Podcasts about king county sheriff's office

On this topical show re-air, Crystal learns about north King County's innovative new Regional Crisis Response (RCR) Agency with its inaugural Executive Director Brook Buettner and Kenmore Mayor Nigel Herbig. Following national guidelines and best practices for behavioral health crisis care, a five-city consortium established RCR in 2023 as part of a vision to provide their region with the recommended continuum of behavioral health care - which includes someone to call, someone to respond, and somewhere to go. Executive Director Buettner and Mayor Herbig share how the program grew out of a need for a person-centered mobile crisis response, rather than the traditional law enforcement response which is often without the right tools or expertise for the job. They describe the collaborative process of getting buy-in from police agencies, electeds, and city staff to design a service that has evolved from the RADAR co-response program to approaching a 24/7 behavioral health first response. Finally, they cover impressive early results in cost-savings & outcomes and offer advice to other cities looking to bring similar solutions to their own communities. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Follow us on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find Mayor Nigel Herbig at @nigelherbig.   Brook Buettner Brook Buettner is inaugural Executive Director of the groundbreaking Regional Crisis Response Agency, which deploys services to people experiencing behavioral health crisis in the North King County community. She is a Licensed Clinical Social Worker and an experienced human services professional with a focus on policy advocacy and program implementation for high-needs populations. During her two decade-long career, she has been focused on transforming systems to meet the needs of individuals who are high utilizers of both criminal legal and health and human services systems. Ms. Buettner holds Masters in Public Administration and Social Work from the University of Washington. Mayor Nigel Herbig Nigel grew up in the Seattle neighborhood of Wallingford, attended Seattle Public Schools, and graduated from the University of Washington with a degree in Political Science and Comparative Religion. Nigel and his wife, Tiffany, decided to move to Kenmore when their daughter was a baby as they were looking for a great place to raise their daughter where they could purchase their first home. They have never regretted that decision. Nigel has worked in broadcasting, fundraising, and politics. He currently works at the King County Regional Homelessness Authority. Mayor Herbig represents the Council on the Eastside Transportation Partnership (Vice Chair), and the Sound Transit SR 522 Bus Rapid Transit Elected Leaders Group. He also sits on the King County Affordable Housing Committee.   Resources The Regional Crisis Response Agency | City of Kirkland   “RCR Agency Welcomes Brook Buettner as Executive Director” from City of Kirkland   National Guidelines for Behavioral Health Crisis Care - Best Practice Toolkit Executive Summary | SAMHSA   The North Sound RADAR Program | City of Shoreline   King County Outcome Data for North Sound RADAR Navigator Program   “RADAR: Response Awareness, De-Escalation, and Referral Final Evaluation Report” prepared by the Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy Department of Criminology, Law & Society at George Mason University   “North King County cities will broaden mental-health response to 911 calls” by Amy Radil from KUOW   “New Crisis Response Center in Kirkland to Serve North King County” from City of Kirkland    “$500k grant from DOJ to help reduce use of police force in North King County” by Hannah Saunders from Bothell-Kenmore Reporter   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review show and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, I am very excited to be welcoming Mayor Nigel Herbig - he is the mayor of Kenmore. And Brook Buettner, who's the Executive Director of Regional Crisis Response - a collaboration for a mental health alternative response between the cities of Kenmore, Kirkland, Lake Forest Park, Shoreline, and Bothell that's really innovative and I think a number of cities are looking at this in the region - want to just explore what this is. So starting out with Brook, how did you get involved in this work and what interested you in this? [00:01:27] Brook Buettner: Thanks, Crystal - I'm so happy to be here with you. So my background is that I'm a licensed clinical social worker and I also have a background in public administration. And most of my social work career has been in service of folks that have chronic behavioral health conditions, are living homeless, and then have some overlap with the criminal legal system - either with the police, or with having multiple charges around poverty, or around homelessness. So this is a really exciting program for me to be able to be involved in. [00:01:54] Crystal Fincher: Excellent. And Nigel, as mayor of Kenmore, what got you involved in this particular program and work? [00:02:00] Mayor Nigel Herbig: First, I want to start off by saying that I'm a long-time listener, and I'm excited to be here, Crystal - so thank you for having me. Kenmore entered into this work back in - I want to say 2017 or 2018 - when we joined with other cities and King County MIDD funds and started the RADAR program, which was a co-response model across parts of North King County to give folks other ways to have service calls responded to - without the only response being a police response, because I think we all recognize that a solely police response is not always the right answer and is not always in the best interest of everybody involved. And we did that successfully for a few years. And then in 2021, we started larger conversations with the cities of Bothell, Lake Forest Park, Shoreline, and then we reached out to Kirkland also, about expanding what we were doing with RADAR and making it into a larger regional model. And so our staff and our councils worked for about a year and a half trying to figure out how that would all work. And what we ended up doing was folding the North King County's RADAR Navigator program with Kirkland's Community Responder program to form a new entity that's regional in nature, is going to have a lot more resources, will be operating more hours during the day - I think we're aiming towards 24/7, I don't think we're quite there yet - and will really be a resource for folks who are experiencing, or decompressing in public, or having some sort of other issues so that they'll get a response that actually meets them where they're at. And gets them help immediately rather than the other alternatives, which are the ER or jail - both of which we know are not ideal for anybody who's experiencing either an issue with drug addiction or a mental health issue. So yeah, it's exciting to see multiple cities all coming together to recognize the issue and working together - 'cause as individual cities, there's no way that we could have done this - little Kenmore could've never done this on our own. But working with other cities, we're gonna be delivering something that I think will be meaningful to folks who are experiencing issues out in the field, and I think we'll be getting better outcomes for everybody. And I think that's something we're very excited about. [00:04:00] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. You talk about how challenging this is for individual cities to address and to deal with. I do think it's notable that there was an attempt, a recognition by Kenmore that this was something that needed to be tackled. There was the RADAR program, previously in place, that you just mentioned - this was built on top of and leveraged with the region. How did the discussions go with the region? How did you get buy-in for taking this collaborative approach? And how did you work through the design of the program? How did that work, Brook? [00:04:34] Brook Buettner: We're very lucky in North King County that there was already a great deal of support for alternatives to police response for people in crisis. As you mentioned, the commitment to the RADAR Navigator program that had been going on for about four years prior to this conversation and showing really successful outcomes for folks. And across our elected officials, our police leadership, and our community, there was a strong commitment to doing things in a new way for people in crisis. And so it was a matter of not having to bring people on board, but just discussing what's our shared vision - what do we want our community to look like and how are we gonna get there? And so it was a big lift for city staff to come up with the agreement, the interlocal agreement, that governs this entity - but it was done pretty quickly in my experience and very well to where we have a strong and robust infrastructure to start really offering these alternative services to folks in crisis. [00:05:29] Crystal Fincher: Nigel, what advice would you give to other cities working through this process right now in terms of figuring out the agreements that are going to govern these collaborative approaches, getting buy-in from various stakeholders? How did that work in your experience and what guidance would you give other folks working through this? [00:05:48] Mayor Nigel Herbig: I think part of what made things work, where we are in North King County, was the fact that we'd already been partnering with other cities with RADAR. But we also have other regional models that we're used to - we're used to doing regional collaboration around here. Kenmore is part of ARCH, which is a regional coalition for housing - which is a multi-jurisdictional affordable housing developer that covers kind of Kenmore and then down to the Eastside. And so we're very used to working in a collaborative manner with our neighbors to address issues that we really can't do, again, by ourselves - we can do affordable housing, but it's very hard for a smaller city, right? It's a lot easier if people are pooling things together. So we already had those models that we were familiar with, which I think really helped some of the conversations - 'cause Kirkland's also part of ARCH, I think Bothell is too. So we're starting from a place where we understand how these models work. I think having trust between the cities is important also. We have good relationships with - I have good relationships with my colleagues in Kirkland and in Bothell and Lake Forest Park and Shoreline - I think that's helpful. And then also having staff that's willing to really dig into the details and work collaboratively with their colleagues is important. A lot of this came out of the fact that - and I think we all recognize this - the state and the county have largely been underfunding our mental health response for a long time. And even on our council, there was some pushback to - this should be a county response, this should be the county's responsibility. And I don't completely disagree with that assessment either, but I think we all recognize that something had to be done. And at the end of the day, sometimes cities just have to step up and figure out a way forward. And it's nice to see five cities coming together to work together towards a solution, while we try to figure out the larger long-term solutions that are truly regional and even statewide, frankly. [00:07:25] Crystal Fincher: So can you walk me through what your most frequent calls look like, feel like, what that process is? I think for a lot of people - they're familiar with the concept of alternative response, they're familiar with how important it is, and understanding that police can't do everything and they are not the most effective response for every kind of crisis - so having a tailored response that is most appropriate and most effective is really helpful. How, as you work through this, what does a typical call look like? What does a typical day look like? [00:07:58] Brook Buettner: In crisis, of course, there's no typical call or no typical day. But we are looking to deploy social workers or mental health professionals on any 911 call that comes in that has some identified component of behavioral health. So that's mental health, or substance use, or some social service need like a homelessness component, a family dynamic issue where it could be helpful to have a social worker there. And then the social workers - we call them crisis responders - the crisis responders are going either in the car with the police officer, or when possible in an independent vehicle and meeting the police officer on the scene. And we are stepping more and more in our community into the space of two crisis responders going to - responding to the scene - without a first responder. And that is really what we call the alternative response model. And it can be anything from somebody that has called 911 because they themselves, or somebody that they care about, is suicidal - has made suicidal statements or gestures. Or someone that is in a community space and is having mental health symptoms or substance use-driven symptoms that are causing them to be troubling to the other folks in that environment. To, like I said, family dynamics where someone calls 911, for example, because their teenager is so agitated and escalated that they become violent. And our crisis responders are very, very good at identifying what's going on, deescalating folks, bringing them down to a level of calm where they can talk through what's underlying the crisis. And then the crisis responder's job is to figure out what to bring to bear on the situation to alleviate the immediate crisis and then connect the person to the system of care so that they don't fall into crisis again. [00:09:33] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And it looks like you've structured the program on best practices for the continuum of behavioral health care starting with having someone to call - we have our 988 line, someone to respond - these crisis responders, and then having somewhere to go once it's determined where the appropriate place is for them to receive the help that they need. Especially when it comes to that somewhere to go, we just passed a county-wide behavioral health center levy that will fund a number of those services and staff. But that's been a big challenge in our region. How have you navigated through this in the program, Nigel, and how's it working? [00:10:14] Mayor Nigel Herbig: Well, I'm really excited. I mean, Kenmore and our partner cities - we're actually out ahead of King County a little bit and had been working in partnership for - I don't know, a little while now, I think going back to 2021 - really reflecting on the lack of a door for people to go to, a place for people to go to when they're in crisis. And working together, we identified funds and we identified a location, we identified our provider, and we will be opening up the first crisis response center for North King County. And again, it's the same cities - it's Kenmore, Lake Forest Park, Shoreline, Bothell, and Kirkland - and we're excited to have this model here. They selected Connections Health Solutions, which is a national innovator in the space. They've done a lot of great work in Arizona, and that model is also what I believe the executive based his models off of. And they should be opening up next year, and it's gonna offer a place for people who are facing any sort of mental health issue or behavioral health issue - a place where they can go and actually talk with somebody, regardless of insurance, regardless of where they live, or any of that. It'll give people a place to go, which right now is severely lacking throughout the county. [00:11:23] Crystal Fincher: What happens when there is no place to go? [00:11:26] Brook Buettner: I can kind of speak to that. So in the past, when we encountered someone in the field in crisis, the options were either that they stay where they are, that they go to the emergency department, or an arrest and jail - if it's not safe for them to stay in the community setting or in the home where they are at - safe for themselves or safe for the people around them. And this allows us an alternative to say - Maybe the emergency department is not the right place, and certainly jail is not the right place for somebody in deep behavioral health crisis. We're gonna take them somewhere that we know will accept them, we know will allow them to stay, will provide robust psychiatric and behavioral healthcare, and do discharge planning so that they're walking out with a plan and a connection to ongoing care. Connections, in particular, has a model that has multiple levels of acuity and step-down so that if somebody comes in at the highest acuity, they're in one setting. And as they deescalate, as they get different treatment on board or medications on board, they can step down to a lower acuity setting and even to an outpatient model while they wait to get hooked up with the local behavioral health system of care. And Crystal, you mentioned the behavioral health continuum of care, and I love that you brought that up because this is - North King County is about to have, kind of the first in our state, fully-executed crisis continuum of care when this facility opens up and it's super exciting. [00:12:44] Crystal Fincher: It's very exciting and so necessary. And I appreciate you all doing the work to get this implemented to be a model for the region. Other areas are looking at this - some areas are eager to adopt this and have public safety agencies, police agencies that are willing partners. Others have some concerns and there's almost a concern of - Okay, is this competition for us? Are they looking to move us out? What feedback have you heard from law enforcement officials, and how have they said it's impacted their job and the work that they have to do? [00:13:19] Mayor Nigel Herbig: To be honest, I haven't heard anything negative from our police partners - Kenmore, like Shoreline, contracts with the King County Sheriff's Office - they've been great partners in this. I think our chief is always looking for better ways to interact with folks who are in crisis and this gives him another tool. This gives him more resources to address the problem at hand, rather than only having law enforcement resources to fall back on - and I think he views that as a positive. So I have not heard any pushback from our law enforcement community up in North King County around this, and I think they're looking forward to using this as a resource and being partners in this. [00:13:56] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. For years and years - going back a decade and more - have heard several officers, chiefs talk about how challenging it is to respond to calls where there's a behavioral health component, or there isn't any illegal activity per se but someone is clearly in crisis, or people are being impacted around them and an intervention needs to take place but a criminal or a legal intervention doesn't seem to be the most positive. Brook, what have you heard from officers who have co-responded on these, or who are looking forward to a complete alternative response? How are they saying it's impacting their work and their ability to do their job? [00:14:37] Brook Buettner: We have been extraordinarily lucky in North King County that we've had support from law enforcement leadership since the get-go. Law enforcement was who asked for this program initially five years ago, saying these are not the kind of calls that we're supposed to be on - we need help, we need support. And so it has been a journey to get all of the responding officers - patrol officers and deputies - socialized to this idea. But once an officer or a deputy sees it in action, it's an easy sell. So what we find is that the more interaction we are having with law enforcement, the more referrals we're getting because they see - wow, that works - or we'll let them know that the follow-up that we did ended up keeping somebody from falling into deep crisis again. And it becomes a really good alternative for them and a good tool in their tool belt. I also am really attentive to making sure that we maintain good relationships on a one-on-one basis with all of our law enforcement partners, so that it's not a pain to have a social worker along but rather a pleasure - to say we're a great team, we work well together. Both sides recognize that each role has something to bring to a highly escalated crisis situation, and both sides recognize where their limits are. And so it's just been a constant growth of support and of buy-in. I've heard from several chiefs that they see shift in the culture - in the willingness to talk about behavioral health in a new way among the community and also within the department - that it opens up conversations that otherwise may not have happened. So it has really been a positive for our five police agencies. [00:16:05] Crystal Fincher: I think that is really an outstanding observation. And strikes me as important, especially as we hear from several police agencies across the state really that they're trying to recruit, they're short on officers, they're having a tougher time on that - and needing to triage their time and resources, and response times being impacted, other things that they're saying are being impacted. How can this help manage the workload for officers and across the public safety continuum? How has that been working? [00:16:34] Mayor Nigel Herbig: Speaking for Kenmore, our officers, right - until we had RADAR in place and until we had these partnerships - if somebody was out on the street decompensating, yelling, screaming, doing something like - like you said earlier, that's not illegal, but is disruptive to the community and the person is obviously in crisis - the only response we had was a police response. And I think even our officers recognize that there are better ways for them to be spending their time than dealing with somebody who's decompensating. It's not what they were hired for, it's not what their expertise is in. And this gives them a tool so that they can - working with the social workers - find what the right response is, hand off the person to the social worker, and then get back to catching speeders or investigating break-ins or whatever it is that they could be doing rather than dealing with the guy who is having a breakdown. So I view this as actually an expansion of our response, if you will - it gives us the ability to respond to more calls on both sides of things, both law enforcement and people experiencing a crisis. [00:17:38] Crystal Fincher: How have you seen that play out, Brook? [00:17:40] Brook Buettner: It is absolutely allowing officers to focus more on life safety and law - criminal law issues - by kind of carving off this segment of the work that comes into the 911 system and routing it to the appropriate resource, the right tool at the right time. I see what we're doing as a third kind of branch of the first response system. Going back again to the continuum of care, the level of care that someone gets should be based on the acuity of their need and of their crisis. And we have outpatient behavioral health for folks that have behavioral health challenges that are at a low acuity level. We have other systems in place that are secondary responses for people that are in crisis. And when people are in very high acuity crisis and 911 is needed, we now have this first response behavioral health tool in our toolbox - that crisis responders that are skilled and trained and experienced in meeting people that are in the highest acuity level of behavioral health crisis, but still not committing a crime. So it is a 911 call - it's not necessarily a law enforcement need, but there is a need for a very high level response - and we're now able to provide that. [00:18:47] Crystal Fincher: Did you have anything to add, Nigel? [00:18:49] Mayor Nigel Herbig: Well, I was gonna say - I think a lot of this came out of the recognition that we've seen over the last 150 years that when your only response is a police response, the outcomes are not ideal. We have seen too many folks who are dealing with a mental health issue - and that is a huge section of our population - it's not something we talk about, but a huge proportion of folks are dealing with some sort of mental health issue. And just because somebody is having a very hard day doesn't mean that they should end up in jail or be put at risk, frankly, of a police interaction. We know that sometimes those interactions can turn out tragically. And being thrown into jail or worse, because you're experiencing a mental health issue, can ruin somebody's life or - and frankly, can ruin not only their lives, but also their kids' lives. When we enter somebody into the criminal justice system, it has long-lasting effects on not just the person impacted, but also their family, their kids, their kids' kids - it can have multigenerational effects on people. And we've seen that play out over the last, well, 50, 100 years. This gives folks, this gives our police officers a different response. And I think it's - that's what I'm excited about - I'm excited that people who are experiencing mental health issues can actually get the treatment they need rather than a pure law enforcement response, because nobody deserves to go to jail because they're having a breakdown. [00:20:12] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And it's a shift in how we've been doing things. What are the results that you're seeing from this? Obviously, people are looking to justify these expenditures and implement these in their own areas. What results are you seeing when it comes to amount of calls, recidivism? I know in some other cities, they talk about how many calls come in about behavioral health issues that aren't someone breaking the law but that are someone in crisis, as you've talked about, and how much time that takes up, how many repeated calls those spur, and how much time that demands - just the amount, enormous amount, of resources that demands. How are you seeing that impacted and what results are you seeing from this program? [00:20:55] Brook Buettner: Directly to your question, Crystal, we don't have a lot of data yet on reduction in 911 calls, or 911 dispatch center or officer time. I do have some outcome data though that our King County partners were able to pull together for us for the RADAR Navigator program - that folks that were touched by the RADAR Navigator program - in two years following that program touch, we saw a 67% reduction in adult jail bookings. And that is a tremendous impact. We saw a 60% reduction in behavioral health crisis events. And that is measured by King County's Department of Community and Human Services who oversees the behavioral health system crisis response. They also experienced a smaller 4% reduction in emergency department visits. And of the folks that our program touched, 14% were subsequently enrolled in publicly funded behavioral health services. And I think that's a significant undercount because a lot of the folks in our community do have private pay insurance and so there would be no way to count that. But we know that interaction with this program results in a reduction in jail, a reduction in crisis services, and an increase in engagement with the behavioral health system. And those are all big wins. And to your specific questions, those are the kind of things we're gonna be looking at in our program analysis as we go on. How is this saving on 911 calls? How is this saving on officer time? My dream is that we capture the cost savings of reduction in jail nights and say - let's put that back into the earlier end of the continuum of care and fund diversion, and ultimately fund a robust system of community-based behavioral health care so that people don't fall into crisis. Again, I wanna say we're extraordinarily lucky that our electeds and our city staff are all so interested and committed to doing this kind of analysis and thinking in this way. [00:22:37] Crystal Fincher: Thanks - I appreciate that data, that information - it's really, really powerful. And what strikes me hearing that is that when you talk about being booked into jail, emergency room visits - these are the most expensive parts of our system to use and to utilize. And savings on these are incredible - I'm looking at that reduction in the jail number, and that is a budget-altering number right there. Pretty incredible. And I recognize this is a newer program - certainly you've done the work with the RADAR program, this predecessor, and getting the data there. I'm sure more will be rolling in as this continues and you move on, so that's great. Did you have something you wanted to add, Brook? [00:23:16] Brook Buettner: Yeah, just a thought that this is what we sometimes call a different purse problem - that each of these reductions affects a different financial system. And so part of our work is gonna be pulling together those cost offsets and making sure that the savings are redirected appropriately to meeting people's needs. [00:23:34] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, that is such an incredible problem in the public sector - yeah, this is saving a billion dollars, but if that's spread across a ton of different budgets in different ways, it's a whole different animal than someone handing someone basically a rebate check for a billion dollars. As you look forward, you talked about moving forward and moving towards a program where it truly is an alternative response where there are one or two crisis responders who respond to these calls without law enforcement initially - they can certainly call them in if it's warranted or they need backup. How do you see this progressing with that change and beyond it? What are the plans? [00:24:14] Brook Buettner: First, I'll say that the primary challenge that stands between us and a pure alternative response system is the dispatch question - and the ability to understand when a 911 call comes in, what's really going on - and that is often not clear from a 911 call. So we really wanna work through this very carefully with all of our partners and make sure that we're doing the outreach in a way that's safe and appropriate, that meets people's needs, but also keeps our responders safe. And so that is probably my work for the next two years - is digging into - How do we do call receiving? How do we triage? And then how do we appropriately dispatch the right resource? I have kind of been moving from calling it alternative response to thinking of it as a behavioral health first response. Whatever - when someone is in behavioral health crisis - whatever resource is the right resource. And I can see, for example, that being a crisis responder plus an EMT when someone has or has stated that they will take too much medication - and that's a medical plus a mental health need. Whereas if there's maybe a weapon in play, then that's a law enforcement plus a mental health need. And so thinking of it as a first response system with all of the tools that we need available to our dispatchers. [00:25:27] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Nigel? [00:25:28] Mayor Nigel Herbig: I think something that Brook kind of glossed over a little bit - but I think is an important thing that we're gonna have to work out - is the fact that we're using multiple different police. We have different police forces, if you will, and different dispatch systems. So like I said earlier, in Shoreline and Kenmore you have King County Sheriff's Office and they're dispatched in one way. And then Lake Forest Park and Bothell, they have their own. And Kirkland, they have their own police officers and they're dispatched differently. And so it does create - it is a complication that I believe we'll work through. And I know with Brook's leadership, that'll get worked out - but it's not as straightforward as just having one dispatch system that we need to educate and get up to speed. [00:26:06] Crystal Fincher: How is this being funded? How much did you have to come up with as individual cities in this regional partnership? How is the funding talked about? Because this is something that has been kind of thorny when we look at the Regional Homelessness Authority, but with this collaboration, how does this work, Nigel? [00:26:25] Mayor Nigel Herbig: I can't get into what the specific numbers are we're spending - I do know it's more than what we were with RADAR. Part of that is because we're expanding things from - we're approaching 24/7 is part of the goal. Part of this is also funded by King County MIDD, the Mental - oh, I don't remember - [00:26:41] Crystal Fincher: I know - I always try to remember what MIDD stands for. [00:26:43] Brook Buettner: Mental Illness Drug Dependency. [00:26:45] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. [00:26:46] Mayor Nigel Herbig: Thank you, I was just digging around. [00:26:48] Crystal Fincher: Very, very useful. [00:26:50] Mayor Nigel Herbig: No, super useful - and they're the reason why we were able to do RADAR and test out, essentially test out the model, set the foundation for where we are now - is because of the MIDD funding. And we're very thankful to King County and Councilmember Dembowski for his help with that. Our expenses are definitely higher than they were in previous years with RADAR - there's no question around that, and it was part of our budget discussions last year. But I think it's something that we're all committed to because we do see the long-term payoffs - not just on our budgets, but frankly in outcomes - and all the councils seem fairly committed to that. So I believe that they - I wasn't involved in these negotiations, staff was - but I believe that they were negotiating based on population and number of hours that would be required to cover each jurisdiction, and then breaking up the cost and using some sort of formula that we all agreed to. Brook can probably speak a little bit more to that, but we got to a place where everybody was comfortable with the investments that we'd be making. [00:27:47] Crystal Fincher: Sure, Brook? [00:27:48] Brook Buettner: Yeah, so like Mayor Herbig said, the MIDD funding has been really foundational to piloting this as the RADAR Navigator Program and even to the expansion. We also have some funding through the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs' Trueblood dollars for Mental Health First, or Field Response teams. And we have had some support from the Association of Washington Cities. And then I'm so delighted that starting this year, we have general fund contribution from each of our five cities. It is per capita-based at this time. We have plans to really keep a close eye on utilization and think about whether some cities have higher utilization and that may affect their contribution rate. But I also have plans to get the payers on the hook for this as well. So when we talked about the wrong purse problem - a 4% reduction in emergency department visits is a big bonus for insurers and for the managed care organizations. And King County Department of Community and Human Services and the behavioral health services organization have been thinking about this as well. How do we get the private insurers to be picking up what they are supposed to be covering for their covered lives around crisis services? There are a couple of folks at the State Legislature that are really thinking carefully about this. And I see us as being kind of a test case outside the traditional behavioral healthcare system to be reimbursed by the health payers for this service that ends up with better outcomes and lower costs over time. [00:29:07] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. As we move to close this, what advice do you have to other cities approaching this? And what would you tell residents about why this is so useful and so important? [00:29:21] Mayor Nigel Herbig: I think I would advise other cities to take a look at their 911 calls, talk with their police officers - see what sort of calls they're responding to that maybe they're not the best equipped first responder for. I don't think police officers enjoy these sorts of calls on their own. I also think that you can point towards the outcomes that we will have around better results for the people involved, better results for the community, and frankly, cost savings at the end of the day when it comes to jail days and ER visits. And other cities might be big enough to do this on their own, which will make their lives a little bit easier and all of that. But I think other cities - and if you're looking in other parts of the county, there are places where there are multiple cities all right next to each other that could, if they wanted to, join together and do this sort of work. And I would encourage them to have those conversations and really ask themselves - What do they want the response to be when somebody calls 911 in crisis? Because I don't think anybody actually thinks the right answer is a person with a badge and a gun. And I think people need to really reflect on that, and really think about how they truly serve the people that they are working for, and make sure they're doing that in the best and most responsive and person-centered way possible. And this is, I think, a huge step in that direction. [00:30:36] Crystal Fincher: Any final words from you, Brook? [00:30:38] Brook Buettner: I love what Mayor Herbig said - just asking yourselves - What is it that we want people in crisis to get from our first response system? And then from my social-worky side, building relationships across jurisdictions and across sectors to bring - this is very complex - so to bring all the players to the table to offer the kind of response that people deserve when they're in crisis. [00:30:59] Crystal Fincher: Well, thank you both to Brook Buettner, Mayor Herbig - sincerely appreciate you spending time with us today and helping to educate us on what's going on there in the north part of the County. And it's certainly a lot to reflect on and hopefully emulate moving forward. Thank you both. [00:31:16] Mayor Nigel Herbig: Thank you. [00:31:17] Brook Buettner: Thank you so much for having us. [00:31:18] Crystal Fincher: Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks, which is produced by Shannon Cheng. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on every podcast service and app - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

On this Tuesday topical show, special guest host Shannon Cheng and fellow co-organizer with People Power Washington, Amy Sundberg, delve into everything they wish people knew about the looming Seattle Police Officers Guild (SPOG) contract. The conversation starts by outlining the outsize control the SPOG contract has on the City of Seattle's police accountability system, the City budget, and efforts to civilianize jobs that don't require an armed response. Amy and Shannon then break down a soon-to-be-considered Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and SPOG - what each side gets, its fiscal impacts, whether the agreement will have any effect on SPD understaffing, and why the already-disappointing dual dispatch pilot is worse than they thought. Next, the two non-labor lawyers try to explain why any attempt to offload roles from an overworked police department entails lengthy negotiation and sign off from SPOG, how SPD continues to be understaffed despite best efforts to counter attrition, and what might happen if City electeds stood up to the police guild. Finally, in anticipation of a full SPOG contract coming out sometime in the next year, they discuss why the MOU is a bad omen of what is to come, how the process is designed to exclude public input, the difference between police guilds and labor unions, a stalled attempt at a state legislative solution, what Councilmember Mosqueda stepping down from the Labor Relations Policy Committee means - and wrap up with Amy giving Shannon a powerful pep talk! As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Follow us on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the guest host, Shannon Cheng, on Twitter at @drbestturtle and find Amy Sundberg at @amysundberg.   Amy Sundberg Amy Sundberg is the publisher of Notes from the Emerald City, a weekly newsletter on Seattle politics and policy with a particular focus on public safety, police accountability, and the criminal legal system. She also writes about public safety for The Urbanist. She organizes with Seattle Solidarity Budget and People Power Washington. In addition, she writes science fiction and fantasy, with a new novel, TO TRAVEL THE STARS, a retelling of Pride and Prejudice set in space, available now. She is particularly fond of Seattle's parks, where she can often be found walking her little dog.   Shannon Cheng Shannon Cheng is the producer of Hacks & Wonks and new to being in front of the mic rather than behind the scenes. She organizes for equitable public safety in Seattle and King County with People Power Washington and for state-wide policies to reduce police violence and increase accountability with the Washington Coalition for Police Accountability. She also works on computational lighting technology, strives to be a better orienteer, and enjoys exploring the world in an adventure truck with her husband and her cat.   Resources Notes from the Emerald City   People Power Washington - Sign up for our mailing list   How the SPOG Contract Stands in the Way of Police Accountability with Shannon Cheng from Hacks & Wonks   Council Budget Action to authorize Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and the Seattle Police Officers Guild (SPOG) | Seattle City Council   “City Council Agrees to Pay Cops Double Time for Working Special Events” by Ashley Nerbovig from The Stranger   “Will Seattle Pay SPOG a Premium to Let Others Help SPD with its Staffing Woes?” by Amy Sundberg from Notes from the Emerald City   “Harrell's Dual-Responder Proposal Would Fail to Civilianize Crisis Response” by Amy Sundberg from The Urbanist   Better Behavioral Health Crisis Response with Brook Buettner and Kenmore Mayor Nigel Herbig from Hacks & Wonks   Labor Relations in the City of Seattle | Seattle City Council Central Staff   Labor Relations Policy Committee | City of Seattle Human Resources   “Firefighters' Tentative Contract Could be Bad News for Other City Workers Seeking Pay Increases” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   “Police Unions: What to Know and Why They Don't Belong in the Labor Movement” by Kim Kelly for Teen Vogue   “Seattle Police Officers Guild expelled from King County's largest labor council” by Elise Takahama from The Seattle Times   SB 5134 - 2021-22 | Enhancing public trust and confidence in law enforcement and strengthening law enforcement accountability for general authority Washington peace officers, excluding department of fish and wildlife officers.   SB 5677 - 2021-22 | Enhancing public trust and confidence in law enforcement and strengthening law enforcement accountability, by specifying required practices for complaints, investigations, discipline, and disciplinary appeals for serious misconduct. Labor 4 Black Lives - Seattle   DivestSPD   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review show and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. [00:00:52] Shannon Cheng: Hello everyone! This is Shannon Cheng, producer of Hacks & Wonks. You have me again today as your special guest host. Today, I'm super excited to have a fellow co-organizer with People Power Washington with me, Amy Sundberg, who also writes Notes from the Emerald City. And we were wanting to have a conversation about the Seattle police contract negotiations as they relate to the Seattle Police Officers Guild, or SPOG. We're hoping to break down what is a dense but very important topic for our listeners. Amy, do you have any thoughts on this before we get started? [00:01:29] Amy Sundberg: Yeah, I mean, I think it's really important whenever we talk about police guilds that we make the distinction that just because we might be being critical about police unions, police guilds - that in general, we are very supportive of labor and that there are many reasons why police guilds are different than all other labor that hopefully we'll have a chance to get into later in this episode. But until then, just to be clear - in general, we support workers' rights, we support workers organizing for better conditions in the workplace, and that is not a negotiable part of our philosophy. [00:02:06] Shannon Cheng: Yes, 100% - completely agree. We in no way are saying that workers' rights are not important. They absolutely are. Police are entitled to have living wages, but there are also issues that crop up with the way that negotiations happen in Washington state that sometimes are counter to other goals that we have as a society. So before we jump in, I wanna talk about what impact does the police contract have in the City of Seattle? So one aspect that I've been following super closely for the last many years is that the current police accountability system that we have here in Seattle - you may have heard of it before, it's composed of three independent bodies. There's the OPA or the Office of Police Accountability, the OIG or Office of Inspector General, and the CPC, the Community Police Commission. This three-body accountability structure - the powers that they have are completely governed by what the SPOG contract says that they have. And you may have heard that we had a strong accountability ordinance passed back in 2017 - establishing these bodies and giving them authority. Yet the following year in 2018, we passed a SPOG contract that rolled back a lot of those accountability provisions. So oftentimes I hear community members frustrated that we aren't able to hold an SPD officer accountable for something egregious that has happened. And it all goes back to the accountability system and what has been written in the SPOG contract. [00:03:44] Amy Sundberg: I would also just say that this is one of the reasons that police guilds are different from other unions - is because they are currently negotiating these sorts of accountability provisions in their contracts. And they're the only workers that are negotiating for the right to potentially kill other people, right? They're armed. And so it's a different matter because of the stakes involved. [00:04:09] Shannon Cheng: Yes, a very big difference. I used to be a union member of Unite Here Local 8 - I worked at a restaurant. And we had accountability measures in our contract, but it was for things like if I didn't charge a customer for a bread basket. And the consequences of me not charging $1.95 for the company I work for is very different than an officer using excessive deadly force to kill a community member. So stakes are completely different. So beyond the accountability system, the SPOG contract also has a huge impact on city funding and what the City budget looks like every year. We did an episode recently about the budget and how the police have an outsize portion of that - do you wanna talk a little bit more about that, Amy? [00:04:57] Amy Sundberg: Yeah, so the contract will determine how much money is flowing into SPD. And right now, SPD gets about a quarter of our general fund - so that's the part of the budget that can be allocated to anything that isn't already tied up via statute. So a quarter of the general fund, which is a significant amount of the money that we have available to us as a city. And the question always is - Is that number gonna grow? And how much of the general fund are we as a city comfortable with SPD taking up? That is a question that is decided basically in this contract. [00:05:32] Shannon Cheng: Yeah, 'cause the contract sets the pay rates and raises that SPD will receive. And I think we've heard from a lot of other city unions that are also currently bargaining their contracts that there's this issue that a lot of them are being offered raises that aren't keeping up with the cost of living. For example, the Firefighters, the Coalition of City Unions. So it will be interesting to observe and see, when the eventual SPOG contract comes out, what kind of raises do they get and how do they compare to other city workers? The final thing that I think the police contract holds a lot of power over is something that we know is extremely popular in the city. When we've done poll after poll, people really want to see an alternate crisis response available to community members. We know that police are not the best at deescalating crisis response situations. And sometimes it's very harmful - and actually escalates - and has led to deaths of community members. So we've been struggling as a city to stand up some kind of alternate crisis response since the summer of 2020. And unfortunately the SPOG contract has been a huge obstacle in the way of that. Could you explain that more for us, Amy? [00:06:44] Amy Sundberg: Yeah, I would say first of all, that definitely this alternate emergency crisis response is a big part of this, but the contract stands in the way of civilianization in general overall. So this is one big piece of that, but it also means that if there are jobs that we feel like should be done by civilians who are not armed - besides crisis response - that also gets decided in the contract. So I do think that's important to talk about. [00:07:10] Shannon Cheng: So that's why keeping an eye on this police contract is really important. It really does hold the key to so many facets of the change that we want to see in our city. Let's now talk about what's been happening more recently. During the Seattle budget process, we learned that the City had come to a possible temporary agreement with SPOG, which they call an MOU, or a Memorandum of Understanding. To be clear, this is not the final full contract that we do expect to see with SPOG eventually, and that we've been waiting for for several years now. The previous contract expired at the end of 2020, and they have been in negotiations for about three years at this time. So this MOU came out. It was meant to address what some electeds are calling "emergent needs" of the city. And they had to do this during the budget process because it had budget implications that needed to be approved. Do you want to tell us a little bit about what's in this MOU? [00:08:16] Amy Sundberg: Yes, I would love to. I'm glad that you emphasized this is different than the actual SPOG contract. It is temporary, and it is to address these "emergent needs," so to speak. So it does have an expiry date of the beginning of January of 2026. So I just want to get that out there first. But the MOU accomplishes three main things for the City, and then we'll talk about what it gives SPOG. So the three main things that it accomplishes for the City are - first of all, it would allow the City flexibility to sometimes use parking enforcement officers or other civilians to staff special events. They certainly wouldn't be the only people staffing special events, but perhaps they could do things like traffic control that don't really require a sworn armed officer to do. It would allow the City to use park rangers at parks outside of downtown. Right now, they have an agreement that park rangers can only be used in downtown parks. But last year, they started a huge expansion of the Park Ranger program, so now they have a lot more park rangers - or they're in the process of hiring them - and would like to be able to expand to use them at all the parks in the city. And the third thing it would do is allow the City to implement its new dual dispatch emergency alternative response program. Basically, the pilot just launched this past October. And it turns out that if this MOU is not approved - which it is not currently signed yet - it's not actually true dual dispatch yet, from my understanding. What was said in all of the press briefings and all of the communications is that how this program is supposed to work is that there's dual dispatch, so that means that SPD will go out at the same time as the alternative responders - CARE responders, I'm gonna call them. They go out at the same time. But apparently right now, they're not actually allowed to be dispatched at the same time because this MOU hasn't been approved. So the police have to go first, and then they can request to have an alternate CARE responder team come out after they arrive. So that is not how I understood this was going to work, and if this MOU is approved, then it will be able to work the way it's been described previously. [00:10:38] Shannon Cheng: Okay, so there's a difference between what we've seen from press releases and press briefings about this new dual dispatch pilot within the CARE department to what is actually possible right now without this MOU. [00:10:53] Amy Sundberg: Yeah, and my guess - and this is me guessing, to be clear - my guess is that, of course, people involved knew that this MOU was being developed, knew that this agreement was being developed. And so when they launched the pilot, they explained how it was gonna work if this MOU was signed, even though it hadn't been signed yet - in maybe a burst of hope that that's how it would turn out. As well, I imagine, because of - you're not allowed to talk about things that are going on in negotiations at the labor table, so they probably weren't allowed to talk about it. And instead of getting into the nitty-gritty of it and confusing people, that they might have decided - for simplicity's sake - explain it the way they did. But, you know, of course, now we know that that wasn't entirely accurate. [00:11:38] Shannon Cheng: Okay, so basically, what we had seen in the past that was all this glowing announcement about this new dual dispatch pilot should have a giant big asterisk next to it because they had not actually completed what needed to be done to be able to launch it in the way that they were talking about it. I do wanna eventually dig deeper into what the MOU specifically says about the dual dispatch, but first, we've talked about what the City is getting out of this agreement. And to be clear, even though this isn't the full contract, this is something that was negotiated with SPOG. And so I think that it's important for us to look at because it gives us a little hint as to how negotiations with SPOG are going. So we've heard what the City is getting. So what is SPOG getting out of this negotiation? [00:12:21] Amy Sundberg: Yeah, so what they have now in the MOU is that they want to give officers who volunteer to staff special events a special additional bonus. So it would be $225 bonus for each special event shift that they volunteer to do. And that's in addition to overtime. So what The Stranger reported, which I actually think is a really helpful way to think about it, is that this bonus basically means that officers will be getting paid double time for any shifts that they work - that they volunteered for - for special events. Normally, overtime is time and a half. So instead of time and a half, they're getting double time. However, if they finally reach an agreement on the full SPOG contract, the bonus would not necessarily increase - so it's not tied to their current wages. [00:13:15] Shannon Cheng: Okay, so let me get this right. We are giving SPOG extra bonuses to work shifts they already get paid overtime for. And in exchange, they are letting us let them work less at some of these special events. Is that a fair characterization? [00:13:33] Amy Sundberg: I mean, possibly. It's a little bit - to be honest, I'll be interested to see how it plays out because I don't know how much less they actually will end up working. So we might just be paying more to get the same thing, or we might be paying more for them to work less so that parking enforcement officers can take a few of their jobs. It's unclear how this will work out in practice. [00:13:59] Shannon Cheng: Yeah, I've heard some of the discussion of this. We all know, or we've been told over and over again from many quarters, that SPD is very understaffed, that the officers are overworked, that people are upset that response times are slow - and everybody blames the fact that there aren't enough officers to do the amount of work that is out there for them. So part of trying to offer these special event shift bonuses is that right now for these shifts, when they ask people to volunteer - if they don't get enough volunteers, my understanding is that they go by seniority. And so maybe some of the newer officers are made to work these extra shifts, thereby making them even more overworked than they already are. So some of the thinking behind this is that if they offer this bonus to sweeten the deal in terms of working these extra shifts, that perhaps some of the higher senior-ranked officers would be willing to take some of these volunteer shifts and thereby spread the workload out better across SPD. But this doesn't actually do anything to help with the overall understaffing issue, right? We still have the same number of officers doing the same amount of work, unless they do agree to let some of these other parking enforcement officers take over some of the shifts. [00:15:23] Amy Sundberg: Right, and unless there are actually shifts available for those parking enforcement officers to take after whoever has volunteered has volunteered. So it kind of depends how they set it up. I will say, I think what you said is exactly what the City and SPD has been saying - I think that's a very accurate characterization. But I've also heard from other sources that special event shifts are actually pretty popular among officers and that it's a nice way to make extra money potentially - because it is paid overtime, and now double time. So that's why I'm not really sure how this is gonna play out in practice. And just to talk about the overall impact of what offering this bonus does to the budget - because this was just passed in our 2024 budget now. This Memorandum of Understanding would start October 1st, 2023. And like I said, it would go to the beginning of January 2026. And we are paying $4.5 million - that would cover from October of this year 'til the end of next year. And then we'll be paying another $3.6 million for 2025 to cover these special event bonuses. So altogether, it's a little more than $8 million for a little bit over two years of bonuses. For at least this next year, the money came from a reserve fund. But again, this is $4.5 million that is being spent on these bonuses instead of on any other pressing needs that the city might have. Just to name one, we gave a big cut to mental health services in tiny home villages. And if those tiny home villages don't have these services, certain people who have more acute needs cannot live there. So it's gonna really impact who is able to live in a tiny home village going forward. So that is one thing that we cut in 2024 - we have much less money for that now. Obviously, there are lots of needs in the city though, so that's just one example. [00:17:24] Shannon Cheng: That's really good for us to understand - what is a concrete example of what we're giving up in order to give these bonuses to the police officer. So this really matters because we're in a time of budget shortfalls, both current and upcoming. We're being told that SPD is overworked, and yet we're in this state where we're being asked to pay SPOG more money to maybe do less work and accept help for tasks that they said they're not good at. And I'm talking about this dual dispatch co-responder program. So why don't we turn to that and get a little bit more into the weeds and delve into what is problematic about how this dual dispatch pilot is set up. I think there's been a lot of talk about the alternate crisis response that we've been trying to set up in the city. I think it's evolved a lot over time. And something that I want people to appreciate about all this is that all this talk fundamentally doesn't matter unless we have the agreement of SPOG - that they will accept how we want to do things. And this MOU is the first time that I have seen - spelled out - some of the details of what our dual dispatch program could look like. Amy, I know you've been following this for a very long time. I think you've been at pretty much every meeting that's been about this topic. And so - of people in the world who I think would know how we've ended up at this dual dispatch program, you could tell us about that whole history. So I will turn it to you. [00:19:04] Amy Sundberg: Yeah, I can. And I will say, I wrote an article about this for The Urbanist, I think, a couple of months ago. We'll link to it in the show notes. I will say it was a very hard piece to write because I have been following this since 2020 in all of its little details. And then I was trying to boil it down into a thousand words - explaining to someone who maybe knew very little about this - what exactly had been going on for the past three or so years. I do recommend you check that out. But it has been a very frustrating process, I will say. We started talking about some kind of alternative crisis response in summer of 2020 because of the George Floyd protests. And we had a few, I would say, champions on the city council who really wanted to see this happen. So it wasn't that there was nobody advocating for this - there definitely was. Councilmember Lewis in particular, and also Councilmember Herbold - both very strong proponents of having some type of program like this in Seattle. But what we saw was just obstacle after obstacle, after hurdle after hurdle, and just a lot of back and forth, a lot of dragging feet from both the executive's office - both previous Mayor Durkan and current Mayor Harrell - and a lot of dragging of the feet of SPD. You can kind of chart it out and see the strategy of making this take as long as possible, which I do in that article I was talking about. But I think one of the most powerful things I can do is compare Seattle to another city who did it differently. So in Seattle, we have this new pilot now through the CARE Department. It has six responders hired. They are focused, I think, only in the downtown area. And they work 11 a.m. to 11 p.m, so it's not 24/7 coverage - because there's only six of them, right? There's only so much you can do with six people, and they work in teams of two. So that is what we have. That just got stood up a month ago, month and a half ago - very recently. And like I said, it's not even a true dual dispatch until the MOU gets signed. And frankly, I was very disappointed that it was a dual dispatch at all. So that's what we've finally accomplished in Seattle after all of these years of politicking - versus Albuquerque. So Albuquerque, first of all, it's a little bit smaller than Seattle - maybe about 200,000 fewer people live in Albuquerque. So keep that in mind when we think about scale, right? So they also are under a consent decree, just as we have been, for a slightly shorter amount of time - but for a long time as well. So that is comparable in some ways. But in 2020, they took seriously the call from community to start some kind of emergency alternative response to respond to crisis calls. And in 2023, they budgeted $11.7 million to their response, which has been growing over the last several years. They now have over 70 responders employed to do this alternative emergency response. Their teams respond to calls related to homelessness, substance abuse, and mental health, as well as calls related to things like used needles and abandoned vehicles. And they are allowed to answer calls on their own, and they don't have to go out with the police. And they talk a lot about how what they're doing is using a public health approach. This is Albuquerque. And I guess I didn't mention earlier, but Seattle - what we are paying for our alternative response program for 2024 is $1.8 million. $1.8 million versus $11.7 million. And Albuquerque is smaller. [00:22:46] Shannon Cheng: That's incredible. And also I wanna call out - so $1.8 million is a little over a third of the bonuses that we are giving SPOG in this MOU to have them maybe work less special event shifts. That is just mind blowing - the difference in scale of what we're willing to put money towards. [00:23:08] Amy Sundberg: Yeah, and the Albuquerque program has been so successful, they keep scaling up. And they've scaled up pretty quickly - it's really impressive. So kudos to them. I really appreciate that they're offering us a vision of what could be, but it certainly is not what we have been doing here in Seattle - which is really disappointing, especially given how strongly people that live here reacted to the murder of George Floyd and how long those protesters were out there - night after night after night asking for something better, right? And we look now at where we are and like - well, we haven't given people something better. That's just - I mean, that's my opinion, but I think it's also - if you look at the facts, it's pretty backed up by facts. [00:23:53] Shannon Cheng: Yeah, and by polling. And I agree, it's been really frustrating to see other places around the country continue to lap us - even locally here. I don't feel like it's talked about very much, but we did do a show with them here on Hacks & Wonks. So up north, there's a five-city consortium that is Bothell, Kenmore, Lake Forest Park, Shoreline, and Kirkland. And what they started with - they didn't start out immediately with full civilian-led crisis response. I think something that people are concerned about in standing up these programs is that they're worried - well, what if the crisis responder comes across something that they can't handle and they get hurt? - that kind of question. And that's why they're arguing that they need this police backup. There's all sorts of things about that - I mean, I would say sometimes the police tend to actually escalate these situations and make them more dangerous, and thereby I'm not sure that having the police backup would actually help. So what happened with this five-city consortium is that they started out with a program within the King County Sheriff's Office called RADAR. And it was a co-response model where a sheriff's deputy and the crisis responder co-responded to a situation. And I believe that it was more equal - that the co-responder had agency in these calls. It wasn't just the sheriff's deputy making all the decisions. But what happened is that over time - and I feel like it was a relatively short amount of time, like on the order of one to two years - the sheriff's deputies realized, You know what? We're not really needed at these calls. And it's actually really boring for us to sit around, watch a crisis responder who's skilled deescalate a situation, and I could spend my time better doing something else. And so that's actually what's happening. This program has now evolved into something called the Regional Crisis Response Agency, which is civilian-led. And they're not yet, I think, at 24/7 coverage, but they're working towards that. And so this is happening literally just north of us, okay? So it is possible here in Washington state - I know that there've been comments made that some of these other places, maybe they have different state labor laws that might affect things. But fundamentally, I think the difference is whether the police guild is willing to work with the program and allow it to happen. So I think for whatever reason, with the King County Sheriff's Office - they were more open to accepting this kind of program, and letting it grow and evolve, and thereby taking workload off of them. Whereas here in Seattle, we don't really see that same situation with SPOG. [00:26:33] Amy Sundberg: Yeah, I've been really interested in this consortium of cities that has done this. I think that is, from what I understand, it's not an uncommon path for these programs to take - to start out with more of a police presence and then kind of realize over time, Oh, maybe this isn't actually necessary, and to evolve in that way. So I mean, there is certainly hope that Seattle could do the same thing. We're just very far behind in terms of timing. And there's also - while there is hope, there's no guarantee that it will develop that way. [00:27:08] Shannon Cheng: Yeah, I would say that a lot of what I'm seeing happening in Seattle now is putting a lot of trust in faith that SPOG is going to allow certain things to happen, or not stand in the way, or not demand exorbitant amounts of money to get the things that the City wants. And I don't know that - looking at past history of our dealings with SPOG - that we can really trust that that's how things are gonna go. I mean, they have social media accounts that literally post made up images of a public safety index that has no relation to reality - doing fearmongering about whether people in the city feel safe or not. I just don't see them as being good faith participants in working with us on measures that make the public feel safe that doesn't involve the police department. [00:28:04] Amy Sundberg: Yeah, I agree with you. I am also concerned - certainly that's been part of my motivation for following this story so closely over the last several years. Because like I said, there's no - just because it's gone like that in other cities does not mean that it will happen that way here. And as we see, in fact, it hasn't. The type of program that Albuquerque has developed doesn't look very much like what we have developed in the same amount of time. So no guarantees then - just hopes, thoughts and prayers, which doesn't necessarily get you very far. [00:28:36] Shannon Cheng: Yeah, so I guess what was spelled out in this MOU about the dual dispatch that I found concerning is that it really looks like the police officer has authority over almost every aspect of what the alternate - well, I don't even know that we can call it an alternate crisis response - what the dual dispatch looks like. They get to decide when and if it's safe for the crisis responder to enter the scene. They get to decide whether they leave or not. The MOU specifically says that it doesn't affect the number of officers who respond to the incident. So if you're worried about understaffing and needing less officers going to some of these calls, that's not in this MOU. Something that really worried me is that even if the officer decides that the crisis responder can handle the situation - afterwards, the crisis responder will file the incident report within the police department's system. And so - I think in 2020, what we heard was a lot of community members coming out saying that they do not feel safe calling the police when they or a loved one is undergoing a crisis. And so if the solution we're offering now is one where police show up and even if they don't participate, they get record of what happened with the loved one - this kind of goes against everything that was being asked for, and it is still not going to serve people in the city who don't wanna use police for these situations. [00:30:08] Amy Sundberg: I agree. I don't think that it is what community was asking for. There definitely are people who don't feel safe calling the police who aren't gonna want their information then transferred to a police database to potentially be used later. I will say that one thing the MOU does do - that wasn't particularly clear from the original press release about it - is that it does allow a police officer to clear a scene while not being physically present. So it does clear the way for potentially calls being answered only by the CARE responders and not actually having a police officer there as well. So that is important to note, but even if that is happening, there will still be information about that filed into the police database - in SPD's database. So that is part of the agreement, part of what is being memorialized here. Also, the scope of the program is defined by this agreement, and I find that quite troubling. The number of responders allowed to be hired by the end of 2025, beginning of 2026 is 24 full-time. 24. So just to remind you, Albuquerque - smaller than us - has more than 70, and they were able to ramp that up in two to three years. So we're talking about a two-year ramp up here. If we were serious about this program, we could definitely ramp up above 24, but we will not be able to because of what this MOU says. We are limited to 24 - that's all we'll be able to do. And then the other thing that I found very interesting is that this MOU limits the call types that CARE responders will be allowed to answer to person down calls and welfare check calls. So there will be no ability to expand beyond those two call types, regardless of how anything might change in the interim. I thought that was really interesting because during one of the hearings - when they had Amy Smith, who is the director of the new CARE Department, people were really interested in the call types, right? What call types would be answered? Yes, right now it's person down and welfare check, but could we expand that later? And she seemed, to me, to be kind of reluctant to answer - kept heading off and being like, Well, first we need to expand to 24/7 coverage. Which reasonable, fair enough - but after reading this MOU, I was like, Oh, and also they won't be allowed to expand, so it's a moot point, right? These are the two call types, and that's all that they're gonna be able to do - period. [00:32:43] Shannon Cheng: So let's back out a little bit because this is something that I know I have been confused about for a long time. And to be clear, I am not a labor lawyer - if there's any labor lawyers listening to this and who can help explain this to me better, I would really appreciate it. But you hear about all these types of calls that we acknowledge - and I think even sometimes SPD acknowledges that they are not the best first responders for. So why is it that we have to go through this whole negotiation process - and whether it's through an MOU or the full contract - why does that have to happen before we can offload work from an understaffed department to other people who are better at the job? [00:33:26] Amy Sundberg: Well, Shannon, I am also not a labor lawyer, but I will do my best. From what I understand, workers have bodies of work. So you have to negotiate if you wanna take away any piece of that body of work and give it to a different worker. So that's what we're looking at here - because these are considered SPD's body of work. However, you make a really compelling point in that - for years now, SPD has been talking with increasing urgency about how understaffed they are, about the staffing crisis. And we know that this staffing crisis of police departments is not just here in Seattle - it's nationwide. Police departments all across the country are facing the exact same staffing shortages that we are here in Seattle. So obviously this is not just a local problem - this is larger than that. Given the fact that this is a problem that doesn't seem to be able to be addressed anytime soon. I mean, as much as people like to slag on City Council about these sorts of things, the fact is - they, in the last year or so, they passed these big police hiring bonuses. They've approved the hiring plans. They've done everything SPD has asked them to do regarding staffing in particular. And yet we do not see any particular improvement in this area. Staffing so far for 2023 for SPD - they actually still are in the negative. They are not hiring as much as they are losing officers - still, even with these bonuses, which have not been shown to work. So this is gonna be a problem for a while. This is not something you can fix quickly. There is a hiring training pipeline that takes quite a while to complete to get new police officers. There are not a lot of lateral hires - that is, police officers who are already trained, who are willing to move from a different department - we hired hardly any of those in 2023. Apparently we had some candidates, but they weren't qualified to serve in SPD - they weren't appropriate candidates. So we don't have a lot of them. Chief Diaz has said he expects potentially more lateral hires in 2024, but he did not give any reasons as to why he would expect that to be any different, so whether he has actual reasons or whether he's just kind of hoping - I'm not certain - but this is obviously something that's gonna go on for more than a year or two, right? [00:35:55] Shannon Cheng: Right. [00:35:55] Amy Sundberg: So because of that, I do think that there is potentially a legal argument to be made that some of the body of work of SPD officers needs to be given to other people because there just simply aren't enough SPD officers to do it all. And then you made a great point that what we've seen in other municipalities is that police officers - some of this work - they don't even wanna do it. They're actually end up being quite happy to have other people doing it so that they can go off and do other parts of the job that perhaps they prefer. So it's interesting watching this play out here and how it's kind of different from how it's playing out elsewhere in the country. [00:36:38] Shannon Cheng: Yeah, it feels like here - as you said, the City has done everything they possibly could to encourage staffing and hiring of new or lateral hires to the department and it just - it's not working. So in the meantime, we still have all these needs in the city to address - and they're not getting addressed, or they're getting addressed poorly. So it's frustrating that we're being held up by this issue of certain aspects being considered under the police body of work and not being able to let people who are better able to do that work - and honestly, for less money - and alleviate some of all the problems that people are frustrated about in this city. So again, not a labor lawyer, but my understanding is there would be concern that if we just went ahead and started taking some of this work from SPD without their signing off on it - is that SPOG could file an Unfair Labor Practice with the state PERC, the Public Employment Relations Commission, which oversees state labor law. And I guess I don't know what that ruling would be, but it seems like the City's not willing to go that route. I understand that it would entail standing up to SPOG, which I agree completely is a scary thing to do, but the people who are our electeds are the ones with the power to do that. So I don't know - if you've been elected, we need you to stand up to SPOG. [00:38:10] Amy Sundberg: Well, and because of the staffing shortage at SPD, that does present a really compelling argument that the city can make if there was to be an Unfair Labor Practice suit filed, right? Because if SPD is unable to do this work because they can't hire enough and they've been getting all the support they've been asking for to hire as much as possible, and yet they still don't have enough staffing, someone has to do the work. So I do think that - I don't know how that suit would go, but it's not for sure that SPOG would win. [00:38:44] Shannon Cheng: Right. I just wonder why that's not an option that the City seems to be pursuing and that they're just, with this MOU, basically just saying, Fine, we'll just pay out. - what to me feels like, I don't know, sort of a ransom that SPOG is holding us under to let us do things that we all fundamentally want to do. So where is this MOU in the process? You said that the $4.5 million plus $3.6 million the next year has already been approved through the budget process. So what happens next? [00:39:15] Amy Sundberg: Yeah, so the money has been approved - that part is done. But what happens next is that the full council has to vote on the actual MOU agreement. So there's money for it, but they haven't yet approved it. So that vote, I believe, will be happening at their full council meeting on Tuesday, December 5th, which is at 2 p.m. in the afternoon. So if people want to get involved and share their opinions with their councilmembers about this MOU, you have until December 5th to do so. You can email your councilmembers, you can call your councilmembers, you can see if now that budget season is over, you can potentially even meet with them - although it is a pretty tight timeline to do that. And then you can give public comment at that meeting on December 5th, either virtually - you can call in - or you can go to City Hall and do it in person. I do encourage people to do this if they are so moved. I think it's really important for our elected leaders to hear from the people and hear what we wanna see and what we are concerned about. Even if we are not able to stop this MOU from being approved, I think it's really valuable for our elected leaders to know that this is an issue of concern, that the people of Seattle care about it, and that we're paying attention. And I do feel that there is significant value in that as we move towards potentially looking at a completed contract with SPOG. Those negotiations are ongoing - I don't expect to see that contract this year, but I would not be shocked to see it sometime next year. So to let electeds know now that this is something that we care about will then build momentum for the bigger conversation that is to come. [00:40:59] Shannon Cheng: Yeah, completely. Our electeds really do need to hear that this is something that we're concerned about, that we understand is important, that we've been waiting for five years for a different full SPOG contract to help address some of the things we talked about at the beginning of this show. I would also - I just wanna let people know - I think this is also something that's very in the weeds and maybe isn't really well understood. But the way that these labor contracts get negotiated at the city is that there's a whole team on the City side, which includes representatives from the mayor's office, as well as from city council. And the way that it's structured - it's called the LRPC, or the Labor Relations Policy Committee - the way they have it set up is that five councilmembers, and the five is important because five is a majority. Five out of nine of our council sits on that LRPC, so they are privy to the negotiations. And under state labor law, all of these negotiations are behind closed doors. So the public really has no insight into what's happening until we get something like this temporary MOU coming out for approval, or eventually a full contract for approval. The last time that the public had any opportunity to give input into what this SPOG contract is gonna look like was in December of 2019, when a public hearing was held 90 days ahead of when they started negotiations for the new contract. So it has been four years since the public has had any chance to weigh in on what we would like to see in this contract. And as we all know, a lot has happened in those four years that may affect what we hope to see that comes out. Anyway, just going back - the LRPC, I believe, is purposely structured to have this majority of council on it. Because that means that any labor agreement that comes out of that committee means that it had the approval of those five councilmembers. So if we get to the City Council meeting where Council's gonna approve it, and one of those councilmembers ends up voting against it, there could be a argument made that they were not bargaining in good faith. So the whole thing is set up that the public has very little in the way of power to affect how these agreements happen. And I just wanna call that out. [00:43:14] Amy Sundberg: For sure, Shannon. If this is an area that you work on regularly as we do, it is very frustrating how few chances there are to have any real impact. [00:43:23] Shannon Cheng: I would also say that the other period of time where you might have impact is that period between contracts - so after a contract has been accepted and is implemented, and before the next contract is entering into this black box of contract negotiations. The way that we've seen some of these negotiations happen, they are so lengthy in time that - SPOG is currently working without a current contract for three years. I think the contract they're negotiating is five years long. So we're already behind the last time that we did this - last time they approved it in November of the third year, it's almost December. So this is gonna be even less time after they approve this contract before they're gonna have to start negotiating the next one. I seriously wonder if at some point we're gonna get to the point where they're gonna be negotiating two contracts at the same time, or maybe they need to make the contract longer than five years? I just - again, not a labor lawyer - I don't know what happens with all this. But the reason - I think, and I've seen indications of this - that the negotiations take this long is because SPOG is not willing to accept accountability provisions that the City wants. And what's gonna happen, which is the same thing as what happened the last time, is that so much time will pass with them not having a real contract that they're gonna come out and make this argument that they haven't had a living wage increase for many years, and we just - the City needs to cave and give them what they want so that they can get raised back up to whatever level that they deserve. Which I'm not saying that they don't deserve, but they're doing this at the expense of us getting things that we want in that contract. And it's the same playbook every single time - and we need people to step up and call this out if we don't want it to keep happening. [00:45:15] Amy Sundberg: I will say too, that from what I understand - and I actually did talk to a labor lawyer about this - this is fairly unusual in labor overall for these contracts to be so far extended. And one of the issues that arises because of this is issue of back pay. Because when negotiating for raises, it's actually not unusual for any kind of union to get back pay as part of it for when the negotiation is taking place. But normally that amount of time would be maybe six months max of back pay, because that's how long it takes to complete the contract. In this case though, we're talking about over three years of back pay, and three years in which there has been a lot of inflation, right? So we're talking about potentially millions upon millions of dollars in a lump sum that the City will need to pay when they approve this contract - just for back pay, for things that have already happened - not even looking forward and thinking about how much the raises will cost the City in the future. So that becomes a significant issue at that point. [00:46:22] Shannon Cheng: And this links back to why this MOU matters, right? As you were saying that - we know the money for it is coming out of some special pay reserve that the City has. I would think that that pay reserve has been put aside in part to probably help pay some of this back pay that we're expecting to get when there is a final SPOG contract. So if we're using up $4.5 million now through next year, $3.6 million the next year from this reserve, that is less money that we have at the bargaining table to have leverage over what we get from SPOG in the final contract. [00:46:53] Amy Sundberg: But not only that, Shannon - also it impacts all other city workers. That's the money that's potentially for them too. So I mean, if you look at the firefighters, they're in the middle of negotiating a contract right now - I guess they have one that maybe they're voting on - which doesn't keep up with inflation. So if they agree to this contract - in real terms, they'll be receiving a wage cut - our firefighters. And then we have the Coalition of City Unions, who I - unless this has changed in the last few days, the most recent offer was a 2.5% wage increase. 2.5% - do you know how much inflation has been? These poor workers. And of course we don't have any insight into what SPOG is being offered right now - that is not public information. But it will be really interesting - when this contract does become available to the public - to see how that compares to the contracts that the Coalition of City Unions is being pressured to accept, or the contract that the firefighters are being pressured to accept. So it's not like this all happens in a vacuum. Whatever SPOG does also affects all the other unions in the city. [00:48:01] Shannon Cheng: That's a good point. I mean, much like the general fund funds lots of aspects across the city, I imagine this pay reserve - it's not the SPD pay reserve, but effectively it feels like that might be what it is. And that's super unfair to all the other city workers. Everything at the city is interrelated - SPOG is not the only union that the City is dealing with, both in terms of funding for their department, but also the staffing and the pay raises. So let's go back and talk a little bit more about police guilds and other unions, and I've heard police guilds are different from other workers' unions and that sometimes aren't aligned with the working class. Could you talk a little bit more about that, Amy? [00:48:44] Amy Sundberg: Yeah, I mean, I would say that police guilds are different from other unions in at least three ways. The first way, as you said, is that in general - police are on the side of the boss. They're not on the side of working people. They get their power from protecting rich people, right? Obviously I could say it in more academic language, but that is basically what I mean. They get their power from protecting rich people's interests. They get their power from protecting rich people's property. And that is not in alignment with other working people who are fighting for different rights. And you can see this in history. If you look at the history of policing in this country - in the South, police kind of rose up - they caught slaves. That was one of the first things they did, right? And the police developed from that, which is obviously horrendous. And then in the North, it was a little bit different, but police rose up or were very heavily involved in union busting back at a time when that was a big deal. So they have never been aligned with the working class, but I do think that those origins have become hazy through the passage of time and because of messaging, right? It definitely benefits police guilds to be seen as part of unions, even though they're not necessarily gonna be fighting for the same things that unions fight for. And so I think that's part of why there is that kind of argument at play. So that is one reason why they're different. Like I said earlier, another reason why they're different is because they, along with potentially prison guards and border patrol workers - these are kind of a different class of workers in that they're the only ones negotiating for the right to use force, right? To potentially kill, to hurt somebody, to surveil people - all of that kind of stuff, which is just inherently very different than the rights that other workers are organizing to get. And then the last point is that they do benefit from exceptions to rules governing other workers in terms of scope and in terms of contract negotiations, particularly with respect to provisions governing transparency and discipline. So they have different rules applied to them. So it's just - it's different, they're different. And it's important to really talk about these things, and study these things, and look and see more deeply how they're different because this is an argument that is brought to bear to kind of stop further accountability from being possible - as I know, we've both seen that play out here in Washington state. [00:51:21] Shannon Cheng: Yeah, completely. As I mentioned before, I foresee that when the eventual SPOG contract comes out, there will be pressure from SPOG that this is part of their inherent labor rights, that if we don't get what we wanna see in it in terms of the accountability pieces specifically, that - Well, you'll just need to wait till next time, or something like that. It'll be this incremental approach. When the 2018 SPOG contract got approved - I was at that hearing - and definitely there was a division within labor there. As you were just mentioning, I think that some people do see that the police guilds are not always aligned with workers - and we did see some unions come out to that effect. We also saw other workers come out in solidarity with SPOG arguing that - Yeah, they deserve their raises and benefits and they had been working too long without a contract. At the time, SPOG was still a member of the MLK Labor Council, so I think that helped a lot. We did, in 2020, see SPOG get ousted from that MLK Labor Council. So I am curious to see if anything plays out differently this time around - remains to be seen. And finally, I will say that I've heard a lot of councilmembers reference this - that they are hoping for some kind of state legislative solution that will help them with being better able to negotiate these contracts with the police guilds. But we've been following this at the state level also. And I will say that currently any action on the state level - it's dead. It's been dead for several years. There was a bill introduced in 2021 that laid out some things, but there was no movement on it. And the reason there's no movement on it is because labor as a whole is not on board with it - they feel like it's gonna be an erosion of workers' rights. And it may be, but as you were saying, police guilds are different than unions - and I think that the legislation was crafted to try to make that distinction. And so I'm not sure whether those fears are completely founded or not, but in any case, nothing is happening on that front. [00:53:27] Amy Sundberg: I did find that legislation very interesting. And I agree that over time it was worked upon to be really laser precise in terms of what it did. And at the end of the development that I'm aware of, what the bill actually did is that it took accountability measures for police off of the bargaining table by creating an overall unified standard that police departments across the state would have to live up to. So it would no longer be something that you negotiate in the contract - it would just be, This is how we operate. This is how accountability works in the state of Washington. And as I said, that is one of the ways in which police guilds are different than unions - is that they have this bargaining power over these accountability issues that are just not relevant in any other union's bailiwick of work. So that is why the bill was crafted the way it was to be such a kind of surgical carve-out of certain things. The reason this would be helpful - first of all, it would set a statewide standard so that's inherently helpful. But also if you take those accountability issues off of the bargaining table, then you can actually spend more time and energy bargaining for other things - like a better emergency alternative response program, or something like this. So right now it's harder for the City to do that because they have to be thinking about these accountability pieces. And especially right now, because - I do not know that they will be allowed out of the consent decree totally until they meet the 2017 accountability ordinance in the SPOG contract. And I do not think that Judge Robart will allow them to leave without showing that that is part of the new contract. I will say as well, that one of the reasons the MOU is worrisome to me is because it kind of shows potentially how things are going with the larger negotiation around this actual contract, which as we know - because it takes so long to negotiate it, once we get one, we're stuck with it for potentially a really, really long time, right? So it's a big deal. Whatever ends up in this new contract is a really big deal because we'll be stuck with it for a while. So even though the MOU is term limited - it will expire at the beginning of 2026. So at first I was like, Well, at least we don't have to pay these special event bonuses in perpetuity, at least it's only for a couple of years, at least we're only limited to 24 alternate first responders for a couple of years. But the thing is, these are also aspects that will have to be in that full contract - something will have to be in that full contract to allow us to continue this pilot in 2026 and beyond. So what is that gonna say? Is that also gonna limit how many people we can hire by a really significant amount? Is that also gonna limit the call types to be very, very narrow that they can respond to? Is it going to memorialize this sort of bonus so that we're paying out millions upon millions of dollars just to have permission to do these things when we know that SPD doesn't have the staffing to do them? That is an issue of real concern. And the MOU - to me - says these are things that we are potentially - they're going to have to be addressed in the contract so that we have something that reaches after 2025, and this might be how they are addressed, right? I mean, we don't know, obviously - black box - but these are things that when that contract is released, I'm going to be looking at very carefully and going to be very concerned about. [00:57:11] Shannon Cheng: What if they don't include any of this stuff in the eventual contract? Does that mean on January 2nd, 2026, the dual dispatch pilot just suddenly has to stop operating? [00:57:20] Amy Sundberg: I mean, yes - I think so. Unless they come to another MOU, right? Or like you said, they could risk an Unfair Labor Practice suit. But I mean, ultimately, this is gonna have to be worked out. So it's all fine and good for councilmembers to be like, Well, this is temporary - but ultimately it cannot be temporary. We're going to have to come to some kind of arrangement as to how this is going to work in the future. [00:57:46] Shannon Cheng: Yeah, completely agree. I mean, Amy and I have been staring at this black box of contract negotiations for a really long time and trying to see any indication of anything that's going on with it. And this MOU is the first indication of how things are going. And I would say our estimation is - it's not going well. I mean, I think the other thing I saw that happened is we heard Councilmember Mosqueda say that she stepped down from the LRPC. I don't know that she fully explained what her reasoning was behind that, but my sense is she is probably the councilmember on current LRPC who is the most wanting of all the things we've been talking about in this episode. And she's specifically said that she didn't agree with the MOU because she felt like it was bad strategy in terms of the overall SPOG contract negotiation. So to me, part of her stepping down sounds like it's because those negotiations are not going well. And to me, that's very concerning. [00:58:45] Amy Sundberg: Absolutely, and especially because she's going to be moving over to King Council now - she got elected as a King County councilmember now and she knew it was going okay. So she knew that was a possibility for her political future. And so she only had a few months left and yet she still stepped down. To me, what that says - obviously she's not allowed to say anything - but to me what that says is that there were big problems because otherwise why wouldn't you just finish your term? Like it's no big deal to do just a couple more months. And we also know that Councilmember Mosqueda has in general been a fierce champion of workers' rights and is very aligned with labor. So I am very concerned both as to what this means about the upcoming SPOG contract and about what this means to other labor and how they're being treated by the City. And we've seen this already playing out. So the fact that she stepped down shows, I think, the potentially - some deeper issues that are going to continue to be revealed over the next several months. [00:59:49] Shannon Cheng: And I think this all happened kind of under the radar, but I was trying to do some digging to try to understand when that happened. And as far as I can figure, it was sometime around August. It was the same time that - from the mayor's side, Senior Deputy Mayor Monisha Harrell used to be on the LRPC. She has now been replaced by Tim Burgess. And with Councilmember Mosqueda stepping down, she has now been replaced by Councilmember Strauss. [01:00:12] Amy Sundberg: I will say that Monisha Harrell was also known as something of a champion when it came to accountability, right? I felt that accountability was genuinely important to her and that she was committed to fighting for that in the next contract. But with her gone - again, black box, so we don't know - but it is discouraging news. [01:00:35] Shannon Cheng: Yeah, so not to end everything on a huge downer, but that is the life you choose when you decide to make police contracts your issue of main interest. [01:00:49] Amy Sundberg: You know, I actually - yes, this is bad news. But I do not think people should take this as a downer at all. I think people should take this as encouragement to get involved. If you haven't gotten involved up until this point, or if you are involved and you're beginning to flag or feel a little tired - which believe me, at this point I can really, really relate to - we're gonna need all hands on deck next year. And that's just me being realistic. It is really frustrating, but the only way we're gonna see the change that we want in this regard is by organizing. Organizing, organizing, organizing. And I will be more specific than that because I remember a time when people would say that to me and I would be like - I don't know what that means. Like, sure, but what do I actually personally do? And what I would say is if you wanna get involved - and I highly, highly encourage you to get involved with this - you need to find an organization to plug into so that you have that accountability of structure and community to kind of keep you going. And it doesn't mean you can't take breaks. In fact, I'd say you 100% should be taking breaks as well. I am about to take a week and a half break and I'm very excited about it, so I am the last person that will say anything against taking breaks. But if you're part, if you're building those relationships with others, it will keep you involved for the longterm, which is what we need for this kind of fight. And organizations that are working on this specifically - I mean, I don't know them all, but I know People Power Washington - Shannon and I are involved with - we definitely are always working on this. Defend the Defund is another organization that you can look

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and Founder and Editor of The Needling, Lex Vaughn! They discuss how the Seattle Police Officers Guild (SPOG) Vice President who mocked Jaahnavi Kandula's death is now on red light camera duty, how a KING 5 story effectively victim blamed Kandula for what she was wearing, and how Seattle will pay nearly $2M after a man died of heart attack after incorrectly being on a 911 blacklist. Crystal and Lex then talk about Senator Nguyen's bill to detect gas price gouging, the Week Without Driving, Burien making their camping ban worse, how Bruce Harrell's dual responder program fails to civilianize crisis response, and a new GOP candidate in the 3rd Congressional District race. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Lex Vaughn at @AlexaVaughn.   Resources “Maritza Rivera, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 4” from Hacks & Wonks   “Ron Davis, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 4” from Hacks & Wonks   “Seattle police officer heard joking after woman's death has been taken off the streets” by Mike Carter from The Seattle Times   “New video shows moments before woman is hit by Seattle police vehicle” from KING 5   “Seattle to pay nearly $2M after man dies of heart attack at address wrongly on 911 blacklist” by The Associated Press and KIRO 7 News Staff from KIRO 7   “Sen. Nguyen moving forward on bill to detect price gouging at the gas pump” by Brett Davis from The Center Square   “Could You Go a Week Without Driving?” by Tanisha Sepúlveda from PubliCola   “Burien Makes "Camping" Ban Worse, Auderer Now on Red-Light Camera Duty, Harrell Order Subtly Improves New Drug Law” from PubliCola   “Harrell's Dual-Responder Proposal Would Fail to Civilianize Crisis Response” by Amy Sundberg from The Urbanist   “Lewallen emerges as GOP alternative to Kent in rematch with Gluesenkamp Perez” by Jim Brunner from The Seattle Times   Find stories that Crystal is reading here   Listen on your favorite podcast app to all our episodes here   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical show and our Friday week-in-review delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed this week's topical shows, we continued our series of Seattle City Council candidate interviews. All 14 candidates for 7 positions were invited and we had in-depth conversations with many of them. This week, we presented District 4 candidates, Maritza Rivera and Ron Davis. Have a listen to those and stay tuned over the coming weeks. We hope these interviews will help voters better understand who these candidates are and inform their choices for the November 7th general election. Today, we're continuing our Friday week-in-review shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: Pulitzer prize-winning journalist and Founder and Editor of The Needling, Lex Vaughn. Hey! [00:01:36] Lex Vaughn: Hey, nice to be back. [00:01:38] Crystal Fincher: Great to have you back. And I just have to say before we get into it - The Needling is so good. You do such great work there. And like the last two weeks are as good as it has ever been. There's no one in the country doing it better than The Needling right now. It's just absolutely great. If you guys are not tuned into The Needling - website, Patreon, social media - please get into it. [00:02:03] Lex Vaughn: Thank you so much, Crystal. [00:02:05] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Well, we have a number of things to talk about this week. Wanna start off talking about an update to the story of pedestrian Jaahnavi Kandula, who was killed by an officer who ran over her while going over 70 miles per hour in response to a call - although he did not have his siren going at the time - and a story that came out in KING 5 also related to that. But just starting - update to that story is the SPOG Vice President, Daniel Auderer, who was caught on tape mocking Jaahnavi's death is now on red light camera duty - has been taken off the street. It is not uncommon for officers to be reassigned to administrative positions while investigations are ongoing - that's the case here. What do you think about where we stand here in terms of accountability? [00:03:00] Lex Vaughn: I think no one should feel like anything real has happened as far as accountability or punishment goes - he's been reassigned, but he could be, as soon as we take our eye off this, he could be put back in the same position he was before. Auderer is still a major part of the guild leadership, so it's like - this isn't just any cop. This is guild leadership that forms a lot of the culture of the entire department, so it's upsetting to not see - once again, how - it's just upsetting to see how hard it is to even get real punishment happening for some of these people after what they do. They should be fired. And I think the next thing I'm focused on is just what's gonna happen in this next police guild contract - it's up this year and it's in negotiations right now. I just, I hope it's slightly better than the contract before - and it would just be nice if it was easier to hold police like this accountable. [00:03:59] Crystal Fincher: I'm right there with you. And I hope it's significantly better than it is right now. And there's a model in place for it - the City of Seattle passed an ordinance in 2017 that included many accountability procedures that the SPOG contract that's currently in place, that was signed in 2018, supersedes. It has written in there that it supersedes City law - so if there's a conflict, the SPOG contract is what wins, basically, over what the City says. And as we've seen, there've been several examples of things that regular people look at and say - This is not okay, this is not what we want - where we see officers commenting across the country saying - This is inappropriate, incorrect. Yet it seems like not much can be done, and the most that's done is they're suspended without pay then reinstated, or assigned to desk duty, various administrative tasks. It's a challenge. [00:04:55] Lex Vaughn: And I'm so tired of the shrug that happens - Well, I don't know, police contract. What are you gonna do? Well, now we're in negotiations. You are actively in a position to do something about it long-term. I don't want any shrugging right now about this 'cause we are actually in a zone where we can change the contract, or change how the City interacts with that union as a whole. I'm just learning myself about what options there are in increasing accountability. Is there a way to decertify this union completely if - I mean, I think a lot of what they support and don't fight against in their own ranks is kind of criminal itself. You're enabling people to kill innocent people - for me, to me, that's criminal. And it's like, I wish that was kind of acknowledged more often - where's the line here where some of what they're doing is criminal. [00:05:49] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and you know, the other thing I look at here is this is a threat to public safety in Seattle, particularly for people who say and believe that - Hey, we need more officers on the streets now, we need to hire more officers, there is a shortage. One, if there's a shortage, why are they responding to overdose calls, crisis calls in the first place and redeploying it? [00:06:11] Lex Vaughn: You know, as outlets like DivestSPD have reported in detail, it's - this call, where this young woman was killed by a cop going three times the speed limit in a high pedestrian area at night without a siren - he was rushing to a reported overdose call where health personnel, paramedics were already headed there. And apparently there were like six police units headed there as well? This is just inefficient, like at a minimum, at a minimum - incredibly inefficient and dangerous. And it really kind of underlines - how could you think we need more cops when in a situation like this, they're over-responding and actually a danger to the community. The entire way this operation is working is faulty and not increasing public safety. [00:07:07] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely not increasing public safety. And hurting the effort that they've invested a lot of money into to recruit additional officers. Since they offered retention bonuses, you know, there was a lot of talk over the past couple of years that - Oh, they need more money, they need an incentive to stay. Well, the incentive is not money. Many of them are compensated fairly handsomely, but since that was approved and they've been receiving retention bonuses - the attrition has not improved - we're still hurting as badly as we ever have. And it's time - and I appreciate Tammy Morales in a forum last night, as well as others, and there've been several other people who've also talked about this - just plainly stating, Hey, these incidences happening are a problem, are a disincentive for people to apply to be a police officer, to want to be a police officer, particularly in Seattle. And especially when so many cities are talking about having shortages, why would they choose a city that has so many visible problems and problematic officers instead of another one there? So, I mean, this is - the culture is as much of a problem in terms of recruiting as anything else. But also, we do have to stop and say - What are we even doing overall? - to your point. I also want to talk about this KING 5 story that came out recapping it, but got a pretty severe pushback and lots of call-outs - because in that story, they detailed what Jaahnavi was wearing, while it - was it dark colored this or that, you know, potentially talking about a drug test. And as you said - to be clear - she was in a crosswalk. She was doing exactly what she was supposed to be doing. The person doing what they weren't supposed to be doing was a person responding to a call that was questionable that they should be going to anyway. [00:08:55] Lex Vaughn: I cannot stand anyone acting like - Oh, she just didn't look both ways. This was a high pedestrian area - at night, no sirens. How many of us would expect, as soon as we're entering a crosswalk, for a cop, a giant car to barrel at us at over the speed limit of what's, on our freeways? Okay - that's fast. She didn't, she barely comprehended what was going to happen to her before it happened to her. [00:09:26] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and when you look at there, it's not - one, it's a crosswalk, and drivers should be aware of crosswalks and crossings marked or unmarked. This is a marked crosswalk - there's a crosswalk sign, there's barriers in the road - this is not an area - Oh, who would know that there would be a pedestrian there? Like, if there was a place for a pedestrian to be, it is there. And to essentially victim blame in that way and not talk about the responsibility of the person in the vehicle that has the power to instantaneously obliterate someone - what their culpability and responsibility was there - is just really disgusting. [00:10:04] Lex Vaughn: Yeah, I have to say, I'm really disappointed in KING 5 for that report, 'cause I mean, in Seattle, I think we tend to think of KOMO as the station that would run something like that, not KING 5. And it's hard to understand what the motivation of that report was. I mean, I guess they were maybe giddy that they had new video that hadn't been seen before, and I don't know, maybe there was only so much they had to say about it - she's wearing black clothes - but it just came off as very victim-blamey. You know, this is not a report that you wanna turn into a pedestrian safety cautionary tale - where that's not really the moral of the story here - 'cause I think any of us, most people, that would have happened to them, no matter what they were wearing, I doubt that cop would have all of a sudden had time to brake if she was wearing yellow. He was going way too fast. [00:10:57] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Absolutely going too fast to respond in any kind of way at that speed, to be able to take any kind of evasive action - and we see that in how the accident played out. I think this is reflective of the super car-centric culture and how problematic that is - instead of realizing that everyone has a right to use the roads and therefore everyone, whether you're walking, biking, riding. But the responsibility that people have in understanding that - yes, if you have the potential to do greater harm, then you must take greater responsibility. The consequence for a pedestrian walking out into the street to a car is negligible - there's going to be no damage there, right? Like, you know, looking at the worst-case scenario is entirely different than someone losing their life. And so I suspect in this situation - a problem that we've seen in lots of news media in that they saw the video, they looked at the police report and what the information that the police gave out, which unfortunately too often only focuses on, especially when situations when police are involved, only focuses on the pedestrian that is involved or the non-police entity that's involved. Just really striking, we - was the officer driving - were they tested for drugs or alcohol? Were they, I mean, you know, a sign of impairment there, so how in the world it makes sense? [00:12:22] Lex Vaughn: They were not. She was, he wasn't - despite the fact that this guy who ran her over, apparently had had his driving license suspended in Arizona the year before he came here and got hired with a bonus. So, you know, if you think these bonuses are getting us anyone quality, all you have to do is look at this case - not the case - we're not getting anyone special here. [00:12:48] Crystal Fincher: Well, you know, I don't know who it's bringing, but there absolutely needs to be a different strategy implemented here. And everyone needs to do better in reporting, and considering how they talk about this, and what our stance as a community is about this. I also wanna talk about another story this week that didn't seem to percolate, but that was surprising to me. And it was news that Seattle had to pay nearly $2 million to the family of a man after he died of a heart attack after getting delayed response because his address was wrongly on a 911 blacklist. One - okay, there's a 911 blacklist - there's news. [00:13:29] Lex Vaughn: Yeah, I did not even know that. Oh, God. [00:13:32] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, so the situation is this person had a heart attack, fell out - had lived in the unit for a year. The people who lived in it before him wound up on a list - and responders and police say they keep a list of people who have been hostile to or problematic with police, which, you know, I don't know what hard and fast rules about that, how subjective that is, but you can see how that could come to be. But they wound up on this list because of a prior tenant - that wasn't told to them on the call, there was no indication, you had - no one has any idea - [00:14:06] Lex Vaughn: I had no idea that was a thing. [00:14:09] Crystal Fincher: - that - yeah, that the list exists or that they may or may not be on it. So this guy's lived here for a year. It's not even like he just moved in there. [00:14:16] Lex Vaughn: And I'm like - oh my God. So it's like based on address, not even like phone numbers? 'Cause like I would imagine almost everyone has like a cell phone now. Like almost no one has a landline. [00:14:27] Crystal Fincher: Some people have a landline. [00:14:28] Lex Vaughn: I mean, okay. [00:14:29] Crystal Fincher: Some people don't have cell phones. [00:14:30] Lex Vaughn: It's like a small fraction of people. [00:14:32] Crystal Fincher: Most people do, some people don't - but either way - so they call and they're like - Okay, help is on the way. But the help is - they see there's a flag, so they have to wait for basically police to co-respond with them, which delays the call. You know, another 911 call comes in after a paramedic is apparently on the scene, but not going in because they're waiting for police. And they're saying help is on the way, but no indication that there's a delay. The man passes away because of - looking at the settlement, feeling like had he received more timely medical care, he certainly would have had a better opportunity to survive. But that this was the reason why he died - and that this list exists, that finding out through this, that evidently the list was neglected - they don't take people off the list or hadn't before this - was very problematic. In response to this, they're now saying they'll age people off of the list after 365 days. But you can imagine- [00:15:28] Lex Vaughn: Why did it have to take this to do that obvious a thing? [00:15:31] Crystal Fincher: Why did it have to take this? And how does no one engage with the fact that, especially with half of Seattle residents renting, right? [00:15:39] Lex Vaughn: Yeah, I'm a renter. And I read this and I was like - Okay. I mean, I've lived in this place that I'm in for three years, so well - I mean, I don't know. It's like, I want to check - I don't know who lived here before. [00:15:53] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, how do you get on? Is there an appeals process to come off? The lack of transparency surrounding this seems like it could create another situation like this in the future. So this was a story reported by KIRO 7 - would be interested to find out exactly what criteria are to get on the list. Are people ever removed from the list now other than aging off? And even with things aging off over a year, people move all the time - renters move all the time - this is absolutely disproportionately impacting people who rent. And a year is a long time to wait for something to edge off. If you have an emergency and you haven't lived in your place for a year, who knows if when you call 911, there's some reason that you don't know why people aren't responding. So I found that just really interesting. [00:16:43] Lex Vaughn: And just another important part of that report is that apparently a dispatcher was punished and also sued the City because he tried to fix that system. And he was kind of like wrongfully punished on the job for trying to bring up and reform that 911 blacklist. And it just seems like - wow, you know, a person like me - I didn't even know it existed, but I think we all got to take a hard look at that 'cause that's a tragedy that didn't have to happen. [00:17:14] Crystal Fincher: Absolute tragedy. And very interested to learn more about how that list operates and if it is in line with best practices and it just seems- [00:17:24] Lex Vaughn: It seems very outdated. [00:17:26] Crystal Fincher: It really does. Wanna talk about another story that is part of a larger story. And it's Senator Joe Nguyen, our state Senator, is moving forward on a bill to detect price gouging at the gas pump. Gas prices have been in the news a lot lately - they find their way into the news every year for a variety of reasons that - the price of gas is high. It's a cost that a lot of people incur. And as the prices rise, people feel that in their budgets, certainly - don't wanna minimize that at all for people who are on a tight budget. But for people who care about that, I hope they also have urgency in dealing with housing costs, childcare costs, some of the biggest costs that people have. But gas is a factor in there, and so we have a situation where gas prices are volatile - they have been, they always are. In this situation, we have Democrats and Republicans calling for a couple of different solutions. Republicans call for a gas tax holiday, they blame the Climate Commitment Act - which was passed here in this state, which assigns basically a price to carbon - and saying, This is the reason why gas prices are high. Other people have pointed out for quite some time that we still have these oil companies making record profits and that accounts for more of the gas price there. And these increases in price don't seem to correlate with the increase and decreases in cost. And we hear - Oh, you know, refinery's offline for maintenance. Well, that seems to coincide with major holiday weekends and times when they know people will be driving to make the price skyrocket. California passed a bill similar to this, which Joe Nguyen said he looked at and is modeling this off of. And they found that there was some, you know, shady stuff going on. And what this does is basically establish a commission, or a tribunal, or some organization that can review pricing information and kind of proprietary data from these companies - saying that this isn't public data, so it's not like there are gonna be competitive disadvantages for sharing and it's not gonna be given to the public. But this group can review it and say - Okay, is this in line with costs, or are you just raising the price of gas to price gouge consumers - which appears that it's happened before. So this is an interesting bill that Senator Nguyen is moving forward with to detect price gouging. And I'm gonna be really curious to see how this plays out. What do you think? [00:19:47] Lex Vaughn: I mean, I'd be interested to see how they plan on changing that behavior. 'Cause I guess I applaud the effort to detect price gouging and do something about it, but I'm almost in like a state of - I've just accepted oil companies do that all the time. I mean, I think especially in that year after - since the war in Ukraine, it seemed like there was a period where they were artificially jacking up the prices when they didn't really need to - even after President Biden had taken action to reduce that problem, the prices were still high. So I'm just so used to the price gouging that I assume is always happening, I'm like - Oh, okay, you gonna do something about it? Good luck with that. I don't have high hopes, but- [00:20:34] Crystal Fincher: Well, I think there are bigger structural issues involved. I mean, we are trying to phase out fossil fuels in a long-term perspective, and that is going to make the cost of gas increase in the long-term. Now, as with many things - and part of that is the price is inherently volatile, it's gonna become more volatile, especially as - even if we wanted to burn all the oil in the world, there's a limited supply of oil. So this was coming at some time. How do we make this transition in a way that is as fair and equitable as possible? And that's what the proceeds of the Climate Commitment Act are supposed to do - these proceeds that are exceeding expectations from these carbon credits - that's what the push towards more renewable forms of energy, electric cars - but even better, getting the cars off the road and using transit - and making, building our infrastructure and building our communities in a way that make that a viable and attractive option for people. 'Cause right now we still have a long way to go for that. And in this Week Without Driving, many of us are experiencing that firsthand- [00:21:39] Lex Vaughn: How was that? [00:21:39] Crystal Fincher: It's still ongoing. I shared online that I have a trip today to make where it's a two hour one-way trip, even though it's only 17 miles - but it underscores how important it is to improve transit service everywhere - and it benefits everyone. We have to get out, we have to mitigate the impacts of climate change. We have to get on this and accelerate our efforts to meet our 2030 goals - to have a shot at meeting our goals that are further down the line. We have a long way to go, but improving the accessibility and the experience on transit will improve traffic, will improve air quality, will improve finances. It costs a lot less if that's a reasonable option to do. [00:22:24] Lex Vaughn: I'm always shocked when people aren't completely on board with building great public transit as fast as possible everywhere. 'Cause even if you're a driver and you're never taking public transit, how is it not in your interest as well for as many people as possible to be in public transit? You get less traffic. It should be a win-win-win for everybody to get more of these things online. [00:22:49] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think there's a lot of misinformation about there. And I think the way that we have allowed communities to build and grow - that we've allowed sprawl and basically enabled- [00:22:59] Lex Vaughn: Yeah, yeah. [00:23:00] Crystal Fincher: -the inaccessibility of transit in communities makes people - the default lifestyle for many people is a car-based lifestyle. And we've allowed transit to atrophy in many places, if it even was readily available in the first place. So people - when people can't see it and can't see it working, they have a hard time conceptualizing it. [00:23:22] Lex Vaughn: Oh yeah. And I mean, whenever you do that Google Maps route - I mean, I do that sometimes where I'm like - Oh, what's the public transit route? If it's very long, I'll opt for using my car for part of that trip somehow. And that usually is the defining thing, right - is just looking up on a Google Map - is this a half hour trip or a two hour trip? [00:23:43] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. [00:23:44] Lex Vaughn: I mean, that's a big difference. [00:23:45] Crystal Fincher: It's a humongous difference. And for several - I fortunately am privileged enough to not have to drive often. But for those I do, that's an absolute consideration. And I would like to take transit. And there are some advantages even on a longer trip - you can do other things, you can multitask, you can just decompress - you don't have to be present and aware, paying attention while you're driving, you don't have the stress of traffic sometimes, which is nice. So I mean, even on a longer trip, there are some advantages to transit, but also it can be less convenient depending on there. And if you have to walk a long way, especially in poor weather, when it's cold. Or if there aren't adequate facilities at a transit stop - I saw someone yesterday comment, Hey man, I looked up something and it was a two and a half hour trip, and my bladder can't securely make that trip and we don't make public restrooms readily available to people. There are a lot of structural barriers in place for people to be able to use transit, and we have to do a better job at removing those barriers if we're gonna make progress. And so the Week Without Driving is really bringing that home to a lot of people in ways that we can talk about, but when you do it and you feel it, it just provides additional insight and urgency into that. I also wanna talk about the City of Burien - yet again - who passed their camping ban and then decided to make their camping ban worse. So what Burien did was now expand the number of hours per day in which being unsheltered will soon be illegal. PubliCola has been doing an excellent job covering what's been happening in the City of Burien - we will link this article and update in our show notes also. But basically the Burien city attorney said that the city decided to make the adjustment after learning that shelters begin making their decisions about who to admit around 4.30 in the afternoon. And by 10, most are closed. And according to him, it would be too late to take people there - that's questionable reasoning. And by starting the ban earlier in the evening, the city thinks that it can plausibly say shelter was available - which is important in order to pass the constitutionality test - and that people refuse to accept it. Those are not hard and fast rules, and especially with some of the new shelter coming online, it is more flexible. The shelters making such decisions and closing early are part of the reason why it's hard for people to do that anyway. A meaningful percentage of people who don't have homes still have jobs. Lots of people who don't have homes or who are housing insecure have jobs. And if their shift goes beyond 7 or 8 or 9 or whatever the closing time is- [00:26:32] Lex Vaughn: Very unreasonable. [00:26:33] Crystal Fincher: -you have to choose between keeping the job that has a shot at either getting you back into housing or keeping you from falling into a further precarious position on the street. It just doesn't make sense. So they expanded the hours that they were doing that. During the meeting - there's a lot of misinformation that comes from the council majority on this council - they were saying that they, Hey, it increases the amount of time that they're able to camp, which is just false. Like it was weird. It only allows camping between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. - or the ability to be in public while you're unhoused, basically - even though that there aren't good options for where these people to go. And as we've been reminded several times, options are available and on offer to the City of Burien to have people have a place to go - land has been identified for them. And this is a seven-member council, it's a split council - so four members in the majority, three members in the minority. That four-member council majority has not decided to take the county up on the offer of a million dollars to help with long-term placement, hasn't taken - two entities now who have offered Pallet shelters here. It's just really unfortunate. [00:27:49] Lex Vaughn: Has that city been sued yet? Or like - 'cause it does seem illegal. I mean, they're not even, they're rejecting housing for these people and then doing this camping ban at the same time. I would think that's illegal. [00:28:03] Crystal Fincher: Well, that's the question. And it does strike a lot of people as illegal, which is one of the reasons why the King County Executive's Office sent a letter to Burien saying that - Hey, because your police department contracts with the King County Sheriff's for your deputies, we're telling you our deputies cannot participate in these sweeps because it's unconstitutional. [00:28:23] Lex Vaughn: Yeah, that's great. [00:28:24] Crystal Fincher: And they say - Ah no, it's not. They try to do an end around and find a loophole by leasing to a seemingly faux dog park organization that - then they could trespass people off of land. It's just a whole mess. [00:28:40] Lex Vaughn: The extent they're going to boot homeless people out of their city is crazy - without helping them. [00:28:48] Crystal Fincher: Without helping them, yeah. [00:28:49] Lex Vaughn: The option is right there, the money is right there - and they're not using it. I imagine a lot of these things just aren't true that they're saying? But is that true - that thing they said about all these homeless shelters accept people at 4.30 and not afterward? Is that a thing? [00:29:06] Crystal Fincher: And the way he phrased it even is vague in and of itself - they begin making their decisions at 4.30. [00:29:12] Lex Vaughn: Begin making their decisions at-- [00:29:14] Crystal Fincher: Yes. [00:29:14] Lex Vaughn: Yeah, and it's like - yeah, just think about, I mean, the average person is not done with work at 4.30. They're not even home from work at 4.30, if they're not a remote worker. And yeah, and there's a lot of different shifts out there that people might be taking. And it assumes that people who don't have shelter don't have jobs, which is just the worst piece of misinformation. [00:29:38] Crystal Fincher: Or don't have any other interests, or places to go - it's just challenging. And speaking of the King County Sheriff's, this is a big concern - who are they gonna have to actually enforce this? - which is a question that was asked. And Deputy Mayor Kevin Schilling said on the dais that - Hey, the King County Sheriff's Office signed off on the change. However, PubliCola followed up with the King County Sheriff's Office, and a spokesman for King County Executive Dow Constantine told PubliCola that the county has not made a decision about whether and how to enforce the law. So, that is absolutely not true - what Deputy Mayor Kevin Schilling said - that evidently is still under review. And it looks like they were, once again, in a rush and moved hastily without even knowing if this is something that they can enforce. It is just, it's just a challenge. [00:30:31] Lex Vaughn: Come on, Burien - get some new people on that council. [00:30:34] Crystal Fincher: Speaking of challenges that are pretty easy to foresee, or things that don't quite make sense based on what we're being told - is news that, hey, finally, finally, the mayor's office who has had the funding to do this and for some reason hasn't for a long time, announced that they're going to launch a dual responder program. However, this dual responder program would still fail to civilianize the crisis response, which is what the mayor's office had initially said they wanted to - we had a conversation with Deputy Mayor, then-Deputy Mayor Monisha Harrell on this show about that before. But in the way this is going to be - in the way it's proposed, in the way it looks like it's going to happen - a new Community Assisted Response and Engagement Department, or CARE Department, will launch a dual dispatch pilot consisting of teams of two civilians, some of whom are behavioral health providers, who can be dispatched alongside SPD officers. And so this program hired six responders so far, $1.8 million has been proposed from the mayor in the 2024 budget. And in the press conference, which I think you said that you watched, they talked about this being similar to or based on programs that have gotten acclaim in a few other major cities. However, ours is substantively different than theirs - in that, theirs don't rely on co-response - meaning that an armed officer has to go with someone all the time - or they have options out of that, that is not a requirement of the dispatch. And there's good reason for that. One, most of these calls don't apply to that. In Denver's program, they found that they only needed to call for armed police response 2% of the time where their crisis responders were dispatched - especially as you said before, when they're saying they don't have enough cops to do the job that is expected of them, you would think that'd be like - Oh, that's great news. We can deploy our resources in areas where they can be more effective. [00:32:44] Lex Vaughn: That's why it's probably a dual response. They don't want our city to discover that we don't need police at every single one of these calls. And it's unfortunate that the mayor and this police department are more concerned with how can we get this police department more money, more people. It's, I guess, a rough transition here - to say the least - to get this city to wrap its head around the fact that you do not need police at every single one of these 911 calls. And in fact, it's very dangerous for a lot of these cops to show up, especially in cases where someone's having a mental health crisis or something. When I was a reporter at The Seattle Times, I unfortunately reported on cases where someone was having a mental health crisis and they were shot for not immediately obeying orders. That was, you know - I - if you have a loved one that struggles with mental health issues, the police - they're not who you want to call. It's dangerous, 'cause I think a lot of police are - they're just too willing and ready to shoot as soon as they're not listened to. And so I'm very disappointed that this is a dual response thing, when it's so clear we need that CARE team to just respond on their own, with their own expertise, without anyone armed on the scene. [00:34:09] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and especially in crisis calls, armed responses - an armed presence - is its own escalator. [00:34:17] Lex Vaughn: Yes - yeah, like duh - for anyone. And then imagine you're also in crisis - just not a great mix. [00:34:24] Crystal Fincher: It's challenging. You know, Crosscut previously reported that while only 2.2% of calls for service in Seattle were crisis calls, those calls accounted for 25% of Seattle officers' use of force. And if we recall, Charleena Lyles in 2017 was a perfect example of that, really unfortunate example of that. It's just really challenging. They seem determined to have an officer respond - to your point, it seems like they are afraid of relinquishing anything. But that seems to be happening - if you listen to their logic - at the expense of everyone else's safety and more effective deployment across the city. Then another really meaningful point brought up is just the scale of this pilot - what are we really able to see? [00:35:12] Lex Vaughn: Six people, right? [00:35:12] Crystal Fincher: Six people - yeah, absolutely. And that is completely out of line with the scale of the programs in these other cities. [00:35:21] Lex Vaughn: Yeah, Albuquerque - 70 people. They're really doing it. [00:35:25] Crystal Fincher: Look at how many officers we have. Look at the size of the city. And one thing that's been noticed by lots of people for a long time is that we put out these pilots, we say we need to see results, and we need to get data on them to see if they're gonna continue. And you just throw a couple people out there - and you can't reasonably expect any meaningful intervention from a few people. Now when you do look at that, they do outsize good for what they're there. So it's like, just imagine if we were to appropriately invest and deploy in numbers that could effectively manage this problem citywide. But we continue not to do that, which is frustrating, and watch more of the budget continue to go to police officers, vacant police officer positions - and it's just frustrating. [00:36:16] Lex Vaughn: Yeah, I mean, it's like the police department and the City are trying to make this argument that we don't have enough officers. And it's like - Well, what if we're just not doing this efficiently at all? And it's just unfortunate to see that the priority here seems to be retaining dependence on a police department that is as bloated as possible, and not just creating a more efficient public health and public safety kind of operation system here. Like you said, a lot of these calls - they do not need an armed cop, especially one that might be barreling through a high pedestrian area at 75 miles per hour, coming to the call. And if we're really interested in public safety here, I really think we don't need more cops. We need to use the cops we have more efficiently, with more accountability. And expand this other program, the CARE program, and let them respond independently to a lot of these calls and expand it. And I'm worried that this program is being set up to fail. Some people might say that - Well, this is better than nothing. It's a start. - I guess, but I think it's being set up to fail. This is six people - not that many people - and they're not being allowed to be the first to intervene, which is really where I think the magic of those programs happens. It's like - Wow, the situation did not get escalated. This person got the help they needed without a gun on the scene. [00:37:48] Crystal Fincher: And it feels like someone is coming to help, right? And it really is the difference in - is someone coming to help me, or is someone coming to control me? Is someone coming to make me do something, to stop me? [00:37:59] Lex Vaughn: Yep, that is - that's it - right there, yeah. [00:38:04] Crystal Fincher: And that makes such a big difference when someone is already in a place where they're unstable, where they're worried, concerned, where they're not perceiving things as well as they can be. And then expecting them then to be able to - oftentimes be calmer than the officer that's responding - and just rationally follow everything. You're being called because this person is not behaving rationally, right - so we know that from jump - everything else that stems from that, it's predictable that that's not going to have a great outcome. And again, we have to get to dealing with the root causes of this. There's nothing a police person can do to address a behavioral health crisis. [00:38:47] Lex Vaughn: That's not their expertise at all. [00:38:49] Crystal Fincher: That's not their expertise, it's not their job. It's not their - no training, no resources in order to do that. The people who actually can make those connections - who do understand our complicated and inadequate, but you know, system - and to try and get people in there and to get them some help that they need, so this is not a chronic problem. So this doesn't escalate. It's really important. The last story I want to talk about today is the emergence of a new GOP candidate in Washington's 3rd Congressional District. This district is now notorious for being one of the biggest districts in an upset race in 2022, where Democrat Marie Gluesenkamp Perez beat Joe Kent, a very far right-wing Republican in 2022 - biggest upset race in the country. And so Joe Kent announced that he was running again, he's been running, and he's endorsed by the likes of Trump and you know, a lot of really, really, really far right extremists. And that is what a lot of people blame on his loss that - wow, even that was too much for this pretty solidly Republican district. So it looks like other Republicans in the state - I don't want to call them moderate Republicans, 'cause I don't think that is an accurate descriptor - but ones who realize that Joe Kent- [00:40:11] Lex Vaughn: Maybe just smarter, like more strategic Republicans. [00:40:16] Crystal Fincher: Right - is a tainted brand, right? And are trying to operate more strategically. And so Leslie Lewallen, a city councilmember in Camas in Clark County, has entered the race and drawn early support and endorsements from prominent Republicans like former Attorney General Rob McKenna, former Secretary of State Sam Reed, and Tiffany Smiley. And Tiffany Smiley, who's the challenger to Patty Murray in 2022. And so they are not going the MAGA route, they're trying to go the other route. Although if you look at the issues that she's talking about, this is really, you know, how they're dressing up someone who holds a lot of the same core beliefs when it comes to women's choice, when it comes to these really troubling attacks and book bans that we're seeing in schools, attacks on the trans community and the LGBTQ community - just a lot of worrisome things. This is not, you know, what we had previously described as a moderate Republican. This is still a pretty far right Republican, but it's not Joe Kent. And, you know, Joe Kent is out of touch with reality in a variety of things - it's hard to really explain how wild this guy is without just being like - look at this, I cannot - I had to do this in 2022. Like I can't do justice to what this is with an explanation, just watch him talk. [00:41:42] Lex Vaughn: Yeah, him and Loren Culp were kind of an insane, you know, pair to talk about back then. [00:41:48] Crystal Fincher: They were just not in touch with reality. But, you know, this will be interesting. And we see this effort, with Dave Reichert in the governor's race, to try and dress someone up as a more moderate Republican to kind of assuage some of the fears that people have of someone too extreme. MAGA - the MAGA brand - is not popular throughout the state, that's not a winning brand in the state. And Republicans have been losing ground because of it. But I think, especially when we look at a lot of these races in King County - like I'm thinking of the 8th Congressional District race, the Reagan Dunn race against Kim Schrier - even someone who has, you know, traditionally branded themselves as a moderate, they still hold beliefs that are pretty repugnant to lots of people. Kind of first and foremost, the issue of abortion rights, right - these are pretty fundamental rights. The issue of privacy protections - pretty fundamental rights. Wanting a stronger safety net - pretty fundamental, you know, support by a lot of people in the state. And Republicans seem to disagree with that. [00:42:48] Lex Vaughn: Yeah, or at a minimum, they're just spineless because Reagan Dunn, at certain points, has - if it's advantageous to him, you know, hasn't been as conservative, but just depends on where he's trying to mold himself. [00:43:03] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. [00:43:04] Lex Vaughn: Yeah. [00:43:04] Crystal Fincher: So at this moment, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez has a pretty substantial financial lead. I think I read that she has like a million and a half dollars and Joe Kent has like a shade under $500,000. But I - this will be a district that this cycle, I'm sure, attracts a lot of attention and a lot of outside spending. Definitely on the list for Republicans to pick up. Now, you know, we're sitting here as Republicans just kicked out Speaker McCarthy, which makes Patty Murray now second in line to the presidency since there's no current Speaker of the House. But, you know, Republicans have problems from the very top of the ticket all the way on down, so it'll be interesting just to see how they manage this chaos. [00:43:49] Lex Vaughn: Yeah, well, this whole next year is gonna be an interesting Republican identity journey - I don't know if it's a crisis, they've kind of been in crisis for a little while, but it's - they're gonna have to make some decisions about who they're gonna be in the future. Are they gonna continue the Trump route or are they trying to find this other, I don't know. I guess almost as far right, but just a different tone, different leaders at the helm kind of leading that. I don't know. [00:44:24] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, very - it'll be interesting to see. And, you know, we'll have another shutdown battle coming up in about a month. Who knows if we'll have a speaker by then? Who knows if we'll be in any better position for anything by then? [00:44:39] Lex Vaughn: I just heard yesterday there's a possibility of Trump being a speaker? [00:44:43] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, so- [00:44:45] Lex Vaughn: Oh my God, I didn't know that was a thing. [00:44:47] Crystal Fincher: Fun fact is the Speaker of the House does not have to be a member of the House or Congress. So yeah, they can appoint - they could do that with Trump if they wanted to, I think? [00:44:58] Lex Vaughn: Ahh, this world is insane. [00:45:00] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it's, you know - it is frustrating - the Republicans are not a party serious about governing right now. And I just wish we would contend with that more directly. Or at least- [00:45:14] Lex Vaughn: And the people who vote for them. Like what are you doing? [00:45:16] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. So we'll continue to follow this, but that will certainly - is an interesting new element in that 3rd Congressional District race that will have impacts here locally and nationally. And with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, October 6th, 2023. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful cohost today is Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and Founder and Editor of The Needling, Lex Vaughn. You can find Lex on Twitter @AlexaVaughn, V-A-U-G-H-N. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can find me on Twitter and most other networks @finchfrii, with two I's at the end. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time. [00:46:41] Lex Vaughn: Bye.

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Publisher of The Urbanist, Doug Trumm! The show kicks off with a rundown of The Urbanist's primary election endorsements, followed by discussion of a Federal Way shooting that raises lots of questions, the Burien council majority's continued failure on homelessness response, Ed Murray being spotted at political events, a court ruling that Seattle's primary encampment sweeps tool is unconstitutional, and a Mayor Harrell change of heart on South Lake Union light rail stations. 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, Doug Trumm, on Twitter at @dmtrumm.   Doug Trumm Doug Trumm is Publisher of The Urbanist, where he has contributed as a writer and editor since 2015. He graduated from the Evans School of Public Policy and Governance at UW in 2019 with a concentration in urban policy. As a car-free renter living in Seattle, his policy focuses include improving transit and street safety and tackling the housing affordability crisis. His cat Ole is a national treasure.   Resources “Carrie Barnes, Chair of the King County Democrats” from Hacks & Wonks   “2023 Primary Election Endorsements” from The Urbanist   “The Stranger's Endorsements for the August 1, 2023, Primary Election” from The Stranger   “Seattle Times editorial board endorsements: Aug. 1, 2023, primary” from The Seattle Times   Endorsements from PubliCola   Progressive Voters Guide from Fuse WA   2023 Policing and Public Safety Voter Guide - Seattle City Council from People Power Washington   “Person killed during drive-by shooting in Federal Way, police say” by Lauren Girgis from The Seattle Times   “Burien still can't decide whether it'll take homelessness offer” by Anna Patrick from The Seattle Times   “After Refusing Shelter Offer from King County, Burien Proposes Camping Ban” by Erica Barnett from PubliCola   “Seattle Mayor Ed Murray announces his resignation on September 12, 2017.” by Nick Rousso from HistoryLink.org   “City's Primary Tool for Sweeping Encampments Without Notice Ruled Unconstitutional” by Erica Barnett from PubliCola   “Harrell Advances New Denny Station Options That Could Delay Ballard Link” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist   “Transit Advocates Push to Save South Lake Union Light Rail Station” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist   Ballard Link Extension: South Lake Union Stations Webinar #2 | Sound Transit   Find stories that Crystal is reading here   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical show and our Friday week-in-review delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday topical show, I chatted with Carrie Barnes, Chair of the King County Democrats, about how the county party engages in local elections and politics to improve lives in our area. Today, we are continuing our Friday week-in-review shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: Publisher of The Urbanist, Doug Trumm. Hey. [00:01:20] Doug Trumm: Hey, good to see you - thanks so much for having me. [00:01:22] Crystal Fincher: Very, very happy and excited to have you. And as we sit here, people have ballots at their homes - you should have received your ballot - if you haven't, you should pursue getting another one or tracking down where that is. But primary election is in full swing. The primary election end date is Tuesday, August 1st. And wow, there have been a lot of endorsements, including endorsements from The Urbanist. Who did The Urbanist decide to support in several different races? And what was the approach The Urbanist took to making these endorsements? [00:01:58] Doug Trumm: Yeah, we are excited to announce our slate. I'll, I guess, start with how we got there, which was a painstaking process - we've done it the same way, going back six, seven years. And that involves - first, the questionnaire to get people on the record about some issues important to urbanists and Safe Street advocates and housing advocates. And then after they've submitted their questionnaire, we invite them in for actual interviews that are now happening over Zoom - which has been convenient, I think, for everyone, since we're covering a wide area. We probably should have been doing this the whole time - save the candidates time and you get through more candidates. And it's about a 25-minute interview and you learn a little bit more - when you get a vague response in a questionnaire or some issue becomes relevant that maybe wasn't when you sent out the questionnaire. And then we debate what we felt about it. And luckily we didn't have any big fights this year, but obviously some disagreement. And I guess I can start with the Seattle City Council. We also endorsed in Bellevue this year, but where we endorsed, there's not a primary - so not the big fireworks that rolled that one out, but there will be more in the general. But we'll start in order. District 1 in Seattle - Maren Costa, we liked. She's a climate activist and clearly had the best housing platform. A slam dunk as far as what urbanists are looking for, I think, as some of the other candidates were much more wishy-washy about how much housing are they going to allow and how many ways are they going to allow to block it. Costa was pretty clear - I want housing. And then in [District] 2, we liked the incumbent, Tammy Morales. She's been the most strident Safe Streets advocate in the council, so we need someone like that 'cause it's very hard to get Safe Streets projects done. And her district is also in most in need of it, and she's been very clear about that. So it just seems like we need a strong voice, especially in that district. D3, we went with Alex Hudson. We thought she had the most policy chops experience - a lot of progressives in that race, but we thought Alex had the most ability to get it done. In D4, we liked Ron Davis. Didn't really seem to be anyone else who wanted the progressive mantle in that race, and maybe that's a credit partially to Ron Davis being a strong candidate. And we think he is really clear about where he stands and not very politician-y in that way, which is refreshing - was very clear about he wanted a lot of housing in the Comp Plan update that's due next year. Just to underscore that it's a really consequential election because that Comp Plan update is happening next year and a lot of big stuff happening next year, so definitely don't sit out this election. And Ron seems like the person clearly who actually believes in urbanism, believes in 15-minute cities, and things that can make it easier to get around the city as well. Competition just isn't very good. Then in D5, we went with Nilu Jenks. And that is interesting, right - so maybe I get your take on that rather than keep grandstanding here with our endorsements - but we liked Nilu a lot, but then it turned out The Stranger went with ChrisTiana ObeySumner, who we didn't get a chance to interview, otherwise we might have been so inclined potentially - just couldn't get that scheduled. So we ended up going with Nilu, who is pretty strong on most of our issues - was clear she was for housing abundance. And we didn't love some of her police takes, but we thought she was the best candidate we interviewed. And then The Seattle Times went with Cathy Moore. D5 is a weird race because Cathy Moore is now the de facto business chamber candidate, but there aren't as clear of lines. Did you have anything on that or should I keep going? [00:05:18] Crystal Fincher: I think you should keep going and I will chime in at the end. But I do agree that is a race with a number of very interesting candidates that I think are all worthy of looking into. And I think looking deeper into, particularly ChrisTiana ObeySumner and what they're doing is warranted. [00:05:36] Doug Trumm: Yeah, we're gonna continue to try to get that interview scheduled, so there's always potential in the general - it can be different. Also, who knows who's gonna make it through that primary, so it could be a very interesting field - there's a lot of candidates who have a decent shot. Tye Reed also has the Transit Riders Union endorsement and some other progressive endorsements, and is running probably farthest to the left. We wrote in our write-up that we liked Tye as well, but we just thought Nilu had the stronger chance in the general and also a little bit more of a bridge builder. Then moving on to D6, we went with Dan Strauss. We weren't terribly excited about it. He's been someone who's definitely tacked to the center and to the right. And his district has too, so maybe that's just survivalism, but we don't think those votes are good - I'm thinking of his recent vote that gave Ann Davison the power to lock poor people and drug users on the street. It just seemed like a forced vote - there wasn't actually a treatment plan and a diversion plan offered, but on pinky swearing - I don't know how you would take that pinky swear from Ann Davison. So that was a culmination of a continuing slide to the right, especially on safety. And he's been all right as Land Use Chair, but also has moved fairly slowly. But compared to Pete Hanning, his main competition, Dan's still clearly better so we went with Dan. And then D7, we went with Andrew Lewis. We thought Andrew Lewis and Dan Strauss were very similar - they both reflected as progressives and there was always questions about how progressive they really are, but I think Andrew's done a better job than Dan at defining himself and taking some brave votes here and there - he's been more accessible in explaining his waffles, rather than waffle-and-hide - I think that waffling is indicative of his kind of process to get somewhere. I'm not sure, always, what Dan's thinking. So we went with Lewis. The people running against Lewis also are all running pretty far right. It wasn't like there was someone who was gunning for The Urbanist endorsement in that race. But I think Lewis, as Chair of the Homelessness Committee, has done some good stuff and been very clear about trying to set up a alternate response and really hammering on that, so he's definitely worthy of a second term. We also endorsed in King County Council. One really hard race for us to endorse - because we had so many candidates we liked and we really went back and forth about how to do it - we ultimately decided not to do a dual. But in District 4 of the King County Council, which is Northwest Seattle, we went with Becka Johnson Poppe. And she works at King County now as a Budget and Policy Director, and that experience pushed her over the top for us. She's someone who already can hit the ground running. She knows this stuff inside-out and she has credibility - she is a progressive and has pushed on stuff. And one thing we're really watching on the King County Council is Metro Transit service - it's not where it was pre-pandemic, there's less frequency. And she's someone who's been clear about county-wide Transportation Benefit District, which could fund bus service and get us back to that pre-pandemic level eventually. Oddly, the King County Council's been dragging their feet on that and letting obstacles stand in the way rather than solve those obstacles, which is always frustrating to see. I think getting some new people in there, maybe they can take more of a problem-solving approach rather than - We can't get enough bus drivers, so I guess we're gonna accept mediocrity from our transit delivery. [00:08:32] Crystal Fincher: If that would have been a dual endorsement, who would have been the other? [00:08:36] Doug Trumm: Probably Jorge Barón. The vote didn't go that way, so I couldn't say for certain how it would have went. We liked all three candidates in that race, so I think it would probably have been Jorge - who got in late, but has an incredible record as far as leading [Northwest] Immigrant Rights Project. He's led that organization, has done incredible work. We certainly heard from him how he was going to apply that background to advocating for people of color communities in the county and understanding their issues better. And even though you're not gonna be determining that policy at the county level, you are doing a lot of policy that still affects people's livelihood. So liked Jorge Barón - he ended up getting The Seattle Times endorsement, he's pretty progressive for a Seattle Times endorsement. It might just be a reflection of three pretty progressive people in the race. Did The Stranger also go with Jorge? [00:09:19] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, he nailed what many candidates don't usually nail, which is getting both The Times and The Stranger endorsement. That doesn't happen that often, but when it does, it is usually a very encouraging sign for that candidate. But you're right, this is a race where there are only good choices. And so it just depends on your personal preferences and who you think can best carry out the vision - three solid candidates, each with impressive resumes and impressive experience. [00:09:49] Doug Trumm: Yeah, the third being Sarah Reyneveld, who got the Transit Riders Union endorsement, and I think a handful of labor endorsements. And has also been someone who's been active on transit issues - that countywide Transportation Benefit District, or other funding measures, to get the county back on track. Another open seat in the County Council in District 8, a more West Seattle-type area all the way to Burien and Tukwila. We went with Teresa Mosqueda, which was an easy choice for us, especially after her main competition - Burien Mayor Sofia Aragon - has been on this get-the-homeless-people-out-of-our-city-and-not-provide-services tangent now. So Teresa Mosqueda has been a great City Councilmember in Seattle, and obviously it'd be tough to see her go. She has a clear plan of how she's going to continue working on these issues at the county - transit, housing, healthcare, and childcare kind of being the pillars of her platform. And yeah, she's just someone who got a lot done, including JumpStart, which was the biggest step forward for progressive tax reform in Seattle in maybe ever. So I think that kind of resume is tough to beat. [00:10:49] Crystal Fincher: And that makes sense. There are a number of races for people to choose from this year - definitely going to be reshaping what the Seattle City Council looks like, with so many vacancies and so many open seats and new candidates that are going to be coming aboard. I think it's a solid group of endorsements. There are arguments that can be made for some other candidates in some of those races. I think District 5 is one of those where there are a number of good choices. You talked about Tye Reed, who was instrumental in the passage of social housing in Seattle - making that happen, getting that passed, and has been an organizer for a while around a number of different issues in the city. No one can question Tye's dedication to these issues and real personal investment - and making sure it can get better. We talked about ChrisTiana ObeySumner and Nilu Jenks, so we'll see how that race turns out - that's going to be another interesting one to check out. So we'll leave that there. We'll probably include links to other endorsing entities - just as you try to make up your mind as a listener and a voter - just to give you resources there to assist with those. Also want to talk about a number of other things, but we will go to this brief story about a drive-by shooting - evidently, sheriff deputies were on-site. There's not much that's been reported, and it really seems like the reporter dictated an initial statement from the police and didn't ask any questions. I'll read it to you, and then we can talk about it. Title - Person killed during drive-by shooting in Federal Way, police Say. A person was killed during a drive-by shooting while King County Sheriff's Office deputies were performing a wellness check early Saturday morning in Federal Way. Officers were attempting to check on the person seen behind a property in the 3900 block of South 320th Street shortly before 3 a.m. when two vehicles sped off and two shots rang out. Sheriff's spokesperson, Sergeant Eric White said the person was hit by gunfire and died at the scene. Deputies followed the two vehicles but they got away. No arrests had been made as of Saturday afternoon. Several businesses are located in the area of the shooting. That's the whole story. That's quite an interesting tale. What is your initial reaction to this, Doug? [00:13:16] Doug Trumm: Yeah, it's a head scratcher - have a story, we don't have a lot to go on. It tears down the mythology of what policing can do, especially with us rolling back our police chase limitations and letting police go hog wild in these chases again - at this past session at the State Legislature - because of pushback from the police lobbying forces. Theoretically, they were gonna do these chases and catch people exactly like this. They saw someone doing a drive-by shooting and they were in their cars, conceivably - this is the perfect time to do that chase. And yeah, it didn't work out, so it just underscores that using police chases is such a uncertain and certainly dangerous type of way to try to apprehend criminals when you can easily just ID the car and catch up with them later. And there's so many pedestrians and other bystanders that die in these chases - there really has to be a good chance of a good outcome, like some sort of win, to deal with that collateral damage. That's the first thing that popped into my mind. And the drive-by was apparently someone else. All these police press releases, reported with very little critical eye - when police are involved, they put it in passive voice and passive action. But because of that way they write the press releases, you wonder - Did the police open fire? Did they do anything? - we don't have that information yet. It was reported as a drive-by, so one would assume it wasn't just police opening fire during a wellness check. Were these people involved in the wellness check at all? - you end up with more questions than you have answers. In real-life situations, you realize there's so much that could go wrong. [00:14:42] Crystal Fincher: So many questions I have - a person was killed during a drive-by. Okay, so King County Sheriff's Office deputies were performing a wellness check. First thing, Federal Way has its own police department - doesn't contract with King County for its deputies. So these deputies, for some reason, responded instead of the Federal Way Police Department. Was it in response to a call? Who called it in? But they decide to go by themselves. Why were they on scene? So they were attempting to check out a person behind a property, they say, when two vehicles sped off and two shots rang out. I notice it doesn't say those shots came from the vehicle - it's vaguely worded and isn't useful, especially when there's so much that can be consequential, based on their characterization of what happens. Then the Sheriff's spokesperson said the person was hit by gunfire and died at the scene - I'm wondering if this reporter did anything but dictate this statement - did they ask anything about this? This is just a very vaguely worded statement. Deputies followed the two vehicles, but they got away. Again, this is a situation where even with the police pursuit law, they would have been able to follow them, but they said they needed a rollback to be able to catch criminals like this, and evidently that's not the case. What happened here? So no arrests have been made, no information has been shared that we've seen. What was the make and model of the car? Any description of the people inside the car? What came of that whole thing? There's no information. So if we take what they say at face value, what a spectacular failure in public safety. You have two officers on-site, and a person still gets murdered according to this account? All the excuses of they need more officers, they need more funding, we need to be able to have the officers nearby, on-site to protect people - there were two here, and they couldn't protect one person. How does that happen? Why does that happen? What was the situation? Was something missed? Did they not see people prowling in the area? What a failure. They assume that the shots came from this vehicle that killed this person. How do we not have a description of the car, a license plate, the people inside, any followup on that? Where does this case stand? None of that information provided. If police departments want to restore trust, if they want to have people work for them - those are the kind of answers that people want to see. Do people want to work for a department that can't stop a murder when two deputies are on scene, that can't apprehend a perpetrator when they have a zero-second response time and they can immediately respond? What is the purpose and utility here? And are they doing the work to figure out how to keep this from happening again, to figure out how to actually ensure safety? Unfortunately, too often that is not the case. And that's if you take everything just at face value here. It would be great to see some supporting information - some dash cam, body-worn camera video - just to see what happened, how this happened, and does the evidence match up with the narrative here? There is work that the Federal Way Police Department needs to do, that many departments need to do, and that the King County Sheriff's Office needs to do to rebuild trust within the community. [00:17:54] Doug Trumm: Why even run the story if you have so little information? It plays right into the police narrative. [00:17:59] Crystal Fincher: Yep, definitely a decision that The Seattle Times should dive into and ask themselves a lot of questions - about how this came to be published and what information they were relying on. Also wanna talk about the City of Burien and their continuing shame, really. The council majority deciding that not only do they wanna refuse the offer of shelter - the million dollars, 30-some odd Pallet shelters on provision, 100-ish parking spaces to backfill some space that a dealership was using. They are turning all that down and moving towards just a blanket camping ban in the city, which we've seen fail in so many other cities, but they are determined to do it themselves. This again is happening on a 4-3 council vote. The council majority, unfortunately, is winning this. What do you see happening here? What's your reaction to this, Doug? [00:18:57] Doug Trumm: Yeah, it's pretty sickening. I don't know that folks necessarily saw this coming. We saw some progressives elected onto the Burien City Council, so there was some hope that they were actually going to be looking towards making progress on this issue, doing things that actually work in the long term - rather than sweeping it under the rug and pushing it to other cities. But the four centrists on Burien City Council continue to hammer on this issue - they're not taking this offer of help that very few other cities in the region have, with so few strings attached, to a million dollars worth of housing for their homeless people. It's the type of thing that makes your head explode because - if you're mad about homeless people, having more roofs over the people's heads is the most direct way of dealing with that. And they had a million process complaints, like - Oh, what's gonna happen in five years or whatever? We're gonna be on the hook. It's just that type of thing that they wouldn't ask for any other offer of a million dollars from the county - suddenly they want a 20-year plan for this when they have no plan themselves. It's really, like you said, shameful. They've lost the majority of their Burien Planning Commission, as you've talked about in this podcast before, because of this move when the mayor decided to remove the head of the Planning Commission and then some other Planning Commissioners quit in protest. We all covered all that, but the one thing that's gonna happen if that commission continues to be unfilled is it's gonna slow down the production of housing in Burien - large projects have to go to that commission. If that happens, you're exasperating your housing shortage - they're creating the problem that they're complaining about. It's maddening, it's not treating these folks as human beings - I think it was Stephanie Mora referring that they should poop in doggy bags like they're dogs - it's clearly dehumanizing language. I think should be disqualifying for holding this office, but hopefully they lose their seats. For now, they're the people making policy for a city of about 50,000 people - it's crazy. [00:20:43] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it absolutely is. And as you talked about, Mayor Sofia Aragon, Deputy Mayor Kevin Schilling, Councilmember Jimmy Matta have been part of making these decisions that are unconscionable. This is really a depiction of this soft, kind of progressive rhetoric with a wink and a nod. In previous statements, they had talked like - We definitely want to sweep, but we'll do it in a nice way, in a compassionate way, in the progressive way. But when it comes down to it, they really weren't interested in that at all. They just wanted to get people away and using very dehumanizing language. The real tell is - the place where they usually make an excuse and get away with it - We don't have the money. We don't have the resources. If we could, we would, but we just can't - we don't have anything, I'm sorry. So the only choice we have is to sweep because we just don't have the choice to do anything else. King County basically called that bluff and said - Okay, we've got a million dollars for you. We've got Pallet shelters ready to go. We've got a location that we can partner with. And hey, this dealership is gonna be impacted? We'll provide 100 parking spaces, which is larger than their inventory. - every objection, every excuse, every hurdle that they had was basically responded to by the county. And by the way, kudos to Dow Constantine and his office for taking a stance and for trying to constructively work with the City of Burien. There sometimes have been criticisms for Dow doing that in South County. He is doing it here. And Burien and the Council majority - they turned all that down. They could have already housed the people there. This would make a meaningful, visible, substantial difference in their situation overnight - once this is implemented - and they just decided not to. They're just looking for a ban. Bans are wholly ineffective, as the prior sweeps were wholly ineffective. And they just moved people from one location to another and making, as you said, the problem they're allegedly trying to fix even worse. This is just a continuing shame and negligence from the council. These people are their constituents - whether someone has a home or not, these are Burien residents - and their job is to help them and to serve them. And they refuse to do so. And it's shameful. It's pathetic. [00:22:59] Doug Trumm: Hopefully they come to their senses - this 4-3 split has been pretty durable. [00:23:03] Crystal Fincher: We will see what the primary elections hold. Sofia Aragon is running currently for King County Council against Teresa Mosqueda. I don't think anyone really expects Sofia to win this race. But it is really important to make sure people don't just rest on their laurels and sit on the sidelines. And even in this primary, even when it seems like one person is clearly more qualified than the other, you actually need to vote and make your own choice. [00:23:28] Doug Trumm: These are like conservative trial balloons - they're testing the waters - can Democrats get away with very conservative Trump-esque rhetoric, dehumanizing homeless people, pandering to cops in completely unaccountable ways? They want to see if that works. I don't know if Sofia is connecting these two - it seems like she would be when she declares for office for the King County Council race. But maybe her calculation is this makes her more popular. And I think it's really incumbent upon people who don't agree with that to actually turn out to an odd-year election, because it's validating that approach. And you're going to see more and more of it if people get rewarded for that. [00:24:05] Crystal Fincher: That's blatantly the calculation that they're making. Kevin Schilling has an opponent - Patricia Hudson - running against him right now, who is the progressive choice who is endorsed by King County Democrats. I mean, they received a very unusual letter of rebuke from the King County Executive's office, also from the 33rd District Democrats, which encompasses part of Burien. And the other part of Burien is the 34th, who also submitted an open public letter of rebuke. Anyone who calls themself a Democrat on record, locally, is outwardly opposing it. And it hasn't stopped them. In fact, they seem to be using that as cred. So this is important. These are still the people in office. They do need to be held accountable, and people need to make their voices heard. Another disillusioning development we've seen over the past couple of weeks is Ed Murray evidently popping up at political events around the region and definitely catching a number of people off guard. There seem to be some people who are okay with it. But just as a reminder - Ed Murray, former legislator, former mayor of Seattle, had to resign in disgrace as mayor of Seattle after credible allegations of molestation of underage people who were under his care and also potentially a family member. Also troubling was his response using someone's background against them - they were going through hard times as unhoused youth working with LGBTQ youth, who oftentimes very unfortunately are disowned by family, kicked out of the house, and left in very vulnerable positions - to then cite that vulnerable position as a reason why someone may not be believed was really victim blaming. The entire community, who has so many people who have been victimized - was a re-victimization to hear that. But he's been out of the public eye for a while and seems to be doing a soft launch to get back in. What's your reaction to this? [00:26:04] Doug Trumm: With someone like that who's had such a long political career, they don't start going to political events just for fun. They're plotting getting back into politics. He's clearly testing the waters here, seeing if he can get back into politics. He's seeing if he can get acceptance enough to the point where he can run for something again or be a campaign manager. I don't think it should happen. And it's also not a pleasant experience for folks who did have a negative reaction to his handling of that situation - making it very hard for his accuser to come forward because he was using the whole weight of his office against that person. That's not how you handle it if you're a leader - you don't victim blame. Luckily, he finally resigned, but he was going to hold on to that office with everything he had. [00:26:44] Crystal Fincher: I also think that's a low bar. It's wholly inappropriate for him to be in these. There's been no atonement. There's been no acknowledgment of what he's done. And while I don't believe in throwing people away forever, there has been nothing to indicate that he acknowledges what he's done, that he's attempted to make amends to his victims. In fact, that seems quite the opposite. He's just hoping to pick up where he left off. I think it is going to be really interesting to survey who is okay with him being at political events, and at their political events, and who is not - and what that says about different people as candidates. Who is finding this troubling and who is finding it just fine? I'm curious about where he does feel welcome and why, and what that says about those spaces. We will see how this continues to unfold throughout the city. And if you spot Ed Murray, shoot me a message. Also, a pretty significant court ruling this week came in about encampment sweeps, particularly about the City of Seattle - Seattle has been sweeping too broadly and is unconstitutional in its application. When there's clearly a risk to public safety or they are blocking completely a sidewalk, there is cause for encampment sweeps. But they've been doing it too much and for reasons that are too broad - they need to effectively offer shelter and provide shelter if they're going to sweep people. Without that provision of shelter, there's nowhere else for someone to go. It is illegal to say you can't exist here - in essence, you're saying you can't exist anywhere. And this court ruling was powerful with some pretty clear statements calling the current policy dehumanizing, destabilizing, and counterproductive. How did you see this? [00:28:31] Doug Trumm: The two individuals who brought it - their story was so tragic - they mentioned losing wedding rings, family heirlooms, because they've just been repeatedly swept while they're getting services or going to work or whatever. One person mentioned losing their work boots and then that jeopardized their employment and that sunk them deeper into the spiral of homelessness. They kept getting these last-second-notice sweeps because they were supposedly an obstruction. If the definitions are broad, they don't have anywhere to go. The ruling says the two main ways they were bending this rule is they were defining the blockages - 50% blockage, it becomes 100% blockage in their eyes, or even a 30% blockage - because some of these sidewalks in downtown are fairly wide. And unfortunately, some sidewalks in our city are pretty narrow. Often folks aren't trying to block the whole sidewalks. They're trying to go somewhere they can and not fear that their stuff's gonna get snatched up and taken away. They lost all these valuable possessions, including their wedding ring. What are we doing here? This cruel unusual punishment that rises to a constitutional violation and this judge issues this ruling. Now the City's gonna have to rethink how they do this. The other main way they avoid the Boise ruling, Martin v. Boise, is they say that anything in the park is an obstruction - because someone wants to use that particular part of the park, even if it's some secluded, say in the forest, in a large park when 99% of the park is still accessible. Part of Mayor Harrell's campaign pledges to clear the parks. Some of the parks are clearer than they were when he took office, but others still have encampments and it goes to this whack-a-mole approach of you're constantly chasing people around the city at great expense and great suffering to some individuals, like the two that brought the suit, and we haven't made durable progress. [00:30:11] Crystal Fincher: Another event this week with Sound Transit - Mayor Harrell is up for a Denny Station on West Lake Avenue again. How'd this happen? [00:30:19] Doug Trumm: Hey, I gotta give credit to grassroots organizers there - there's a lot of people involved. Seattle Subway sent, I think, over 6,000 letters via online petition. Uptown Alliance got a lot of letters because they were also very dismayed to see that the station on the eastern edge of their neighborhood was suddenly gonna disappear - at a whim - six, seven years into this process. And what was happening here, if you didn't follow this story, is there's gonna be obviously this new Ballard Link Light Rail line that will go from Downtown to Ballard. And on the way, it's gonna pick up Denny Triangle, it's gonna pick up South Lake Union, it's gonna pick up Uptown. And these were gonna be really high-use stations, but there's one problem in that some of the corporations and real estate interests in Denny Triangle were not excited about the station location. Folks like Amazon, Vulcan, were lobbying against this location because they didn't like the closure of Westlake Avenue, they said, which South Transit at this point in this process was estimating a full closure of four years. They're putting the station right under Westlake so they do have to mine it, it's gonna be closed for that part. But they realized that they could put decking over the top - they didn't propose that initially 'cause it's more complicated and expensive. But they realized they could do that, obviously, if the alternative is putting some station two blocks to the west, which is what the proposal that came forward out of this last-minute wrangling - wasn't in the DEIS, the draft environmental impact statement. So that means it requires more planning and process. So there's two public meetings online that Sound Transit is hosting - I think one of them is today and the other one is a couple of days from now - we can link to that in the notes maybe. But because this shifted-west alternative came forward late in the process, was proposed as a way to alleviate these concerns from corporations and real estate - they had to do this process. The mayor backed it at a meeting last month, I think it was, but then last week he walked that back. He said - You know what? We really need to keep the South Lake Union Station because what happens with shifting the station west is it gets super close to the other station on Aurora, which is a major bus artery. - so that's where a lot of people were going to transfer from bus to rail. And it would put you closer to Uptown too if you're headed to the eastern part of Uptown. So the shifted-west alternative consolidates the two stations into one. And that's what sort of set off all these alarm bells with Seattle Subway and Uptown Alliance and the urbanists and others that - Hey, why are we dropping a station? And they presented to Uptown Alliance - Sound Transit did two days ago, I think it was - and apparently the consolidating those two stations, they shared their ridership analysis, which was new information. It's gonna cost about 10,000 riders - someone who was at that presentation told me. And that's a pretty big deal - 10,000 daily riders. So the mayor didn't have that information last week when he made his statement - he said he was still waiting for ridership to confirm his decision, but he said he's starting to lean Westlake and just wants a good mitigation plan, which I don't know why we couldn't start there from the first place - because we're seeing across, especially the Ballard Link Station, that there's lots of changes that are happening because people don't like the construction period and don't think the mitigation plan is very good. And there may be something to that. The mitigation plan should be really good, but rather than focus on the mitigation, we've been just tossing around all these different ideas and extending the - what that means is you have to do a whole new study and that delays the whole project. So maybe small progress there on the Denny Station decision - we can focus on how to do that right and get a good construction mitigation plan, rather than last-minute options that are un-vetted and are going to require another year or two of study. [00:33:51] Crystal Fincher: And with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, July 21st, 2023. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful cohost today is Publisher of The Urbanist, Doug Trumm. You can find Doug on Twitter @dmtrumm, that's two M's at the end. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. And you can find me on all platforms - Bluesky, SPILL, Twitter, all of them, Mastodon - @finchfrii, that's two I's at the end. You can catch Hacks & Wonks wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

On this Tuesday topical show, Crystal learns about north King County's innovative new Regional Crisis Response (RCR) Agency with its inaugural Executive Director Brook Buettner and Kenmore Mayor Nigel Herbig. Following national guidelines and best practices for behavioral health crisis care, a five-city consortium established RCR in 2023 as part of a vision to provide their region with the recommended continuum of behavioral health care - which includes someone to call, someone to respond, and somewhere to go. Executive Director Buettner and Mayor Herbig share how the program grew out of a need for a person-centered mobile crisis response, rather than the traditional law enforcement response which is often without the right tools or expertise for the job. They describe the collaborative process of getting buy-in from police agencies, electeds, and city staff to design a service that has evolved from the RADAR co-response program to approaching a 24/7 behavioral health first response. Finally, they cover impressive early results in cost-savings & outcomes and offer advice to other cities looking to bring similar solutions to their own communities. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Follow us on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find Mayor Nigel Herbig at @nigelherbig. Brook Buettner Brook Buettner is inaugural Executive Director of the groundbreaking Regional Crisis Response Agency, which deploys services to people experiencing behavioral health crisis in the North King County community. She is a Licensed Clinical Social Worker and an experienced human services professional with a focus on policy advocacy and program implementation for high-needs populations. During her two decade-long career, she has been focused on transforming systems to meet the needs of individuals who are high utilizers of both criminal legal and health and human services systems. Ms. Buettner holds Masters in Public Administration and Social Work from the University of Washington. Mayor Nigel Herbig Nigel grew up in the Seattle neighborhood of Wallingford, attended Seattle Public Schools, and graduated from the University of Washington with a degree in Political Science and Comparative Religion. Nigel and his wife, Tiffany, decided to move to Kenmore when their daughter was a baby as they were looking for a great place to raise their daughter where they could purchase their first home. They have never regretted that decision. Nigel has worked in broadcasting, fundraising, and politics. He currently works at the King County Regional Homelessness Authority. Mayor Herbig represents the Council on the Eastside Transportation Partnership (Vice Chair), and the Sound Transit SR 522 Bus Rapid Transit Elected Leaders Group. He also sits on the King County Affordable Housing Committee. Resources The Regional Crisis Response Agency | City of Kirkland   “RCR Agency Welcomes Brook Buettner as Executive Director” from City of Kirkland   National Guidelines for Behavioral Health Crisis Care - Best Practice Toolkit Executive Summary | SAMHSA   The North Sound RADAR Program | City of Shoreline   “RADAR: Response Awareness, De-Escalation, and Referral Final Evaluation Report” prepared by the Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy Department of Criminology, Law & Society at George Mason University   “North King County cities will broaden mental-health response to 911 calls” by Amy Radil from KUOW   “New Crisis Response Center in Kirkland to Serve North King County” from City of Kirkland    “$500k grant from DOJ to help reduce use of police force in North King County” by Hannah Saunders from Bothell-Kenmore Reporter   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review show and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, I am very excited to be welcoming Mayor Nigel Herbig - he is the mayor of Kenmore. And Brook Buettner, who's the Executive Director of Regional Crisis Response - a collaboration for a mental health alternative response between the cities of Kenmore, Kirkland, Lake Forest Park, Shoreline, and Bothell that's really innovative and I think a number of cities are looking at this in the region - want to just explore what this is. So starting out with Brook, how did you get involved in this work and what interested you in this? [00:01:27] Brook Buettner: Thanks, Crystal - I'm so happy to be here with you. So my background is that I'm a licensed clinical social worker and I also have a background in public administration. And most of my social work career has been in service of folks that have chronic behavioral health conditions, are living homeless, and then have some overlap with the criminal legal system - either with the police, or with having multiple charges around poverty, or around homelessness. So this is a really exciting program for me to be able to be involved in. [00:01:54] Crystal Fincher: Excellent. And Nigel, as mayor of Kenmore, what got you involved in this particular program and work? [00:02:00] Mayor Nigel Herbig: First, I want to start off by saying that I'm a long-time listener, and I'm excited to be here, Crystal - so thank you for having me. Kenmore entered into this work back in - I want to say 2017 or 2018 - when we joined with other cities and King County MIDD funds and started the RADAR program, which was a co-response model across parts of North King County to give folks other ways to have service calls responded to - without the only response being a police response, because I think we all recognize that a solely police response is not always the right answer and is not always in the best interest of everybody involved. And we did that successfully for a few years. And then in 2021, we started larger conversations with the cities of Bothell, Lake Forest Park, Shoreline, and then we reached out to Kirkland also, about expanding what we were doing with RADAR and making it into a larger regional model. And so our staff and our councils worked for about a year and a half trying to figure out how that would all work. And what we ended up doing was folding the North King County's RADAR Navigator program with Kirkland's Community Responder program to form a new entity that's regional in nature, is going to have a lot more resources, will be operating more hours during the day - I think we're aiming towards 24/7, I don't think we're quite there yet - and will really be a resource for folks who are experiencing, or decompressing in public, or having some sort of other issues so that they'll get a response that actually meets them where they're at. And gets them help immediately rather than the other alternatives, which are the ER or jail - both of which we know are not ideal for anybody who's experiencing either an issue with drug addiction or a mental health issue. So yeah, it's exciting to see multiple cities all coming together to recognize the issue and working together - 'cause as individual cities, there's no way that we could have done this - little Kenmore could've never done this on our own. But working with other cities, we're gonna be delivering something that I think will be meaningful to folks who are experiencing issues out in the field, and I think we'll be getting better outcomes for everybody. And I think that's something we're very excited about. [00:04:00] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. You talk about how challenging this is for individual cities to address and to deal with. I do think it's notable that there was an attempt, a recognition by Kenmore that this was something that needed to be tackled. There was the RADAR program, previously in place, that you just mentioned - this was built on top of and leveraged with the region. How did the discussions go with the region? How did you get buy-in for taking this collaborative approach? And how did you work through the design of the program? How did that work, Brook? [00:04:34] Brook Buettner: We're very lucky in North King County that there was already a great deal of support for alternatives to police response for people in crisis. As you mentioned, the commitment to the RADAR Navigator program that had been going on for about four years prior to this conversation and showing really successful outcomes for folks. And across our elected officials, our police leadership, and our community, there was a strong commitment to doing things in a new way for people in crisis. And so it was a matter of not having to bring people on board, but just discussing what's our shared vision - what do we want our community to look like and how are we gonna get there? And so it was a big lift for city staff to come up with the agreement, the interlocal agreement, that governs this entity - but it was done pretty quickly in my experience and very well to where we have a strong and robust infrastructure to start really offering these alternative services to folks in crisis. [00:05:29] Crystal Fincher: Nigel, what advice would you give to other cities working through this process right now in terms of figuring out the agreements that are going to govern these collaborative approaches, getting buy-in from various stakeholders? How did that work in your experience and what guidance would you give other folks working through this? [00:05:48] Mayor Nigel Herbig: I think part of what made things work, where we are in North King County, was the fact that we'd already been partnering with other cities with RADAR. But we also have other regional models that we're used to - we're used to doing regional collaboration around here. Kenmore is part of ARCH, which is a regional coalition for housing - which is a multi-jurisdictional affordable housing developer that covers kind of Kenmore and then down to the Eastside. And so we're very used to working in a collaborative manner with our neighbors to address issues that we really can't do, again, by ourselves - we can do affordable housing, but it's very hard for a smaller city, right? It's a lot easier if people are pooling things together. So we already had those models that we were familiar with, which I think really helped some of the conversations - 'cause Kirkland's also part of ARCH, I think Bothell is too. So we're starting from a place where we understand how these models work. I think having trust between the cities is important also. We have good relationships with - I have good relationships with my colleagues in Kirkland and in Bothell and Lake Forest Park and Shoreline - I think that's helpful. And then also having staff that's willing to really dig into the details and work collaboratively with their colleagues is important. A lot of this came out of the fact that - and I think we all recognize this - the state and the county have largely been underfunding our mental health response for a long time. And even on our council, there was some pushback to - this should be a county response, this should be the county's responsibility. And I don't completely disagree with that assessment either, but I think we all recognize that something had to be done. And at the end of the day, sometimes cities just have to step up and figure out a way forward. And it's nice to see five cities coming together to work together towards a solution, while we try to figure out the larger long-term solutions that are truly regional and even statewide, frankly. [00:07:25] Crystal Fincher: So can you walk me through what your most frequent calls look like, feel like, what that process is? I think for a lot of people - they're familiar with the concept of alternative response, they're familiar with how important it is, and understanding that police can't do everything and they are not the most effective response for every kind of crisis - so having a tailored response that is most appropriate and most effective is really helpful. How, as you work through this, what does a typical call look like? What does a typical day look like? [00:07:58] Brook Buettner: In crisis, of course, there's no typical call or no typical day. But we are looking to deploy social workers or mental health professionals on any 911 call that comes in that has some identified component of behavioral health. So that's mental health, or substance use, or some social service need like a homelessness component, a family dynamic issue where it could be helpful to have a social worker there. And then the social workers - we call them crisis responders - the crisis responders are going either in the car with the police officer, or when possible in an independent vehicle and meeting the police officer on the scene. And we are stepping more and more in our community into the space of two crisis responders going to - responding to the scene - without a first responder. And that is really what we call the alternative response model. And it can be anything from somebody that has called 911 because they themselves, or somebody that they care about, is suicidal - has made suicidal statements or gestures. Or someone that is in a community space and is having mental health symptoms or substance use-driven symptoms that are causing them to be troubling to the other folks in that environment. To, like I said, family dynamics where someone calls 911, for example, because their teenager is so agitated and escalated that they become violent. And our crisis responders are very, very good at identifying what's going on, deescalating folks, bringing them down to a level of calm where they can talk through what's underlying the crisis. And then the crisis responder's job is to figure out what to bring to bear on the situation to alleviate the immediate crisis and then connect the person to the system of care so that they don't fall into crisis again. [00:09:33] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And it looks like you've structured the program on best practices for the continuum of behavioral health care starting with having someone to call - we have our 988 line, someone to respond - these crisis responders, and then having somewhere to go once it's determined where the appropriate place is for them to receive the help that they need. Especially when it comes to that somewhere to go, we just passed a county-wide behavioral health center levy that will fund a number of those services and staff. But that's been a big challenge in our region. How have you navigated through this in the program, Nigel, and how's it working? [00:10:14] Mayor Nigel Herbig: Well, I'm really excited. I mean, Kenmore and our partner cities - we're actually out ahead of King County a little bit and had been working in partnership for - I don't know, a little while now, I think going back to 2021 - really reflecting on the lack of a door for people to go to, a place for people to go to when they're in crisis. And working together, we identified funds and we identified a location, we identified our provider, and we will be opening up the first crisis response center for North King County. And again, it's the same cities - it's Kenmore, Lake Forest Park, Shoreline, Bothell, and Kirkland - and we're excited to have this model here. They selected Connections Health Solutions, which is a national innovator in the space. They've done a lot of great work in Arizona, and that model is also what I believe the executive based his models off of. And they should be opening up next year, and it's gonna offer a place for people who are facing any sort of mental health issue or behavioral health issue - a place where they can go and actually talk with somebody, regardless of insurance, regardless of where they live, or any of that. It'll give people a place to go, which right now is severely lacking throughout the county. [00:11:23] Crystal Fincher: What happens when there is no place to go? [00:11:26] Brook Buettner: I can kind of speak to that. So in the past, when we encountered someone in the field in crisis, the options were either that they stay where they are, that they go to the emergency department, or an arrest and jail - if it's not safe for them to stay in the community setting or in the home where they are at - safe for themselves or safe for the people around them. And this allows us an alternative to say - Maybe the emergency department is not the right place, and certainly jail is not the right place for somebody in deep behavioral health crisis. We're gonna take them somewhere that we know will accept them, we know will allow them to stay, will provide robust psychiatric and behavioral healthcare, and do discharge planning so that they're walking out with a plan and a connection to ongoing care. Connections, in particular, has a model that has multiple levels of acuity and step-down so that if somebody comes in at the highest acuity, they're in one setting. And as they deescalate, as they get different treatment on board or medications on board, they can step down to a lower acuity setting and even to an outpatient model while they wait to get hooked up with the local behavioral health system of care. And Crystal, you mentioned the behavioral health continuum of care, and I love that you brought that up because this is - North King County is about to have, kind of the first in our state, fully-executed crisis continuum of care when this facility opens up and it's super exciting. [00:12:44] Crystal Fincher: It's very exciting and so necessary. And I appreciate you all doing the work to get this implemented to be a model for the region. Other areas are looking at this - some areas are eager to adopt this and have public safety agencies, police agencies that are willing partners. Others have some concerns and there's almost a concern of - Okay, is this competition for us? Are they looking to move us out? What feedback have you heard from law enforcement officials, and how have they said it's impacted their job and the work that they have to do? [00:13:19] Mayor Nigel Herbig: To be honest, I haven't heard anything negative from our police partners - Kenmore, like Shoreline, contracts with the King County Sheriff's Office - they've been great partners in this. I think our chief is always looking for better ways to interact with folks who are in crisis and this gives him another tool. This gives him more resources to address the problem at hand, rather than only having law enforcement resources to fall back on - and I think he views that as a positive. So I have not heard any pushback from our law enforcement community up in North King County around this, and I think they're looking forward to using this as a resource and being partners in this. [00:13:56] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. For years and years - going back a decade and more - have heard several officers, chiefs talk about how challenging it is to respond to calls where there's a behavioral health component, or there isn't any illegal activity per se but someone is clearly in crisis, or people are being impacted around them and an intervention needs to take place but a criminal or a legal intervention doesn't seem to be the most positive. Brook, what have you heard from officers who have co-responded on these, or who are looking forward to a complete alternative response? How are they saying it's impacting their work and their ability to do their job? [00:14:37] Brook Buettner: We have been extraordinarily lucky in North King County that we've had support from law enforcement leadership since the get-go. Law enforcement was who asked for this program initially five years ago, saying these are not the kind of calls that we're supposed to be on - we need help, we need support. And so it has been a journey to get all of the responding officers - patrol officers and deputies - socialized to this idea. But once an officer or a deputy sees it in action, it's an easy sell. So what we find is that the more interaction we are having with law enforcement, the more referrals we're getting because they see - wow, that works - or we'll let them know that the follow-up that we did ended up keeping somebody from falling into deep crisis again. And it becomes a really good alternative for them and a good tool in their tool belt. I also am really attentive to making sure that we maintain good relationships on a one-on-one basis with all of our law enforcement partners, so that it's not a pain to have a social worker along but rather a pleasure - to say we're a great team, we work well together. Both sides recognize that each role has something to bring to a highly escalated crisis situation, and both sides recognize where their limits are. And so it's just been a constant growth of support and of buy-in. I've heard from several chiefs that they see shift in the culture - in the willingness to talk about behavioral health in a new way among the community and also within the department - that it opens up conversations that otherwise may not have happened. So it has really been a positive for our five police agencies. [00:16:05] Crystal Fincher: I think that is really an outstanding observation. And strikes me as important, especially as we hear from several police agencies across the state really that they're trying to recruit, they're short on officers, they're having a tougher time on that - and needing to triage their time and resources, and response times being impacted, other things that they're saying are being impacted. How can this help manage the workload for officers and across the public safety continuum? How has that been working? [00:16:34] Mayor Nigel Herbig: Speaking for Kenmore, our officers, right - until we had RADAR in place and until we had these partnerships - if somebody was out on the street decompensating, yelling, screaming, doing something like - like you said earlier, that's not illegal, but is disruptive to the community and the person is obviously in crisis - the only response we had was a police response. And I think even our officers recognize that there are better ways for them to be spending their time than dealing with somebody who's decompensating. It's not what they were hired for, it's not what their expertise is in. And this gives them a tool so that they can - working with the social workers - find what the right response is, hand off the person to the social worker, and then get back to catching speeders or investigating break-ins or whatever it is that they could be doing rather than dealing with the guy who is having a breakdown. So I view this as actually an expansion of our response, if you will - it gives us the ability to respond to more calls on both sides of things, both law enforcement and people experiencing a crisis. [00:17:38] Crystal Fincher: How have you seen that play out, Brook? [00:17:40] Brook Buettner: It is absolutely allowing officers to focus more on life safety and law - criminal law issues - by kind of carving off this segment of the work that comes into the 911 system and routing it to the appropriate resource, the right tool at the right time. I see what we're doing as a third kind of branch of the first response system. Going back again to the continuum of care, the level of care that someone gets should be based on the acuity of their need and of their crisis. And we have outpatient behavioral health for folks that have behavioral health challenges that are at a low acuity level. We have other systems in place that are secondary responses for people that are in crisis. And when people are in very high acuity crisis and 911 is needed, we now have this first response behavioral health tool in our toolbox - that crisis responders that are skilled and trained and experienced in meeting people that are in the highest acuity level of behavioral health crisis, but still not committing a crime. So it is a 911 call - it's not necessarily a law enforcement need, but there is a need for a very high level response - and we're now able to provide that. [00:18:47] Crystal Fincher: Did you have anything to add, Nigel? [00:18:49] Mayor Nigel Herbig: Well, I was gonna say - I think a lot of this came out of the recognition that we've seen over the last 150 years that when your only response is a police response, the outcomes are not ideal. We have seen too many folks who are dealing with a mental health issue - and that is a huge section of our population - it's not something we talk about, but a huge proportion of folks are dealing with some sort of mental health issue. And just because somebody is having a very hard day doesn't mean that they should end up in jail or be put at risk, frankly, of a police interaction. We know that sometimes those interactions can turn out tragically. And being thrown into jail or worse, because you're experiencing a mental health issue, can ruin somebody's life or - and frankly, can ruin not only their lives, but also their kids' lives. When we enter somebody into the criminal justice system, it has long-lasting effects on not just the person impacted, but also their family, their kids, their kids' kids - it can have multigenerational effects on people. And we've seen that play out over the last, well, 50, 100 years. This gives folks, this gives our police officers a different response. And I think it's - that's what I'm excited about - I'm excited that people who are experiencing mental health issues can actually get the treatment they need rather than a pure law enforcement response, because nobody deserves to go to jail because they're having a breakdown. [00:20:12] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And it's a shift in how we've been doing things. What are the results that you're seeing from this? Obviously, people are looking to justify these expenditures and implement these in their own areas. What results are you seeing when it comes to amount of calls, recidivism? I know in some other cities, they talk about how many calls come in about behavioral health issues that aren't someone breaking the law but that are someone in crisis, as you've talked about, and how much time that takes up, how many repeated calls those spur, and how much time that demands - just the amount, enormous amount, of resources that demands. How are you seeing that impacted and what results are you seeing from this program? [00:20:55] Brook Buettner: Directly to your question, Crystal, we don't have a lot of data yet on reduction in 911 calls, or 911 dispatch center or officer time. I do have some outcome data though that our King County partners were able to pull together for us for the RADAR Navigator program - that folks that were touched by the RADAR Navigator program - in two years following that program touch, we saw a 67% reduction in adult jail bookings. And that is a tremendous impact. We saw a 60% reduction in behavioral health crisis events. And that is measured by King County's Department of Community and Human Services who oversees the behavioral health system crisis response. They also experienced a smaller 4% reduction in emergency department visits. And of the folks that our program touched, 14% were subsequently enrolled in publicly funded behavioral health services. And I think that's a significant undercount because a lot of the folks in our community do have private pay insurance and so there would be no way to count that. But we know that interaction with this program results in a reduction in jail, a reduction in crisis services, and an increase in engagement with the behavioral health system. And those are all big wins. And to your specific questions, those are the kind of things we're gonna be looking at in our program analysis as we go on. How is this saving on 911 calls? How is this saving on officer time? My dream is that we capture the cost savings of reduction in jail nights and say - let's put that back into the earlier end of the continuum of care and fund diversion, and ultimately fund a robust system of community-based behavioral health care so that people don't fall into crisis. Again, I wanna say we're extraordinarily lucky that our electeds and our city staff are all so interested and committed to doing this kind of analysis and thinking in this way. [00:22:37] Crystal Fincher: Thanks - I appreciate that data, that information - it's really, really powerful. And what strikes me hearing that is that when you talk about being booked into jail, emergency room visits - these are the most expensive parts of our system to use and to utilize. And savings on these are incredible - I'm looking at that reduction in the jail number, and that is a budget-altering number right there. Pretty incredible. And I recognize this is a newer program - certainly you've done the work with the RADAR program, this predecessor, and getting the data there. I'm sure more will be rolling in as this continues and you move on, so that's great. Did you have something you wanted to add, Brook? [00:23:16] Brook Buettner: Yeah, just a thought that this is what we sometimes call a different purse problem - that each of these reductions affects a different financial system. And so part of our work is gonna be pulling together those cost offsets and making sure that the savings are redirected appropriately to meeting people's needs. [00:23:34] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, that is such an incredible problem in the public sector - yeah, this is saving a billion dollars, but if that's spread across a ton of different budgets in different ways, it's a whole different animal than someone handing someone basically a rebate check for a billion dollars. As you look forward, you talked about moving forward and moving towards a program where it truly is an alternative response where there are one or two crisis responders who respond to these calls without law enforcement initially - they can certainly call them in if it's warranted or they need backup. How do you see this progressing with that change and beyond it? What are the plans? [00:24:14] Brook Buettner: First, I'll say that the primary challenge that stands between us and a pure alternative response system is the dispatch question - and the ability to understand when a 911 call comes in, what's really going on - and that is often not clear from a 911 call. So we really wanna work through this very carefully with all of our partners and make sure that we're doing the outreach in a way that's safe and appropriate, that meets people's needs, but also keeps our responders safe. And so that is probably my work for the next two years - is digging into - How do we do call receiving? How do we triage? And then how do we appropriately dispatch the right resource? I have kind of been moving from calling it alternative response to thinking of it as a behavioral health first response. Whatever - when someone is in behavioral health crisis - whatever resource is the right resource. And I can see, for example, that being a crisis responder plus an EMT when someone has or has stated that they will take too much medication - and that's a medical plus a mental health need. Whereas if there's maybe a weapon in play, then that's a law enforcement plus a mental health need. And so thinking of it as a first response system with all of the tools that we need available to our dispatchers. [00:25:27] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Nigel? [00:25:28] Mayor Nigel Herbig: I think something that Brook kind of glossed over a little bit - but I think is an important thing that we're gonna have to work out - is the fact that we're using multiple different police. We have different police forces, if you will, and different dispatch systems. So like I said earlier, in Shoreline and Kenmore you have King County Sheriff's Office and they're dispatched in one way. And then Lake Forest Park and Bothell, they have their own. And Kirkland, they have their own police officers and they're dispatched differently. And so it does create - it is a complication that I believe we'll work through. And I know with Brook's leadership, that'll get worked out - but it's not as straightforward as just having one dispatch system that we need to educate and get up to speed. [00:26:06] Crystal Fincher: How is this being funded? How much did you have to come up with as individual cities in this regional partnership? How is the funding talked about? Because this is something that has been kind of thorny when we look at the Regional Homelessness Authority, but with this collaboration, how does this work, Nigel? [00:26:25] Mayor Nigel Herbig: I can't get into what the specific numbers are we're spending - I do know it's more than what we were with RADAR. Part of that is because we're expanding things from - we're approaching 24/7 is part of the goal. Part of this is also funded by King County MIDD, the Mental - oh, I don't remember - [00:26:41] Crystal Fincher: I know - I always try to remember what MIDD stands for. [00:26:43] Brook Buettner: Mental Illness Drug Dependency. [00:26:45] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. [00:26:46] Mayor Nigel Herbig: Thank you, I was just digging around. [00:26:48] Crystal Fincher: Very, very useful. [00:26:50] Mayor Nigel Herbig: No, super useful - and they're the reason why we were able to do RADAR and test out, essentially test out the model, set the foundation for where we are now - is because of the MIDD funding. And we're very thankful to King County and Councilmember Dembowski for his help with that. Our expenses are definitely higher than they were in previous years with RADAR - there's no question around that, and it was part of our budget discussions last year. But I think it's something that we're all committed to because we do see the long-term payoffs - not just on our budgets, but frankly in outcomes - and all the councils seem fairly committed to that. So I believe that they - I wasn't involved in these negotiations, staff was - but I believe that they were negotiating based on population and number of hours that would be required to cover each jurisdiction, and then breaking up the cost and using some sort of formula that we all agreed to. Brook can probably speak a little bit more to that, but we got to a place where everybody was comfortable with the investments that we'd be making. [00:27:47] Crystal Fincher: Sure, Brook? [00:27:48] Brook Buettner: Yeah, so like Mayor Herbig said, the MIDD funding has been really foundational to piloting this as the RADAR Navigator Program and even to the expansion. We also have some funding through the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs' Trueblood dollars for Mental Health First, or Field Response teams. And we have had some support from the Association of Washington Cities. And then I'm so delighted that starting this year, we have general fund contribution from each of our five cities. It is per capita-based at this time. We have plans to really keep a close eye on utilization and think about whether some cities have higher utilization and that may affect their contribution rate. But I also have plans to get the payers on the hook for this as well. So when we talked about the wrong purse problem - a 4% reduction in emergency department visits is a big bonus for insurers and for the managed care organizations. And King County Department of Community and Human Services and the behavioral health services organization have been thinking about this as well. How do we get the private insurers to be picking up what they are supposed to be covering for their covered lives around crisis services? There are a couple of folks at the State Legislature that are really thinking carefully about this. And I see us as being kind of a test case outside the traditional behavioral healthcare system to be reimbursed by the health payers for this service that ends up with better outcomes and lower costs over time. [00:29:07] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. As we move to close this, what advice do you have to other cities approaching this? And what would you tell residents about why this is so useful and so important? [00:29:21] Mayor Nigel Herbig: I think I would advise other cities to take a look at their 911 calls, talk with their police officers - see what sort of calls they're responding to that maybe they're not the best equipped first responder for. I don't think police officers enjoy these sorts of calls on their own. I also think that you can point towards the outcomes that we will have around better results for the people involved, better results for the community, and frankly, cost savings at the end of the day when it comes to jail days and ER visits. And other cities might be big enough to do this on their own, which will make their lives a little bit easier and all of that. But I think other cities - and if you're looking in other parts of the county, there are places where there are multiple cities all right next to each other that could, if they wanted to, join together and do this sort of work. And I would encourage them to have those conversations and really ask themselves - What do they want the response to be when somebody calls 911 in crisis? Because I don't think anybody actually thinks the right answer is a person with a badge and a gun. And I think people need to really reflect on that, and really think about how they truly serve the people that they are working for, and make sure they're doing that in the best and most responsive and person-centered way possible. And this is, I think, a huge step in that direction. [00:30:36] Crystal Fincher: Any final words from you, Brook? [00:30:38] Brook Buettner: I love what Mayor Herbig said - just asking yourselves - What is it that we want people in crisis to get from our first response system? And then from my social-worky side, building relationships across jurisdictions and across sectors to bring - this is very complex - so to bring all the players to the table to offer the kind of response that people deserve when they're in crisis. [00:30:59] Crystal Fincher: Well, thank you both to Brook Buettner, Mayor Herbig - sincerely appreciate you spending time with us today and helping to educate us on what's going on there in the north part of the County. And it's certainly a lot to reflect on and hopefully emulate moving forward. Thank you both. [00:31:16] Mayor Nigel Herbig: Thank you. [00:31:17] Brook Buettner: Thank you so much for having us. [00:31:18] Crystal Fincher: Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks, which is produced by Shannon Cheng. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on every podcast service and app - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, long time communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank!  They cover WA gubernatorial candidate Bob Ferguson's controversial and publicly-mocked  endorsement from former Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best, an escalating battle over an illegal encampment between the Burien City Manager and King County Executive legal counsel, how a proposed “Renter's Bill of Rights” from Tacoma for All is gathering signatures in Tacoma for a local initiative, the Seattle City Attorney and a right-wing councilmember's plan to rush through a restart of the failed War on Drugs, Seattle's new tree protection ordinance and the first meeting of the Seattle Social Housing Developer Board..  As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Robert Cruickshank, at @cruickshank.   Resources Sarah Reyneveld, Candidate for King County Council District 4 from Hacks & Wonks   @BobFergusonAG on Twitter: “I'm grateful to have the support of former Seattle Police Chief”   @davidstoesz on Twitter: “I recently had a long email exchange with the AG's office about why they didn't investigate Best's and Durkan's missing texts, a felony”    “King County Executive accuses city of Burien of 'lease scheme' to evict people from homeless encampment” by Nia Wong from Fox 13 Seattle   “King County expresses 'substantial concerns' about City of Burien's intention to sweep campers off city-owned lot; won't allow police to help” by Scott Schaefer from The B-Town Blog   “Burien City Manager responds to King County's letter warning that police won't help with encampment sweep” by Scott Schaefer from The B-Town Blog   “Dueling Tenant Rights Measures Square Off in Tacoma” by Kevin Le from The Urbanist   “Tacoma city officials discuss updates to Rental Housing Code” by Lionel Donovan from KING 5   “Slog AM: Seattle City Council Rushes to Vote on Drug War Reboot, Tacoma Landlords Try to Squash Tenant Bill of Rights, and DeSantis's Twitter DeSaster” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger   “Here's how the new drug possession law in Washington is different that what was on the books“ by Jim Camden from The Spokesman-Review   “Washington's War on Drugs Starts Up Again in July” by Ashley Nerbovig from The Stranger   “'Real people being represented': Seattle's social housing board is just getting started” by Joshua McNichols, Libby Denkmann & Noel Gasca from KUOW   Find stories that Crystal is reading here Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday topical show, I chatted with Sarah Reyneveld about her campaign for King County Council District 4 - why she decided to run, the experience she brings as a public sector attorney and community advocate, and her thoughts on addressing frontline worker wages and workforce issues, the need for upstream alternatives in the criminal legal system and substance use crisis, how to improve policy implementation, climate change and air quality, and budget revenue and transparency. Today we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, longtime communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank. [00:01:30] Robert Cruickshank: Thank you for having me back, Crystal. It's always fun to be on the show. [00:01:33] Crystal Fincher: Always great to have you on the show. So this has been an eventful week, but wow - last night, there was a little event that popped up that kind of took the notice of everyone who follows politics basically in Washington state, whether they were on the progressive side, conservative side, or somewhere in-between. That was Bob Ferguson's announcement of his endorsement by former Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best. Why did this attract so much attention, Robert? [00:02:03] Robert Cruickshank: Because Carmen Best is one of the most controversial figures in Seattle right now, coming out of the summer of 2020. And as Alexa Vaughn, for example, noted - she runs The Needling - this was posted on the anniversary of George Floyd's murder. And when Minnesota police murdered George Floyd three years ago, as we recall, it sparked a major wave of protest here in Seattle to demand reforms here. And in that response, that protest, Mayor Jenny Durkan and Chief Best systematically deceived the public, deleted their texts in what ought to be a felony, and essentially got away with it. Carmen Best then left her job as Police Chief of Seattle and is now making a fair amount of money as a TV pundit. And so Carmen Best, coming out of that summer, is seen as one of these leaders who sided with the cops against people demanding urgently-needed reform, and is seen as avatar of we-need-to-get-tough-on-crime policies - who has a very poor reputation among a lot of people in Seattle, including Ferguson's base. And that's what happened yesterday, in the reaction, was Ferguson's base - progressive people in Seattle who've been cheering him on as he takes on Trump, as he takes on big corporations - all of a sudden surprised to see him just bear-hugging one of the most notorious figures in recent Seattle history. [00:03:29] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and adding on top of that - the challenges during those protests, the deleted texts that you mentioned, but also the tear-gassing of neighborhoods. I don't think people understand how radicalizing that was for some neighborhoods in Seattle. They didn't tear-gas protesters. They tear-gassed entire geographical areas. People in their homes couldn't breathe, were severely impacted by that. And where do you go at that point in time? There are protests out on the street. You're at home with your kids, with your family, and getting tear-gassed in your home. That's what happened in Seattle, and people have not forgotten that. That was a radicalizing moment. I think you've seen instances afterwards in just relations and demonstrating that the trust with the police department is completely evaporated. Neighbors banding together to question people being detained for what seems like no reason because they no longer view them and the police as being on the same side after that. They felt attacked. You aren't attacked by people you trust - yeah. [00:04:33] Robert Cruickshank: Well, they were attacked. They absolutely were. And you talk about the stories of tear-gassing the neighborhood. I will never forget hearing at one of the City Council meetings in early June 2020, when this was all going on, a father who lived in an apartment on Capitol Hill talking about how the tear-gas got into his apartment and his newborn baby started crying and having fluid coming from its nose and mouth because it couldn't handle the tear-gas that had seeped in. This is an example of just complete disregard that Carmen Best had for the public. When the Council tried to ban the use of tear-gas, ban the use of blast balls that had been fired at peaceful protesters in June 2020, Carmen Best spoke out against that. So it is a legacy of attacking - with vicious weapons of war - the people of Seattle engaged in peaceful protests during this crucial moment in our City's history. And for Bob Ferguson to tout her endorsement comes off as the state's leading law enforcement guy - that's what he is as Attorney General - embracing Carmen Best and her narrative of what happened. And I think it's a real wake-up call and a shocking moment that maybe needed to happen. Bob Ferguson has had 11 years in office of very good press. He's fought hard for LGBTQ rights. He's fought hard to ban assault weapons. We talked about his lawsuits against Trump and against big tech companies. And rightly, he's gotten a lot of credit for that. But we haven't seen much about his other views on other issues. He hasn't been asked to take a stand on housing, transit, policing. I don't believe he weighed in, at least certainly not in a loud public way, on the question of what to do about the Blake decision. And so as he's launched his "exploratory campaign" for governor, racking up endorsements all over the place - literally left and right - Pramila Jayapal and Carmen Best. He hasn't gotten a lot of scrutiny yet. I think yesterday's move to announce the endorsement of Carmen Best means he's going to start getting a lot of scrutiny. I think the honeymoon for Ferguson, at least in Seattle, is over. Now that may not be a bad thing in Ferguson's political calculation, but I think you saw the governor's race shift substantially yesterday. [00:06:41] Crystal Fincher: I think so too. What do you think went into this political calculation to seek, and accept, and publicize this endorsement? [00:06:51] Robert Cruickshank: I think Bob Ferguson is trying to shore up his right flank. He's probably looking at what he saw south of the border in Oregon last year, where the Oregon governor's race was dominated by questions of public safety. He's seen similar things happen around the country where Democrats are attacked on this. I think he is also seeing that right-wing Democrats, like Mark Mullet, are making noise about running for governor. I think Ferguson feels he has to shore up his position on the right and the way that he can do that is by touting law and order. And in fact, the day before he announced Carmen Best's endorsement, he also announced the endorsement of Federal Way Mayor Jim Ferrell, who had run for King County Prosecutor last year - losing to Leesa Manion. And Ferrell ran on a more law and order right-wing approach, so there's clearly a calculated effort here by Ferguson to show - at least maybe the media and a certain segment of the electorate - that he's not like those other Democrats. He's not a Seattle Democrat who's, in the parlance on the right, soft on crime. He's going to be tough on this stuff, and I think it means that quite a lot of scrutiny now should be directed his way in terms of asking him where he stands and what he believes on the major issues of crime and public policy. [00:08:03] Crystal Fincher: That makes sense. When you see this, especially with such a - at least from the online vocal right - also such a backlash from them. This is one of those where you look at the ratio and people are like, My goodness - there was not a positive reaction to this. It was pretty negative across the spectrum. It was universally negative across the spectrum. Who does this help him with? Who do you think - there's their calculus - but in reality, do you think this helps with anyone? [00:08:36] Robert Cruickshank: I think that Ferguson has been waging a low-key but significant effort to try to win the support of The Seattle Times. He was a supporter of legislation in Olympia this year that would have created some tax breaks for media companies, including The Seattle Times, and Times lobbied hard for it. The bill was also sponsored in the Senate by Mark Mullet, so I think Ferguson is looking at this - trying to make sure that he has The Seattle Times in his corner, certain right-wing Democrats in his corner. But they're not a huge portion of the electorate. The sense I have is Ferguson wants to try to just clear the field as much as he possibly can in advance of the actual election. But there is a huge risk here because in building that coalition, you can't alienate another piece of it. Now, all of a sudden, he's got Seattle voters, who are pretty shocked by the Carmen Best endorsement, taking a second look at Ferguson. That's going to give an opportunity to someone like Hilary Franz, who launched her campaign but otherwise hasn't had much energy or momentum - gives her an opening to maybe try to win some of those Seattle voters over. [00:09:42] Crystal Fincher: There's another element of this that I find interesting, and actually this is the element that I would be concerned about backfiring over the long term - that it could play into a narrative that could turn out to be harmful. It's that - while questions were swirling around what happened with the East Precinct and how that happened, finding out the texts were deleted - which is a significant crime, really - and lots of people asking, Hey, Bob Ferguson, why aren't you investigating this? And him saying, I can't. But as has been covered several times - again recently - he has either referred, or spoken up, or suggested that in other instances. And so if a narrative catches on that - Yeah, Bob's tough if he doesn't have a friend doing something - you know, if a friend is doing one of those things that lots of people find objectionable, it's a different story if it's a friend. If it's a different story, if it's a donor, perhaps. It's a different story - that kind of thing. I would be concerned about that kind of narrative catching on. And so that to me is why - I don't understand - realistically - look, if you're trying to project law and order, he could have done what Jim Ferrell did. That didn't work for Jim Ferrell, but it didn't have this kind of backlash where - hey, different police chiefs - but to choose Seattle's Carmen Best, it just - my goodness, that is an unforced error, it seems. Lots of time left, more than a year in this campaign. Who knows who else is going to get in the race? Lots of time, so I am in no way suggesting this is fatal. He obviously financially enjoys a significant advantage and there's lots of time left. We have seen plenty of politicians at all levels step in it and make their way out. So I'm not saying that this is damning, but it's certainly - to your point - is going to invite more scrutiny than there had been before. [00:11:42] Robert Cruickshank: It is. And I was thinking about this earlier today - we haven't had a contested primary for governor on the Democratic side in Washington state in nearly 20 years. Last time was when Ron Sims and Christine Gregoire ran against each other in 2004. Inslee didn't have a challenge in 2012, and obviously hasn't been challenged since. We might have one now and I think that would be healthy - healthy for the Democratic Party, healthy for the state - to have different ideas out there, candidates running on policy and having to have discussions and debates about that. I think it'd be really helpful. Ferguson has had a lot of momentum early. He's racked up a ton of endorsements, as we've talked about, but he hasn't really been challenged on policy and he hasn't - made very few statements on policy. It was surely a deliberate thing on his campaign's part. That needs to change - that'll make Ferguson a stronger candidate in the general election. And it'll make all of us - whether we're big D, small D Democrats, or just voters who care about the direction of our state - better off when there's a real policy discussion happening in the primary. [00:12:42] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. We will continue to follow what's going on with the gubernatorial race, but in the meantime, in the City of Burien, there is a really contentious situation going on right now between the Burien - really interestingly - between the City and King County Executive's legal team. Can you just cover what is going on here? In a nutshell, what is the issue and what's currently happening? [00:13:13] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, the City of Burien - and it seems to be the City Manager in particular in Burien - is trying to sweep a homeless encampment. Now, here in the western United States, we're governed by a Supreme Court - or not, I'm sorry, not a Supreme Court decision, that's important - a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, which is one level below the Supreme Court, against the city of Boise, saying that you cannot sweep a homeless encampment without having made real good faith offers of shelter to those people you're trying to remove. At some point, one would imagine some city somewhere will try to take that to the US Supreme Court, which would be a nightmare, because I don't think we'd get a good ruling out of that. But here in the western US, we are all governed by that decision - which is binding from the Ninth Circuit - which means you can't just sweep people without giving them a place to go. That doesn't justify sweeps, but that's the legal ruling that cities operate under. Now, what Burien appears to have tried to do was redefine a city park as a dog park - as private park - in order to get around having to actually offer shelter. Because they don't have an offer, they have nowhere to go - that's why encampments exist - they exist because people have nowhere else to go. And so the City Manager said this is the plan we're going to do. Well, King County Executive's Office slapped down Burien pretty hard and said - You can't do that - that violates the court ruling - and we're not going to provide police support. Burien, like many cities in King County, many smaller cities, doesn't have its own police force. They contract with the King County Sheriff's Office. And the King County Sheriff's Office, after 2020 charter reform, the Sheriff is now appointed by the Executive. So the Executive now has more direct control over the King County Sheriff's Office than it had before. And so what Dow Constantine's office is saying is - We're not going to have police there to help do your sweep. Without police, you're going to have a hard time actually getting people to move. The City of Burien is striking back. The City Manager is disagreeing with this. But interestingly, people like Hugo Garcia, who are on the City Council in Burien, are saying - This is not us. We didn't authorize this. This is the City Manager going out and doing this on his own. And so now you have really a fight over power in Burien and who actually controls these important levers of city government - when it comes to people's shelter - is in question here. So Burien has a lot to sort out. [00:15:28] Crystal Fincher: A lot to sort out. And a little context further with this is - where the encampment is now - arrived there because Burien did previously conduct a sweep at one location that was city-owned. And because sweeps don't do anything to solve homelessness - housing solves homelessness - in an entirely predictable turn of events, the people who were swept wound up in an adjacent city lot because there's nowhere else to go. There was no offer of housing, no shelter. Where do you think they're going to go? Obviously, they're just moving place to place. We know that's how this works - over and over again - it's been covered several times, just locally here. So that happened. And so the Council in a 4-3 - they kind of have a 4-3 moderate to conservative majority there - they decided to enter into a lease with a private entity, and who billed themselves as dog park caretakers, in an attempt to allow them to trespass the people who are on that property as private owner-operators, basically, in a way to get around the City's requirement to do that. Well, that was just blatantly an end-run attempt, which Dow Constantine - wisely and following the law - decided not to adhere to. But now this is an interesting situation. As you said, there are councilmembers who said - Wait, wait, wait, this is not happening. The response to the King County Executive's legal advisor is not coming from us. The City Manager decided to respond on their own. The lease with the C.A.R.E.S. Organization - Burien C.A.R.E.S. Organization - is not executed yet. We don't think it should be. We need to reconsider and talk about this. But it's a legitimate issue. And Burien - frankly, there are a number of cities skirting the requirement to provide housing. That's why we see the whole theater around - they were offered housing and they refused, even if they know that the housing is not adequate, even if they know the shelter is available - them trying to check that off as them basically - checking on their list - okay, we have technically done the thing that will not get this sweep called unconstitutional, hopefully. Even though when it has been brought to court, it's been successfully challenged before. So we'll see how this continues to unfold. But it's kind of a - the equivalent of a constitutional crisis, almost - in a city, like a charter crisis. Who does actually have the authority to do this? Can the city manager act, in his capacity, response to this? Can he act independently of the Council on this response? Who knows? They were talking about an emergency meeting. We'll see what results from that. But certainly a lot of people and organizations are paying attention to this. And it is - it's a conundrum. [00:18:24] Robert Cruickshank: It is. And I think it is another example of the ways in which the regional approach to solving homelessness isn't working right now. The King County Regional Homelessness Authority lost its executive director last week and is spending a lot of money, but what is it showing for it? It's taking forever to get people into shelter. The idea behind the regional approach is - this is a regional problem - let's pool our resources and act quickly to cut through all the bureaucratic silos so we get people into shelter. It's what we all want. It's not happening. And I think - yet again, we're seeing another grand effort to solve homelessness not succeed because we haven't actually tackled the root of it. We're not funding enough supportive, permanently supportive, temporary shelter, whatever it is - it's not being done. The state isn't kicking in the money that's needed. It's hard to get the permitting. It's hard to find the zoning because we've been glacially slow to change zoning. We finally got some of that fixed here in the 2023 session, but - Ed Murray declaring a state of emergency over homelessness in 2015. I remember when I moved to Seattle, a little over 20 years ago, we were in the middle of the 10-year plan to end homelessness. We have these grand efforts that go nowhere. Meanwhile, people are in crisis. People living outside, whether it's in the cold of winter or the heat and smoke of summer, aren't getting their needs met. These are our neighbors who deserve shelter. And government just trying to pass the buck, just trying to appease a few cranky people who don't want to see a tent, but not giving people the help that they need and have needed for a long time. And we need to find actual solutions to get people housed and pay what it takes to do it. Otherwise, we're just going to keep seeing more stuff like this happen. [00:20:01] Crystal Fincher: We are. And we have to contend with the use of resources here. Burien's in a bind now. If they do buck this - and there's been some early talk - we don't need the Sheriff, we can stand up our own department. The reason why they haven't stood up their own department is because it's prohibitively expensive. And they're already spending a significant portion - I think almost half of their general budget - on policing currently. And so the money that we put into these sweeps, the money that we put into litigation, and the challenges of just working through this is all money that is being spent on things that we know are not going to do anything to make this problem better. At the most, you can make it disappear only in the sense that - yes, you sweep someone from one location, they're going to move to another one. Lots of people hope they just move to another one in another city so they don't have to deal with it, but they do. And now every city - look at housing prices, which are the biggest determinant of our levels of homelessness. Lots of people, employed people, families cannot afford housing. There is nowhere for them to go. So if we continue to waste our resources on the things that don't work, we don't have the resources for the things that do. And we're hearing excuses - Oh, we would love to do this. We would love to have more supportive housing. We would love to have more behavioral health supports. We would love to have more people to help shepherd them through this. Well, then stop spending the resources on the things that don't work, and start spending them on the things that do. That's not an excuse when you're making the decision to spend the money on the things that don't work and that are harmful - that should be a point of accountability right there. And instead they're using it to excuse and explain their actions - it doesn't fly. And I hope they do have a robust conversation about this. I know there are definitely councilmembers there who want that to happen, who want to focus on providing housing, and working collaboratively with the King County Executive to get that done. But the majority of the council, unfortunately, did not take that position at that time. I hope some come around and see the light. [00:22:04] Robert Cruickshank: I agree, and I think ultimately this is where the state needs to step in - you talk about how this is a problem everywhere. I took a train up to Vancouver, British Columbia, earlier this year and you could see under overpasses along the entire route, including in Canada, people living in tents, people trying to make - get themselves shelter under an overpass, whether it's rural Skagit County or the suburbs of Vancouver. This is a problem everywhere because we haven't built enough housing. We know that homelessness is primarily a housing crisis. When you don't build enough housing, when you don't have enough affordable housing, you get homelessness. There are the other reasons why an individual may wind up or stay in homelessness - people who have mental health needs, people have drug addictions - and a lot of that develops when you're out on the streets. Plenty of people fall into homelessness without being addicted to a single drug, without having any outward signs of mental illness. But once you're on the street, in what is a fundamentally traumatic situation where you are unsafe and do not have security or shelter, it becomes very easy to develop those other problems. And so housing is that essential piece of solving homelessness, solving addiction, solving all these other things that people need help with. And it's not being done. And asking cities to solve it themselves without giving them the financial support from the state government, or certainly not coming from the federal government - we're about to see massive spending cuts out of the stupid debt ceiling deal. Once again, it falls back on the State Legislature, and ultimately on our next governor, to figure out how they're going to solve it. Because when you leave it up to cities, you're going to get bad decisions. You're going to get things like we're seeing in Burien right now. It has to be solved at a higher level. [00:23:48] Crystal Fincher: It absolutely does. In another city development, there is an attempt to put a tenant's bill of rights on the ballot in the City of Tacoma. What do they want to do, and what would this mean for renters? [00:24:01] Robert Cruickshank: It's a really great thing. I think what you're seeing in Tacoma is a group coming together called Tacoma for All. And what they're trying to put together is something they call sometimes a tenant bill of rights. It's also been called a landlord fairness code. You do a number of great things such as requiring six months notice for all rent increases, relocation assistance for rent hikes over 5%, no school-year evictions of children and educators - that's a great thing to do because the last thing you want is for educators and families and students to be thrown out during the school year. It would ban deadly cold weather evictions, so if we're having a cold snap or a bunch of snow, you can't evict people out into the snow. It would cap excessive and unfair fees and deposits and ban rent hikes when there are code violations. Seattle has a lot of these things already, but Tacoma doesn't. And what a number of renters and advocates have seen in Tacoma is the need to bring those protections to Tacoma, especially because the state didn't do it - the state didn't act on a rent control bill that had been proposed earlier this year. So you're seeing a group of people come together with strong support from labor, from elected officials like Yasmin Trudeau and others, to make the Tacoma for All initiative a reality. They're getting some pushback from the City, obviously, which - the mayor doesn't really want to do this and offered a vague compromise solution but didn't provide details. And the organizers said - No, we're going to go ahead with our own initiative - which I think is the right thing to do. I believe there are three pieces to the stool of solving housing. You need more supply from the private sector. You need more supply from the public sector - things like social housing, public housing. And you also need renter and tenant protections. And Washington has started to add some more private supply, but we need more tenant and renter protections across the state. And so with the State Legislature failing, you're seeing people in Tacoma step up to act on their own, and I think it's a great thing to do. [00:25:53] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. They're in the middle of collecting signatures - early in the month, they had about half of them that they needed. They need to collect a total of 8,000 by June 15th to submit to the City, and they're actively signature gathering now. The Council could take action to put what they propose on the ballot - like you said, they're signaling that they're going to propose something, obviously. They're feeling the need to do something since there is something on the table right now, but don't know what it is. And it does not go as far - at least the indications based on what has been discussed in work groups so far - do not go as far as the Tacoma For All group's does. And it just doesn't seem like it's going to have the teeth. And so they're prepared to take this all the way, to try and collect all of the signatures - they're recruiting volunteers. And so it'll be great to see this get on the ballot and to have a full conversation about it. I do hope the City tries to take an approach that works because this is attempting to solve a real problem. And completely applaud Tacoma For All for stepping up to really address this problem. This is not a partisan issue. This is just a straight affordability issue. And it affects all of us, even homeowners who are happy with the way that their home price is appreciating - and it has quite a bit, I think home values have almost doubled in Tacoma over the past 10 years - but it's making sure that the teachers in our community, the pharmacists in our community, our transit drivers, everyone who is our neighbors, everyone who we rely on to make our communities thrive, really, rely on affordable housing. If your kid gets sick, do you want to be short a nurse because they couldn't afford to buy a million dollar home, an $800,000 home on an average salary? Lots of people are facing this and we have to contend with this. Displacement is already happening, especially on the Hilltop - it is an issue. It's not speculative. It's not in the future. It's happening now and it needs to stop. They can take action to help reduce the harm here. And I really hope they do. [00:28:04] Robert Cruickshank: Exactly. And I love that they're taking inspiration from what has happened in Seattle. A lot of these elements of Tacoma For All come from policies Kshama Sawant has championed. And Sawant, being the very clever strategist that she really is, fought hard for genuine rent control, has been denied it because the State Legislature won't do it. So she said - Okay, I'll go find other ways - any possible thing we can do under the rights that the City has, we're going to do it to protect renters. And it's worked. Not completely, but she can get these policies done and they provide some assistance to renters in Seattle. And Tacoma looking at that saying - Yeah, let's do that too. It's a good example of things we can do with stopgaps, but we still need the state to step in. California and Oregon have passed statewide rent stabilization laws capping annual rent increases. Washington needs to do the same. It is an urgent thing too. You mentioned being a homeowner - I'm a homeowner. My annual rent, so to speak, is capped. If you have a fixed term mortgage - 30 or fixed - that doesn't go up. It might go up a little bit because of property tax changes, but even those are capped - unfortunately, by Tim Eyman. So homeowners have essentially rent stabilization, but renters don't. And I think it's only fair that renters have those same protections too. [00:29:24] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now for the City of Seattle - bouncing back here - Seattle is looking to double down on the War on Drugs. What are they talking about, and how did we get here? [00:29:35] Robert Cruickshank: So this is Ann Davison and Sara Nelson and Alex Pedersen, the right wing of Seattle City government, trying to revive the War on Drugs. They believe that the answer to the fentanyl crisis, and in some ways the answer to visible homelessness downtown, is to criminalize. Let's go back to the War on Drugs - if you're using drugs, if you're a drug addict, the answer isn't treatment, it's jail. The irony here is that a lot of us progressives argue that what needs to happen is - these people need housing, they need treatment, give them a shelter, give them a room with a door that locks. Well, that's what Ann Davison wants to do - she just wants to put them in jail. Jail is a type of housing, but it's not the type of housing that's going to solve someone's addiction. In fact, it's going to make it worse, it's going to add more trauma, it's going to make it harder for that individual to escape the cycle of addiction and whatever other problems they're facing. But there is this desire among Seattle's right, which feels a little bit resurgent - over the last 10 years, the right wing in Seattle was on the back foot as we had a lot of really progressive policies come into place and they were wondering how do they strike back and now, they think they found their answer in really leveraging public concern about public drug use. But we know for an absolute fact that criminalizing the use of drugs does not solve drug problems, it does not end addiction - it's been conclusively demonstrated. Interestingly, the City Council, rather than put this to the usual committee process, is bringing it directly to a vote early next month. That could be read two ways - it could be read as either the City trying to do this quickly and put it into place before the public can react against it, or it's also possible that you have a majority in the Council that doesn't want to do this and wants to kill it quickly before it gets too close to the primary in August. Who knows? But it's an example of this absurd desire among certain people in Seattle to just go back to Reaganism - it's crack down on homelessness by jailing people for sleeping in a tent, crack down on drug abuse by jailing anyone smoking fentanyl. This is just stuff we thought we left behind, but it's an important reminder to those of us who are progressive that we're always going to have to deal with right wingers, even in our own city, even in a deep blue city like Seattle. People are going to keep trying to find ways to poke that electric fence to see where there's a weakness and where they can try to really roll back the progressive policies that they hate so much. [00:32:11] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it's - people who listen to the program regularly know how I feel about this whole thing. It is just really a shame. It is also as important as ever for you to contact your councilmembers, contact the mayor - let them know exactly how you feel about this. I think sometimes, especially in Seattle, it's easy to take for granted once progress has been made, that it's settled. Similar to - we thought Supreme Court law was settled, right? Everything is in flux. And there are people working actively to dismantle the progress that has been made. And counting on people being asleep - they know that they're in the minority. That's why they can't say what they really believe loudly and proudly all year long. And they do tend to strike in these ways that tend to minimize public engagement, support, time - trying to rush this through and let's just get it done. We see this done over and over again. And so I just hope that people understand that there really is a threat of this happening - that Seattle isn't above this, it's not beyond this. This is not something that we can take for granted. And I do encourage everyone listening to contact your City councilperson - contact all the Council people - and let them know where you stand on this, because there's going to be an upcoming vote in early June. And right now it looks like - it seems like - they're leaning towards criminalization and seems like they're leaning towards expanding the criminalization options even from where they were before. So please get engaged. [00:33:43] Robert Cruickshank: I think it's also important to - anytime you encounter a City Council candidate - to make it clear where you stand as well. Because these are - as the campaigns really start to kick into gear here after Memorial Day, as they sprint towards the August primary - we're going to have to tell these people running for the seats, especially where there isn't an incumbent. Quite a few districts like District 1, District 3, District 4, District 5 - let the people know that you are not a fan of criminalizing drugs. You do not want to go back to the Drug War. A lot of Seattle's state legislative representation voted against the gross misdemeanor provisions in the Blake fix that finally came out of the Legislature earlier this month. That was courageous of them - it's a good thing they did. We need to show similar leadership here in Seattle rather than just waltz back down the path of Reaganism. [00:34:32] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. Also in Council action this week was a tree ordinance that was passed. How did this develop and what ended up passing? [00:34:42] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, this has been in gestation for a long time. I remember we were talking about tree ordinance back when Mike McGinn was mayor, but it finally came to pass this week. And what the ordinance does - I credit the Harrell administration for this, and I credit Dan Strauss as well for finding a good middle ground that isn't perfect, but a middle ground that tries to harmonize tree policy and housing policy. What's really been going on is a number of people who don't want new density in our city have seized on the idea of trees as the way they can block housing. Oh, we're going to cut down all these trees to build housing. Oh, isn't this terrible? The way we can stop the density that we don't want is to make it almost impossible to remove a tree. And in their mind, a healthy urban forest is threatened not by the climate crisis, but by development. Now, we know this is wrong. The City's own research shows very, very clearly that new development is not a major factor, it's a very tiny factor in the loss of trees in Seattle. The main source of tree loss is in natural areas and parks. And why is that happening? Because the climate crisis. We had, as everyone remembers, that awful heat wave in the summer of 2021. And you saw those cedars go brown afterwards. We then had 120 days without rain in 2022 - that further stressed the trees. And some of these are old, majestic trees planted over 100 years ago in our parks and natural areas that are struggling now to survive in the climate crisis. That's where we're losing trees. Where do we need to get trees, build more trees, plant more trees? In City-owned right-of-way, and especially in southeast Seattle. So the answer here should be rather than give in to what the NIMBYs want and make it almost impossible to build anything new - you've got to harmonize these things. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, which produces those annual reports, has said numerous times that more urban density is a core element of solving the climate crisis, of reducing carbon emissions. And yet some of these NIMBYs want to use trees to undermine that. Now, we can't have one climate policy undermining another. We need to find ways to bring tree protections and housing construction together. And that's what the Harrell administration and Dan Strauss have tried to do. I know there are some housing advocates, who I respect, who are unhappy with some of the exact details of how this went down. I get that. At the same time, I and the Sierra Club believe it's a reasonable compromise that isn't going to hold back housing production. It'll help us have a healthier urban forest while avoiding blaming new density for loss of trees, right? This is a climate crisis issue. If we want to keep our great firs and cedars and other tall trees we love in the City, we've got to tackle the climate crisis. We have to build higher. We have to build denser. That's how we reduce the carbon emissions that is making everything so much hotter and putting these great trees under stress. [00:37:46] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And I think we're seeing a part of a trend here, we're seeing a tactic as part of an overall strategy. And that is from NIMBYs and from the right to co-opt progressive language, to co-opt traditionally progressive causes - and use those to try and sabotage development. And so we've seen this manifest in Seattle with different things or to get their way in a public way - we saw it with bike lanes in West Seattle - they're hard to get, but oh all of a sudden now that it could potentially displace some people who are living in campers, we're all for implementing a bike lane and an accelerated delivery timeline right here, right? We see - we've seen ADA regulations used to - in lawsuits - used to stifle transit mobility improvement. And it's really critically important - and you basically said this - to not give in to the - well, no these are more important than disability access, or this is more important than making sure we do have adequate trees. They want to create the friction between these two groups who are fighting for resources and rights and access. And the key thing to do is to basically join together in solidarity and saying both of these are necessities for our community. We need clean air, and we need everyone to be able to access everything required to live, right? So how do we figure that out? Not we just don't do one, or we just don't do the other. We fight and discount what's needed for the true issue. If we actually get together with people who are being used to do this, we can figure out solutions better and cut out the kind of astroturf middleman, who's just using a different group to try and get their way. It's really cynical, it's really just shameful - but we're seeing this happen a lot. And I - some people's immediate reaction is - I really want this, so I'm going to dig my heels in and say that other thing is bad it doesn't matter. And that's a trap that they want you to fall into, and that's a trap that hurts us all moving forward. We have to work together and make sure that we get our needs met and sometimes it's hard to thread that needle perfectly. Sometimes it's going to leave a lot to be desired, but we really need to keep working to make sure that everyone is getting what they need to be supported in this community. Also an exciting development with Seattle's social housing board having their first meeting. What happened there? [00:40:23] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah they - after the passage of Initiative 135 earlier this year - it created a new board to oversee the social housing authority. And this board is not comprised in the usual way - like typically a City commission or City board is - the mayor gets to make a bunch of picks the City Council gets to make a bunch of picks and they can pretty much pick whoever they want to. In this case though, the initiative stated that the board members had to come from certain backgrounds - he had to pick someone with urban planning experience, he had to pick someone who understands Passivhaus design which is very environmentally friendly. But most importantly, you have to pick a number of people with lived experience as renters or as unhoused folks - and that is what happened with this board. And it's a majority of people, I believe, who are not homeowners. And the idea here is to have this board represent the people, or at least the type of people, who would actually live in a social housing project once we get it built. So they had their first meeting, came together, they elected their leadership. Councilmember Tammy Morales was there and has been really the driving figure in getting this done, and I think one of the few - unfortunately - people on City Council who's really been strongly behind this. I think other councilmembers have been much more hesitant. But social housing is a key part of the solution - there's a great article in the New York Times earlier this week about Vienna - and Vienna has a ton of social housing, and it works really well in having a mix of incomes together, living in the same building where everyone's pulling together to help build a great community. It also includes space for people who are very low incomes or who are formerly homeless, so I think it's really exciting to see this process get underway - a board that is working well together, at least at the start. It seems like Initiative 135 is getting off to a great start, but the bigger question obviously going to be - How do you fund the construction of social housing? The people who wrote the initiative were advised, and I think correctly, that they couldn't do both at the same time - they couldn't create the social housing authority and have a funding source. Well now, we need the City to step up - and this is another thing that we're going to have to see City Council candidates talk about - Initiative 135 passed by pretty healthy margin in the City, it passed in every single Council district. So Council candidates should be on board, but if you talk to some of these folks - they're not all on board. So one of the things that I hope becomes a major issue in the City Council elections this fall is - how are you going to make social housing a reality, how are you going to fund it here in Seattle - because the public clearly wants it and there's clearly a huge need for it. [00:43:00] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. The public does want it - even at the forums that have happened so far - and we know that most people in the public are not tuned into elections yet but there are some who are - and shoring up this early support and making an early impression, especially in a crowded primary, makes a difference. And I will tell you, every forum that I've seen or been at - the public there has had questions about social housing. How are you going to secure funding, how are you going to make sure this implementation goes smoothly? They want to know about it, they want to know how they're going to support it. I fully anticipate this to be a significant issue throughout this entire campaign and beyond. The public voted for it, they want it, they're really curious about it, they're excited about it. And this is something that they feel could potentially put a dent in housing prices and start a blueprint - expand upon the blueprint - of what it looks like to implement this in our state and throughout the region, so really exciting. And with that, I will thank you all for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday May 26, 2023. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today is Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, longtime communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank. You can find Robert on Twitter @cruickshank. You can follow Hacks & Wonks @HacksWonks, and you can find me @finchfrii, with two I's at the end. You can catch Hacks & Wonks wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live week-in-review and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, please leave a review. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

5pm - King County Sheriff's Office hosts gun buyback event in Burien // Why do Americans own AR-15s? // History's most famous mug shots: Will Trump join this pantheon? // Chinese spy balloon was able to transmit information back to Beijing // LETTERSSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Join Cole McNeely and The Center Square's Washington reporters Brett Davis and Spencer Pauley as they discuss King County seeking state, federal coordination following narcotics seizures worth $17.5M in 2022. Seattle Public Schools are facing a deficit of $131 million that could cause the district to consolidate some of its schools. Proposed $2 wireless device sales tax would fund effort to end Washington's digital divide. Car theft has been prominent throughout King and Pierce Counties so far this year with an average of 81 cars stolen per day. The King County Sheriff's Office seized approximately $17.5 million worth of narcotics in 2022. --- Listen to Other ATN Productions: America in Focus: A weekly feature of the top TheCenterSquare.com stories of the week out of Washington D.C. with commentary from The Center Square editors and more! America's Talking: An interview podcast hosted by Austin Berg. Guests include professors, journalists, artists, business and nonprofit leaders, authors, and more. Everyday Economics: Join economist Dr. Orphe Divounguy and Chris Krug as they discuss global markets, inflation, and everything else that will help you understand the economic world around you. Future of Freedom: Future of Freedom is a bi-weekly podcast highlighting the work of the non-profits which are shaping the future of the freedom movement. Listeners will hear civil, intellectual conversations about why the organizations exist, what their mission is, and how they work to achieve it. Hosted by Scot Bertram. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/washington-in-focus/support

► When Andrew Devers, an inexperienced 25-year-old hiker, went missing on a day trip in the Washington state wilderness, he managed to survive nine days by thinking on his feet -- and called overcoming the mental hurdles the hardest part.Devers disappeared on June 18, sparking a days-long search by sheriff's officials and trained search and rescue volunteers, the King County Sheriff's Office said. He was rescued Sunday morning near North Bend's Middle Fork Trailhead.⚠️ If you have any information regarding any of these cases please call:Crime Stoppers: 1-800-222-TIPS.NPS Investigates: 1-888-653-0009

Rhythm & News interview with Tamer Abouzeid, director of the King County Office of Law Enforcement Oversight, about their objections to new bodycam policies for the King County Sheriff's Office. Interview by Chris B. Bennett.

An investigation by the King County Sheriff's Office determined that two officers violated numerous policies when they pursued an undercover Seattle detective's vehicle during a protest. Seattle Police said the incident was an unprecedented lapse in communication that endangered everyone involved. The sheriff agreed that the mens' actions created substantial risk of harm, according to findings obtained by KUOW.

The latest contract ratified by King County's 633 sergeants and deputies will raise their salaries more than 20% over the next three years. It also paves the way for the King County Sheriff's Office to implement body-worn cameras.

It's Ari Hoffman in for John Carlson! Hour 1 -- King County Sheriff's Office investigating missing texts from then-Seattle Mayor Durkan in 2020 // Emerald City Comic Con returns to Seattle // MSNBC, ABC, CNN realize Inflation Reduction Act doesn't reduce inflation after bill is passed: Marketing // GUEST: Lars Larson discusses the latest on the raid at Mar-A-Lago Hour 2 -- The California government is making life so difficult for Californians that even U-Haul is running out of trucks because people are fleeing the state // It's the revenge of revive I-5 and a huge pothole on I-90 // According to Patty Murray, Democracy is on the ballot in a new political ad // It's the best of the worst of Brian Stelter as CNN is ending 'Reliable Sources with Brian Stelter' Hour 3 -- A string of robberies and assaults are targeting women in Democrat-run Seattle // Seattle CEO who cut his pay so workers earned $70K resigns; an 8-year-old girl contacts astronaut at ISS via ham radio // AP says it's ok to say 'women' when talking about 'people seeking abortions' // Fake news Friday with Young Zach and a preview of this week's US Phenomenon with Mario Magana; and The Pee-Chee Folder: Illustrated by the Most Interesting Man in the World

It's Ari Hoffman in for John Carlson! Hour 1 -- King County Sheriff's Office investigating missing texts from then-Seattle Mayor Durkan in 2020 // Emerald City Comic Con returns to Seattle // MSNBC, ABC, CNN realize Inflation Reduction Act doesn

With all the talk of inflation and how it's affecting Americans' pocketbooks, we figured we'd talk to an expert. State economist Paul Turek joins us to explain why prices keep going up while salaries are doing the same. PLUS: You may have heard of the report that details racial disparities in how the King County Sheriff's Office keeps the peace. But that's not the entire story. John Lobortini explains why the numbers aren't exactly what they appear to be. AND: The latest on the January 6th hearings and why two local politicians are in some serious trouble. The Northwest Politicast with Jeff Pohjola: From this Washington to that one, Jeff Pohjola will explore the issues and politics of the week. Frequent guests and top analysts break down the news to get to the heart of what matters most. Subscribe at nwnewsradio.com or on your favorite podcast app.

King County Sheriff's Office continues to struggle with job vacancies. The agency is looking to fill 172 open positions, or about 15 percent of its total workforce. And the county's employee vaccine mandate, issued last August, hasn't helped.

King County Sheriff Cole-Tindall joins us live in the studio to discuss her appointment and what is next for the King County Sheriff's Office and how it will impact our community.

Rhythm & News interview with Fae Brooks, former Chief of the Criminal Investigations Division for the King County Sheriff's Office, about the three finalists for King County Sheriff. All three candidates are African American, and, if confirmed, one of them will be the first African American to hold the position. Interview by Chris B. Bennett.

Host: Conrad Weaver, Producer/Director PTSD911 Documentary Guests: Jeff & Shawn Thomas, 1st Responder Conferences ABOUT JEFF & SHAWN Shawn is a deputy for the King County Sheriff's Office in Seattle, WA. Shawn has been a deputy for 24 years and Jeff recently retired  from the King County Sheriff's Office after 32 years. In September 2016, Shawn's peer support captain suggested she organize a health and wellness conference for first responders and their families. The conference was a huge success and first responders reached out for assistance. That is when Shawn realized how important the conference was and other department's and organizations asked for her to organize a conference for them. In the first year they organized five conferences in Seattle, North Carolina, Florida, Texas and Arizona. Now they have had twenty-five conferences and have many more planned in the coming year. Shawn and Jeff are passionate about helping first responders because they have experienced their own difficult times and want to help guide others so they can maintain an enjoyable career and live a healthy life.  CONNECT WITH JEFF AND SHAWN: https://1stresponderconferences.org shawnt@1stresponderconferences.org jeff@1stresponderconferences.org +++++ LEARN MORE ABOUT PTSD911 DOCUMENTARY: https://ptsd911movie.com/ https://www.instagram.com/ptsd911movie/ https://www.facebook.com/ptsd911movie https://twitter.com/ptsd911movie SUPPORT THE FILM, MAKE A DONATION:  https://ptsd911movie.square.site/ #firstresponders #ptsd #mentalhealth #documentary #resilience #resiliency

Brendhan, Norm and Kalee talk to Manny Apostol who heads community engagement for the King County Sheriff's Office in Washington state. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Feliks Banel on the innovative Kenworth PACIFIC school bus // Dave Cohen live in New Orleans on the recovery from Ida // Hanna Scott on the latest OLEO report on fatal King County Sheriff's Office shootings // Dose of Kindness -- a 79-year-old's "dream flight" // Gee Scott what happens when kids (or adults) get bored // Hanna Scott on the spike in gun violence in Seattle // Rachel Belle on MacKenzie Scott's latest round of philanthropy See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The homeless encampment next to the King County Courthouse in Seattle is so dangerous that Sheriff Mitzi Johanknecht is ordering most of her professional staff members to work 100% remotely.Johanknecht cites the “unsafe environment around the courthouse, administration, parking garage, and corrections facilities,” along with labor union concerns, as contributing factors in her decision. The announcement was made in a Monday memo to office staff. The King County Sheriff's Office is located in the courthouse in downtown Seattle.The move comes days after a homeless man was charged after allegedly attempting to rape a seven-month pregnant woman in a county courthouse bathroom.Join your host Sean Reynolds, owner of Summit Properties NW, and Reynolds & Kline Appraisal as he takes a look at this developing topic.https://mynorthwest.com/3065732/rantz-king-county-sheriff-orders-staff-work-from-home-king-county-courthouse/Support the show (https://buymeacoff.ee/seattlepodcast)

Today Crystal is joined by Amy Sundberg, author of Notes from the Emerald City, and Dr. Shannon Cheng, Chair of People Power Washington to talk about public safety policy in Seattle and King County. Amy gets into the serious issues present in Seattle's Office of Police Accountability (OPA), failing so spectacularly that the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) said that the process “cannot be remedied.” Shannon follows up with updates about King County's appointment of a new Director of the Office of Law Enforcement Oversight (OLEO), the continued wait by the families of police shooting victims for inquests into their deaths. They also discuss the People Power Washington Voter Guide that details where Seattle and King County candidates stand on public safety issues.  As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal on Twitter at @finchfrii. Subscribe to Notes from the Emerald City here, and follow Amy on Twitter at @amysundberg. Read People Power Washington's voter guide here, and find Shannon at @drbestturtle on Twitter.   Resources Notes from the Emerald City - newsletter on Seattle government and policy: https://www.getrevue.co/profile/amysundberg People Power Washington - 2021 Voter Guide: https://www.wethepeoplepower.org/voter-guide-2021 “Investigation calls for firing 2 Seattle police officers over insurrection” by David Kroman from Crosscut: https://crosscut.com/news/2021/07/investigation-calls-firing-2-seattle-police-officers-over-insurrection “Councilmember Herbold on OPA Findings Surrounding SPD Officers' Attendance of January 6 Insurrection” from the Council Connection: https://council.seattle.gov/2021/07/08/councilmember-herbold-on-opa-findings-surrounding-spd-officers-attendance-of-january-6-insurrection/ “OIG Memo Reveals Serious ‘Deficiencies' in OPA Protest Investigation That ‘Cannot Be Remedied'” by Carolyn Bick from the South Seattle Emerald: https://southseattleemerald.com/2021/06/30/oig-memo-reveals-serious-deficiencies-in-opa-protest-investigation-that-cannot-be-remedied/ “OIG Partial Certification Memos Raise More Concerns Over OPA Investigations” by Carolyn Bick from the South Seattle Emerald: https://southseattleemerald.com/2021/07/13/oig-partial-certification-memos-raise-more-concerns-over-opa-investigations/ Information on the King County Public Safety Advisory Committee from KingCounty.gov: https://kingcounty.gov/elected/executive/constantine/initiatives/public-safety-advisory-committee.aspx Interviews with final candidates for the Director of the Office of Law Enforcement Oversight from KingCounty.gov: https://kingcounty.gov/independent/law-enforcement-oversight/DirectorOLEO.aspx Information on the Office of Law Enforcement Oversight (OLEO) from KingCounty.gov: https://kingcounty.gov/independent/law-enforcement-oversight.aspx “Families of people killed by police are left without answers while King County's inquests are stalled” by Mike Carter from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/families-of-people-killed-by-police-are-left-without-answers-while-king-countys-inquests-are-stalled/ “Washington Supreme Court reinstates King County inquest system that expands inquiry into police-caused deaths” by Mike Carter from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/washington-supreme-court-reinstates-king-county-inquest-system-that-expands-inquiry-into-police-caused-deaths/   Transcript Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm your host, Crystal Fincher. On this show, we talk to political hacks and policy wonks to gather insight into local politics and policy through the lens of those doing the work and provide behind-the-scenes perspectives on politics in our state. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. So today I'm excited to have two people who are not new to Hacks & Wonks joining me - Amy Sundberg, who is an activist with People Power Washington, she writes Notes From the Emerald City - excellent newsletter - you should subscribe. And she has always done just extremely useful live-tweet threads of Seattle City meetings and hearings. So if you want to know what is happening in the City of Seattle that oftentimes gets lost in the filter of reporting - you can only say so much in a story - and really figure out where every Councilmember is at, what everyone has said, and what is happening in the City, Amy Sundberg is an essential follow on Twitter and an essential newsletter subscription. And also with us is Dr. Shannon Cheng, Chair of People Power Washington, and works with me at Fincher Consulting - who is just a powerhouse when it comes to everything public safety and accountability. And definitely wanted to talk with you both about what is happening in the world of public safety in Seattle and King County, because we're getting close to an election where a number of the candidates have different stances on different issues. I want to make sure that we can review where everyone is at, understand what's happening, and what's going to be on the agenda for people facing election, and just understand how we can interact with the process. So thank you both, Amy and Shannon, for joining me. Amy Sundberg: [00:02:28] It's great to be here. Crystal Fincher: [00:02:29] So there is a lot that has happened since we spoke to you both last, and I guess we can kind of cover it all. I suppose I'll start with the findings on the insurrection and where that stands. We've talked a little bit about that on the show, but can you recap what was found with regard to Seattle Police Department officers found to be in DC at the insurrection, and what Councilmembers and electeds have said about it? Amy Sundberg: [00:03:01] Sure. So as far as we know, there were six SPD officers who were present in Washington DC on the day of the insurrection. That's as far as we know - so there could be more, but six we know of. And so they were the subject of the OPA's investigation. And what the OPA found was that two of those six officers definitely trespassed and definitely witnessed illegal activities. And they discovered that through shared video from the FBI. My understanding is that Director Myerberg hasn't yet seen the video, but he's seen stills from the video that firmly place these two officers at a place and time where it was clear that they couldn't have not known what was happening. Three officers were exonerated - it looks like they attended the rally and then left and didn't participate in the insurrection. And then one officer - there's inconclusive evidence. Basically they don't have solid evidence that places him in a place where he would have been doing something illegal, but we're not really sure what was happening with him. So, it also appears that the two officers who were definitely involved in illegal activity lied about it during the OPA investigation, which by itself is an offense that can lead to termination of employment. But right now we're waiting for - there's a hearing with Interim Chief Diaz on August 5th, when he'll decide what to do about the case. Termination has been suggested by the OPA, I will say. Crystal Fincher: [00:04:59] Well, and the Chief had previously said that he would fire anyone who was found to be participating in the insurrection. So certainly would expect to see his decision to be consistent with that. They do have the opportunity to basically appeal and go to arbitration - is that correct - if they are fired? Amy Sundberg: [00:05:19] Yes, that is correct. Director Myerberg has said that he is confident he has a strong case that would hold up under an appeal, but of course we'll have to wait and see what happens. Crystal Fincher: [00:05:32] We'll have to wait and see what happens. That process doesn't always turn out as it seems it should. What have Councilmembers said about it, and where do they stand on the issue of whether the officers should be fired or not? Amy Sundberg: [00:05:46] Well, Council President and mayoral candidate, Lorena González - she has said that the two officers should definitely be terminated. And then she thinks that all six of them should be disciplined in some way, although she doesn't go into details about that. Councilmember Herbold, who is the Chair of Public Safety, has a little bit of a stronger take. She thinks they should all be fired - potentially, at least. Her take on it is interesting. She wants to try to look and see if the officers knew before they were traveling to DC that this insurrection was going to take place - if they were aware of the threats of violence and overthrow that were kind of flying around the internet around that time. Because if they were aware, that's a different matter than if they just went to a rally. So there's a lot of question as to what is protected speech and what isn't, especially in the case of a police officer. Crystal Fincher: [00:06:58] That certainly is curious. We've talked about it here on this program before - to me, just the fact that you are attending an event - flying across the country to attend an event called Stop the Steal, whose premise is that the election has been stolen from predominantly people of color in predominantly areas with large Black populations, when the rest of us could see that there was violent talk leading up to the insurrection. Seems curious that just attending that doesn't seem to be a glaring, concerning piece of conduct in and of itself that would make me question if those officers are treating members of the public fairly and what feedback from their interactions has been. So we will see what happens with that. There's a lot to be talked about in terms of discipline and accountability investigations and there has been a lot that has been uncovered about that process. Can you brief us on what happened with the OIG and OPA? Amy Sundberg: [00:08:14] Yeah, sure. So the OIG certifies each of the OPA's investigations, and then they sometimes do partial certifications. And in that case, there's a memo attached that the public can access and read. And I will say that 96% of OPA cases, the OIG gives a full certification and they say this is fine, this is great. And 4% of the cases they disagree with something that happened with an investigation. But we're, I think, very lucky in that we have a journalist Carolyn Bick working at the South Seattle Emerald, and they have been really digging in to some of these partial certifications of the OIG for these OPA investigations, some of which have to do with protest cases from the last year. And that really gives us insight into where these investigations can go wrong and how the accountability system in Seattle is working in practice.  So I think one great example of this is the SPOG headquarters protest, which happened on September 7th of last year, 2020. So the OIG certifies based on timeliness, objectiveness, and thoroughness. And so if it's a partial certification, that means that not all three of those will be certified. So in this particular case, the investigation was found to be neither objective nor thorough. So there's two out of three that they did not hit the mark on.  So I don't know if you remember this protest, but it was when a bunch of protesters went to the SPOG headquarters. It was a peaceful protest. And then, from a lot of bystanders' accounts, suddenly some police on bicycles arrived and things got hairy - there were blast balls, pepper spray, a lot of people got arrested. And there were a lot of complaints about this made to the OPA, because it seemed like it was a peaceful protest and that there was no need for that kind of escalation. So this investigation of the OPA was problematic because, I mean, the OIG said, and I'm quoting directly here, "No further investigation is being directed at this time because OIG finds the deficiencies of the investigation with respect to thoroughness and objectivity cannot be remedied," meaning it's such a mess of a case that nothing can be done. So I went through and read through the article enumerating what went on with this investigation. And I made a list of all the issues that the OIG called out about this investigation. And there were eight separate issues. It wasn't like one or two little minor problems - like the entire investigation was kind of flawed from its heart. Basically it looked like the OPA was crafting a case to support a certain narrative - the narrative of the SPD - that they were attempting a targeted arrest of someone who had an incendiary device and that is why the protest got so out of control. However, there was a lot of additional evidence that showed that fairly early on, it became clear that there was in fact no incendiary device. That it was a trash bag. And at a certain point when they were arresting the man with the trash bag, he dropped it or they took it from him or something, but you could see trash falling from the trash bag. So it was very clear at a certain point what it was. But for example, in the investigation, evidence about the fact that the suspect was potentially carrying a trash bag, that there was trash that you could see falling - that was all omitted from the investigation, which is extremely sloppy if nothing else. Like that's the kindest thing you can say - Crystal Fincher: [00:12:56] That's the most generous interpretation, but given the context that this is happening in, I doubt that was an accident. Amy Sundberg: [00:13:03] But also things so egregious - that the sergeant who made that arrest of that man who was maybe holding an incendiary device but wasn't - they didn't interview that sergeant at all during this investigation. There was another named officer who was present and he was also not interviewed. There was no probable cause analysis done to figure out how likely it was trash bag versus incendiary device. There was body camera footage of the man holding the garbage bag and the report said there was no such footage. So the list goes on and on - it doesn't take an experienced investigator to see that this investigation was very deeply flawed. Crystal Fincher: [00:14:04] In fact, it's almost farcical to call it an investigation. This by all accounts appears - and from Seattle's own internal and investigative arm, or from the OIG - that this due diligence that you would find in an investigation was not done, as you just detailed, part of the problem. And it was all helpful to the narrative of the officers.  And the question is really - when we have evidence of so many things that have gone wrong, when the department for things that we've seen with our own eyes on video and other things has admitted, "Yes, there was wrongdoing here," that there actually is not a disagreement on whether things were problematic and have said, "Yeah, there's been issues before." So when there's reason to question different accounts of things that happen and someone makes a complaint where there's lots of independent witnesses and in fact complaints made to spur an investigation that this didn't appear to be right, the body that is supposed to be the arm of accountability that is set up to say, "We're going to be the ones investigating whether something wrong happened or not," just seemed to be there to rubber stamp whatever the officers say - just seems like it continues to reinforce - this is actually something that we can't reform, that tinkering around the edges is not going to fix this. As we hear a siren going on outside at the same time - that nothing, that we can't fix this. We actually have to completely rebuild, reframe, and reconstitute this in a completely different construction - that we can't rehab this. That investigation was so mixed up and so messed up, it couldn't be fixed. What else is going on in all of the other investigations? What shot do we have at actually addressing these issues if we don't get to the root of this? Amy Sundberg: [00:16:18] Yeah. It definitely undermines the credibility of our accountability arm - that, I think, the City of Seattle has kind of patted it itself on the back for having this model of accountability and I've heard Director Myerberg pat us on the back for that as well. But it has some pretty deep flaws.  Crystal Fincher: [00:16:43] Irreparable flaws, it would seem, in my opinion. We will certainly see what the response is. The City, like with so many things, seems to be either taking issue or ignoring it from what I've seen. Have you seen any other response from the City on this report and what needs to be done to fix this? Amy Sundberg: [00:17:06] No, I haven't seen anything official, or unofficial for that matter. I don't think enough people are talking about it. So, it's good that we're talking about it now. Crystal Fincher: [00:17:18] Yes. Well, I also want to talk about King County and what is happening with the Sheriff's department - including in this process of going from and implementing the changes that were voted on with the changes in Charter Amendments, including finding some new personnel and moving forward with the appointment of a Sheriff and no longer electing a Sheriff. So where does this whole process stand now?  Shannon Cheng: [00:17:50] Yeah, thanks Crystal, for bringing up King County, because I think sometimes there's so much happening in Seattle that we can kind of overlook that we also have a County level Sheriff's office that has also had its own problems with accountability and transparency. So as you mentioned, last year in November, the County overwhelmingly supported Charter Amendments 1, 4, 5, and 6, which were about public safety and policing. Charter Amendment 5 was changing the Sheriff's position from elected to appointed and so they are currently in the process. They put together an advisory committee with representation from across the County and from different groups - to put together a set of values that they should be looking for in the next Sheriff. So that committee is currently meeting and I think they're trying to set up ways to gather community input. It sounds like the County Council is also doing their own process of figuring out how to get community input, as well as the County Executive, who is doing his own third branch of getting community input. So it's not clear yet that they are ready and prepared to take all the community input, but when they get around to it, it sounds like there should be a lot of different avenues because there's at least three different branches of people trying to work on that.  And so initially they were trying to rush the appointment and try to do it, I think, before the end of the year, but the timeline has just been super tight. And so in order to get back everybody's input into what we should be looking for in the next Sheriff, and then be able to do a nationwide search - it doesn't look like it's going to happen before the end of the year. So this will probably happen sometime in 2022, which will also be potentially when we might have a new County Executive and new County Councilmembers who would have input into that situation. Crystal Fincher: [00:19:55] And what have the stances of the County Councilmembers been in terms of what they're looking for and what this process is going to be? Shannon Cheng: [00:20:04] I don't know if that's entirely clear yet. I think a lot of focus has been being put into setting up the process and not so much yet talking about the end result of the process. So Councilmember Zahilay chairs the Law and Justice Committee, and so they put together the ordinance that established this community committee that is going to be informing the process. And so I don't know yet that there has been statements from them of what they are looking for. Crystal Fincher: [00:20:40] Okay, so in addition to a new Sheriff, we're also going to be, at the County level, hiring a new Office of Law Enforcement Oversight head. Where is that process? And, I guess, how is that playing out? Shannon Cheng: [00:20:56] Yeah. So this is happening right now. So what happened is last year the previous director of the Office of Law Enforcement Oversight did not get reconfirmed by the County Council, so they started a search for a new one. And what happened is they are now at the point where they've chosen two finalists. And last - well, so we're recording this on July 21st - by the time this airs, it will have been two weeks since they held some community meetings where the community had an opportunity to come out and meet both finalists, ask them questions, learn kind of what their history is, where they stand, what kind of vision they have for what they would do if they were chosen to be the new director. And so, County Council was supposed to select the finalist on July 20th, a Tuesday, but then something happened in that meeting and they decided to punt the decision for a week and put it to the Full Council. Which was kind of confusing to me because all of the Council is on the committee that was trying to make that decision, so basically they were just trying to buy themselves more time. So now I think that the day that this episode is planned to air is the day that the County Council will be voting and selecting one of the two finalists. And so this is important - because at the Seattle level, we just heard from Amy just how dysfunctional our supposed model accountability system is. And we've had similar issues at the County level. So the Office of Law Enforcement Oversight - its goal is to represent the interests of the public in its efforts to hold the King County Sheriff's Office accountable for providing fair and just police services. And many listeners may have heard of cases such as Tommy Le, who was killed in Burien, and then there appeared to be somewhat of a coverup around that. And so the role of OLEO is to do independent investigations into these egregious things that happen within the Sheriff's office. But similar to Seattle, the OLEO doesn't necessarily have the right powers, or teeth, or authority to be able to actually hold officers accountable. So for example, they don't have full subpoena power. They can make recommendations but there's nothing that says that those recommendations need to be acted upon or followed through on. And so this is something that with the Charter Amendment last year and then earlier in 2015, we've been trying to give OLEO more power, but there's been a huge pushback from the Sheriff's office to give it to them. Crystal Fincher: [00:23:51] So I guess, are we walking into another situation with this, where regardless of who the head is, if they don't have any teeth, what is it going to accomplish? And I guess looking at different levers of accountability, whether it's OLEO or even the inquest process, what shot do we have? Where does the inquest process stand? Shannon Cheng: [00:24:18] Yeah, so the inquest process is another one of these places where it sounds like a place where we would be able to achieve accountability, but then when you dig deeper you find out that the whole process has been undermined to the point that it's just kind of in name only. So the King County inquest process is meant - so this covers any officer-involved shooting in King County, whether it's by the King County Sheriff's Office, or within a contract city that the King County Sheriff's Office runs, or within Seattle Police Department, or any other municipal police department such as Auburn, Kent, Federal Way - these cities all have their own police department. So whenever any death occurs at the hands of officers within King County, then there is supposed to be an inquest process. And so the inquest is a fact-finding hearing where we learn sort of what happened in that case, but it has no - again, similar to OLEO - anything that comes out of the inquest, there isn't an official process by which any recommendations need to be implemented. And so what happened was a couple years ago, Executive Constantine, kind of at the request of some families who felt like the process was very unfair, tried to implement some reforms. So some of these were things like - trying to make it not as lopsided towards the officer. For example, it was trying to provide the families legal representation that was paid for by the County. The County pays for the officers to have legal representation, but they weren't supporting the families of the loved ones. So things like that. So what happened is he established these reforms with the Executive Order, and then the King County Sheriff's Office, the City of Seattle, Cities of Renton, Federal Way, Auburn, I believe - they all sued to say that these reforms were not allowable and they didn't like them. And then at the same time, families of loved ones who had died also sued because they felt like the inquest reforms had not gone far enough. And so what this caused was just this stalemate where there's, I think, now a backlog of 40 cases. These are 40 individuals who have died at the hands of law enforcement in King County and their families have not had the opportunity to have an inquest, to kind of get any kind of closure as to what happened to their loved one. And because this is all held up in court, or was held up in court, none of those could proceed. But so, an amazing thing did happen, which is that the Washington State Supreme Court issued a decision that not only allowed the inquest reforms to move forward, but it actually added something that makes them stronger. So initially what the inquest is trying to find out is kind of more about like the facts of what happened, that kind of thing. But what the Supreme Court said was that they should also look into whether the act of the officer killing the person was criminal in nature. And so this is important because if this finding came out - again, the inquest process on its own doesn't force any kind of accountability to happen, but you could see that if a finding came out about a case where they said, "Yes, the officer acted criminally," then that would pave the way for a prosecutor - perhaps the King County Prosecutor, perhaps the Attorney General of Washington - to file criminal charges against the officers and hopefully achieve accountability in that way. Crystal Fincher: [00:28:02] Well, it seems like we just have a continuing mountain to climb when it comes to accountability - and we get good news, and some legislation gets passed, and there's a new process or office. And then we get news like we did from the Office of the Inspector General saying that OPA is toothless and just rubber stamping was happening. So we will continue to keep our eyes on this.  I especially wanted to talk about this now because there's a lot going on in the world of public safety in Seattle and King County. We have the city-wide elections for everything from the Seattle City Attorney, which is critical in these types of decisions and what is defended and not defended - just the stance on public safety and accountability is for people and SPD - in addition to the mayor and the Council who are setting policy at a City level. You are with People Power Washington, and you actually are trying to inform voters because of this also. What have you guys put together? Shannon Cheng: [00:29:21] Yeah. So if you have felt frustrated listening to the first part of this show - at how either incompetent or inept everything sounds - you should be angry, and then you should realize that you have power to do something about it. So we have local elections happening this year that are critical to how we move forward in the next four years. The people who we elect are going to get to do things such as select new heads of law enforcement. So in Seattle, we're going to get a new police chief. In King County, we're getting a new sheriff.  They are also going to be influencing the process by which we negotiate the collective bargaining agreements with our law enforcement guilds and associations. So much of what has stood in the way of accountability - the OPA not having the teeth to be able to do anything, or OLEO not being actually respected as an independent oversight body - is because of the collective bargaining agreements that we have with either the Seattle Police Officers Guild, SPOG, or the King County Police Officers Guild. And so both of these contracts, I think SPOG's is already expired and up for renegotiation and I think the King County Guild's contract is expiring soon. So how the next set of agreements with those guilds gets negotiated will determine whether we are able to oversight bodies that can actually give us true accountability, by which I mean something that is robust, transparent, and that the community can actually trust. It's not just going through an exercise of we did something and then it turns out that Amy can find out there were eight different things wrong with what was done, right? That does not foster trust in the system and so that's what we need.  And the last thing is just - all these electeds are going to get a say in what our budgets and what our priorities and values are in our communities. We're going to be tackling the economic recovery from the pandemic, trying to address systemic racism in all of our public safety solutions and the criminal legal system. How are we going to deal with homelessness and the climate crisis? Are we going to pick people who are going to act in ways that are equitable to everybody and reduce harm? Or are we going to stick with people who just want to do status quo and like incrementalism? The clock is ticking and we need to act decisively. So I just really encourage - So to finally answer your question, Crystal, is that our group has put together a voter guide about these issues that surround specifically policing and public safety. So we drafted questionnaires about these issues that matter at the City of Seattle and the King County levels. We also did one for the City of Burien. And we sent them to everybody who's in the primary and got answers back, and so we've put together a guide. You can see it on our website - it's wethepeoplepower.org, and then it should be pretty easy to find the voter guide from there. And yeah, you can see the full answers of what candidates said about the questions we asked about these issues, such as the accountability ordinance, the inquests - all of that is up there. I encourage people to look at them and read the answers that people actually wrote back. They're in long form and I think, yeah, we can hopefully get a more nuanced view of how candidates would approach these problems. Crystal Fincher: [00:32:57] Absolutely helpful. Sometimes it's hard to get a lot of that information all in one place. There has been so much that's happened over such a long period of time, and some of the stuff that candidates have done have been very visible. Some of them are elected and we can see what they've done. Other things, even for the electeds, have not been very visible and some people may not know where candidates stand and what their, I guess, long form takes on issues are. Sometimes in forums there's only time to give a yes or no answer - it's in the middle of a lightning round - when really understanding their perspective and where they're coming from and how they would answer a question in longer than 30 seconds, especially questions as important as how do we keep our community safe and how do we hold accountable people who really hold people's civil liberties in their hands and should be held to a very high standard. So I appreciate both of you taking the time to come onto the program. Again, this is critical. Again, where can people go to find that information on the People Power website? Shannon Cheng: [00:34:11] Yeah. So our website is wethepeoplepower.org. And I would also like to add that in addition to the candidate questionnaires, we've also written up issue explainers. If you hear the term Consent Decree, or police accountability ordinance, and you don't know what that necessarily means, we've tried to write up easier-to-understand explanations of what those are, so that when you do read about what the candidate said, you hopefully have a little more context for what they're talking about. And the final plug is just - please send us feedback about the guide - we are trying to make this to be helpful for you, the voter, to understand the differences between your candidates, because these decisions are really important. So anything that you think would be more helpful to include, or if the explanation doesn't make sense to you - too short, too long - we would love to hear it. And then the other thing we would love to do is try to expand to other jurisdictions for the general election. So if you live somewhere that's not represented in our voter guide and you passionately care about these issues in your local community, reach out to us and we would love to work with you to try to include it and educate constituents in your own community. Crystal Fincher: [00:35:17] Okay, so if people want to get in contact with you with feedback, or just find out more about you on other platforms, how can they do that? Amy Sundberg: [00:35:26] Well, in addition to our website, you can also reach us on Twitter - it's @PeoplePowerWA. Crystal Fincher: [00:35:32] Thank you very much. I appreciate you spending the time with us today. Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks. Our chief audio engineer at KVRU is Maurice Jones Jr. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I, and now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts. Just type in "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar, be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. You can also get a full text transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced during the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes.  Thanks for tuning in. Talk to you next time.

Today on the show Crystal is joined again by Senator Joe Nguyen, this time to talk about his decision to run for King County Executive. They discuss why he chose to take on one of the longest serving public officials in the area, combating climate change through a lense of equality and equity, why Senator Nguyen believes the people of King County are ready for change, and so 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, Senator Joe Nguyen, at @meetjoenguyen. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources “Understanding the King County Budget” from King County: https://kingcounty.gov/council/budget/archive/2019_2020_budget/budget_basics.aspx “What would it cost to house and provide treatment for Seattle's homeless?” by Scott Greenstone: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/homeless/what-is-the-cost-to-house-and-provide-treatment-for-seattles-homeless/ “Supporting homeless individuals: How much do we spend?” by Manola Secaira: https://crosscut.com/2018/08/supporting-homeless-individuals-how-much-do-we-spend#:~:text=Seattle%20set%20aside%20%2454%20million,was%20more%20than%20%241%20billion. “Seattle taxes ranked most unfair in Washington – a state among the harshest on the poor nationwide” by Gene Balk: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/seattle-taxes-ranked-most-unfair-in-washington-a-state-among-the-harshest-on-the-poor-nationwide/ “County Exec Candidates Spar Over PACs, City Finally Funds Street Sinks” from Publicola: https://publicola.com/2021/05/25/county-exec-candidates-spar-over-pacs-city-finally-funds-street-sinks/ “A guide to political money: campaigns, PACs, and super PACs” by Philip Elliot: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/a-guide-to-political-money-campaigns-pacs-super-pacs “Democracy vouchers: They worked, now here are five ways to make them better” by Joe Nguyen: https://southseattleemerald.com/2017/11/20/democracy-vouchers-they-worked-now-here-are-five-ways-to-make-them-better/ “Washington high court charts less punitive path on juvenile justice” by Claudia Rowe: https://crosscut.com/opinion/2021/04/washington-high-court-charts-less-punitive-path-juvenile-justice “In Seattle's polluted valley, pandemic and particulates are twin threats” by John Ryan: https://www.kuow.org/stories/duwamish-valley-faces-pollution-and-pandemic “The Case for Making Transit Free (and How to Pay for It)” by David Gordon: https://www.theurbanist.org/2018/12/27/the-case-for-making-transit-free-and-how-to-pay-for-it/   Transcript Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] Welcome to Hacks and Wonks. I'm your host Crystal Fincher. On this show we talk to political hacks and policy wonks to gather insight in the local politics and policy through the lens of those doing the work, and provide behind the scenes perspectives on politics in our state. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, we're happy to welcome back someone who's been on the show before, but not in his current capacity as a candidate for King County Executive. Thank you for joining us today, Joe Nguyen. Senator Joe Nguyen: [00:01:02] Thank you so much for having me. I'm very glad to be back. Crystal Fincher: [00:01:06] Yes. So, we've had conversations with you as a senator during the legislative session. We've talked about a lot that you were working on and that you had accomplished in that capacity. But now, you're running against Dow Constantine who has been a King County Executive establishment, basically. He's been there 12 years? Senator Joe Nguyen: [00:01:24] Yeah. Crystal Fincher: [00:01:24] It's been a long time and a lot of people have looked at him as, "Oh, he's just there. He's not going to be challenged. He's a Democrat. King County elects Democrats. So, here we go." Then, you walked in, they're like, "Not so fast." What made you decide to challenge Dow Constantine, especially as another Democrat? Senator Joe Nguyen: [00:01:43] Yeah, I think really in this moment, when you're trying to get past the pandemic, not just of COVID but also racial inequities, we are seeing how much success we can have when you have legislators who have lived experience, who are fighting with the fierce urgency to get things done. Really, the success in the legislature this past year was part of that inspiration. Seeing so much can be accomplished, say for instance, on progressive revenue, on police accountability, on climate, basic needs programs, childcare. All these things were possible before yet they weren't getting done. A lot of it is because the community now is being uplifted and amplified. So, for me, all of the legislation that we're passing at the State then has to be implemented at the local level as well. It's nothing against the current incumbent. I just feel that in this moment we need change and we need somebody who reflects the values of this community in the future, what King County looks like. Of all the things that we care about, in our campaign, whether it's police accountability, climate, transit, those all happen at the county level. I think that we are at a very, very unique moment to get a lot of stuff done. Crystal Fincher: [00:02:49] All right. So, you say nothing against the current incumbent, but as you said, in your opinion, a lot needs to change. You've certainly not hesitated to be spicy on Twitter in clapping back to some things that he said. So, I guess, what do you think does need to change and where do you think that Dow has not met the mark? Senator Joe Nguyen: [00:03:09] Well, systems of power tend to reflect the people who create them. That's just how it works. It's so much that it's baked into our system. When you go look for a job, what do people tell you? It's not what you know, it's who you know, right? That is baked into our system. It is very hard to get systemic change when the people who are in power benefit from that system. There are just some key differences in which I would behave versus say, for instance, the incumbent. One of the examples is that in White Center, they were going to site a COVID facility, which I supported and said it was fine. I did say, "Hey, you should probably give folks a heads up because if you don't, there's going to be a lot of distrust and it's going to become a contentious issue." They didn't, and there's a history of this type of behavior where you're not having enough conversations at the local level. So, for me, I think what community has always done in the past is fight to make sure that their issue was being heard. But I want to be able to flip that. I want to be able to have community members have their voices be uplifted and amplified instead. I think that's truly transformative. So, I think it's just a mindset of how we would lead. Mine would be much more community focused and rooted in the folks who were impacted by policy and less top-down. Crystal Fincher: [00:04:24] All right. Well, Dow Constantine has certainly talked a lot about addressing homelessness, about leading a regional effort to address that and has a task force, or I forget the exact word of it. Senator Joe Nguyen: [00:04:39] The Regional Authority. Crystal Fincher: [00:04:39] Yes, to address that and recently made a hire for someone to lead that. How do you think that's going? Do you think that he's on the right track or would you do things differently? Senator Joe Nguyen: [00:04:51] I will say that we've declared an emergency on homelessness over six years ago. In fact, it had been an emergency for even longer. I remember when I was in college back in 2006 and we had kicked off the ten-year plan to end homelessness. So, in King County we've talked about ending homelessness for decades, literally decades, and things don't seemed to be getting better. So, to be honest he's had 12 years as an incumbent to solve the issue. I'm not sure if four years he's going to be able to change it if he couldn't do it in 12. I think we just need leadership that looks at it a little bit different. What I will say is that the reason why in the legislature I tackled anti-poverty efforts as one of the key focus has been because you have to solve the systemic issues as they relate to homelessness, in addition to the short-term as well. If you don't turn off the spigot of folks who are becoming homeless, it becomes very difficult to alleviate it on the ground level. So, it's a multi-jurisdictional approach and it's completely true that it should be a regional approach. I'm very excited about that model. I was able to meet Marc Dones at a housing conference years ago before I was even in the legislature and was so impressed by them. So, I think that leadership is going to be a fantastic one, but it's not just King County as well. It has to be the state and it has to be the federal government. So, the King County Executive is in charge of a $12 billion budget. King County itself is the 12th largest county in the United States. It is bigger than 14 states. So, that position is more than just a county executive. It can be a bully pulpit to actually help influence policies at the state and the federal level as well. I think we need to be doing more in terms of alleviating homelessness, because it's cheaper to keep somebody housed than it is to take them out of homelessness. That's a lot of what the work we've been doing at the legislature, that in conjunction with the regional plan, I think, is the right move. But we can't look at it from a very myopic way. I'm glad that we're buying hotels. That's not going to be sufficient to alleviate homelessness. We need to be doing more in basic needs investments as well. So, the fact that we spend 73% of the County General Fund, 73% of the County General Fund goes towards law enforcement and the court system, not antipoverty, not human services. We have to fundamentally shift how we address problems. Crystal Fincher: [00:07:04] So, you say addressing basic needs, you say that we need to certainly house people and that's cheaper than allowing them to languish unhoused and all of the problems at cascade because of that, what specifically is involved with basic needs, and when you say we need to house people, specifically how? Senator Joe Nguyen: [00:07:23] Yeah. So, let's think long-term. So, we'll start longterm and we'll go more short term as well. So, my family, when we were growing up, we benefited from being on what's called TANF, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Locally, I think folks call it welfare in a derogatory term. So, when I grew up, we relied on that service. I think it was about a few hundred dollars a month. That was the key that kept us in our homes. We also grew up in public housing, so social housing as well. So, in my mind there's a few things that we can be doing. We can be doing more for housing as it relates to those on the margins. We've moved away from that social housing. We moved more towards what's called affordable housing. Oftentimes the calculations for affordable isn't truly affordable for those who make very little, like my family did back in the day. So, we have a lot of civic land, surplus lands that we can then use to build, I think, more social housing for those who need it the most. We also need to improve our stock of affordable housing as well. That's going to require public-private partnerships, which we're seeing happen now with the private sector, providing lower cost loans and whatnot. We can help certainly with permitting. We can help certainly with planning as well. By the way, we could also use what's called cross-laminated timber in order for us to be more mindful of climate, in addition to having it be done near transit centers. So, we need more housing. We need more social housing to keep those on the margins most impacted by the housing insecurity as well. So, those are investments we've been making at the State. We've then also tried to tackle a regressive tax structure. I think the root cause to a lot of these issues is the inequities in our tax structure, which has been done on purpose, in my mind, to keep certain people out of our economic system. Because of that, it's exacerbated over time. So, the fact that we funded the Working Families Tax Credit for the first time after it was passed 12 years ago, and by the way includes ITIN filers as well. So, those who don't have Social Security numbers. I think that's all part of it, is that if you look at those types of investments over the longterm, that's how you keep people stable. That's how you keep people housed. Then, even for cap gains, that money goes towards more affordable childcare. That money goes towards a more equitable tax structure, and that money goes towards investments in infrastructure as well. So, we can do all of these things at the state level, but we require implementation at the county and local level. For a long time, it's been the missing middle -- candidly. I think Seattle gets a lot of attention. The legislature gets a lot of attention. Folks aren't quite sure what the county does. I think Girmay [Zahilay] really put the county on the map in recent years as well. So, I think people are now paying attention to how that impacts their daily lives. That's why we need leadership at that level who reflects the future of what we can be doing, not just what we've been doing in the past. Crystal Fincher: [00:10:17] So, you talk about reflecting what we can be doing, not just what we've been doing in the past. That's going to take strong leadership, certainly to move in a more progressive direction to do things differently than you've done before. You come from a legislative body, in the legislature and it's one person in the midst of several coming together to make decision. But the ultimate blame, if something goes wrong, usually doesn't land on one person. The ultimate credit usually doesn't go to one person because you're acting in concert. King County Executive is very different, similar to the mayor at the end of the day, people are looking to you to get things done. So, how do you think you're uniquely qualified, especially coming from a different kind of background in the legislature to take on the task of running everything at the county? Senator Joe Nguyen: [00:11:03] Yeah. Thank you for that question. What's interesting is both people know me because of my work in the legislature, because we've been very active over the past few years. If you look at my body of work even beforehand -- so, I actually have a finance and economics background out of college. I used to manage a portfolio of about $150 million. I was a senior strategist for the CFO of Expedia. I've been in leadership positions at startup companies. I've managed hundreds of millions of dollars. I've managed teams that were in the hundreds as well. Then, now, I'm at Microsoft doing strategy and analytics. So, my whole background is actually more robust than most people who've run for executive office in the first place. So, if you look at most folks, it's lawyer, public office, and then ran for executive office. They've never actually had executive experience before they ran for office. So, the fact that I already have significant executive experience, I also have a tremendous amount of success in the public sector. Most importantly, the lived experience of people who've been impacted by bad policy, I think that makes me uniquely qualified to serve as King County Executive, is because we have that ability to look at things different. What's funny is that there's been news articles written about how we've managed our office in the legislature, of how it was different. I don't think people realize it, but the bar, apparently, the bar is not super high. One of the news articles that people wrote was the fact that I use an app to schedule my meetings. I don't know if you saw this, but in the legislature, when I first came in, I just looked at it and said, "Hey, this doesn't make any sense." So, I documented every single step to pass legislation, there's about 153. I noticed that a third of the times a bill dies. But then, I also noticed there was a tremendous amount of effort spent in the wrong places. So, the most important thing that you have in the legislature is your team, your staff. I want to make sure that we are able to free them up to do good work as much as possible, and that a lot of our staff members were, in fact, just spending time in emails and then scheduling meetings. By having an app, we were able to save about six hours a day per day. So, by doing that, it freed them up. That's how we're able to be more effective in terms of communicating with constituents, getting more in-depth with policy. It just blew people's minds. I had people coming to my office just to take a look at how we were doing things. It was just how you would normally do it if you were just running a small business. You have to be more efficient just because you have limited capacity, limited resources to try and be effective. So, it's interesting seeing that translate into the public sector, how successful that can be. I think we could do it more at the county as well, but also just in general is being able to bring 21st century techniques and tools to a body that is not necessarily known for being as agile as it can be. Crystal Fincher: [00:13:42] All right. So, we could expect to see different, newer, updated, "today" type things from Joe Nguyen. You talked about doing things differently. Senator Joe Nguyen: [00:13:50] Yeah. Crystal Fincher: [00:13:51] There was a conversation in a recent forum where you talked about doing things differently, including not taking money from PACs. You said that you're committing to not taking money from corporate PACs, that you've never taken money from corporate PACs. Dow Constantine said, "Now hold up. It looks like you have taken money from several PACs, from the Washington Beer and Wine Distributors Association, from Federation of State Employees. A number of them, from labor union PACs, to housing PACs, to you name it, building trades. So, one, there have been PACs and there are others, just different associations. You've taken money from them. You've taken money from the State Dental PAC. How is that different than saying that you're taking money from a corporate PAC? Is that really a fair bar, if there is little differentiation between what type of PAC, who is the PAC? It seems like it might be splitting hairs a little bit. How do you answer that? Senator Joe Nguyen: [00:14:57] Well, no. Actually, I do think it's very different. So, corporate PACs serve a special interest for a particular organization in a particular company. If you look at the money in politics, that's oftentimes the problem, is that people are trying to buy their way into access. I will point out that all those things came in after I had won. So, I won before any of those things came in. So, I'll just be very clear. What's funny is that even when I saw some of those associations, I wasn't sure how that should be classified. I asked some of our more progressive congressional leaders and progressive members as well. That was a differentiation, where it is okay to get money from people, but not necessarily the corporations themselves or the PACs associated with it. So, first off, if there is a distinction between the two, which I think that there is, I'd be happy to have the incumbent just do the same thing that I'm doing. So, give back all the corporate PAC money, give back all the money from corporations and that's totally fine. But because -- the reason why they're different is because they serve different interests. The reason why I support labor communities and the reason why I'm okay with taking funding from labor communities is because they serve the people. So, as long as it's focused on the people in the community, it's fine. If it's more to be in self-service to themselves, that's a very different type of story as well. But the incumbent has been around for a long time. I noticed that he did give back money from oil and gas companies and pharmaceutical companies as well. So, obviously there is some sort of difference in terms of where money comes from. We've just never taken it in the past. Even in this race, we don't take any corporate PACs. We don't even take any money from associations. It's been 100% individuals as well. So, I don't know. If it seems like splitting hairs then that's fine. They can do the exact same thing we're doing, give back all the money you've ever received from corporations and their PACs and only do associations and labor unions. But I do think that they're very different. Crystal Fincher: [00:16:47] So, do you consider something like the Washington Beer and Wine Distributors Association? By the way, lots of people enjoy, love beer and wine distributors. I certainly partake, so no shade to the organization, just in this conversation. An organization like that, which is a business lobby, really, and they're acting on behalf of their business members. Do you consider that to be something like a corporate PAC, where it's not a union, it's not something else, or do you just put that in a different category? Senator Joe Nguyen: [00:17:21] I think it's an association of people. So, as long as you're not taking from a specific business or a specific corporation, but I concede -- that is a very fair point. I've actually had some conversations with even one of our current and state-wide elected officials about their bar, because he probably has the most streak in terms of what type of money he gets. What I will say is that I have had people and their corporations try to give me stacks of checks before they realize that I didn't take corporate PAC money. They do that on purpose because they want to buy your influence. So, it's not as if it's an accident. So, I'm okay with associations. If folks want to raise the bar and take no money from any associations or any PACs, let's have that conversation because I do believe that money corrupts politics, and that's fundamentally one of the problems. In that point, I would actually support democracy vouchers for King County as well. I think we should have that -- Crystal Fincher: [00:18:13] that's not a bad idea. It's a pretty good idea. Senator Joe Nguyen: [00:18:15] It's a good idea. You know what's funny? Is when Seattle Democracy Voucher first came out, I was skeptical at first. Then, my background is in analytics. So, after the first election where the mayoral race didn't have access to Democracy Vouchers but the council races did, it was a perfect case study to see the impacts of Democracy Vouchers. I published an article in the South Seattle Emerald that showed that by having Democracy Vouchers you level the playing field, you have a more diverse candidate pool. You have a more diverse donation pool. You have younger people, people of color involved in politics that they had not been before. Then, by the way, you also included a lot of -- oftentimes you'll have outside influences on politics within Seattle. So, the percentage of money from outside Seattle versus inside was a lot less for Democracy Vouchers too. So, I think it's a great investment towards making our free and fair elections better, but no, that's a great conversation to have. I think we should have it. So, I don't take corporate money. I don't take money from corporations and their PACs. There is certainly a nuance in terms of what associations might count. But if we want to have that conversation, let's just not take any money from corporations or the PACs and let's have the discussion about associations and we can go from there. Crystal Fincher: [00:19:25] That makes sense. Now, talking about keeping the public safe, which includes policing, in today's conversation. Especially at the county, the issue of the youth jail has certainly been big and visible with people saying, "Why, if we're saying that we want to move in a direction, are we building a jail for kids?" A lot of strong opposition to that. Now, there's also a new opportunity with appointing a new sheriff, where we're moving away from electing the sheriff. King County very strongly said, "Hey, we want to do things differently." Actually, lots of people talk about this conversation about public safety and, "Hey, this is just a Seattle thing." But voters countywide said, "You know what? We know that we need to move in a different direction. This is where we want to go." They voted for some substantial change within the county. So, in terms of what a Nguyen administration would look like, how would that be different than what the Constantine administration has looked like? What are your specific plans in terms of the King County Sheriff, the department, and incarceration across the county? Senator Joe Nguyen: [00:20:43] Yeah. No, I agree. Like I mentioned before, 73% of the County General Fund goes towards our legal system. So, instead of trying to solve for the root causes of crime, which is oftentimes poverty, we just went ahead and criminalized it. That fundamentally is the problem. So, there's a few different aspects that I would tackle. So, first off, as it relates to the youth jail. So, the church where I grew up happened to be next to the youth jail, the area where we lined up in the morning on Sundays, you can see the cells from where were lined up. I remember a lot of the youth pastors at that point said, "Hey, if you're bad, you're going to end up there." Such a gross feeling for me just because whenever I look into those cells I saw kids that looked like me, and I just never liked that spot in the first place. That's why I'm so viscerally against it. In fact, one of my first bills, literally my first bill that passed on the Senate floor was a bill that would allow for law enforcement to refer youth to community facilities instead of having to go to the legal system as a whole. So, we've been working on this for the past few years. The difference is I would have listened to community members. Community members said, there were better ways than youth incarceration, there were better ways in building a bigger jail. Smaller therapeutic community-based organizations can help mitigate and lower the rates of youth detention. They were right. They built the jail anyway. Now, after it was built, they say, "Oh, it turns out you were right. We shouldn't have built it in the first place and then shut it down." That blows my mind. Imagine if you were able to spend $240 million on diversion and youth programs versus a jail. Imagine what better spot we would be in right now. So, the difference from a high level is that I would have listened to community members. I would have listened to the science and looked at the results and then make a decision based off of that. That's the first one. There are statutory requirements to have some sort of facility in order to maintain a process, but it didn't have to be a big jail. It could've been smaller therapeutic center as well. So, I'll put that one out there. There are a whole host of things that we can do. Everything from risk-based assessments, because the first thing that people are going to say is, "Well, there are going to be kids who are really, really bad and you don't know what to do with them." Well, first off, the number of kids who are in that category is very small. So, if all you have is a hammer, everything is going to look like a nail. So, we have to get away from that mindset and be able to actually address the root causes of some of these things. You can have what's called respite centers, where you have behavioral and mental health services onsite to help calm things down. So, certainly you can be able to have a facility to handle the most dire needs because we already spend so much money on that legal system. But for the majority of people, it should be more therapeutic, more humane, more community-based, that'd be the first one. In fact, they are doing it now. Choose 180, Credible Messengers, there are programs that are out there doing it right now because they were doing it before, we knew that they existed before. So, you would double down on some of those efforts. In terms of the Sheriff's office specifically, I thought that was a great move to make it an appointed process. Especially as a person who is currently running for office, I do know that running for office, the people that we elect aren't always the best people. It's just the people that were able to get elected. So, I think it's better to have a more thoughtful approach to something that is that important. The mindset that somebody in that position should have is a guardian. We need to change the culture of how we handle policing in King County. That person has to be a guardian and not necessarily a warrior in this space. So, we will look for somebody and it'll be based off of community input as well. So, oftentimes when we see leadership, a leader makes a decision, tells the community, and then thinks that counts as community engagement. I see it all the time. You've probably seen it all the time. That's not how it should be. They should be part of the process. Being able to have the discussions as we go along. One of the things that I would look for is how forward-thinking they are in terms of what the role of law enforcement should be because there's a lot of things that law enforcement is in charge of right now that I don't think you need somebody with a gun to be able to handle. One of the last bills or the last bill that I dropped before the session was over related to what's called pre-textual stops. Things like broken tail lights, expire tabs, something dangling from your rear view mirror. These are the things that do not pose a risk to somebody, but oftentimes half of the incidences where there's violence with law enforcement are because of what's called pre-textual stops. I think that should be removed from a uniformed officer that has a weapon. They could cite the person simply with the license plate. You can have a completely different department. Same thing with behavioral and mental health responses and stuff like that, where we should rethink the rule of policing in King County, because it would make it safer for the community. It also makes it safer for law enforcement as well. We have examples of how this has done well in other jurisdictions, whether it's one of the [Scandinavian] countries that are out there, but we're not reinventing the wheel. There are other examples of ways to do it better. Crystal Fincher: [00:25:45] So, in terms of what people can see with King County Sheriffs and their communities throughout the county, those cities that have arrangements and agreements and contracts with the King County Sheriffs -- Senator Joe Nguyen: [00:25:59] Contracts, yeah. Crystal Fincher: [00:25:59] -- they hopefully, in your administration, you're saying, can expect to see less of the stops you just described. Are there other differences that you think they will be able to see after you take office? Senator Joe Nguyen: [00:26:14] Yeah. You know what's funny, is I used to be in the Office of Law Enforcement Oversight. After a young man named Tommy Le was shot in Burien, I really wanted to get more involved to understand the systemic issues that caused that dynamic to happen. Instead of having a knee jerk reaction, met with his family, helped organize a forum, actually met with the Sheriff's office as well. My background is actually in strategy and analytics. So, I downloaded 10 years of data for law enforcement in King County, specifically for every single contract city as well, just to understand the trends of what was happening. So, this is a particular point of interest for me in terms of how they should be handled. Each contract is different depending on the jurisdictions that they're in, and that's how they actually fund the King County Sheriff's Office, is through these contracts. I would offer a variety of services that are different. So, what I will point out is the City of Sammamish, I'm not sure if they still do it or not, but part of their contracts, they have apparently a lot of snowbirds where law enforcement will come and just check in on their homes to make sure it's fine. So, it is possible to have other functions for these officers when they're out on patrol, and making sure that people are safe in a different way, but it would look a lot different. I think it would look a lot different than what we're currently doing now. It's going to be based more on programs that we know already work. So, a lot of the incidences where it's behavioral and mental health, you can have more of a Medic One type response, where you would send a professional, a mental health or behavioral health professional people to get some help. What's interesting is that Washington State, we used to be 50 out of 50 when it came to funding for behavioral and mental health. Over the past few years, based on the investments that we made, we're now 26 out of 50. Again, a lot of those things have to be implemented at the county level. So, layering on more services, removing things that aren't necessarily required for somebody that has a weapon, being able to have a variety of services that are layered on top of the basic needs programs that we have right now, it would be a lot different in that we can rethink the paradigm of what policing looks like in King County. Like I said, it's bigger than 14 states. It's the 12th largest county in the entire nation. I think we can be a beacon in terms of what the future policing could look like in Washington State and across the country as well. Crystal Fincher: [00:28:23] Absolutely. Looking at how we take care of our people and their health, air pollution is certainly a big issue that literally affects life expectancy, child health, hospitalizations, and disabilities. Looking at water pollution, certainly, addressing those issues, in addition to greenhouse gas emissions and the increasingly dire and impending consequences of not taking more action sooner, what will you do as King County Executive to address those issues? Senator Joe Nguyen: [00:29:00] Yeah. I think climate change should be the lens in which we look at the issues facing our county as well. What's interesting is, so I grew up in Burien as well. So, born in White Center, grew up in Burien, it's nearby the airport. Sorry, I have a lot of stories, but everything you say triggers a memory when I was a kid. I had asthma growing up because I was next to the highway and I had no idea that that was a thing. That if you were lower income you oftentimes live in areas that were more polluted. I just didn't know. So, we grew up next to the highway. I had asthma. I didn't realize a lot of other kids had asthma as well, but one of the most visceral memories that I had growing up before my father was in his car accident was that he would take us down to the Duwamish and he would go fishing or go crabbing. I remember one day, one of the strangers was walking by and said, "Hey, you don't want to eat that stuff because the water is polluted." He's a fishermen from Vietnam, so that's how you get sustenance. So, being told that the water is so poisoned you can't eat the food from it, was a very memorable moment for me in the sense of like, "Oh, wow, this stuff is impacting us right now." I was like six at that time. So, I think it impacts our daily lives. We have to look at it from a lens of how does our behavior as human beings impact climate change. So, before we were talking about the need for more affordable housing, I think there was a stat that said we needed 196,000 more affordable housing units to actually alleviate the issues that we're having right now. Again, you can do a few different things. So, we've passed legislation as it relates to car emissions and building standards. Again, those have to be implemented at the county level. Our planning should be mindful of climate change as well. So, the county is in charge of the Growth Management Act. For those who don't know, that's how you plan for development and growth in Washington State. It's a big, big deal. You should be more focused in terms of how climate change can impact that, which oftentimes means you need to build more densely in urban areas and then leave rural areas untouched. Because when you talk about mitigating the impacts of climate change, it's also carbon sequestration. So, being able to use that land to sequester carbon. Then, also when you talk about affordable housing, you can use what's called cross-laminated timber and you have to build as it relates to transit in those spaces as well. One of the things that I've always said is that we should have Transit For All. I say it because it's more equitable, but also because it lowers vehicles' miles traveled. So, it makes us lower our greenhouse gas emissions. I've done the math. People think that it's a wild idea. Fares make up 15% of the Metro revenue, 15%, you're talking about $180 million. So, the fact that we spend 73% of the General Fund on our legal system and nobody says anything, but if I wanted to just spend 10% of that budget on fares, people go wild. It's like, we can just reinvest our money more strategically. Also, we have to have a Transit Benefit District anyways to pay for a lot of the plans that we have in place for King County Metro Connect. So, there are ways to actually pay for this in a progressive way. It just requires a new level of thinking. So, when it comes to climate change, it has to be through the lens by which we operate. I'm glad that we bought a few buses. I'm glad that we're investing a little bit more in electrification. That's not going to be enough. We have to change behaviors. That includes being able to build transit in areas that have historically been left out. So, where I grew up, it took me an hour and a half to get downtown on a bus. I think they're now putting in the H Line, which is great because it helped pay for some of that as well, in partnership with the county. That is going to make it a little bit faster, 30 years after I left. So, it's an interesting dynamic where you're just now seeing communities having investments being made in it even though it's been a problem for generations. But that's really what it's going to take, is investing in communities impacted by it, having it be done strategically, so that way our transit and our housing is all being done at the same time. It also allows for economic mobility as well, so people can have access to their jobs. So, I'm rambling, but this is an area that I'm very, very passionate about. I serve on the Transportation Committee for this reason and I serve on the Environment, Energy and Technology Committee for this reason as well. Crystal Fincher: [00:33:02] And to be clear, when you say you support Transit For All, and especially talking about how it's very achievable to recover the amount of money that is received from the fare box, you're talking about free transit for all and not charging for riding whatever mode of Metro Transit it would be? Senator Joe Nguyen: [00:33:20] Yeah, exactly. Also, to protect the drivers themselves, to be honest. I think a lot of interactions where drivers have altercations is because of that system. Also by the way, law enforcement, fare enforcement is potentially problematic as well, or it is problematic. You just have to pass legislation to allow for alternative means of collecting fares. So, it's one of those things where it's good, that should exist in our society. What's funny, I know what the person, the incumbent is going to say, is that, "Well, 60% of the fare revenue comes from corporations paying for it for their employees." Absolutely right. What's interesting is you can do what's called a Transit Benefit District. Right now, it's usually an MVET, or a sales tax, or a property tax, very regressive. I would lobby the legislature to have something a bit more progressive. What's interesting is that when Joe Biden put out his infrastructure plan and said that we would need to have progressive business taxes in order to pay for it, one of the first people to speak out in favor was actually Jeff Bezos. So, there is appetite because they understand that their workforce needs to have this infrastructure to be successful as well. So, I think that we could potentially get new authority from the legislature to have a Transit Benefit District paid for by larger corporations based off of whatever metric they want to use, office spaces they've leased or size, or whatever they want to use, to help mitigate the cost of the fares. But also we need to pay for a Transit Benefit District anyways for the infrastructure for part of the Metro Connect plan. That's another thing too, is that we need to do a better job connecting state infrastructure, city infrastructure, and county infrastructure. The fact that we have to have multiple ways of paying for things makes it a little bit difficult. So, implementing that by having Transit For All just makes it easier, I think, as a whole. Crystal Fincher: [00:35:05] I think so. I agree with that, actually. So, as we get ready to close, certainly looking at someone who's been an incumbent for a long time with Dow Constantine and who has almost always had a litany of endorsements from labor unions, progressive organizations, other elected officials. This year is no different, frankly. His endorsement page is lengthy. When you look at that and you're making the case to the people, why in the face of all that, and a lot of people supporting Dow Constantine, a lot of organizations supporting Dow Constantine, why should they choose you? Why do you have a path to win and the ability to really deliver on the change you're talking about? Senator Joe Nguyen: [00:35:53] Yeah, what's interesting is that most of those endorsements came before anybody knew that I was even running for office. In fact, I think all but a handful came before I even jumped in the race. For folks who are paying attention, the fact that we are in the driver's seat when it comes to most of these endorsements now, whether it's legislative districts, whether it's in the KC Dems and otherwise, we're getting about 60% to 40% of the majority of these meetings. We have the sole endorsements from the 11th, 39th [Legislative District Democrats]. We have duals in the 37th, 36th. Most other ones, we're just at that threshold to get a sole endorsement, which is 66%. We're getting 62%, 64%, so one or two people. So, the fact that the incumbent has been there for 12 years and the fact that he's already spent $750,000, and we're the ones that are driving the conversation in terms of the endorsement after only being in for about two to three weeks, I think in itself is telling in terms of where the tides are turning. We have the sole endorsements from the King County Young Democrats. We have the endorsements from the ATU [Amalgamated Transit Union]. There's a couple of other ones that are pending as well, that we'll make public pretty soon. Then, we have significant amount of support from legislators and other elected officials across the state. So, I'm not too worried about the endorsement game just because, look at what came in before I jumped in, look what came in afterwards. It's pretty telling by itself. But what people really want more so than that is to see that their lives are getting better. I've had conversations with thousands of people at this point, not just as a senator but also on the campaign trail. What really people want right now is change. They know that we need to act urgently when it comes to tackling homelessness. They know that we need to act urgently when it comes to tackling climate change. They know that we need to act urgently when it comes to tackling racial inequities in our society. Especially when it comes to say, for instance, gun violence and otherwise as well. So, I think the pitch that I'll make to people, and it seems to be resonating, is that, "Look, in this moment in time, as we're moving out of this pandemic, we're trying to now address systemic issues that have been in place for generations, for generations, that have not been able to be moved in terms of the current leadership that we have in place right now. It's simply time for change." I think we'll have that message resonate just based off of what we're already seeing with some of these, not just endorsements, but community conversations as well. I think we'll have a strong shot winning South King County. I think we'll have a strong shot winning Seattle. I think we'll have a strong shot in East King County as well. So, I think people are hungry for change and I think we represent what that change could look like. Crystal Fincher: [00:38:29] Well, certainly we'll be keeping an eye on this race. It's one of the biggest ones happening in the State this year. Senator Joe Nguyen: [00:38:35] Yeah. Crystal Fincher: [00:38:36] I look forward to talking to you again. Thanks so much for joining us today. Senator Joe Nguyen: [00:38:40] Thank you. I appreciate the time. Crystal Fincher: [00:38:45] Thank you for listening to Hacks and Wonks. Our chief audio engineer at KVRU is Maurice Jones, Jr. The producer of Hacks and Wonks is Lisl Stadler. You can find me on Twitter @Finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I, and now you can follow Hacks and Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts. Just type in Hacks and Wonks into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our mid-week show delivered to your podcast feed. You can also get a full text transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced during the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in. Talk to you next time.

In this episode, Crystal brings on her colleague Shannon Cheng, ACLU People Power activist and all around wonderful person, to talk about what's next for policing in 2021, what action on policing we can we can expect from the upcoming legislative session, and follow Shannon's path into activism. A full text transcript of the show is available below, and on the Hacks & Wonks blog at www.officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   References: Learn more about ACLU People Power: https://www.wethepeoplepower.org/kcca Learn more about bills during this legislative session: https://leg.wa.gov/ Find your state representatives here: https://app.leg.wa.gov/districtfinder/ The NAACP Legal Defense Fund's Police Union Contract Toolkit: https://www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/LDF_07242020_PoliceContractToolKit-12c.pdf   Full Transcript: Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] Welcome to Hacks and Wonks. I'm your host, Crystal Fincher. On this show, we talk to Political Hacks and Policy Wonks to gather insight into local politics and policy through the lens of those doing the work, and provide behind-the-scenes perspectives on politics in our state. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, joining us is Shannon Cheng, who in addition to being a colleague of mine at Fincher Consulting, is an activist with ACLU People Power. Thanks for joining us, Shannon.  Shannon Cheng: [00:00:56] Thanks Crystal! Excited to be here.  Crystal Fincher: [00:00:58] Thank you! Excited to have you - so why don't you tell us a little bit about who People Power is. Shannon Cheng: [00:01:04] Yeah, so People Power is a grassroots project of the ACLU. What they do is, sometimes they will provide blueprints of campaigns to further civil liberties for all, but it's up to volunteer organizers to choose tactics and put them into motion. So it's truly grassroots and it was pretty exciting for me to get involved. I was not really a politically active person, but like many other people in early 2017, I was feeling pretty adrift and powerless after the election of Trump and was looking for something to do to change something.  Crystal Fincher: [00:01:38] That completely makes sense, so what did you do? Shannon Cheng: [00:01:41] So, yeah, there was a call to action by the national ACLU on - this first campaign was called Freedom Cities, which involved meeting with local law enforcement agencies to ensure that people's constitutional rights weren't being violated through cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. And yeah, kind of at the same time, our local affiliate, the ACLU of Washington, approached our group about supporting local police accountability reform. So as part of that work, we helped advocate for passage of some local ordinances. One was at the King County level and expanded the authorities of the County's Office of Law Enforcement Oversight. And then there was also the City of Seattle's Police Accountability Ordinance that, in response to the work on the consent decree, enshrined a three-body system to allow for community input and civilian oversight.  Crystal Fincher: [00:02:31] In your work on that and starting out, how did that affect you or what ended up happening at that time?  Shannon Cheng: [00:02:38] I hope that people listening to this can feel inspired about starting their own journey as an activist, because I really knew absolutely nothing when I started. And have just been learning along the way and just having my eyes opened to how the world works. And so what happened was both of these ordinances we were asked to help - they passed and there was much joy and excitement. We got to celebrate alongside everybody in community who had fought for those reforms for way longer than we had been there. And it's really kind of humbling to just get to be there at the finish line. But I think a lesson that I've gradually learned through activism is the work doesn't stop at wins like these . Actual follow through is key and in this case, accountability for a robust accountability system needed to happen. And so though we had that victory in May 2017 when Seattle City Council unanimously passed our landmark accountability law, we had a huge setback in November 2018, when that same City Council voted to ratify the SPOG, or Seattle Police Officer's Guild contract, which contained provisions that watered down that accountability ordinance. And I think for me that City Council meeting where that happened was a huge turning point for me, where I naively entered thinking, Oh, well, you know, the last time we were here this passed. And gradually at the meeting, hearing community member after community member come up to testify about how collective bargaining and police accountability aren't mutually exclusive, and then to see the writing on the wall as councilmembers made speeches and ended up supporting the contract anyway.  A core group of us stayed engaged after that, trying to monitor the city's progress on the consent decree and the new police contract negotiations that are now upcoming. And honestly, earlier this year it was feeling a bit hopeless. Despite being court-ordered in 2019 specifically to address accountability, the City had been stalling on that front and in early May of this year filed a motion to end independent monitoring of Seattle Police Department's use of excessive force and racial bias in policing. And meanwhile, the pandemic was in full force and community groups were focused on trying to take care of their communities. So it just felt like they were trying to slip something through when people weren't able to pay attention. And I think this felt alarming - that community was just going to be ignored.  Crystal Fincher: [00:05:08] Which had been the case in the past, and I share your feeling with the approval of the 2018 SPOG contract and seeing accountability measures rolled back and watered down, and feeling like we just took a big step back and wondering where do we go from here? And also that it's a really complicated process. Once we start talking about the Guild contract and some of the really inside process, it's hard for the average person who hasn't been engaged in this process to follow the process through. And certainly looked like maybe this was going to happen again and we were going to take another step back. And then - George Floyd was murdered. After so many other Black people have been murdered and assaulted and civil rights being violated at the hands of police - and it was just a breaking point - the straw that broke the camel's back and protests broke out nationwide, including in Seattle, and brought a huge focus directly onto police accountability. How did that impact your group?  Shannon Cheng: [00:06:21] Yeah - that moment was a real tipping point. Our core group had been trying to understand the systems - where were the levers of power - speaking to our City Council members, trying to affect change, and testifying at meetings to try to make the next contract negotiations go in a better way. And like I said, it was feeling hopeless, but then after that event and all the protests breaking out, immediately there was this spotlight on all these issues that had always been there but just been able to be ignored by the broad public. And within a week, I think, after protests broke out, the City of Seattle withdrew that motion - trying to get out from being monitored. And it was kind of funny because it felt like, Okay, our goal is now done. But as I said before, the work doesn't end there. And so what ended up happening is our somewhat sleepy little group suddenly had a giant uptick of interest and people coming from all over, wanting to work with us. And we were a little overwhelmed, because we had been so focused on a particular goal, that at that point had been met. And so it was about trying to regroup and re-understand and listen to what the protestors and community members were saying. And try to understand - where do we go from there?  So we ended up helping support - locally here in Seattle, we had months of budget talks - this deep questioning of what the role of police is in the City of Seattle, and what we would want that to look like, and what kind of accountability measures could come from that. In addition, with the large outpouring of new support - we had people reaching out to us who wanted to help, who didn't specifically live in the City of Seattle - so we ended up wanting to broaden our focus and we found an opportunity at the King County level to help out, as in this past election in November, there were four charter amendments on the ballot that specifically were about police reform. And so we worked on a campaign to help support and pass those, which they all did successfully. And then, we're also looking at the upcoming state Legislative Session where a lot of policy and bills are being introduced - that some of them are foundational to being able to get a lot more of this work done at all the other levels.  Crystal Fincher: [00:08:51] You talked about action in the City, action in the County, action at the legislative level - talking about police accountability, reform, transformation - is not just a one-jurisdiction job. It touches so many. How do you manage that?  Shannon Cheng: [00:09:11] It's a little dizzying. Trying to wrap one's head around all the different layers - there's your local jurisdiction's police department, there's the local police guilds, there's just the local government - in Seattle, we have the Mayor and the City Council - just trying to understand how all those fit together and who actually has power to make some of the changes - that is something that we've tried to look at. At the City, we kept running up into walls - when we would have meetings with City Councilmembers asking about reforms, they would point to us to the State and say, Well, this is under state law and for that to happen, we would need state law to change. So basically, we agree with you, but this is not under our purview. So kind of pointing us elsewhere - and part of it as an activist is trying to understand what they're telling you - and one, doing your fact checking and make sure, making sure that's correct - that they're not just diverting you and passing you off to somebody else, but then understanding, Okay, the next step of this process - maybe it is to go to the State.  And then for Seattle, a lot of what got us involved in the King County process is understanding that when an officer-involved shooting happens anywhere in King County, whether that's through the King County Sheriff's Office, the Seattle Police Department, or any other city that has their own departments, such as Bellevue, Auburn, Kent - all those go through inquests that are under the King County level. And that was what one of the charter amendments was about - was about reforming that inquest process. So, you start down a path and it just quickly turns into this rabbit hole of all these interconnected laws and policies between these different levels. And it is hard to keep track of.  Crystal Fincher: [00:11:08] And looking at how - all right, we want cities to make a change and we want you to reduce funding, we want these officers to be held accountable - but understanding especially institutional power usually doesn't just rely on one method or one lever to maintain power and control. Usually institutional power is like tentacles - the entrenchment of our current policing system is not held actually within the police department. It happens quite frequently that an officer can be found to have violated policy and/or the law, and then can appeal it - go through arbitration - appeal that discipline. A Chief can fire them and then that decision can be overruled and the police officer can wind back up on the force. So it looks like police chiefs are ultimately powerless when it comes to establishing a culture and setting discipline - certainly rots the culture of a department - is completely demoralizing to people who feel like they are doing their jobs in the right way, but it leaves them powerless. How do you get around that issue? Does that lie in the Guild contract? Does that lie in other laws? How does that get fixed? Shannon Cheng: [00:12:31] This problem is really huge and I think in some ways, it lies everywhere. We, as community members, need to be engaged and continuing to pressure our elected officials who have different levers of power - that this is important. The police guild definitely has a huge role in it. They, under state law, get to collectively bargain in what way discipline and accountability happens when there's officer misconduct. Even though the City can pass an ordinance, as Seattle did in 2017, it doesn't actually become law unless it's accepted into the police contract, which are done through these closed-door negotiations, and that there's very little public insight into what actually happens there. At the same time, city government does have the power that City Council could reject a police contract, if it comes out from behind those closed doors, that is not acceptable - but the police are very entrenched, as you said, and it has just been the pattern of accepting that what comes out is what we have to take, even though that may not technically be the case. Then there is this question - at the state level - that they could help empower local communities to be able to be better -  to implement these accountability systems that have been proposed by taking it out of the collective bargaining process and making that something that is truly public - that everybody and anybody can see what's happening and understand what trade-offs are being made - and making sure that that is something that we all want. I hear a lot about people talking about needing to restore trust in law enforcement and sometimes I wonder if law enforcement trusts us - why are they so concerned and fighting tooth and nail against any attempts to put any amount of accountability process into place for them? Crystal Fincher: [00:14:54] Just a reminder that you're listening to Hacks and Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM. I'm your host, Crystal Fincher. And today our guest is Shannon Cheng, grassroots  activist with People Power. Valid question. A lot of the conversation right now is philosophically on the front end. There's a lot that deals with accountability - after something potentially bad has happened - but there is a call for, Okay, let's actually not just focus on tinkering around the edges, as it appears to some people, or focusing on things that only deal with something after the fact. How do we prevent these things from happening in the first place? Hence, calls to reduce the amount of patrol officers on the street, reducing funding, demilitarizing organizations, and re-imagining what policing is and divesting from armed enforcement to community-based solutions. How do you navigate that?  Shannon Cheng: [00:15:59] Policing is very reactive. You call the police when there's a problem that is already happening or happened. And oftentimes, I think the experience of a lot of people is, when the police show up, they aren't actually helping or addressing the root cause of what the problem was that brought them to that place. To me, it makes sense to try to be more proactive and try to address those. And I think as we've been delving deeper into what city and police budgets look like, it appears that we're spending a lot on being reactive rather than being proactive. And so this is this issue of thinking about, Okay, are we going to just continue to reform a system that has not worked for many of us in the past, or currently? Or do we want to figure out how to transform it and society into something that better serves all of us, not just a few of us. And I guess that's, to me, like in my own life - if I think about problems - it's better to get to the root of things, but it's harder. And I think it's also - it's harder for people to quantify whether something has worked. And that is the issue and why, I think, we go back to being knee-jerk reactors to problems.  Crystal Fincher: [00:17:30] So as you're looking at what you're supporting, or what is on the table coming up in this legislative session in the near term - in local, regional and state government. What is that landscape? What is being talked about? What are the things that are going to be in front of bodies that have the power to change process and change the law?  Shannon Cheng: [00:17:55] So there's going to be a lot of bills related to policing coming up at the state level in January. Some of them are addressing police standards - so trying to change at the police level what happens - things that will ban chokeholds and neck restraints, no-knock warrants, unleashed police dogs. There are bills that are looking to demilitarize the police. There are bills that are looking at setting a statewide standard for use of force and when that's appropriate. There's also talk about having a standard where officers have to report misconduct of their peers. So that is looking at trying to change upstream what happens throughout an officer's daily day-to-day.  Then there's a lot of bills that are going to look at different avenues of accountability that are available. So when an officer misconduct situation does happen, what opportunities do community or jurisdictions have to hold those officers accountable. And so I think there's three different levels of accountability. There's the criminal accountability , which currently there's a lot of talk about trying to have truly independent investigations, where you're not having police departments investigate other police departments. They are looking to set up a statewide oversight entity to oversee that and potentially, also have an independent prosecutor for deadly force incidents. There's also talk about - at the civil liability level - making it possible for both police officers and departments to be held civilly liable for misconduct. Part of that is going to be removing the restriction of qualified immunity at the Washington state level. Then administratively - so allowing police departments or chiefs to actually follow through on the standards that we're setting and hold officers accountable when they don't live up to them - there is talk about trying to reform collective bargaining such that we do empower local jurisdictions to be able to hold officers accountable.  And then in support of a lot of these are talks about de-certification - having the ability statewide to de-certify officers from being able to get jobs at other police departments. There's also a push to have more transparency - so setting up databases that would track misconduct and disclose police activity. And then there's also talk about trying to empower the setup of local community advocacy boards across the State. Crystal Fincher: [00:20:53] Okay, so that is a lot. And also, probably not enough. So if this is going to be introduced in the session, which starts on January 11th, how can people advocate for these? What do they need to do? And how do you recommend people getting involved and making sure that legislators know that they're paying attention and that they want this at the local level?  Shannon Cheng: [00:21:19] Thanks for asking that, Crystal . People absolutely need to be engaged and involved for any of this change to happen. We can't just leave it to lawmakers to make it happen. So what we need to do is show them that there is community public support for these reforms that are being talked about. So one of the best ways to do that is to look up who your legislators are, and write them an email, or call them, or even set up a meeting with them to talk about - if you have a personal story about how you've been affected, that is a huge boon for legislators to hear from you. And there's also opportunity - a lot of these bills will be going through committees that are dealing with Law and Justice or Public Safety, so you can look up on leg.wa.gov when the bill you're interested in is going to be in committee. You can - I think everything's going to be virtual this year, so in some ways it's going to be a lot easier for grassroots activists to take part. You don't have to drive yourself down to Olympia to be present and you can testify or just sign in and show support. I think it's about making noise that these issues matter to the public - and keeping up that noise - and continuing to put pressure on our lawmakers to live up to the vision that the community has for what policing could look like.  Crystal Fincher: [00:23:00] You mentioned getting bill detail and finding out who legislators are - we will include in the show notes for this podcast and the website - the links in order to be able to do that and to be able to track each piece of legislation that's proposed, the bill name attached to it, and a synopsis of what happens. There is a lot of good information that can be tracked down with those. So we'll include those in the show notes, but if someone wants to get involved with People Power, Shannon, how should they do that?  Shannon Cheng: [00:23:35] So we have a new website that we set up this last year and it is wethepeoplepower.org. And if you go there, there's a summary of what all we're working on and you can sign up - there's a sign up link at the bottom of the homepage, or if you do Get Involved -> Join Us that also takes you there. We will also likely be having action alerts on our webpage once Legislative Session starts, so check back for updates.  Crystal Fincher: [00:24:07] I want to touch with you, in about the five minutes that we have left, talking about collective bargaining reform that you talked about. Why is it important to be paying attention to what is happening with renegotiation of the SPOG contract and other police guild contracts for other city police departments, county police departments? Why is that so important in the overall conversation of reform and accountability?  Shannon Cheng: [00:24:41] To me, it's important because it empowers the local jurisdictions and police departments to have a say in what their police department looks like. A lot of reforms are being proposed, but if there isn't mechanisms in place where accountability for those reforms can happen, then passing all those reforms is kind of pointless. So what we need to do to strengthen the overall reform effort is prevent accountability being able to be watered down, contract after contract, in local jurisdictions. Crystal Fincher: [00:25:23] So ultimately local jurisdictions don't have the final authority or the final say on what happens in terms of discipline for officers. And that's something that lives within the police guild contracts?  Shannon Cheng: [00:25:40] Practically speaking, that's how it's played out. As I said, City Council could refuse to ratify a contract, but I think what is more concerning is that the public is calling for wanting accountability, and understanding, and having transparency into how that accountability is happening. And by having the process by which that is set up happen in closed-door negotiations, the public doesn't have any ability to trust that their interests are being met. I think it's dangerous - because without this transparency, it sets up this assumption that we have a robust accountability system in place when we really don't. And so when something does happen that the public wants to call out, they are often going to agencies or officials who don't actually have the power to solve the problem. It just continues to degrade the trust that the public can have in the process.  Crystal Fincher: [00:26:57] The challenge that we are hearing from pretty much every legislator involved in this process and many community members - is this rule is unionwide, across the big spectrum of unions that represent workers. And I am certainly a strong proponent of unions, as most of us, especially in this region are. And so not wanting to tear down any union protections for general workers, but recognizing that police officers do have a unique role because they can impact people's civil rights with every contact that they have with the public - and do have the power and authority to use lethal force. And so it seems like that responsibility is far and above most other positions that are involved, and so the accountability that should be tied to it should be greater than most other positions involved. But the details and how to segregate police from others, in terms of the contract, and treat them independently as their role would indicate as appropriate, is a challenging thing. Do you see any other complications in that process?  Shannon Cheng: [00:28:26] It is complicated. I mean, we respect the rights of workers to collectively bargain fair pay, benefits, working conditions. I think - it's just police unions and guilds have been masterful at muddling up that push for workers' rights with their ability to avoid being held accountable. As you said, police officers have state-sanctioned responsibilities that other union employees do not have. And so it makes sense that they should be held to a higher standard for those. They have the ability to get in the way of civilians' life and liberty - and that is a serious matter - and shouldn't be left up to being weighed against how much they get for overtime, or how much vacation they get. It's a serious enough matter that it should be brought out into the public. We don't want to bring everything out - we want just this piece that is specific and special to law enforcement.  Crystal Fincher: [00:29:44] Right. And to that end, it seems like that is a conversation that is certainly occurring within the labor community. Here in King County where we're located, the King County Labor Council, or the overarching organization representing all unions in this region, in this County - actually expelled the Seattle Police Officers Guild, particularly after seeing their staunch resistance to any kind of accountability or oversight, and seeming defense of violations and violence perpetrated by some officers during protests. We have had the opportunity to talk about a lot in this conversation, but I think overall is just that - you started from just someone who felt like - I need to get involved and make a difference to someone who's involved in a number of advocacy, reform, re-imagining, and accountability efforts at all levels in government. And that other people can follow that same path and impact these decisions that are being made. And that they do need to be involved if we are going to push our elected officials to pass the reforms that are so necessary. So thank you so much for spending time with us today, Shannon.  Shannon Cheng: [00:31:07] Thanks Crystal! We all have our own skills and I like to call them activism superpowers. I think, for a lot of us, it's just trying to figure out what that is, and just go out there and make change. Crystal Fincher: [00:31:27] Thank you for listening to Hacks and Wonks. Our chief audio engineer at KVRU is Maurice Jones, Jr. The producer of Hacks and Wonks is Lisl Stadler. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii and now you can follow Hacks and Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type in Hacks and Wonks into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our mid-week show delivered to your podcast feed. You can also get a full text transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced during the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in. Talk to you next time.

Seattle city council has voted to DEFUND the SPD by up to 50%. King County Exec has proposed defunding the sheriff's office, closing the jail, no juvenile incarceration, and more. They want safe injection sites and to stop prosecuting certain felonies. Now what? --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/behindtheline/support

With national concern about the relationship of police and the communities in which they work, The Social Network Show welcomes another episode of the National Crime Prevention Council Series that discusses this issue. Co-host Michelle Boykins, Senior Director of Communications introduces her guest, Sue Rahr, Executive Director of the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission and a former Sheriff in King County, Washington. Sue tells us how important the current national conversation about the relationship of the police and communities, is for the future. She is positive that the new police recruits will change the culture of the police departments because of the current training they are getting and the use of social media to enhance communication about crime. Much of the discussion in today's show was about a report that Sue wrote with a colleague titled, From Warriors to Guardians: Recommitting American Police Culture to Democratic Ideals. The report indicates that law enforcement has drifted off course in building close ties to community members and that the "tough on crime" and "zero tolerance" stance in police departments has had unintended consequences that are not good. Listen to the show to hear about the tough decisions that police officers have to make and what Sue thinks needs to be done to improve community policing. Susan Rahr, Appointee for Member, President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing Susan Rahr is Executive Director of the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission, a position she has held since 2012.  From 2005 to 2012, she served as the first female Sheriff in King County, Washington.  Ms. Rahr spent over thirty years as a law enforcement officer, beginning as a patrol officer and undercover narcotics officer.  While serving with the King County Sheriff's Office, she held various positions including serving as the commander of the Internal Investigations and Gang Units, commander of the Special Investigations Section, and Police Chief of Shoreline, Washington.  Ms. Rahr received a B.A. from Washington State University.