had a very non-traditional path for 20 years. I worked in every product division except for cloud. I did marketing, product management, and engineering roles. And, early on, I was the first speech writer for Steve Ballmer and worked on Bill Gates' speeches too. My last role was building up the Microsoft Surface business from scratch and as VP of the hardware businesses. After Microsoft, I spent a year as CEO at a hardware startup called Doppler Labs, where we made a run at transforming hearing, and then two years as VP at Amazon Web Services leading product marketing, developer advocacy, and a bunch more marketing teams. I have three kids still at home, Barty, Noli, and Alder, who are all named after trees in different ways. My wife Edie and I met right at the beginning of our first year at Yale University, where I studied math, econ, and philosophy and was the captain of the Swim and Dive team my senior year. Edie has a PhD in forestry and runs a sustainability and forestry consulting firm she started, that is aptly named “Three Trees Consulting”. We love the outdoors, tennis, running, and adventures in my 1986 Volkswagen Van, which is my first and only car, that I can't bring myself to get rid of.Links: Twitter: https://twitter.com/IsForAt LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/brhall/ Episode 10: https://www.lastweekinaws.com/podcast/screaming-in-the-cloud/episode-10-education-is-not-ready-for-teacherless/ TranscriptAnnouncer: Hello, and welcome to Screaming in the Cloud with your host, Chief Cloud Economist at The Duckbill Group, Corey Quinn. This weekly show features conversations with people doing interesting work in the world of cloud, thoughtful commentary on the state of the technical world, and ridiculous titles for which Corey refuses to apologize. This is Screaming in the Cloud.Corey: This episode is sponsored in part by our friends at Redis, the company behind the incredibly popular open source database that is not the bind DNS server. If you're tired of managing open source Redis on your own, or you're using one of the vanilla cloud caching services, these folks have you covered with the go to manage Redis service for global caching and primary database capabilities; Redis Enterprise. Set up a meeting with a Redis expert during re:Invent, and you'll not only learn how you can become a Redis hero, but also have a chance to win some fun and exciting prizes. To learn more and deploy not only a cache but a single operational data platform for one Redis experience, visit redis.com/hero. Thats r-e-d-i-s.com/hero. And my thanks to my friends at Redis for sponsoring my ridiculous non-sense. Corey: Writing ad copy to fit into a 30 second slot is hard, but if anyone can do it the folks at Quali can. Just like their Torque infrastructure automation platform can deliver complex application environments anytime, anywhere, in just seconds instead of hours, days or weeks. Visit Qtorque.io today and learn how you can spin up application environments in about the same amount of time it took you to listen to this ad.Corey: Welcome to Screaming in the Cloud. I'm Corey Quinn. I'm joined today by a special guest that I've been, honestly, antagonizing for years now. Once upon a time, he spent 20 years at Microsoft, then he wound up leaving—as occasionally people do, I'm told—and going to AWS, where according to an incredibly ill-considered affidavit filed in a court case, he mostly focused on working on PowerPoint slides. AWS is famously not a PowerPoint company, and apparently, you can't change culture. Now, he's the VP of Product and Industry Marketing at Google Cloud. Brian Hall, thank you for joining me.Brian: Hi, Corey. It's good to be here.Corey: I hope you're thinking that after we're done with our conversation. Now, unlike most conversations that I tend to have with folks who are, honestly, VP level at large cloud companies that I enjoy needling, we're not going to talk about that today because instead, I'd rather focus on a minor disagreement we got into on Twitter—and I mean that in the truest sense of disagreement, as opposed to the loud, angry, mutual blocking, threatening to bomb people's houses, et cetera, nonsense that appears to be what substitutes for modern discourse—about, oh, a month or so ago from the time we're recording this. Specifically, we talked about, I'm in favor of job-hopping to advance people's career, and you, as we just mentioned, spent 20 years at Microsoft and take something of the opposite position. Let's talk about that. Where do you stand on the idea?Brian: I stand in the position that people should optimize for where they are going to grow the most. And frankly, the disagreement was less about job-hopping because I'm going to explain how I job-hopped at Microsoft effectively.Corey: Excellent. That is the reason I'm asking you rather than poorly stating your position and stuffing you like some sort of Christmas turkey straw-man thing.Brian: And I would argue that for many people, changing jobs is the best thing that you can do, and I'm often an advocate for changing jobs even before sometimes people think they should do it. What I mostly disagreed with you on is simply following the money on your next job. What you said is if a—and I'm going to get it somewhat wrong—but if a company is willing to pay you $40,000 more, or some percentage more, you should take that job now.Corey: Gotcha.Brian: And I don't think that's always the case, and that's what we're talking about.Corey: This is the inherent problem with Twitter is that first, I tend to write my Twitter threads extemporaneously without a whole lot of thought being put into things—kind of like I live my entire life, but that's neither here nor there—Brian: I was going to say, that comes across quite clearly.Corey: Excellent. And 280 characters lacks nuance. And I definitely want to have this discussion; this is not just a story where you and I beat heads and not come to an agreement on this. I think it's that we fundamentally do agree on the vast majority of this, I just want to make sure that we have this conversation in a way, in a forum that doesn't lend itself to basically empowering the worst aspects of my own nature. Read as, not Twitter.Brian: Great. Let's do that.Corey: So, my position is, and I was contextualizing this from someone who had reached out who was early in their career, they had spent a couple of years at AWS and they were entertaining an offer elsewhere for significantly more money. And this person, I believe I can—I believe it's okay for me to say this: she—was very concerned that, “I don't want to look like I'm job-hopping, and I don't dislike my team. My manager is great. I feel disloyal for leaving. What should I do?”Which first, I just want to say how touched I am that someone who is early in their career and not from a wildly overrepresented demographic like you and I felt a sense of safety and security in reaching out to ask me that question. I really wish more people would take that kind of initiative. It's hard to inspire, but here we are. And my take to her was, “Oh, my God. Take the money.” That was where this thread started because when I have conversations with people about those things, it becomes top of mind, and I think, “Hmm, maybe there's a one-to-many story that becomes something that is actionable and useful.”Brian: Okay, so I'm going to give two takes on this. I'll start with my career because I was in a similar position as she was, at one point in my career. My background, I lucked into a job at Microsoft as an intern in 1995, and then did another internship in '96 and then started full time on the Internet Explorer team. And about a year-and-a-half into that job, I—we had merged with the Windows '98 team and I got the opportunity to work on Bill Gates's speech for the Windows '98 launch event. And I—after that was right when Steve Ballmer became president of Microsoft and he started doing a lot more speeches and asked to have someone to help him with speeches.And Chris Capossela, who's now the CMO at Microsoft, said, “Hey, Brian. You interested in doing this for Steve?” And my first reaction was, well, even inside Microsoft, if I move, it will be disloyal. Because my manager's manager, they've given me great opportunities, they're continuing to challenge me, I'm learning a bunch, and they advised not doing it.Corey: It seems to me like you were in a—how to put this?—not to besmirch the career you have wrought with the sweat of your brow and the toil of your back, but in many ways, you were—in a lot of ways—you were in the right place at the right time, riding a rocket ship, and built opportunities internally and talked to folks there, and built the relationships that enabled you to thrive inside of a company's ecosystem. Is that directionally correct?Brian: For sure. Yet, there's also, big companies are teams of teams, and loyalty is more often with the team and the people that you work with than the 401k plan. And in this case, you know, I was getting this pressure that says, “Hey, Brian. You're going to get all these opportunities. You're doing great doing what you're doing.”And I eventually had the luck to ask the question, “Hey, if I go there and do this role”—and by the way, nobody had done it before, and so part of their argument was, “You're young, Steve's… Steve. Like, you could be a fantastic ball of flames.” And I said, “Okay, if [laugh] let's say that happens. Can I come back? Can I come back to the job I was doing before?”And they were like, “Yeah, of course. You're good at what you do.” To me, which was, “Okay, great. Then I'm gone. I might as well go try this.” And of course, when I started at Microsoft, I was 20, 21, and I thought I'd be there for two or three years and then I'd end up going back to school or somewhere else. But inside Microsoft, what kept happening as I just kept getting new opportunities to do something else that I'd learned a bunch from, and I ultimately kind of created this mentality for how I thought about next job of, “Am I going to get more opportunities if I am able to be successful in this new job?” Really focused on optionality and the ability to do work that I want to do and have more choices to do that.Corey: You are also on a I almost want to call it a meteoric trajectory. In some ways. You effectively went from—what was your first role there? It was—Brian: The lowest level of college hire you can do at Microsoft, effectively.Corey: Yeah. All the way on up to at the end of it the Corporate VP for Microsoft Devices. It seems to me that despite the fact that you spent 20 years there, you wound up having a bunch of different jobs and an entire career trajectory internal to the organization, which is, let's be clear, markedly different from some of the folks I've interviewed at various times, in my career as an employer and as a technical interviewer at a consulting company, where they'd been somewhere for 15 years, and they had one year of experience that they repeated 15 times. And it was one of the more difficult things that I encountered is that some folks did not take ownership of their career and focus on driving it forward.Brian: Yeah, that, I had the opposite experience, and that is what kept me there that long. After I would finish a job, I would say, “Okay, what do I want to learn how to do next, and what is a challenge that would be most interesting?” And initially, I had to get really lucky, honestly, to be able to get these. And I did the work, but I had to have the opportunity, and that took luck. But after I had a track record of saying, “Hey, I can jump from being a product marketer to being a speechwriter; I can do speechwriting and then go do product management; I can move from product management into engineering management.”I can do that between different businesses and product types, you build the ability to say, “Hey, I can learn that if you give me the chance.” And it, frankly, was the unique combination of experiences I had by having tried to do these other things that gave me the opportunity to have a fast trajectory within the company.Corey: I think it's also probably fair to say that Microsoft was a company that, in its dealings with you, is operating in good faith. And that is a great thing to find when you see it, but I'm cynical; I admit that. I see a lot of stories where people give and sacrifice for the good of the company, but that sacrifice is never reciprocated. And we've all heard the story of folks who will put their nose to the grindstone to ship something on time, only to be rewarded with a layoff at the end, and stories like that resonate.And my argument has always been that you can't love a company because the company can't love you back. And when you're looking at do I make a career move or do I stay, my argument is that is the best time to be self-interested.Brian: Yeah, I don't think—companies are there for the company, and certainly having a culture that supports people that wants to create opportunity, having a manager that is there truly to make you better and to give you opportunity, that all can happen, but it's within a company and you have to do the work in order to try and get into that environment. Like, I worked hard to have managers who would support my growth, would give me the bandwidth and leash early on to not be perfect at what I'm doing, and that always helped me. But you get to go pick them in a company like that, or in the industry in general, you get—just like when a manager is hiring you, you also get to understand, hey, is this a person I want to work for?But I want to come back to the main point that I wanted to make. When I changed jobs, I did it because I wanted to learn something new and I thought that would have value for me in the medium-term and long-term, versus how do I go max cash in what I'm already good at?Corey: Yes.Brian: And that's the root of what we were disagreeing with on Twitter. I have seen many people who are good at something, and then another company says, “Hey, I want you to do that same thing in a worse environment, and we'll pay you more.”Corey: Excellence is always situational. Someone who is showered in accolades at one company gets fired at a different company. And it's not because they suddenly started sucking; it's because the tools and resources that they needed to succeed were present in one environment and not the other. And that varies from person to person; when someone doesn't work out of the company, I don't have a default assumption that there's something inherently wrong with them.Of course, I look at my own career and the sheer, staggeringly high number of times I got fired, and I'm starting to think, “Huh. The only consistent factor in all of these things is me. Nah, couldn't be my problem. I just worked for terrible places, for terrible people. That's got to be the way it works.” My own peace of mind. I get it. That is how it feels sometimes and it's easy to dismiss that in different ways. I don't want to let my own bias color this too heavily.Brian: So, here are the mistakes that I've seen made: “I'm really good at something; this other company will pay me to do just that.” You move to do it, you get paid more, but you have less impact, you don't work with as strong of people, and you don't have a next step to learn more. Was that a good decision? Maybe. If you need the money now, yes, but you're a little bit trading short-term money for medium-and long-term money where you're paid for what you know; that's the best thing in this industry. We're paid for what we know, which means as you're doing a job, you can build the ability to get paid more by knowing more, by learning more, by doing things that stretch you in ways that you don't already know.Corey: In 2006, I bluffed my way through a technical interview and got a job as a Unix systems administrator for a university that was paying $65,000 a year, and I had no idea what I was going to do with all of that money. It was more money than I could imagine at that point. My previous high watermark, working for an ethically challenged company in a sales role at a target comp of 55, and I was nowhere near it. So okay, let's go somewhere else and see what happens. And after I'd been there a month or two, my boss sits me down and said, “So”—it's our annual compensation adjustment time—“Congratulations. You now make $68,000.”And it's just, “Oh, my God. This is great. Why would I ever leave?” So, I stayed there a year and I was relatively happy, insofar as I'm ever happy in a job. And then a corporate company came calling and said, “Hey, would you consider working here?”“Well, I'm happy here and I'm reasonably well compensated. Why on earth would I do that?” And the answer was, “Well, we'll pay you $90,000 if you do.” It's like, “All right. I guess I'm going to go and see what the world holds.”And six weeks later, they let me go. And then I got another job that also paid $90,000 and I stayed there for two years. And I started the process of seeing what my engagement with the work world look like. And it was a story of getting let go periodically, of continuing to claw my way up and, credit where due, in my 20s I was in crippling credit card debt because I made a bunch of poor decisions, so I biased early on for more money at almost any cost. At some point that has to stop because there's always a bigger paycheck somewhere if you're willing to go and do something else.And I'm not begrudging anyone who pursues that, but at some point, it ceases to make a difference. Getting a raise from $68,000 to $90,000 was life-changing for me. Now, getting a $30,000 raise? Sure, it'd be nice; I'm not turning my nose up at it, don't get me wrong, but it's also not something that moves the needle on my lifestyle.Brian: Yeah. And there are a lot of those dimensions. There's the lifestyle dimension, there's the learning dimension, there's the guaranteed pay dimension, there's the potential paid dimension, there is the who I get to work with, just pure enjoyment dimension, and they all matter. And people should recognize that job moves should consider all of these.And you don't have to have the same framework over time as well. I've had times where I really just wanted to bear down and figure something out. And I did one job at Microsoft for basically six years. It changed in terms of scope of things that I was marketing, and which division I was in, and then which division I was in, and then which division I was in—because Microsoft loves a good reorg—but I basically did the same job for six years at one point, and it was very conscious. I was trying to get really good at how do I manage a team system at scale. And I didn't want to leave that until I had figured that out. I look back and I think that's one of the best career decisions I ever made, but it was for reasons that would have been really hard to explain to a lot of people.Corey: Let's also be very clear here that you and I are well-off white dudes in tech. Our failure mode is pretty much a board seat and a book deal. In fact, if—Brian: [laugh].Corey: —I'm not mistaken, you are on the board of something relatively recently. What was that?Brian: United Way of King County. It's a wonderful nonprofit in the Seattle area.Corey: Excellent. And I look forward to reading your book, whenever that winds up dropping. I'm sure it'll be only the very spiciest of takes. For folks who are earlier in their career and who also don't have the winds of privilege at their backs the way that you and I do, this also presents radically differently. And I've spoken to a number of folks who are not wildly over-represented about this topic, in the wake of that Twitter explosion.And what I heard was interesting in that having a manager who has your back counts for an awful lot and is something that is going to absolutely hold you to a particular company, even when it might make sense on paper for you to leave. And I think that there's something strong there. My counterargument is okay, so you turn down the offer, a month goes past and your manager gives notice because they're going to go somewhere else. What then? It's one of those things where you owe your employer a duty of confidentiality, you owe them a responsibility to do your best work, to conduct yourself in an ethical manner, but I don't believe you owe them loyalty in the sense of advancing their interests ahead of what's best for you and your career arc.And what's right for any given person is, of course, a nuanced and challenging thing. For some folks, yeah, going out somewhere else for more money doesn't really change anything and is not what they should optimize for. For other folks, it's everything. And I don't think either of those takes is necessarily wrong. I think it comes down to it depends on who you are, and what your situation is, and what's right for you.Brian: Yeah. I totally agree. For early in career, in particular, I have been a part of—I grew up in the early versions of the campus hiring program at Microsoft, and then hired 500-plus, probably, people into my teams who were from that.Corey: You also do the same thing at AWS if I'm not mistaken. You launched their first college hiring program that I recall seeing, or at least that's what scuttlebutt has it.Brian: Yes. You're well-connected, Corey. We started something called the Product Marketing Leadership Development Program when I was in AWS marketing. And then one year, we hired 20 people out of college into my organization. And it was not easy to do because it meant using, quote-unquote, “Tenured headcount” in order to do it. There wasn't some special dispensation because they were less paid or anything, and in a world where headcount is a unit of work, effectively.And then I'm at Google now, in the Google Cloud division, and we have a wonderful program that I think is really well done, called the Associate Product Marketing Manager Program, APMM. And what I'd say is for the people early in career, if you get the opportunity to have a manager who's super supportive, in a system that is built to try and grow you, it's a wonderful opportunity. And by ‘system built to grow you,' it really is, do you have the support to get taught what you need to get taught on the job? Are you getting new opportunities to learn new things and do new things at a rapid clip? Are you shipping things into the market such that you can see the response and learn from that response, versus just getting people's internal opinions, and then are people stretching roles in order to make them amenable for someone early in career?And if you're in a system that gives you that opportunity—like let's take your example earlier. A person who has a manager who's greatly supportive of them and they feel like they're learning a lot, that manager leaves, if that system is right, there's another manager, or there's an opportunity to put your hand up and say, “Hey, I think I need a new place,” and that will be supported.Corey: This episode is sponsored by our friends at Oracle Cloud. Counting the pennies, but still dreaming of deploying apps instead of "Hello, World" demos? Allow me to introduce you to Oracle's Always Free tier. It provides over 20 free services and infrastructure, networking, databases, observability, management, and security. And—let me be clear here—it's actually free. There's no surprise billing until you intentionally and proactively upgrade your account. This means you can provision a virtual machine instance or spin up an autonomous database that manages itself all while gaining the networking load, balancing and storage resources that somehow never quite make it into most free tiers needed to support the application that you want to build. With Always Free, you can do things like run small scale applications or do proof-of-concept testing without spending a dime. You know that I always like to put asterisks next to the word free. This is actually free, no asterisk. Start now. Visit snark.cloud/oci-free that's snark.cloud/oci-free.Corey: I have a history of mostly working in small companies, to the point where I consider a big company to be one that has more than 200 employees, so, the idea of radically transitioning and changing teams has never really been much on the table as I look at my career trajectory and my career arc. I have seen that I've gotten significant 30% raises by changing jobs. I am hard-pressed to identify almost anyone who has gotten that kind of raise in a single year by remaining at a company.Brian: One hundred percent. Like, I know of people who have, but it—Corey: It happens, but it's—Brian: —is very rare.Corey: —it's very rare.Brian: It's, it's, it's almost the, the, um, the example that proves the point. I getting that totally wrong. But yes, it's very rare, but it does happen. And I think if you get that far out of whack, yes. You should… you should go reset, especially if the other attributes are fine and you don't feel like you're just going to get mercenary pay.What I always try and advise people is, in the bigger companies, you want to be a good deal. You don't want to be a great deal or a bad deal. Where a great deal is you're getting significantly underpaid, a bad deal is, “Uh oh. We hired this person to [laugh] senior,” or, “We promoted them too early,” because then the system is not there to help you, honestly, in the grand scheme of things. A good deal means, “Hey, I feel like I'm getting better work from this person for what we are giving them than what the next clear alternative would be. Let's support them and help them grow.” Because at some level, part of your compensation is getting your company to create opportunities for you to grow. And part of the reason people go to a manager is they know they'll give them that compensation.Corey: I am learning this the interesting way, as we wind up hiring and building out our, currently, nine-person company. It's challenging for us to build those opportunities while bootstrapped, but it is incumbent upon us, you're right. That is a role of management is how do you identify growth opportunities for people, ideally, while remaining at the company, but sometimes that means that helping them land somewhere else is the right path for their next growth step.Brian: Well, that brings up a word for managers. What you pay your employees—and I'm talking big company here, not people like yourself, Corey, where you have to decide whether you reinvesting money or putting in an individual.Corey: Oh, yes—Brian: But at big companies—Corey: —a lot of things that apply when you own a company are radically departed from—Brian: Totally.Corey: —what is—Brian: Totally.Corey: —common guidance.Brian: Totally. At a big company, managers, you get zero credit for how much your employees get paid, what their raise is, whether they get promoted or not in the grand scheme of things. That is the company running their system. Yes, you helped and the like, but it's—like, when people tell me, “Hey, Brian, thank you for supporting my promotion.” My answer is always, “Thank you for having earned it. It's my job to go get credit where credit is due.” And that's not a big part of my job, and I honestly believe that.Where you do get credit with people, where you do show that you're a good manager is when you have the conversations with them that are harder for other people to have, but actually make them better; when you encourage them in the right way so that they grow faster; when you treat them fairly as a human being, and mostly when you do the thing that seems like it's against your own interest.Corey: That resonates. The moments of my career as a manager that I'm proud of stuff are the ones that I would call borderline subversive: telling a candidate to take the competing offer because they're going to have a better time somewhere else is one of those. But my philosophy ties back to the idea of job-hopping, where I'm going to know these people for longer than either of us are going to remain in our current role, on some level. I am curious what your approach is, given that you are now at the, I guess, other end for folks who are just starting out. How do you go about getting people into Cloud marketing? And, on some level, wouldn't you consider that being a form of abuse?Brian: [laugh]. It depends on whether they get to work with you or not, Corey.Corey: There is that.Brian: I won't tell you which one's abuse or not. So first, getting people into cloud marketing is getting people who do not have deeply technical backgrounds in most cases, oftentimes fantastic—people who are fantastic at understanding other people and communicating really well, and it gives them an opportunity to be in tech in one of the fastest-growing, fastest-changing spaces in the world. And so to go to a psych major, a marketing major, an American studies major, a history major, who can understand complex things and then communicate really well, and say, “Hey, I have an opportunity for you to join the fastest growing space in technology,” is often compelling.But their question kind of is, “Hey, will I be able to do it?” And the answer has to be, “Hey, we have a program that helps you learn, and we have a set of managers who know how to teach, and we create opportunities for you to learn on the job, and we're invested in you for more than a short period of time.” With that case, I've been able to hire and grow and work with, in some cases, people for over 15 years now that I worked with at Microsoft. I'm still in touch with many of the people from the Product Marketing Leadership Development Program at AWS. And we have a fantastic set of APMMs at Google, and it creates a wonderful opportunity for them.Increasingly, we're also seeing that it is one of the best ways to find people from many backgrounds. We don't just show up at the big CompSci schools. We're getting some wonderful, wonderful people from all the states in the nation, from the historically black colleges and universities, from majors that tend to represent very different groups than the traditional tech audiences. And so it's been a great source of broadening our talent pool, too.Corey: There's a lot to be said for having people who've been down this path and seeing the failure modes, reaching out to make so that the next generation—for lack of a better term—has an easier time than we did. The term I've heard for the concept is ‘send the elevator back down,' which is important. I think it's—otherwise we wind up with a whole industry that looks an awful lot like it did 20 years ago, and that's not ideal for anyone. The paths that you and I walked are closed, so sitting here telling people they should do what we did has very strong, ‘Okay, Boomer' energy to it.Brian: [laugh].Corey: There are different paths, and the world and industry are changing radically.Brian: Absolutely. And my—like, the biggest thing that I'd say here is—and again, just coming back to the one thing we disagreed on—look at the bigger picture and own your career. I would never say that isn't the case, but the bigger picture means not just what you're getting paid tomorrow, but are you learning more? What new options is it creating for you? And when I speak options, I mean, will you have more jobs that you can do that excite you after you do that job? And those things matter in addition to the pay.Corey: I would agree with that. Money is not everything, but it's also not nothing.Brian: Absolutely.Corey: I will say though you spent 20 years at Microsoft. I have no doubt that you are incredibly adept at managing your career, at managing corporate politics, at advancing your career and your objectives and your goals and your aspirations within Microsoft, but how does that translate to companies that have radically different corporate cultures? We see this all the time with founders who are ex-Google or ex-Microsoft, and suddenly it turns out that the things that empower them to thrive in the large corporate environment doesn't really work when you're a five-person startup, and you don't have an entire team devoted to that one thing that needs to get done.Brian: So, after Microsoft, I went to a company called Doppler Labs for a year. It was a pretty well-funded startup that made smart earbuds—this was before AirPods had even come out—and I was really nervous about the going from big company to startup thing, and I actually found that move pretty easy. I've always been kind of a hands-on, do-it-yourself, get down in the details manager, and that's served me well. And so getting into a startup and saying, “Hey, I get to just do stuff,” was almost more fun. And so after that—we ended up folding, but it was a wonderful ride; that's a much longer conversation—when I got to Amazon and I was in AWS—and by the way, the one division I never worked at Microsoft was Azure or its predecessor server and tools—and so part of the allure of AWS was not only was it another trillion-dollar company in my backwater hometown, but it was also cloud computing, was the space that I didn't know well.And they knew that I knew the discipline of product marketing and a bunch of other things quite well, and so I got that opportunity. But I did realize about four months in, “Oh, crap. Part of the reason that I was really successful at Microsoft is I knew how everything worked.” I knew where things have been tried and failed, I knew who to go ask about how to do things, and I knew none of that at Amazon. And it is a—a lot of what allows you to move fast, make good decisions, and frankly, be politically accepted, is understanding all that context that nobody can just tell you. So, I will say there is a cost in terms of your productivity and what you're able to get done when you move from a place that you're good at to a place that you're not good at yet.Corey: Way back in episode 10 of this podcast—as we get suspiciously close to 300 as best I can tell—I had Lynn Langit get on as a guest. And she was in the Microsoft MVP program, the AWS Hero program, and the Google Expert program. All three at once—Brian: Lynn is fantastic.Corey: It really is.Brian: Lynn is fantastic.Corey: I can only assume that you listened to that podcast and decided, huh, all three, huh? I can beat that. And decided that—Brian: [laugh].Corey: —instead of being in the volunteer to do work for enormous multinational companies group, you said, “No, no, no. I'm going to be a VP in all three of those.” And here we are. Now that you are at Google, you have checked all three boxes. What is the next mountain to climb for you?Brian: I have no clue. I have no clue. And honestly—again, I don't know how much of this is privilege versus by being forward-looking. I've honestly never known where the heck I was going to go in my career. I've just said, “Hey, let's have a journey, and let's optimize for doing something you want to do that is going to create more opportunities for you to do something you want to do.”And so even when I left Microsoft, I was in a great position. I ran the Surface business, and HoloLens, and a whole bunch of other stuff that was really fun, but I also woke up one day and realized, “Oh, my gosh. I've been at Microsoft for 20 years. If I stay here for the next job, I'm earning the right to get another job at Microsoft, more so than anything else, and there's a big world out there that I want to explore a bit.” And so I did the startup; it was fun, I then thought I'd do another startup, but I didn't want to commute to San Francisco, which I had done.And then I found most of the really, really interesting startups in Seattle were cloud-related and I had this opportunity to learn about cloud from, arguably, one of the best with AWS. And then when I left AWS, I left not knowing what I was going to do, and I kind of thought, “Okay, now I'm going to do another cloud-oriented startup.” And Google came, and I realized I had this opportunity to learn from another company. But I don't know what's next. And what I'm going to do is try and do this job as best I can, get it to the point where I feel like I've done a job, and then I'll look at what excites me looking forward.Corey: And we will, of course, hold on to this so we can use it for your performance review, whenever that day comes.Brian: [laugh].Corey: I want to thank you for taking so much time to speak with me today. If people care more about what you have to say, perhaps you're hiring, et cetera, et cetera, where can they find you?Brian: Twitter, IsForAt: I-S-F-O-R-A-T. I'm certainly on Twitter. And if you want to connect professionally, I'm happy to do that on LinkedIn.Corey: And we will, of course, put links to those things in the [show notes 00:36:03]. Thank you so much for being so generous with your time. I appreciate it. I know you have a busy week of, presumably, attempting to give terrible names to various cloud services.Brian: Thank you, Corey. Appreciate you having me.Corey: Indeed. Brian Hall, VP of Product and Industry Marketing at Google Cloud. I am Cloud Economist Corey Quinn, and this is Screaming in the Cloud. If you've enjoyed this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice, whereas if you've hated this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice, along with an insulting comment in the form of a PowerPoint deck.Corey: If your AWS bill keeps rising and your blood pressure is doing the same, then you need The Duckbill Group. We help companies fix their AWS bill by making it smaller and less horrifying. The Duckbill Group works for you, not AWS. We tailor recommendations to your business and we get to the point. Visit duckbillgroup.com to get started.Announcer: This has been a HumblePod production. Stay humble.
Today Crystal is joined by Amy Sundberg, author of Notes from the Emerald City & Co-Chair of the Seattle Committee of People Power Washington - Police Accountability and Shannon Cheng, Chair of People Power WA - Police Accountability. Crystal, Amy and Shannon break down the latest on the Seattle City budget process, the mess that is Washington State redistricting, and talk about a wonderful opportunity to get involved with the Institute for a Democratic Future. 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-hosts, Amy Sundberg at @amysundberg and Shannon Cheng at @drbestturtle. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com. References: “Seattle's Divide on Public Safety is Fueling a Fight Over Next Year's Police Budget” by Ben Adlin from The South Seattle Emerald: https://southseattleemerald.com/2021/11/15/seattles-divide-on-public-safety-is-fueling-a-fight-over-next-years-police-budget/ “In Reversal, Council Keeps Durkan's Expanded Police Budget Mostly Intact” by Paul Faruq Kiefer from The South Seattle Emerald: https://southseattleemerald.com/2021/11/19/in-reversal-council-keeps-durkans-expanded-police-budget-mostly-intact/ “Seattle's LEAD program wins accolades, but not everyone is a believer” by Amy Radil from KUOW: https://www.kuow.org/stories/seattle-s-lead-program-wins-accolades-but-some-officials-want-more-options “The Community Responder Model: How Cities Can Sent the Right Responder to Every 911 Call” by Amos Irwin and Betsy Pearl from the Center for American Progress: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/community-responder-model/ “Council Declines to Fund Two Big-Ticket Asks from Homeless Authority” by Erica C. Barnett from Publicola: https://publicola.com/2021/11/17/council-declines-to-fund-two-big-ticket-asks-from-homelessness-authority/ “In a first, court will decide new WA redistricting plan as commission falters” by Melissa Santos from Crosscut: https://crosscut.com/politics/2021/11/first-court-will-decide-new-wa-redistricting-plan-commission-falters Learn more about how you can get involved with Institute for a Democratic Future here: https://democraticfuture.org/ Find the contact for your Seattle City Councilor here: https://www.seattle.gov/council/meet-the-council Transcript: [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome to the program today's two co-hosts - Chair of People Power Washington-Police Accountability and indispensable member of the Hacks & Wonks and Fincher Consulting teams, Dr. Shannon Cheng. And, Amy Sundberg, author of Notes from the Emerald City and Co-Chair of the Seattle Committee of People Power Washington-Police Accountability - an excellent live-tweeter of municipal meetings in Seattle, indispensable informer of all of us, and the person who's happy to take your baked goods for compensation. Welcome to both of you, Amy and Shannon. [00:01:21] Shannon Cheng: Thanks Crystal. [00:01:23] Amy Sundberg: Good to be here. [00:01:24] Crystal Fincher: So I am happy to have you both on here to start talking about the Seattle budget process, the actions that the Council just took - particularly because you both have been instrumental in keeping people up-to-date on where we're at in this process. And this was an eventful week. So what has been happening? [00:01:48] Amy Sundberg: Well, a lot of very long meetings have been happening, especially yesterday's marathon all-day meeting. I signed off at 6:30p and it was still going. So the Councilmembers have been talking about proposed amendments to the Budget Chair's Balancing Package this week. [00:02:12] Crystal Fincher: Okay. In that process, what was under consideration and what ended up getting passed? [00:02:19] Amy Sundberg: I mean, there was a fair amount under consideration. In terms of public safety, there were several proposed amendments that would - basically the Chair's Balancing Package decided to invest a bit less in the police department than what they had asked for in the mayor's proposed budget. And- [00:02:51] Crystal Fincher: So pausing for a second. What is a Balancing Package? [00:02:54] Amy Sundberg: The Balancing Package is basically Budget Chair Mosqueda - she gets feedback from community, she gets feedback from Central Staff about various issues having to do with the mayor's proposed budget, she speaks with her colleagues. They already went through a round of amendment proposing, and then she looks at where she thinks the strong consensus is going to be for the Council in terms of what they all agree on - what should be funded and what should not be funded in the year's budget. And then she puts together a package that funds these priorities and balances to where they think revenues will be for the year. [00:03:46] Crystal Fincher: Okay. So where are the points of likely agreement? What did they end up saying, "Yeah, we're all on the same page."? [00:03:55] Amy Sundberg: I mean, the Balancing Package - and one of the great things I think that was in that package was a huge investment in affordable housing, much more than we've ever seen. So that was very exciting. I would say that's probably the most notable thing that was happening in the budget. But in general they were funding a lot of services for people - so a lot of food assistance. And there were also a lot of district-specific investments - fairly small investments for various projects within a particular district. And obviously that varied a lot, but there were a bunch of those - different parks, different sidewalk projects, different community centers, all of that sort of thing. There was some consensus around public safety, but a lot of the requests for funding for alternatives, like alternative emergency response, for example, or for LEAD to be scaled up, or for mental - [00:05:16] Crystal Fincher: And LEAD is Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion, which is an alternative to incarceration or further involvement in the criminal legal system and trying to give people pathways and alternatives out of the system. [00:05:31] Amy Sundberg: Exactly. Just Care, which helps house people in hotels if they don't have a home or a place to stay. Behavioral health response - all of these things were proposed in amendments and most of them were not fully funded in the Balancing Package. So there was - [00:05:57] Crystal Fincher: And these proposals were making good on commitments that Councilmembers had made to fund alternatives to basically police patrolling the streets, and alternate responses that may be more appropriate to the challenges that people calling 911 are actually calling about. So if someone is having a behavioral health crisis, if someone is unhoused, many Councilmembers have said, "Yeah, actually probably an armed patrol response is not the appropriate response for that." Or certainly isn't able to address some of the root causes to address the issue that's being called about. So having someone with a different set of expertise that may not be armed, that doesn't introduce or escalate a situation in an unhelpful way may be more appropriate in addressing the root cause of the issue and actually solving the problem that's being called about. And the Council collectively had previously signaled and made commitments to move in that direction. Is that a fair synopsis? [00:07:11] Amy Sundberg: Yeah. I would say that's correct and I would even go further and say it's not even particularly controversial. In general, people would like there to be alternate responses. In general, people would like people who are qualified to answer some of these needs and some of these calls - they don't all need to be armed policemen. [00:07:35] Crystal Fincher: And so, these community responses were a number of the ones that you just talked about, but the Council seemed like it changed direction and didn't follow through on there. How did that come about? What were the votes that changed what happened? [00:07:53] Amy Sundberg: I mean, it wasn't voted upon. I mean, that's what happened. The first round of amendments are not voted upon - and basically Chair Mosqueda has to go back and she has to look at all the different proposals, all which cost money. And then, she has to look at how much money is available and she has to make some hard choices about where to spend that money. And she did not find the money to fully fund some of these programs. One of the ones I was personally most disappointed to see not funded was - Andrew Lewis had proposed money for standing up a CAHOOTS-style community-based alternate emergency response for 911 calls. And you know - a couple million dollars. It wasn't, in the scheme of the budget for Seattle which is very large, it was not much money. And $400,000 of that did get allocated to start working on dispatch protocols so that 911 dispatchers can start to figure out how to route calls in alternate ways, which is great. I mean, that is an important step, but the rest of the money was not given to that project to start to actually stand it up. [00:09:14] Shannon Cheng: Yeah. I think it's just been really frustrating that it is kind of generally agreed upon that we want a faster ramp up of alternative responses to armed police, but obviously the money does have to come from somewhere. And this whole budget process has been about SPD digging their heels in - whenever any even tiny amount of money or arguing about semantics about funded versus unfunded positions. And all the energy is being spent on that instead of actually building actual solutions that are going to help all of us. [00:09:52] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. And I mean, there were certainly articles this week and some clarifications that were trying to be made about the funding of 110 police positions and that being - that right now they are positions that are not filled. And so, it's not like they are removing any police from the streets. That was never the proposal and nothing there, even though that had been strongly implied by several of the usual suspects who report on it. But even things like that seem to be caught up in political spin and moving that away from the roots and the crux of what's being discussed. And what the community voted for. And to say that you support moving in a different direction, making a commitment to do that, and then failing to provide any funding to do that is just plain old not meeting the commitment and going back on your words. So I certainly hope that gets addressed throughout the budget process. What are the options to address this further on in the budget process and how can people advocate for seeing a budget that reflects their values? [00:11:10] Amy Sundberg: Well, the budget process is almost over now. It will be done on Monday. So if you want to speak up, now is the time. You can definitely call and email your Councilmembers now. And there will be a chance for public comments on Monday at 2:00 PM. So I guess signups would be at around noon then - right before all the Councilmembers take their final vote on the budget, which will be at the 2:00 PM meeting on Monday. I will say, also, regarding those positions that you talked about in the police department that aren't filled but are funded - not only are they not filled, they cannot be filled. It is literally impossible for SPD to fill those positions because they have a hiring pipeline. They've figured out how many officers they can hire next year - that amount of officers, there's money for that. And then, these are in addition to any officers that they could possibly hire. They probably can't even hire them in 2023, to be frank. So these are not positions that are going to be filled any time in the near term. The fact that this amendment was not able to be passed, even though it's completely about transparency of budget and fiscal responsibility and has very little to do with staffing, is deeply disappointing. [00:12:47] Shannon Cheng: Yeah. I was really frustrated about that one as well, Amy. I guess I was trying to think about how to relate that to a household budget situation. So I was thinking it'd be like you have two people in a household but you only have one car. And so, you're trying to budget money to buy a second car for the second person to get to work, but conditions are currently difficult - used cars are super expensive, maybe you aren't able to get the car. But then it would be like the first person who has the car telling the other person, "No, you can't use any of this money that's been allocated for a car to take the bus to work and you have to walk." And I guess that's just how I feel about these unfunded positions - that SPD gets to hold the money and we don't get to use it for any of the other things that we desperately want and need. And it's just going to sit there. And then, if Council does ever try to take the money back that SPD isn't even able to spend, it just becomes this big messaging spinning from - we've seen already Chief Diaz and others come out and make it sound like we're trying to take money from them. [00:13:52] Amy Sundberg: But even in the dialogue going on right now, we've been talking about these amendments that are going to restore a $10 million cut in the police department. But I mean, it's only a $10 million cut because they had all of this money to begin with for these unfilled, unfillable positions. So then, it gets to be called a cut but it's not actually - the framing of it becomes very convoluted and it becomes harder to talk about it in a really honest and straightforward way. [00:14:23] Crystal Fincher: I mean, there is a City Councilmember who was just elected, a future member who was elected, who talked about finding waste in Seattle and finding money that isn't being used optimally that we can use for other things in the City, and there has to be somewhere. We found the somewhere. We found where money cannot be spent, where money is allocated that is not serving any purpose. These are residents' funds, this is public money. And so, where there is money that cannot be spent, it's not even possible to spend it, and is only there to serve as a budget line because they just solely want a bigger number for vanity purposes and for messaging purposes - that could be used to help the people of Seattle in different ways more directly and be spent on something, instead of just sitting dormant in an account. We found it. It's SPD budget. It is for positions that not only are not filled, cannot be filled. And for some reason there are not the votes at this moment to use that funding for something more productive. It really is mind-boggling. It's disappointing, and I certainly would hope that people listening and those that you know, that you encourage people to call their Councilmembers to talk about this, to ground this conversation in reality and facts. And that we need dollars that are there to be spent on people, on the residents of Seattle, and not sitting in an account because of some political messaging war. It just doesn't make any kind of sense. We are facing too many challenges that are so big and so pressing that we can't let funding get caught up in this pettiness. And it is pettiness. And I'm just very challenged by that. And hope it changes, but yeah, that's been a frustrating conversation to look at. And another frustrating thing was that the Council declined to fund two requests from the Regional Homelessness Authority and Erica Barnett wrote piece about this in PubliCola. But we have had so many conversations about the priority of addressing homelessness - certainly the mayor-elect, who is coming in, made commitments about doing this. The Council has made commitments about this. Residents of Seattle have talked about this being the most important thing. And what we've heard for years really, and heard continuing conversation about is, well, this really needs to be a regional solution. We really have to take action in conjunction with our regional partners. And we all have a role to play in this. And Seattle certainly is the largest city in the region and would be carrying the lion's share of that responsibility with contributions from others. But there is a responsibility from the City of Seattle in this. And the City declined the requests from the Homelessness Authority. As Erica Barnett mentioned in her article, there was a request for a high acuity shelter to help stabilize unsheltered people experiencing health crises. The King County Regional Homelessness Authority asked for $19.4 million. They will receive $5 million of that, with potentially another $5 million from the county to begin work on a shelter. That's supposed to help that, but certainly looking at a quarter of the funding there. And then a $7.6 million request to fund 69 peer navigators, people who have lived experience being homeless to help unsheltered people navigate through the homeless system, won't receive any funding. This one came with a justification that there are several existing providers that provide similar services that may be able to do that without incurring additional expenses and be able to build on their current expenditures and current processes. So that will be interesting to see how that shakes out. And they're looking at certainly coming up with proposals to see how they might be able to address that, but this is something to keep our eye on and just feels a bit counter to all of the rhetoric and a number of the promises that have been made. And certainly the direction of the solution that a number of electeds in the City and people who were just elected have made. It's a bit confusing to hear rhetoric for years - we need to participate in a regional solution. It's like, "All right, regional solution, got everybody on board. Here we go." And it's like, "Yeah, never mind, maybe not so much." But we will see if the City comes up with a better plan on their own or not. But I think that's something to keep our eye on. And also looking at how legitimate is this Regional Homelessness Authority going to be if the charter it's been given and the solutions that they are looking to implement may be dead or disabled on arrival because of a lack of funding. I mean, really a lot of what we talk about in policy - it's great to talk about these policies, it's great to talk about these alternative public safety programs. And it's great to talk about needing to address all of our unhoused neighbors and getting them into housing. It takes money and that money has to be allocated. And when it's not, we're not going to make progress on solving these problems. So I am curious to see what results from this - and what targets they have, how they plan to meet the commitments that they've made. And if not funding this as part of a regional solution is in their plans, what is the regional solution they've been talking about for years and what are they going to do about it? And I'm interested in hearing that from the mayor's perspective and from the Council perspective. Certainly it's an issue that people want addressed. It's an issue that people who are unhoused need addressed and so we will see how that happens. [00:21:24] Amy Sundberg: It's going to be really interesting to watch the transition and see how much power the City of Seattle is willing to cede to the regional authority, because they're used to kind of doing their own thing, right? And so, I think there might be a little bit of resistance there. I also know, for example, that the Council has been very excited about tiny home villages for some time now. And the new CEO of the Regional Homelessness Authority is not so excited about tiny house villages. So you get these interesting kind of policy discussions and power dynamics that I don't think we know how they're going to play out yet. [00:22:12] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. And speaking of things we don't know how they're going to play out yet, we might as well talk about redistricting. Redistricting. So this has been a bit of an eventful, not eventful week in the arena of redistricting. So if you haven't seen, and do not fault anyone for not having seen - this is not a fun thing to be following. But our state has a bipartisan Redistricting Commission that we put in charge of redrawing maps every 10 years in response to the changes in population and demographic compositions that we learn from the Census that is taken every 10 years. In Washington state, we have Democrats appoint two members and Republicans appoint two members. And then there is a different Chair of the organization - that is the Redistricting Commission. They are responsible for collecting public comment and basically balancing the population and composition within districts, which involves adjusting boundaries of different districts to even out population - some districts grow a lot in size, some shrink. And so, from Congressional Districts on down, the boundaries have to be adjusted to balance out - to rebalance - population and representation to make sure everyone is being represented fairly and accurately throughout the state. This process has successfully produced maps every year that it has been in existence, which this current process has been in existence since 1983. Every 10 years they have successfully performed their jobs and produced maps, until the deadline this past Monday, which they missed. And they didn't just miss it, they missed it in such interesting, ridiculous, and we can plug in whatever adjective we want to use their way. [00:24:19] Amy Sundberg: Shady. I would say it was kind of shady. [00:24:23] Crystal Fincher: There was a lot shady about it, and likely straight up potentially illegal about how it happened. Because the deadline was Monday night. Now it is not at all uncommon for a commission to take to nearly the deadline, or any entity to take until nearly the deadline to complete their job. A lot of times a deadline is a helpful pressure point to help people who may be disagreeing negotiate and come to an agreement. And that clock ticking down is helpful in getting that done. However, as the deadline approached, there didn't seem to be any progress. And oddly and troublingly, as the deadline approached, in what was supposed to be a public meeting - because by law, these commissioners and these commission meetings have to be held in public. This is not like the Legislature - this is like most other bodies where their deliberations have to be held in public. And they actually are forbidden by law to meet in groups of more than two to prevent there being any meeting basically that is not in view of the public. However, leading up to this deadline, instead of meeting in view of the public, the commissioners retreated - they said - to meet in groups of two, and they were going to meet and come back and discuss publicly. And then they didn't come back. And then they didn't come back again. And then, the updates were non-updates and the meeting that was supposed to take place in public view did not. And then, there was an update that coming up to the midnight deadline on Monday, maybe there is a vote to be taken. There wasn't. And then, the word came that - they came back just in time to take the vote, to approve - it's still confusing what they did or did not approve and what timeline and this is part of the confusing part. What was presented in public at the time - they said that they voted to approve a framework, just after the midnight deadline, I believe. But that framework did not have any maps attached to it. And so, this was a very confusing time, and it's not quite sure what was approved and they have not clarified much about their deliberations or what was approved. And then, the next day, late in the day, and this was well after the deadline, they published some maps that they said were what was approved in the framework. Both Congressional District and Legislative District maps, which a lot of people - I mean, the first reaction was just, for most people, well these maps are invalid. One, you missed the deadline to vote - that's kind of very cut and dry, that's actually a pretty black and white thing. They admitted they missed the deadline, there doesn't seem to be any disagreement that they missed the deadline. What they do seem to be saying is, "But we voted just after the deadline. And so we put so much work into it that maybe you should consider what we did." However, the maps that they eventually - that the commission eventually published a day later after the deadline passed - it has issues. It has a number of issues, but I think a lot of people are really not even getting into those issues yet at this point in time, just because they missed the deadline and therefore - in a situation where it would've gone to the Legislature to be approved, now it is up to the Supreme Court. If you missed a deadline, it gets kicked over, Redistricting Commission is done. What they have done is basically all null and void because they did not produce what they were supposed to approve and produce in the timeline that they were supposed to do this. And this is prescribed by law, so it's not like someone can just decide to take a little bit more time. And in this process with the Supreme Court, they have until now - April 30th - to approve maps. So what seems pretty clear is that the Supreme Court has no obligation to consider anything that the Redistricting Commission has done. The challenge becomes that the Supreme Court is not a mapping body. This is not anything that is in their - it's not in their job description. [00:29:09] Shannon Cheng: Yeah. And Crystal, isn't that April 30th deadline really problematic? Isn't filing week for a lot of these positions, that people need to know their districts for, the second week of May, usually? [00:29:22] Crystal Fincher: It's so problematic. And that's such a good point. I mean, the reason why the deadline is in mid-November is because we actually moved it up from the end of December. We moved the deadline up because it was such a stretch to implement all of this and have people learn their new districts. And so we said, "Hey, we actually need more time to - once we decide what these maps are, everything that follows the new maps - need more time to implement it." So not having maps now and moving this deadline to April 30th does mean that some representatives do not know which district they are going to ultimately represent. Depending on which version of which map you look at, some representatives are in one district on some maps, they're in another district on another map. They maintain their incumbency according to some maps, they don't according to others. Different candidates who have run four different positions or are considering - are in one district according to some maps, another district according to others. So this uncertainty now goes until April 30th. The candidate filing deadline is May 20th. So there are less than three weeks, fewer than three weeks between the time districts become final and the time that people learn, not just whether if you're an incumbent, whether you're still in your district, but what the composition of your district is. And we know that there are going to be several districts whose compositions meaningfully change. So you don't know what neighborhoods, what areas you're going to be representing or not. As someone who may potentially be a candidate, you don't know where you might end up running, who you might challenge. There may be one person who you're very interested in running against, there may be another person who you're not. This is all up in the air until April 30th. I hear a lot of people say, "Well, maybe the Supreme Court will get done early." And to that I say, what entity has ever gotten done early? There is nothing that has happened in the past that suggests that this would happen early. It could happen. The thing is this is actually a completely unprecedented process and we don't know what's going to happen, but trying to assume upfront that they're going to get done early does not seem like it's the most likely thing, given that, I mean, you have a commission whose job it was just to figure out these maps - who came in and it was on their job description, part of their job description, to get these maps done. They had process, they had staff, they had this whole thing. They were unable to get this process done by the deadline. I don't know why kicking it over to a body that doesn't have any of the preparation that this one had would make us think that they would get done faster. Certainly is possible but - [00:32:16] Amy Sundberg: And weren't there also problems with a lot of the proposed maps in terms of the legality?So I mean, that becomes an issue as well. [00:32:24] Crystal Fincher: Oh there are so many problems. Yeah. There have been several independent analyses, from Harvard to UCLA, I think the League of Women Voters - looked into several of these maps and several of them have pretty blatant Voting Rights Act violations. They appear to be unconstitutional, they appear to be illegal maps. That's certainly a major issue that had been talked about throughout this process. The alleged maps - it's hard to even say - this last map that was published after the deadline, which seems to have several issues even on top of the Voting Rights Act violations. Yeah, that's a problem. And so, the one thing I would say is I would assume, I would hope and I actually would assume from our Supreme Court, our Washington State Supreme Court, that they are interested in adhering to the Voting Rights Act, which would automatically mean, because of that would mean that some of the maps that have been published, that their maps would not look like those. And so, there's going to be a question of where do they start? Because the process is not defined. There are some states who have gone through similar processes. Some would be useful to follow, others may not be good to follow - but that's all going to be determined. But really what we have now is we're in an unprecedented situation for our state. The Redistricting Commission did not complete their job by the time that was required, so the normal process that we are used to following is no longer the process that we're in. We're in a brand new process, we are going to see what happened. Because there is so much - I'm sitting here probably - I still don't get what happened on that Monday, and what they approved, and what they didn't approve, and what happened when. And I probably did a horrible job of explaining that - the reason why, is because we don't know. It is very confusing as to what happened. In fact, the Supreme Court has ordered the Chair of the Redistricting Commission to basically submit a sworn statement about what did happen because no one knows. We are supposed to know. It's supposed to be in public for deliberation. What was the timeline of the events? What happened? When did it happen? And that is due by this coming Monday, the 22nd? I think Monday is the 22nd. So we will hear the Redistricting Commission's sworn version of events and from there we'll see where it goes. But it seems pretty black and white from what they said before that they did not make the deadline for the map. So that basically - question one, the most important question is, did you approve those maps in time by the deadline? They did not. I'm sure they will be like, "But it was only by a little bit." And the thing about when a deadline is prescribed by law - is when you miss it, it doesn't matter whether it's by two seconds or two days. It is missed. And so that's question one, which is why it is now in the hands of the Supreme Court. And we'll see where it goes from here. We will probably have other shows talking about this in more detail, but certainly as we get more information. But this is something to continue to pay attention to and certainly to make sure that you are engaging, especially as we have, these conversations about whether districts adhere - proposed districts - and that's adhere to the Voting Rights Act primarily. And that's important for issues like in Central Washington, looking at places like Yakima - are there attempts, bad faith attempts really, made to dissect that community in a way that eliminates voting power, organizing power that would normally be there because of the population? Or are they looking at that and trying to dilute the power of specifically non-white populations in order to maintain electoral power? And this is the conversation that we see with gerrymandering in so many other states, right? And so we were trying to avoid that here. So we'll talk about this a lot more, but it's a mess. [00:37:10] Amy Sundberg: I think too, that it bears repeating how shocking it is that we don't know what happened. And that it's now Friday and we still don't know what happened. And that these are meetings that are legally required to be within public view. And that all the commissioners felt emboldened - they felt just fine not having to be transparent. [00:37:35] Crystal Fincher: Well, I will be careful in characterizing what all of the commissioners done - I mean, did. I don't know where all of the commissioners were, I don't know if a couple of them felt strongly about this and a couple others didn't. I don't know that, but I do know that the process overall was certainly not ideal. And even that meeting in pairs - it is also illegal if you meet in pairs and then have an intermediary relay information from one of those meetings in pairs to a member of the other pair. You can't pass information back and forth that derives from those smaller meetings, because that in effect is a meeting. That is also specifically illegal. So I think most people are going now - it is not believable to think that this process happened completely behind doors, behind closed doors, there was no agreement beforehand. You come back in time to take a vote, but no one talked to each other, even though we didn't see what you were doing and somehow came to an agreement. No one believes that. [00:38:47] Amy Sundberg: No. [00:38:48] Crystal Fincher: I think we're there. I don't believe that. [00:38:54] Amy Sundberg: And I would say if you're appointed to be a commissioner, one of your tasks is to work towards transparency. So making sure the public does know what you're doing. And I mean, yes, maybe there are circumstances we don't know about, maybe you can just be swept along - but, I mean, transparency is part of what you should strive for. [00:39:18] Crystal Fincher: Part of what we should strive for. And really that issue in itself, whether or not they violated Open Meetings Acts and whether or not they adhere to the law there, even if they would have voted in time, could invalidate that entire process. So there are just so many issues with how this process came to its non-conclusion conclusion, but we will get more information about what the commission says happened by Monday. And certainly we'll be talking about this next week too on Hacks & Wonks. One last thing I wanted to talk about before we left was - we are approaching the deadline for applications to the Institute for a Democratic Future. What's the Institute for a Democratic Future, you ask - I'm glad you asked. It is a fantastic six-month fellowship where you spend about a week in a month immersing yourself in politics and policy on the ground throughout the state of Washington and there's even a trip to DC. But it is an excellent way to get an education on not only a range of policy and politics, but to see how the policy that is passed connects to real-world conditions on the ground for people in different circumstances and in different walks of life. So being in Eastern Washington, being in Central Washington and talking to farmers and talking to farm workers and talking to union leadership and talking to people who are doing environmental work and talking to business organizations and just the full range of people in communities. And how different legislation impacts them, how different challenges are presenting themselves, and what their feedback and perspective is on different things. And it's varied. And especially, I think most of the people who are listening to this podcast are in the King County area, how things look in rural communities is different. How life is experienced in rural and communities elsewhere is different. And it's important to understand how that manifests in order to create policy in a way that actually does help people. This program is for people who are 39 or under. The deadline is approaching, coming up in about a week. So if this sounds like it's something interesting to you, I would highly encourage you - reach out to me on Twitter, I'm @finchfrii, send me a text message, email, send me a message to the website. I'll be happy to talk about it more with you, but this is actually how I got my start in politics. I had a career before I worked in politics - I was in corporate sales, but I knew that I wanted to make a change and do something different. I was pretty naive - I didn't know what jobs and stuff there were in politics, what options were. I had watched the West Wing and knew of those positions there, but really didn't understand the wide variety of positions in politics. But also how that also works together with policy positions, advocacy positions, and there is a rich world that you can work in and contribute to. And it can be in a full-time paid capacity or not, but it's just really useful and helpful to be able to see how policy translates. What type of policies in the conversation, what different people from different areas are saying about their lives and what they're facing. And what is helping and what is not helping. And a lot of it will surprise you. A lot of it may not fit neatly into rhetoric that we're used to hearing. And that's really important to engage with and understand. So I highly encourage you to do that. If you're listening to this and you know me, there's a letter of recommendation required - talk to me. If you know me and we can do that, I'm happy to do that. I've done it before for people, but highly recommend this for anyone interested in being more engaged in the world of politics or policy or advocacy, it really is invaluable. You would not be hearing my voice on this podcast right now if it weren't for the Institute for a Democratic Future. I wouldn't be working in politics. It is just really important and helpful. So if this sounds interesting to you or you think it would sound interesting to any others, you can go to democraticfuture.org. I'll also put that in the show notes so that you can read more about it. But it really is valuable. And for young leaders, young progressive leaders, age 21 to 39, and the program itself runs January through June. And there are 11 weekends between January and June plus a Washington, D.C. week. So give me a chat if this is interesting, but Institute for a Democratic Future is great. And it's also just a great network of people and really helpful and useful network of people to belong to, and you would be surprised how many people have been through this program and who are working there. It has been useful for a ton of us. So that's where I'm at on those. And I thank you all for listening to Hacks & Wonks on today, November 19th, 2021. And thank you to the producer of Hacks & Wonks, Lisl Stadler, who is assisted regularly by Shannon Cheng and our wonderful co-host today - who, hey, Shannon Cheng, the Chair of People Power Washington-Police Accountability, as well as Amy Sundberg, author of Notes from the Emerald City and Co-Chair of the Seattle Committee of People Power Washington-Police Accountability. You can find Shannon on Twitter @drbestturtle, Amy Sundberg @amysundberg and you can find me @finchfrii. Now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks & Wonks" in the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave us a review wherever you listening to Hacks & Wonks. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Thanks for tuning in. We'll talk to you next time.
In the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, five U.S. jurisdictions opted to suspend their July 2020 bar exams. Instead, these jurisdictions granted licensure to new attorneys through "diploma privilege.” That's the practice of admitting new attorneys to the state bar, and allowing them to practice law, contingent on their graduation from an ABA-accredited law school only. It does not require taking and passing a bar exam. Wisconsin is currently the only state to permanently offer diploma privilege, and it is only available to graduates of its two in-state law schools, Marquette University Law School and University of Wisconsin Law School. Critics of the bar exam have long argued that a timed test, based on short-term memorization of how to apply a vast amount legal rules, is not a true measure of legal competency. And now, with a string of remote testing snafus during the pandemic, many in the legal community are asking whether diploma privilege is a better option. Standing in the way of these fundamental changes are many state supreme courts and bar associations who have authority over who can practice law in their jurisdictions. Additionally, those opposed to diploma privilege argue that, whether it's accounting, medicine, or law, licensure exams are there for a good reason—to protect the public from incompetent practitioners. In this second episode of our podcast series on the bar exam, [Un]Common Law will explore the arguments both for and against diploma privilege. In this episode we speak with: Sam Skolnik, Washington-based legal industry reporter for Bloomberg Law. Efrain Hudnell, a 2020 graduate of the Seattle University School of Law, now an attorney with King County prosecuting attorney's office in Seattle. Daniel Tokaji, Dean of the University of Wisconsin Law School. David Wiggins, retired justice of the Iowa Supreme Court. David Krutz, managing partner in the Milwaukee office of Michael Best and Friedrich.
Jack is joined by KIRO's own Hannah Scott to discuss how a Redistricting group fails to approve new map amid outcry over process. And how more than 50 cases faced sentencing in King County last week. // Jack is joined by his good buddy Dr. William Zinnanti MD Ph.D to discuss how the U.S. Faces a Crisis of Burned-Out Health Care Workers. // Seattle Mayor-elect Bruce Harrell unveils transition team led by former Obama cabinet secretary. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
2PM - The Big Lead // China President Xi calls Biden an "old friend" after Biden says they're aren't // GUEST: Local mom on her daughter being shamed by a doctor for her parent's politics // King County elections says a napkin would count as a vote // Awesome Audio of the Day See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
12PM - The Big Lead // King County elections says a napkin would count as a vote // Maple Valley Hit N Run suspect not released // GUEST: Town Hall's Julio Rosas who has been in Kenosha, at the Rittenhouse trial See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
4PM - Kamala Harris' frustrating start as vice president // The Kamala Harris 'French accent' // Rachel Belle: Girl loses teddy bear in Glacier Park a year ago, now has it back + King County non profit raises all salaries to $70,000 // Most people hold on to their electronic devices as long as they can See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
This week we have the second part of the Hacks & Wonks post-election breakdown, featuring Executive Director of America Walks and former mayor of Seattle Mike McGinn, Managing Partner of Upper Left Strategies Michael Charles, and Co-Founder of the Mercury Group and former Colleen Echohawk campaign consultant, Bill Broadhead! They get into election results from outside of Seattle, the continual incorrect characterization of the most progressive elected officials as the "most divisive", the need to hold elected officials accountable to their campaign promises, how strange the office of City Attorney actually is, and much more. 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, Bill Broadhead at @billbroadhead, Michael Charles at @mikeychuck, and Mike McGinn at @mayormcginn. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com. Resources "Seattle Progressives Gain 13 Points from Election Night, but Come Up Short" by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist: https://www.theurbanist.org/2021/11/12/seattle-progressives-gain-13-points-from-election-night-but-come-up-short/ "Where Urbanists and Progressives Go from Poor 2021 Showing" by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist: https://www.theurbanist.org/2021/11/05/where-urbanists-and-progressives-go-from-poor-2021-showing/ "Election results for Seattle and King County 2021 races" by Crosscut Staff from Crosscut: https://crosscut.com/politics/2021/11/election-results-seattle-and-king-county-2021-races "Hamdi Mohamed and Toshiko Grace Hasegawa, both challenges in Port of Seattle Commission races, take lead" by Akash Pasricha from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/mohamed-and-hasegawa-both-challengers-in-port-of-seattle-commission-races-take-lead/ "What the Seattle election results mean for progressives" by Katie Wilson from Crosscut: https://crosscut.com/opinion/2021/11/what-seattle-election-results-mean-progressives "Bruce Harrell and other winners of Seattle elections made big promises. Next they'll try to deliver" by Daniel Beekman and Jim Brunner from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/bruce-harrell-and-other-winners-of-seattle-elections-made-big-promises-next-theyll-try-to-deliver/ "Republican Ann Davison, talking law and order, wins Seattle City Attorney race" by Mike Carter from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/republican-ann-davison-defeats-nicole-thomas-kennedy-to-become-seattles-first-woman-city-attorney/ "Election Analysis: Garcia surpasses Barrett as Mora unseats Marx in Burien City Council races" by Nicholas Johnson from The B-Town Blog: https://b-townblog.com/2021/11/06/election-analysis-garcia-surpasses-barrett-as-mora-unseats-marx-in-burien-city-council-races/ "Six takeaways from the 2021 Spokane City Council election results" by Daniel Walters from the Inlander: https://www.inlander.com/spokane/six-takeaways-from-the-2021-spokane-city-council-election-results/Content?oid=22652130 "Election Results 4: Challengers continue to hold leads in SeaTac City Council races" from The SeaTac Blog: https://seatacblog.com/2021/11/07/election-results-4-challengers-continue-to-hold-leads-in-seatac-city-council-races/ Transcript The transcript will be uploaded as soon as possible.
Join us for a conversation with Tom Heuser, President of the Capitol Hill Historic Society and visual artist, Lana Blinderman in an exploration of Seattle's Capitol Hill neighborhood through it's easily overlooked architecture, apartment buildings from the 1950's-1970's. For decades, these apartments and condominiums had provided architectural ambience, offered relatively affordable housing, and become places where residents gathered to develop and shape the city's culture and community. At the start of the pandemic, Tom & Lana surveyed their neighborhood's mid-century multifamily buildings, thanks to a grant from King County's arts and heritage organization 4Culture. Today we will hear what they discovered.
3PM - 150 businesses in King County receive complaints over not complying with new COVID vaccine verification requirement // Mariah Carey reacts after Texas bar bans 'All I Want For Christmas Is You' until Dec. 1 // Seattle police officers return to the force after leaving department last year // Lynnwood police officers now training in jiu jitsu, an effort to reimagine policing See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
In this weeks' episode of insideABODE, Dave sits down with the Tacoma Rescue Mission Executive Director Duke Paulsen, and Tacoma Rescue Mission Chaplain Lonnie Arnold. Lonnie also is Director for the Racial Reconciliation Network, and brings 20 years of experience as a police officer in King County. In this discussion Duke and Lonnie give us insight into homelessness from their point of view, and perspectives they see on the ground. Check out this insightful discussion! Have any topics you would like us to cover? Contact Dave Jones at firstname.lastname@example.org and drop a note! Or visit www.windermereabode.com for more content and houses! Visit the Tacoma Rescue Mission --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/windermereabode/message
This week Crystal is joined for part one of a post-election breakdown by Executive Director of America Walks and former mayor of Seattle Mike McGinn, Managing Partner of Upper Left Strategies Michael Charles, and Co-Founder of the Mercury Group and former Colleen Echohawk campaign consultant, Bill Broadhead! They discuss the irony of Bruce Harrell running as an “outsider” candidate, the importance of having a powerful message and transmitting it effectively to the voters, and why the Seattle political establishment doesn't necessarily reflect the changing demographics of Seattle. 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, Bill Broadhead at @billbroadhead, Michael Charles at @mikeychuck, and Mike McGinn at @mayormcginn. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com. Resources “Harrell is Seattle's next mayor, after González concedes” by David Kroman from Crosscut: https://crosscut.com/news/2021/11/harrell-seattles-next-mayor-after-gonzalez-concedes “Election results for Seattle and King County 2021 races” by Crosscut Staff from Crosscut: https://crosscut.com/politics/2021/11/election-results-seattle-and-king-county-2021-races “No incumbent in Seattle mayoral race, but candidates still running against City Hall” by Daniel Beekman from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/no-incumbent-in-seattle-mayoral-race-but-candidates-still-running-against-city-hall/ “‘In This House,' Seattle Votes for the Status Quo” by Erica C. Barnett from Publicola: https://publicola.com/2021/11/04/in-this-house-seattle-votes-for-the-status-quo/ “PAC spending in Seattle elections tops $3 million with late surge in real estate, business money” by Daniel Beekman from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/pac-spending-in-seattle-elections-tops-3-million-with-late-surge-in-real-estate-business-money/ “We Have a Culture War…in the Seattle City Attorney's Race?” by Benjamin Cassidy from The Seattle Met: https://www.seattlemet.com/news-and-city-life/2021/10/who-are-the-candidates-for-seattle-city-attorney “Progresses on the ropes? 5 takeaways from Seattle's election night returns” by Jim Brunner and David Gutman from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/progressives-on-the-ropes-five-takeaways-from-seattles-election-night-returns/
On this podcast, Margaret Soukup discusses the success of their School-Based Screening and Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment at King County, WA. Margaret designed, directed and implemented the Best Starts for Kid's SBIRT initiative in collaboration with twelve school districts, local and state partners, community-based providers and community stakeholders throughout King County. Read the case study here. >> https://tickithealth.com/success-stories/king-county-uses-digital-empathy-to-better-identify-students-in-need-and-better-connect-students-to-support/ Find all of our network podcasts on your favorite podcast platforms and be sure to subscribe and like us. Learn more at www.healthcarenowradio.com/listen/
What's Trending: The biggest election in Seattle closes tonight, the city could change forever depending on the outcome, and King County councilmember Kathy Lambert makes the last pitch ahead of tonight's election and how much the attack ads hurt her campaign. Minneapolis is voting to abolish the police today, What to expect in Virginia. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Jack is joined by KIRO's own Hannah Scott to discuss the election coverage tomorrow night as well as how NTK lied to Jack about being Gassed. // Jack is joined by KIRO's own John Curley to talk Election Day & Why John left King County. // Jack is excited about election day and has a special feature from KIRO's own Heather Bosch to share on Why you should still fill out that ballot. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The pandemic has put lots of renters in precarious positions. There's relief money available, but it's taking King County time to work through the backlog. And now agents have run up against a new problem: Landlord that don't respond, or res. Caseworkers say they're slowing down the system. Landlords say it's about lack of trust.
The Monologue: Inslee is looking at King County before a statewide vaccine mandate. The Interview: Cliff Mass explains the nonstop rain we're about to get. The Monologue: A new poll shows trouble for Dems in Virginia. The Interview: Dennis Ellis is running for Redmond City Council on a platform of public safety. // LongForm: Former KING 5 reporter and now former Dept. of Natural Resources communications specialist Alison Morrow was fired for posting YouTube content the state disagreed with. // The Quick Hit: Remember when Teresa Mosqueda defended a man threatening to murder cops? The Last Rantz: Time to vote like your community depends on it. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today Crystal is joined by candidate for King County Council District 3, Sarah Perry. They discuss Sarah's vision for community involvement in the district, how Sarah would work with communities that have been fully ignored by the incumbent Kathy Lambert, and her opponents outrageous take on sexual assault (among other things), supporting small businesses, and much more. 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, Sarah Perry, at @perryelect. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com. Resources Night by Elie Wiesel: https://bookshop.org/books/night-9780374500016/9780374500016 “'Don't go to a hotel room' with a drunk man. Councilmember Kathy Lambert's full KUOW interview” by Sydney Brownstone and Isolde Raftery from KUOW:https://www.kuow.org/stories/word-for-word-this-is-what-kathy-lambert-said “Seattle Times Rescinds Kathy Lambert Endorsement Over Racist Mailer” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist: https://www.theurbanist.org/2021/10/12/seattle-times-rescinds-kathy-lambert-endorsement-over-racist-mailer/ “About the GMA [Growth Management Act” from Future Wise: http://www.futurewise.org/growth-management-act “2018 Small Business Profile” from the U.S. Small Business Administration: https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/2018-Small-Business-Profiles-US.pdf “Washington trails the nation in mental health treatment” by Drew Atkins from Crosscut: https://crosscut.com/2016/07/how-washington-is-failing-the-mentally-ill “Chicago attorney, activist picked as King County's new director of Office of Law Enforcement Oversight” by Mike Carter from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/chicago-attorney-activist-picked-as-king-countys-new-director-of-office-of-law-enforcement-oversight/ More information about Sarah Perry's campaign for King County Council: https://www.electsarahperry.org/ Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, I'm very excited to have Sarah Perry joining us - candidate for King County Council. Welcome! [00:00:46] Sarah Perry: Thank you - I'm so happy to be here. Thank you for having me. [00:00:49] Crystal Fincher: Yeah - I am thrilled and excited - this is another race outside of Seattle. Sometimes we can get so Seattle-centric and focused on that, but man, there's a lot going on outside of Seattle that is hugely important to our region - impactful to the City, to the County, to our State realistically. And this is one of the most consequential races we face because this isn't just two people on the margins who agree on a lot of stuff. This isn't one of those - this may be a blowout race. This is highly competitive. You're running against an incumbent Republican - Kathy Lambert. This is in an Eastside district - so Issaquah, Redmond, Sammamish, some unincorporated King County - and wow, this is one of the premier races this cycle. What made you decide to run? [00:01:45] Sarah Perry: I am so committed to civic engagement. I have a background in nonprofit and government sectors. I was the first Eastside - I was the first executive director for Eastside Housing, which is now Springboard Alliance at the base of Avondale and Redmond. And went from there to Seattle University and then to Social Venture Partners International. When I was at Social Venture Partners International, I went to Birkenau - Auschwitz-Birkenau - on the Rick Steves tour with my husband. And I was reading Elie Wiesel's Night - it was two weeks before the Holocaust survivor passed away. I was standing in Birkenau - Auschwitz-Birkenau - where he stood. And that was '16. And I knew in every fiber of my being that she was going to win that election. I just knew it - I felt it in my bones. But if for some chance she didn't win, all I could see were trains of Muslims this time, or trains of immigrants, or trains of people with brown skin because of the rhetoric from the candidate at the time - our former president. And I felt like I had to do something when I got back - something was so moved in me in that experience. And it's still with me and I knew I had to do something. So I came back home and went to the single most unorganized experience of a 1,000 people - called the Democratic caucus. It was ridiculous. There were people booing with Hillary and with Bernie - it was ridiculous. Five people talking for one minute, one person talking for five minutes - and everybody's upset. And I'm an organizer in my sleep - and so I decided after four hours, I was going to get up and go home, or I was going to go and offer help. So I decided to do that first, and I did. He didn't know if I was friend or foe. I didn't know there was a Legislative District 5. I'd been involved in politics for campaigns - for presidential campaigns - throughout with my family, growing up with my family and my current family, but I had not been more involved. And so I didn't quite understand all of this and this man invited me to come and help with that - with selecting speakers. The next week, he asked me to come to an executive - what turned out to be an Executive Board for the 5th Legislative District Democrats. And they nominated me as PCO chair on the spot. And I said, "That's great. That's great. What do they do?" And they said, "We don't know. We've never had one." I said, "Okay. Okay." So I was committed. I'm still committed in my marrow. And so I started calling people that were alternates and delegates. I started calling - I wanted an equal balance of people that identified as men and people that identified as women, and people who were supporting Bernie and supporting Hillary at their highest value. I wanted both at their highest value. So we pulled together a group of 24 leaders in '16 and in '17, and we started recruiting volunteers. And then in 2018, we had over 150 canvassers to activate - who knocked on 50 doors once a month for that entire year. And we flipped the 5th District and elected Bill Ramos as State Rep, Lisa Callan as State Rep, and then Kim Schrier also - a big part of the 8th Congressional District is the 5th District. So that experience was electric for me - seeing people, a whole bunch of people, giving a little bit in a way that works in their life - it was just electric. And I was inspired. And after that I came home - when Bill Ramos was looking like he was going to win, I left Social Venture Partners International, came home and began my work again. I'd started work with Perry Consulting - decade before, two decades before - and I built that up again. And as I was doing this volunteer work - so it was 30 to 40 hours of volunteer work each week - while I had my day job. And as I was doing that, I just continued to be deeply connected to the House and the Senate and the Governor and Bob Ferguson and all these different candidates. So once that happened, the House and the Senate hired me to do the same kind of thing in Puyallup and Vancouver, Washington - and that was amazing. And then pandemic - doing this in the middle of phone calls was a completely different experience, but still the bones were in place. During that whole time, people were saying, "When are you going to run? When are you going to run? When are you going to run? This is all great. Thanks for organizing. When are you going to run? And when are you going to run specifically for this position?" And I've been thinking about it because what I am at heart is a coalition builder - I love to mobilize people and engage people in shared values. And so I looked at this position very carefully and I realized there are many, many voices that are not being heard from. We have a huge community of Hindu and Muslim, secular Indian and African. We also have Latinos, the Hmong community, African-American community. Many of these voices are not at the table in discussion with our current King County representative. Many have never ever seen her - many, many. There are areas around the environment and around transit that desperately need support and need attention and need complex thinking, not simple singular solutions. And I am ready to take that on and I am thrilled with the opportunity. And the first thing I did was I called Bob Ferguson and I said, "I'm thinking about doing this. Am I nuts? What do you think?" And he said, "If you do this, I will move everything in my power to help you get elected." I said, "That is amazing. Why would you do that? I mean, thank you, but why would you do that?" And he said, "Because we've been looking for someone for years who could run in this position and represent the values of this district and where we need to go. And if anybody can do it, you can do it." So that just continued to move forward, continued to move forward - and I got a similar message from so many people and yeah, I am completely, completely electric about this opportunity for coalition building so we have civic engagement throughout KCD 3. [00:08:25] Crystal Fincher: And that's what makes me so excited about you. I had mentioned to you before - a mutual friend of ours was who first turned me on to you. And it was just like, "You know what? There is this woman in Issaquah who," - and Issqauah was not organized in any way - in the Democratic party, outside. Many people had kind of written off in terms of organization or engagement - the Eastside. Certainly that County Council district is represented by a Republican - it's purple if not red. Hey, let's go focus somewhere else. And there, there wasn't much going on there. And you basically said, "Yeah I'm just going to do this." And knocked on doors in neighborhoods, found Precinct Committee Officers who are critical to increasing turnout and to helping people get out the vote for Democratic candidates and left-leaning candidates - critical, especially in districts represented by Republicans. And just did the work. I appreciate people who just do the work. [00:09:38] Sarah Perry: I appreciate people who do the work too. [00:09:43] Crystal Fincher: So that's what got me so excited - because not only were you willing to do the work, but you were effective - you were highly successful in recruiting PCOs and reaching out to members of all different types of communities and bringing everyone together. And as you said, you were - I feel that you were critical - you were a critical component in flipping the Legislative District. And certainly the coalition that you are continuing to build is certainly propelling you in this race and wow, what a competitive race it is. And just in case people have not been paying close attention to this district race with Kathy Lambert. Kathy's a problem. Kathy is a proud Republican - praised Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, voted against storing guns safely, voted against pro-choice causes. Joe Fain, a former Senator - State Senator in the 47th district - was credibly accused of rape, ended up losing his seat - that certainly contributed to it. And she blamed the victim and went as far as saying, "Hey, when I was younger, slapping a woman on the butt was a compliment." Now to be clear - Joe Fain was accused of much more than that, but just that - like who does that today? You know - just take it as a compliment, who should know - and just blindly defending Joe Fain. It's just problem, upon problem, upon problem. And so the values that she represents are so far away from where people are at today. Looking at how the district has been voting, it's been trending far away from that and getting further away. So the primary was interesting - it was a competitive primary and who is going to be the Democrat who comes out to face Kathy Lambert. This is a top two primary, but it is a Democrat and a Republican. And so you wound up being the choice of the community and of progressives to go up against Kathy Lambert - and wow. How do you begin to address the needs and the issues of the community when you have someone so extreme, and so problematic, and out of touch with people? What's it like to run against that? And what are you focused on getting accomplished first? [00:12:34] Sarah Perry: Thanks. You know - she is who she is, she's who she's always been. And we can no longer afford to have simple solutions. And part of the challenge is that she's been here for 20 years since Bush was in office. And our district has changed so much since then - 68% of our district voted for Biden. Bob Ferguson, Mike Pellicciotti - they're at 65% - it really is very strong in that direction. But that aside, she is a strong supporter, as you say, of Betsy DeVos - I'm a strong supporter of public education. And when I look at the district and because of the work that I've done in Issaquah - so I've lived in Issaquah for 21 years, North Bend for six years, worked and played throughout the district - I love this district. I love the cities of Issaquah, Sammamish and Redmond. We have unincorporated Woodinville, we have these beautiful towns of Duvall, Carnation, Snoqualmie, Skykomish, Fall City. One third of our district is unincorporated, and when you look at the primary, that's where she had any of her strength and the 40% that she received of the vote was from that area - 60% between me and the other Democratic challenger, Joe Cohen, who turned around and endorsed me - for which I'm very grateful. You know - I feel that with the work that we're doing at the doors, with the support that we've been able to raise, the endorsements that we've been able to raise - I have a few folks that would have otherwise voted for her and supported her, but feel so strongly that she's just not able to get the work done anymore on council. They don't feel the same way about the others, but they feel this way about her. And so, essentially, we need a fighter in this position. And I think people know that - I think people are also - they get tired of the same person for so long, especially in a district that has shifted so much. So many new families have moved in and so much more diversity. And we just have a lot of work to do here. So when I'm talking to the environmental community, they just come right in - and they're excited that I am focused on Growth Management Act and keeping the growth in our urban boundaries. They're excited that we set up zoning laws to protect our farmers and our farmland - not so that somebody can come along and allow businesses to be set up, favorite friends or whatever, and not have the mitigation for the sewer, so that the sewage runs into the farmland and into the waterways. And it's those businesses, but not these businesses - so I'm a middle child and things have to be fair. And so it really - I'm really okay with what we do, but we have to do it together. We have to have this conversation together - look at how all of the communities are impacted, make sure there's an environmental impact statement, and go from there. We do need to upgrade the Growth Management Act - it's absolutely true, but we have five forests and four watersheds. We have federal, state, county, city and private forest. We have so much space - 500 of the 1,500 miles of unincorporated roads are in this district. People come out here from all over the place and because we're the second fastest growing district in the next 10 years next to Bellevue - Claudia's is also in there. We have so much to protect if we're going to meet our environmental impact goals. So people - it's resonating with the environmental community, it's resonating with the transit community who understands that we need to make it very convenient for people to get out of their single-use vehicles into electric shuttles or the bike lane or walkways. And also that we are focusing on safe communities from a collaborative standpoint, so that we have folks working together who are most impacted with the Office of Law Enforcement Oversight, with the new Sheriff - making sure that the people who feel most impacted by any bias that might be going on are in that conversation together. And we do it together. And when we lean in, things only improve. And so having more civic engagement is a very exciting thing to me. And I think when we have these conversations one after the other, it just seems to be resonating with people and they're coming on board. So she raised a $100,000, she spent a $100,000 in the primary. She's got another $140,000 from 20 years of not being seriously challenged that she's bringing into the general. And I spent so much of my money - I've got half of that right now. It doesn't look like that on the PDC, but I've got half of that to be able to meet all of the challenges for these next three weeks before the ballots arrive. So I'm just working really hard to shore up that support so that we can have the digital and cable and mailings that we need, 'cause I know that that's her focus - digital. [00:17:53] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. [00:17:53] Sarah Perry: Yeah. [00:17:54] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. Now there's a lot that going to be on your plate, if and when you get elected. We're facing so many crises that are converging and making each other crisis worse. We're still in the middle of this pandemic, we're still dealing with COVID - and it's a huge problem. And negotiating through how this is being handled at schools, at local businesses, just in the community. There's an eviction cliff coming and getting the assistance out that has been provided for at the County has been a major problem. And getting the funds that are already earmarked to help people prevent eviction hasn't quite been happening. And so there's still a massive risk of people who are behind on their rent - most of them multiple months. We've got people struggling - the have-nots have less, the haves have even more throughout this pandemic. And so there are people who are really at the margins just struggling - who've been put out of work, who've had hours reduced - a lot of uncertainty with businesses as we continue to negotiate through COVID and more. How do you address all of that? What is the plan? [00:19:26] Sarah Perry: That is a great question. One of the first things that I'm going to do is build a KCD 3 community coalition. So what I want is I want people at the table. I want people looking at current practices and policies from each of our communities, from education and business, environmental, from our secular Indian and African communities, our Hindu, our Muslim communities, our Sikh, Latino, African-American. I want everybody at that conversation so that we can look at where King County is impacting with the tax dollars - all of its residents and where it's completely missing it. I'm also very appreciative of the work that Senator Manka Dhingra and Claudia Balducci have done. They've met with business owners from the communities of color every month all year - throughout the pandemic - all year last year, and into this year. And the current incumbent in this district has not attended one. I just don't understand that. And so I'm very excited to work with communities of color and businesses. I believe that when our small businesses thrive, our communities thrive. I know they provide half the jobs in this country - they're the second most trusted institution in this country and in every community they need to thrive. And that's why we're doing a small business Saturday video - I'm going to continue to do a highlighting of businesses and work to see what we can do to streamline fees and regulations across all seven cities that can be cumbersome and inhibit the success of our small businesses at a critical time - that part's important. I'm very interested in women - in strengthening women and women's self-sufficiency. I want to see transit options that are working with childcare, that support people in childcare, and needs for elder care. I want to see the support coming in more and more for our labor industry, for women, and for communities of color - in internship programs to strengthen these spaces, to promote a middle-class income. I want to see our housing really focus in on what we can do. I know that we - the seven cities had to figure out how much housing and the jobs and transit through 2044 - that was a few months back. And Redmond requested the majority - the lion's share of housing in this district through 2044, and that is because of light rail. So there's going to be huge development in Redmond for affordable housing, workforce housing, many different kinds of housing centered around light rail and mass transit opportunities. In Issaquah, there's 8,000 apartments and townhouses coming in. In the foreseeable future, there's just a lot of development of this kind of housing. And I want to make sure that it's not just affordable, but that it's attainable. I want to see people be able to live, work and play in the same community if that is their choice. That impacts our social texture, it impacts our environment, it impacts all of the areas that are of most critical concern. And because this is one of the two fastest growing region, districts in all of nine districts in King County, we have to get a hold of this. We have to pay attention to how we're going to do this together in a smart way. So I want to be in that conversation, but I'm not going to wear the white cape and step up and say, "Thanks for waiting. Here's the solution." I'm going to bring in people who are closest to the issue at hand and experts in the area - in these different spaces and have that dialogue together so that it is informed by the communities. That is what is critically missing in this district - is that things are not informed by the communities. There's a solution that's too simple, that's brought up and moved forward, and nobody will vote for it on council, and it goes nowhere, and it's talked about over and over and over for years and nothing happens. So we need to shake that up and do it differently and act as if every single resident, the voice of every single resident, matters. And I mean whether they agree with each other or not - I want a good balance of people who are grounded in their values. Like my husband and I, we don't always get along and I can be strong, he can be strong - but we put the marriage in the middle of that conversation. It is the health of the marriage that we look at when we are moving forward. And I want the health of our community as the thing that we look at when we are moving forward. But I want people who feel strongly and have divergent viewpoints and they're grounded in their values - I want those folks at the table - not for the fight, but for the movement forward. . [00:24:20] Crystal Fincher: Well, and that's an interesting point that you bring up. And one that - in talking with a lot of candidates - there's wanting to get community and put - absolutely necessary and needing to make sure that you are including people who are impacted in solutions. If you don't, they're not going to work - they're certainly not going to serve everybody. But at the end of the day, you have to make a decision one way or the other. How do you parse hearing different viewpoints, talking to different communities, having sometimes competing interests, sometimes just different interests that aren't necessarily competing - just different? How do you parse that at the end of the day? And I guess - what is your North Star, when you're saying first and foremost, I have to make sure that I deliver this for the community - how do you parse that? [00:25:15] Sarah Perry: Greatest good is always my North Star - what is the greatest good? What is the least suffering? Who is suffering the most? So when everybody does better, everybody does better, right? So I want to make sure that we are looking at our communities that are struggling the most, that are in the most vulnerable situation. And look at that as the guidepost for how we get to better - because better is determined by your weakest space. And weakest not being the people - people are often very strong, but they are not listened to or deliberately ignored. And we need to make sure that we are hearing what is best for each of the communities and engaging. And at the end of the day, I'm going to look at the greatest good - what's happening for our children, what's happening for our seniors, what's happening for our women. These are things that sit with me - women really rock the communities. They hold the communities and they need to be supported in raising their families and in supporting elder parents. And what does that mean? That means when they need to be supported - it means recognizing that childcare and eldercare is not women's work. It's the work of our future collectively. So it's really a telltale that so many of our women have had to leave the workforce because they're paid less in the partnerships, they're paid less for the same job. They leave the workforce to take care of the children or to take care of their elder parents. And the challenge there is that they're then sacrificing their advancement, their financial prosperity in the future, their children's education and advancement in the future. There are so many dominoes to that - that fall. And so, you know, I'm really focused on how we take care of our children and our elderly and our most vulnerable first - as a society, as a people. [00:27:21] Crystal Fincher: Well and we're in a situation where we're seeing the most vulnerable suffering in ways that are heartbreaking and frankly unnecessary - they're results of policy decisions - whether it's looking at our sizable unhoused population, people dealing with mental illness and mental health issues, which has certainly been aggravated by everything that people have had to deal with throughout this pandemic. And people just wanting to feel safe in their neighborhoods and not necessarily feeling that way - that those who currently are in charge of policing don't always serve the goal of public safety for everyone. How do you address that? [00:28:08] Sarah Perry: Yeah. Homelessness - not having housing - is a complicated issue. And you might have folks who are struggling with behavioral health - we, in my family, have had the opportunity, the unfortunate opportunity, to see the acute failure of our state in this area - in our family. And seeing that firsthand - watching what's possible, watching how it works with a family that can have choices - as we had the privilege of choice to go to other states. Others don't have that option. This affects all of us and people could be - they could not have housing because they had behavioral health issues that Washington State really does not have the training and the resources and the personnel and the psychiatric hospital beds to address. We are below Tennessee. We are below Mississippi. This is a great state. Why is that? Why is that, right? And Manka Dhingra has done amazing work. She's moved us up - we were 48th. We're now like 35th - something like that - because of her work. She's such a Trojan, such a champion in this area. It could be because somebody has a behavioral health issue and is not getting the medication, the counseling, the psychiatry, and the support they need to get through that blip in their life - and it becomes a catastrophe rather than a blip, and where they can then go on to live a meaningful stable life. Or it could be substance use disorders - so addiction is serious and real and heavy. It's opioid, it's alcohol, it's other drugs - sometimes that's used to self-medicate with behavioral health needs. Sometimes it's just the pure addiction unto itself - it needs its own set of complicated, not simple solutions - complicated, not simple solutions for mental health, for behavioral health needs as well. And then you also might just be - you've got your kids, you're living in a car because why - well, you're working - but you have to pay childcare, which costs the same as another mortgage or rent. So you can scrape that together to keep your kids stable and you're working and you're living in your car - first, last and deposit without behavioral health issues, without substance use issues - just plain too expensive without enough support. These are complicated issues, but we are a smart people. We are a smart, smart people, and we can figure this out. But the only way we can figure it out is if we own it as our issue. Yeah, 1% or 2% are given a bus fare from Florida or somewhere else - one-way to Seattle - that is true, but it's a phenomenal thing. Phenomenology thing - it's 1% or 2% - the rest start in the zip code that they end up in. These are our people - they're my weird Uncle Al, or they're our kids, or they're our siblings, or they're parents. All of these are our people, and until we embrace that as a solution that cannot be swept away - people don't - human beings don't go away. It's not going to go away until we lean into it and engage and embrace and look at these solutions together and own it together. It's complicated, but it's only through that complicated, sophisticated work together that we can come to a solution and we can do it. And I am excited to be in a district here that can support folks being safe, finding housing, feeling safe walking around in their communities, walking into businesses, not having to walk on needles and excrement, feeling safe in that way. Knowing that they have law enforcement who are not the bad apples, but the good apples that have stuck around and they want to understand their own racial bias and they want to comply with the accountability and transparency. They're the leading edge in those conversations because they know it's critical and they're in it and they welcome it - like our new Director of the Law Enforcement Oversight. He knows - he knows that he has to lean into the community and if the community doesn't work with him, it won't work. He knows that. Well, that is an amazing first start. And he's Muslim. That's a lovely thing too. [00:32:18] Crystal Fincher: Well, I appreciate the thoughtfulness that you've taken in your approach and just how you've involved the entire community. If people want to learn more about your campaign, get involved - how do they do that? [00:32:34] Sarah Perry: ElectSarahPerry.org is the website, and there are opportunities for weekend canvasses or canvases during - we go every single day - I'm knocking on 50 doors a day. But people can go knock if they're comfortable - we show them, we take all safety protocols - only vaccinated folks and still wearing masks. But they can do that - we are doing phone banks, we are doing text banks. They can make a contribution to support our campaign. We'll be doing sign wavings. We got lots of opportunities with labor to do sign wavings as well and lit drops - all of those things are in place and they can check out our website, give us a call. We would love to get anybody involved at the level - lots or little time - they like to do it - to make, to be effective and to feel like they're contributing to changing democracy because this district needs that change. And we need you with us to win. [00:33:28] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, it does. Thank you so much for taking the time to talk to us. We're going to be keeping our eye on this. It's one of the biggest opportunities this cycle to make a big change from a Republican district to a Democratic one. And in one of the biggest, most prosperous districts and the biggest county in the state - that's incredibly impactful. Thank you so much for taking the time to talk to us today. [00:33:55] Sarah Perry: Thank you for having me - really, really appreciate being here and you elevating this and letting folks know what's happening on the Eastside. [00:34:03] Crystal Fincher: I thank you all for listening to Hacks & Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler with assistance from Shannon Chang. 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, 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 midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officalhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - we'll talk to you next time.
Learn about the latest in local public affairs in about the time it takes for a coffee break! Brian Callanan of Seattle Channel and Kevin Schofield of Seattle City Council Insight discuss King County's new vaccine verification requirements, a new County plan to take over security and management of City Hall Park, a question about climate change legislation from one of our patrons, and Seattle's annual Public Safety Survey. If you like this podcast, please support us on Patreon!
4PM - Hanna Scott: Rod Dembowski accused of verbal abuse, amid conflict with King County Council official // Don't rant about short-staffed stores and supply chain woes // The Incredible Disappearing Hotel Breakfast—and Other Amenities Travelers Miss See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
3PM - King County businesses concerned about pushback from upcoming vaccine verification policy // A Texas school district bans boys from wearing long hair // How to Quit Your Job and Get a Better One, From Those Who Have Been There See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you plan to go out to a restaurant in King County next week, you'll need to prove that you're fully vaccinated against Covid-19, or have recently tested negative for the virus, to get in. And it's not just restaurants. Come Monday, October 25, anyone 12 or older will have to show their vaccine or test status to do a large number of activities in the county.
That includes going to restaurants, bars, concerts, gyms, football games, and more. For some places in Seattle, this is nothing new.
The Monologue: Seattle FD and others begin to prepare for the vaccine mandate deadline. The Interview: Republican Redistricting Commissioner Paul Graves responds to the KING 5 hit piece that left out a lot of context on his map. The Monologue: Internal memo says King County sheriff's employees won't be immediately fired on vaccine deadline. The Interview: For VA Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli on next week's HR 4 vote. LongForm: Rep. Dan Crenshaw tackles cancel culture and indoctrination in schools. The Quick Hit: King County Metro cancels another 80 early-morning trips on Friday. The Last Rantz: Don't let people pressure you one way or another on the vaccine mandate for your job. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Hanna Scott: ‘Disheartening' rise in King County gun violence has already surpassed 2020's record toll // The Democrats' Privileged College-Kid Problem // We Are Republicans. There's Only One Way to Save Our Party From Pro-Trump Extremists. // RBG Criticized National-Anthem Protests, and Katie Couric Covered It Up // Rantz: Seattle school cancels Halloween over ‘equity,' says Black kids don't celebrate // Professor Not Teaching After Blackface ‘Othello' Showing // Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin successfully launches crew with William Shatner to space and back - AUDIO See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Hanna Scott: ‘Disheartening' rise in King County gun violence has already surpassed 2020's record toll // The Democrats' Privileged College-Kid Problem // We Are Republicans. There's Only One Way to Save Our Party From Pro-Trump Extremists. // RBG Criticized National-Anthem Protests, and Katie Couric Covered It Up // Return of Office Workers Reaches Pandemic High as Employees Trickle In // South Lake Union anxious as Amazon changes work plans - AUDIO // “I Can't Be Surprised Like This Again” // NFL locker room sandwiches lead to a debate over the perfect PB&J ratio - AUDIO? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
What's Trending: Seattle school cancels Halloween over ‘equity,' says Black kids don't celebrate, and King County praise it's vaccine mandates. Ballard residents share crime concerns with Seattle police Chief Diaz. The Kraken inaugural game was entertaining but disappointing. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Big Lead @ NoonThe Supply Chain crisis // Biden, Buttigieg and Psaki on the Supply chain crisis // King Co gun violence has surpassed all of 2020Ballard residents talk to Chief Diaz about the crime in their neighborhoodWalgreen stand against organized retail crime See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Reveal's Jennifer Gollan leads an investigation that exposes the consequences of passing gun laws with no teeth. For the first time, Reveal tallies the number of intimate partners, children and bystanders whose lives are shattered by abusers who fail to give up their firearms. Our analysis of 21 states finds that from 2017 through 2020, at least 110 intimate partners, children and bystanders were killed by suspects using guns they weren't allowed to have under federal law and, in some cases, state law as well. This is likely a massive undercount because the federal government does not track the number of people killed by intimate partners who are prohibited from possessing guns. We meet Chad Absher, who even as a young man could not control his rage. He was convicted of shooting at an ex-girlfriend's house, which meant he could never have a gun again. Absher's story with guns should have ended there, but it didn't. Gollan picks up his story years later when Absher starts dating another young woman, Ashlee Rucker. It isn't long before he becomes controlling and abusive, and Rucker wants out of the relationship. But Absher won't let go and, once again, threatens violence. Despite the law, he has a firearm. In the final segment, Gollan tracks the law enforcement failures that make it possible for felons such as Absher to possess guns. From the local sheriff to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and a member of Congress, Gollan discovers that laws that have been on the books for decades have very few enforcement mechanisms. She also speaks with a prosecutor in King County, Washington, which is trying to make the laws work as they were originally intended.
What's Trending: Students get an AR-15 pointed at them in the parking lot of a North Seattle School, a demoted Seattle police commander is suing Chief Diaz, County Councilmember Girmay Zahilay claims he was the victim of racism because he was called out as a prominent Seattle socialist, Big Local: Shelton teachers are ready to be fired, a Port Angeles man gets charged for pointing a laser pointer at a coast guard helicopter, and a new King County program connects homeless people to jobs and housing. Biden's polling numbers are in the toilet. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.