Podcast appearances and mentions of Maurice Jones

On today's Hacks & Wonks week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Seattle political reporter and the editor of PubliCola, Erica Barnett! Crystal and Erica discuss the City of Seattle's first-in-the-nation legislation to provide paid sick and safe leave for gig workers, Mayor Bruce Harrell's $970 million housing levy proposal, a story about the lack of progress building tiny homes leads to a discussion about the difference in responsibilities between the city council and the mayor - who bears the responsibility to implement programs and policy that has been funded. Then they discuss the recently discovered $280,000 contract given to a Harrell associate to seemingly spin the narrative that his preferred Sound Transit station proposal is community led, and a political tactic used by monied interests that exploits language and concerns voiced by marginalized communities to influence policy. Erica and Crystal also cover the Department of Justice moving to end the consent decree with the Seattle Police Department and the Seattle City Council candidate facing accusations of non-payment from former staff and volunteers. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Erica Barnett, at @ericacbarnett.   Resources Megan Burbank and the State of Reproductive Healthcare in Washington from Hacks & Wonks    Seattle passes first-in-the-nation paid sick leave for gig workers by Josh Cohen from Crosscut    Mayor Harrell Unveils $970 Million Housing Levy Proposal by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist    Andrew Lewis announced a fundraising plan to double Seattle's tiny houses. So, where are they? by Anna Patrick from The Seattle Times    City Paid Consultant Tim Ceis $280,000 to "Encourage Agreement" and Build "Community Consensus" for Harrell's Light Rail Route by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola    Sound Transit Board Adopts Major Last-Minute Changes to 2016 Light Rail Plan, Skipping Chinatown and First Hill by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   Sound Transit Board Backs Last-Minute Proposal to Skip Chinatown and Midtown Stations by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist    City Asks Judge to End Consent Decree; Outstanding Issues Include Protest Response and Accountability by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   Matthew Mitnick's Campaign Meltdown by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger   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 get the podcast - the full versions of our podcast - on our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday midweek show, I welcomed reporter Megan Burbank to talk about the status of reproductive health care in our state after last year's Dobbs decision removed guarantees for abortion access on the national level. Today we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: Seattle political reporter, editor of PubliCola, co-host of the Seattle Nice podcast, and author of Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse, and Recovery, Erica Barnett. Hello. [00:01:12] Erica Barnett: Hello - it's great to be here. [00:01:13] Crystal Fincher: Great to have you back. We have some good news this week, interesting news this week - we will start off for a big deal for gig workers - paid sick and safe leave is now available. What's going on here? [00:01:30] Erica Barnett: As you said, the gig workers for the bigger companies - DoorDash, Uber, et cetera - are going to have access to the same paid sick and safe leave benefits that full-time employees have, provided by their employers. So there's a new law that was signed into - a new local law - that was signed this week. And yeah, so this is part of the process of slowly acknowledging that gig workers are, in fact, workers and employees of the companies that employ them, and not just people doing this for a hobby or as a extra source of work. These are jobs, and they are jobs that require now the same benefits that every other kind of job requires. [00:02:14] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and this is taking place during a years-long debate, conversation, fight for gig workers rights from a lot of people who have recognized that - hey, the work that these people are doing looks a lot like the work of employees and not of independent contractors. They're being told where to go when, how to do things - fitting in a pretty specific box of behavior with a lot less latitude than a lot of people think of when they think of independent contractors or independent business owners. And the bottom line is because of this, whether or not it even meets the legal test of an employee - functionally, this is how it works. And so the impacts on people's families and in our society are the same as employees. So if someone gets sick, it can be incredibly economically disruptive to that family and to our community to not have any leave available. So this definitely seems like a positive thing for workers, and for the community, and just helping to make sure there's a solid safety net in place. This is a big bell - all of these safety net items that keep coming and unfortunately going in a lot of situations - but this was a gratifying thing to see that I think is going to help a number of people. [00:03:37] Erica Barnett: Yeah, and I think it's also part of the - just the reckoning from the pandemic that is, I think, slowly being whittled away at as people are being required to come back to offices, unnecessarily in a lot of cases. I think during the pandemic, we really started to wrestle with this idea of hustle culture - this idea that nobody needs any time off, and your work is your life, and it should be the only thing you care about. That is, I hope, over - at least for the time being. And we're trying in this state, at least, to figure out ways to put those kind of somewhat new values into practice by doing at least the minimum, which I think this particular law - it's great, but allowing people to have time off when they're sick should be a floor and not a ceiling. [00:04:30] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and your point about many of the pandemic-era protections and safety net enhancements being whittled away is absolutely true. We're about to head into a time next week where mask mandates, even for transit, health care situations - the few remaining situations where they were necessary - are no longer being mandated. Although we are getting some news about some local health care systems that are still looking as if they're going to be continuing those, so we will stay tuned. Certainly housing is top of mind for a lot of people now. City of Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell has proposed an enhancement to the Housing Levy. What is he proposing and what will this do? [00:05:18] Erica Barnett: Yeah, the new Housing Levy proposal would triple the size - and that's in real terms - the actual tax that people will be paying on their property. The previous Housing Levy - which passed in 2016 and is expiring now - that levy was $290 million. This would raise $970 million, which is obviously a significant bump. Interestingly, because the cost of everything has risen so much quicker than in the past and inflation has been so bad - and the cost of construction and the availability of labor and all the reasons that housing has become more expensive - well, building housing is also a lot more expensive. So as a result, one sort of dampening feature of this levy - or disappointing - is that it's not going to build that much more housing than the previous levy, despite it being tripled now. Now, that's not an argument not to do it. If we did levy the size of the previous levy, we would be building - we would be dramatically going back on reducing the amount of housing we were building. So it may be necessary to increase it this much, but it's not going to triple the size of housing or the amount of housing that's being built. [00:06:28] Crystal Fincher: So given that the money is tripling but the amount of housing isn't, what accounts for the difference - is it that housing costs have also experienced inflation, construction costs have experienced inflation? What accounts for so much of that extra money not providing housing? [00:06:48] Erica Barnett: Yeah, the main reason is that construction costs have simply increased, as has the cost of land. And that's everything from material, steel, concrete, to labor, to just - everything involved with building an apartment building now is more expensive. I think that raises a question that the Housing Levy does not attempt to answer - and we could go down a rabbit hole on who is supporting the Housing Levy and why - but the Housing Levy is not primarily an acquisition levy, and maybe it should shift more in that direction. It's much, much cheaper to - as the example of the Low Income Housing Institute during the pandemic has really shown - it's much cheaper to buy housing that already exists and convert it into low-income housing or start renting it to low-income people than it is to build new housing from the ground. And so I think this is a very - we're using the same old methods that we have always used and building housing instead of acquiring housing. And there are good reasons to want to build more affordable housing and add more density and all this stuff, but it also is quite expensive. And I think that there should be perhaps more creativity in play than just saying - Well, it's three times as expensive, so we're going to triple it. It doesn't necessarily solve the problem if, in seven years, we're coming back with a $3 billion levy. [00:08:10] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And I think that is part of the tension in all of our conversations about housing that we're having policy-wise at different levels - it's what will actually make enough of a dent in the problem in the medium-term to long-term? If we keep this incrementalist approach, it feels like we are just setting ourselves up for increased expenses, increased costs. And there needs to be a massive investment that will result in more affordable housing units, whether that's a combination of affordable on the market - which is not affordable for many people now - subsidized housing, public housing, whatever that is. We need more of it now, and I think a lot of people are concerned that what we're doing is going to do exactly what you say - kick the can down the road and set ourselves up for - are we going to need a tripling of the next levy? And I think sometimes we're a little bit hesitant on the left to have some conversations about - are we getting the value for our dollar that we need to here? Is this actually going to meaningfully address the problem? Again, absolutely not saying that we shouldn't pass this Housing Levy. We definitely need more housing. It needs to be a multifaceted, all-hands-on-deck approach. And this may be the best that can be done right now, but I think we do need to ask - is this the best that we can do, or how do we need to supplement this, and what's going on? In one of those things for - how do we supplement this, what other strategies can we use to help make housing more affordable for more people - Andrew Lewis, certainly in trying to address the homelessness problem has really launched into tiny homes as an option that can meaningfully address moving people off of the street, out of encampments into a place that could help them stabilize and launch into more permanent affordable housing. But we saw a story this week asking where those tiny homes are - what has happened and where are we at right now? [00:10:29] Erica Barnett: Andrew Lewis promised, I believe - and I'm not looking at the story right now, I'm just going from memory - I think it was 800 tiny homes over a certain period. And promise is - that's the word that The Seattle Times used. I think this was like a goal, and it's a goal that really depends on the - on both funding through the City budget, which has to be approved by both the City Council and the mayor, and it also depends on the mayor's willingness to actually invest those funds and actually direct funding toward that purpose. And I think this gets lost a lot of times when people are criticizing the City Council for inaction and blaming the City Council for things - it's up to the mayor. And under Mayor Jenny Durkan, there were a whole lot of things that didn't happen. She just decided that they weren't her priorities, and so the council would allocate money and the mayor would not spend it - and I think we're seeing that to a certain extent here. I also think the Regional Homelessness Authority has been quite hostile to the notion of spending money on tiny homes. Their five-year plan that came out recently, or at least the draft, had no money at all for tiny homes. Now, they've changed that a little bit in the plan that they're probably going to finally adopt next month - but there is a lot of pushback against tiny homes as a form of shelter. And it's the type of shelter that people who are being swept from encampments most often say that they want, and so I think it is certainly worth a short-term investment at least. But right now we're not quite living up to what the City Council and Andrew Lewis have proposed. [00:12:04] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And your point about just whose responsibility is this is well taken. And I think in a number of areas - and frankly, in some of the local media coverage that we see of this - it really doesn't come through who is responsible for what. What does a city council do? What does a mayor do? A city council is responsible for allocating funds and for developing the policy for an issue. The mayor is the person who makes it happen. They implement and execute - that's their job. All of the departments in the City report to the mayor - they oversee and direct what happens in that. So really, once the money is made available and they hand it over to the mayor's office - whether or not something happens is really up to the executive - right now, Mayor Bruce Harrell. So I am curious about where this stands, but similar to several other conversations that we're having - whether it's issues related to homelessness or issues related to public safety, like Bruce Harrell's promise to stand up alternative 911 responses so that people can have the most appropriate responder to whatever emergency they're having - which usually is not a armed police officer in a situation that isn't related to illegality, but maybe someone's having a behavioral health crisis or needs some other resources. We need to ask Bruce Harrell where that is - that is the mayor's responsibility. Once the money is allocated, once the city council says - Here is the money, here's what it's for - it's up to you, Bruce Harrell, to make it happen. And so I'm really curious to see if that question gets asked to him and to see what his answer would be, because I think that would be very informative. [00:13:48] Erica Barnett: Just real quickly, I want to correct myself. I said 800, it was 480 that Andrew Lewis proposed. And yeah, and it died because of Jenny Durkan - full stop. She just wouldn't spend the money. And so the length of this article in The Seattle Times is surprising when it could have been one line. [00:14:07] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now, Bruce Harrell did take some action that we learned about - related to the Chinatown International District station conversation, debate that we're having about the siting. We learned that there was an effort launched as - what a year ago, I think it was - to actually drum up support for the new Sound Transit station options that were characterized as - Hey, this is a last-minute effort that came from the community because we heard the concerns, and so this is why it's popping up now. Turns out that there's more to the story. What happened? [00:14:47] Erica Barnett: Last week, I'm sure folks are aware, Sound Transit Board adopted a new route through downtown that skips over Chinatown with new stations near the Stadium station and next to the existing Pioneer Square station, and then also eliminates a Midtown station that was going to serve First Hill. What I reported this week is that the mayor, about a year ago, hired consultant Tim Ceis, who has been around forever - since even before I was here in Seattle. He was Deputy Mayor for Greg Nickels, worked for Ron Sims, and has a long career as a political consultant and lobbyist. Now I would say we don't know exactly when or how this new proposal came about - I do not believe that it was last minute, but I also don't know that it was around a year ago. But in any case, Harrell hired this consultant at a cost of $280,000 for one year's worth of work, which is an absolutely astronomical amount for a consultant and lobbyist. And his job essentially was to - as you said, Crystal - to drum up support for the mayor's preferred alternative. And when this became the mayor's preferred alternative is something that I am still reporting on and trying to find out. But this was an option that the mayor, as well as King County Executive Dow Constantine, presented as an organically-arising proposal from the community, and that there was unanimity in the CID community around skipping the CID. And as we saw last week, five thousand some people who signed a petition that was presented to Sound Transit that was against that option, the head of Uwajimaya does not support it, the head of SCIPDA, the main public development authority down there, does not support it. And so there is not unanimity. And I think Tim Ceis' job was in part to present appearance of unanimity where there was none. [00:16:41] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and I think this is a situation - similar to the big homelessness complex conversation - that a lot of people have a hard time reporting on and wrapping their heads around. And I will call it out - especially when it involves communities of color, there seems to be this - whether it's a belief or desire that - coming from the belief that communities of color are a monolith. And we are not. There are various opinions, perspectives. We are as diverse within our communities as everyone else. And so what we're seeing from the community is - absolutely there are concerns, there are different opinions on what the best path forward is - I think they're all worthy of hearing, especially when they come from the community. And we should do that. And that is genuine and authentic. But what we see too often, especially politically - and this is a tactic that we see used often locally and nationally - is that people will piggyback off some of those rumblings in community to push their own agendas and to push their preferred options with the veneer of community support. So there's the term "astroturfed," which is the opposite of grassroots - we're going to try and make this look like it's a grassroots effort, we're going to try and make it look like the community has completely rallied around this new option or alternative. And that is a marketing ploy. That's spin. And I think there are both things going on here. So it is absolutely still important to listen to those concerns from the community, to seriously consider and to implement mitigation strategies - and that has not been done in too many prior projects and situations, and that's a legitimate concern and should be addressed. But I also think that we need to take a serious look at - okay, who are the people that stand to profit and benefit here who are pushing these alternatives that don't seem to fit the characterization that they're trying to sell. There is more to the story. And so it's just one of these situations that just makes me groan because it's messy and it's not straightforward. And it requires people to proceed with a bit of nuance and hold space for different opinions and perspectives while still being wary of people looking to exploit the situation. So it's a continuing thing that we see - is notable to me, as you noted, the size of that contract is gigantic. [00:19:19] Erica Barnett: $20,000/month. [00:19:21] Crystal Fincher: For 20 hours of work - please pay me a $1,000/hour. [00:19:24] Erica Barnett: And let's be real - we don't know, and I've also requested a lot of information about this - but we don't actually know how many hours of work Ceis was doing. The 20 hours was an estimate given to me by the mayor's office and it was a squishy - Oh, it's about 20 hours of work a week. The contract doesn't really stipulate anything and it doesn't have an hourly rate. And for all we know, it was 10 hours, it was five hours, it was - maybe it was 25. I don't know, but - [00:19:52] Crystal Fincher: It's definitely less than - I know the official thing, and you have high reporting standards that you adhere to and I appreciate that. It's one of the things that I appreciate most about your reporting - is that it is solid and backed up. But I know that they weren't spending 20 hours a week on this thing. But even if they were - Look, I would be willing to spend 20 hours a week doing something if you pay me $280,000 a year. I will put that out to anyone - for whatever 20 hours of work that involves, I'm down. But we'll just continue to see how this proceeds. [00:20:26] Erica Barnett: But yeah, and I'm still reporting on it. So I suspect there will be - I'll have follow ups in the midterm future. [00:20:33] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Also this week, we saw that the City of Seattle is pursuing an end to the Seattle Police Department's consent decree with the Department of Justice. What's going on here? [00:20:48] Erica Barnett: Yeah, this week the city attorney and mayor and - the City of Seattle officials - sent a request to Judge James Robart to effectively end the consent decree with a couple of exceptions. So basically, Robart would find the City in substantial compliance with this agreement that has been going on for more than a decade - or the City has been a party to for more than a decade - with the exception of crowd control and accountability. And those are two issues that Judge Robart has brought up in the past as - and finding the City not in complete compliance. But the agreement proposed says - But don't worry, we'll wrap all that up and we'll be done with it by various months in the future, but generally this summer. And be out from under the consent decree entirely by the end of the year. People are confused about the consent decree at all. I totally understand - it's a weird situation that the City has been in for the last 12 years. Essentially, the City was found to be in noncompliance with a whole bunch of things related to constitutional policing - including racially biased policing, including use of force - excessive use of force. And the City keeps coming back in recent years to try to get the judge to lift the decree. And they've gotten very close in the past, but then something always happens and - there's a scandal, there is an egregious instance of police brutality, there are protests involving thousands of people where the police brutalized protesters in response to protests against brutality, and tear gas in the entire neighborhood - this happened in 2020. And so it's been a long, slow process - the City now seems to believe and called themselves "a department completely transformed and unrecognizable from the way it was 10 years ago." [00:22:37] Crystal Fincher: That is a curious characterization, isn't it? [00:22:39] Erica Barnett: City Attorney Ann Davison's memo supporting this was effusive about it, and even more so than the actual memo saying we deserve to be let out from under this. It was - called the department dramatically transformed, a night-and-day contrast, and even described the protest response in 2020 as a temporary lapse and a single one from otherwise completely improved and transformed crowd control policies. I'll say that some of the reasoning they gave for this is there have been protests since then and the police didn't act that way. And the protests - notably - are things like the Women's March, protests against war in Ukraine, things that did not involve criticizing the police and also did not involve racial justice. So I think that's a little bit of an apples to orange because orange is comparison there. [00:23:29] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. This is an interesting effort because there are a lot of people who cheered the establishment of the consent decree because it's somewhat of an acknowledgment that - yes, there has been unconstitutional biased policing and the use of excessive force to the degree that the department is no longer trusted to oversee itself. To fix those problems, it needed federal oversight from the Department of Justice - hence the consent decree that we got into. And certainly this has been a long winding road, as you said. It has been interesting in that the brand of oversight has had both positive and negative elements - I think to all sides they find both positive and negative with that - certainly they are looking for status reports and some accountability attached to that. And the judge associated with this has called out events in protest and it looking like the issues that caused the consent decree to be necessary have not been solved. We've also seen sometimes the judge has had opinions and perspectives on how the City should address reforming the SPD, or reimagining SPD. And the judge made it clear he was not a fan of dramatically changing funding, reducing funding - a number of the things that some people who are more progressive and reform minded would have supported and opposed. And that shaped what's been possible with policy for fear that - hey, if the city council does pass some sweeping overhaul or substantive changes, that those are not going to be allowed and going to be overturned by the judge. So this has been an interesting situation that I think hasn't unfolded exactly as anyone predicted. But it is, I think, a victory lap that is trying to be ran that - I think, as you talked about - is, man, you should urge caution for declaring victory and a mission accomplished statement, because if something else happens, it just makes it look like you are completely out of touch with what is happening in the department and uninterested in taking substantive steps to address it. But we'll see. [00:25:50] Erica Barnett: Yeah, quickly - I think something else has happened, which is the death of Jaahnavi Kandula, who was a pedestrian - a student who was walking in a crosswalk and was hit by a police officer going allegedly to the scene of an overdose. But a lot of details have come out about that make one question that narrative from SPD. But SPD has been really untransparent and has refused to release any details about its investigation of this incident, which happened in January. It is now almost April and there's no body-worn video - there's just no information whatsoever - no video, no narrative, no explanation. And it is interesting that they have been so non-transparent at a time when they are asking for this consent decree to be lifted. So I think, of course, something else is going to happen - it's not a matter of if, but when. But this is an example of something that has been - I'm not going to go so far as to say it's been covered up, but it has certainly been slow walked. And a lot of people are asking a lot of questions about that incident, including myself. I've reported on it extensively and just gotten absolutely nothing from SPD. [00:26:56] Crystal Fincher: You have and your reporting has been critical to people finding out any information for this, so much appreciated. I do want to talk about an event that unfolded this week in the City of Seattle campaign land. One of the 30+ people now running for city council in the City of Seattle made news this week in their campaign - for not paying their workers. I, in this situation, just wanted to say a couple of things to set the record straight. Because there was a story written about this, which is great to bring light to it, but - [00:27:32] Erica Barnett: And we should say it's Matthew Mitnick running - [00:27:33] Crystal Fincher: It is Matthew Mitnick. [00:27:35] Erica Barnett: - running for District 4. [00:27:36] Crystal Fincher: Correct. In Seattle City Council District 4. So there were nine former volunteers or staffers, depending on who you - what version of events happens to be the truth. But who wrote an open letter accusing the campaign, or released a statement accusing the campaign of essentially wage theft, potentially youth labor violations because a number of the people involved were under 18. But there seems to be some conversation or disagreement with a lot of people where evidently a number of people were under the expectation that they were going to be paid, saying that Matthew Mitnick said that he would pay them. They wound up not being paid, and then there were some other accusations about his treatment of staff. But my takeaway from this was a little bit simpler. Even if you only believe what Matthew Mitnick said and you only go off of what there is written evidence for, there is a staffer who was hired - who was agreed to be paid a wage, who has not been paid all of their wages. They were paid once. They have not been paid again, despite continuing, despite doing work after being paid. There is unpaid work currently on the table. Matthew said - Hey, we're raising Democracy Voucher money. As soon as we raise enough, we'll pay you. That's not how things normally work in campaigns. [00:28:54] Erica Barnett: That's what I was going to ask you. So if you're running a - and we should say this is a guy who's running as a socialist. He's a 22-year old student. He moved here pretty recently from Wisconsin, where he also ran for office. And so he's, I would say, a pretty marginal candidate. That's my opinion - you may disagree, Crystal - I don't know. What is the common practice when you are a campaign that's running on a shoestring and you don't have a lot of money? Is it just to not hire people until you have that money? Because that would make sense to me. [00:29:24] Crystal Fincher: That is literally exactly what it is. That is literally exactly what happens in the majority of situations. Now, it's not like there's never been abuse before. But yes, you only hire and buy what you have the money to hire and buy. And that does mean a lot of things go - if you aren't able to raise much money, that means that you aren't able to afford a lot of the things that you probably hope to be able to afford with a campaign. One of the things that people do need to acknowledge is that running for office today requires raising and spending money. I wish it did not require as much money and think that Democracy Vouchers and other reforms that are on the table can help lower the cost of campaigns. I think that there's also a lot of spending on a lot of things, which is cool, but that's not everything. But they do require money. And if you're going to have staff, if you're going to have - if you're running a campaign in the City of Seattle, you need a campaign manager at minimum. You should also have people who are familiar with how to win campaigns - who have done that before, who can help guide through the process, because there are - that is an expertise. There are people who bring that to the table. I'm not going to suggest that someone go to court without a lawyer. I'm not going to suggest that someone run a campaign without other people who have been through that process before to help you through that process. But yeah, you just don't hire them until you have the money to hire them. And also, campaigns run out of money. And when that happens, then you have to wind things down - starting with paying the most vulnerable people first. The people who take haircuts in not getting paid, unfortunately, are - sometimes consultants agree to - hey, we can bill this on debt, you can pay me if you raise enough money and different things like that. But you have explicit overt conversations, you write stuff down, and you pay people who are reliant on that money to pay their rent. And what was cited in the story is that the person who wasn't paid does not have enough money for their rent at this point in time. So there's an impact. And so you do have - you are responsible for managing the people on your campaign, for managing your budget - that absolutely needs to happen. That's how that works. [00:31:38] Erica Barnett: Yeah, and I'm just looking at Mitnick's campaign filings. And again, as I said, I consider him an extremely marginal candidate who was hyped up by The Stranger in particular, in a way that I think was out of proportion to his viability. But at any rate, he has raised less than $5,000. Winning a council campaign is in the tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands for the primary. So yeah, not surprised he can't pay anybody - he hasn't raised any money. And so that is - it's unfortunate that he led campaign staffer on in that way or was overconfident in his own ability to raise money. [00:32:15] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, March 31st, 2023. Hacks & Wonks is co-produced by Shannon Cheng and Maurice Jones, Jr. Our insightful co-host today was Seattle political reporter, editor of PubliCola, and co-host of the Seattle Nice podcast, and author of Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse, and Recovery, Erica Barnett. You can find Erica on Twitter @ericacbarnett and on PubliCola.com. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks and you can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, with two i's at the end. You can catch Hacks & Wonks wherever you prefer to get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, please leave a review whenever you can. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

Today on the show, Julien speaks with Maurice Jones, the CEO of the non-profit OneTen. OneTen is a coalition of leading chief executives and their companies who are coming together to upskill, hire, and promote one million Black Americans over the next 10 years who do not yet have a four-year degree into family-sustaining jobs with opportunities for advancement. Prior to joining OneTen, Maurice was the President and CEO of the Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), one of the country's largest organizations supporting projects to revitalize communities and catalyze economic opportunity for residents. He previously served as Secretary of Commerce and Trade for the Commonwealth of Virginia where his primary job was to leverage Virginia's assets to solidify its position as the preeminent place to live, work and conduct business. Maurice also served as Deputy Secretary for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) from April 2012 through January 2014. As the second most senior official at HUD, Maurice managed the Department's day-to-day operations, the annual operating budget of $40 billion and the agency's 8,900 employees. Maurice received a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from Hampden-Sydney College and attended Oxford University in England on a Rhodes Scholarship, where he received a Master of Philosophy in International Relations. He later received a Juris Doctor from the University of Virginia. Today we discuss: With 11 million job openings, we discuss why it's critical that we shift our national standard for job qualification from primarily academic credentials or experience, to a focus on measurable and tangible skills. Addressing inherited poverty by connecting Black talent to family-sustaining wages that offer entry to the middle class and that are accessible (don't require a 4-year degree), offer advancement opportunities, and are secure over the long term (unlikely to be automated). Why building an ecosystem that connects employers and skilled workers will drive our national economic potential and benefit all of us. Three critical actions for inclusive leaders to take that support “OneTeners”—build a skills-first culture, mentor and sponsor new hires, and create a culture of belonging where authenticity is valued. Additional Resources: MIT's Living Wage Calculator Our Obsession w/ Black Excellence is Harming Black People by Dr. Janice Gassam Our host, Julien Geiser, is the Director of Corporate Support at Greatheart Consulting. Greatheart develops inclusive leaders for courageous cultures by focusing on practical behaviors that can help build relationships of trust and accountability across all aspects of identity. To learn more about their work, visit www.greatheartconsulting.com. Support Inclusion Catalyst by contributing to our tip jar: https://tips.pinecast.com/jar/inclusion-catalyst Support Inclusion Catalyst by contributing to their tip jar: https://tips.pinecast.com/jar/inclusion-catalyst This podcast is powered by Pinecast.

1.25.2023 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: Bethune-Cookman Protest Update, Ben Crump Warns FL Gov. Desantis, TX Woman Attacked By Store Clerk Roland is continuing our conversation about what's brewing at Bethune Cookman University.  Following our exclusive interviews with Interim President Lawrence Drake II and Hall of Fame Safety Ed Reed, Roland's had a cascade of inquiries from folks wanting to come on this show to share first-hand insight into what conditions are like at Bethune-Cookman University. Roland will have student leaders from Tuesday night's Student Stand-in who will explain what happened after the stand-in ended.  Roland will also tell you what the past alum association president had to say and why he accused our show of one-sided coverage. Civil Rights Attorney Ben Crump announced his intent to sue Florida Governor Ron Desantis for his political stunt blocking an African America AP Course. Roland will show you the press conference and speak to a Florida State Legislature about their plan to approve the course for Students.  A 65-Year-old Texas Grandmother was held against her will at a grocery store because she found 5 dollars on the floor. Roland will show you the appalling video and tell you what happened after the incident.  In our New You 2023 segment, Roland will speak with fitness expert Maurice Jones about how to start your fitness journey at any fitness level.  1.25.2023 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: Bethune-Cookman Protest Update, Ben Crump Warns FL Gov. Desantis, TX Woman Attacked By Store Clerk Roland is continuing our conversation about what's brewing at Bethune Cookman University.  Following our exclusive interviews with Interim President Lawrence Drake II and Hall of Fame Safety Ed Reed, Roland's had a cascade of inquiries from folks wanting to come on this show to share first-hand insight into what conditions are like at Bethune-Cookman University. Roland will have student leaders from Tuesday night's Student Stand-in who will explain what happened after the stand-in ended.  Roland will also tell you what the past alum association president had to say and why he accused our show of one-sided coverage. Civil Rights Attorney Ben Crump announced his intent to sue Florida Governor Ron Desantis for his political stunt blocking an African America AP Course. Roland will show you the press conference and speak to a Florida State Legislature about their plan to approve the course for Students.  A 65-Year-old Texas Grandmother was held against her will at a grocery store because she found 5 dollars on the floor. Roland will show you the appalling video and tell you what happened after the incident.  In our New You 2023 segment, Roland will speak with fitness expert Maurice Jones about how to start your fitness journey at any fitness level.    Support RolandMartinUnfiltered and #BlackStarNetwork via the Cash App ☛ https://cash.app/$rmunfiltered PayPal ☛ https://www.paypal.me/rmartinunfiltered Venmo ☛https://venmo.com/rmunfiltered Zelle ☛ roland@rolandsmartin.com Annual or monthly recurring #BringTheFunk Fan Club membership via paypal ☛ https://rolandsmartin.com/rmu-paypal/ Download the #BlackStarNetwork app on iOS, AppleTV, Android, Android TV, Roku, FireTV, SamsungTV and XBox

Welcome back to another episode of the #squarepizzapod. This week, Greg is in conversation with Maurice Jones, CEO of OneTen. One fun fact you will learn about Mr. Jones is that he grew up on a tobacco and corn farm. In this episode:BackgroundBirth of OneTenCreating 1 million family-sustaining jobs for Black talent in America by 2030Board of  OneTenHow leaders helped shape the vision of OneTenGuest Question:Dewey Norwood, Senior Lead Diversity & Inclusion Consultant, Enterprise HBCU Strategy8 years from now, once you've reached the goal of 1M sustaining careers, what do you believe the societal change will be?If you have to deliver a message to corporate partners on why they should join the OneTen family, what would you tell them? Why are non-degreed individuals so important in today's society?Support the show

Today's episode is a recording of a live debate between 37th LD Representative Position 2 candidates, Emijah Smith and Chipalo Street. The debate was hosted by the South Seattle Emerald on October 4, 2022 at the Rainier Arts Center. Hacks & Wonks' very own Crystal Fincher moderated the debate. Resources For links to the YouTube video, summary of lightning round answers and more, visit the debate's page on our website.   Campaign Website - Emijah Smith   Campaign Website - Chipalo Street   Register to vote, update your registration, see what's on your ballot and more - click here.   Past felony conviction? Information on re-registering to vote - Washington Voting Rights Restoration Coalition.     Transcript [00:00:00] Bryce Cannatelli: Hi everyone – this is Bryce Cannatelli from the Hacks & Wonks team. Today's episode of the show is a recording of a live debate between 37th LD State Representative candidates Emijah Smith and Chipalo Street. The debate was held on October 4, 2022 and was hosted by the South Seattle Emerald and was moderated by Hacks & Wonks' very own Crystal Fincher. We hope you find it informative and thank you for listening. [00:00:41] Crystal Fincher: Welcome! Welcome everyone to the South Seattle Emerald's 2022 General Election Candidate Debate. My name is Crystal Fincher. I'm a political consultant and the host of the Hacks & Wonks radio show and podcast, and I'm honored to welcome you all to tonight's debate. I'm also excited to hear from our guests running for State Representative Position 2 in the 37th Legislative District. Before we begin tonight, I'd like to do a Land Acknowledgement. I would like to acknowledge that we are on the traditional land of the first people of Seattle, the Coast-Salish Peoples, specifically the Duwamish peoples, past and present. I would like to honor with gratitude the land itself and the Duwamish tribe. We'd like to thank all of our partners here this evening, including the League of Women Voters of Seattle & King County for their support as well. Tonight's in-person show is following numerous COVID precautions. All in-person audience members, volunteers, staff, and candidates have either provided proof of vaccination or a negative COVID test upon entry, and all audience members in attendance are wearing masks. We're excited to be able to live stream this event on Facebook and YouTube. The debate also features questions from our audience members and voters like you. If you're watching the livestream online, you can submit audience questions by going to seattleemerald.com/debate. If you're in-person, you can write audience questions down on the note cards that have been handed out to you - or will soon be handed out to you - that will be picked up partway through the show. Volunteers will collect written questions at 8:00pm, right after the lightning round, and again at 8:30pm. Please keep questions to one question per card. A few reminders before we jump into the debate: I want to remind you all to vote. Ballots will be mailed to your mailbox starting Wednesday, October 19th, and you can vote anytime until election day on Tuesday, November 8th. You can register to vote, update your registration, and see what will be on your ballot at VoteWA.gov - that's VoteWA.gov. I also want to remind you that if you've had a previous felony conviction, your right to vote is now automatically restored after you serve your prison term, even while on community supervision. You do have to re-register to vote, but your right to vote exists. Go to freethevotewa.org for more details, and help spread the word. The candidates running for the 37th Legislative District State Representative Position 2 with us tonight are Emijah Smith and Chipalo Street - and we'll welcome them up to the stage right now as I explain the rules. So tonight's debate will begin with candidate introductions. Each candidate will have one minute to tell us about themselves. After introductions, we will enter a lightning round of yes/no questions, which candidates will answer silently by using paddles that indicate their answer. Just double-checking that you both have your paddles. Excellent, it's going to be a robust lightning round. Following the lightning round - at the end of the lightning round, each candidate will be allowed 90 seconds to explain anything you want to about what your answers were. Following the lightning round, we'll enter into the open answer portion of the debate. Each candidate will have 90 seconds to answer each question. Candidates may be engaged with rebuttal or follow up questions and will have 30 seconds to respond. Times will be indicated by a volunteer holding a sign in the front of the stage - right here. When a candidate has 30 seconds remaining, you will see the yellow "30-second" sign - right there. When a candidate has 10 seconds remaining, you'll see the orange "10-second" sign. And when time is up, the volunteer will hold up the red "STOP" sign, and I will silence the candidate. So now, we'll turn to the candidates who will each have one minute to introduce themselves, starting with Emijah Smith and then Chipalo Street. Emijah? [00:04:51] Emijah Smith: Welcome everyone. Thank you for being here. Thank you to all who are watching through the YouTube streaming. My name is Emijah Smith, please call me 'Mijah. I am raised and rooted in the 37th. I am a mother, I'm a grandmother, and a daughter of this district. Ever since I was a teen, I've been doing advocacy and community organizing - really seeing firsthand in real time that failed War on Drugs that is still continuing now, really seeing the devastation in my community. It was at that time that I said I want to bring healing, restoration, and resources back to the community. So my vision is healthy families and healthy communities, and in doing so, we have to look at multiple issues - prioritizing housing, fully funding education, pre-K, health equity, and really centering racial justice. I just want to highlight very briefly some sole endorsers within the 37th - Senator Saldaña, Girmay Zahilay - our King County Councilmember, Tammy Morales, Andrew Lewis, Kim-Khánh - thank you so much. [00:05:58] Crystal Fincher: Thank you so much. Chipalo Street. [00:06:01] Chipalo Street: Good evening. I'm an innovative problem solver, and I've been giving back to the South Seattle community for 15 years. We have some really pressing issues facing us, and we need to send a proven leader to Olympia to solve them. Housing prices are out of control, and it's displacing generational families and making renters pay more of their paycheck to skyrocketing rents. People are struggling to make ends meet, and the pandemic has only made this worse. The recovery, or so-called recovery from the pandemic, hasn't been felt evenly by all of us, and we need to protect working people so that we all come out of the pandemic better than we went into it. The pandemic's also made our schools worse and exacerbated existing issues. Just recently, Black and Brown kids tested three and a half levels behind their counterparts, and I want to make sure that all kids have a great public education system like the one that I went through. So I'm glad to be here tonight, and I'm honored to discuss how we move this district forward. [00:07:01] Crystal Fincher: Thank you so much. Also, it's a useful reminder that while you do have 90 seconds to answer, you aren't obligated to always take 90 seconds. Feel free to take it if you want to, but you will not be penalized for finishing early if you desire. So now, we will move on to the lightning round - making sure you both have your paddles in hand and ready. All right, we've got a number of questions to go through. So we will start talking about homelessness and housing. First question, are there any instances where you would support sweeps of homeless encampments? Yes or No? Looks like Emijah is waffling there, or landed on No. And we have Chipalo with No. Next question, will you vote to end single-family zoning to address housing affordability? Chipalo says Yes. Emijah says No. Would you vote to end the statewide ban on rent control and let localities decide whether they want to implement it? Emijah says Yes, as does Chipalo. Will you vote in favor of Seattle's social housing initiative, I-135? Both Emijah and Chipalo say Yes. Do you favor putting 400 additional units of housing and services for the unhoused in the CID? We've got a waffle with Emijah and a No with Chipalo. Do you rent your residence? [00:08:52] Chipalo Street: Sorry - as in, do I - am I a renter? [00:08:55] Crystal Fincher: Yes, are you renters? Both say No. Do you own your residence? Mortgage or outright. Chipalo and Emijah both say Yes. Are you a landlord? Emijah says No. Chipalo says Yes. In public safety, would you vote for a law ending long-term solitary confinement? Both say Yes. Would you vote for a law prohibiting traffic stops by armed law enforcement officers for low-level non-moving violations such as vehicle registrations and equipment failure? Both say Yes. Do you support establishing an independent prosecutor for cases of criminal conduct arising from police-involved deaths? Both say Yes. Do you support investments in the ShotSpotter police surveillance tool? Yep, it is in Mayor Harrell's budget that he just announced - so both say Yes. Do you think police should be in schools? Both say No. Would you vote to provide universal health care to every Washington resident? Both say Yes. The Legislature just passed a law that will cap insulin costs at $35 per month. Would you vote to expand price caps to other commonly used drugs? Both say Yes. Will you vote to ensure that trans and non-binary students are allowed to play on the sports teams that fit with their gender identities? Emijah waffled and Chipalo says Yes. [00:10:58] Emijah Smith: I waffle but I say Yes. [00:10:59] Crystal Fincher: Emijah waffles but she says Yes. For people wishing to change their name to match their gender, do you support removing the cost and need to see a judge for legal processing, name changes, and gender marker changes? Both say Yes. Will you vote in favor of an anti-extradition law that protects queer people, including children and their families, who flee to Washington from states where their gender-affirming care is punishable by law? Both candidates say Yes. Will you vote to increase funding for charter schools? Both Emijah and Chipalo say No. Will you vote for continued investments in anti-racism training for staff and students in Washington schools? Both candidates say Yes. Washington is facing a school staffing crisis and a funding crisis, especially with special education. Will you vote to increase funding in both of these areas? Both say Yes. Will you vote to enact a universal basic income in Washington? Both candidates say Yes. Our state has one of the most regressive tax codes in the country, meaning lower-income people pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the ultra-wealthy. In addition to the capital gains tax, will you vote for a wealth tax? Both candidates say Yes. Will you vote for any bill that increases highway expansion? Chipalo says Yes and Emijah is waffling. Would you vote to allocate state dollars to help accelerate the delivery of Sound Transit and other regional rail projects? Would you vote to allocate state dollars to help accelerate the delivery of Sound Transit and other regional rail projects? Both candidates say Yes. Will you vote to enact state investments and updating homes with more environmentally friendly utilities? Both say Yes. Have you taken transit in the past week? Chipalo says Yes. Emijah says no. Have you taken transit in the past month? Chipalo says Yes. Emijah says her family has, but not her personally, so that's a No. Elections. Potential changes in the way people vote for elections in the City of Seattle will be on the November ballot. Will you vote in favor of changing the system in Seattle elections? Both candidates say Yes. Will you vote in favor of ranked choice voting for Seattle elections? Both candidates say Yes. Will you vote in favor of approval voting for Seattle elections? You can only vote for one. So both candidates say No. Will you vote to move local elections from odd years to even years to significantly increase voter turnout? Chipalo and Emijah say Yes. In 2021, did you vote for Bruce Harrell? Emijah says Yes. Chipalo says No. In 2021, did you vote for Lorena González? Emijah says No. Chipalo says Yes. Did you vote in the general election in 2021? Emijah says Yes. Chipalo says Yes. In 2021, did you vote for Nicole Thomas-Kennedy for Seattle City Attorney? Emijah and Chipalo say Yes. Will you be voting for Julie Anderson for Secretary of State? Correct - she's running against Steve Hobbs. That is correct. Both candidates say No. Will you be voting for Steve Hobbs for Secretary of State? Both candidates say Yes. Will you be voting for Leesa Manion for King County Prosecutor? Both candidates say Yes. And that means that you will be voting No - you will not be voting Yes for Jim Ferrell. Correct - both candidates will not be voting for Jim Ferrell. Have you ever been a member of a union? Both candidates say Yes. Will you vote to increase funding and staffing for investigations into labor violations like wage theft and illegal union busting? Chipalo and Emijah both say Yes. Have you ever walked on a picket line? Both say Yes. Have you ever crossed a picket line? Both candidates say No. Is your campaign unionized? Both candidates say No. If your campaign staff wants to unionize, will you voluntarily recognize their effort? Both candidates say Yes. That concludes our lightning round. Thank you very much for that - helps to level set for the open-ended questions, but before we get to those, each candidate will have 90 seconds to explain anything you want about any of your answers. We will start with Chipalo. [00:16:40] Chipalo Street: Sure. I think the only one that I would like to explain is expansion of highways. The reason I answered Yes to that is the qualifier of is there any reason that I would do that. In general, no, I do not support the expansion of highways. However, if it is to help freight mobility that helps our unions, then that would be something that I would consider. If it comes back to our economy and helping union jobs, then we should definitely consider that. But in general, no, I would not vote to expand highways. [00:17:10] Crystal Fincher: And Emijah? [00:17:11] Emijah Smith: So I think there was a couple of questions there that I waffled on. And for me, when it comes - because I center racial justice - I'm an anti-racist organizer, I have to always look at what are the unintentional consequences of any decisions that's made. So there's this yes or no - we have to bring context into the conversation. So if it unintentionally or intentionally causes more inequities and more harm to people of color and those marginalized, I have to look more deeply into that before I could just say a quick, simple yes or no. So I just want to share why there might have been a waffle there. And also, if I don't fully understand something and I need to learn a little bit more and lean into community organizations and lean into the community - we talked about the ID - that's a very diverse community, they're not a monolith. So if there's an issue that's happening in the ID, I need to lean and learn from that community before I just make a decision as a legislator to do so. So I definitely - my style, my servant leadership is definitely to listen from community, learn from community, and be accountable to community. So I don't just do yes or no. Thank you. [00:18:13] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. So now we'll start the open answers portion. Our candidates will get 90 seconds to answer each question and they may be engaged with rebuttal or follow up questions and will have 30 seconds to respond. So starting out - in the Dobbs decision that obliterated the right to abortion - in Justice Thomas's concurring opinion, he identified decisions he felt should be re-evaluated after their ruling in Dobbs, cases that established our right to same-sex marriage, rights to contraception, and rights to sexual privacy. What can our State Legislature do to proactively protect these rights? Emijah? [00:18:55] Emijah Smith: Thank you for the question. And I definitely do not agree with the decision that was made. I think as state legislators and state leaders that we have to go directly and correct our Constitution to prevent these type of things from happening. Washington does a lot of talk. I think that our community, particularly in the 37th, is really intentional about our racial equity and about equity overall and fairness and all the great words. But we have to be actionable about that. And so putting something in the written language in our Constitution, we have to move in that direction. And I believe that our legislature for this 2023 session will be centering and very active around the Roe v. Wade and the Dobbs decision. [00:19:36] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Chipalo? [00:19:38] Chipalo Street: Yeah, what I found interesting about Justice Thomas's dissent or concurrence was that he did not also include same or biracial marriage into his writing, even though that is based on the same logic of the other cases. Ironically, he is in a multiracial marriage. So the hypocrisy there, I don't think is lost on anyone. And I'm a product of a multiracial marriage - and so making sure that these rights are protected is deeply important to me. In terms of gay marriage, I am glad that we have a strong legislature and that passed marriage equality. In terms of Roe, I think we should fund clinics to take care of the increased traffic that we'll see in our state from the states that have - around us - that have banned abortion. I have background in technology. I would love to make sure that our data isn't used to go after people searching abortions or providing abortions. There's plenty of providers who provide telehealth. And if they are consulting with someone across state lines into a state that has banned abortion, I would be super scared about whether I could be sued, whether my data could be subpoenaed, if I could lose my license. And so making sure that we protect our data and protect our providers, I think, is paramount. Also making sure that we have security around our clinics - just as we'll have more traffic from people looking for abortions, we'll have more traffic from people protesting abortions. So those are some of the things that I would do to protect gay rights and the women's reproductive rights. [00:21:12] Crystal Fincher: And I just want to circle back to one thing for both of you in a 30-second rebuttal. Specifically when it comes to contraception, is there anything that strikes either of you - we'll start with Emijah - that you think the Legislature could do to help ensure and guarantee access and availability? [00:21:31] Emijah Smith: Well, definitely education. I definitely think that we need to ensure and continue to make sure that we're educating our youth in schools and making - contraception needs to be available. It needs to be available to all birthing parents, but we also need to make sure that we are including and not fighting to have education for our youth to understand sex education. And so that's been a big deal before the Roe V Wade issue had came up, so I'm a supporter of making sure our families are talking to each other, because this is a family issue. It's not just a woman's issue. It's not just anyone's issue. It's an issue about our bodies and our rights of what we want to do. [00:22:06] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Thank you very much. And Chipalo? [00:22:08] Chipalo Street: Yeah, I agree. Education is a big part of this. Funding is also another part. Making sure that contraception is available to anyone who wants it. Making sure that preventative medications like PrEP is available to anyone who wants it as well - that goes a little bit past reproductive rights and into sexual rights for our folks, but making sure that it's just available to everyone, I think, is very important. [00:22:31] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Next question. What will you do when you're - [00:22:35] Emijah Smith: We need some call and response in here - this is, you know - [00:22:40] Crystal Fincher: What'd you say? [00:22:40] Emijah Smith: I need some call and response. We in the 37th, we are very diverse - this is how we move, so I'm just - go ahead, sorry. [00:22:48] Crystal Fincher: What will you do in your capacity as a state legislator to help small local businesses? Chipalo? [00:22:55] Chipalo Street: So, I'm a small business owner myself and I understand the problems of balancing books, the stress that the pandemic has put on different small business owners. And so - number one, making sure that when we look around at other types of businesses - like we have incubators for tech businesses, we have incubators in high-tech businesses. Why don't we have incubators for smaller businesses, for communities of color? Access to capital is one of the issues that holds businesses back - where I think we saw in the video - the guy who founded WeWork completely did a scam and then got another $350 million to go start Lord knows what. So making sure that we have access to capital in community is really important. Working with organizations like Tabor 100, who provide incubation-type services is really important. And then working to make sure that our communities foster businesses - so for example, businesses that are in walkable and bikeable areas get more traffic. Not only will that increase business to those businesses, it will also get us towards a greener climate future if we have an environment and community that encourages us to get out of single-occupancy vehicles. [00:24:11] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Emijah? [00:24:11] Emijah Smith: Thank you. I am a member of Tabor 100. And one thing I've learned - I've been a member for a number of years - is oftentimes the resources only go to a couple of places, right? So a lot of our small businesses are pop-ups. So a lot of, even through COVID, the money that's coming from the federal government or from our local government agencies are not making it to the small businesses. Similar to what Chipalo was saying, you need capital to even get a loan, but also the money that was coming to support the businesses, it wasn't reaching those businesses. It seems like the same million dollar companies, people who always were getting the money kept getting the money. And also, when I think about the displacement that's happening in our community, I would like to see some restrictions or some policy that is not targeting our small businesses in neighborhoods or communities that have been historically gentrified and displaced. Similarly like the Central District, but all throughout the 37th - all the constant building could be harming - it has harmed our communities, most marginalized, but it also, in some ways, makes it harder for them to start up and rebuild. So there's education and awareness. Sometimes small businesses do not find out about the funding until it's too late. And so I'm hearing from business owners all the time about they're seeing, they feel like it's a scam. They feel like even though they've had some opportunity to try to start something up in cOVID, that it's gonna go away. It's gonna be the same old, same old people getting it all the time, the same status quo. So we gotta figure something out. We have some small business owners here in the neighborhood. Even in my campaign, I learned, the small businesses cannot unionize because it costs so much money. We should be figuring out a way to make sure our small businesses can get themselves the access in the door. [00:25:49] Crystal Fincher: And that is time. [00:25:50] Emijah Smith: You said we can keep going. It wasn't a penalty, correct? [00:25:53] Crystal Fincher: No, the red is stop. [00:25:55] Emijah Smith: Okay. [00:25:56] Crystal Fincher: You get a 10-second sign. That 10-second sign is like, okay, we gotta wrap up. [00:26:00] Emijah Smith: Well, thank you very much. That's call and response. I just want to say that I definitely value our small businesses. I stay aware and I try to stay connected as much as possible. And I would do any and everything I could in my role as a legislator to make sure that those investments are being made in our small business community, particularly the 37th and people of color. Thank you. [00:26:18] Crystal Fincher: Okay. Chipalo. [00:26:21] Chipalo Street: Oh, sorry. Do we - I think we took a fair amount of time. [00:26:24] Crystal Fincher: Oh, yeah, we just did. Sorry. [00:26:25] Chipalo Street: I didn't necessarily have a rebuttal there. [00:26:26] Crystal Fincher: Okay. Next question. Washington State has seen an explosion of traffic violence in the last two years with an extraordinarily disparate impact on those who live in our districts - the 37th district. For example, there are major Sound Transit investments coming online in the district at Judkins Park that are surrounded by unsafe freeway entrances on Rainier Avenue. It's not if, but when that folks in the 37th will be injured or killed by cars at that station entrance. And I should clarify, this is an audience question submitted before. What will you do as a member of the legislature to ensure that our streets are safe for pedestrians and cyclists? Emijah? [00:27:07] Emijah Smith: I appreciate that question. Living here in the 37th, living here near MLK where the light rail has been placed on top, when the community organized to have that light rail put underground. And the community won that fight, but with promises of housing and business investments and all the things that did not happen from Sound Transit, we have it on top. And so there's been - I see, oftentimes, those accidents. I see those fatalities. My heart goes out to the family of the mother who was killed at the Mount Baker station. I knew her before she was a mother. So these things are near and dear to my heart. When I think about traffic safety, I think that we have the data - Sound Transit does. They have the data that we should be - as things are being built and created, they should be co-designed with community, and then we should be making decisions while we're implementing these light rail stations, these new highways, whatever, it's not a highway, but these new ramps. All that should be taken into consideration in the beginning because the lives that are being lost mainly are BIPOC lives, Black and Indigenous people. And so our lives are being sacrificed for something that we never even asked for here in South Seattle. But I also want to think about traffic safety. I think about when our young Black men, who are the most targeted to even get on Sound Transit, being harassed because they're looking for ID or for payment - that to me is a safety issue. That's why oftentimes you may see me driving or driving my children somewhere because it's a safety issue because they may be harassed by the police, as well as those who tend to cycle. [00:28:41] Crystal Fincher: That is time. [00:28:42] Emijah Smith: Thank you. [00:28:43] Crystal Fincher: I just want to double check just to be clear. So we got that yellow 30-second sign, the orange one - okay. [00:28:50] Emijah Smith: Thank you. [00:28:51] Crystal Fincher: Cool. Chipalo. [00:28:53] Chipalo Street: So bike and pedestrian safety is something that I lived on a daily basis. Before the pandemic, I tried to bike to work from the CD all the way to Microsoft two times a week. And that exposed me to some very nice bike trails, but also some very dangerous streets. And so if I'm elected into the legislature, I would want to make sure that we have a comprehensive network of connectivity. So regardless of what type of transportation network it is, it needs to be connected. We built a monorail from downtown to the stadium - like Climate Pledge - that doesn't do much. For a long time, our two streetcar networks weren't interconnected, which means people didn't want to use it. So we need to make sure that all of our infrastructure is connected. We need to invest in bike transit and infrastructure. And this is particularly important to the 37th, because we have two of the most dangerous streets in Rainier Ave and MLK Way, 40% of the injuries there are pedestrian. And I think this is a place where we can, I mentioned before, find a win-win with business, because businesses that are in bikeable and pedestrian-friendly areas get more business. So I believe this is a way that we can build a coalition around fixing the problem of safe streets in the 37th. And it's also an issue for our kids, because we have 10 or 11 schools that are on both of those two most dangerous streets. So we can make sure that our kids are safer today as well. [00:30:22] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Next question. One of the biggest things we can do publicly to fight the spread of all airborne illnesses, including COVID and the cold and flu, as well as protect against poor air quality days because of wildfires - which we've seen over the past few weeks - is to improve ventilation and filtration in public buildings. What will you do to ensure that public buildings, including schools in the 37th district, meet recommended air circulation and filtration standards for good health? Chipalo? [00:30:57] Chipalo Street: To me, that sounds like a question - if I could be appointed to the Capital Budget, where we have the power to change our physical infrastructure. I would love to set aside money for that. When I look at committee assignments, we can start all the great programs that we want, but if we don't fund them correctly, they will not have the desired outcome. So making sure that whoever comes from this district gets put on Appropriations or gets put on Capital Budget is really important so that we can bring the money back to the district to make sure that it is used in community to make us better. [00:31:30] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Emijah? [00:31:32] Emijah Smith: Thank you. In my experience being in Olympia, we can make the decision. So Senator Saldaña, of course, is leading the HEAL Act - that's an environmental justice issue, but it's about implementation. So it's easy - it's one thing to put in a law, then you do have to fund the law, but you also have to implement it. So when it comes down to the other municipalities locally, sometimes they're stuck. So we have to make sure we're following the legislation all the way down to the community or to the district that you want and make sure that it's being implemented in a way, in a timely fashion as well - not three years, four years, five years down the line, but immediately. That should be part of the planning. So of course we have to fund it, but if we're not able to implement it, it's just words. So I would like, in my leadership role, is to make sure that there's language in the bill that makes it more accessible to our municipalities so that they can actually do something about it. If you put in the bill and it can't be ambiguous, it needs to be really focused and maybe restricted funding to air quality in the schools, rather than just saying, Here's some money to your school for air quality. Because they'll use that money any way that they choose to use it if the legislature does not direct them with restricted funding. So I would target it. Thank you. [00:32:48] Chipalo Street: Can I provide an example of how we would do that? [00:32:51] Crystal Fincher: I will give you both 30 seconds to rebut. Go ahead, Chipalo. [00:32:53] Chipalo Street: So a good example of how we can do that and how that has been built into some of the laws that have been passed is - recently, we passed the cap and trade bill. And one of the things I liked about that bill is that it built equity into it, so 30% of the funds that are created from the cap and trade go back to investment in BIPOC communities and an additional 10% go into investment in our Native nations. So that is a source of revenue that we could use to improve air quality in our schools and I think aligns to the point of that funding. [00:33:26] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Emijah? [00:33:28] Emijah Smith: Yeah, my follow-up with that would be - I just want to also say I'm solely endorsed by the Washington Conservation Voters. So they're looking at this issue across - and so I would definitely, again, lean into the organizations and to the leaders to help direct being a servant leader into doing this work. But nevertheless, what I have found in my experience - when there's a law passed - it takes the community to still apply the pressure on the entities and organizations to make something happen. So I have that experience, that organizing experience, and building those partnerships on the ground level to make sure it's being implemented. Because once they move it from the state, the state lets their hands go. So they need more guidance and direction, and that direction needs to come from community. Thank you. [00:34:09] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Next question. How will people tangibly feel your impact as their legislator? What is one concrete thing that people will be able to see is different by the end of your term should you be elected? Emijah? [00:34:28] Emijah Smith: So are you asking what has been done already or what you plan to do going forward? [00:34:31] Crystal Fincher: No - if you are elected, what will people see is different by the end of your term than it is right now? [00:34:38] Emijah Smith: I think people will continue to see - at least for me - they'll see a continuation of the work. It's not something I'll start to do, it's something I will continue to do. So first and foremost, I think, doing racially justice-centered justice reform work - and that's all interconnected. So when I think about our healthcare and the doulas, the doulas have been seen as a medical profession led by Kirsten Harris-Talley, but we need to put money in the budget to make sure that they're being reimbursed for their services. I think in these two years - that you will see that that definitely happens. My granddaughter was born during COVID. My daughter almost lost her life during that birth. It is a well-known fact that Black women are three times as likely to lose their life during childbirth. So having a doula, having somebody there with culturally relevant care will make sure that the lives are not being lost. In addition to that, I am a board member of the Tubman Health Center - this is another place - making sure that we have capital investments to make sure that we create a clinic that is going to center Black and Indigenous community and bring culturally relevant care, and that will also serve our LGBTQ community. That's something that you will see, I believe, and I strongly believe within the next two years as a representative, if I am honored to earn your vote. Thank you. [00:36:00] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Chipalo? [00:36:03] Chipalo Street: So technology has been changing our lives from the way we communicate, to the way we move about the city, to how we get health care, or even go about banking. And I'm excited to bring my expertise in the tech industry to make sure that technology opens doors for all of us, but also prevent technology from rolling back the rights that we have. So I mentioned earlier that one of the first things I would do is work to make sure that our data is protected so that it can't be used to go for people looking for abortions or providing abortions - that is something I would start with. And then continue to do the work that I have done in the tech space. When I got out to Seattle, I volunteer taught computer science at a school in South Seattle. We started with a Intro to Computer Science program and then over six years built it up to an Advanced Placement program. So I would make sure that we distribute the wealth of tech to make sure that everyone in this community can take part in the industry that's been changing our region. The 37th has also been a strong supporter of kinship care, and so I would build on the work that Eric Pettigrew has done to make sure that kinship care and kinship providers are funded at the same rate as a foster care parent. [00:37:12] Emijah Smith: May I follow up? [00:37:13] Crystal Fincher: You may. I'll give you both 30 seconds to follow up. [00:37:16] Emijah Smith: Thank you. I, first and foremost, want to say that I would love to learn the school that you served, 'cause I think that's a wonderful thing that you've done. But just being a resident in the 37th and living in South Seattle for a number of years, it's important for me to know what school you're mentioning. Also with regard to kinship care, I've held relationships throughout the years with our grandmothers for taking care of their kids every single day. And so there has been a gap of care and service for our kinship care program once Representative, our former representative, Eric Pettigrew had stepped back. [00:37:50] Crystal Fincher: And that is time. [00:37:50] Emijah Smith: So I've been in relationship with the community and I am definitely going to continue to serve that community. Thank you. [00:37:56] Crystal Fincher: Chipalo? [00:37:57] Chipalo Street: So the school is Technology Access Foundation - it was started by Trish. When I was working there, it started on Rainier Ave - right on Rainier and Genesee - and now they have bought a building down a little farther south in South Seattle. So it is a very well-known technology - [00:38:14] Emijah Smith: It's not a school. [00:38:14] Chipalo Street: Excuse me? [00:38:15] Emijah Smith: It's not a school. [00:38:16] Chipalo Street: Technology Access Foundation is a school. Technology Access Academy is the school. [00:38:21] Emijah Smith: Yeah, it's not in South Seattle. And actually they started right up here. [00:38:24] Chipalo Street: It started on Rainier Ave. [00:38:26] Emijah Smith: But - [00:38:26] Crystal Fincher: Let's allow Chipalo to complete his answer. [00:38:28] Emijah Smith: Okay. [00:38:29] Chipalo Street: So, okay - [00:38:29] Emijah Smith: I just wanted - [00:38:29] Chipalo Street: Technology Access Foundation is the foundation that started Technology Access foundation Academy, which is a school that started on Rainier Ave - which is in the 37th - and then was moved down farther south, which is still South Seattle, and serves people who have been displaced in the 37th. So it is still serving our community. I served there for six years, which is a long time, to go from a start of an Intro to Computer Science to an Advanced Placement Computer Science program. [00:38:58] Emijah Smith: I just want to - [00:38:58] Crystal Fincher: And we'll call that at time, and that is the rebuttal time that is there - [00:39:00] Emijah Smith: Okay, but they're not a school though and my daughter went to TAF Academy -. [00:39:03] Crystal Fincher: Emijah, please respect the time limits. [00:39:06] Emijah Smith: We're going to center time, or we're going to center the issues that are really in the 37th. I live in the 37th. I raised my daughter here next door. [00:39:13] Crystal Fincher: I have a question from a resident in the 37th that I'm going to ask. [00:39:16] Emijah Smith: Okay, I'll be respectful, but I also want us to bring - let's bring the real issues forward. [00:39:21] Crystal Fincher: So how would you help address the affordable housing crisis? Starting with Chipalo. [00:39:27] Chipalo Street: So when I think about housing, I think about three buckets of issues. This is something that we hear at every door when we go out and canvass. We were just talking to an elderly gentleman who is part of - he was a state employee, and so he has one of the oldest pensions, but we have not funded that pension so that he cannot keep up with the rising housing prices. So when I think of housing, I think of how do we stop harm, how do we get more units on the market, and how do we tide ourselves to the way there. So stopping harm looks like anti-displacement measures, so making sure that seniors can afford the rising taxes, making sure that - right now what we have is we allow seniors to defer taxes, but once they die, then they have to pay all of those back taxes, which essentially forces a family to sell the house, unless you have $10,000, $15,000, $20,000 lying around. We also need to increase renter protections - landlords can do some crazy things. Even though I'm a landlord myself, I live that business through progressive values, so we can't allow felons to be disqualified from having housing. I have a tenant who's a felon, he's one of my best tenants. We should lift the ban on rental control, we should - rent control statewide. We should limit the types of fees that a landlord can charge their tenants. In terms of long-term measures, we need to invest in low-income housing through the Housing Trust Fund. We need to figure out something about workforce housing because even two teachers who are underpaid already - if they're living together, they can't afford housing in the district - and we need to invest in mass transit to increase density around it to get us towards a greener climate future and have more houses. [00:41:04] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Emijah? [00:41:05] Emijah Smith: Thank you. So what I've been doing and currently been doing is really - with community members, locked arms, going to Olympia, going to our state-level Washington Housing and Finance Commission - and demanding that they release the funds in our community. So what I have done with community, because it's a team effort, is to release the funds to make sure Africatown Plaza has been funded. Community development for us by us - the Elizabeth Thomas Homes of Rainier Beach, the Ethiopian Village here in South Seattle - these are all housing developments - low-income, stable housing opportunities in the 37th. That's one thing. The second thing is - I agree - lift the ban on rent control on the state level. Number two is definitely providing increasing - no, lowering the income level for seniors to qualify for these tax deferments. I've talked to multiple seniors who are living on Social Security and who cannot qualify for King County's tax exemptions or deferments, and so that's a hardship on our seniors. In addition to that, I do agree with middle housing, but what I want to see is that we're not continuing to displace community as we're bringing more density in. We need to be more equitable and look at the houses in the communities on the north side of the Montlake Bridge - let them carry some of the weight of some of the housing developments, because what we don't want to do is continue to keep displacing folks. But I've been doing the real work - I sit on coalitions that are looking to remove the barriers for felons or any person who's just trying to rent. But rent should not be our goal - home ownership is the goal in order to create generational wealth. Thank you. [00:42:41] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Next question - from the audience. What is the State Legislature's role and responsibility on digital equity and addressing the digital divide? Emijah? [00:42:54] Emijah Smith: This is a multi-pronged question or answer and solution, because it's around making sure that our kids' education is fully funded. Because in order to close the digital divide, which I have done and supported as a co-convener of the Black Community Impact Alliance. We have just recently did our open house in the William Grose Center - that is a hub to make sure that we have a think tank and provide opportunities for our youth for the tech world. But that took community building, going to the City's office to get the land transferred - that took organizing. It also means you have to make sure that our children are prepared for kindergarten and making sure their reading and their math is on par at third grade. Making sure our freshmen are finishing their freshman year. So really being an advocate in Seattle Public Schools, making sure the strategic plan and the resources are going to those furthest from educational justice. That's what I do in real time. But the William Grose Center is what the community locked arms and myself as a leadership on co-convening the Black Community Impact Alliance - that's what we've done for the digital divide. And my children have benefited from the opportunities from coding, from change makers, from all the different things that our public schools do not offer. And our school system needs to be fully funded, particularly making sure those who are receiving special education services get a real opportunity - because you can't close the divide if you're dropping out of school or they're sending our kids to prison. You can't get the opportunity if you're not graduating. So that's my goal - is to make sure that we're fully funding our education and utilizing our education system and doing community building at the same time to make sure we're closing this. Thank you. [00:44:32] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Chipalo? [00:44:35] Chipalo Street: Yeah, I agree. There's a ton that we can do for education. I'll speak specifically about what we can do to close the digital divide. It's crazy to think that more than 50% of our students aren't competent in math and sciences - that is just plain scary. And we have to change that. And that's in high school. And so we have to make sure that we improve our STEM education. We have to make sure that we do public-private partnerships to bring tech education into our junior highs and high schools. It's an embarrassment that we have so many resources here in this area, but yet our tech education lags behind many other places in the country and the world. When we also look at STEM and tech, we can't only afford to have people getting a good job out of tech. We need multiple ways for people to get good jobs. So to me, that looks like creating pipelines to the trades. For too long, we've sort of said, Oh, you went into the trades because you can't hack college. No, you went into the trades maybe because you like to work with your hands, or you want a job that can't get offshored, or you want dependable hours - two of my best friends went through four-year college, got jobs, hated them, came back, became journeymen electricians, get paid more than those jobs that they had going to college. One's about to start a business. And so making sure that the trades are a respected option for our kids is important, just like it should be an option to go into technology. And then we should also fund free two-year college. Free four-year college is great - we should definitely get there. However, we need to start with free two-year college, just like the Seattle Promise, because 50% of Seattle graduating seniors applied for that, and 1,000 took part in it. [00:46:09] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. [00:46:10] Emijah Smith: Can I follow-up? [00:46:11] Crystal Fincher: I'll give you 30 seconds each for a rebuttal - go ahead. [00:46:13] Emijah Smith: Thank you. I just wanted to also add - on the state level - that determines the college-bound scholarship money, right? And right now, it's saying you need to have at least a 2.7 GPA - it keeps going up every year. But also is saying that a young person cannot have a felony on their record. And so I really, truly want to get that removed, because how are we going to expect our youth to graduate and get to these opportunities, but we're already setting them back because they made a mistake? And we understand the brain science and the development there is that their brains are not fully matured. So we're kind of setting them up for failure, so that's another place I would like to work on. [00:46:49] Crystal Fincher: Thank you - Chipalo? [00:46:50] Chipalo Street: She's right. And it shouldn't only be our youth, it should be our brothers and sisters getting out of jail. We should not be limiting the professional licenses that people getting out of jail can attain. And then we should also make sure that University of Washington is funded with the Allen School. We have great resources there - or teachers and staff - but we don't have the resources to scale it out the way we would like to. [00:47:13] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Another audience question. Crime has been increasing across the state, and people are concerned about their safety and whether the right things are being done to address current levels of property and violent crime. Given that the Legislature has already voted to increase public safety funding, largely devoted to policing and prisons, do you feel that we need to invest more in that area, or would you also take a different approach? And we are starting with Chipalo. [00:47:45] Chipalo Street: So I think we need to think about public safety comprehensively as more than just police. This is something that is near and dear to my heart. When I was at Brown, we had an open campus - me and my best friend were walking around campus onto a public street and Brown police came and asked me and my friend for our IDs. I didn't do anything wrong, so I continued to walk. My friend stopped, told him who I was, showed him his ID, but that didn't stop Brown police from calling out for backup. Providence police got that call, caught up with me and beat me so badly that they had to take me to the hospital before they took me to jail. Despite that experience, I still think police are part of public safety, but we have to be able to hold the police force accountable, or we're not going to have trust with the police force. I want to work with them to make sure that we set them up for success, so that we are sending a mental health counselor out to mental health crises - because they are trained to deal with these situations - and the person receiving a service will get a better service than sending three or four cops. We don't need cops in schools, we need counselors in schools. And so I think if we think more comprehensively about public safety, then we'll get better outcomes for the community and a better relationship with the police force. We should also fund like violence preventer programs. We should get guns off the streets - one of the sad things about gun violence prevention is that there are very, very common sense gun laws that 60, 70, 80 percent of people agree on. However, federal legislators can't get their act together, so we need to make sure that those laws pass here in our state. [00:49:14] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Emijah? [00:49:16] Emijah Smith: Thank you. When I think about public safety, I think about community safety - it's not just a conversation just about what the police are doing in community. It's also about how does the community feel safe - with the police. So there has to be an accountability conversation. So on the King County Community Safety Violence Prevention Task Force that I've served on, really it came down - of all their research and all their conversations and co-design - it really came down to families needing their basic needs met. Housing, education, food security, the basic needs - they believe that that's what it's gonna take to really bring prevention. So our state has already been working at some things with regard to guns and taking, looking at how many bullets, a clip - I don't know, got so many words coming - reducing how many bullets that you can have. I think that we need to make sure that every person who gets a gun needs to have a class - similar, if you want to get your driver's license, you need to learn how to drive - we need to learn how to use a firearm. You also need to make sure that it is locked up. Again, I am solely endorsed by the Alliance for Gun Responsibility. So community safety, also - we need to look at the funding that's coming from the State Department - so there's federal money that was brought down to the state, they've started a new division. We need to work with that division to make sure that it's meaningful in the 37th, because the 37th has different issues. We're not looking at machine guns and going into the schools in that way. What we're looking at is handguns that we gotta get removed and get them off the street. Thank you. [00:50:53] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Next question - from the audience. Washington State funds only about half of what Seattle Public Schools spends on special education and only about one-third of what Seattle Public Schools spends on multilingual education. What is your commitment to fully fund public schools, particularly special education and multilingual education, and how would you get that done? Starting with Emijah. [00:51:20] Emijah Smith: We gotta get out, we gotta go on the state level, we have to be loud and proud, and we have to make sure that the funding is fully funded. Of course, special education is not being resourced. Our special education students tend to be the main students that are getting pushed into the prison pipeline. So I am definitely gonna be loud and proud up there to make sure that that occurs, because we can't waver there. But Seattle Public Schools is also advocating to our state legislators right now, because the issue is that there was a tweak in the formula - that Seattle Public Schools is not getting as much money that it needs, but we also want to make sure our teachers are getting livable wages. And so it's coming to a point that if something's not addressed and more funding doesn't come into the education system, then maybe the public education here at Seattle Public Schools may falter. They're not sure what to do, teachers may go onto a strike. So we will have to figure it out, and we're gonna have to figure it out without taking away our children's basic needs - we should not be taking healthcare out of our schools, we should not be taking our social workers and mental health counselors away from our students. We have to do all the things, and we just have to figure it out and get creative. There are some great leaders there around education, but I'm a fierce advocate as well, and I don't think we should leave any student behind, especially those who are receiving special education services. Thank you. [00:52:34] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Chipalo? [00:52:35] Chipalo Street: So currently there's a funding cap on how much Seattle Public Schools gets reimbursed for special education funding, and if we were to remove that, Seattle Public Schools would get another $100 million that it would be able to put towards that. That is just a start. We - McCleary got us closer to funding education, but we do not fully fund it, and this becomes a revenue issue. Washington State has the most regressive tax code in the whole country, despite how progressive and liberal that we claim we are. We need to make sure that every corporation and person pays their fair share - so that looks like closing corporate tax loopholes, making sure that we keep our capital gains tax, which is - the revenue from that is used to fund early education, which is a necessary part of the education system - and then also implementing a wealth tax. Personally, I would prefer an income tax because an income tax is - you can withhold that. It's been tried before, we know how to implement that - however, there are constitutional issues with that. So in lieu of an income tax, we should be able to try a billionaire tax. And the thing that gives me hope is while things get stymied on the federal level, we've seen localities and states try out new things, and so maybe this is something that we can pilot here in the state, and at the end of the day, a billionaire tax and an income tax aren't mutually exclusive. We can still work towards an income tax, even if we have a billionaire tax. [00:53:58] Emijah Smith: May I follow-up? [00:53:59] Crystal Fincher: Yep. You each can have 30 seconds. [00:54:02] Emijah Smith: Thank you. What I want to share is that our community - I agree - Washington has the worst tax setup and structure. And we have been, in Washington State, been trying to bring forth initiatives multiple times to the state to address this issue so that we can make our wealth more equitable. And our community members and residents and citizens have been voting it down. So I'm thinking with this inflation, with the impact of COVID - but now it could be a really great time that more of our citizens and our residents will see that this is really necessary and will vote in their best interest instead of voting it away. Thank you. As well as our legislators making a move in our best interest. [00:54:43] Crystal Fincher: Chipalo? [00:54:45] Chipalo Street: I'm good. [00:54:46] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Next question. What is your connection to unincorporated Skyway? If elected, how will you support the development and investment in this neighborhood? Starting with Chipalo. [00:55:00] Chipalo Street: So if I was to be elected for this State Rep position, I would basically be one of three elected representatives for Skyway. So Skyway is unincorporated - that means it does not have a city council person to whom they can go for local issues. That basically means that myself, Representative Santos, Senator Saldaña and Councilman Zahilay would be the elected representatives for that area. So I would love to work with them in partnership to understand what development needs they would like to see. It was great to see that we went through a community budgeting process where folks were able to actually vote on how money was spent. And so supporting community involvement in how money is spent, making sure that we can advocate to get money set aside for Skyway because we know that it is not going to come through the City of Seattle, it's not going to come through the City of Renton. Those would be the ways that I would partner with the community to make sure that we develop it in a way that the community members see fit. [00:56:00] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. [00:56:01] Emijah Smith: Thank you. I love that question - yeah. So I'm connected with Skyway for the simple fact that I shop at Grocery Outlet, I get my taxes done over there, I patron the restaurants over there. My mom has recently moved, but had lived there for about 15 years - family's there, people use the post office there, banking there, utilizing the library there - Skyway is my community. And so that's my relationship. Second part to that question is - again, part of being Chief of Staff with King County Equity Now and just having relationships in that community - making sure that we got money from the state level to support Petah Village - early learning development, and also just the new outside - door - preschool, right? There's leadership there, there's expertise there, there's churches there, there's a nail shop - there's all the things that are near and dear to my heart, to be honest. That community is mine - not mine, but it's shared. I was on the Community Investment Budget Committee for King County's participatory budgeting to make sure that money was stored in a way that was definitely led by community members and getting the input from community members to see how they want to move that and looking to make sure that King County does it again in the future. So that was $10 million. We had a celebration about a few weeks ago, naming the projects that were funded. So yeah, this is near and dear to my heart - has been neglected, Skyway has been ignored. I'm thankful to King County Councilmember Girmay Zahilay, another sole endorser, for the leadership that he's had there, as well as Senator Saldaña, KHT - Kirsten Harris - I gotta stop, but all the legislators who have been pouring into that district. And let me shout out to Cynthia Green Home there - Center. [00:57:45] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Another audience question. Will you use your position at elected office to uplift more progressive voices in the office? And that question goes to Emijah. [00:58:01] Emijah Smith: Will you repeat that please? [00:58:03] Crystal Fincher: Will you use your position in elected office to uplift more voices into office, and how will you do that? [00:58:09] Emijah Smith: Yes, most definitely. I see this opportunity as being a bridge builder, right? If I'm in Olympia, you'll have a space in Olympia. The work that I've done over the years has definitely been providing workshops, not only in my professional capacity but in my personal capacity, to make sure that our everyday people understand how a bill becomes a law, right? Also the nuances - how to effectively communicate with your legislators - how do I go into those spaces and really center racial justice, knowing that I am a descendant of stolen ones in this country? I can't go into those spaces and just talk A, B. I have to go in there and really give them the nuances, the impact of what it means to be a Black mother in this community and navigating these systems. So I share that expertise and I share that knowledge with others, as well as being a pTSA president - always constantly talking to families about how they can strengthen their partnerships with their teachers, strengthen their partnerships with their principals. That's just the natural work that I do. So in order to be successful in this role, I need the community to come along with me. I need y'all to be the wind behind my back and be in locked arms. That space is our space. That's my plan - if I'm there, they comin'. [00:59:18] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. [00:59:19] Emijah Smith: Thank you. [00:59:19] Crystal Fincher: Chipalo? [00:59:21] Chipalo Street: For sure. Building a pipeline of people to come after is something that I've always done in everything that I've done. So for example, when I got to Brown, I noticed that the pre-med students had a great support group to help other students of color get through pre-med, but we did not have that in the engineering. So I restarted our chapter of the National Society of Black Engineers so that we had a community to not only get us through, but also pull in the next class of freshmen and sophomores to get them through. I've continued to do that in Seattle. I serve on the board of a program called Institute for a Democratic Future where the goal is to increase the Democratic Party across the state. I loved that program when I went through it, but one of the reasons I joined the board was to make sure that we had more equity in the fellows and the board members. And in my six years, we have dramatically changed what the class makeup looks like, both racially but also geographically, so that we have a stronger Democratic Party across the state so that we can win in every district. And then on the board itself, we have drastically increased the number of people of color and women of color on the board. And we actually now have our first woman of color who is the Board Chair. So this is something that I've been doing in all aspects of my life - even at Microsoft, equity was a huge thing for me. I required that we interview a person of color or underrepresented minority for every opening on the team that I led, and we ended with a team of 40% people of color or underrepresented minorities. So yes, I would continue to do that in Olympia. [01:00:55] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. [01:00:55] Emijah Smith: Follow up, please. [01:00:57] Crystal Fincher: You can have 30 seconds - yes. [01:00:58] Emijah Smith: Yes - I also wanted to just include that - in my organizing and advocacy work, it's definitely bringing the youth along. My children have been in Olympia with me since they were in preschool - up there advocating for better school lunches - really understanding that process and understanding that they too, at one point, will be there in a leadership role. So I wanted to also include - it's not just - families include the children and includes the elders in that space. Thank you. [01:01:25] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Next question. What is the most important climate legislation that should be passed by Washington in the legislature? And what climate organizations will you partner with to make that happen? Starting with Chipalo. [01:01:43] Chipalo Street: So I am glad that we have passed cap and trade. I think the next hurdle there is to implement cap and trade, especially the equity measures around the money that is brought in through the tax on carbon. So making sure that we implement that holistically - and groups that I'd work with are folks like Washington Conservation Voters, Sierra Club, the Environmental Climate Caucus - those are all groups that understand what's going on and can provide guidance and have been working to move this legislation through Olympia for multiple years. I'm also glad to see that the HEAL Act passed - and one of the things I loved about the HEAL Act is that it specifically called out that we need to gather data. As a scientist, I have a background in using data to address problems and for too long we've just sort of waved o

Maurice Jones is CEO at OneTen, a coalition of leading chief executives and their companies (like AT&T, Delta and more) who are coming together to upskill, hire and promote one million Black Americans over the next 10 years - Black people who do not yet have a four-year degree into family-sustaining jobs with opportunities for advancement. On this episode, Maurice talks to AfroTech's Will Lucas about the value of a college degree, necessary skills for all college graduates, and career technology education. Follow Will Lucas on Instagram at @willlucas Learn more at AfroTech.com https://instagram.com/afro.tech Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Student debt deliberations spark conversations about equal workforce opportunities for minority students. Guest host Kenia Thompson engages panelists Maurice Jones, CEO of OneTen; Mark-Anthony Middleton, Mayor Pro-Tem; and Dr. Henry McKoy, Professor of Entrepreneurship with North Carolina Central University.

Janice is joined by Maurice Jones, CEO of OneTen, to discuss how OneTen is completing its mission of hiring, promoting, and advancing one million black individuals who do not hold a four-year degree. tags: LR, janice ellig, Maurice jones, black, America, jobs, money, career, family, community, college, university, promotion, money, salary, leadership, equity

My latest guest is the former music mogul and legendary concert promoter Tim Parsons. It was a real joy to hear his stories from starting out as a "humper" (someone to move equipment) at an ELO gig to promoting Jasper Carrott, punk bands and heavy metal and the mighty Midland Concert Promotions which started in started in January 1978 with Tim and Maurice Jones. It as part of MCP, that Tim worked closely with both The Jam and The Style Council along with the likes of U2, INXS, Simply Red, The Police, Dire Straits, The Boomtown Rats, Oasis and Bon Jovi. We hear about his respect and love for John Weller (Paul's dad and manager ), we hear about the characters in the set up - the likes of Kenny Wheeler, Dave Liddle (Guitar Tech), Ian Harvey (Production Manager) and Ray 'Rat' Salter (Monitor Desk). From the mid-80s to mid-90s, MCP were undoubtedly the biggest in the business. At the height of their success they were putting on hundreds of shows each year, including open air shows in the summer and annual festivals such as Monsters of Rock. We also talk about his involvement in Live Aid in 1985, Oasis at Knebworth in 1996 and much more... Thanks for listening - make sure that you subscribe / follow and leave a review - and if you want to support the podcast financially, you can buy me a virtual coffee or our new official merchandise at paulwellerfanpodcast.com/store

The latest jobs report for April shows the U.S. capping a year of solid growth. Employers added 428,000 jobs and the unemployment rate remains steady at 3.6 percent, a pandemic-era low. But inequality continues as the economy recovers from the pandemic. Maurice Jones, former Virginia commerce secretary and HUD official, and now CEO of the organization OneTen, joins Geoff Bennet to discuss. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Not having a college degree has become a huge hindrance for people not only being able to get a job, but to get a sustainable job with opportunities for advancement. And it's a significant roadblock to advancement for Black people. Maurice Jones of OneTen joins Erica and India to discuss the realities of the job market and how OneTen is working to evolve the employment ecosystem to open up pathways of sustainable achievement for Black people. In this discussion: How degree requirements create systemic barriers to advancement and reinforce wealth gaps How small businesses can shift their hiring and advancement practices to support a more equitable workforce Why we need to shift to a skills-based hiring process rather than checking boxes with credentials Four elements of a sustainable job Connect with Maurice Jones: OneTen Connect with Maurice on LinkedIn Twitter: @MauriceOneTen Ready to dive deeper? Every hiring decision you make shapes your company culture and can bring you closer to your values. But first, you have to get explicit about what you support and how your actions align with that and support those you are seeking to impact.  If you want support on getting clear on what matters so you can chart a course that prioritizes your values and the impact they can create, join us for the From Implicit to Explicit Masterclass. Learn more at pauseontheplay.com/explicit

Continuing our Inclusive Storytelling series, we honored Black History Month with a Future of Branding panel on Black Leadership + Inclusive Storytelling. During the conversation, panelists discussed how their brands are celebrating Black History Month, balancing authenticity with action, and cultivating inclusive storytelling all year long.

YO, Maurice Jones is back again to talk with us about taking ownership of your life! In this rich conversation- we discuss accountability, content creation and how we include God in all of the above! Maurice is killing it over at his channel so definitely check it out and support all of his endeavors! Don't forget to subscribe for weekly conversations guided to help you live out loud for the One who died for you! Please consider supporting so I can continue bringing even better content! Follow Maurice on all of his socials! YouTube: https://youtube.com/c/AllGodEverythingLLC CHRISTIAN CONTENT CONNECTION networking group! FaceBook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/443771670679119/?ref=share LinkTree: https://linktr.ee/MauriceIJones FRESH PRAISE TSHIRT: https://bit.ly/FreshPraise SWEATSHIRT: https://amzn.to/3EH3VZO Podcast: Change The Narrative https://anchor.fm/image-inc The MLN Program (Mindset Development Program): http://bitly.com/mlnprogram More of a youtube watcher? Watch these conversations on Youtube RIGHT HERE: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHrNMtoYVCgCQBQFclZsvhQ Follow & Connect With Me! Instagram- https://www.instagram.com/its_ljayy/ Facebook- https://www.facebook.com/lj.clements Twitter- https://twitter.com/Its_Ljayy Email- livingoutloudprod@gmail.com Time Stamps: Intro 0:00 Accountability is ___ 3:33 How Can I Make Life Better? 6:20 Growing Pains? 11:26 Content Creation Strategies 15:52 Outro 22:01 --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/lj-clements/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lj-clements/support

On today's rebroadcast, Crystal's interviews King County Councilmember Girmay Zahilay, and they discuss police accountability and what it really means to invest in community. In the conversation they discuss the King County Charter Amendments that were on the November 2020 ballot and have since been approved by the voters, changing how the sheriff is selected, and requiring investigation over all police related deaths. Councilmember Zahilay also goes into the important work he's doing to increase investment in Skyway, without displacing the people who already call it home. A full text transcript of the show is available below, and on the Hacks & Wonks blog at https://www.officialhacksandwonks.com/post/king-county-councilmember-girmay-zahilay-talks-sheriff-reforms-supporting-skyway. Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and Councilmember Girmay Zahilay at @girmayzahilay. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Articles Referenced: Learn more about the King County Charter Amendments from People Power at https://www.wethepeoplepower.org/kcca.   Transcript: Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] Welcome to Hacks and Wonks. I'm your host, Crystal Fincher. On this show, we don't just talk politics and policy, but also how they affect our lives and shape our communities. As we dive into the backstories behind what we read in the news, we bring voices to the table that we don't hear from often enough. So today on Hacks and Wonks, we are excited to be joined by Girmay Zahilay, King County Councilmember for District 2, who has been doing a lot of work in the community. You've probably seen and heard from him - he's everywhere, just about, but we are excited to have a conversation today just about what you're working on. So thanks for joining us.  Girmay Zahilay: [00:00:52] My pleasure, Crystal. Thank you for having me.  Crystal Fincher: [00:00:54] So I guess starting out, what are you working on? What's top of the agenda right now? Girmay Zahilay: [00:01:00] We're working on a lot of stuff. I would say the two biggest policy agendas that we have are number one, Skyway, which is a neighborhood just south of Seattle and north of Renton. And that encompasses all things for the wellbeing of that neighborhood. And the second area that's our top priority is our criminal legal systems and imagining the future of public safety and making sure that marginalized communities are uplifted, supported, and feel safe rather than brutalized by a system that is racist and that hasn't seen much of any innovation for a long time. So, I would say those are the two biggest and we can dive into each of those umbrellas, as you like, Crystal, but there's some exciting stuff in each one of those.  Crystal Fincher: [00:01:46] Sure, absolutely. I mean, both of those are related - Skyway has the largest African American population, in the State, per capita. And so we see under-investment, and an under-resourced  area that's been ignored and neglected, despite it's absolutely prime location. And so the conversations that we're having with public safety go hand-in-hand with conversations that we're having there, and that, if Black Lives Matter, as you've said, Skyway has to matter - and the types of considerations that we're talking about in public safety extend to the whole conversation - just about racism and inequalities, and really setting people up for very different outcomes in life from the very beginning, based on the way we're set up systemically. So in terms of public safety, what are you working on? Girmay Zahilay: [00:02:48] Right. Your point, Crystal, about these two issues being intersecting is so spot-on. Right now we're seeing possibly the largest civil rights movement in the history of the United States. The Black Lives Matter movement has brought in millions of people nationally and tens of thousands of people locally. I grew up in South Seattle, so seeing our streets packed with tens of thousands of people like we have, shows me that there is momentum to support Black Lives. The Black Lives Matter movement is not just about ending police brutality. Of course, that's a central message, but it's also about ending all kinds of systemic harm and uplifting Black people because our systems have not done that so far. And like you said, Skyway is the place where we must start. It has the highest proportion of African Americans in the state of Washington and simultaneously, it's also the area that has been disinvested from the most. When you have an area that has the highest proportion of Black people and the area that has been disinvested in the most, that is systemic racism, plain and simple. So it, just to me, it points out this issue where again, our region says one thing and does another. We can drive around South Seattle and Skyway and see Black Lives Matter signs everywhere, but we don't invest in Black people the same way that we should. These issues are intersecting - Skyway, our system of public safety, police brutality - these are all intersecting issues.  Crystal Fincher: [00:04:29] They're absolutely intersecting issues and have been issues for so long, and we're really late in having this conversation. And it's a matter of having a representative in your position continually stress that this is a priority - this is urgent. And someone with lived experience who this is not a theoretical issue for and who has spent many years leading up to this, working on how to change from the root, systemically, the issues that we're dealing with. And one thing that I do want to point out that, from my perspective I appreciate, is, as an elected representative, we want you to take great votes and people are certainly excited about that. But the leadership goes beyond just what you do in the meetings and the votes you take. And you talked about being part of the largest civil rights movement happening right now, that we're in the middle of, and there were nights when we saw horrifying video coming out of the streets of Seattle and surrounding areas and, certainly SPD, behaving questionably. And some just, unambiguously, inappropriately and violently. And there were protesters and people in the community who said, Hey, we need help down here. We need someone down here to witness this, to address this. This is wrong, from being teargassed, to being beaten, to being corralled, and you answered that call. You were there, you were available - one, you were in a position to even see that. I mean, between Twitter and Facebook and Instagram, you are there and present when a lot of other people are not. And you were like, Hey, I'll be there. And you were there. And that just meant a lot to me, it means a lot to community to see - not only as someone willing to take the vote, but this is personal and this is real, and they're willing to stand shoulder-to-shoulder on the front lines and say, You know what, I'm part of this too. And this affects me too. And I'm in a position to use my platform and power to change this, not just when it comes to taking a vote, but just using your voice, shining a light on it all around. So I just want to say - I appreciate that, I saw that, I know a lot of the community sees that. And it matters to have someone who understands and who has felt and experienced, what this really means and the consequences of these actions. And so beyond that, or I guess looking through that lens, what is your approach to turning just the understanding, the pain, and the need into policy - and what is in process? Girmay Zahilay: [00:07:30] Thank you, Crystal, for highlighting that. There were a number of other elected officials who came out that day as well, and just the community members who've been organizing and protesting for the past six months. They've been putting their bodies and their lives on the line every day, to advance justice. And we, as elected officials, need to be out there with them. 2020 is such a special and different year, right? Before 2020 happened, we already had so many crises - it's not like we were in peace times before this and there were a lot of issues to resolve. But then 2020 starts and the issues get bigger and our tools for resolving them diminished greatly - because the usual tools that we have for advocacy engagement, understanding one another, are completely obliterated when we're not allowed to gather or be near each other. So as elected officials, we have to find other opportunities of engaging and learning and listening, because it can't all happen virtually. We cannot believe and be lulled into the false sense of understanding our constituents from a laptop or from a cell phone. We have to be out there. And that's why I try my best to be out as much as I can, in a safe way, every opportunity that I get - whether that's outside delivering masks - I could have my staff or King County officials go out and do that for me, but I want to be out there, I want to see people, I want to talk to them - or that's going out and protesting with people, because I need to experience the police brutality and overreach firsthand if I'm going to shape effective policies. I think it's really important for us to be out there, to be visible, to show people that we're truly listening, and crafting our policies based on what we're seeing and hearing from our constituents. Otherwise, we're susceptible to just believing the spin, and the narrative, and whatever media agenda there is out there of the people who have access to media, telling the story for us. And I think the most perfect example is the evening marchers and the young people who are organizing and marching every night. If I were to just to open up my news apps and read about them, I'm seeing - mobs, destructive mobs. When I went out there and actually sat with them and spoke to them, I was blown away by the level of nuance and informed discussion that I was able to have with these teenagers and young adults. They were pulling up our voting records, they were pulling up things that we have said in the past in various committee meetings. It was just the most intellectual conversation that I've had in my time as a councilmember. And I would have never known that if I hadn't gone out there and spoken to them.  Crystal Fincher: [00:10:28] Well, and what you talked about is very important in needing to be present and experience it yourself 'cause you just mentioned, if we watched the typical evening news, they'll focus on, Hey, if there is some property damage, if there is someone that they can view looking aggressive, or if the police department says, Hey, this is our take on things today, whether or not that story changes later on down the line. That's really been the focus of our local TV coverage that a lot of people catch. A lot of people don't have the time or ability just to do a deep dive into news and the social media and to see what's actually happening. So for you to be able to experience it yourself and be on the ground and understand that this isn't - these aren't people without a plan. These aren't people acting impulsively.  These are people who understand that lives are at stake and who have taken it upon themselves to educate themselves, to arm themselves with knowledge, and to say, You know what? We are going beyond what we've done before and we're demanding better. And I tell you, young people are the best at holding everyone accountable. And out of necessity - because their preceding generations have slipped and didn't do the job they should have. So they're actually coming around and saying, Okay, let's actually show you all how it's done. And we just saw that result in the Seattle City Council recently - overriding Jenny Durkan's veto of the rebalanced budget that significantly defunds SPD and sets the stage for even more defunding in the next budget.  Girmay Zahilay: [00:12:16] Right.  Crystal Fincher: [00:12:16] So, from the County perspective, and talking about the Sheriff's that are within your jurisdiction - are you also looking at defunding and what are the specifics of the plan? Girmay Zahilay: [00:12:29] I would encourage everyone to look into Charter Amendment #6, which will be on your November ballot. When anybody who's listening to this opens up their ballot in November to vote on things like who they want their next president to be, they're also going to see a list of seven King County Charter amendments, and four of these amendments relate to your County system of public safety. If you vote Yes on Charter Amendment #6, it would allow the King County Council to shape the future of public safety. This is not some kind of symbolic, or incremental, or performative change around eliminating police brutality. This would allow the King County Council to move away from a system where we send armed police officers to respond to every single challenge on the streets of our city and county - to assist them - that is a diverse toolkit of public health alternatives. So, if we see a mental health crisis on our streets, we can send trained mental health professionals. If we see somebody in need on our streets, like an encampment, we won't send officers with guns - we send rapid response social workers who can help people in need. If our youth are having conflicts or issues, we can send violence interrupters and mentors to respond. If somebody has routine, everyday things like a noise complaint, or wants to do a wellness check, or a fire code issue, we can send code enforcement officers who aren't armed. Our default response to every single issue does not have to be to send police officers who have guns, because that's how Black and Brown people die unnecessarily. That's what we've seen all around the nation and this charter amendment, if it's passed - and it is something that our office proposed - would remove certain restrictions that would allow, then, the King County Council to transfer public safety functions away from traditional law enforcement and toward community-based and public health alternatives. I think this would be a huge and beneficial change for our county and all it takes is our public approving it through the voting process. Crystal Fincher: [00:14:49] You're listening to Hacks and Wonks with your host Crystal Fincher on KVRU 105.7 FM. So that's going to be on the November ballot.  Girmay Zahilay: [00:15:30] The one I described is just 1 of 7, but there are others - like shifting our Sheriff from an elected position to an appointed position, which would increase accountability to the Council and allow us to give the Sheriff policy instruction, which we can't right now. Crystal Fincher: [00:16:24] You just mentioned the charter amendment to make the Sheriff appointed and not elected. A lot of people feel like, Hey, if we elect people, they're directly accountable to the people - we can hold them accountable, we get a consistent voice. Why is having them report or be appointed and accountable to the council a better system? How does that increase accountability?  Girmay Zahilay: [00:16:56] Well, an independently elected sheriff is exactly that - more independent, and we do not need a more independent police department. We need better checks and balances, we need to be able to oversee them, we need to be able to provide policy instruction to them. And yes, on the surface, it does feel like electing someone feels like accountability to the voters, but once you've elected them for four years, who are they exactly accountable to? The Council right now has budgetary power - we can provide incentives through budgetary sticks and carrots, but we cannot give them policy instruction. We cannot transfer public safety functions elsewhere. And the King County Executive right now - if the Sheriff did something wrong, the King County Executive cannot fire the Sheriff, for example. There would have to be a recall process, which is way more complicated than a King County Executive just saying, Hey, you've done something wrong. You are not being accountable to our constituents. We're going to look for somebody else. And also an appointed position would allow the King County Council and the Executive to do a nationwide search and find the best quality person for the job, whereas an election, you are inherently through that process - you're attracting politicians to that job. People who are going to be accountable to - more accountable to the police unions and to their donors - than to people who want better policy instructions for them.  Crystal Fincher: [00:18:35] It's always interesting to have this conversation with politicians, but it's usually only politicians who hold themselves accountable and allow the public to hold themselves accountable, who want to bring that up. that is a legitimate issue - that there are a lot of politicians who do feel beholden to their donors and to, a lot of times, the special interests that helped provide the funding and resources to get them elected - but that often have competing agendas with the people who they're actually elected to serve. So as we're looking at this overall - one issue that we have recently talked about in Seattle, and especially looking at the Mayor and the control that Jenny Durkan has over the Seattle Police Department, and even the Police Chief for the Seattle Police Department - not really having power or authority to impose appropriate discipline, to make appropriate changes, because of the police guild's contract for Seattle. Is that also an issue with the Sheriff's department in King County? And how do you fix that? How do you begin to change that, so that there is accountability?  Girmay Zahilay: [00:19:49] It's a huge obstacle for justice and accountability. One of the things that we talk about most is the fact that oversight - the process of holding police officers accountable for misconduct, for example, that process is subject to bargaining - meaning that we can only hold police officers accountable in the ways that the police unions agree to. Imagine if any other profession, a high risk profession, say surgeons, or anything like that. Imagine if they told you, Hey, you can only hold us accountable the ways that we agreed to. Is that real accountability? Of course not. That's what we have here - that's the issue that we're facing here - the fact that oversight is subject to negotiation and bargaining. I understand why some things are subject to negotiation - we want workers to be protected - police officers are workers as well - things like benefits and workforce conditions, things like that, of course. But when we're talking about holding you accountable for misconduct, for example, that is not something that we should have to negotiate with you. That should be a completely independent function not subject to negotiation, but it is right now, because of state law. And last month, I actually held a round table discussion with several state-elected officials and community members, especially out in Skyway, and people in the union world, like MLK Labor Council. I had them all on a call and we discussed what can we do to solve this issue without deteriorating workers' rights? Because the last thing we want to do is have anti-union people using this police union issue as a way of deteriorating union rights. That's not what we want to do. Is there a way to carve out this specific, special situation? And that's what we would discuss with the state-elected officials as a state matter - it's not something that King County Council can change, but we did get some commitments from state-level people - that they are going to look into this and address the collective bargaining laws that  allow police unions to be an obstacle to true accountability. Crystal Fincher: [00:22:16] Okay, that makes sense. So, in terms of what is possible in this next legislative session, are there fixes that they're committing to bring forward, or that are currently in discussions? And then how much is an issue of state law preventing that, and how much is an issue of direct negotiation of the contract? Girmay Zahilay: [00:22:41] So it's both for sure. And I, the sense that I got from the state-level people is that they are going to introduce something that allows - that would carve out police unions from this collective bargaining law. Or at least carves out accountability measures from the requirement to bargain and negotiate. Because again, that should be independent. I can follow up with them to hear if a specific bill is going to be proposed, but that's the sense that I got.  Crystal Fincher: [00:23:12] Yeah, that makes sense. And, appreciate you trying, even though that is not in your direct area of control - to make an effort to work in cooperation with your partners at the state, and to say, Hey, we need action. What can we do? And to get that conversation started, and we will certainly be talking more about that here on Hacks and Wonks.  So broadening the conversation - and we started talking about Skyway - and we started talking about the disinvestment and, really, the institutional neglect and hostility, which is certainly harmful and a form of violence. How do we - what are the best ways to address that? What change can meaningfully be made? What policies can be changed, especially right now in the middle of a pandemic, when every local government and state government is saying, We're experiencing a budget crisis at the same time - so what can be done? And looking at the near term, and then in the next six months to a year, what is planned? What is possible? Girmay Zahilay: [00:24:29] For sure, Crystal, and I think the most important thing is to start off understanding what the problem statement is. The problem statement is not - how do we get more investment into Skyway? I actually just got into a Facebook argument with somebody on Facebook - which I tell myself every day, Don't get into Facebook arguments because it's a losing battle - you're not arguing rational people most of the time. But I posted how Skyway needs investments, et cetera, and this guy who, of course, had a vote Trump thing in his profile pictures, somewhere deep in there, was saying that, The easiest way to fix Skyway and to have it catch up with the neighborhoods around it, is to reduce regulations for developers, handout permits as quickly as possible, and private capital can flow in and we can develop it so fast - this is such an exceedingly simple solution. And I have to tell him, Again, you are working with the wrong problem statement. The problem is not where we need to find ways of having private capital flow into Skyway. If that were the only thing we're trying to solve for, the solution is exceedingly simple, right? It's just to eliminate all regulations, hand out permits to developers. And of course, they would take that in a heartbeat. The problem statement is - How do you invest in Skyway without displacing the people who already call it home? And the solution to that is much more nuanced and requires us to be much more thoughtful about how we proceed with development. It requires us to, yes, invite development, but do it in a way that is lockstep with anti-displacement measures, that invests in existing people and existing small businesses that are already there. It requires us to down-zone certain areas so that we can slow the pace of gentrification as much as possible. It requires us to be really thoughtful about what kind of requirements we're putting on developers - we're not just saying, Hey, developers, it's a free-for-all. No, you have to have a certain number of your units be affordable. You have to - right of first return to people that you displace in the process of development. You have to invest a certain amount of money in existing small businesses. You have to create community land trusts and community ownership. Those are all things that we're trying to do right now, because as far as I can tell, I have not been able to identify a single neighborhood or region in Washington State that's gotten it right so far. If it was so simple, I asked this man who argued with me on Facebook, give me the list of neighborhoods in our state where this has worked before. Just - we don't have to argue - just lay out the facts for me, because again, if you're going to point to places like the Central District - no. South Seattle - no. Anywhere you point to me, I'm going to show you that - no, we did not get it right. Yes, private capital flowed in and development happened, but what happened to the people who already live there? And that's what we're trying to solve in Skyway. And I can talk about the things that we've been working on so far, but I know it's always best to give myself some breathing room and not talk endlessly.  Crystal Fincher: [00:27:50] Well, we do have a few more minutes, but it would be good just to get an idea of what the focus is. Girmay Zahilay: [00:27:59] For sure. So the first thing that we did was help get a Skyway Land Use and Zoning Plan pushed across the finish line. This is something that people had been working on before I got here, but we helped push it across the finish line. And that's the first thing - is setting the foundation for investment - and that means we down-zoned certain areas from bigger commercial areas into smaller neighborhood commercial areas. Because again, we don't want speculative developers coming in here and putting in giant high-rises, and Targets, and Walmarts, and all that. Not yet. We also changed the areas that are already zoned for multi-family housing, like apartment complexes - we included some affordability requirements into those, so if you are going to develop areas that are already marked for multi-family, you have to have a certain level of affordability for lower income people to be able to live there. That's just setting the foundation. And then, now what we're working on is bolstering the level of investment that King County is willing to put in - for things like a community center, we just got earmarked for $10 million. For things like participatory budgeting, where the community gets to choose how it wants to spend money - whether that's for housing, or youth services, or roads and infrastructure - $10 million is going to go into that. We're getting $4.6 million - and this is all part of King County Executive Dow Constantine's proposed budget - $4.6 million is going to be redirected, of marijuana revenue, is going to be redirected from law enforcement and go toward community-based alternatives. So you lay the foundation of slowing the rate of gentrification, and then you slowly invest and build up - and at the same time, in lock step, we're going to also be placing, preparing anti-displacement measures, like just cause eviction, which would require that landlords and other big commercial developers - that they have a just reason for kicking out tenants and can't just do it for commercial reasons, or whatever it might be.  Crystal Fincher: [00:30:21] Right. That is helpful, certainly. And excited to hear that you're picking that up - other local jurisdictions have taken that up, and so others are just beginning to follow their lead and I'm glad to see that you're on the leading side of that. So I appreciate you just talking to us about everything today and what's going on and just understanding more of one central point. It isn't simple. It isn't simple, it isn't easy, but that is not an excuse not to do the work. And in fact that means that we really have to double down and dive in to understand the issues and get to work now, because we really can't wait any longer. We can't afford to wait any longer - people's lives are at stake and in the balance - and everything from health to education, just to what someone's neighborhood and school and street looks like, and what their future is set up to be - depends on the work that we're doing today. So I appreciate you spending this time, I appreciate the work that you're doing. Can you give your Twitter handle one more time, so people can get more information about what we've talked about today?  Absolutely. It's @girmayzahilay. Thank you so much, Crystal. I Girmay Zahilay: [00:31:48] really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. I really love the work that you do, and your whole team does. Thank you for highlighting the voices of our most marginalized communities and some of the solutions that would get us on track to being a region that works for everyone. Crystal Fincher: [00:32:10] Thank you for listening to Hacks and Wonks. Thank you to KVRU 105.7FM in Seattle where we record this show. Our chief audio engineer is Maurice Jones, Jr. And our producer is Lisl Stadler. If you want more Hacks and Wonks content, go to officialhacksandwonks.com, subscribe to Hacks and Wonks on your favorite podcatcher, or follow me on Twitter @finchfrii. Catch you on the other side.

This week, we revisit our conversation with Pierce County Council Chair Derek Young discussing what's up in Pierce County. They discuss the vast differences in funding available for transit and other public projects in King and Pierce counties, how Pierce County and Tacoma are absorbing the population overflow of those who can't find affordable homes in King County, how the Pierce County Council is approaching investigations into police misconduct, and how one governs as a Democrat in a county where there is a substantial Republican presence. 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, Pierce County Council Chair Derek Young, at @DerekMYoung. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources “‘Home in Tacoma' Advances with Recommendation to Eliminate Single-Family Zoning” by Stephen Fesler: https://www.theurbanist.org/2021/05/26/home-in-tacoma-advances-with-recommendation-to-eliminate-single-family-zoning/ “Zoomers Flock to Tacoma over Pricey Seattle” by Brandon Zuo: https://www.theurbanist.org/2021/03/17/zoomers-flock-to-tacoma-over-pricey-seattle/ “Tacoma on the Move: Pierce Transit's Vision for a Growing City” by Rubén Casas: https://www.theurbanist.org/2018/09/17/tacoma-on-the-move-pierce-transits-vision-for-a-growing-city/ “Two Tacoma officers involved in Manuel Ellis' death named in excessive force claim” by Allison Needles: https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article252735288.html “Newspaper carrier who was confronted by Sheriff Troyer files $5 million legal claim against Pierce County” by Jim Brunner: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/newspaper-carrier-who-was-confronted-by-sheriff-ed-troyer-files-5-million-legal-claim-against-pierce-county/ “State attorney general launches criminal investigation into Pierce Sheriff Ed Troyer” by Will James: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/newspaper-carrier-who-was-confronted-by-sheriff-ed-troyer-files-5-million-legal-claim-against-pierce-county/ “Facing charges, Pierce County Sheriff Ed Troyer uses dog whistles to play the victim" by Matt Driscoll https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/matt-driscoll/article255184512.html "Report: Tacoma could diver many emergency calls to civilians” from The Associated Press: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/report-tacoma-could-divert-many-emergency-calls-to-civilians/   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 am thrilled to welcome to the show Pierce County Councilmember Derek Young. Thanks for joining us. Derek Young: [00:00:58] Thank you for having me. Crystal Fincher: [00:01:00] Well, I really was excited to have you on the show because you are on the Pierce County Council, you're a former Gig Harbor City Councilman. You're really vocal on Twitter, you're really visible in advocating for what Pierce County needs. Most of the audience for this show is in Seattle - familiar with Seattle and King County issues and probably less familiar with Pierce County issues. One of the biggest differences is - in Seattle, as we're talking about all of these campaigns right now, really it's what kind of Democrat are you? Are you a moderate Democrat or a progressive Democrat? Different story in Pierce County. There are actually Republicans. Republicans that support Trump. Republican Republicans. And governing is much different. A lot of the rhetoric is much different. So, what is it like, especially in the context of comparing and contrasting it with Seattle, serving on the Pierce County Council and what are your priorities that you're dealing with? Derek Young: [00:02:07] Well, first of all, thanks. I feel like this is the part where I say, "First time, long time." I appreciate you bringing me on because, yeah, listening to you - being in the shadow of King County politics I think is a little weird for us because we're obviously a very urban county near by, and we're very affected by what happens in Seattle and King County. And so, for example, you're obviously talking a lot about housing, transportation, growth politics in Seattle. That lands really hard on Tacoma-Pierce County. And so we very often are dealing with the repercussions of decisions that are made outside of our capacity. And so that centers a lot of what we deal with here, and that's kind of on a bipartisan basis. We have to figure out how to absorb the housing that isn't built in King County. It turns out jobs - you can have all this growth, but housing is where jobs go at night. And so that means you have to build the housing here. So, we're picking up the slack. We have to provide the transportation, and we don't have a regional transportation system contrary to popular belief. We have a very localized and regressive transportation system that hurts people, frankly, in South Sound. So, we have to figure out how to work through all of that while we watch all of these incredible light rail stations and BRT intersections get built while we still wait to be connected to that. On the more partisan side though, we, as you said, have Republicans here. And for big chunks of the county that tends to be the way they vote. We have a Republican County Executive and so just like King County, they're separately elected and run countywide. And then we have a 7-member Council. Before I ran against and defeated an incumbent, the Republicans actually had a 5-2 supermajority. That tells you a little bit of the makeup there. We recently took the majority, so we now have a 4-3 majority on that. But, as I regularly point out to people, my district, which covers the west side of the Sound that's in Pierce County - Gig Harbor where I'm from, as well as parts of North End and West End Tacoma - it hadn't been held by a Democrat since 1980. So, there are some changes that are happening in that direction, but the east side of the county, I think, reflects a lot of the national trends that you've seen towards the party in that end. So, the way that plays out is - in the social services that counties are supposed to provide, very often on behalf of the state but often we should be doing our own local thing. So, we just recently passed the behavioral health tax - we're one of the last counties to do that. We really have a Public Health Department which - I chair the Board of Health - that has been underfunded for years and we're trying to make some changes there. Obviously the pandemic brought that out a little more. We're getting into children's services for the first time which is something I'm super excited about because who doesn't love kids? Trying to make sure that they have the tools they need, but also we know it has downstream effects. So, there's a bunch of things that are happening more on the social side. And then finally environmental. Pierce County is - and the reason I ran in 1997 for City Council was growth management. And we were the poster child for sprawl and we're still dealing with the ramifications of those decisions made, frankly, back in the early 90s. And trying to deal with that, and environmental consequences, and those issues. So, we got a lot going on, but the good news is that the Council's personality has changed, I think, for the better. We were pretty dysfunctional there for a few years and so even some of my Republican colleagues who I disagree with, we're getting along great. And that's pretty productive. Crystal Fincher: [00:06:35] That is productive. I remember some of those extremely dysfunctional times and it is good to be able to move forward on a number of these issues. I do think the pandemic made plain how much of a need there was and helped to bring some people along. You brought up a great point early on just about you being affected by what King County does. Talking about transportation, we're in a conversation now about Sound Transit and delaying, continuing to delay, a lot of what was scheduled to be built in Pierce County. And people are paying for it now. They may not see the benefits of that for another decade or two. What is funding transit like? What is that conversation like? And I guess in looking at working with King County and working around King County, what would you ask of King County and what are you forced to do with these delays in a regional system? Derek Young: [00:07:40] It's a great question and gets to, I think, some of where I disagree with some of my colleagues in King County. But I have to back up a little bit to explain this. One of the tragedies of the last 20 years in the Legislature, where I've worked representing cities and counties down there for a number of years - either my own, our association, or even as a contract lobbyist at one point. And we have not only the most regressive tax code in the country, which I think most people know, but what many of your listeners may not be aware of is that it's the localization that really lands hard on communities that don't have the same level of wealth as some of the cities in King County. So, let's take local transit for example. It used to be that about a third of the funding for local transit came from the state, which is the way most states do things. It's the logical thing to do. In Washington, basically the Initiative 695 and the Legislature's response to that, basically eliminated that. There's very little state funding. Most of it's either federal passthrough or regional passthrough from the Feds. So, what that meant was they gave us something called local option. "Local options" are the two words that I want to hear the least from the Legislature ever because what that means is the way you can serve your community is what you can raise locally. So, if you're a poorer county, like Pierce County, I can only raise for every one-tenth of 1% sales tax, about 60 cents on the dollar what King County can. So, I have higher need but less money to do it with. Does that sound progressive to you? Does that sound like something that - the tax code that you would want as a liberal Democrat? No, of course not. But it's just fine for a lot of King County Democrats because they're piling up so much wealth there that they get to buy a lot of stuff. I always picture when I go through my budget - King County must be diving into piles of gold like Scrooge McDuck because they forget more money than I can try to scrape together to put a sensible system. So, the second part is that because we have poor service, people don't value that transit as much. So, we've had trouble passing the last three-tenths authorization. So, that means we have two-thirds of what most other counties have and it only raises about 60% what King County can. So, our system is really starving and it barely provides basic services. So, I'm a regular transit rider. My bus comes once an hour. If you had a bus in King County that went once an hour, there'd be riots. So, that's the kind of problems that we have. But you would think a regional system - that wouldn't impact. This is where a perversely named sub-area equity law in state law comes into effect. This was the idea of Rob McKenna back when he was on the King County Council - concerned that, basically the suburbs, were going to subsidize Seattle. Obviously since that time - this is back in the old days when Seattle hadn't had this explosion of growth - the reverse has happened in fact. So, what that means is that we can only spend for regional transit what we can raise locally. That's why you haven't seen the connection through South Sound, and I include in that South King County - honorary South Sound membership in South King County. Crystal Fincher: [00:11:02] Thank you. Derek Young: [00:11:03] It hasn't gone through that zone or into Pierce County where we have our own. So, we've really struggled to connect to the system that - as people that are in the service industries and lower-wage tech workers get pushed further and further away from where their jobs are, they've been pushed away from where transportation can connect them effectively. It's really a terrible system. If you were to sit down and design this as a regional system, people would think you were nuts. But this is what we have. And each year I kind of scream at the top of my lungs to fix it. The problem that this really gets put into hyperdrive is when we get some federal funding, which we've had recently, we distribute it based on what King County calls fair, and that means we're going to base it on service hours. Well, if I'm starting out with a tenth of the service hours that you can provide there, that means you're taking up almost all of the money in these other places where you've already concentrated all this wealth. So, we got basically 10% of the federal funding for our transit system and for our Sound Transit projects that King County did. If you don't think that's just morally abhorrent and outrageous, I don't know what to do. That to me is wrong and we have to fix it. But we've gone through two cycles now at Puget Sound Regional Council where that's exactly what's happened. Crystal Fincher: [00:12:30] So, how does it get fixed? What needs to happen to fix it? Derek Young: [00:12:34] The first thing is it's got to start with state legislation. And here's the part where I hate to put this on raw parochialism, but because our Party that is in control of both chambers is concentrated so much in King County, there hasn't been a lot of movement and a lot of support for changing that setup. The second thing that I do appreciate and I want to call her out because she's been a great leader to try to fix this overall tax structure problem, and that's Representative Noel Frame. I don't think at first she was thinking as much about the local impacts of the tax structure problems that we have, but she's been super open to it since we started talking and realized how this is hurting people, not just in Pierce County by the way - that this is happening in a number of different places, where it doesn't make sense to base all of our services on what you can raise locally. We actually just fixed this basically with schools. That's essentially what we had done with our school systems where we said, "We're going to rely on your local levies to determine what kids deserve." We didn't think that was right with schools. We shouldn't think that's right with basic social services like behavioral health, funding for early childhood, or transit, or any of these programs. Crystal Fincher: [00:13:53] Well, I hope it is something that is taken up in the Legislature and that is going to be fixed because it is fundamentally unfair. And it ultimately inhibits and drives down support for regional solutions for a variety of things overall. And drives up the, I guess, I don't want to call it jealousy because it's not jealousy, but just some of looking at Seattle and going, "Man, you guys get everything and we're sitting out here outside in the rain with no cover and no one seems to be noticing." You talked- Derek Young: [00:14:28] I'll give you one example that really highlights this. There is one BRT highway intersection in Kirkland that is going to cost upwards of $135 million. That is more than the entire Bus Rapid Transit line that is being built - covers, I think, a dozen miles - in Pierce County. One intersection that's going to serve a few hundred people versus ours that's going to serve thousands. And our funding was in jeopardy until the federal government stepped up. That's how outrageous this disparity is. And so, yeah, I'm hoping we can get some common sense to this. But it is sort of frustrating to watch. And that's why when ST3 came up for the repeal - for the nearest brick to pick up and throw through that window, if they're not getting the services that they think they're paying for. And then they look up north and don't realize they're not actually funding those systems, but I guess that's what you're saying is - it isn't jealousy, it's that I'm getting hurt and we should stop that. Crystal Fincher: [00:15:37] We're also dealing with, as you said, King County's failure to manage sprawl - people being people being priced out of Seattle and King County - moving further away, being forced out of the City, and forced further away from the City in search of more affordable housing, both rentals and owned homes. And so now we're also continuing to see headlines in Pierce County that housing prices continue to rise. Are you looking at the same kind of housing cost increases that King County has been experiencing? And how do you prevent that from happening? Derek Young: [00:16:17] Yeah, in answer to your question, we have. At one point, Spanaway, which is in unincorporated Pierce County outside Tacoma, was the hottest housing market in the entire country. That's not a normal thing. That's pretty far out. And it tells you the kinds of pressures that are being put on the system here. We have absorbed more than our share of the population growth. In fact, if it had not been for the fact that Pierce County had - A) coming out of the Great Recession, a large housing glut - meaning when I first joined the Council in 2015, our big problem that we were dealing with was abandoned homes, which sounds crazy now but we had a lot of them. So, that basically absorbed some of the pressure and then we've grown a lot. So, we've added a ton of new housing. Tacoma right now is looking at a plan called Home in Tacoma which is going to basically transform a lot of their single family homes zoning into more accessible, and it's based on where transit support is. And so it'll cover most of the city. That's the kind of thing that we need our major metropolitan cities doing in general. It's our regional growth plans. Seattle just announced that they're going to change the name of their single family zoning. They're changing the name. Now, I understand why they're saying it's exclusionary rhetoric - that's great. But when I first saw the headline I was like, "Oh my God, this is what we need. They're going to get rid of their single family zoning." They're changing the term, but it'll continue to do the exact same thing. Crystal Fincher: [00:17:53] Okay. I saw you post on this. I will say, in fairness, I saw the announcement by Council President Lorena González, who's also running for mayor. And actually one of the things we've talked about on Hacks & Wonks before is - there does seem to be universal agreement among mayoral candidates, and there will be a new mayor in Seattle, that the need to actually end exclusionary zoning is there. They have different plans to approach it. So, yes, changing the name. But I will say that they are not talking about simply stopping at a name change. They are actually talking about changing the policies. Derek Young: [00:18:33] And when they do I will be there to applaud them. In fact, one of the things I miss most about regional government was when we lost Mike O'Brien. Mike was a great partner negotiating our regional strategy and what basically - which was aimed at Seattle, forcing it to accept more housing. And I watched even a couple meetings where he was at where he was getting the - strong feedback might be the way to put it. It was tragic because he's such a nice guy that -and decided not to run again. But we need that leadership on the Seattle Council. I don't get a say in those elections, but I joked for a while - now that I know that residency is maybe not a requirement, maybe I should run for Seattle mayor so I can blow up their zoning code. Crystal Fincher: [00:19:26] Well, I am rooting for the blowing up of the zoning code, and I am actually with you in terms of - dealing with rhetoric is entirely insufficient. It is actually changing of the policy that is going to be impactful for people on the ground. Derek Young: [00:19:41] And by the way, I should say it's a good idea to change that. I understand why the name is - it's always good to police our language a bit and realize where that came from. I just wouldn't send out a press release over it. Just do it. Crystal Fincher: [00:19:55] I get it. We have had a number of interesting press releases lately. In terms of dealing with exclusionary zoning in Pierce County, where are you on that? Derek Young: [00:20:06] So, we are following basically what we believe to be smart growth practices. And so most recently we had what's called our Centers and Corridors proposal. It was in our last Comm[unity] Plan update and Development Reg changes. So, where we have access to high capacity transit, and this is a term that we have in our regional plans going through Puget Sound Regional Council - that means frequent high capacity, something more than a regular bus route. It's got to be either Bus Rapid Transit or light rail. And along those corridors, so basically within half a mile, we're allowing very large scale development. Originally it was going to be unlimited and just let the market decide. But Tacoma and us had a disagreement. Tacoma wanted to make sure that their downtown was protected and they were going to have more growth concentrated. It makes sense. The line starts there, so it's a good idea. And then we'll also add more as we add more high capacity transit. That's trying to pull back from the outlying areas where there's more sprawl and really try to build healthy, sustainable communities that are walkable, have good access to public transportation, and don't require you to drive everywhere. This is trying to turn the corner on an auto-centric model that we have in Pierce County that forces everyone, including people who really can't afford it, to buy a car. Crystal Fincher: [00:21:35] In terms of high capacity transit routes, lots of broad agreement across the state. In terms of single family or neighborhood residential, where does zoning stand on that in more developed cities that are not predominantly rural in Pierce County? Derek Young: [00:21:56] Yeah, so, there's still quite a bit. And that's why I kind of called out Tacoma's work to try to - they're going to basically try to pass this this year. That's the recommendation from their planning commission. I think they're close. The pushback began. I kept telling people to wait for it. That's why we all, the Executive and the Council, unanimously sent a letter basically applauding their work because we're like, "We need you to do this so that we don't keep pushing more growth out in the outlying areas." But, yeah, we need - I guess the way I would put it is the urban core. And that's the places where we do have that infrastructure. So Lakewood, University Place, Puyallup, Tacoma, and urban and incorporated Pierce County - those are the areas where you find that. And we're trying to concentrate as much growth there as possible. That means rezoning, in some cases, the single family zones. We already had quite - our moderate density housing already allowed for a lot of that flexibility. I think we need to go further in some of the cities. So, we need our city partners in Lakewood, Puyallup, UP, frankly, to step up along with Tacoma. I think we're getting there. Everyone seems to be - unlike my frustration in King County where some of the cities just ignore their population distribution, ours at least seem to say, "Okay, we'll plan for that." Now, this isn't Sim City. You can plan for it, the market has to come to it. The second thing is that we're just now getting into serious - we have some money to start doing some major investments in public housing, which is something we really haven't done. The degree to which, and this is a compliment for King County, since I've said a few negative things. You all have invested a lot in public housing and are poised to make some bigger ones. We're just dipping our toes into it right now. So, we're working on those plans and we'll start our own developments. We'll start building much more public housing than what we have right now. Crystal Fincher: [00:24:00] Well, and that's really exciting to see. And it is encouraging to hear you talk about - hey, cities, even cities with Republican leadership in Pierce County, are planning to absorb growth and are planning to meet those goals. And that there does seem to be some unanimity and agreement on - hey, we do need to absorb density. May not be agreement everywhere, but hey, if we're along a transit line we need to support the density on that route. That seems like a positive thing that should not be odd for every community to be advocating for and expecting. In terms of the conversation around public safety, policing, we have certainly talked a lot in King County, throughout Washington. Pierce County is no different - whether we're talking about Manny Ellis or talking about Sheriff Troyer and his, as I will put it, setting up a Black man newspaper deliverer to potentially be killed - by saying his life was actively being threatened and seemingly not being honest about that. Where does, I guess specifically in those two cases, the Council stand and where are things moving, with the understanding that you may be limited in what you can talk about because you're on the Council and actively dealing with that? But overall, do you think policing is where it should be? And the conversation around public safety is where it should be? And how should it be different? Derek Young: [00:25:34] Yeah. I'm glad you asked because I'll go to the part that will be difficult for me to elaborate too much on, and that's the current investigation into Sheriff Troyer. We did two things. First of all, I was heartbroken when I heard that story because all I could think was - how would I have felt if I saw this swarm of officers showing up to what they believed to be an officer in danger? And then I also can't put myself in the shoes of a Black man. And so I would have been nervous enough. I can only imagine what he was experiencing there. So, we said - right away, my thought was let's use our public - an elected sheriff is only accountable to the people. The problem is that the people don't have investigatory powers. So, we, as the branch that most closely represents them, do have that. We have subpoena power. We do have the ability to compel testimony. So, let's basically hire someone who will conduct an independent investigation, find out what really happened, get into the details beyond maybe what the newspapers were able to uncover, interview folks. And then basically issue that decision and say, "Here's what I have found." We'll make it public. This is unusual for government. Typically when you know you're going to be sued, you don't do discovery for the other side. But I felt the public's interest was in this case not just financial. It was to get to the bottom of the matter and we'll deal with that. So, as we expected, we did have a claim filed and we expect a lawsuit. So, that got paused because then we found out that the Attorney General was launching a criminal investigation. And when I say paused, it didn't mean that he stopped doing work. It's that it - basically the gentleman that we hired is a former US Attorney, so he has prosecutorial background both at the local level and federal level. He basically said, "Hey, it's going to be hard for me to interview witnesses while this is criminal, or interview Sheriff Troyer himself. So, let's wait for that to wrap up for those. I'll pause." But he's continuing to do some work. We expect that to wrap up in the next couple weeks - both the criminal investigation and the civil one. That's about what I have now and that's not just because I'm being cagey. I actually don't know many details because we're trying to keep this very independent. And that's to avoid that partisan problem. The second thing I'll say is that - on the Manny Ellis case, this is one where all I can say to the Ellis family is - his death was a tragedy and shouldn't have happened. It's also clear that Pierce County badly bungled the investigation, starting with the death inquest and the medical examiner's office. Even the way they communicated with the family was a shame. And then the way it got turned over to the prosecutor's office where we discovered there was a deputy on the scene. So, we had - the investigation was conducted by an involved party. That's when we all said, "This is why we've been begging you to set up a state agency. You can't have local agencies investigating each other." There's too much - if there isn't actual conflict, there's an appearance of conflict. And we have to rebuild trust in law enforcement. We have to remove both. So, I'm glad the State Legislature authorized that, but it was too late for this case, so the AG took over and obviously made their criminal decisions on that case. And I don't think it's actually concluded. Those were the charging decisions that were ready. So, I'll just say, from Pierce County's perspective, we have to fix what was broken within our departments. I will say this is something where the Executive and I agree 100% - where he's trying to make sure their processes are fixed. We have created a Justice Review committee that is looking through every of our procedures throughout the criminal justice system - starting with law enforcement, going through the judicial system, prosecution decisions - and we're beginning to make some of those decisions. I will say the Sheriff's department, surprisingly to me at least, had already adopted a lot of the best practices that you hear, in terms of we basically don't use any no-knock warrants. The place where we did see a need for change was vascular restraints. The Legislature took that. So, we're looking at other places where we need to make some changes. The biggest one though is - the intersection of people in crisis, dealing with having other needs, ending up in contact with law enforcement - is a big problem in Pierce County because we've lacked those social services. So, we've been trying to push more into diversion, avoiding contact with law enforcement. And frankly our law enforcement's always asked for that. They will tell you, "You ask us to do too much. We're not experts in dealing with people in crisis. So, let us deal with the security of an emergent dangerous situation, responding to a crime. Don't ask us to show up when someone is apparently just in crisis on the street corner, at a bus stop, or whatever. That's a place where someone trained with that can show up and help them and probably be more successful." Crystal Fincher: [00:31:18] Yeah, I think that's an excellent point that gets lost in a lot of these conversations - in that police themselves, for a long time - I think some of it has quieted down a little bit for fear in this entire conversation. But man, for decades they've been saying, "This is something that we could do without doing. This is actually - we don't have the tools to address mental health crises, some issues of addiction, some issues around homelessness. There are actual issues here that we can't solve. Sometimes we have nothing to do at the scene." And their addition to it only makes it worse and more complicated, and complicates the job that they're trying to do. So, in the conversation around looking at some of these responses - looking at overall staffing tied to 911 calls overall and maybe not tailoring that to the types of calls, do you think that there should be more movement in terms of tailoring the actual size of the force? Not focusing so much on patrol, as in investigation and targeted actions, and using some of the money that is now funding this entire infrastructure of response to things that they have said before they don't want to respond to - could be better spent on social services? Derek Young: [00:32:41] This is where I kind of get off the bus in terms of the overall movement here because not every - no two departments are created equal. This is the way I'll put it. Basically Pierce County has about a third of the number of deputies that SPD, Seattle Police, has for officers and they cover a much larger territory. So, they've been well understaffed for a long time, and last summer I had joked a number of times that we already defunded the Sheriff's department, we just forgot to do the second part where you actually try to build up the services that would replace that need. And so I don't think we can look at every department as being the same. In my district, where we have a rural detachment, basically 60,000 people on two peninsulas are covered by two deputies as minimum staffing. They're both 30 minutes-plus away from help if something bad happens. We can't reduce that. It would be dangerous not only for the deputies but for people in calls they're responding to because if they feel alone, which they very much are, you can run into problems. We had a deputy killed in exactly that situation in the mountain detachment not long ago. We think the reason he broke protocol and didn't wait for backup to go into a home where there was a home invasion is because he was familiar with it, knew the help was 20 minutes away, and there were children present. Or would have thought there might be. So, he entered the home heroically and ended up losing his life. And so we really don't have the capacity to make further reductions. But what we can do is add to that. Again, getting back to behavioral health tax, trying to add treatment. We're trying to build up co-responders, have alternatives. We have both an emergency response and a proactive response. It's important to go out in mobile teams and meet people where they are and begin to transition them to more traditional services. In many cases we've seen some success where someone has been living in unacceptably inhumane conditions for a long period of time, and we've been able to get them help and to a situation where they have stable housing and get their needs met, their medical conditions met. So, this is going to take some time. It's going to be complicated. It's going to be expensive. But I think what ultimately you will see in most departments is that you will save money by treating - basically going upstream, treating the problem not the symptoms. That's where we've been stuck for too long. And I hate to say this - I don't want to say that anything in the last year we should be glad for. But the one thing about the pandemic and the resources we're seeing from the federal government, is for the first time we can make that initial investment that we haven't been able to afford before, and then show that there's savings there that we can then pay for the ongoing expense. That's always been a difficulty. I have known for years that instead of jailing people, permanent supportive housing is cheaper and in many cases would solve the problem that was going on there. But we've never been able to afford to take that money and invest it in something else. It's too complicated to get set up. So, now we have that opportunity. This is like an intervention in our system to reset things and hopefully make some improvements. So, I know this isn't going to go nearly as fast as a lot of people want to see. And believe me, I would love to move faster. But I think things are moving. And the good news is, even in places like Pierce County that are politically mixed, we are seeing a lot of bipartisan work on this. And so I'm actually really proud of us on a couple of those issues. My colleagues that I may disagree with on occasion, we're finding places to work together on this. Crystal Fincher: [00:36:45] Well, I certainly appreciate the time that you've taken with us today to speak about this, to help educate people about Pierce County and what it is like to govern there, the issues facing Pierce County and the state, and what we can do in terms of advocating and maybe nudging all of our legislators to say, "Hey, you know how we are letting other transit, housing, funding languish in the rest of the state? Let's not do that. We'll actually all end up better if we do that." Helping to equip us to have those conversations. So, thank you very much. Appreciate it. Derek Young: [00:37:18] Thank you, and you're always welcome down in Pierce County. Crystal Fincher: [00:37:21] Well, I'm there often. So, here we go. Thanks. Talk to you soon. Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks. Our chief audio engineer at KVRU is Maurice Jones, Jr. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I, and now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts. Just type in "Hacks & Wonks" into the search bar, be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our 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.

The final day of November is upon us, but will soon give way to December. Eleven named for nine becomes twelve named for ten. Path dependence shows up in mysterious ways. In any case, this is the edition of Charlottesville Community Engagement with a time stamp of November 30. I’m your host, Sean Tubbs.Charlottesville Community Engagement is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.On today’s show:Scottsville prepares to use its Designated Outdoor Refreshment Area license for A Holiday HappeningMore on the preparation of Albemarle County’s capital improvement program Charlottesville City Council will again look for an interim city managerThe first bills of the 2022 Virginia General Assembly have been filedIn today’s first Patreon-fueled shout-out, Code for Charlottesville is seeking volunteers with tech, data, design, and research skills to work on community service projects. Founded in September 2019, Code for Charlottesville has worked on projects with the Legal Aid Justice Center, the Charlottesville Fire Department, and the Charlottesville Office of Human Rights. Visit codeforcville.org to learn about those projects. Emergency meetingCharlottesville City Council no longer has an interim city manager on the way. Marc E. Woolley had been expected to begin work tomorrow. Council went into closed session at 12:30 p.m. today for an emergency meeting to discuss a personnel matter. Councilor Heather Hill read the motion.“Pursuant to § 2.2-3712 of the Virginia Code, I hereby move that City Council close this open meeting and convene within a closed meeting as authorized by Virginia Code… for the purpose of discussing of the withdrawal of the appointed city manager and the discussion, consideration, or interviews of perspective candidates for appointment or employment by City Council,” Hill said. Woolley had been expected to fill the vacancy left when former City Manager Chip Boyles resigned in late October. Boyles had been hired in January to replace former City Manager Tarron Richardson, who resigned at the end of September 2020 after about a year and a half. Earlier this month, Richardson sued the city for breach of contract related to a non-disparagement clause in his severance agreement. Richardson had replaced Maurice Jones, whose contract was not renewed in 2018 after nearly eight years in the job. Along the way, two other people have served as interim city manager.After publication of this newsletter, Daily Progress reporter Ginny Bixby reported that Woolley sent a letter to Charlottesville Mayor Nikuyah Walker last week.“I am writing to inform you and your fellow Council members that after careful consideration and in consultation with my family, I am withdrawing my application to become the Interim City Manager of the City of Charlottesville,” Woolley wrote. “This was not an easy decision for me and I want to thank the Charlottesville City Council for the opportunity and wish the residents of Charlottesville all the best.”Last week, the Planning Commission held a work session on the capital improvement program for fiscal year 2023. Charlottesville has a AAA bond rating that reflects a well-run and stable city. Commissioner Hosea Mitchell asked if that would continue based on the string of leadership vacancies and he’s answered by Krissy Hammill, a senior budget and management analyst. “Will the high turnover of city level management impact our bond rating?” Mitchell asked.“They do look at management as part of that analysis,” Hammill said. “To date that has not really been at the forefront of a lot of those conversations keeping in mind that the single-most goal of a bond rating is to assess out ability to pay our debt.”The city is currently being managed by Deputy City Managers Ashley Marshall and Sam Sanders. Council next meets on December 6. See also: January 14, 2021: Charlottesville hires Chip Boyles as City ManagerOctober 14, 2021: Boyles resigns as Charlottesville City Manager; Friendship Court agreement reauthorized by EDACouncil selects Marc Woolley as the latest interim City ManagerUnite the Right organizers owe millions in damages; Former City Manager Richardson sues the city over disparagement clauseFirst 2022 bills filedThe General Assembly doesn’t begin for another six weeks, but the first bills have been pre-filed. Two of three bills filed in the House of Delegates are charter requests for two towns to amend their charter to move municipal elections from May to November, and a third would remove the sunset date for a sales exemption on the sale of gold, silver, and platinum bullion. In the Senate, there are five bills so far. One would require the Virginia Employment Commission to establish a family and medical leave program, one would require school principals to report incidents to law enforcement, and another would require absentee ballots to be sorted by precinct. Another would limit the time a Governor’s executive orders could last under an Emergency Declaration, and another would require votes of the Parole Board to be individually recorded under the Freedom of Information act. The General Assembly convenes on January 12. (view pre-filed bills)Scottsville Holiday HappeningEarlier this year, the General Assembly adopted legislation allowing localities to create Designated Outdoor Refreshment Areas (DORA) where ABC licenses can be granted in the public realm. That means people can move from establishment to establishment while carrying alcoholic beverages in a designated cup. Several localities across Virginia have passed local ordinances allowing such events. This Saturday, the Town of Scottsville will offer this ability during A Holiday Happening. According to Town Administrator Matt Lawless, this is the third time the DORA has been used. “I was interested to kind of follow the progress of this setting up in state law,” Lawless said. “It originated with a neat mix of communities around the state from far Southwest to Richmond looking at how they could promote tourism and support their Main Street businesses.”Lawless said Scottsville has so far held an event to promote an art opening in September. “We had a Virginia of the Arts grant for installations in vacant storefronts,” Lawless said. “Folks can take out the food and drink and stroll around outside.” A second event held at Halloween for a puppy parade on Valley Street and Main Street. Lawless said these are not tailgate parties, and people can’t bring their own beer. The permit just allows people to consume beverages off premises. “So maybe what you’ve seen in the past on these events is like an outdoor event with a strict perimeter defined like with a snow fence,” Lawless said. “We don’t have to do that anymore. The drinks are labeled where they came from in a disposable container. So if we were checking on what is that and where did you get it, you could point to the licensed restaurant where you got it.”Lawless said sandwich boards suffice to mark the boundaries of the DORA. This Saturday’s event runs from 10 a.m to 8 p.m. with the ABC permit in effect from 1 p.m. to 8 p.m“If you’re ever visited a European Christmas Market, it might be kind of like that where we’ve got have the special farmer’s market with special arts and craft sales, musicians playing on sidelots, and then hot cider and mulled wine for sale at our restaurants that you can take up and down the street,” Lawless said. Lawless said a safety plan is created for each event and reviewed by ABC to make sure there are enough people on staff to help with public safety. In the summer, Charlottesville City Council was briefed on the idea but it was met with a lukewarm response with some Councilors concerned with unequal treatment. This story came about due to a story in the Cardinal by Megan Schnabel that takes a look at how Danville, Roanoke, and the town of Tazewell have used this ability for events. (read the story here)Let’s have a second Patreon-fueled shout-out. Colder temperatures are creeping in, and now is the perfect time to think about keeping your family warm through the holidays. Make sure you are getting the most out of your home with help from your local energy nonprofit, LEAP. LEAP wants you and yours to keep comfortable all year round, and offers FREE home weatherization to income- and age-qualifying residents. If you’re age 60 or older, or have an annual household income of less than $74,950, you may qualify for a free energy assessment and home energy improvements such as insulation and air sealing. Sign up today to lower your energy bills, increase comfort, and reduce energy waste at home!Albemarle capital planningAlbemarle County’s budget process for Fiscal Year 2023 continues on Friday with another meeting of the Capital Improvement Program Advisory Committee. The group consists of two Supervisors, two School Board members, a Planning Commissioner, and a member of the public who happens to be a former Planning Commissioner.  (view the presentation)“I suspect that each of us have items on the not-included plan that we’d like to see moved up but it is a balance,” said Supervisor Donna Price of the Scottsville District. “We cannot do everything.” Perhaps when you think of capital projects, big items like schools and sidewalks come to mind. The next CIP in Albemarle will likely have an item called Core Systems Modernization which will seek to speed up how the county does business. Andy Bowman is the chief of budget in the Finance and Budget Office. “The technology systems that we use across the county government are disjointed, they’re antiquated, and they don’t allow the community to interact with our government in a way that we expect,’ Bowman said. “Over the next few years, we’re going to be embarking on new financial systems, new human resources systems, and new community development systems related to systems that are connected and enhance our customer and our employee experience.”The job of the CIP Advisory Committee is to help staff develop the five-year program. There’s a target of about $131 million in funding that may be available through FY2027. “For funding in Fiscal Year 2023 to 2027, there is a total of $457 million in projects that was requested,” Bowman said.The budget chief also gave a status report on projects under way. “There is $151 million in projects that are currently appropriated and underway from prior years that extend into Fiscal Year 2023 and beyond.”Those projects include sidewalk installation, the Southern Convenience Center in Keene, and upgrades of the county’s General District and Circuit court in downtown Charlottesville. Future projects that are waiting to be funded include further phases of Biscuit Run Park, future school capacity expansion, and a convenience center in the northern section of Albemarle. Supervisor Bea Lapisto-Kirtley suggested one item she wanted more information on.  “As far a project, I would like to make sure that at Darden-Towe our soccer fields are taken care of, upgraded, and when I say upgraded, regarding natural grass and putting in what needs to be done there to make sure that that’s a good playing field,” Lapisto-Kirtley said. Assistant County Executive Trevor Henry said a previous project had anticipated replacing the natural grass fields with artificial turf and adding lighting. Darden-Towe is jointly owned by Charlottesville and Albemarle.“Eventually that request was discussed in the calendar of 2018 and that was approved and bundled as part of the Parks’ quality of life projects,” Henry said. Henry said $2.5 million was approved for the project, with $2 million of that going for the installation of turf and the rest for the lighting. “That CIP request assumed use of cooperative contracts, meaning existing contracts in the state for both the turf project and the lighting project,” Henry said. “On a December 4 meeting of 2019,  a concern was raised by a Board member about the procurement methodology and several series of questions around the efficacy of turf, environmental concerns.”Henry said staff returned with more information later that winter, but the pandemic put a hold on further consideration of the effort. “The majority of capital projects were paused or deferred,” Henry said. When some of the projects were unpaused, the Darden-Towe project was not one of them. “And it’s back in the queue of all the other unfunded projects that have been requested or formally requested through this process,” Henry said. Since then, the Parks Department request has placed further funding of Biscuit Run as a higher priority. The Parks Department has asked for $8.5 million for the next four years to move into further phases of that future park’s development. After being told by Henry that the natural fields are well-maintained, LaPisto-Kirtley said she would support continuing that practice. School Board Chair Kate Acuff made the pitch for funding to modernize the existing high schools, something that she did not see within the draft CIP presented to the committee. The county in recent years has invested in two high school “centers” rather than a fourth stand-alone facility.“Because a new high school would be $150 million and we were able to craft this plan that including upgrading all of our schools  — Albemarle High School is 70 years old  — as well as the Centers for a fraction of that cost,” Acuff said. “It’s disappointed to me to see that has dropped out.” Acuff also said that over a hundred classrooms are in trailers. She said the county needs at least three more elementary schools.“We’re over capacity at Baker-Butler [Elementary] which is a northern feeder pattern [school] and construction of Brookhill [Elementary] would address that,” Acuff said. There are also overcrowding issues at Mountain View Elementary. A 27,000 square feet addition is underway at Crozet Elementary but Acuff said a third school in the western part of the county will be necessary soon. Of that $131 million, the schools will have access to $77.2 million according to Chief Financial Officer Nelsie Birch. The next meeting of the group will take place on Friday beginning at 1 p.m. Special announcement of a continuing promo with Ting! Are you interested in fast internet? Visit this site and enter your address to see if you can get service through Ting. If you decide to proceed to make the switch, you’ll get:Free installationSecond month of Ting service for freeA $75 gift card to the Downtown MallAdditionally, Ting will match your Substack subscription to support Town Crier Productions, the company that produces this newsletter and other community offerings. So, your $5 a month subscription yields $5 for TCP. Your $50 a year subscription yields $50 for TCP! The same goes for a $200 a year subscription! All goes to cover the costs of getting this newsletter out as often as possible. Learn more here! This is a public episode. Get access to private episodes at communityengagement.substack.com/subscribe

The first clip comes from  WHGE-LP 95.3 Afro-American Historical Society of Delaware. From the show East Side Pride, Rachelle Wilson interviews  Mr. Harmon Carey, founder and station manager of WHGE, about the neighborhood history.  The second audio comes from 92.9 FM WGGT-LP Gtownradio. Kay Wood & Linda Rosenwein hosts the Planet Philadelphia show, interviews Maurice Jones, General Manager of PAR-Recycle Works, which recycles e-waste (electronic waste) while employing and training individuals reentering society after prison. He discusses the need for e-waste recycling, its methods and combines the social justice issues of rehabilitation of ex-prisoners with this work. Thanks to Our hots David Juro he is the host of Neighborly Chats at WRGU-LP Germantown United CDC.

We spoke with Maurice Jones, General Manager of PAR-Recycle Works, which recycles e-waste (electronic waste) while employing and training individuals reentering society after prison. He talked about the environmental need for e-waste recycling, its methods, and combining the social justice issues of rehabilitation of ex-prisoners with this work. Planet Philadelphia, is a radio show about our shared environment 4-5:00 PM ET the first and third Fridays each month on 92.9 FM WGGT-LP & http://gtownradio.com. For more information go to: www.planetphiladelphia.com| @planetphila --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/kay-wood9/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/kay-wood9/support

In this episode of Horizons, Tameshia Bridges Mansfield shares highlights from two powerful discussions about promoting Black talent in the workplace. The first clip features Dalila Wilson-Scott, executive vice president and chief diversity officer of Comcast sharing her perspective on corporate efforts to increase Black, Latinx, and Indigenous worker advancement over the past year. In the second clip, we'll hear from Maurice Jones, CEO of OneTen, a new coalition of leading executives who are coming together to reskill, hire, and advance 1 million Black Americans over the next 10 years. To listen to the full sessions from this episode, visit jff.org/horizons

What does success REALLY look like?! Maurice Jones joins us to talk to us about how he has overcome the pressures of the world while he was in his twenties. Don't forget to subscribe for weekly conversations guided to help you live out loud for the One who died for you! Follow Maurice on his socials! Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/all.godeverything ; https://www.facebook.com/MauriceIJones Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/allgodeverything/ ; https://www.instagram.com/mauriceijones/ Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/c/AllGodEverythingLLC Please consider supporting so I can continue bringing even better content! More of a youtube watcher? Watch these conversations on Youtube RIGHT HERE: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHrNMtoYVCgCQBQFclZsvhQ Follow & Connect With Me! Instagram- https://www.instagram.com/its_ljayy/ Facebook- https://www.facebook.com/lj.clements Twitter- https://twitter.com/Its_Ljayy Email- livingoutloudprod@gmail.com Time Stamps: Intro 0:00 Pressures Before Turning 30 3:09 A MAJOR Game Changer 10:56 Should We Put A Time Cap On Goals? 12:52 What Would Future You Say? 21:46 Encouragement From Maurice 34:53 Outro 43:40 --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/lj-clements/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lj-clements/support

Maurice and Amanda are long time listeners and supports of the show. They recently started a podcast called "Civil Discord." The idea behind the name is great. They bring you a long form conversation every week. They don't always agree, but they always keep it civil. You'll enjoy the conversation because we talked about things that no one is covering, like Afghanistan, Australia, and Covid. "Civil Discord" bio: Welcome to your weekly dose of radical curiosity. Each [Monday or whenever it's released], Civil Discord critiques the critics and tackles the top lines in news and society. Beginning with the premise that the ‘smallest common denominator' of self-ownership is the greatest single driver of political, social, and cultural change, your intrepid co-hosts and colorful guests break down what individuals, communities, businesses, and finally institutions can do to find their footing, combat totalitarianism, and make their voices heard, wherever they stand on the issues. If you're ideologically homeless, culturally tribeless, or tired of hearing the same rants about what's not working, Civil Discord offers provocative counterpoints and fresh perspectives to keep you in the know, arm you with the arguments, and empower you to create the change you crave. Civil Discord podcast links Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/civil-discord/id1571405815 Audible: https://www.audible.com/pd/Podcast/B08K54XLC5?action_code=ASSGB149080119000H&share_location=pdp Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/1CBlCelcfcug6aCVEG8GLl?si=5c-dsq1PRYWUOqQjqT-oIg&dl_branch=1 Instagram: https://instagram.com/civildiscordpodcast Twitter: https://twitter.com/CivilDiscordPod Amanda's Twitter: https://twitter.com/ajaxthegriff Maurice's IG https://instagram.com/callmemaurice Get your news from Ground News ground.news/gml   Need someone to talk to? Betterhelp.com/gml   Interested in learning how to Day Trade? Mastermytrades.com   Chat LIVE during the show! https://goodmorningliberty.locals.com/   Like our intro song? https://www.3pillmorning.com   Advertise on our podcast! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to our new series, Unlocking Brand, where our global brand experts host live case studies, deliver actionable insights, and answer key questions on the topics that matter to brand marketers today. In this episode, our President for the Pacific Rim, Jason Cieslak, and our Group Director of Naming, Aaron Hall are joined by Maurice Jones, CEO of OneTen to discuss the brand's evolution and how we partnered with the coalition to help brand the promise of economic empowerment for Black talent in America.

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

Welcome to The Latest Version! A podcast about change, growth, and reinvention. Join your host Betsy Bush as she speaks with attorney and singer/songwriter Lara Lavi. They discuss how Lara began her legal career, why she decided to make her artistic pursuits a priority, and how her creative outlet helped her overcome her life's obstacles.Lara's recently released cover of Joni Mitchell's The River is backed by son Cameron Lavi-Jones of King Youngblood and husband Maurice Jones, Jr. Her single Mermaid Under a Desert Moon was released in April with the full album coming in early 2022. Her music can be found on Apple Music.Thanks for listening! Please rate, review, and subscribe to The Latest Version wherever you listen to podcasts and follow the show on Instagram @TheLatestVersionPodcast. What's your latest version?

This week Pierce County Council Chair Derek Young joins Crystal on the show to discuss what's up in Pierce County. They discuss the vast differences in funding available for transit and other public projects in King and Pierce counties, how Pierce County and Tacoma are absorbing the population overflow of those who can't find affordable homes in King County, how the Pierce County Council is approaching investigations into police misconduct, and how one governs as a Democrat in a county where there is a substantial Republican presence. 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, Pierce County Council Chair Derek Young, at @DerekMYoung. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources “‘Home in Tacoma' Advances with Recommendation to Eliminate Single-Family Zoning” by Stephen Fesler: https://www.theurbanist.org/2021/05/26/home-in-tacoma-advances-with-recommendation-to-eliminate-single-family-zoning/ “Zoomers Flock to Tacoma over Pricey Seattle” by Brandon Zuo: https://www.theurbanist.org/2021/03/17/zoomers-flock-to-tacoma-over-pricey-seattle/ “Tacoma on the Move: Pierce Transit's Vision for a Growing City” by Rubén Casas: https://www.theurbanist.org/2018/09/17/tacoma-on-the-move-pierce-transits-vision-for-a-growing-city/ “Two Tacoma officers involved in Manuel Ellis' death named in excessive force claim” by Allison Needles: https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article252735288.html “Newspaper carrier who was confronted by Sheriff Troyer files $5 million legal claim against Pierce County” by Jim Brunner: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/newspaper-carrier-who-was-confronted-by-sheriff-ed-troyer-files-5-million-legal-claim-against-pierce-county/ “State attorney general launches criminal investigation into Pierce Sheriff Ed Troyer” by Will James: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/newspaper-carrier-who-was-confronted-by-sheriff-ed-troyer-files-5-million-legal-claim-against-pierce-county/ “Report: Tacoma could diver many emergency calls to civilians” from The Associated Press: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/report-tacoma-could-divert-many-emergency-calls-to-civilians/   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 am thrilled to welcome to the show Pierce County Councilmember Derek Young. Thanks for joining us. Derek Young: [00:00:58] Thank you for having me. Crystal Fincher: [00:01:00] Well, I really was excited to have you on the show because you are on the Pierce County Council, you're a former Gig Harbor City Councilman. You're really vocal on Twitter, you're really visible in advocating for what Pierce County needs. Most of the audience for this show is in Seattle - familiar with Seattle and King County issues and probably less familiar with Pierce County issues. One of the biggest differences is - in Seattle, as we're talking about all of these campaigns right now, really it's what kind of Democrat are you? Are you a moderate Democrat or a progressive Democrat? Different story in Pierce County. There are actually Republicans. Republicans that support Trump. Republican Republicans. And governing is much different. A lot of the rhetoric is much different. So, what is it like, especially in the context of comparing and contrasting it with Seattle, serving on the Pierce County Council and what are your priorities that you're dealing with? Derek Young: [00:02:07] Well, first of all, thanks. I feel like this is the part where I say, "First time, long time." I appreciate you bringing me on because, yeah, listening to you - being in the shadow of King County politics I think is a little weird for us because we're obviously a very urban county near by, and we're very affected by what happens in Seattle and King County. And so, for example, you're obviously talking a lot about housing, transportation, growth politics in Seattle. That lands really hard on Tacoma-Pierce County. And so we very often are dealing with the repercussions of decisions that are made outside of our capacity. And so that centers a lot of what we deal with here, and that's kind of on a bipartisan basis. We have to figure out how to absorb the housing that isn't built in King County. It turns out jobs - you can have all this growth, but housing is where jobs go at night. And so that means you have to build the housing here. So, we're picking up the slack. We have to provide the transportation, and we don't have a regional transportation system contrary to popular belief. We have a very localized and regressive transportation system that hurts people, frankly, in South Sound. So, we have to figure out how to work through all of that while we watch all of these incredible light rail stations and BRT intersections get built while we still wait to be connected to that. On the more partisan side though, we, as you said, have Republicans here. And for big chunks of the county that tends to be the way they vote. We have a Republican County Executive and so just like King County, they're separately elected and run countywide. And then we have a 7-member Council. Before I ran against and defeated an incumbent, the Republicans actually had a 5-2 supermajority. That tells you a little bit of the makeup there. We recently took the majority, so we now have a 4-3 majority on that. But, as I regularly point out to people, my district, which covers the west side of the Sound that's in Pierce County - Gig Harbor where I'm from, as well as parts of North End and West End Tacoma - it hadn't been held by a Democrat since 1980. So, there are some changes that are happening in that direction, but the east side of the county, I think, reflects a lot of the national trends that you've seen towards the party in that end. So, the way that plays out is - in the social services that counties are supposed to provide, very often on behalf of the state but often we should be doing our own local thing. So, we just recently passed the behavioral health tax - we're one of the last counties to do that. We really have a Public Health Department which - I chair the Board of Health - that has been underfunded for years and we're trying to make some changes there. Obviously the pandemic brought that out a little more. We're getting into children's services for the first time which is something I'm super excited about because who doesn't love kids? Trying to make sure that they have the tools they need, but also we know it has downstream effects. So, there's a bunch of things that are happening more on the social side. And then finally environmental. Pierce County is - and the reason I ran in 1997 for City Council was growth management. And we were the poster child for sprawl and we're still dealing with the ramifications of those decisions made, frankly, back in the early 90s. And trying to deal with that, and environmental consequences, and those issues. So, we got a lot going on, but the good news is that the Council's personality has changed, I think, for the better. We were pretty dysfunctional there for a few years and so even some of my Republican colleagues who I disagree with, we're getting along great. And that's pretty productive. Crystal Fincher: [00:06:35] That is productive. I remember some of those extremely dysfunctional times and it is good to be able to move forward on a number of these issues. I do think the pandemic made plain how much of a need there was and helped to bring some people along. You brought up a great point early on just about you being affected by what King County does. Talking about transportation, we're in a conversation now about Sound Transit and delaying, continuing to delay, a lot of what was scheduled to be built in Pierce County. And people are paying for it now. They may not see the benefits of that for another decade or two. What is funding transit like? What is that conversation like? And I guess in looking at working with King County and working around King County, what would you ask of King County and what are you forced to do with these delays in a regional system? Derek Young: [00:07:40] It's a great question and gets to, I think, some of where I disagree with some of my colleagues in King County. But I have to back up a little bit to explain this. One of the tragedies of the last 20 years in the Legislature, where I've worked representing cities and counties down there for a number of years - either my own, our association, or even as a contract lobbyist at one point. And we have not only the most regressive tax code in the country, which I think most people know, but what many of your listeners may not be aware of is that it's the localization that really lands hard on communities that don't have the same level of wealth as some of the cities in King County. So, let's take local transit for example. It used to be that about a third of the funding for local transit came from the state, which is the way most states do things. It's the logical thing to do. In Washington, basically the Initiative 695 and the Legislature's response to that, basically eliminated that. There's very little state funding. Most of it's either federal passthrough or regional passthrough from the Feds. So, what that meant was they gave us something called local option. "Local options" are the two words that I want to hear the least from the Legislature ever because what that means is the way you can serve your community is what you can raise locally. So, if you're a poorer county, like Pierce County, I can only raise for every one-tenth of 1% sales tax, about 60 cents on the dollar what King County can. So, I have higher need but less money to do it with. Does that sound progressive to you? Does that sound like something that - the tax code that you would want as a liberal Democrat? No, of course not. But it's just fine for a lot of King County Democrats because they're piling up so much wealth there that they get to buy a lot of stuff. I always picture when I go through my budget - King County must be diving into piles of gold like Scrooge McDuck because they forget more money than I can try to scrape together to put a sensible system. So, the second part is that because we have poor service, people don't value that transit as much. So, we've had trouble passing the last three-tenths authorization. So, that means we have two-thirds of what most other counties have and it only raises about 60% what King County can. So, our system is really starving and it barely provides basic services. So, I'm a regular transit rider. My bus comes once an hour. If you had a bus in King County that went once an hour, there'd be riots. So, that's the kind of problems that we have. But you would think a regional system - that wouldn't impact. This is where a perversely named sub-area equity law in state law comes into effect. This was the idea of Rob McKenna back when he was on the King County Council - concerned that, basically the suburbs, were going to subsidize Seattle. Obviously since that time - this is back in the old days when Seattle hadn't had this explosion of growth - the reverse has happened in fact. So, what that means is that we can only spend for regional transit what we can raise locally. That's why you haven't seen the connection through South Sound, and I include in that South King County - honorary South Sound membership in South King County. Crystal Fincher: [00:11:02] Thank you. Derek Young: [00:11:03] It hasn't gone through that zone or into Pierce County where we have our own. So, we've really struggled to connect to the system that - as people that are in the service industries and lower-wage tech workers get pushed further and further away from where their jobs are, they've been pushed away from where transportation can connect them effectively. It's really a terrible system. If you were to sit down and design this as a regional system, people would think you were nuts. But this is what we have. And each year I kind of scream at the top of my lungs to fix it. The problem that this really gets put into hyperdrive is when we get some federal funding, which we've had recently, we distribute it based on what King County calls fair, and that means we're going to base it on service hours. Well, if I'm starting out with a tenth of the service hours that you can provide there, that means you're taking up almost all of the money in these other places where you've already concentrated all this wealth. So, we got basically 10% of the federal funding for our transit system and for our Sound Transit projects that King County did. If you don't think that's just morally abhorrent and outrageous, I don't know what to do. That to me is wrong and we have to fix it. But we've gone through two cycles now at Puget Sound Regional Council where that's exactly what's happened. Crystal Fincher: [00:12:30] So, how does it get fixed? What needs to happen to fix it? Derek Young: [00:12:34] The first thing is it's got to start with state legislation. And here's the part where I hate to put this on raw parochialism, but because our Party that is in control of both chambers is concentrated so much in King County, there hasn't been a lot of movement and a lot of support for changing that setup. The second thing that I do appreciate and I want to call her out because she's been a great leader to try to fix this overall tax structure problem, and that's Representative Noel Frame. I don't think at first she was thinking as much about the local impacts of the tax structure problems that we have, but she's been super open to it since we started talking and realized how this is hurting people, not just in Pierce County by the way - that this is happening in a number of different places, where it doesn't make sense to base all of our services on what you can raise locally. We actually just fixed this basically with schools. That's essentially what we had done with our school systems where we said, "We're going to rely on your local levies to determine what kids deserve." We didn't think that was right with schools. We shouldn't think that's right with basic social services like behavioral health, funding for early childhood, or transit, or any of these programs. Crystal Fincher: [00:13:53] Well, I hope it is something that is taken up in the Legislature and that is going to be fixed because it is fundamentally unfair. And it ultimately inhibits and drives down support for regional solutions for a variety of things overall. And drives up the, I guess, I don't want to call it jealousy because it's not jealousy, but just some of looking at Seattle and going, "Man, you guys get everything and we're sitting out here outside in the rain with no cover and no one seems to be noticing." You talked- Derek Young: [00:14:28] I'll give you one example that really highlights this. There is one BRT highway intersection in Kirkland that is going to cost upwards of $135 million. That is more than the entire Bus Rapid Transit line that is being built - covers, I think, a dozen miles - in Pierce County. One intersection that's going to serve a few hundred people versus ours that's going to serve thousands. And our funding was in jeopardy until the federal government stepped up. That's how outrageous this disparity is. And so, yeah, I'm hoping we can get some common sense to this. But it is sort of frustrating to watch. And that's why when ST3 came up for the repeal - for the nearest brick to pick up and throw through that window, if they're not getting the services that they think they're paying for. And then they look up north and don't realize they're not actually funding those systems, but I guess that's what you're saying is - it isn't jealousy, it's that I'm getting hurt and we should stop that. Crystal Fincher: [00:15:37] We're also dealing with, as you said, King County's failure to manage sprawl - people being people being priced out of Seattle and King County - moving further away, being forced out of the City, and forced further away from the City in search of more affordable housing, both rentals and owned homes. And so now we're also continuing to see headlines in Pierce County that housing prices continue to rise. Are you looking at the same kind of housing cost increases that King County has been experiencing? And how do you prevent that from happening? Derek Young: [00:16:17] Yeah, in answer to your question, we have. At one point, Spanaway, which is in unincorporated Pierce County outside Tacoma, was the hottest housing market in the entire country. That's not a normal thing. That's pretty far out. And it tells you the kinds of pressures that are being put on the system here. We have absorbed more than our share of the population growth. In fact, if it had not been for the fact that Pierce County had - A) coming out of the Great Recession, a large housing glut - meaning when I first joined the Council in 2015, our big problem that we were dealing with was abandoned homes, which sounds crazy now but we had a lot of them. So, that basically absorbed some of the pressure and then we've grown a lot. So, we've added a ton of new housing. Tacoma right now is looking at a plan called Home in Tacoma which is going to basically transform a lot of their single family homes zoning into more accessible, and it's based on where transit support is. And so it'll cover most of the city. That's the kind of thing that we need our major metropolitan cities doing in general. It's our regional growth plans. Seattle just announced that they're going to change the name of their single family zoning. They're changing the name. Now, I understand why they're saying it's exclusionary rhetoric - that's great. But when I first saw the headline I was like, "Oh my God, this is what we need. They're going to get rid of their single family zoning." They're changing the term, but it'll continue to do the exact same thing. Crystal Fincher: [00:17:53] Okay. I saw you post on this. I will say, in fairness, I saw the announcement by Council President Lorena González, who's also running for mayor. And actually one of the things we've talked about on Hacks & Wonks before is - there does seem to be universal agreement among mayoral candidates, and there will be a new mayor in Seattle, that the need to actually end exclusionary zoning is there. They have different plans to approach it. So, yes, changing the name. But I will say that they are not talking about simply stopping at a name change. They are actually talking about changing the policies. Derek Young: [00:18:33] And when they do I will be there to applaud them. In fact, one of the things I miss most about regional government was when we lost Mike O'Brien. Mike was a great partner negotiating our regional strategy and what basically - which was aimed at Seattle, forcing it to accept more housing. And I watched even a couple meetings where he was at where he was getting the - strong feedback might be the way to put it. It was tragic because he's such a nice guy that -and decided not to run again. But we need that leadership on the Seattle Council. I don't get a say in those elections, but I joked for a while - now that I know that residency is maybe not a requirement, maybe I should run for Seattle mayor so I can blow up their zoning code. Crystal Fincher: [00:19:26] Well, I am rooting for the blowing up of the zoning code, and I am actually with you in terms of - dealing with rhetoric is entirely insufficient. It is actually changing of the policy that is going to be impactful for people on the ground. Derek Young: [00:19:41] And by the way, I should say it's a good idea to change that. I understand why the name is - it's always good to police our language a bit and realize where that came from. I just wouldn't send out a press release over it. Just do it. Crystal Fincher: [00:19:55] I get it. We have had a number of interesting press releases lately. In terms of dealing with exclusionary zoning in Pierce County, where are you on that? Derek Young: [00:20:06] So, we are following basically what we believe to be smart growth practices. And so most recently we had what's called our Centers and Corridors proposal. It was in our last Comm[unity] Plan update and Development Reg changes. So, where we have access to high capacity transit, and this is a term that we have in our regional plans going through Puget Sound Regional Council - that means frequent high capacity, something more than a regular bus route. It's got to be either Bus Rapid Transit or light rail. And along those corridors, so basically within half a mile, we're allowing very large scale development. Originally it was going to be unlimited and just let the market decide. But Tacoma and us had a disagreement. Tacoma wanted to make sure that their downtown was protected and they were going to have more growth concentrated. It makes sense. The line starts there, so it's a good idea. And then we'll also add more as we add more high capacity transit. That's trying to pull back from the outlying areas where there's more sprawl and really try to build healthy, sustainable communities that are walkable, have good access to public transportation, and don't require you to drive everywhere. This is trying to turn the corner on an auto-centric model that we have in Pierce County that forces everyone, including people who really can't afford it, to buy a car. Crystal Fincher: [00:21:35] In terms of high capacity transit routes, lots of broad agreement across the state. In terms of single family or neighborhood residential, where does zoning stand on that in more developed cities that are not predominantly rural in Pierce County? Derek Young: [00:21:56] Yeah, so, there's still quite a bit. And that's why I kind of called out Tacoma's work to try to - they're going to basically try to pass this this year. That's the recommendation from their planning commission. I think they're close. The pushback began. I kept telling people to wait for it. That's why we all, the Executive and the Council, unanimously sent a letter basically applauding their work because we're like, "We need you to do this so that we don't keep pushing more growth out in the outlying areas." But, yeah, we need - I guess the way I would put it is the urban core. And that's the places where we do have that infrastructure. So Lakewood, University Place, Puyallup, Tacoma, and urban and incorporated Pierce County - those are the areas where you find that. And we're trying to concentrate as much growth there as possible. That means rezoning, in some cases, the single family zones. We already had quite - our moderate density housing already allowed for a lot of that flexibility. I think we need to go further in some of the cities. So, we need our city partners in Lakewood, Puyallup, UP, frankly, to step up along with Tacoma. I think we're getting there. Everyone seems to be - unlike my frustration in King County where some of the cities just ignore their population distribution, ours at least seem to say, "Okay, we'll plan for that." Now, this isn't Sim City. You can plan for it, the market has to come to it. The second thing is that we're just now getting into serious - we have some money to start doing some major investments in public housing, which is something we really haven't done. The degree to which, and this is a compliment for King County, since I've said a few negative things. You all have invested a lot in public housing and are poised to make some bigger ones. We're just dipping our toes into it right now. So, we're working on those plans and we'll start our own developments. We'll start building much more public housing than what we have right now. Crystal Fincher: [00:24:00] Well, and that's really exciting to see. And it is encouraging to hear you talk about - hey, cities, even cities with Republican leadership in Pierce County, are planning to absorb growth and are planning to meet those goals. And that there does seem to be some unanimity and agreement on - hey, we do need to absorb density. May not be agreement everywhere, but hey, if we're along a transit line we need to support the density on that route. That seems like a positive thing that should not be odd for every community to be advocating for and expecting. In terms of the conversation around public safety, policing, we have certainly talked a lot in King County, throughout Washington. Pierce County is no different - whether we're talking about Manny Ellis or talking about Sheriff Troyer and his, as I will put it, setting up a Black man newspaper deliverer to potentially be killed - by saying his life was actively being threatened and seemingly not being honest about that. Where does, I guess specifically in those two cases, the Council stand and where are things moving, with the understanding that you may be limited in what you can talk about because you're on the Council and actively dealing with that? But overall, do you think policing is where it should be? And the conversation around public safety is where it should be? And how should it be different? Derek Young: [00:25:34] Yeah. I'm glad you asked because I'll go to the part that will be difficult for me to elaborate too much on, and that's the current investigation into Sheriff Troyer. We did two things. First of all, I was heartbroken when I heard that story because all I could think was - how would I have felt if I saw this swarm of officers showing up to what they believed to be an officer in danger? And then I also can't put myself in the shoes of a Black man. And so I would have been nervous enough. I can only imagine what he was experiencing there. So, we said - right away, my thought was let's use our public - an elected sheriff is only accountable to the people. The problem is that the people don't have investigatory powers. So, we, as the branch that most closely represents them, do have that. We have subpoena power. We do have the ability to compel testimony. So, let's basically hire someone who will conduct an independent investigation, find out what really happened, get into the details beyond maybe what the newspapers were able to uncover, interview folks. And then basically issue that decision and say, "Here's what I have found." We'll make it public. This is unusual for government. Typically when you know you're going to be sued, you don't do discovery for the other side. But I felt the public's interest was in this case not just financial. It was to get to the bottom of the matter and we'll deal with that. So, as we expected, we did have a claim filed and we expect a lawsuit. So, that got paused because then we found out that the Attorney General was launching a criminal investigation. And when I say paused, it didn't mean that he stopped doing work. It's that it - basically the gentleman that we hired is a former US Attorney, so he has prosecutorial background both at the local level and federal level. He basically said, "Hey, it's going to be hard for me to interview witnesses while this is criminal, or interview Sheriff Troyer himself. So, let's wait for that to wrap up for those. I'll pause." But he's continuing to do some work. We expect that to wrap up in the next couple weeks - both the criminal investigation and the civil one. That's about what I have now and that's not just because I'm being cagey. I actually don't know many details because we're trying to keep this very independent. And that's to avoid that partisan problem. The second thing I'll say is that - on the Manny Ellis case, this is one where all I can say to the Ellis family is - his death was a tragedy and shouldn't have happened. It's also clear that Pierce County badly bungled the investigation, starting with the death inquest and the medical examiner's office. Even the way they communicated with the family was a shame. And then the way it got turned over to the prosecutor's office where we discovered there was a deputy on the scene. So, we had - the investigation was conducted by an involved party. That's when we all said, "This is why we've been begging you to set up a state agency. You can't have local agencies investigating each other." There's too much - if there isn't actual conflict, there's an appearance of conflict. And we have to rebuild trust in law enforcement. We have to remove both. So, I'm glad the State Legislature authorized that, but it was too late for this case, so the AG took over and obviously made their criminal decisions on that case. And I don't think it's actually concluded. Those were the charging decisions that were ready. So, I'll just say, from Pierce County's perspective, we have to fix what was broken within our departments. I will say this is something where the Executive and I agree 100% - where he's trying to make sure their processes are fixed. We have created a Justice Review committee that is looking through every of our procedures throughout the criminal justice system - starting with law enforcement, going through the judicial system, prosecution decisions - and we're beginning to make some of those decisions. I will say the Sheriff's department, surprisingly to me at least, had already adopted a lot of the best practices that you hear, in terms of we basically don't use any no-knock warrants. The place where we did see a need for change was vascular restraints. The Legislature took that. So, we're looking at other places where we need to make some changes. The biggest one though is - the intersection of people in crisis, dealing with having other needs, ending up in contact with law enforcement - is a big problem in Pierce County because we've lacked those social services. So, we've been trying to push more into diversion, avoiding contact with law enforcement. And frankly our law enforcement's always asked for that. They will tell you, "You ask us to do too much. We're not experts in dealing with people in crisis. So, let us deal with the security of an emergent dangerous situation, responding to a crime. Don't ask us to show up when someone is apparently just in crisis on the street corner, at a bus stop, or whatever. That's a place where someone trained with that can show up and help them and probably be more successful." Crystal Fincher: [00:31:18] Yeah, I think that's an excellent point that gets lost in a lot of these conversations - in that police themselves, for a long time - I think some of it has quieted down a little bit for fear in this entire conversation. But man, for decades they've been saying, "This is something that we could do without doing. This is actually - we don't have the tools to address mental health crises, some issues of addiction, some issues around homelessness. There are actual issues here that we can't solve. Sometimes we have nothing to do at the scene." And their addition to it only makes it worse and more complicated, and complicates the job that they're trying to do. So, in the conversation around looking at some of these responses - looking at overall staffing tied to 911 calls overall and maybe not tailoring that to the types of calls, do you think that there should be more movement in terms of tailoring the actual size of the force? Not focusing so much on patrol, as in investigation and targeted actions, and using some of the money that is now funding this entire infrastructure of response to things that they have said before they don't want to respond to - could be better spent on social services? Derek Young: [00:32:41] This is where I kind of get off the bus in terms of the overall movement here because not every - no two departments are created equal. This is the way I'll put it. Basically Pierce County has about a third of the number of deputies that SPD, Seattle Police, has for officers and they cover a much larger territory. So, they've been well understaffed for a long time, and last summer I had joked a number of times that we already defunded the Sheriff's department, we just forgot to do the second part where you actually try to build up the services that would replace that need. And so I don't think we can look at every department as being the same. In my district, where we have a rural detachment, basically 60,000 people on two peninsulas are covered by two deputies as minimum staffing. They're both 30 minutes-plus away from help if something bad happens. We can't reduce that. It would be dangerous not only for the deputies but for people in calls they're responding to because if they feel alone, which they very much are, you can run into problems. We had a deputy killed in exactly that situation in the mountain detachment not long ago. We think the reason he broke protocol and didn't wait for backup to go into a home where there was a home invasion is because he was familiar with it, knew the help was 20 minutes away, and there were children present. Or would have thought there might be. So, he entered the home heroically and ended up losing his life. And so we really don't have the capacity to make further reductions. But what we can do is add to that. Again, getting back to behavioral health tax, trying to add treatment. We're trying to build up co-responders, have alternatives. We have both an emergency response and a proactive response. It's important to go out in mobile teams and meet people where they are and begin to transition them to more traditional services. In many cases we've seen some success where someone has been living in unacceptably inhumane conditions for a long period of time, and we've been able to get them help and to a situation where they have stable housing and get their needs met, their medical conditions met. So, this is going to take some time. It's going to be complicated. It's going to be expensive. But I think what ultimately you will see in most departments is that you will save money by treating - basically going upstream, treating the problem not the symptoms. That's where we've been stuck for too long. And I hate to say this - I don't want to say that anything in the last year we should be glad for. But the one thing about the pandemic and the resources we're seeing from the federal government, is for the first time we can make that initial investment that we haven't been able to afford before, and then show that there's savings there that we can then pay for the ongoing expense. That's always been a difficulty. I have known for years that instead of jailing people, permanent supportive housing is cheaper and in many cases would solve the problem that was going on there. But we've never been able to afford to take that money and invest it in something else. It's too complicated to get set up. So, now we have that opportunity. This is like an intervention in our system to reset things and hopefully make some improvements. So, I know this isn't going to go nearly as fast as a lot of people want to see. And believe me, I would love to move faster. But I think things are moving. And the good news is, even in places like Pierce County that are politically mixed, we are seeing a lot of bipartisan work on this. And so I'm actually really proud of us on a couple of those issues. My colleagues that I may disagree with on occasion, we're finding places to work together on this. Crystal Fincher: [00:36:45] Well, I certainly appreciate the time that you've taken with us today to speak about this, to help educate people about Pierce County and what it is like to govern there, the issues facing Pierce County and the state, and what we can do in terms of advocating and maybe nudging all of our legislators to say, "Hey, you know how we are letting other transit, housing, funding languish in the rest of the state? Let's not do that. We'll actually all end up better if we do that." Helping to equip us to have those conversations. So, thank you very much. Appreciate it. Derek Young: [00:37:18] Thank you, and you're always welcome down in Pierce County. Crystal Fincher: [00:37:21] Well, I'm there often. So, here we go. Thanks. Talk to you soon. Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks. Our chief audio engineer at KVRU is Maurice Jones, Jr. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I, and now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts. Just type in "Hacks & Wonks" into the search bar, be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our 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 by Toshiko Hasegawa, candidate for Port of Seattle Commissioner, to discuss how the Port of Seattle can modernize and prepare our region for a greener future. They cover the misconception that economics and equity are at odds, the importance of the Port of Seattle in improving air quality and health of South King County residents, and how the Port can actively work to encourage fair and equitable treatment for workers. 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, Toshiko Hasegawa, at @HasegawaForPort. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources “A woman of color has never been elected to Seattle Port Commission. That could change this year” by David Hyde: https://www.kuow.org/stories/generational-battle-over-the-port-of-seattle-s-is-also-about-its-future-a-generation-from-now “Activists push back against rising air pollution from Sea-Tac Airport” by John Ryan: https://www.kuow.org/stories/activists-push-back-against-air-pollution-from-sea-tac-airport “Seattle's port is greener than ever. That may not be enough.” by Joshua McNichols: https://www.kuow.org/stories/seattle-s-port-is-greener-than-ever-that-may-not-be-enough “Duwamish Valley Cumulative Health Impacts Analysis” from the Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition: http://justhealthaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Duwamish-Valley-Cumulative-Health-Impacts-Analysis-Seattle-WA.pdf “Competition, not just COVID-19, eroding business at Tacoma and Seattle ports” by Bill Virgin: https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/business/biz-columns-blogs/article245469505.html “Seattle and Tacoma are a rarity among U.S. ports right now, with room for more ships” by Brendan Murray: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/international-trade/seattle-and-tacoma-are-a-rarity-among-u-s-ports-right-now-with-room-for-more-ships/ “Cruise ships returning to Seattle as pandemic restrictions ease” by Gregory Scuggs” https://crosscut.com/news/2021/05/cruise-ships-returning-seattle-pandemic-restrictions-ease “King County Council bans use of facial recognition technology by Sheriff's Office, other agencies” by David Gutman: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/king-county-council-bans-use-of-facial-recognition-technology-by-sheriffs-office-other-agencies/ “Federal agencies need stricter limits on facial recognition to protect privacy, government watchdog says” by Gerrit De Vynck: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/technology/federal-agencies-need-stricter-limits-on-facial-recognition-to-protect-privacy-government-watchdog-says/ “How airport scanners discriminate against passengers of color” by Gaby Del Valle: https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/4/17/18412450/tsa-airport-full-body-scanners-racist “The high cost of child care and lack of paid leave are holding back many working parents” by Michelle Fox: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/12/child-care-costs-and-lack-of-paid-leave-hold-many-working-parents-back.html Toshiko Hasegawa campaign website: https://www.hasegawaforport.com/   Transcript Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm your host Crystal Fincher. On this show, we talk to political hacks and policy wonks to gather insight into local politics and policy through the lens of those doing the work and provide behind the scenes perspectives on politics in our state. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhackandwonks.com, and in our episode notes. Today, we are so excited to be welcoming Toshiko Hasegawa candidate for port commission. Thank you so much for joining us.Toshiko Hasegawa: Thank you so much for having me, Crystal. I'm so honored to be here. Crystal Fincher: I'm really excited. I'm excited about your candidacy and I am just first off wondering what made you decide to run and especially, what made you decide to run for port? Toshiko Hasegawa: People ask why the port, and it just is a testament for people really not having a comprehensive view of everything that it does. Not only is it the economic driver of our state, the point of entry for people from around the world to our country, but it's also, for example, one of the top polluters of carbon emissions in the state. It has, by my count, at least eight law enforcement agencies operating there. It touches civil rights issues and can set precedents in the court cases for other jurisdictions across the land. It is one of the most diverse counties in the entire nation with more languages spoken. And the port commission itself has some really important and unique powers. For example, to be able to levy a property tax, which we all also recognize as a regressive tax. And so, bringing community voice, bringing an equity lens, bringing perspective of people who are going to be impacted by these policies is going to be so important. Toshiko Hasegawa: But it's also noteworthy the context in which I'm running. Currently, I head a state agency. It's called the Commission on Asian Pacific American Affairs. We advise the governor and the legislature and other agencies on issues impacting historically marginalized communities. And in this moment, as we recover from COVID-19, we've taken to account mass unemployment like we've never seen before, businesses on the brink of bankruptcy, entire industries at a standstill. And we will recover, but it's not just what we do, it's going to be how we do it that's so important. And right, now we're seeing a port that has not necessarily centered the perspective or the values of the community at large. Indeed, it's been operated as a business at an expense to the people at large. And so, I'm so honored to give people a choice. Crystal Fincher: You know what, and that's such an excellent point. And I think you've hit the nail precisely on the head in that a lot of people just don't know how consequential the port is. It's the second largest jurisdiction in the state really, tied for the second largest. You are in charge and in control of so much and touching so many areas of life. It's not necessarily top of mind and apparent to people, but my goodness, once you learn everything that's involved with the port, it becomes easier to see how you can make such a difference if you have someone pushing for the right things. Crystal Fincher: So, I guess, in terms of the issues that you just mentioned, we're coming out of a recession, we have an employment crisis, particularly among women, particularly among low wage workers and people of color. We have a wage crisis in terms of just the wages that people are receiving, minimum wage needing to be adjusted, people needing paid leave, healthcare. The way that we're keeping our residents safe in our communities and that entire conversation around public safety. So, what can you do? What are your plans and how can you impact all of those issues that people are feeling right now? Toshiko Hasegawa: Well, in fact, the port has a tremendous role to play in responding to the compounding crises of our time. Not only is it economic devastation or climate change, but there's also public health issues. There's the pervasive issue of misogyny and racism that permeate both our society and our institutions. And if you look at the port, we really think of it as having three strengths and that's aviation, that's maritime and it's also real estate taking into account the different things that we can do. But all three of these industries are historically white and they're also historically male. And so, the port is really uniquely positioned, I think, in this critical moment with such dire need, to be a leader in bringing together folks in industry, in business, in labor and in community to rebuild a model and be stronger and more inclusive, more lucrative than we were before. Toshiko Hasegawa: And really what that looks like is having a continuum of care that's going to make sure that all people have access to the prosperity yielded by the port. On the front end, that could look like ensuring that there are folks, in particular, from historically marginalized geographies in south King County, who are also predominantly people of color or immigrants or limited English language speakers to be able to contend for and have access to opportunities either in joining the workforce or accessing contracts that are offered by the port. Toshiko Hasegawa: And once folks are there, having a supportive environment with expanded benefits, incentivizing using mass transit for the workforce, a zero tolerance policy for racism or sexism or discrimination in any form. I think about women who are off at sea as we try to have a more inclusive and diverse maritime economy, for example, those things matter and making sure that people are institutionally and structurally supported that there's accountability behind that. But really, it's not just about at the entry level or in management, we also need people at the decision-making table writing these policies and centering that lens, creating access for that voice. And I think it's noteworthy that if elected, I will be hopefully alongside Hamdi as well, one of the first women of color ever to serve in this capacity. And there are a lot of things on a policy level or on a programmatic level that we can do to support people. Crystal Fincher: You raise a lot of great points. In particular, as a woman of color, looking at being one of the first women of color on the port commission, if you're elected and being able to take an equity lens, especially based on your life experience and lived experience, just what you're able to make sure is carried through in policy. Now, a lot of people, there was a bad article written and a lot of people still have the mindset that there is economic policy and then completely separate there's equity and justice. And those are different things and we actually need to prioritize the economy, and the economy as an actual thing, somehow separated from that. How do you address those kinds of criticisms or analyses of just how to approach equity work? Do you think that they're necessarily separate? How do you evaluate that as you're considering all of these issues? Toshiko Hasegawa: The answer to that, Crystal is “yes and.” Equity is more than a one-time investment. It's more than a program. It's even more than an office. Equity work is a lens that you are going to apply to every single thing that you do. And so, that's why perspective and actually knowing how to meaningfully gain public input so that you are authentically accountable and representative of the people that you serve, but also equipped to be able to effectively push information out so that things aren't getting clogged up and that the opportunities are actually being distributed fairly through society. Toshiko Hasegawa: It's about both outcome and procedural fairness. And I think that's really important, and we have to put our money where our mouth is and we have to make sure that the office of equity that does exist at the port of Seattle has the resources that they need in order to do systemic reviews, in order to create robust recommendations that we can take and apply in order to create more fairness within our workforce and the way that we're hiring and promoting and giving raises to women and people of color and LGBTQ+, the way we're becoming more accessible as an industry to people living with disabilities. Toshiko Hasegawa: We have to make sure that we are actually equipping the Office of Minority and Women Owned Businesses to be able to adequately evaluate the bids, and that we're empowering them with new policies that could actually create a better playing field for the folks who want to be able to engage and do business at the port. So, we're not pitting ourselves and wanting justice, social justice against growth or advancement. In fact, if you do it right, it's only going to have positive returns for the big picture. Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. I happen to agree with that. I'm also wondering, you mentioned earlier just how critical the port is in terms of pollution and that it is a major contributor. Aviation is a major contributor to pollution in our area, and particularly in south King County, where there currently are not any port commissioners that are from South King County. Communities are seeing the impacts of pollution from aviation, and there have been increasing studies coming out about how air pollution is contributing to asthma, to lower life expectancies, to heart disease and lung issues. And so, these south sound, particularly communities are absorbing this in addition to noise pollution and other issues. So, what are your plans to address and deal with this and really stop this from killing people in South King County? Toshiko Hasegawa: And this is where we have the really important, but also really inspiring opportunity to dream big for what our future is going to look like. And we know that we're getting support from the state and from the, what our allocation will look like in the transportation package from the federal government. We have contracts on the horizon. But currently, our infrastructure is supporting a fossil fuel paradigm, when what we can be doing is taking meaningful steps into one that embraces renewable and sustainable energy sources. And I mean modernizing the port so that it goes fully electric, so that not only are we advancing our sustainability goals or creating jobs through their construction, but we're actually becoming better contenders in the global marketplace. Currently, folks are circumnavigating around the Pacific Northwest because to the south, LA and Long Beach have already gone fully electric or up north, BC or Prince Rupert are already fully electric. Toshiko Hasegawa: We're not there yet. We're getting left behind and we physically need a place for some of these emerging norms, the emerging cargo ships to be able to hook up. And so, modernizing is going to be able to really effectively bring together folks, not just in their environmental advocacy, not just on the community representation front, but also in labor and also in industry. We've got to think big about what it means to meaningfully connect our region through long-term goals like, for example, high speed rail, which would be from the north south position, would be able to not only reduce the number of short flights that are coming in and out of Sea-Tac airport that lead to the sound pollution and the air pollution that you're talking about, but also issues of congestion and mobility. Those five miles in, and those five miles out coming from either airport or Seaport, it's horrific. It impacts the quality of life in so many different ways. And airlines don't even really turn that much revenue from those short trips. So folks, I think there is space to be able to bring them together to think about what our solutions can be. And thinking about infrastructure is a long-term goal. In the short term, we can also offer incentives, right? We can incentivize some businesses to be able to make this transition, and we can subsidize the cost to make that transition for independent contractors or smaller businesses so that it's not going to be a situation where conglomerates are eating up smaller businesses that can't afford to make this transition that we're now asking of folks. The port currently offers a clean trucks program. I would love to see a clean boats program, so that both recreational and commercial fishers, small businesses, independent contractors can convert away from diesel engines towards electric ones. Toshiko Hasegawa: There's a case to be made for using Cares Act dollars for some of this stuff, given the precarious position that we find so many small and micro businesses in. And so, we don't lack opportunity. And I think that's what we really need to take into account is we have a plethora of opportunities to be able to make good decisions, but we do need people with the right values and the right priorities to call the shots. Crystal Fincher: Right. And a point that you made, I don't know that a lot of people know, is that ports do compete with each other. They're not just these ubiquitous entities and ships just happen to come there and planes just happen to come there, especially for shipping, ports are in competition with each other up and down the west coast. And you talk about, "Hey, other ports have modernized a lot of their facilities. A lot of them have moved to electric and different types of more green energy that they're using." And they've gotten a competitive edge. And so, a lot of these investments need to be made. Crystal Fincher: I don't think there's a lot of people arguing that, "Hey, we don't need to do something to make sure that we keep our port modern and competitive." It really is about prioritizing how we spend those dollars and how forward-looking we are. The other thing is, you're running against an incumbent who has been there and who is making his own case for reelection. I think my biggest question is helping the people out who are listening and trying to make a decision and understand what the differences between you two are. How would your term and the actions that you take look different than what he has done? Toshiko Hasegawa: You know, Crystal, I have nothing but respect for anybody who chooses to make a life in public service. And the incumbent himself has a long history of giving his time, his efforts, his energy to the members of the public. What I'm offering people is a choice. And there are some, I think, some pretty significant ways, if you would want to point to policy differences that speaks of differences also in our value sets. Look at the way we're campaigning, for example, I'm not taking any corporate PAC money. I've signed the no fossil fuel pledge. And that's important to me because I know that when I'm a port commissioner, we're going to have to disentangle the interests of big money corporations from the important policy decisions that we have to make as a commission, because they're going to impact the lives of the people who elected us to be there. Toshiko Hasegawa: I just fundamentally do not believe that cruise is the future of our region's economy. I would love to see us in import and export and expanding our shipping operations, becoming globally competitive and having a presence and really leading on what it looks like to have a sustainable and inclusive blue economy. I would love us to be a model in mass transit going well in America. I would love to be a place where rich and poor people alike take public transportation, right? I would love to be able to be a proactive thought leader with partners in labor about what it means to holistically support people, particularly in a time where they're struggling to strike a work-life balance. Toshiko Hasegawa: And so, what folks really need is somebody who's going to bring the sense of urgency to this position and a sense of urgency for their perspectives to be valued at the port. And it's important to note that communities are not absent from the conversation. They have ideas, they have priorities and they have demands. But currently, they've been screaming into the wind with very little accountability. They want transparency and they want access. And so, it's just not too much to ask to have a seat at the table. Crystal Fincher: It doesn't seem like it should be too much to ask. Now, you're also running this campaign while you have a newborn. You have a baby. You're a new mom, and you're in the position that many people are in everyday in working and trying to juggle a child, their family and making this work. How do you one, how do you even navigate that? And how's that going? And how do you think that informs how your view on how to treat workers on issues like family and medical leave? And worker conditions have been a huge issue everywhere, including the port. How does that inform your perspective and how do you think that helps you take care of workers at the port? Toshiko Hasegawa: As a candidate, I have to tell you that it's not easy. But you wouldn't believe the wild comments I've gotten about, in specific, one conversation I had with a certain elected somebody who not be named was, "I'm surprised you're running because you just had a baby. Don't you see that as a challenge?" And I responded, "Well, I'll let you know what some people might see as my challenge, I see as my reason." And indeed, becoming a mom during a pandemic was one of the most challenging experiences I've had. And really, she is my guiding light and my compass as to what it means to build the urgency of building a better tomorrow. And as a policy platform, I will tell you as a working mom, the only reason why this is possible is because I have paid medical leave, is because I have benefits, is because I have a supportive family, is because I have the privilege and access to be able to hire help. Toshiko Hasegawa: And that working from home has actually really worked for me as a mom. And the pandemic has changed things of what those norms look like. At the port, one thing that I can tell you, ground zero, we need onsite childcare available. We do not need to reinvent the wheel. This has been done at King County. There's a program being piloted at the state. I would love to adapt that for the port of Seattle. Paid family medical leave, people need to be able to strike that work-life balance. And it's not just people who are unionized who deserve access to this sort of balance, we need it for all workers at the port. We need to be able to have space for this sort of grace and this accommodation, because by God, it has been women who have largely been impacted, the data shows, in having to decide between working and staying at home with their kids as they're at home all the time. Toshiko Hasegawa: And if we're already looking at an equity gap in opportunities in the workforce at the port, well, that equity gap has deepened. And so, we really need to take prudent steps to be able to holistically support families, working parents at the port. And so, it looks like addressing the pay gap. And we really need to start actually just collecting demographic data at the port about who our workforce is and how they're being promoted and how they're being rewarded and how they're being retained and really use that as a starting point in order to have some meaningful outcomes in the short and the long run. Crystal Fincher: Those are great points. The port also has so much property, so many contractors, so many organizations who are relying on the port who have contracts with the port. Do you also support making some minimum quality of life and workforce standards, a requirement for port contracts? Toshiko Hasegawa: Yeah. We really have to be careful, particularly during times of economic crisis to make sure that businesses are not going to be trying to make their bottom line or stay afloat off the backs of workers. This is exactly where economic exploitation could happen. And so, that that means supporting things like prevailing wage on the job. That means things like priority hire so that companies are actually giving these opportunities to our community members, our workforce, our neighbors and they're their families who deserve a sense of economic stability right now. It should be said that we're in a position here at the Port of Seattle to think globally and act locally for meaningful outcomes. We need to take into account our supply chains long before you're ever plucking your product off the shelf at the grocery store, we can make sure that the folks that we're doing business with have been able to demonstrate at least three years compliance with international labor laws. Toshiko Hasegawa: So, you can have the confidence that what you're consuming is from a clean supply chain. So, there's really a lot to be said about workers' rights. There's also a lot to be said about civil rights for people who are passengers or otherwise seem to be clients of the port. And we're talking about the use of facial recognition technology. We're talking about the operations of immigration enforcement. The port has its own police force, which had a task force that issued recommendations. How will those be implemented? How are we ensuring that the use of facial recognition technology isn't stepping the line on what people's civil rights are, but actually we're going to be pushing back and making sure that we're protecting them to the fullest extent possible. So, there's a lot to be done. Crystal Fincher: Yeah, that's a huge issue. And especially, just the issue of facial recognition, which the King County government, King County Council just outlawed its use for the county, but especially federal entities are using those and federal entities are onsite at the airport and at other port locations. I know that the port is currently working on trying to make sure that there are some guardrails put around that. But in that conversation, in the use of biometrics, even one of the issues is, "Okay, you can help drop someone off at the airport. You're not even ticketed or needing to go through that type of security. Does the fact that you step outside your car or drive your car on port property anyway, mean that you should wind up in an ICE database or an FBI database with all of your information?" Do you think the port is doing enough with that, and how would you address public safety and policing there? Toshiko Hasegawa: If you have already, in the last year, taken an international flight, they have already scanned your face in lieu of checking your passport. And that is actually not done by law enforcement, that's actually done by the airlines. They are a private entity collecting that information with no protective clauses on how that data is going to be shared or retained. How's the port commission pushing pack on that? And this is where people don't understand the port. It has tremendous repercussions for people everywhere. If they're going to take it to a lawsuit, can we win? And it sets precedence for the way airlines are going to be able to use facial recognition technology in other jurisdictions. So, we have to be really careful, and really what it boils down to is public interest. Toshiko Hasegawa: And so, no, the port is not doing enough. And so, it's not just for incoming flights, but also for outgoing flights internationally. And it's a slippery slope, as you know when we're talking about people's civil rights. So, public safety at the port, what comes to mind for me is the repercussions of racism and xenophobia and the discriminatory Muslim ban, where we physically showed up down there and shut it down at Sea-Tac airport. We were standing arm in arm singing, chanting, whereas the port commissioners were in the back having a conversation. Of course, not enough is happening. Toshiko Hasegawa: Law enforcement is required by a will of the voters to be in compliance with a minimum set of training and crisis intervention and deescalation, and also in implicit bias. And so, it's more than just the Port of Seattle police were there. How are we making sure that the other law enforcement entities are also going to have that same training when we know that there are issues of discrimination happening by private security like TSA, when we know that there's disproportionate stop and frisk of people wearing religious indicators, or that African-American men with common names get held up because there's 20 other people, maybe with a warrant out for their arrest? This is exactly how institutional racism plays out, and we have got to do more. Crystal Fincher: Well, I appreciate you taking the time to speak with us today. I guess in closing, I would just ask you, for people helping to make a decision, why should they choose you? And what difference can they expect to see in their lives as a result of the action that you take? Toshiko Hasegawa: The port has such an important role to play in answering to the dire needs of our time, but it is going to require doing something different. And doing something different from the status quo means we need new leadership with a bold vision for the future. And if elected, I will bring a perspective that has never before been represented at the port of Seattle. And it's not just what you do, it's how you do it. And that's why I'm so proud to have the bid of confidence from every single democratic organization that has endorsed so far in this race, including the King County Dems and the Young Dems and the Stonewall Dems, happy pride, y'all. Including from partners in labor, like the Teamsters and SCIU local six and the machinists and people from local elected government all the way up to Lieutenant Governor Denny Heck all of whom who know that the urgency of now requires doing something dynamic. And it really boils down to whether you want more of the same, or whether you want to do something different. I'd be honored to have folks vote. Crystal Fincher: Thank you so much for joining us. We'll certainly be keeping an eye on this race. And where can people find out more information about your campaign? Toshiko Hasegawa: Hasegawaforport.com. Crystal Fincher: Well, thank you so much, and we look forward to speaking with you next time. Thanks for listening. Toshiko Hasegawa: Such a pleasure. Thank you. Crystal Fincher: Thank you for listening to Hacks & 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 at @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. And now, you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts. Just type in Hacks & Wonks into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost live shows and our mid-week show delivered to your podcast feed. You can also get a full text transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced during the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in. Talk to you next time.  

In the years leading up to the horrific Tulsa massacre of 1921, the Greenwood district was a thriving Black metropolis, a city within a city. Buoyed by money from Oklahoma's oil boom, it was home to the original Cotton Club and to one of the first Black-owned daily newspapers in the United States, the Tulsa Star. The Star's founder and editor was A. J. Smitherman, a lawyer and the Alabama-born son of a coal miner. He addressed his eloquence and his ire at local nuisances like prostitution and gambling halls, as well as the gravest injustices of American life. The Radio Hour's KalaLea is the host of “Blindspot: Tulsa Burning.” She looks in this story at how Smitherman documented Greenwood at its height, and how he tried to prevent its destruction.  “Blind Spot: Tulsa Burning” is a six-part podcast co-produced by the History Channel and WNYC Studios, in collaboration with KOSU and Focus Black Oklahoma. The team includes Caroline Lester, Alana Casanova-Burgess, Joe Plourde, Emily Mann, Jenny Lawton, Emily Botein, Quraysh Ali Lansana, Bracken Klar, Rachel Hubbard, Anakwa Dwamena, Jami Floyd, and Cheryl Devall. The music is by Hannis Brown, Am're Ford, Isaac Jones, and Chad Taylor. The executive producers at the History Channel are Eli Lehrer and Jessie Katz. Raven Majia Williams is a consulting producer. Special thanks to Herb Boyd, Kelly Gillespie, Shelley Miller, Jodi-Ann Malarbe, Jennifer Lazo, Andrew Golis, Celia Muller, and Andy Lanset. Maurice Jones was the voice of A. J. Smitherman. Additional voices: Terrance McKnight, Dar es Salaam Riser, Javana Mundy, John Biewen, Jack Fowler, Tangina Stone, Emani Johnston, Danny Wolohan, and Jay Allison.

Crystal shares that the Friday, almost-live Week in Review show will be back next week, as we take time off to enjoy the long weekend, and we are airing a show with Melissa Santos talking about her excellent reporting on Washington's Brady List.  Crystal also is very thankful for the support and amplification by Hacks & Wonks listeners online, and wants to reinforce that this show is a team effort, and the quality of this show is a result of the work and talent of Lisl Stadler and Shannon Cheng, and was happy to be able to talk about how phenomenal they both are. ❤️ On today's show, Melissa Santos from Crosscut joins Crystal to talk about her deep dive into Washington State's Brady List, which is a list maintained by prosecutors of cops with credibility issues which may compromise their testimony in court. In her research she found that nearly 200 cops in our state have such credibility issues. They also get in to how recent laws may affect police accountability in Washington State, what happens when a police officer's account of an incident differs from other accounts, and how the media could more responsibly report on official police accounts of an incident.  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, Melissa Santos, at @MelissaSantos1. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources “Nearly 200 cops with credibility issues still working in Washington state” by Melissa Santos: https://crosscut.com/news/2021/04/nearly-200-cops-credibility-issues-still-working-washington-state “How fired cops win their jobs back: arbitration” by Melissa Santos: https://crosscut.com/news/2021/04/how-fired-cops-win-their-jobs-back-arbitration “How public records gave us a window into WA police misconduct” by Melissa Santos: https://crosscut.com/inside-crosscut/2021/04/how-public-records-gave-us-window-wa-police-misconduct “3 WA families on how new police laws could have helped their loved ones” by Melissa Santos: https://crosscut.com/politics/2021/05/3-wa-families-how-new-police-laws-could-have-helped-their-loved-ones “Recapping the 2021 Legislative Session and Uncovering Washington Police Credibility Issues: A Double Episode – Melissa Santos – Crosscut - #127” from the Nerd Farmer Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/recapping-2021-legislative-session-uncovering-washington/id1223805236?i=1000519554971 “Full investigation of Manuel Ellis' death casts new doubts on Tacoma officers' stories” by Patrick Malone: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/full-investigation-of-manuel-ellis-death-casts-new-doubts-on-tacoma-officers-stories/ “Tommy Le May Have Been Shot While Facedown on the Roadway, May Not Have Even Had a Pen, Documents Show” by Carolyn Bick:https://southseattleemerald.com/2020/10/09/tommy-le-may-have-been-shot-while-facedown-on-roadway-may-not-have-even-had-a-pen-documents-show/ “Opinion: Remember Tommy Le” by Senator Joe Nguyen: https://southseattleemerald.com/2021/06/14/opinion-remembering-tommy-le/ “Newspaper carrier who was confronted by Sheriff Ed Troyer files $5 million legal claim against Pierce County” by Jim Brunner: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/newspaper-carrier-who-was-confronted-by-sheriff-ed-troyer-files-5-million-legal-claim-against-pierce-county/ “How Headlines Change the Way We Think” by Maria Konnikova: https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/headlines-change-way-think   Transcript Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] Hey, this is Crystal Fincher, host of Hacks & Wonks. Today is Friday, July 2nd, and normally we would be doing a week-in-review with a guest co-host. This week, we are not doing that as it is a long holiday weekend, and we are taking time off to enjoy it. So I hope you're able to do the same. I also wanted to take a moment and thank all of you for all of the compliments and just how gracious and kind you've been and reaching out to me and posting online. Just compliments about the podcast. I sincerely appreciate that. It means a lot to me when people say that they feel better informed about candidates and issues. I am passionate about helping us all understand the power that we have to shape our own communities and that starts at the local level. And so people saying that they feel better about that really makes my day and week and month. So thank you all for that.  I also wanted to point out because so many people have been like specifically complimenting me and just to stress that this is not a one-woman operation at all and this show is an absolute team effort. We spend 10 to 15 hours a week, probably a strong 15. Sometimes it gets over that, but just on everything that has to do with putting together this show, there's a number of us. I could not do this by myself. I actually have a consulting firm. By day, I'm a political consultant that is more than a full-time job and a variety of projects and clients that we work on and work with. And so being able to fit this in would not be possible without Lisl Stadler, my producer, Shannon Chang who works with me at Fincher Consulting, and just is a dynamic human being. Maurice Jones Jr. who from the very beginning when I had zero experience talking into a mic regularly like this on the radio who completely just helped me and shepherded me. So I just wanted to take a moment to let you know how incredible they are. Lisl is my producer extraordinaire. She edits the audio beautifully makes me sound much better. And, oh my goodness, if you listen to unedited audio followed by edited audio, then you get so annoyed by mouth sounds and breathing noises and all of that. She is just so good, in addition to being full of ideas. We meet, a couple of times weekly from preparing show notes to the guests that we have to just the composition of shows special events that we do. She's also been instrumental in the forums that I've moderated and that we've put together. Lisl is incredible. And if you ever need to have an excellent conversation about Lord of the Rings or Eurovision or Drag Race, Lisl is your woman. Shannon, Dr. Shannon Cheng. She has a PhD from MIT is... to say she's the wind beneath my wings sounds really corny, but she is so competent in so many different ways and just such a quality human being that she makes everything that I do better. Her involvement in this podcast has absolutely made it better. She's also the chair of ACLU's People Power, and has been doing work on police accountability for years, and the quality of this podcast is directly tied to and has been tangibly improved by my conversations with her and her teaching me enlightening me, helping me understand all the intricacies of just at the different layers of government within contracts and practices and from soup to nuts, she has improved me, improved my understanding, just everything from this podcast and beyond. So I just wanted to take a special moment to thank Shannon. You're incredible and amazing. To thank Lisl, also incredible and amazing. And to just let everyone know that this is a group effort and they are as responsible for the success of the show. I say success, we've gained some traction lately. Things have been going okay. But the extent of it going okay is directly the result of the effort that they have both put in and them walking this path with me. And you may not hear their voices all the time but they do as much work on this show as I do. So thanks so much, enjoy the show, and this audio may sound interesting cause I'm sneaking this on the front. Lisl is not editing this, so hopefully it comes out sounding okay. Talk to you all later. Welcome to Hacks & 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. Well, today we are thrilled to have, joining us again, Crosscut reporter, excellent reporter, one of the best in the state, Melissa Santos. Melissa Santos: [00:05:35] Hi Crystal. Crystal Fincher: [00:05:36] Hello. Well, I'm really excited to have you join us today because lots of people are familiar with your reporting. You are known for doing very in-depth, long form reports and really diving into the details of issues reporting thoroughly. And you really outdid yourself this time by doing a long-term investigative series on officers on the Brady list in the State of Washington. What motivated you to even do this story? Melissa Santos: [00:06:11] Well, I had known about these lists where essentially these are lists prosecutors have of officers that have some sort of issue. An issue that often deals with their veracity, whether they tell the truth, not always, but sometimes. And especially after George Floyd's death. And we were seeing, sometimes the initial narrative surrounding what happens during police uses of force, especially isn't later found to be exactly what happened or some details are different. And sometimes we've been hearing a long time also families of police shooting victims saying that they don't think the official story is right. So I just figured, if we have known officers who may have issues with truth, to the point that prosecutors keep lists of them and have to tell defense attorneys about this past issue, then it's worth finding out who those folks are, why they still have jobs, what the issue was. And so that's why I started on it last summer. Crystal Fincher: [00:07:19] Right. And so, as you covered, the Brady list is a list of officers who for some reason, their truthfulness has been called into question. What types of issues, or is it just lying that lands you on the Brady list? Are there other types of behaviors or activities that put you on there? Melissa Santos: [00:07:37] Lying is the most common or some sort of dishonesty. There also though, I mean, if you demonstrate racial bias and there's some documented incidents of that, you can get on the Brady list. I'm not sure that every officer that is suspected of having some bias is on this list. There's only some that are on there, but also uses of force, get some folks on there as well. If there was deemed to be some sort of questionable or excessive use of force, they could be on the Brady list. The other things that get you on there, or maybe they don't really think you lied, exactly, intentionally, but somehow your official report really doesn't match the other evidence. Especially if it's dash cam video, if your reports do not match official dash cam video. And there's some discrepancy that seems like it could potentially affect the outcome of a case. That's something that has to be disclosed that will put you on the list. And I mean, prosecutors will say this list is just an administrative tool by which we kind of keep track of officers for whom we have to send out notices to defense saying, "Hey, you should know about this past thing." Because it's a due process issue. They should have all the evidence that might indicate a cop's credibility is in question. And that can relate to future cases if the cop, maybe has been less than truthful in the past or there's suspicion that they were. Crystal Fincher: [00:09:06] Yeah, absolutely. And it is important to really consider and talk about why the honesty and integrity of officers is really important and why this list is necessary. You just talked about it being a due process issue, and certainly in a trial, if there is reason to doubt the testimony of an officer, oftentimes that can be the determining factor on whether someone is viewed to be guilty or innocent. An officer's word is taken as truth universally. And that in issues of guilt and innocence, you can dramatically impact and infringe upon someone's civil rights, their constitutional rights. If you don't tell the truth, and that can result in them going to jail. It can be a lot to some people simpler. It could be, hey, maybe they didn't take a report of a crime seriously. And it depends on whether insurance is going to cover something, or their employer covers something, or whether or not they eventually wind up arrested. They have so much control and influence over people's lives and what happens to them that they should be, and theoretically are held to a higher standard when it comes to their conduct and their honesty. And so this list is saying, hey, these officers have not met standard of high conduct. And we need to consider that, that we can't automatically take their word as being truthful and honest, which has also been an issue in reporting overall. And I know you've had conversations, there was a great conversation you've had on the Nerd Farmer Podcast about this, talking about how reporters take officer's words as fact. And how after incidences, it can be an officer and quote-unquote officer-involved shooting, when an officer shoots and often kill someone or they do something and they come out with their statement about what happened that has as a default been reported as fact. Is that practice changing. Is that practice, do you think worthy of being changed, and have you seen that talked about in reaction to your piece that you did? Melissa Santos: [00:11:31] I think in the last couple of years, especially, I feel like there has been a broader discussion in the media about how to use police statements. But I do think there's pressure, especially for daily media outlets and newspapers to get a story out quickly, immediately. And the police statement really is all you have at first, most of the time. And so I just think that, that needs to be presented in the proper context, and not just kind of... I think that we've kind of been a little flipped with being, like, "We said, police said. That it was the police who said it." Yeah. But I think that we might need to be more explicit and say, "This is the police's side of the story. We don't have other witnesses just tell their side of the story right now. So this is only..." I think we might just need to call that out a little more clearly, rather than just a small attribution and assuming readers can follow that. And certainly readers can follow, they're smart, but people read things quickly. So, I just think that you need to stop readers and say, "Hey, this is all the information we have. We're working to get more. This is what the police say. There was some..." Especially now since we have the internet, there's usually some sort of, not all the time, but sometimes there's conflicting reports from the scene from social media. And I think maybe that can be acknowledged too. And I just think that it does need to be considered. Because I think the original press release from George Floyd's killing was like... It was not saying that Derek Chauvin stood on his neck for nine minutes, right? It was like, "Oh, he died of natural causes after an altercation." It was something like that, right? Or he died of respiratory failure or something like that. It wasn't like, "Respiratory failure because our person was constricting his airway with his knee for nine minutes." That was not what it said, right? So I think we're all learning we need to be more cognizant that the police story is not the correct story, but all the time. However, there's been people saying this for a very long time. So I think media is a little slow to catch up on that. ... saying this for a very long time. So I think media is a little slow to catch up on that. Sometimes that first statement may be accurate. I mean, it's not always an accurate necessarily, but certainly there's enough instances where it has not been an accurate depiction of what happened during a use of force incident that there's reason to question whether you should just run with that narrative in the very beginning. Crystal Fincher: [00:13:54] Oh, absolutely. I mean, we've seen that here locally recently. We saw it with Manuel Ellis. So we saw it with Tommy Le. We saw it with Pierce County Sheriff, Ed Troyer, where their account of events does not match up with that. I think your point of putting it in context and the need for media to independently work on verifying that narrative, that is one reported perspective that should not be the only reported perspective. It should be noted that if that hasn't been able to be independently verified or verified through reporting by other means, that is called out and explicitly said. I think that's helpful. Melissa Santos: [00:14:47] I think we also need to be mindful of updates to stories, because that's a lot of times sort of how the industry has worked. When we do a new story and we fix things. I mean, it wasn't inaccurate, that was what police said. That's what we said that was what police said. So that story is still somewhere in the ether. Again, the internet lives forever, basically for the most part. So those older stories can still cloud the truth of the actual matter if they remain up and aren't clear about what actually happened. So I think that there needs to be more deliberate going back and saying. And sometimes you still see this, we have a new version, we have more updates to this story that we've put here. Maybe for integrity sake you may not want to delete the original story. That's not something we generally do. But something at the top saying, we've gotten more information. The updated information is here. You should go there. So people don't find some old story in a vacuum that doesn't have all that important context. And that's something we need to look at as well. Crystal Fincher: [00:15:41] Yeah. And certainly, also underscoring the importance of headlines, people can discern information, but it is also a reality that a lot of people don't read full articles or they may not have time to read through every article. So rely on headlines sometimes and may get back to the information to get more detail or may not. So I hope that there is widespread thoughtfulness and consideration being given to putting that reporting in more context and not just treating that as a factual account that just gets passed through and kind of transcribed without it being verified, or at least explicitly noted that it hasn't been, that that is a perspective. Back to, I guess the issue of the Brady list overall, do all officers, how comprehensive is the list? We have a list of around, is it around 200 officers right now? Melissa Santos: [00:16:47] Right. About 200. A little under 200 right now. Statewide. Crystal Fincher: [00:16:50] Do they feel like that covers the number of officers there? Are there still glaring holes? Or how hard is it or how easy is it for an officer to wind up on that list? Melissa Santos: [00:17:00] So I do think it varies a little by jurisdiction. But I will say in general, most officers don't get on the list for nothing, just for some casual, maybe they did something, maybe they didn't. I do not think that it is easy in the sense that you have to have some sort of concrete evidence usually. I don't think that prosecutors will put officers on this list of cops that may have issues, issues that have to be disclosed to the defense, without some sort of evidence that something went wrong or that there was some sort of fishy activity. So getting that evidence that a cop lied, for instance, that doesn't always come forth. So it's not always clear that a cop lied, so it's rare to actually have something really specific, like we saw proof that what they said did not match what actually happened. So that's somewhat rare, so that influences who goes on the list and who does not go on the list. It also is dependent a lot on what police agencies report upward to the prosecutor's office. I mean, most of this is based on police officer disciplinary procedures. And if the police agencies do not have a sustained finding of misconduct, of dishonesty, then often that does not end up putting an officer on a prosecutor's Brady list, even if maybe there is some evidence that someone might think, well, wait, wait, wait, wait. I think that that actually was kind of messed up and maybe that investigation didn't actually turn up what it should have. So you're depending on the police officer disciplinary process, which in some cases I think some people would argue does not always kind of identify officer misconduct as reliably as it should, since it's the department investigating its own officers. So that's one issue. And defense attorneys just say that, no, there's all of these officers we kind of know have issues that are not on this list. And so it's an under count in that respect. And I should add that the 200 or so officers that I identified are ones that are currently working. There was a lot more that were on the list, but maybe have left law enforcement and things like that. So we actually kind of took a look to say, who is still around? Because theoretically if there's officers who applied or abused force and they've been fired, you're like, okay, well maybe that's an appropriate response. But they still end up on prosecutor's lists in case they get another job in law enforcement or the prosecutors don't keep up with all the personnel stuff sometimes. So, yeah. So we actually narrowed it down, but there are almost 200 still working in the state- Crystal Fincher: [00:19:43] So is it fair to say that usually officers wind up on the list when their own departments have found that there has been some kind of dishonesty or misconduct? Melissa Santos: [00:19:53] Yes. The vast majority of the time that's what I found. In fact, I think that King County even has a system by which they have a pending list, a pending sort of, well, we're seeing how the outcome of this investigation plays out. And if the allegation is not sustained, that they won't end up even necessarily end up on the permanent list. So there certainly is some due process in that respect for officers. I've definitely have gotten some emails saying, oh, people can get put on this for anything. I don't think that's necessarily true. At the same time, there are cases in which a defense attorney brings something forward, being like, I looked at this guy's personnel file and this seems to be like, you should've told me about this. And that sometimes will cause a prosecutor to say, yeah, that should actually be something that puts you on our list, even if the police agency did not deem it a problem. I think one example of that is someone I actually used in my story as a deputy in Whatcom County, who had used a really racist ... He just said something really racist on Facebook about Native Americans. It was kind of joking about genocide. It was very bad. So his department didn't discipline him for that. I actually have inquired and I got an answer after my story ran that there was no discipline involved. And that came from a defense attorney who said, "I found this on my phone just looking, when I was looking up the key witness against my client, and you should know about this." And then so the prosecutor said, "yeah, it does seem like it meets the legal requirements of something we need to disclose, so we are putting him on our list. But I really trust his testimony and I'm going to continue to call on him as a witness." So that's also something that was interesting, that even at times when people are on the list, the prosecutors who are, they're part of the same team as the cops in general, really, they often say, this technically meets the criteria for something I need to turn over, but I have not had any issue with this cop and I trust that person. So that's also part of the discussion. Crystal Fincher: [00:22:04] Oh, the old, I'd never had a problem with them, so they're not a problem for anyone, excuse, which we've all seen workout so wonderfully. I guess another question I have is, I've certainly heard reports and seen reports before that there can be misconduct that happens or a finding of some misconduct or lying, and that doesn't always make it or stay on an officer's record or in their personnel file, how does that affect or impact who winds up on the Brady list? Can there be actions or findings of misconduct that don't make it to the file, or that are erased from the file, and then that can prevent them from being on the list? Melissa Santos: [00:22:52] Well in general, it depends on the county. But for instance, I'll use King County as an example. That's one case in which they told me they would not remove someone for their list. If it was something like, "Oh, an arbitrator said, 'we think this punishment was wrong, and we think you should not have disciplined this person.'" But finding the fact didn't change? And everyone agrees this happened, but it wasn't worthy of discipline or something like that. They told me that would keep someone on the list, and certainly I did see examples of this discipline was overturned, but through some sort of settlement, but that person is still on the King County prosecutor's list. So actually that's one thing I thought was... This is one reason why I actually did this story, because I realized the prosecutors have a repository of records on cops that sometimes their own departments may not even have anymore. Especially because in some cases, the police agencies completely independent of the police contracts, an officer may have left pretty recently, but those disciplinary records are destroyed after usually six years. So even if it was at this point, 2014, 2015, something someone did in their last jurisdiction, that jurisdiction doesn't have those records anymore, a lot of cases I found. But the prosecutor's office did. So that's one reason I wanted to look at these records, because police disciplinary records are not very well-maintained. I think that's changing with the new law that just passed, it's supposed to hopefully change. But yeah, that was one reason. The prosecutors actually were better about keeping these records than the agencies themselves in some cases. Crystal Fincher: [00:24:34] There seem to be so many loopholes, and we seem to be relying on people and agencies self-investigating and self-reporting, and there don't seem to be many exceptions to that. Looking forward, how are people... What has been the response to your story? How are people looking at the utility of the Brady List? And is there any responses that you've heard about how to make this list better, more comprehensive and more reliable? Melissa Santos: [00:25:10] So I'm waiting to see if this... There is a new law they passed. I wouldn't say it was in response to my story, it was well in the works at the time I wrote. But there was a law that passed that said that police agencies have to send any findings of misconduct to the prosecutor's office within 10 days of their discovery of those incidents. So that's something the prosecutors say, "Okay, that would help us, because right now we don't feel like we're always getting them in a timely manner." Because even though the cops are supposed to turn that stuff over under the case law, that really should happen. They were saying, "Well sometimes it's like, they might turn them over once every six months, or maybe they send over a batch yearly or something." The prosecutors think that could get them in trouble, because they're assumed to know everything that the cops do. Because again, they're all part of the prosecuting law enforcement teams. So that new law, maybe it will help. I still think that it's dependent on the disciplinary... I guess we'll see. I think there is a little bit of wiggle room for how, whether the agencies think it's reportable misconduct or not, that law tries to clarify that. Like, "You need to report stuff like this, lying." Or, "if an investigation starts, you need to send it over." I'm interested to see how it's implemented on the ground, that's all. And I'm not sure it solves the issue of... Something else I'm looking into right now is whether prosecutors always do their job. That was a little too much to get into in my first story, but do they always turn over what they're supposed to to the defense, even for people on their list? Some defense attorneys tell me no, that they don't. They think it's very relevant that this cop lied sometime ago, but they didn't get a notification like they were supposed to do from the prosecutor's office, is what some have told me. And I'm going to looking at trying to find out how often that happens, that's a little hard to pin down. But there's a lot of ways in which it can still break down I think, even with this new law potentially. Crystal Fincher: [00:27:23] Yeah, I'm glad you're looking at doing that story. Certainly just from attorney friends that I have, have heard stories of that happening. And you alluded to earlier, the very close relationship between police and prosecutors, and those prosecutors relying on the testimony of police to make their cases in sometimes. Sometimes it is the police making their case, and so there seems to be an incentive to present that cop in the best light possible, and to cover up anything that could jeopardize their case. Which would be misconduct, or lying from an officer. So I'm excited to hear that. Looking at from what you've reported as you're looking at the process, what do you see could be put into place to make it more reliable or strengthened? What are the biggest loopholes, or areas of opportunity for improvement? Melissa Santos: [00:28:27] I understand the prosecutors have a workload. I don't think they're just mostly sitting around on their butts not doing anything. I'm not sure how this would exactly necessarily work, but I have a defense attorney who said, she just looked at the guy's public Facebook page and found this, and the prosecutor had not had that in their file or anything on this cop. Maybe the prosecuting office does need to take a bigger role in saying, "Maybe we need to do a little more looking at our witnesses ourselves." Because it is a constitutional obligation for them to turn over exculpatory evidence, stuff that could clear someone or affect the outcome of someone's case. They have to do that. I think the prosecutors take that seriously in general, but I'm not sure how much they're taking it upon themselves to look for stuff that should be disclosed. I've kind of been told, "We can't do our own disciplinary investigations. How are we going to do that? We have to rely on the cops for that." But maybe there's at least some cursory work that needs to be done, or someone in each office that just looks up every witness and finds more stuff on the prosecutor's end. I'm not sure if that's not feasible, but it does seem like that's where things go missing sometimes in this process. And still could, even with this new law. So that's happened. And then there's also this element of... I'm just really unclear how determinations are made that someone's bias or use of force merits them putting on the Brady List. Because I think that there's plenty of people in our community that would argue that there are more than half a dozen officers who have demonstrated bias in a way that maybe should be mentioned in future cases that they're a witness on. But I only found maybe six or eight cases that were people on the Brady List currently for bias. So that seems like it could be low potentially. That determination is a little fuzzy, I think to me, how is that determination made? I don't know though that there's that many formal determinations of sustained finding that you were racist in the police world right now. So yeah. And also, uses of force. There's not that many officers on the list for use of force, even though theoretically they should be. And I suspect there's a few more cases that maybe didn't make the list, where officers might have used force in a way that defense attorneys would want to know about in their past. Crystal Fincher: [00:31:02] Yeah, you make some really good points. And even to your point, it does seem like most people involved in the legal system, prosecutors included, are largely acting in good faith. But the institution sometimes present some obstacles, and it seems like the job of a prosecutor and investigating and how they interact with police... 30 years ago, looking up their social media history was not a thing. Seeing if dash cam video or body cameras matched up to their account was not a thing , and so there's just a lot more to look into and they just may not have also expanded their practices and have the daily resources, given their workload, that accounts for being able to look into all of that. But maybe that should be happening; maybe they do need to really explore how to make sure that they're looking at all available evidence to help account for that. Melissa Santos: [00:32:06] I actually thought of something else. In fact, there's a couple of people who got added to the Brady list apparently because of my going around asking everyone for their list, basically. That sort of indicated to me that there was some lag time, I guess, in people being added to the list. That's even on the prosecutor's end, apparently, I think. Or maybe they were like, "Oh, we really should get an update on this guy. Whatever happened with this?" Yeah, I think that there's some potential for wiggle room there. I will say there's some instances when prosecutors we're really concerned about a cop and the prosecutor saying, "This is a problem. We need to put that person on our list," happened independently of officers. But that was not the majority of cases. It was only a handful that I saw and had records on. Crystal Fincher: [00:32:57] Yeah. It also seems like there is a problem with, okay, we only keep records for six years, or however long that is. If an officer changes jurisdictions, we just may not know that they had some egregious things on their record from 2013. Seems like we do that for folks on the other side of the criminal justice system, and if there is something on their record from 2010 or, really anytime, that that counts against them in terms of what they're charged with, how they're sentenced. And if it seems like that should be a factor taken into consideration for people who are defendants, certainly other people involved in that, that should be consistent. And, wow, 2014 just does not seem that long ago to be discounting what people are doing. Melissa Santos: [00:33:50] Right. I was talking early 2010s, there are some records I don't have. There was a guy who was police chief in one small town that oversaw some really, really bad management of stuff. Evidence was just lying around the squad room. Actually, mishandling of evidence could get you on the list too. This was really rampant, bad. An auditor came in, he ended up leaving the department but that works in another department now. And this, this changeover, he left that department in 2012 or something. There's records I can't get anymore from some of that. Yeah, it doesn't seem like that long ago, really. But I will say there's this new bill. I was asking how much will this really help? This bill that deals with officer decertification, making it so it's easier for the state to pull an officer's license does kind of set new rules for union contracts to not allow them to destroy or remove files from people's personnel records because this actually happens as well. Sometimes officers can request after two years or something... Sometimes it's as low as two or three years to have something removed from their personnel file. And all that might be in there then as a letter saying, "This officer asked for this to be... some disciplinary action to be removed." And I think that in some cases you can still get those records by asking a different department somehow, but it obscures the process at the very minimum, even if those records in some cases may be attainable somehow else. And so that's something that will change apparently with this bill. You won't be able to have contracts that let officers remove stuff from their files as often, at least. Crystal Fincher: [00:35:32] Well thank you so much for taking the time today to talk to us. An amazing series that you reported. If people want to find this story and your reporting, how can they find you? Melissa Santos: [00:35:43] Well, this is a good question. We actually have a page where we have kept all of our stories on the Brady list, and we hope to report more on this with followups as well, but right now... I'm actually looking up the URL to make sure. Right now, it's just that crosscut.com/brady-list-investigation. That's where you can find all the stories. And you can also find a form there where if you want to tell us something about a cop, you can let us know. I am looking into a couple of things that people have sent to me. And you also can always direct message me on Twitter. If you're concerned about anonymity, I can give you my signal number or something as well. People can get in touch with me and read the stories that way. Crystal Fincher: [00:36:30] Okay, sounds good. We will also include all of that in our show notes so you can access it there. We appreciate your reporting. You do an excellent job. This is really important reporting; directly impacts the safety of people and the integrity of our process so thank you so much for spending the time and we'll talk to you soon. Melissa Santos: [00:36:52] Thank you. Crystal Fincher: [00:36:54] 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 at @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H F-R-I-I. And now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts. Just type in Hacks & Wonks into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our mid-week show delivered to your podcast feed. You can also get a full text transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced during the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in. Talk to you next time.

In this week's Work in Progress podcast, Maurice Jones, CEO of OneTen, joins me to discuss the organization's mission and a big announcement from OneTen—the launch next month of a platform connecting Black talent directly with employers interested in hiring based on skills, not degrees. “We are a coalition of, now, 53 companies, from all […] The post OneTen launching platform connecting Black talent with employers appeared first on WorkingNation.

In the years leading up to the horrific Tulsa massacre of 1921, the Greenwood district was a thriving Black metropolis, a city within a city. Buoyed by money from Oklahoma's oil boom, it was home to the original Cotton Club and to one of the first Black-owned daily newspapers in the United States, the Tulsa Star. The Star's founder and editor was A. J. Smitherman, a lawyer and the Alabama-born son of a coal miner. He addressed his eloquence and his ire at local nuisances like prostitution and gambling halls, as well as the gravest injustices of American life. The Radio Hour's KalaLea is the host of “Blindspot: Tulsa Burning.” She looks in this story at how Smitherman documented Greenwood at its height, and how he tried to prevent its destruction.  “Blind Spot: Tulsa Burning” is a six-part podcast co-produced by the History Channel and WNYC Studios, in collaboration with KOSU and Focus Black Oklahoma. The team includes Caroline Lester, Alana Casanova-Burgess, Joe Plourde, Emily Mann, Jenny Lawton, Emily Botein, Quraysh Ali Lansana, Bracken Klar, Rachel Hubbard, Anakwa Dwamena, Jami Floyd, and Cheryl Devall. The music is by Hannis Brown, Am're Ford, Isaac Jones, and Chad Taylor. The executive producers at the History Channel are Eli Lehrer and Jessie Katz. Raven Majia Williams is a consulting producer. Special thanks to Herb Boyd, Kelly Gillespie, Shelley Miller, Jodi-Ann Malarbe, Jennifer Lazo, Andrew Golis, Celia Muller, and Andy Lanset. Maurice Jones was the voice of A. J. Smitherman. Additional voices: Terrance McKnight, Dar es Salaam Riser, Javana Mundy, John Biewen, Jack Fowler, Tangina Stone, Emani Johnston, Danny Wolohan, and Jay Allison.

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.

The Professor is in! NYU's newest Shakespeare professor joins us this week. Maurice andJoe did Romeo and Juliet together back in 2013 where they bonded over margaritas and The Lord of the Rings. This week we talk about making Shakespeare accessible in 2021, how life as an actor isn't all star studded plays, how Joe literally conned his way into a Shakespeare play on Broadway, and how this "serious" actor found his love of musicals with the help of a little show called Ragtime. Mr. Jones is an New Jersey native and New York based actor. He is a graduate of Rutgers University where he earned degrees in English and Theatre. He holds an MFA from the National Theatre Conservatory in Denver, CO. He possesses a proud penchant for pocket watches, poetry, plums, percussion, potatoes, Pablo Picasso, Oxford commas, and alliteration. NY credits include, Broadway: The Lifespan of a Fact, Saint Joan, The Cherry Orchard, Romeo & Juliet, and Julius Caesar. Off Broadway: Sunday (Atlantic Theater Company), Linda (MTC), Troilus & Cressida, Pretty Hunger (Public Theater), Little Children Dream of God (Roundabout) Regional: Hamlet (Chicago Shakespeare), The Model American, A Legendary Romance (Williamstown) Julius Caesar (Folger Theatre), Lives of Reason (Two River Theater), Butler (Barrington Stage), As You Like It, Ruined, The Taming of the Shrew (Denver Center), The Learned Ladies (NJ Shakespeare) Television: “Blue Bloods”, “Elementary”, “The Good Fight”, “30 Rock”. Film: Winter’s Tale, Romeo & Juliet, And So It Goes • #broadway #broadwaymusical #broadwaymusicals #musical #musicals #musicaltheatre #musicaltheatrelife #theatrelife #theaterlife #theatrekid #theatrekids #theatrenerd #actorslife #podcastersofinstagram #broadwaypodcastnetwork #broadwaypodcast #podcastaddict #broadwaymemes #stevemauricejones #shakespeare #nyu #stellaadler #professor #romeoandjuliet #juliuscaesar #hamlet Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week we have a returning guest, Maurice Jones from episode "Grind Don't Stop".  He's back with players from his 7 on 7 football teams.  This episode is a showcase of the next wave of superior high school and college athletes.  With one of the best programs in the nation we dive into the aspirations and dedication of these playmakers.Show Sponsor http://www.gospelgains.comPodcast Support $ntellect1 on Cash App

This week Port of Seattle Commissioner Ryan Calkins joins Crystal to discuss not only what a port commissioner actually does, but how it can impact the lives of our entire state. Topics include what the Port is doing to fight climate change, how it can protect the rights of gig workers operating within the Port's area, and how an entity like the Port - that operates in several jurisdictions and cities - can promote environmental, social, and economic justice. 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, Commissioner Ryan Calkins, at @ryancalkinsSEA. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources Learn more about the Port of Seattle's plans to fight climate change here: https://www.portseattle.org/blog/port-programs-fight-climate-change  Get into the pollution from the port that specifically affects South Seattle here: https://crosscut.com/2019/06/can-beacon-hill-win-fight-quieter-skies-and-healthier-neighborhood  Learn more about the cleanup of the Duwamish River here: https://www.duwamishcleanup.org/  Find out more about ideas for insuring gig workers here: https://hbr.org/2020/07/gig-workers-are-here-to-stay-its-time-to-give-them-benefits  Find information that has been presented to the Port's Biometrics External Advisory Group here: https://www.portseattle.org/page/biometrics-external-advisory-group  Find out more about the inaccuracies and risks of employing facial recognition technology here: https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2020/racial-discrimination-in-face-recognition-technology/  Read about Washington State's airports response to ICE deportations using their facilities here: https://crosscut.com/2019/10/searching-airports-host-deportation-flights-ice-gets-rejected-everett-and-bellingham  Learn about offshore wind farms, like the one referenced in the episode, here: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/northwest-could-get-its-own-offshore-wind-farm-by-2017/    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. And I'm very pleased to be welcoming Ryan Calkins, Port Commissioner for the Port of Seattle to the show today. Thanks for being with us. Commissioner Ryan Calkins: [00:01:00] Thank you. Yeah, long-time listener, first-time caller. I'm really excited to be here. Crystal Fincher: [00:01:05] Super excited to have you. And I'm excited to talk about the Port. Being a Port Commissioner is a really, in my opinion, over the years has been slept on, but a really important position, really important function. You have a huge jurisdiction. You're responsible for a lot. So I guess I just wanted to start off by asking what attracted you to look at serving on the Port Commission and what are you responsible for? Commissioner Ryan Calkins: [00:01:35] Yeah, so I mean, when I first ran four years ago, my motivation was really driven by a couple of things. Principally by what I felt like was the need to take climate change more seriously at the Port of Seattle, that it is an agency that is deeply involved in transportation and ships, trucks, planes, trains. And obviously the transportation sector has got a climate problem, and we need to act quickly to address it. And then the other part of it was it's an economic development agency at heart. And so when we look at our regional economy and how - that was right in the middle of this boom period for our City, prior to the pandemic, where we were seeing overall macroeconomic numbers go through the roof. And yet it wasn't a vision of shared prosperity for our economy. And I felt like the Port of Seattle was one place where we could really instill a sense of shared prosperity. How do we make sure that the - forgive the maritime metaphor - but how could we make sure a rising tide will lift all boats? And in particular, the areas in King County, in our jurisdiction where we have seen people historically be furthest from economic justice are areas right around Port facilities, the airport, the seaport. And so yeah, like you said, it's kind of a quiet political jurisdiction, but a really, really important one. And we have about $1 billion a year roughly in operating budget. And right now, we're doing about $1 billion a year in capital construction budget as well. So it's a hugely impactful agency to be a part of. And so that's why I got interested and was able to kind of surprise, I think, an incumbent. And before he knew it, I was off and running, and we managed to squeak out a win four years ago. And now I'm up for reelection and the messaging hasn't changed a whole lot, but I will say that there's one area that I didn't emphasize enough as a first-time candidate, and this time I'm really going to lean into, and that's that question of equity. That I came in very much an environmentalist, and now I would say that I'm an environmental justice advocate. And particularly after four years of lots of community meetings with folks who really appreciate the intent of a lot of the environmental movement, but have, like me - I'll admit I didn't understand how important it was to make sure that we had the right people at the table. And so this campaign cycle, I'm really thinking a lot about how do we do this? How do we carry forward a vision of shared prosperity and a message of environmental justice for those communities that historically have been most impacted by Port activities? Crystal Fincher: [00:04:36] Yeah and crucially important - a lot of conversations around that right now. And as someone who lives in the 33rd, certainly, there has been a lot of research done specifically when it comes to the airport, and impacts from the airport on air quality, and those who live in the surrounding areas, and having direct impacts on the health of the families that live there. And I guess starting out in terms of what can be done to mitigate that impact, I know that's something that you have been looking at, are going to be continuing. What is happening to help reduce the amount of pollution that's being put into the air, the surrounding neighborhoods, and to mitigate that impact and to make sure that we aren't looking at the kinds of health disparities between one area of our region versus other areas? Commissioner Ryan Calkins: [00:05:34] Yeah. I mean, the 33rd, obviously, I hear from a lot of constituents there about the air and noise pollution associated with airport operations. And then in other parts of the district, and particularly in the Duwamish Valley, the neighborhoods of South Park and Georgetown and cities of Tukwila and elsewhere, they're dealing with the water and air pollution associated with maritime operations and just the overall industrial activity that occurs around a Port facility - trucks coming and going and the machines that operate on the facilities. And so we're really looking at how we tackle - what it comes down to for us, in most instances, is that we're a fossil fuel economy and we need to break that addiction as quickly as possible. So on the seaport side of things, we have put forward a plan called the Seattle Waterfront Clean Energy Plan that seeks to essentially decarbonize the waterfront in the next 30 years. And it's in collaboration with the City of Seattle because our waterfront is entirely within the City of Seattle, and we need their help. We need more electricity. We need Seattle City Light to bring us more electrons on the waterfront so that we can replace that source of energy that is currently coming from a lot of diesel fuel. And we also need industry partnerships in other things. There's a lot of areas that while we're a port, we may not have jurisdiction over. And that's where, with my colleagues, I like to distinguish between hard power and soft power, which is kind of from my old days in foreign policy stuff. We may not have hard power in certain areas, but we do have soft power to create influence or model the way for other agencies to say there is an economically viable way that we can sort of destroy that myth of environmental sustainability at odds with economic development. I really believe we're at a point now where those things go hand in glove in most places, and particularly in Seattle. And at the airport, where we're dealing with both the issues related to air pollution and noise pollution from airport facilities, probably the single most important project we're working on is sustainable aviation fuels, which is the creation of combustible fuels that can be used in current airplanes. You don't have to change anything about the airplanes, but it burns a lot cleaner and isn't a fossil fuel. And so the news this week that the State Senate passed the low carbon fuel standard, now it's going back to the House for concurrence, is a really important step for us. We are waiting with bated breath to see if that will get agreed upon and sent to the governor's desk. But if it does, it's a necessary but not sufficient step towards sustainable aviation fuels and a greater supply of clean electricity for our waterfront project as well. So that has been our highest legislative priority ever since I joined the Port of Seattle Commission. And so a lot rests on that and I will keep pushing that for the next - I think we're down to 10 days in session - because we really need that to be able to take some strides. Just imagine, for instance, if we were able to produce sustainable aviation fuels from the municipal solid waste that is going into the landfill in Cedar Hills, in King County. We could divert that waste flow, turn it into energy that could then be used in our planes and our ships, and it burns a lot cleaner too. So the air quality benefits are good for our communities as well. And then we've got a number of - for the water quality piece, I think a really important part of that is what we've been working on in the Duwamish River. And that project has been successful in large part because the community mobilized and it wasn't just a bunch of electeds or public servants doing the planning. But instead it was led by community efforts in Georgetown and South Park to say, "We want cleanup and we want it done this way so that the folks in the community benefit." Crystal Fincher: [00:09:45] Well, that's certainly useful and helpful. One thing I wanted to talk about - you talked about balancing economic development and sustainability, and making sure that we don't harm our environment and the people living in it while still being competitive economically and growing our region and the economy in our region. There's been a lot of talk about wages workers are paid, conditions, workers - everyone from direct employees of the Port to truckers, people working throughout the entire ecosystem of the Port. I guess where are you at in terms of - do you feel like things are where they should be today? Do you feel like we still have a ways to go? And what's on the agenda? What's on your agenda for advancing worker conditions and pay and rights? Commissioner Ryan Calkins: [00:10:42] Well, I want to start with wages because I think there's nothing like more money in people's pockets to improve outcomes in health, education, quality of life, longevity, all sorts of things. When you give people money - no, when people are able to earn more money, virtually every metric goes towards the positive, right? So 10 years ago when the debate was happening around 15 Now, I was part of the coalition of small business - I was a small business owner prior to this - I was part of the coalition supporting 15 Now, and I was pleased to see it pass in SeaTac originally, and then in Seattle. And I'm very much in favor of an increase in the national minimum wage, the federal minimum wage, as quickly as possible. And I personally believe that we ought to be north of $20 now for our region, for the country, to get back to where we were 30 years ago, let alone 40 years ago when really the Reagan revolution kicked off and undercut middle income families and has slowly resulted in income disparities that I think are really harmful to our democracy. And so wages are critically important at the Port of Seattle. This session, we're working with labor partners to ensure that this carve-out that had resulted in a number of workers around the airport, the flight kitchen workers, had been exempted. And it was originally part of Prop 1 - it was well-intended, but it resulted in a group of workers that were still earning $11.50-12 an hour instead of the north of $15 that they should be earning. And so we were able to go to Olympia this session, work with Senator Keiser and labor leaders to get that sort of technical fix in the bill. And as soon as the governor signs it, we'll be ready to work with the employers in the area to bring those employees up to the wages they deserve. In the larger Port ecosystem, there are a lot of folks who work in and around the Port that are gig workers. And I think there is an opportunity for Port elected officials to raise our voices about the need to backstop those workers with the same kind of protections that regular-wage workers have. So in the pandemic, we've understood that it's critically important for those people to have access to unemployment benefits. And I think portable benefits should be an option for workers, whether they're working for what we call TNCs, the transportation network companies like Uber or Lyft, or other forms of gig work that are popping up all over the place. And the ability for folks to maintain their healthcare, to maintain their pensions, to maintain other forms of benefits, as they move around in our really mobile economy now is, I think, really important. And so that's a conversation that we're having and something that I'm very supportive of because I think that kind of employee mobility forces employers to compete for workers too. Crystal Fincher: [00:14:11] Absolutely. And I think that's critically important and certainly part of our national conversation, the local conversation. What levers do you have, just within your jurisdiction in the Port, to try and move that forward? Is that something that you can address in contracts? Or if you're awarding contracts to vendors or doing that, what can you do as a Port Commissioner to help make that happen? Commissioner Ryan Calkins: [00:14:41] So the Port of Seattle operates mostly as a landlord. I mean, we have 2,000 employees, roughly - 1,000 of whom work at the airport, and 1,000 scattered about at our administration building, or our maintenance facilities, or elsewhere. We have a police department, a fire department. We have, I think, just about two dozen unions that we negotiate directly. So we have a large workforce ourselves. But you think about the number of direct jobs at SeaTac, for instance. We figure there's about 21,000 people who work at the airport. So 1,000 of them are our employees, the other 20,000 work for the roughly 350 businesses - very large businesses like Delta and Alaska Airlines, and very small businesses like independent contractors who have a taxi. And figuring out how to herd those cats and get everybody providing quality jobs has been a real challenge, right? Because you're working with various levels of - you've got the federal government saying, "Here's a set of rules that you have to follow because you're an FAA grant recipient." You've got the state government saying, "Here's a set of rules that you have to abide by because you're an employer in the State of Washington." And then we've got municipal rules from the City of SeaTac, too. So there are a whole host of intersecting jurisdictions. And the way that Washington set up our port districts back in 1911 was as a limited-purpose jurisdiction. So we don't get all the same authorities that a city gets. And we fought that a few times. So we, for instance, can't personally set a minimum wage at the airport. That's set by the City of SeaTac, right? But we can, as I was saying before, use some soft power to say, "Hey, City of SeaTac. We would like to be able to do certain things within your jurisdiction." And we're a huge part of their tax base, and so that can be a conversation. In other circumstances, we can, as you talked about, work with contracts and leases to say, "If you're going to operate a business in our facility, then there are certain baseline minimum things that we want you to adhere to." Sometimes that pushes over certain lines and we get pushback. But a good example of that is - and they call that a use of a proprietary power - they say Sea-Tac Airport, as an operator of a big facility, is entitled to make certain requirements of its tenants to ensure that the facility runs in the way that we, the Port of Seattle, want it to run. And so yeah, when we sit down at the table with potential partners, whether it's airlines or concessionaires or others or taxi cab associations, we build into those negotiations - environmental key performance indicators, labor harmony agreements, customer service requirements, so that we have set of values that we're trying to make sure are carried out whether we're the operator or we contract with somebody else to do it. So that is absolutely a really important way that we can live out the values that we talk about on the campaign trail. Crystal Fincher: [00:18:00] I appreciate that. Another thing I'm wondering about, you mentioned that the Port has its own police department. You certainly work because there is federal facilities, federal travel, interstate travel. There's Customs and Border Patrol who are operating there in a number of jurisdictions, especially dealing with immigration and immigration enforcement. And we have been having a lot of conversations. And certainly in King County, it's pretty clear, just in terms of policies and cities throughout the county, that limiting interaction, cooperation with Customs and Border Patrol and ICE in terms of expanding their authority and cooperation - informing them, sharing data, that kind of thing, is not something that most cities here are comfortable with, most jurisdictions are comfortable with. And certainly looking at some of the actions that we saw from the Trump administration that are still continuing to this day and people being uncomfortable with the, I guess, scope of authority that other agencies have when it comes to immigration enforcement. Where do you stand on that? And what do you think is working right, and what do you think needs to change? Commissioner Ryan Calkins: [00:19:35] I personally am - I believe we need to change the overall narrative around immigration. I think a lot of us on the left have simply bought into the storytelling that the right uses around immigration - that immigration is a sort of, it's an evil that we need to avoid. And instead, I think immigration is the secret sauce of our country. I mean, the narrative tends to be, how do we stop these people from coming? And we know that some will eventually get through anyways. And instead, I think we should be saying, how do we embrace those immigrants who are coming to the United States? Because it has forever been what has made us so innovative and vital and continue to push economic and cultural leadership around the world because we get the very best ideas from all over the place. And it isn't that we assimilate them. It's that we change to be more like the cultures that come and make up our new blend. And so this is something I'm personally very passionate about. I'm especially exercised right now about what's happening on the southern border with children, where the narrative continues to be, how do we stop this flow of children? And I feel like, No, we ought to be talking about how do we step up with all of our societal wealth and rescue these kids who are escaping a place that has undergone horrible natural disasters that in fact, weren't natural. They were human disasters as a result of terrible policies. And I speak from a position of real experience, right? My first job out of college was - I spent a year in Honduras working disaster relief. And it felt in so many ways like this year was just a repeat of what we saw 20 years ago, when two hurricanes this time came through. And these folks are desperate. And if we were in their shoes, we would simply be asking for an opportunity to find safety and a bite to eat and a roof over our heads. And I think we in the United States need to recognize that we have an obligation. We have a moral obligation to provide help to these folks. So let me start by saying that. Now, putting back on my Port Commissioner hat - so the Commission provided a policy directive to our police force that they will not share information with federal agencies around immigration status. And that's actually been in place for some time now. But around that issue of our relationship with Customs and Border Protection, the TSA, ICE, and other agencies, we are attempting right now to craft a policy that will limit the amount of data that's shared overall, particularly as it relates to biometrics. So you're probably familiar with all the different ways in which our biological identifiers, whether it's our eyes or thumbprints, or even things like the way we walk, and of course, facial recognition, which gets the most news, I think. How that information can be gathered and used - and so we put a moratorium on the use of biometrics by our police department. We put a moratorium on the use of any sort of mass surveillance because we are a quasi-public plaza, right? If you walk into SeaTac Airport, you don't think I'm walking into a place where somebody would have the right to just grab my image from the video feed and use that to identify who I am. And now what we're working on is how do we - we have a set of seven criteria that we're using to determine our own use of biometrics around justification, transparency, making it voluntary so that you're not just automatically - you have to personally choose to be a part of it, equity, and I'm forgetting the other two. But the idea is to create a system with guardrails in place. Biometrics is already a part of most everybody's lives. If you have a smartphone, you're using it in some way in most cases. We've used biometrics for decades in thumbprint analysis and other things in our criminal legal system. But at the Port of Seattle, we're really trying to conscientiously think about - here's this technology that has been supercharged by artificial intelligence. So on the one hand, it's a double-edged sword. It's becoming great for things like convenience and efficiencies, but the double-edged sword is it's also becoming a really powerful means of identifying people who do not want to be identified, or are real concerns about privacy violations. And so we're trying to figure out where our jurisdiction and our powers allow us to limit the use of that, and then negotiating with our partners, whether it's federal government agencies or private enterprises that are operating at the airport, where we can put those same guardrails in place for the relationships with them. Crystal Fincher: [00:24:52] Certainly. And even beyond just whether someone has the ability and right to identify you, and whether that's an opt-in situation or not, and privacy concerns - there are also accuracy concerns. And I'm sitting here as a Black woman, familiar with a lot of research and data demonstrating that a lot of biometric technology is not as accurate on people with darker skin tones. And misidentification with - in these contexts, really potentially massive consequences, horrible consequences, life-altering consequences. And so I guess throughout that process, I appreciate there being a thoughtful process to look at that. How are you addressing that and who is involved in the conversations to craft this policy to make sure that that is accounted for and adequately addressed? Commissioner Ryan Calkins: [00:25:52] So we started up the process of a Biometrics Working Group. And Sam - Commissioner Cho - and I, Sam Cho and I lead that working group. And it's been - gosh, I want to say we've been at it for about 18 months now. We have brought in a group of external stakeholders who have provided feedback - experts on AI, the ACLU, some Microsoft experts were there as well. As well as had numerous public sessions, study sessions, a couple of presentations at our public meeting where these experts came and presented. And out of that formulated these seven criteria. We are trying to both address the real concerns that organizations like the ACLU have brought to the table around the inequity of certain of these systems and the fact that there's real data privacy concerns associated with it. And then also avoid putting in place policies that are going to get knocked down immediately in a lawsuit. So we're trying to thread that needle, and Sam and I have been working on it now for over a year, but we think we are going to take the next step here in the next few months on a guiding policy for biometrics at the Port of Seattle. Crystal Fincher: [00:27:20] And you talked about looking at limiting the information that you're sharing with federal immigration agencies. Dow Constantine previously signed an order basically amending lease practices, wanting to ban flights of immigration detainees chartered by ICE. Is that something that the Port is doing, can do, will do in the same vein? Commissioner Ryan Calkins: [00:27:54] We have never had a charter flight like the ones that were leaving King County Airfield, or at least certainly not during the time that I was there. And when those flights were happening out of KCA, and I believe out of Yakima, we immediately went to staff and said - I went to staff and said, "Is this occurring at SeaTac unbeknownst to the Commission? And what can we do to stop it?" And we were given a set of kind of legal parameters and told that should it ever, should we ever be requested, you will know. And so far we've had to avoid that. The good news is Biden won. And our federal liaison, our liaison to the federal government has been working on what it looks like now in a post-Trump world. For me, the real concern becomes - what happens when the federal government is no longer of a mindset that this kind of in-the-dark-of-night flight shouldn't be happening. And so we do need to make sure that we put policies in place that avoid that kind of concern. There are still instances where - well, I shouldn't say that - the most recent instance I heard, of that kind of use of charter flights, was in Yakima, but it's been probably six months since I've been briefed on that. Crystal Fincher: [00:29:27] Would you support banning that type of use? Commissioner Ryan Calkins: [00:29:32] If we could put a moratorium on those flights, absolutely. Crystal Fincher: [00:29:37] I suppose looking ahead - we have a couple minutes left here - just in terms of, looking forward, certainly you're making your case to the voters again right now about why you should be re-elected. What might be flying under the radar right now that you think is really important for voters to be considering as they look at all of these Port races? Commissioner Ryan Calkins: [00:30:02] Yeah. I would ask voters to think about who's bringing ideas to the table that are going to - I think about it, the three Es. So economy, equity, and environment. Who's bringing ideas to the table that are really going to move the needle in those areas? And so we are in a moment at the Port and in the port ecosystem where we really need to get economic recovery right. And just increasing top line revenue is not a good metric. What we really want to be looking at is how many family wage jobs have we preserved or created as a result of our economic development policies. So that's key. The second one is how are we addressing environmental justice at the Port of Seattle? And as I was saying earlier, I don't believe that it's a trade-off anymore. In fact, I believe that those agencies, cities, regions that are embracing industries prepared to take action on climate are the ones that are going to get that first mover advantage and be out ahead as the new clean energy economy really takes root. And an example that I've been working on for the last year or so is the development of renewable offshore energy. So the Pacific Coast has historically not been an area where there's a lot of renewable energy created offshore, but we're going to catch up. And particularly now that President Biden has devoted so much energy to offshore wind in particular. It really started in Europe and has been very successful there, Asia not far behind. Now the East Coast of the United States is developing significant wind farms. And the next is going to be the West Coast. We have some unique challenges because the Pacific is very deep. It drops off really quickly. And so our wind turbines are going to have to float. But they're also going to be enormous. And if my math is right, one of these enormous wind turbines will produce sufficient energy to power all the homes in Edmonds, for instance. And the Port of Seattle has some unique opportunities to be a part of that supply chain, which would mean tens of thousands of union jobs on our waterfront could potentially be activated by the development of that advanced manufacturing, assemblage, and the servicing of these offshore wind farms. And so that kind of idea, we need somebody to build the coalition and get that work done. And so that's my biggest project for the next four years - is how do we bring that part of the green economy to fruition here in Seattle because it'll mean jobs for 50 years, at least. And it's the kind of work that will replace the fossil fuel economy and move us towards diminishing greenhouse gases and local air pollution. And I also think it's just a really fun project to work on. So it's a question I ask of everybody who's seeking my endorsement. What are you doing to advance that kind of project for our region? Crystal Fincher: [00:33:14] Well, certainly exciting to look forward to - certainly the kind of innovation and direction we need to be moving towards, in order to make sure that as you said, this rising tide can lift all boats here in our region. So thank you so much for joining us today - sincerely appreciate it. Commissioner Ryan Calkins: [00:33:32] Thank you so much, Crystal. It's been a pleasure. Crystal Fincher: [00:33:36] Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks. Our chief audio engineer at KVRU is Maurice Jones, Jr. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I, and now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts. Just type in "Hacks & Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our mid-week show delivered to your podcast feed. You can also get a full text transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced during the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in. Talk to you next time.

Today Crystal and co-host Erica Barnett of Publicola give us an in-depth update on homelessness, and what is being done (or not being done) to address the underlying conditions that cause it. And they ask the question: can homelessness be an issue that is solved through a reginal commission, or is it something each city in the Puget Sound needs to innovate around on their own? 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. Find today's co-host, Erica C. Barnett, @ericacbarnett. More information is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources Read about the Regional Homelessness Authority here: https://publicola.com/2021/03/02/fizz-as-homeless-authority-regroups-citys-homelessness-division-is-at-the-breaking-point/ Learn about King County's recent use of hotels in order to house those experiencing homelessness here: https://crosscut.com/news/2021/02/can-king-county-keep-using-empty-hotels-fight-homelessness See coverage of the recent Denny Park encampment removal here: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/homeless/at-denny-park-city-is-quietly-trying-to-sweep-homeless-campers-without-police/ Learn about the continually changing way the mayor is seeking to address homelessness here: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/homeless/seattles-homeless-shelter-surge-unveiled-with-fewer-shelter-beds-more-questions/ Dive into all Erica C. Barnett and Publicola's coverage of current events at publicola.com.   Transcript: Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] Welcome to Hacks and Wonks. I'm your host Crystal Fincher.  On this show, we talk policy and politics with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on politics in our state. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today we're continuing our Friday almost-live show where we review the news of the week.  Welcome back to the program friend of the show and today's co-host, Seattle political reporter, editor of PubliCola and author of Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse, and Recovery - Erica Barnett. Erica C. Barnett: [00:00:51] Thank you so much for having me. Crystal Fincher: [00:00:54] Thank you for joining us again. There's a number of things that happened in the past week to talk about. I wanted to talk about a story that you have been covering in detail at PubliCola, and that is funding for JustCARE running out and the mayor's office raising objections to taking federal money to run the hotels. So do you want to talk a little bit about just what has transpired? Erica C. Barnett: [00:01:20] Sure, so there is a program called JustCARE, which is run by the Public Defender Association here in Seattle, that moved about 130 people off the streets in Pioneer Square and the International District into hotels. And they are still there - they're staying in hotels with County funding, but that funding is running out on March 15th unless the County and or the City can come up with money to pay for it.  Separately, or separate and related, there is the issue of FEMA funding, which I've covered a lot on PubliCola - which is basically since the Biden administration came in, they have decided to reimburse cities for a lot of different things that are related to the COVID disaster. But one is shelter and specifically shelter in hotels, and everything that's reimbursable is reimbursable at a hundred percent and most things are reimbursable. The mayor's office has expended, I would say an extraordinary amount of energy, raising objections to this idea of taking this federal funding that is a hundred percent reimbursable. So the city could be spending money on hotels - and a lot of cities have done this already, San Francisco actually just expanded their program by 500 more rooms - and getting reimbursement of a hundred percent of the costs that are eligible, which again is most of the costs. This relates to JustCARE's because they say that the City should be seeking FEMA reimbursement to expand the program and to continue the program. But the city says that that's not possible for a whole host of different reasons, or rather the mayor's office says this. City Council disagrees with her position, pretty much across the board. But the upshot, I mean, is basically because the mayor is the one who makes these funding decisions ultimately, we have not sought FEMA funding for hotels, and we have not expanded the city's hotel based shelter program to anything remotely like what other cities on the West Coast are doing. Crystal Fincher: [00:03:36] Well, and that's really interesting. And one of the questions was - is there just a philosophical difference from the mayor's office and the approach that certainly Council has favored - for putting people without homes up in hotels. Does that seem to be a genesis of some of this conflict? Erica C. Barnett: [00:03:55] Well, I would say, I mean, I can't sort of get into the mayor's mind and her philosophy. The mayor, I should say, also doesn't talk to me directly. She has not granted a single interview with PubliCola or my previous website - it was called The C Is for Crank - since she became mayor. And I've asked many times, so I'm not going to get into her psychology, but I do think that her policy position has been that hotel based shelters are not a good solution. I mean, she obviously has supported other types of shelters for people experiencing homelessness during the pandemic. One is congregate shelter - she's opened up a lot of mass shelters run by mostly The Salvation Army. And she has expressed support for tiny house villages, which is another kind of non congregate shelter. But when it comes to hotels, for whatever reason, I mean, since the very beginning of the pandemic, she has vehemently opposed doing the kind of expansion that cities like San Francisco and LA have done. Now, the City is finally preparing to open its very, very first two hotels, hopefully later this month, at the end of March or so. That's going to shelter around 200 or so people. But I mean, we're talking about a year, more than a year, into this pandemic and we are just now getting the first couple of hotels that are being funded by the City. Now there are other hotels that various service providers have been running on their own and in some cases with City funds, but as far as these kind of federally backed hotels, we're just totally behind the curve on other comparable cities. And I don't know about the philosophical reasons, but certainly the policy has been, and the result has been, that we do not have many hotel based shelters and we have a lot of big mass congregate shelters. Crystal Fincher: [00:05:57] All right, from what I've read, it seems like the mayor's office has said, Well, this isn't something that FEMA can reimburse in full, so that's why we've decided to not go after it. Erica C. Barnett: [00:06:13] Yeah. Crystal Fincher: [00:06:14] But the City Council has said, Well, if we can be reimbursed in part, isn't that still worth it? What is the thought behind that argument? Well, I mean, obviously, again the mayor is not sharing her intimate thoughts with you, but what has been I guess, the basis of their argument there? Erica C. Barnett: [00:06:35] Well, a couple of things and I think it's actually even a little more complicated than that, because the mayor's office insists and has said over and over to me - and this is when I talk about extraordinary energy, I mean, I have just in my inbox just email, after email, after email from the mayor's staff saying why I'm wrong, and why the City Council is wrong, and why service providers are wrong, and why other cities are wrong, and why everybody is wrong, except the mayor. What they would say is that they believe that no services of any kind are reimbursable by FEMA, so staff at the shelters - the mayor's office says are not reimbursable. Just basically any kind of services beyond running a bare bones hotel, where they drop off a meal a couple times a day and provide security and cleaning, the mayor's office says nothing beyond that is reimbursable. That is not in my report, according to my reporting, according to looking at other cities and according to talking to multiple service providers, that is not true. What is not reimbursable is case management and things like behavioral health care. In San Francisco, that's amounted for about 15% of the total costs. So if you're talking about 85% of the cost of hotels being reimbursable at a hundred percent - so that's free money that San Francisco is receiving. And what they do have to figure out how to pay for is the remaining 15%. And that is not me making up a number. That is actually what the San Francisco Chronicle reported this week as what FEMA has, in the real world, chosen not to reimburse for. I mean, it's just a matter of whether you believe other cities' experience and service providers or whether you don't. The other objection the mayor's office has raised, beyond whether any of this stuff is reimbursable, is that it's onerous in their words, or in the words of a memo from their budget director - it's onerous to fill out all the paperwork and to kind of dot all the I's and cross all the T's to get FEMA reimbursement. It's extremely complicated. And from everything I understand, that's absolutely true. It's super complicated to get money from FEMA - we all know this. The question is, do you decide to do the hard thing and make that choice to do the complicated paperwork and to do all the documentation, or do you say it's too hard? And so far the City has said it's too hard. Crystal Fincher: [00:09:15] Well, I think, and correct me if I'm wrong - I saw statements from, I think Councilmembers Lorena González and Tammy Morales saying, Yes, it may be hard, but we have a responsibility to do everything in our power to fulfill our obligation to our tax paying residents. And try to do everything we can to jump through whatever hoops necessary to get this reimbursement. Has there been other statements on behalf of the Council, or what have they shown their direction will be with this? Erica C. Barnett: [00:09:53] Well, I think the Council - I mean, Andrew Lewis, Teresa Mosqueda, Tammy Morales, have all kind of expressed this frust... Dan Strauss. This week at Council - have all expressed this frustration with the fact that they can allocate funding, but in Seattle, the way our system works is whatever the City Council budgets in their budget authority, the mayor doesn't have to spend. And so if they were to say, We're going to allocate or we're going to express a policy position that FEMA funding should be used, the mayor's office doesn't have to pay any attention to that. And so I think they're using their bully pulpit to sort of say this should be a priority and it is a priority for us. But if the mayor's office chooses not to spend that money or not to seek that money, the Council really can't do anything. And that's just kind of a quirk of the way our system works. But ultimately it is in the mayor's hands. Crystal Fincher: [00:10:53] And is that where we stand now - the mayor has to decide or gets to decide what the direction will be, so we may not actually pursue getting this FEMA reimbursement? Erica C. Barnett: [00:11:04] Well, I think yes. And I also think that looking retrospectively, I mean, the problem too is that FEMA funding, and this is one of the objections they raised to the very concept. FEMA funding right now runs out in September - now that could conceivably be extended. But the problem is that we didn't do this from the beginning. I mean, the money was reimbursable at 75% even under the Trump administration. And now it's reimbursable at a hundred percent going all the way back to January 2020, so had we been funding hotels using this money from the very beginning as other cities have done, it would all be reimbursable now. Everything that is eligible would be reimbursable, so it's almost, I don't want to say it's too late to even be having this conversation, but this conversation definitely should have happened earlier. And I think we'd be in a very different place now if we'd had this conversation a year ago, instead of now. Crystal Fincher: [00:12:06] Yeah, it definitely would have been nice to have earlier. It feels like a lost opportunity and a really disappointing oversight on behalf of the mayor's office. But I guess we are here now and hopefully they will pursue moving forward with that. In a related issue, with the County, I wanted to talk about the Regional Homelessness Authority and where it stands, and what's next, and is there even a next? What's going on with that? Erica C. Barnett: [00:12:40] Well, as you know, Regina Cannon from Atlanta was offered the position - she's with C4, I think it's C4 Innovations. It's a consulting firm that works on homelessness, and she was offered the position of CEO of the Authority, which is basically the Executive Director. And she turned it down. And the reasons she turned it down are not entirely clear, but my reporting indicates that one is that this entity is maybe ungovernable because the idea of a regional authority is that you bring together all these disparate cities, and unincorporated areas, and Seattle, and the King County government itself. And they're all going to get together and agree on essentially a unified regional approach to homelessness. And we've seen again and again, that many of these cities do not agree with the quote unquote Seattle way of doing things, which has been a huge issue from the beginning. What are the right solutions to homelessness? Does it include harm reduction based drug treatment, all sorts of things. Right now where they're at is - they're basically going back to the drawing board. When I say they, I mean the implementation board for the Authority. They're going back to the drawing board and looking at the 17 applicants that applied for the position and considering are any of these folks qualified and somebody we would pick to fill that position. There's the runner-up - is a person named Marc Dones, out of Brooklyn. And I believe Brooklyn - in New York City. And they may decide to take the position, but I think the larger question is - is this authority going to work? Is it governable, and is it going to be a better system than we have in place now, which is essentially all the various cities doing their own approaches to homelessness. And I mean, I think the jury is very much still out on that. Crystal Fincher: [00:15:04] You're listening to Hacks and Wonks with your host Crystal Fincher on KVRU 105.7 FM. Yeah. And certainly I've noticed, and there's been lots of coverage on other challenges, not even on homelessness, but just on a variety of issues, whether it's transportation, the approach to COVID and quarantine sites - that there have been challenges between the County and Executive's office and communication with a number of cities in the County. Certainly with a number of South County cities feeling like they haven't had an adequate seat at the table for many decisions, so it seems like there are challenges overall in being on the same page regionally. And certainly with this issue, there has been a wide variety of approaches and stances with this. So what does it look like for a path forward? What are the options? Erica C. Barnett: [00:16:11] Well I mean, one option, the sort of nuclear option would be to say, Look, this regional authority is not going to work. Right now what it consists of is essentially two boards that are - there's like a governing board and an implementation board, and I won't bore you with the details of what the difference is. And there's some staff, but it's very bare bones at this point. It was supposed to be stood up many months ago. And the original plan - they're basically six months behind schedule now. And it's unclear how much this latest setback is going to put them further behind schedule. So nuclear option is saying, You know what, we need to go back to the drawing board. We need to sort of take all the homeless services that Seattle has been doing and retain them at the City of Seattle and beef up the division that actually does that work and is still doing that work now, and figure out a way forward. And I'll add, this is something I covered this week as well. The Homelessness Division within the City of Seattle's Human Services Department is down to about half of what it was a year ago. And they're doing more work than ever before. And people are leaving because they've gotten layoff notices because of this Regional Authority. And there's just like no certainty, so the more people leave, the more work is left for everybody else, the more burned out everybody gets. And so there's a real brain drain that's happening, as the Regional Authority process kind of continues to stall. Another option is hire somebody from that pool, maybe hire Marc Dones, the runner-up or somebody else who was in the pool, and just kind of keep chugging forward. But I think there's a tremendous amount of frustration among the people who actually provide services to people living on the streets and people living precariously unhoused, because ultimately that's who is supposed to be served by this governance board, governance authority, or the regional authority rather. And I think it's, I don't know. I think just personally I find these endless conversations about governance and structure and process rather frustrating, because what gets lost is that people are dying on the streets and there are thousands of people unsheltered. And the idea that like, there's going to be a perfect process that the County and the cities come to an agreement on that's going to solve the problem is just an illusion. I mean, it's about spending, it's about how we allocate dollars, and it's about getting people into housing and getting people into services. And I think that just really gets lost and has gotten lost for six months in these just endless discussions about how do we structure everything. Crystal Fincher: [00:19:14] I think that's an excellent point and true. That we've gotten away from the fundamental reason why we're having these conversations in the first place - is we need to get people into housing. And I almost feel like that getting away from the fundamental issue and talking about the scale of the problem, compounded by the current COVID pandemic and the challenges that we're facing with recent, very cold weather. And just how hostile it is to be outdoors, that this is a real challenge. And lots of people are interested in not necessarily continuing to talk about how we're facing a big, if not even bigger problem, four years after they talked about having bold big solutions that were going to make a big difference. It seems like this is going to be a significant issue once again, leading up into the mayoral elections. And so I guess, how do you see things moving forward in this conversation with the candidates who are running for City and Council positions? Erica C. Barnett: [00:20:34] Well, what's so interesting to me so far is I get information about polls all the time from - just from readers and people I know who've taken polls. And the issue that all of the polls I have heard about so far ask about - they ask about homelessness, but they also ask about the quote unquote state of downtown, which is I think related to homelessness, but is really conflated with homelessness in these polls. And is going to be a big issue during the campaign. So I think candidates are going to have to answer questions about what are you going to do to quote unquote clean up downtown? And by clean up downtown, I mean, what the sort of dog whistle is there is of homeless people. There's a lot of people living in tents downtown. There's a lot of people living in tents in Pioneer Square and there's just a tremendous amount of suffering and people living unsheltered. I think that's going to be a huge issue. And I think that the dividing line is going to be sort of what sort of approach are the various candidates going to take to this really kind of neighborhood specific question of cleaning up, quote unquote. Again, I'm putting giant scare quotes around that - downtown. Is the response, Well, the issue isn't downtown, it's homelessness and people congregate downtown for reasons. And if we address those reasons, they will not live downtown. Or is it we need to sweep the parks downtown. There was a big sweep of Denny Park, just north of downtown this week. Is it we need to - I mean, I think we'll hear people saying things like, on the more conservative side, saying things like we need to tell them that they can accept services or be arrested, or told to move along. And so I mean, this has been a dividing line, I think in recent elections, period. But I think the pandemic and the fact that a lot of businesses have been closed, and unsheltered homelessness has become more visible as we've talked about before. It's visible because we're not moving people from place to place as much. It's not that it was better before and now all of a sudden, we have this huge homelessness crisis. It's that it's visible to us. I think that's going to be the number one issue during the campaign - the sort of joint quote unquote public safety issue of having visible homelessness and the homelessness issue itself. Crystal Fincher: [00:23:15] Yeah. And I really appreciate you putting that in its proper context. In that those big scare quotes around cleaning up downtown, really being just a workshopped PR massaged way to say, What are you going to do to prevent me from having to see people without homes and to see people on the sidewalks? And that's a very different conversation than saying, How are we going to address the issue of people not having homes? How are we going to house these people and put them on a path to stable housing, stable permanent housing. And it is going to be a very big issue. And we hear the different shades of the Seattle is Dying narrative, which very much talks about homelessness as an issue of crime and vagrancy. And one, homelessness itself being compared to a crime. And two, people without homes being assumed to be hostile and criminal and needed to be dealt with by authorities in some way, instead of helped. They need to be policed or given ultimatums that they need to adhere to and abide by, or they don't have the right to not be in jail. Because they don't have a home or the ability to pay to afford one and so... Oh, no, go ahead. Erica C. Barnett: [00:24:58] I was just going to add, I mean, to the criminality question - it is absolutely true that people commit survival crimes all the time. I mean, I live next to a store that gets ripped off on a weekly basis. And I'm not saying that those are good crimes, or that it's okay to have a society where people shoplift and sell things in order to survive, or in order to sustain an addiction. That's not a good society to live in. And the root causes are not addressed by sort of saying, Well, the behavior is the problem and we need to police the behavior. No, the behavior is not the problem, the homelessness is the problem, the addiction is the problem. There are root causes to these things. And so this is me editorializing, very strongly, that I do think that we should have a downtown and we should have a city where people are not running shoplifting rings and where people are not stealing things to survive. But I don't think that the solution to that is criminalizing the root causes of that, which is what you do when you just throw people in jail and don't treat the underlying condition, which may be homelessness, which may be poverty, which may be addiction, or some combination of all those things and more. Crystal Fincher: [00:26:29] Absolutely. And definitely, we don't want anyone to be victimized in any way at any time. It is not more okay for one group to victimize than others. I think we do need to focus on root causes and solutions. And I also think that what is really easy to do and that we see flavors of the same story - is a person who is homeless committed this crime. We see that very often. That crime may be committed by other groups at a much higher percentage than people without homes. And that context is never provided in there either. And so there is also this inclination, more so by some elements of the media than others, to suggest that crime is being driven by homelessness when there are lots of other causes and lots of other perpetrators besides people who don't have homes. But what that does do - by perpetuating stereotypes that certain crimes are committed predominantly by one group of people when that's not the case, is it creates a lot more hostility towards people without homes. It creates, as we've seen, people who don't have a problem going up and harassing, sometimes assaulting, destroying the property, pushing for these sweeps - it creates victimization. And oftentimes we see people who are emboldened by believing what they hear when that's not true. And so I definitely appreciate you clarifying and speaking out against that and not being part of that problem. I certainly want to underscore, whenever we do talk about this, that the different ways that people talk about it - one, indicate where they're coming from or who their sources of information are. And two, we do need to put this information in the correct context - that we need to solve homelessness, we don't need to clean up downtown. And use that type of terminology for suggesting that we should just get people off of the street. And that you should be suspicious and not happy with people who put this problem in the context of, I want you to prevent me from having to be aware that other people are suffering, as if that in and of itself is suffering. The suffering is the actual suffering. Having to see the suffering is a signal of how bad that suffering is, and is not in any way justifiable to suggest that someone just shouldn't have to look at it or deal with it. We are responsible for solving this issue and that's where we should go, so that certainly is me up on a soapbox. I'm okay to be on that soapbox, but feel very strongly about that. And again, that type of rhetoric leads to victimization of people who were already in vulnerable positions in the first place. And I do not want to see more of that happening. With that said, we are right about at the time, we could certainly discuss a lot more, but time is preventing us from doing that.  I do appreciate all of you listening to Hacks and Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM this Friday, March 5th, 2021. Our chief audio engineer at KVRU is Maurice Jones, Jr. The producer of Hacks and Wonks is Lisl Stadler. And our wonderful co-host today was Seattle political reporter and founder of PubliCola, Erica Barnett. You can find Erica on Twitter @ericacbarnett, that's Erica with a C and on publicola.com. And you can buy her book Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse, and Recovery wherever you want to buy your books. Lots of great independent booksellers here. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii at F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. And now you can follow Hacks and Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts. Just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar, be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our mid-week show delivered to your podcast feed.  Thanks for tuning in and we'll talk to you next time.

Today on the show co-host (and new dad!) Michael Charles of Upper Left Strategies joins Crystal to discuss the appointment of accused sexual assailant Joe Fain by Republicans to the redistricting commission, what may happen as we jump into mayoral and county council election season, and the kind of leadership Seattle and King County need right now.  As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Michael Charles, at @mikeychuck. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Articles Referenced: Read about responses to Joe Fain's appointment to the redistricting commission here: https://crosscut.com/politics/2021/02/groups-denounce-selection-joe-fain-redistricting-commission  Learn more about the redistricting of Washington State here: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/washington-unlikely-to-gain-congressional-seat-but-2021-redistricting-may-still-bring-drama/  Follow the South Seattle Emerald's coverage of the mayoral race here: https://southseattleemerald.com/?s=mayor Learn how to testify remotely before the legislature, and how to follow bills here: https://crosscut.com/politics/2021/01/how-follow-and-participate-washington-state-legislature     Transcript: Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] Welcome to Hacks and Wonks. I'm your host Crystal Fincher. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on politics in our state. And just a heads up this episode does include discussion of a public figure being accused of sexual assault. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a cohost. Welcome back to the program friend of the show and today's co-host political consulting and managing partner of Upper Left Strategies, Michael Charles.  Michael Charles: [00:00:53] And brand new father, I might add now. Crystal Fincher: [00:00:56] And brand new father! Congratulations! Michael Charles: [00:00:59] Thank you. It's exciting to be back and get away for a little bit to come share in gossip a little bit with you.  Crystal Fincher: [00:01:07] Yes. And I've seen the baby and she is adorable. So yeah. Congratulations. Good job. I'm sure you're short on sleep and all that kind of stuff, but how fun. Michael Charles: [00:01:20] Aw, thank you - Team Girl Dad, enjoying every minute.  Crystal Fincher: [00:01:23] Yes. Wonderful. Well, I just wanted to dive in and I guess we will start with one of the big stories we saw this week and, and kind of was surprising to hear it and not surprised to see how the state GOP has acted in the wake of it - but the story that Republicans decided to appoint Joe Fain, ex-Senator of the 47th Legislative District, who lost election in a seat that he was originally presumed to be safe in following allegations that he sexually assaulted a woman several years back.  The allegation by all accounts seems very credible and thorough. This was not something that was just heard of right now - she told other people at the time and the recounts of what she said then versus now, you know, completely match up. There is not a reason to doubt her and of course, as we know that women don't come forward - almost never come forward with sexual assault allegations falsely. The percentage of false allegations are so minute. Meanwhile, the number of women who are sexually assaulted, 1 in 6 is the estimate, and the overwhelming majority don't even come forward at all because of the stigma and blowback and social, professional and mental health, and sometimes legal consequences attached to that. So just always doesn't help - to lay that out upfront.  But wanted to talk about it in that vein and that these were credible allegations against him that were basically addressed by him being voted out and that you know, for all intents and purposes from Republicans' standpoint - they kind of tanked the investigation and brought that to a close in the Legislature because he was already gone. And so they decided and said, Hey, out of all the names that we had to choose from - Joe Fain is the one that we want to head our redistricting effort. And that was shocking and appalling to so many people across the state, including a number of organizations who wrote public letters condemning the action and asking that he be removed. The other Democrats on the commission have asked that he be removed. And that we don't provide platforms and promote people who have been credibly accused without a full and thorough investigation. What's your take on this, Michael?  Michael Charles: [00:04:12] I mean, in short, it feels like it's trolling from the GOP and it feels like a reflection of kind of what's happening on the, you know, the national scale here with Marjorie Taylor Greene and some of this idea of cancel culture, and what role do we have in public life, and who gets canceled and why? And you know, I think seems like it's a weird cross to begin to have your discussion based on, but I feel like it was a move towards politics and not move toward that they thought was best for people. It was a very political decision that led - that's leading to a discussion. There's something about trolling the libs that conservatives get pleasure out of, I honestly feel . And it's unfortunate they don't have the same values and standards in their leadership and they don't hold their leadership to the same standards that we hold ours to. You know, I think it's unfortunate that they chose that path. I think it's really good that we can continue to have these discussions about the values that we hold important to us as a community, as a party, as a region, like we should, we should not want this in our leadership and we should denounce and speak loudly against the party, the interests - that don't find this to be a problem.  Crystal Fincher: [00:05:43] Yeah, absolutely. And I also want to, you know, Republicans have clearly invited this, but this is opposition to people being promoted and platformed who have been credibly accused of sexual assault without there being a full investigation and accounting for what happened. That's not partisan - the desire to want that is not partisan. And also a reminder - Joe Fain was known as one of the most, I guess, centrist and bipartisan legislators out there. He had actually enjoyed the endorsement of a number of Democrats in addition to Republicans on a local level. And had worked in a variety of ways, had voted against some of the more egregious social policies. And so, one - suggesting that the opposition against him was solely partisan and Democrats just trying to get rid of a Republican flies in the face of him actually  having more Democratic support than almost every other Republican in the state at the time. And that the opposition to him is a reflection of our values collectively as a society. This isn't political - many of the people, including myself , have taken the same stance, whether someone is a Democrat or a Republican accused of sexual assault. That is not okay to just act like that's not a thing and to move on like it's not an issue or a problem.  And then as we saw in the articles this week, Republican leadership getting very upset just because they were asked - you know, getting irate and  insulting and belligerent in response to reporters inquiring about this. To have the audacity to think that no one was going to notice, care, or follow up - how detached do you have to be? How detached is Republican leadership that they thought it was cool enough to just be like, Oh, they're, they're going to get real mad about this and that was entertaining, as opposed to people being fundamentally offended at how brazenly they seem to be able to disregard the suffering and victimization of women by their own. And even if they want to stand on the side of, Hey, this is an accusation - let's let due process take its course. Then let it take its course and don't move preemptively, or work around the process, or prevent an investigation and then say, Well, no investigation happened - one wasn't warranted and we can move on like it, wasn't a thing that doesn't exist. Real accountability is needed and demanded, and people are not going to be quiet because they feel it's inconvenient or the one person who they felt tolerable was there. And my goodness, what does it say about the quality of people they have available if this was the best they could choose? Which is what they said. They had a long list of names and Joe Fain was who they felt was the best. I don't think that is being heard like they intended it to be heard, but we hear what they're actually saying. And maybe it's kind of in line with what happened with Loren Culp - man, if that's the best you have to offer, you are in trouble. And if Joe Fain is the best you can do in this capacity, they're hurting.  Michael Charles: [00:09:17] Yeah, I think you're spot on. It's indicative of a party that's dying. I think we're seeing the early stages of what took place in California in the Democratic.. err.. the Republican party dying essentially and no longer being even a player in statewide issues. So, I mean, we're just watching the same thing where a party that's trying to reflect itself of a national party and the values of a national party that just don't reflect the values of the state and people in our state. And they do, but to such a almost radical extent at this point, it's hard to even take them seriously. Although when it comes to something like redistricting, it's harder to dismiss the importance and the reality of the role that putting those boundaries in place play in representing our communities. So it just shows that we need to rethink a process of redistricting ultimately, too, if we're going to think about how - if we're giving a party that does this kind of things fair shot at determining what our state boundaries look like? I mean, I think that just gives greater credence to the case we should be moving to an even more neutral source of establishing these boundaries. Because if we can just put anybody in there with absolutely no recourse, then I mean, if we haven't noticed anything from the Trump era, it's - we should identify these holes in our democracy and our Constitutions and begin to plug them so that we don't continue to just allow people that don't share our values, the stated values, to make big decisions so that, you know, we're in a once in a decade opportunity here and there's nothing we can do about somebody being in there. I think that that's a - again, a reflection of a system that's broken.  Crystal Fincher: [00:11:05] I agree with that and I'm concerned about the re-districting - the redistricting process. You know, it is extremely consequential in the drawing of all of our political boundaries. We hear about terms like gerrymandering and basically drawing boundaries in a way that protects your own folks. And you know, in many cases - in cases that we've seen here, disenfranchises votes that you don't want to count and they do that in a variety of ways. They, you know - and we see it, frankly, right now in South King County. We see it in Yakima County where instead of keeping communities whole, cities whole, and political subdivisions, like cities and counties and different things like that intact - they will divide up these cities and these districts in ways that, you know, include some communities here and excluded there, and they're shaped really weird, and they don't seem to follow any rhyme or reason. And the result is that instead of communities being able to vote together in favor of their interests, they're all split apart into neighboring districts. And instead of being , you know, cohesive in one area, they're split among other areas. So for example, cities of Kent and Renton , Auburn , SeaTac are - Burien - split between several districts. I think Kent has four legislative districts. Renton has several, Burien has several.  And so the city of Kent, which I'm very familiar with - a city of over 120,000 people , a large population of people of color, immigrants, Black people, lots of people call it the Kent-ral District because this is where a lot of people have been displaced to, who used to live in the Central District. And, but it is hard to have anyone pay attention to what's going on here - you rarely hear about this area, this economy, the people here, the needs, because they aren't represented by a Senator, a legislator - there's four or five in the districts and the needs get covered up and overshadowed by several other cities, several other agendas. And it just makes it harder for people to organize and advocate for the issues that affect them and their neighbors because they're in effect separated.  Michael Charles: [00:13:38] And on top of that, it feels like they - especially in these communities, like you mentioned, that are so diverse, made up of so many different groups of people, communities - they'll make it so that the people of color are there enough so that you can't win without getting some of that white population that may or may not agree with your community at all, but they're dependent upon that population in order to get a representative that even agrees with your interests. And so they're in effect like falsely moderating a lot of these districts that would otherwise be, you know, a lot stronger voices, especially around progressive change that actually impacts the communities that live in these districts, you know?  Crystal Fincher: [00:14:22] And so I know I have concerns about these issues being surfaced in the redistricting process and hope that they are, hope that they do follow through on promises to make the process more inclusive. Hopefully, people's comfort with remote technology and remote testimony and outreach now because of the pandemic helps them in reaching out to more people in more locations to get an understanding of how redistricting has impacted them. You know, another example, city of Yakima is not a big city geographically, and in the middle of a very rural area. There is no reason why the city of Yakima needs to be cut in half and one half in one legislative district and another in another half. The only result of that is diluting the power of the vote that people in Yakima have. And when we look at the majority of the population who is Latino or Hispanic in that area and the push to remove and, I guess, destroy the power that they have been working to build - that's one way to do it. And that has been an effect. It makes it harder to advocate for a community, and everyone in that community, and no one should be left behind. And those kinds of tactics that are used to dilute power of people who oftentimes have the least - it's not fair, it's not right, and it has no place in the redistricting process. And it shouldn't be used as a negotiating tool either. This should be a fundamental value that the Democratic party, certainly, and that everyone should stand up for - for the good of democracy and to not allow communities to be separated and torn apart in this redistricting process. Because that's going to continue to have an impact for the next decade and the policy that is passed, and the people that we are able to put into office and whether they reflect us or they don't. Michael Charles: [00:16:35] Agreed. Amazing.  Crystal Fincher: [00:16:38] So we will stay tuned to see what continues to happen with redistricting and also keep an eye on ways that people can get involved and make their own voices heard as those come around. I guess we will move on to talking about the state of Seattle elections. We are in an election year. We have had a number of people announce for mayor so far. We've had a couple , I think - I guess I will say one official announcement for a re-election on the council side. But how , starting with the race for mayor, how do you see it shaping up? How do you see the positioning and I guess strength and the case that Lorena González and, you know, coming from the council and other candidates have made so far. Michael Charles: [00:17:30] Yeah, I think we've seen in the past few weeks a couple of the first, what I would call high quality rollouts from some candidates. And I think we saw Colleen Echohawk, and then we saw Lorena González. And I think with those two now in the race, it's kind of beginning to see some lanes kind of take shape and see where people are kind of trying to jockey for position. And it's really interesting to see Lorena come in and kind of, you know , be what I would assume at this point, just due to her experience and position as a statewide - citywide council member, that's been elected twice as the favorite to - currently in the race . You know, Colleen Echohawk had a good rollout for a first time candidate - seemed to be - have a stance that was a little less clear, I guess, as far as policy points, but still strong and having lots of coverage and just like in excitement levels.  And so it's kind of cool to see this is the first - the mayor's race that we've seen that has democracy vouchers. And I think that makes this situation unique relative to all the other races we've seen in the past. And it'll be interesting to see what role money plays in this process now that, you know, there's a little more strategy involved around getting direct contact to voters and you know, candidates that maybe traditionally wouldn't have been as strong of contenders now have an opportunity. I'm still interested to see - do we see somebody from the DSA/People's Party/Leftist part of Seattle run? I think that shakes a lot of things up , you know - with rumors of like Bruce Harrell getting in or Tim Burgess. I think that that also begins to kind of shake things up as well. So , one of the interesting observations from the last council races that we saw a couple of years ago was that there wasn't a lot of room in the middle for folks post-primary. And what we saw in the primaries was the most ideological candidates ended up getting through, or perceived ideological candidates, due to endorsements, et cetera. Specifically Stranger versus Seattle Times endorsements - kind of seemed like that was the factor. And so there's only two of those lanes to pick. And so it's somebody kind of making it not as clear what those two moderate candidates, or seemingly moderate, relative to a Tim Burgess or a DSA, or, you know, whatever - Socialist Alternative People's Party candidate. I think that if that gets in, then we, I mean, the dynamics of the race change tremendously and the arithmetic to getting through a primary changes what the race looks like.  Crystal Fincher: [00:20:24] Yeah. You know, and that primary math is going to be interesting and does completely depend on who's in the race and how they're trying to position themselves. And what I always find interesting is to look at what candidates say as they're coming in and to see if and how that changes as they continue to run. And see, Okay, maybe I'm not getting as much traction with the supporters and base that I thought when I started. Let me just change my tune a little bit and modify these couple positions and, you know, pick up some support from these other interests that say they're interested and, you know, donating significantly to my campaign. There have - in every Seattle election that I've seen in the past 12 years. It's been a long time. I - there has been at least one candidate who has done that. And, and there often isn't much coverage that - certainly not that people continue to refer to. And so lots of times they get away with that changing of their positions and policies, but it is going to be interesting to see who does that, who is leading , you know, in saying things they actually believe and will be consistent with. And to see what candidates are willing to fight for.  I talked about it a little bit in an article this week, but I do think that this whole idea of, you know - a lot of times the candidate for who is supported by the Chamber and those interests, will come in and they'll be talking about, you know, we're going to find consensus and we're going to bring everyone to the table. And we're gonna make sure that we don't move forward unless we have agreement and my feedback to that is consensus is not a policy. And consensus is not a benefit in and of itself. And we have seen two prior mayors, frankly, with Mayor Durkan and Ed Murray before her, who ran hard on this idea of consensus, and being a bridge builder and just someone who can bring people together - as if that was the goal. And as if that is the benefit and that's a virtue - and it seems to be a recipe for inaction based on what we've seen for them. That they are trying to please so many people and to wait for everyone to agree, which just isn't going to happen, that they wind up doing a lot of nothing and contradicting themselves and announcing big plans that aren't really executed and implemented well, because keeping people together and everyone in agreement is a challenging thing to do. So I think -  Michael Charles: [00:23:17] Yeah, totally. And we saw some of this with like, just even more recently with Reagan Dunn and his comments on homelessness and the fact this guy is serving on the lived experiences council making policy around how to solve homelessness in the region. And people say, Well, we need to have a Republican at the table. I mean, you ask, Well, how is that productive to helping achieve what we want which is ending homelessness if what they want is in direct competition to the very facts and policy discussions - in direct conflict with that, what is the point to having that? Like, how is moral leadership being exhibited if it's more about having somebody have a seat at the table, rather than it is actually solving the problem at hand? Crystal Fincher: [00:24:03] Exactly. And I think people are so frustrated and so fed up at seeing problems not get solved. Yet, seeing some elected officials acting like, Well, we did get everyone together. Look at this wonderful task force. Look at, you know, all these people smiling in the picture that I have announcing this policy. Or, Oh, we passed a bill, but then don't see that it's implemented correctly. They're tired of seeing people act like things are okay and like they are doing a good job when they are seeing things around them not change one bit. And if anything, just get worse.  Someone is going to have to make a case for fixing problems and in a way that people can see and feel in their neighborhood, on their street. They're, you know, as they go to work, to the store and back - that they can see that things are improving meaningfully, not just moving people who don't have homes from one place to another. Or, you know, putting a navigation program in that actually doesn't navigate anyone anywhere. And just seem to have been a way to say I'm doing something without actually doing anything. They, I think, Seattle is ready for someone to make a case for some strong leadership - and not that consensus isn't important, but strong leadership builds a coalition around getting a problem solved and Hey, this is a plan - we are moving towards fixing it. And when people see that you follow through, and that you will move towards getting something done, and that you won't wait for everyone to agree because no one ever will, and actually fixing something - they'll hop on board quickly. And so coalitions are a result of trust and belief in your ability to solve problems. They are not a benefit in and of themselves just to have. Coalitions don't solve problems, coalitions are there to fix problems. And if someone takes that view of it, then I think they will be in a good position to make progress in this race. It'll be interesting to see, but you know, I do want to talk - Michael Charles: [00:26:25] And I think that just on top of just Seattle, I think the whole region - I mean, we're in a unique moment period where I think people are looking to not just Seattle, but really like all their leaders across all - regardless whether they're Democrat, Republican - people just want to get shit done. And it feels like we're - you know, as we've approached the year 10 of the War on Homelessness - you know, the emergency declaration on homelessness and all these things. When does performative become no longer acceptable from our leadership and like really the rubber meets the road? And not that I think anywhere on the West Coast has really particularly done a great job of this. And somehow we're unique in our approaches to these challenges. However, I think we have the people, the energy, the ability to actually solve these big problems if we take the time to find leaders that are willing to build a consensus with people that actually want to achieve something, not just maintaining the status quo or making it - you know, happiness in our region is determined upon the average wealth per person. Like there's just - there's gotta be other determinants we're using and figuring out how do we make life more livable for - especially those that are being left behind. Crystal Fincher: [00:27:43] I completely agree with that. And we have a few minutes left and I actually wanted to talk about the King County Council and politics at the King County level. Those elections are up this year too and there's some real issues that are probably going to be consequential in the election and definitely consequential policy-wise. And for all residents of King County - you just talked about Reagan Dunn and you know, recent issues that he's had and that people have had with his comments. What did happen there?  Michael Charles: [00:28:21] Totally. You know, I - so there's just - he's made comments about the way in which we can solve homelessness and taking very conservative approaches of - you know, we should give people bus tickets and send them outta here. And you know, my idea is putting them out on an island and have everybody live together and - you know, just some of these wildly conservative, based out of zero reality kind of proclamations of what simple, you know, answer there is to solving homelessness, rather than taking into consideration all the facts and analysis and reality of the situation at hand. So I think because of that , we're seeing - and I think what's really interesting in King County, especially over the last four years of our tremendous growth - has not only been tremendous growth and incoming of new populations. And - but also just kind of the, the shifting of our suburban, especially, population from being even moderately Republican to Democrat and, you know, moderately Democrat of the huge, tremendous shifts. And so what we're seeing for the first time is areas that have been strongholds for Republicans in King County, at least as far as the district levels go with King County Council, we're seeing these areas begin to shift and be more Democrat. And I think we're going to see for the first time, all three of the seats held by Republicans are likely going to face very strong and realistic challenges to their seats on the council this year. And a lot of that is due to demographics, but a lot of it is due to this - what we're beginning to see - like this nationalized attitude of the GOP of defending Joe Fains. You remember - Kathy Lambert was very vocal in supporting Joe Fain before. Like I just - I think the shift in values and understanding of what the GOP actually stands for - and I think they're all in trouble out on the East King County and South King County. The other member of that being at risk, you know, Pete von Reichbauer who's been in South King County, but served in that position for a really long time. And, you know, from, 'cause I believe it's your district is, you know, you - Crystal Fincher: [00:30:38] Just south - Michael Charles: [00:30:38] Just south of your district, but you know, I mean, you know, that area has seen tremendous change over the past 8-12 years as well. So I think we're seeing the demographics and timing of what could be a tremendous change. Crystal Fincher: [00:30:53] Well, we are going to keep an eye on that and we'll definitely be talking more about that when you're on again. And we're happy that you are a regular co-host who rotates in here. So appreciate the time that you've taken. And we appreciate everyone listening to Hacks and Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM this Friday, February 12th, 2021. Our chief audio engineer at KVRU is Maurice Jones, Jr. The producer of Hacks and Wonks is Lisl Stadler and our insightful co-host today was Michael Charles, Managing Partner at Upper Left Strategies and new dad. You can find Michael on Twitter @mikeychuck and you can follow his podcast, Cold Brews and Voting Blue on your favorite podcatcher. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, and now you can follow Hacks and Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts, just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our mid-week show delivered to your podcast feed. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com. And in the podcast episode notes.  Thanks for tuning in and we'll talk to you next time.

Senator Joe Nguyen is on the show today to brief us on what's going on this legislative session. Crystal and Senator Nguyen get in to the 2.2 billion dollar relief package currently making its way through the legislature, how the historic diversity of the legislature is shaping policy, collective bargaining and police accountability, and approaching drug policy through a public health lens. 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 @senjoenguyen. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources: Learn about the 2.2 billion COVID relief package here: https://crosscut.com/politics/2021/01/washington-state-unveils-22-billion-covid-relief-plan Read about the Washington State legislature's historic diversity here: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/women-and-people-of-color-in-the-legislature/ Read more about the bill concerning private arbitration and policing here: http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2021-22/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/Senate/5055%20SBR%20LCTA%20OC%2021.pdf?q=20210210160227  Learn about Washington State's potential decriminalization of drugs here: https://crosscut.com/news/2021/02/washington-could-become-second-state-decriminalize-drugs Get a guide to participating in this legislative session here: https://crosscut.com/politics/2021/01/how-follow-and-participate-washington-state-legislature Watch Senator Nguyen's video series, Olympia Explained, here: https://www.facebook.com/watch/366308457495450/181709642929485 Dig deep into this legislative session here: https://leg.wa.gov/   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. So today we are thankful and happy to be joined by Senator Joe Nguyen from the 34th Legislative District who has been extremely active in putting together legislation and really pushing it through. And so I wanted to bring him on to give us an update on all of the things that he's working on and how this session is shaping up. So thank you for joining us.  Senator Joe Nguyen: [00:01:12] Thank you for having me - I appreciate it. Thank you for all that you're doing as well in the community. Your name pops up more than - more than a few times on the stuff that I work on as well so it's always good to see you.  Crystal Fincher: [00:01:22] So what's going on in Olympia?  Senator Joe Nguyen: [00:01:24] There's a lot going on in Olympia. Here, I'll - the first thing I'll kind of tee up is that now that we're in this remote nature of session where it's, you know, a kind of a hybrid. All of our committee hearings are remote. Floor action is a hybrid. I happen to be on the Floor 'cause I'm in the leadership side of things - helping organize. But what I will point out is that it's been fascinating kind of seeing this new paradigm, right? All of our committee hearings - we're literally seeing record numbers of people testify before committees on bills. Usually what happens when you testify on a bill - it's, you know, paid lobbyists who are financially motivated to be there. And now you're seeing regular people - people from across the country, people from across the state - testifying on important issues. We had a a community hearing on the Working Families Tax Credit and we had 343 people sign in from all over as well. So it's been overall positive. Obviously you want to get back, you know, in person and normal as much as we can once this pandemic is over, but that's been kind of the biggest thing - is just the remote nature of session and seeing how people are able to interact with it.  Crystal Fincher: [00:02:25] So what are you working on? I guess, starting off, just to address the pandemic and the financial challenges that people are experiencing because of it. Is there any relief on the way?  Senator Joe Nguyen: [00:02:38] No, I thank you for asking that. I think the biggest thing for us is obviously addressing the pandemic and the first bill that we're working on, that's kind of working its way through to Governor's office right now is a $2.2 billion economic relief. And that's everything from small businesses, to workers, to enhanced unemployment benefits for people as well. We know that in this pandemic, it has disproportionately impacted some communities more than others. And being able to provide that economic relief to get people to be able to stay stable, stay housed, stay home - that's how we get through this. So we have that economic relief that is on the way. I've been a big supporter of just basic needs in general. Ever since I got to the Legislature a couple of years ago, where fundamentally, I think one of the root causes, one of the root problems of our democracy is income inequality. And when you see in Washington State - that has literally, you know, the wealthiest economy in the United States and potentially in the world and you have some of the folks who are the wealthiest people to ever exist in the history of humanity live here. And then you also see rampant unemployment , you see rampant homelessness, you see issues that are a fallout from that unaffordability. You need to be able to tackle that for us to have a society that is just and equitable. So the reason why I say that is because, you know, we've been talking more about TANF - basic needs programs.  What's interesting is that before the Legislature started this session, I made a huge push to reject any austerity measures, right? So in the last recession and the last time we had a downturn, they oftentimes would balance the budget by cutting programs that we actually need. So in Washington State, for folks who don't know, about 87% of our budget - it's constrained. Whether it's constitutionally constrained because you're required to pay for certain things, or you get federal matching dollars for like Medicaid or long-term care - so you wouldn't want to cut those. So you look at the 13% that's left, you're talking like - basic needs programs, higher education, affordability, housing. So there was an effort to potentially go back to special session and make cuts to these programs. We said, no. And luckily we prevailed because now we're able to provide this relief, provide this funding for families. And what I'm most proud of is not actually legislative, but the fact that nobody's talking about austerity, nobody's talking about making cuts to TANF, right? So for me, you know, that's one of those things that you may not notice, but the fact that the narrative and the messaging has changed from, Let's make these budget cuts and tighten our belts. To, How do we appropriately invest in our communities so that we're safe and that we're healthy and that we can make an equitable recovery? That to me has been probably the biggest victory without ever having to pass any legislation - is changing that dynamic.  Crystal Fincher: [00:05:17] Well, and that's huge. And the last time we went through a recession here in the state, that was dominating the conversation. Senator Joe Nguyen: [00:05:24] It was the old part of the conversation.  Crystal Fincher: [00:05:26] Right. And the shift is so dramatic and I think it is led by, frankly , your leadership, a lot of the other newer leaders who've been elected and coincidence - also many more leaders of color who have been elected, who understand the impact of austerity measures within communities and oftentimes feel it a little closer to home. You certainly seem to be leading with a stance of how can we help, who needs help, instead of whether people deserve to be helped at all. Senator Joe Nguyen: [00:06:00] Yeah. I mean, we're not here to nitpick. If you need help, we're going to help you. I think the - my mantra for this year is, Just help people and do it fast. I think that's fair. And what's interesting 'cause you pointed out that it may or may not be a coincidence that this is the most diverse legislature in the history of Washington State. And now these issues are coming to the forefront. I don't think it is a coincidence. I think - I think you know that as well, right?  In Olympia, you know, we see about 2,000-3,000 bills in any given year - 2,000-3,000. Yet we only pass about 200-300ish. So a lot of times people think politics is about right or wrong, good or bad, Republican or Democrat. That's actually not the case. It's making sure that your issue is worthy of being discussed. And for a long time, people like us haven't been at the Legislature, at the table. So those issues don't rise to the top. Now that you're seeing such tremendous champions - Senator Nobles in the Senate , folks in the House - you're seeing tremendous amount of talent and energy behind these issues. And that's why it's being brought to the forefront - juvenile justice, criminal justice reform, things that I care deeply about. We have a whole package of stuff that the Department of Corrections is actually partnering with us to help pass. That would have been unheard of even a couple of years ago. So bringing those new voices to the Legislature doesn't just bring that representation, it brings champions who are going to fight for issues. And I think that's why we're able to have this conversation about investments and not necessarily austerity, because the folks who've been impacted by it, like you said, are now at the Legislature and understand the implications. And because of that, you know, we get to help decide now too. Crystal Fincher: [00:07:35] Right. And I think that's healthy. And I think another area where we are having a more robust conversation than we've had before, and certainly there are people motivated to go further than we have before - in changing the way we approach public safety. So what is being worked on to specifically address the issue of police brutality, abuses , racism and violence and, and public safety overall. What are you guys looking at getting done to move in that direction?  Senator Joe Nguyen: [00:08:06] Yeah, there's a whole suite of bills that kind of work in tandem, so it's been great. One of the benefits, candidly, of having this dynamic where things are more remote in nature is that we've been having these conversations with legislators since this past summer. And usually what happens is that - you get to session, people drop bills, and you kind of quickly try to figure it out. But this has been a very holistic and multi-pronged effort by the House and the Senate and candidly, even Republican Democrats in certain cases to figure out what this looks like. Right?  So you have everything from Senator Pedersen's decertification bill. So you can't just have bad apples moving across different departments . Representative Jesse Johnson and Representative Entenman have a whole suite of bills as it relates to no-knock warrants, as it relates to uses of chokeholds and other things as well. And you're really seeing people try to tackle this problem holistically from the spectrum of issues as well. Senator Kuderer has a bill to raise the standards in which law enforcement officials can become law enforcement officials, so that they're not just necessarily, you know, kind of, out of high school and then go straight into it , and having more training associated with it. And then one of the things that I really wanted to tackle that we've been talking a lot about in the Legislature is the arbitration piece, right? So like we also know that you need to have a quality pipeline of people coming in, people need to be held accountable. And then how do you reform arbitration? And what's interesting is during that process, I started off very much - we should just remove arbitration from collective  bargaining . Which is tough because you have a lot of folks and friends in labor who - this is the cornerstone of the labor movement. Being able to have power to not necessarily allow just the bosses to make the decisions is one of those key pieces. And we've kind of had some nuanced conversations and gotten to the point where there's a couple of bills, but I'll tell you about the one that I have is modeled after Minnesota. So after the incidents over this past year, after George Floyd, Minnesota acknowledged that the arbitration piece is in fact a problem in Minnesota and they had a method to fix it, at least on the first step. And ours is, is trying to, you know, remove the bias associated with potentially the arbitration process, streamline it so that way it doesn't drag on for months and months and months and potentially years, which then leads to all kinds of negative things. But also increases transparency. One of the hardest parts that we had about arbitration specifically is that we just had no data for Washington State. All of the numbers and all the quotes that we would receive about arbitration were national numbers because nobody was really tracking it in Washington State.  And the hard part about the Legislature is that there's 147 people that I have to work with, right? So not only do you need to have their issues kind of well worked and baked, you have to have the information that's available out there to convince 147 people or the majority of them that your issue is worthy. So when you have something that's as controversial or as politically difficult as arbitration, one of the first things we needed to do was first off, you know, make some systemic changes, but also collect that data in order to guide our decision making going forward. So that's something near and dear to my heart. We've been working with the House on their suite of bills, with the Senate, obviously, on ours. And really I wanted to plug in on the arbitration piece because I knew that that was probably the most politically difficult because you're going to get folks that want a certain thing and other folks want another thing. And oftentimes they're diametrically opposed so that's where we're engaging at the moment.  Crystal Fincher: [00:11:31] Well, and one issue that we certainly have have talked a lot about here and locally is - is that of collective bargaining and the role that the Guild contract plays in the local disciplinary process. Because it seems like, Hey, even, even when they make the decision to fire an officer, sometimes that's overturned. And so there can be situations where an officer can actually turn in another cop if they see something that looked wrong to them. And that's investigated - they say, You know what? That was wrong. This is not compatible with our culture and community and what our priorities are. You know, this officer was fired and then they go through the arbitration process or appeals process and wind up being appointed or placed back in their job. And all the local decision-making authority is overruled. And it seems like as long as that's the case, it's going to be hard to shift any conversations about culture or real accountability, if the final authority doesn't rest locally. Is there any work being done on that? I guess, how do you see that? How do you feel that needs to be addressed? Senator Joe Nguyen: [00:12:45] Yeah, I think the hard part about that - is that what we don't want is enforcement by geography. Meaning I would feel very confident for the City of Seattle, which has the Office of the Inspector General, it has the Community Police Commission - to give oversight over that authoritative body. And kind of where we ran into some of the open questions was say, for instance, what if you were talking about Republic, Washington. And if the management necessarily wasn't as sympathetic as they would be in Seattle . We saw this past summer, and this is anecdotal and I want to - I'm making that point on purpose, is that we saw one of the corrections officers was fired from the DOC because he was wearing a Black Lives Matter shirt and he was fired because of it. Where a person who was wearing a Blue Lives Matter shirt was okay, right? In those cases, should we take away arbitration in that case and give them, right? So there are certainly cases that I believe certainly warrant , you know, reforms to the arbitration piece. But if you were to wholesale remove it, you feasibly might run into situations where if management in that specific jurisdiction isn't as sympathetic as it relates to racial equity, you could potentially get worse outcomes. And that's the part that we were having a hard time struggling with because there was no data being captured about what is bad, or what is good - is because there's no way for us to understand how many arbitration cases were out there, what those outcomes have been, and is this a systemic issue? And that's why one of the provisions in the bill was to move basically all arbitration for law enforcement discipline under what's called PERC. It's our state level employee relations board. And by doing that, you first off are able to collect all the data because now all the reports have to live there, but then we are also requiring that arbitrators not just have experience with law enforcement discipline - must undergo racial equity training as well. So they must be reviewing these cases with the lens of racial equity in addition to law enforcement. So that was one of the pieces that we're trying to take out, because I completely agree. There are definitely cases where folks should not be put back on the force and they are and largely because it's a technicality or largely because that arbitrator maybe has a history of being sympathetic toward certain cases and we want to remove a lot of that bias. So in lieu of having substantial information to say that this is a pattern of abuse, this is a good first step to say, Well, I think we're going to remove a lot of the bias because in a lot of these contracts, you're able to pick and choose who the arbitrator is, which then means you can pick who has been sympathetic in the past. So we're taking that away. We're making it that it's a random list and then we're making them be mindful of the racial equity impact. And then also by shedding light on it, by having it at the forefront at the state level , we can see these outcomes more clearly. And I think what likely could happen is that you might see more mediation cases. So they don't actually go to arbitration because they know that they may not necessarily be able to game the system.  Crystal Fincher: [00:15:41] All right. So it looks like it is moving forward from where we are today and collecting the data and setting things up to - if the data shows that there is a systemic problem, which many of us kind of look at the system and say, Yes, there is, repairs -- Senator Joe Nguyen: [00:15:58] Oh, I believe it. I think there is a systemic problem . It's a matter of just proving that and then using that to guide our path forward.  Crystal Fincher: [00:16:06] That makes sense. And another bill that you just were speaking about yesterday in a press conference, does - looks at decriminalization and reducing the - what we're asking police to be responding to and taking low-level possession - and for drugs that are illegal today and saying, You know, this is actually not a legal problem. If anything, this is a public health problem, but we have tried to use the police and the criminal justice system to address this issue and it hasn't done anything to fix the problem. In fact, makes it worse in many ways. So you're trying a new approach. You want to talk about what that -- Senator Joe Nguyen: [00:16:47] Yeah, the treatment and recovery bill. No, first off, I think we're - to the point earlier by having representation and diversity and key experiences - Representative Davis is amazing. She's worked in this space - the treatment and recovery space . Representative Kirsten Harris-Talley is amazing in this space as well. So it's been awesome to see these leaders step up and tackle such a huge problem. We know that the way that we're handling recovery is not good. It's not working very well. We know that the War on Drugs was racist, right? So we need to first off fix the wrongs of the past, but also put resources and services in place to truly help people. Criminalizing people doesn't help them. In fact, it makes it worse because then you have a record, you have legal fees, you have a hard time getting access to services and jobs to stabilize you after the fact. So instead of going the route of criminalizing people for what is a substance or behavioral health issue, we give them the support to address their substance or behavioral health issue. It's not actually rocket science. And what's funny is that the conversations have been pretty interesting across the coalition. And obviously this is gonna be a tough lift, but if you take a step back and you look at like any of the movies or the TV shows that you've seen, whenever there's like a rockstar or a wealthy person who has a drug issue, they go to rehab and everything's fine. So in my mind, it's like, well, how is this different than what a rich person would do?  Crystal Fincher: [00:18:09] Exactly. Senator Joe Nguyen: [00:18:10] Right? Like you don't criminalize them and you give them the support that they need to get better. So this isn't actually a unique concept. This is something that has been done for, you know, maybe communities that can afford to do it. And all we're asking is to lend that same grace and service to everybody else who may not necessarily have that ability. And we know that substance abuse and mental health issues are not systemic. I'm sorry - is not unique to just low income communities. We know that it is across the spectrum. We just believe that if that is the case, we should also treat people the same as you would if they were, say for instance, wealthy. So, and that's kind of why I signed on is first off, this process is broken. Second, we know that there's a better path. We've been doing it in wealthy neighborhoods. Let's extend that service to everybody else.  Crystal Fincher: [00:18:55] Absolutely makes sense. Long past due and our neighbors to the south in Oregon just passed similar legislation with broad support of the public. It seems like the public is ahead of many governing bodies. And fortunately with your representation and like you said, colleagues like Representative Kirsten Harris-Talley in the 37th , have pushed this to the forward and made this a priority. And again, does do more to , you know , both on the accountability side - it is a positive thing when we're asking police officers to be responding to fewer things and to put a more appropriate intervention in place. Handcuffs has not been helpful. It has not done anything to solve the substance use disorder problem. The War on Drugs has , you know, only criminalized people and led people, as you said, to deal with the issues of having a hard time getting a job, being stuck in poverty, having a hard time finding housing for the rest of their lives. So, I am happy that this is moving forward in particular and have done work on it - full disclosure. So and excited to see that moving forward.  Senator Joe Nguyen: [00:20:10] Well and the cool thing too is that this in conjunction with other bills that are out there, right? So everything from expanding graduated re-entry, everything from increasing earned time, everything from investing in what's called iCOACH where you basically are trying to make sure that we reduce recidivism in a very supportive way. I think that's like, you know, it's hard to see on the surface, but like the body of work being done in this space is, I mean, I'm new, but like, from what I can understand, this is not normal to see so much energy and effort in a very thoughtful way, in a collaborative way, right? Like I think you may see some bipartisan support where you would not expect it because I think there are folks who agree that there's a problem that needs to be solved. And this is potentially the path forward.  Crystal Fincher: [00:20:51] Yeah, it definitely appears to be. And you know, you say you're new, but you seem to have definitely hit the ground running and are leading on a wide variety of bills. You talked about income inequality, you talked about needing revenue and bringing some equity to the situation. You know, looking at listening to a conversation from some legislators the other day that Washington has around a hundred billionaires - billionaires - that we, you know, kind of know the publicly available list of a dozen or two, but they're actually many more here in the area. And so wealth is concentrated, not just nationally, but here locally, just in the hands of a few while we can look around and see so many needs that have only been made bigger by the pandemic and by this recession -  you know, the jobs crisis and eviction crisis that people are looking at. So what is on the table and how can people support? Senator Joe Nguyen: [00:21:56] Yeah, so here - one of the first things. So that's also a positive thing too, is that I think the Legislature, the majority of the body, understands that we need to have progressive tax reform. And one of the things that I will ask the listeners is that we need to stop talking about the budget, right? So our job as legislators is not just to balance a budget. If that was the case, it takes, whatever, a couple of emails, we'll work through it with our staff and we drop the bill and we vote and we go home. But that's not our job. Our job is to take care of the economy and the people inside of it as well. So for me, the important thing for us and for our listeners is to start shifting that conversation where I don't care if we have a budget deficit or not. Are we doing a good enough job supporting the people in Washington State and the residents who are here? That's my goal. So when you look at it from that broader context, you're talking things like childcare, you're talking things like healthcare, access to education, access economic opportunity. Those are the things that we need to invest in. And honestly whether we have a 100 billionaires or 99 billionaires, I don't think that that actually materially makes a difference for the workers that we care about. But those billionaires need us. They need workers to help drive the value for their businesses, right? So for me when you look at the impacts of what they could potentially face if you were to have a capital gains or a high-earners payroll or something else, or a wealth tax that you'll see with Representative Frame . If you look at the trajectory of tax rates since the 1960s, it's nearly half of what they were paying before. When I say them, I'm talking like the top 400 families in the United States. While the tax rates for those at the bottom - the bottom 50% has gone up. So we're not even asking them to pay more than what they should be paying. We're asking them to pay kind of what we're paying, right? Like we're not even saying, Hey, you should pay a disproportionately amount more than what everybody else is paying. We're saying, please pay the same thing, at least, that we pay. And we're not billionaires. So I know that people are always nervous to talk about taxes. It's very easy to talk about slippery slope, but I will put out that if you don't own a private island or a spacecraft that can take you to Mars, you probably don't need to worry about these things that we're proposing from a tax policy. And if you do, Congratulations, because you're literally one of the wealthiest people to ever exist in humanity. So, you know, I think as a society that should be focused on taking care of one another,it is okay to ask the wealthiest people ever to exist in the history of humanity to pay what we're paying and use that money to invest in things like childcare and education and healthcare, so that way we can all be successful.  Crystal Fincher: [00:24:25] Yeah. Absolutely. You know, I definitely agree. And I think, you know, you are representing our community on this. We all - when you look at support for policies and where people are at, you know, through polling and other votes, people are there . You know, this is - has been in some ways, a tougher sell within the Legislature than it has been outside of it. And especially as people now are - right now, people are in crisis or closer to crisis than they ever have been before for a large percentage of people. And more people struggling now than have ever been. And you know, being homeless, housing insecure, on the brink of homelessness, you know, without a job, and having to make decisions between, Okay, do I go to work and put my life at risk and while not having, you know, stable or adequate health care, or do I risk not paying my rent or feeding my kids? And these choices that people are being made to make, because the system keeps saying, We don't have enough money - sorry. We can't take care of everyone.  Senator Joe Nguyen: [00:25:40] And it's untenable. It's not an accident that the highest rates of positive COVID testing is in my South King County - parts of my district, right? Communities that have historically been marginalized because they don't have access to healthcare or economic opportunity where they can stay at home. Like it's exacerbated those. And I, and I think for us - and this is what we've been talking about before the pandemic, but for us to truly achieve recovery, you have to provide economic relief for the families who need it the most and economic opportunities as well.  Crystal Fincher: [00:26:09] Well, and I completely agree. And you brought up, you know, communities that are part of your district - looking at Burien . And looking at some of the disproportionate impacts of climate change and pollution on communities here and needing to, you know, Hey, well, we need to try and recover and address this economic crisis and this pandemic. We also have the crisis of climate change that we have got to deal with too. So, you know, I know cap and invest and Washington STRONG are two proposals on the table that look interesting and are garnering support. Where does action on climate and pollution and addressing  those issues stand? Are you making progress on those too?  Senator Joe Nguyen: [00:26:55] Yeah, I think those two are - so just for context, the cap and invest, obviously, is an option. Washington STRONG is a carbon fee similar to what we've seen in the past. What I will add is that transportation is 44% of the emissions in Washington State, meaning for us to truly tackle climate change, we also need to make sure that our investments in transportation is also forward thinking as it relates to climate. So that's going to be one of my main focuses is that - how do we make investments in our infrastructure? Whether it's more multi-modal - getting people out of their cars - how do we, you know, maintain the infrastructure that we have and not necessarily just build more roads. Things like that, where it may not be overt but that also does a big part of alleviating climate change. So to pile on - there's a lot of work that needs to be done. Not enough people doing it, and that's why I appreciate you and your work and everybody else out there to make sure that we're holding our elected officials accountable, but also supporting candidates that we believe are truly in a fight for the things that we need to fight about as well. Crystal Fincher: [00:27:53] Well and appreciate that. And so how can people best support the work that you're doing, the bills that you're working on? How should they get involved with it?  Senator Joe Nguyen: [00:28:02] Yeah - I think the easiest thing to do absent being able to tell you everything right now, is that if you follow us on Facebook or Twitter and Instagram, the handle is @SenJoeNguyen and also if you want to testify, I think that's so important. And if you go to app.leg.wa.gov, it's called CSIRemote. But being able to testify is powerful. Legislators love hearing from regular people. We spend most of our time talking about, you know, stuff that lobbyists want to talk about, like, I'd rather talk to regular people. So if you were to contact me on social media, follow us so that you see kind of, what's going through the pipeline, be able to testify on that, talk to your legislators. I think that's one of the more effective things that we could be doing.  Crystal Fincher: [00:28:40] Absolutely. And so we'll include all of those links in the show notes. So you can just turn to the podcast show notes or the website and get linked up there if you didn't already have that, or aren't already following him. And he is active and informative on social media, so I definitely recommend following and paying attention that way. 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.

The average net worth of a White family in America is 10x greater than the average net worth of a Black family. Let that sink in. In this episode, Tunua sits down with two experts to explore the topic of Coronavirus resiliency and racial inequity, especially during this unprecedented time. Joining LISC LA for this conversation are: Maurice Jones, the CEO and president of LISC National. Andre Perry, a fellow in the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution, a columnist for the Hechinger Report, and a scholar-in-residence at American University. In this episode we explore: {2:34} What Project 10x is and why it is so critical in this very moment {7:20} How leaders can shape public health and economic policy in a way that addresses the past and present impacts of systematic racism {13:43} How LISC has been and will continue to be a driving force for helping close the wealth gap between Black and White families {18:33} How the pandemic has impacted Black businesses and entrepreneurs {23:24} How Project 10x will impact the intersection of racial inequality and public health And so much more

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

This week on the show Crystal is joined by co-host Erica Barnett, editor of Publicola. They get in to Mayor Durkan's floundering attempts to address homelessness, developments of the convention center bailout, and grocery store workers being granted a $4.00 and hour hazard pay increase. A full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Erica Barnett, at @ericacbarnett. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Articles Referenced: Mayor's Office Defends Hotel Shelter Plan as Council Pushes for Tiny Houses by Erica C. Barnett, Publicola https://publicola.com/2021/01/28/mayors-office-defends-low-budget-for-hotel-shelters-as-council-pushes-for-tiny-houses/ Seattle, state look to join King County in multimillion dollar Washington State Convention Center bailout by David Gutman, The Seattle Times https://publicola.com/2021/01/28/mayors-office-defends-low-budget-for-hotel-shelters-as-council-pushes-for-tiny-houses/ The convention business is cratering, and cities are getting stuck with the bill by Mike McGinn and Joe Cortright, The City Observatory https://cityobservatory.org/the-convention-business-is-cratering-and-cities-are-getting-stuck-with-the-bill/ Seattle City Council approves $4 per hour mandatory pay boost for grocery workers during COVID-19 pandemic by David Gutman, The Seattle Times https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattle-city-council-approves-4-per-hour-mandatory-pay-boost-for-grocery-workers-during-covid-19-pandemic/ Seattle ‘hazard pay' bonus for grocery workers likely to begin next week by Ben Adlin, South Seattle Emerald https://southseattleemerald.com/2021/01/29/seattle-hazard-pay-bonus-for-grocery-workers-likely-to-begin-next-week/   Transcript: Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] Welcome to Hacks and Wonks. I'm your host, Crystal Fincher. On this show, we talk with Policy Wonks and Political Hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on politics in our state. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host, Seattle political reporter, editor of PubliCola and author of Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse and Recovery, Erica Barnett. Erica Barnett: [00:00:49] Hi, Crystal. Great to be here.  Crystal Fincher: [00:00:51] Great to have you on again. Well there's a lot going on this week and I think we want to start out talking about Mayor Jenny Durkan's shelter surge plan that seems to be in trouble. What is the plan and what is happening with it?  Erica Barnett: [00:01:08] Well, the original plan was announced last year in October-ish. And it's to add a bunch of new shelters, mostly in hotels. The idea being that people will be taken off the street by outreach workers, put into hotels, and just sort of stabilize there - and move quickly to either permanent supportive housing which is a very kind of service-intensive, expensive kind of housing for people who can't live independently , or rapid rehousing using vouchers, essentially, that they can spend on the private market for a short period of time. And the idea is that they would then be able to pay market rate rent within a year or so. What's happening with it this week and as we reported exclusively at publiCola is that the plan is sort of or at least a large component of the plan - one of the big hotels - has fallen apart. And , and the city is scrambling to find somebody to provide those rooms. The issue is that the mayor's office and the city budget office have capped the amount that can be spent on these rooms at a rate that providers are saying is way too low for them to provide the kind of services that would actually make people ready to move into this market rate housing. And the difference, the money difference, is pretty significant. And so that - that larger of two hotels that they're planning, which is a 155-room hotel , has fallen through. And now they're scrambling to find a new provider. It was going to be the Public Defender Association, but - but no more. Crystal Fincher: [00:02:35] So they're at the point where they're saying they are getting ready to roll this out, and now they're down a provider. And the feedback that they've gotten from the providers that they're looking at moving forward with is that the money may be too low to actually provide the services and, and provide the outcomes that the program was supposed to provide? Erica Barnett: [00:02:59] Yeah, so the Public Defender Association does a program called JustCare, which got a lot of positive press. It's down in Pioneer Square in the Chinatown International District. And basically they - they cleared out a bunch of encampments there and moved people into hotels. And it's - it's an expensive program because you're talking about people who have really high needs, so they're providing behavioral health care, mental health care, addiction services. And and so the idea was to basically expand - at least the PDA's idea - was to basically expand that program. They're going to move it into the Executive Pacific hotel downtown. And this is all according to our reporting - the city has not actually said any of this publicly, but we've talked to the PDA. And they're saying we can't do this for $17,000 a bed, which is what the city is essentially willing to provide. You know, it costs - it costs about $28,000 - we need more money. And, and that's kind of where the impasse is - are we going to do this service-rich program that gets people ready to move into housing or are we going to do a low-budget program that, you know, we're just going to put people in hotels and move them on and hope for the best. I mean, I'm not saying that the whatever lower budget program they end up with, assuming this moves forward, is going to be a bad program, but it's going to not have all of the services that they were originally intending to provide when they started talking about this. Crystal Fincher: [00:04:21] One, and originally intending to provide - and that seemed to be necessary to successfully transition people out of homelessness into stable housing. You know, the, the goal of this, certainly, we want to get everyone off of, off of the streets , out of unsafe and unsheltered situations, and to have shelter first and foremost critically, but, but it is also important to provide people with the assistance that they need to transition into stable housing. And I guess the question is, as you referenced, there are different populations within the unhoused population. There are people who are recently homeless, who oftentimes just need some financial assistance to get back into a stable situation. Then there are people who have more , you know, intricate needs and more service needs, whether it's mental health issues, substance abuse issues, that, that really need those programs and support. So is there information on who our existing population is and, and does this solution work for them? Erica Barnett: [00:05:33] Well, I mean, what the - what the Public Defender Association has told me is that the JustCare clients that they've worked with have had very high needs. And, and I think you're - you hit on exactly the point. I mean, there is no one population of people who are unsheltered. But a lot of times when you're going into encampments and people who have been chronically homeless for a very long time and you know, are, are not going into the traditional shelters that are on offer, you're talking about people who do have high needs. And, and I think with anybody in the current housing market - I mean, yes, rents have gone down a little bit in Seattle, but anyone going into the current housing market with a rapid rehousing subsidy is going to need that subsidy for a really long time. And ordinarily, those are capped at three to six months. Now the city is saying they're willing to pay for more like a year, but - but then what happens when that year runs out? I mean, at that point as I've also reported, you know, you are expected to pay the full market rent for whatever apartment you've found and it's considered successful if you're paying 60% of your income on rent, which is very, very rent burdened. So there's just - there's just a lot of problems with the current sort of two tracks that we have, which are permanent supportive housing - very high needs, you're always going to have a subsidy for the rest of your life, or rapid rehousing - you know, 12 months and you better be on your feet and earning a high enough income to pay for that apartment. And there's not a whole lot for people who fall in between those two tracks.  Crystal Fincher: [00:07:03] But, you know, this seems to me - Jenny Durkan has certainly experienced criticism for not following through on the details or paying close attention to the implementation of her plans, and them not panning out as they were originally sold. This seems like it's heading in that same direction. What are the options that are available moving forward? Are they just trying to force it through as-is?  Erica Barnett: [00:07:30] Well, I think what they're doing is scrambling right now, as we're speaking, to find - to find another provider for that second hotel. And , and to - to maybe find a - there's actually supposed to be a third hotel. And so to maybe find a provider for that third hotel that'll, you know, altogether make up the 300 rooms that the mayor promised. But I want to pivot, if I can, to the tiny house village proposal that's on the table now, because you talked about Durkan making promises. She said in her campaign and, and during her first year, that in her first year, she would build a thousand new, tiny houses in villages around the city. So far, the city has less than 300 total and most of those aren't new. So Andrew Lewis on the council has proposed sort of on a totally separate track to build a 480 new tiny houses in 12 new villages around the city over a couple of years. And so that is another shelter option that's moving forward kind of without, without the, I mean, you know, with the mayor's cooperation, certainly, but the deputy mayor was talking at the council meeting the other day. And you know, he seemed to - just he was describing this as happening on a completely different track and, you know, and speculating about how it would work with the mayor's plans, which, you know, just really haven't gone anywhere as far as tiny house villages are concerned. Crystal Fincher: [00:08:53] Well, and, and Councilmember Lewis' plan is interesting and it looks like it is relying on a mix of city money, taxpayer money, and privately funded money - is that correct?  Erica Barnett: [00:09:05] Yeah, it would be city money for operations and private money for actually just the physical construction, you know - here's the land, money to build these these tiny house huts that people live in, and then, yeah - and then the city would pay for ongoing operations.  Crystal Fincher: [00:09:21] Okay. Well, I mean, it seems, at least it's - kind of the, the general conversation that has needed to move forward into more effective housing solutions. Even with the mayor's plan and where she originally started - it seems like that - and with the tiny houses, we are acknowledging that people need private spaces with shelter. That the big, huge congregate shelter settings are certainly not ideal and that hinder progress and the ability to get in a position where you can transition into more stable housing. Has that been an intentional focus? And are they looking at moving away from group shelters even more in the future? Erica Barnett: [00:10:03] Well, I think that that's a Council-Mayor difference in some ways. I mean, and there's - there's good and bad things about both approaches, right? I mean, on the one hand, everybody would prefer, I mean, pretty much universally - if you offer people tiny houses or hotels, they say yes, whereas if you offer people a bed in a shelter - and we are mostly doing enhanced 24/7 shelters now, so it's not so much the mat on the floor model and get out at 7 in the morning anymore - but people don't like those as much, for what I think are very obvious reasons. Which is that, you know, you have privacy, you have some dignity, you have a door that closes . On the flip side, I will say, that when you have - when you invest really heavily in these programs, you're investing in a program where people don't move out into housing very quickly. They tend to stay in tiny house villages for a really, really, really long time. And so there's not a lot of what they call throughput. And so, so the question is, you know, in my mind, is are we building, essentially, a, you know, an inferior form of semi-permanent housing by putting tiny house villages all over the city and sort of avoiding the larger issue, which is that people actually need permanent housing. I mean this isn't to demonize tiny house villages in any way, because I think they are obviously really desirable to people. But I think that one of the reasons they're desirable is they're kind of a quasi-form of housing. And you know, I don't know - I don't know that we want to be a city and you know, I'm gonna get in trouble for saying this, but where it's just Hoovervilles everywhere and no housing. Like there needs to be housing to move people into.  Crystal Fincher: [00:11:35] Well, there does and I guess that - that brings up the question you talked about - the city money being used for services. Are those services the types that have shown to be effective for transitioning people into permanent housing? Erica Barnett: [00:11:47] Are you talking about the hotel - the services in the hotels? Crystal Fincher: [00:11:50] The services for the, the tiny house villages. Are there going to be services provided there or is it just, Hey, here's a tiny house and, and we will leave. Erica Barnett: [00:11:59] Oh, absolutely. No - there's case management and they, and they certainly provide services. I mean, this is also the case with JustCares, which is hotel rooms. That's another option that people stay in for, for a long time. And I think it's not - the problem is not so much that the services aren't there and that - because people do stabilize in these situations where they have some privacy and they have some dignity. People get better in, you know, in their lives. But the main - the, you know, the overriding condition of homelessness, I mean, you're just never gonna address that unless you create permanent housing solutions. And I don't mean permanent supportive housing for everybody. I mean, things like long-term subsidies. I mean, there's a lot of people in this city, as we've seen with, you know, the eviction moratorium. There's a lot of people who just can't pay that last $500 a month. You know, or $200 a month or whatever it is, that's keeping them from, from, you know, from staying in their places and that's making them subject to eviction. You know, I don't know why this is something that the city has been so reluctant to do. I think it's 'cause rapid rehousing is just in vogue right now because it feels like a market-based solution. But when you're throwing people under the market, there's no safety net really if , if they fail.  Crystal Fincher: [00:13:06] That's definitely true. Well, I think that - well, I think your coverage on this, on publicola.com has been excellent. And I encourage people to continue to follow along with where this process is going and provide feedback to the council and to the mayor about how you feel about how this plan is proceeding. Are there any conversations about increasing the amount that's available per room, or is the mayor just saying, That's it, - you gotta make it work.  Erica Barnett: [00:13:36] Well, this is all - this is all happening, I should say, sort of internally right now at the city. The mayor's office will probably be willing to give a little bit. But the other day - there's this really interesting moment in the council meeting where Deputy Mayor Casey Sixkiller was saying that the - the DESC in Renton, Downtown Emergency Service Center - which has a hotel in Renton that they have - that they're using as a shelter is able to do it for super cheap so that's the baseline for what should happen in Seattle. And there's just - there's so many things wrong with that, with that line of thinking. I mean, one is that he's not comparing apples to apples in terms of what that money is paying for in Renton. The other is that Seattle is more expensive. And the other is that DESC actually put forward its own plan - and its own plan for this hotel in Seattle was much, much more expensive and very much in line with all the other plans that everybody else submitted for , for these hotels. So I think the providers are saying, Look, this actually does cost more money than you are saying that we can spend. And the mayor's office, the city budget office is saying, You know, sorry, but we need that money for rapid rehousing because the rapid rehousing component of the hotel shelter plan is about twice as much as , as the services component. So they're, they're spending pretty lavishly on rapid rehousing to kind of get people into apartments fast, but the sort of step zero of, you know, helping people with their behavioral health issues, helping people with , you know, all kinds of barriers to housing that people have , is just, is, is being kind of not invested in Crystal Fincher: [00:15:12] Just a reminder that you're  listening to Hacks and Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM. I'm your host, Crystal Fincher, and today we have a guest co-host, Seattle political reporter, Erica Barnett. Part of the other issue with the DESC benchmarking it off of that was, was also - we want to pay people living wages. Seems like the focus is on just, Well, we just need to get people in - I'm sure the promise that she made is weighing heavily on her and the ability to say, All right, fine - there's more - we did it. I'm delivering what I said I would - is a motivating factor.  Well, we will continue to keep our eye on that and we'll transition to talking about the bailout of the convention center. Dow Constantine - I feel like it was about six weeks ago -  you know, somewhere around then, announced that he, from the County perspective, had put together a plan for a massive bailout of the convention center that is ailing and struggling. Obviously in this pandemic, there are not companies coming from across the country and internationally - to fly all their people in and have big conventions together. So they are struggling and the question is - looking forward, are they going to bounce back and be able to make good on these on, on basically this, this loan? And furthermore, does it even make sense to continue to invest in the convention center? Are we going to see a long-term shift in the way that, that these types of conventions have been? What's going on with that right now?  Erica Barnett: [00:16:51] Well, the the city, I mean, you've, you've basically laid out what the situation is. I mean, the city and state have both said that they are open to providing loans to , to bail out the convention center even further. The boosters of convention centers say that they are critical for the region's economy and they're where, you know, tourism comes from, and people could, you know, they can cite however many, you know, people come in here. I mean, it feels a lot like , like the way that boosters sell arenas - that they make their money back in the overall benefit to the economy from people coming into the city, et cetera, et cetera. I am not aware of a lot of research that backs that up. Admittedly, I'm not an expert on convention centers, but I think that by and large, the reason that people come to a city like Seattle is not to - what - to sit in, you know, a windowless meeting room. And that a lot of that stuff is being done online now and I think will continue to be done online. I mean, if you're talking about a large meeting of a you know, of the business affiliation group, for example, or a large meeting of a company - I think there are a lot of lessons that we've learned during the pandemic that are going to continue and persist after the pandemic. And one is that we don't need these large, you know, giant gatherings. And I think the city really should be promoting tourism in a way that is about what is good about Seattle, not, you know, this is a great place to have your convention because of this and such tax breaks or hotel breaks or whatever it may be. But this is a great city because of the outdoors, because of Pike Place Market, you know, et cetera, et cetera. There's lots of, there's lots of reasons to come visit Seattle. I don't think that giant conventions are by and large gonna continue to be among those in the future.  Crystal Fincher: [00:18:37] Beyond that, we are in a recession, which you know, doesn't have prospects of getting better anytime soon without any stimulus activity . Started at the federal level, which is looking bleak beyond the little $2,000 amount that they are talking about as a one-time thing. And so even, even companies' ability, even if they wanted to continue to do that, has been hampered. The convention center is in need of - they're saying a $315 million loan in order to be bailed out. The County started and said, Hey, we'll, we'll be in for a $100 million from its investment pool. And they're hoping to be paid back through hotel tax revenues from another industry that is definitely struggling. Erica Barnett: [00:19:26] I think that , you know, even if you look beyond - I mean, because I do think that it's important to look beyond, you know, current recessions and look at , you know, just kind of the, the ongoing, you know, up and down of the economy and, and assume that we will come back at some point. But even then, I mean, I would really like to know and I, and I haven't seen this, this analysis done - what would be the impact if we stopped? If we just - if we stopped building it . The argument for - from labor, for the convention center, you know, has been that it will create a lot of jobs in the short-term. And okay. So let's, let's count up what the impact of that is and then what will be the ongoing long-term impact? You can even make it the worst case scenario, you know, take it from the point of view of the convention center itself and, and, and just figure out what, what if we stop ? Because I think there is this tendency with huge projects to just keep going with the forward momentum. Because you know, we've already invested so much money, so we have to keep going, we have to keep going no matter what. Just pour, pour, pour more money into it. And and I, and I do think that the stop option is not one that we even consider because it just feels impossible. And, and I think that, you know, I, I think that the region should just take a breath and consider whether we need to keep pouring sort of infinite buckets of money into this one project in downtown Seattle that that so many people have staked so much so much on sort of mentally, emotionally , financially . You know, and maybe the answer would be, No, we absolutely have to keep going because we're almost there and it just needs this little push, but, but let's, let's find that out and let's just take a pause instead of sort of all these panicked infusions of money, which is what it feels like. And these are, these are loans, but you know, it is not unprecedented for loans not to be paid back. I mean, if, if the convention center fails you know, that is, that is a possibility. And so when the city, state, and county say, Well, these are all repayable loans and we'll, we'll make interest on them. You know, I think we need to consider that that is not a sure thing. Crystal Fincher: [00:21:28] It's definitely not a sure thing. And, and part of the, the consideration of spending, especially, you know, providing public loans is - is what is the benefit and what is you know, will it, what activity does it stimulate? How much money can we generate from this loan? And you want that to be moving in a positive direction and to have multiplier effects. And that we'll wind up further ahead in the long-term if we provide this loan right now. And it just doesn't appear that that is a solid calculation with this. But we will see - again, encourage people to continue to stay engaged with this. As always, we'll be putting links to articles and information about these in our show notes that accompany the podcast. So you will be able to get more information there. But it's certainly a challenge. But speaking of helping workers, there is a - in my view - was a very positive step taken this week. And that was by providing grocery workers with hazard pay. What ended up happening and what did the council approve?  Erica Barnett: [00:22:37] From what I understand - and I apologize, I did not cover this specific , this specific initiative because I was sort of deep in in homelessness land this week. But the upshot, as I understand it, is that grocery stores, which are defined as, you know, stores over a certain size that are, that sell groceries. Or stores over another certain size that sell, you know, 30% or something like that, of their , of what they sell, is groceries. So, so big grocery stores have to pay $4 more an hour to their workers because of evidence that, you know, well, first of all, they're essential workers. They are providing food that people, you know, obviously rely on - the grocery stores are necessary and these workers are putting themselves in harm's way. They get COVID at a higher rate. And so so this is, this, this is, you know, as, as the legislation says, it's hazard.  Crystal Fincher: [00:23:24] Yeah, absolutely. And, and it is Seattle grocery businesses with 500 or more total employees that qualify for this. So most of the grocery stores - and as we continue to learn, as, as we get further in the pandemic, just being indoors is a risk factor. And as customers, we can, you know, go in and go out. But, but they're forced to be indoors for, you know, hours and hours at a time. And so this is a recognition that they are facing an increased risk and they do deserve increased pay because of that.  Erica Barnett: [00:24:00] I totally agree. And, and slash, but I would say, you know, it does , it does feel like when we see these kind of one-off pieces of legislation that pick one category of worker , one category of essential worker ,to receive hazard pay or to receive benefits that absolutely makes sense and that are absolutely rightful. I don't know where grocery workers come from specifically as opposed to hardware store workers or other retail or garden store workers. You know, other retail workers who are also, you know, inside all day, coming into contact with people all day in the same conditions as grocery workers. And so it's , it's a little frustrating to me watching legislation being made in this way, because if the, if the conditions are the issue, let's make it across the board for every large business over a certain amount of employees, say , and that has employees that are in X condition, you know, standing at a checkout counter all day or in the indoors all day, you know, with a certain number of customers coming through. It seems to me that it is, it is very strange that I can go down the street to my QFC and the grocery workers there are rightfully getting $4 an hour more, and then I can go to Lowe's across the street and those workers aren't because they don't sell groceries there. So I just, I think if the issue is the condition - let's address the condition. If the issue is , is that people are being exposed to COVID let's, let's let's address that. Otherwise it feels a little bit like you know, like legislation being made at the behest of a particular, a particularly effective lobbying effort. And, you know, and I, I just, I don't, I don't want to see legislation being made based on lobbying. I want to see it being made based on, on, on science and fairness. Crystal Fincher: [00:25:54] Any person working in a retail or customer-facing environment that has to be indoors in that shared space should be receiving hazard pay. You know, the delivery drivers who are, who are interacting with us, bringing food and groceries and, and, you know, delivering packages and goods - in my view, deserve hazard pay. You know, this is a time when, when many people are fortunate enough to not have to have higher exposure to the virus. And we are counting on people to do that in our place in order to, you know, continue our quality of life, really. And so I think that's a very valid point. I do know that there has been data cited specifically for grocery workers. Now, whether that data is also a function of you know, industry supported research that others may not have access to is a very valid question.  Thank you for listening to Hacks and Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM this Friday, January 29th, 2021. Our chief audio engineer at KVRU is Maurice Jones, Jr. The producer of Hacks and Wonks is Lisl Stadler. And our wonderful co-host today was Seattle political reporter and founder of PubliCola, Erica Barnett. You can find Erica on Twitter @ericabarnett and on publicola.com. And you can buy her book Quitter: a Memoir of Drinking, Relapse, and Recovery at wherever your favorite bookstore sells books. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, and now you can follow Hacks and Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts, just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our mid-week show delivered to your podcast feed. And as always, full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time. .

Today Crystal is joined by a new co-host for our weekly show, the inimitable Marcus Green! Crystal and Marcus get in to the inauguration, how we need to continue to be involved in policy after the election, the Seattle Police Department's response to officers who attended the Capitol Hill insurrection, and the refusal of some police officers to wear masks – even when at a hospital. A full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Follow Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii, and follow Marcus Harrison Green at @mhgreen3000. Learn more about Hacks & Wonks at www.officialhacksandwonks.com. References: Hear how to pronounce Vice President Kamala Harris' name here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYkZkpLQUS0 Learn about why it's important to pronounce names correctly here: https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20210108-the-signals-we-send-when-we-get-names-wrong Read Seattle Times coverage about the SPD officer's refusal to wear a mask here: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/spd-reaffirms-mask-guidelines-after-hospital-incident-that-blew-up-on-twitter/ Check out The South Seattle Emerald's continuing coverage of the upcoming Seattle mayoral race here: https://southseattleemerald.com/tag/seattle-mayoral-race/ Read guest Marcus Harrison Green's Seattle Times column here: https://www.seattletimes.com/author/marcus-green/ Transcript: Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] Welcome to Hacks and Wonks. I'm your host, Crystal Fincher. On this show, we talk with Political Hacks and Policy Wonks to gather insight into state and local politics and policy through the lens of those doing the work and provide behind-the-scenes perspectives on politics in our state. Today, we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a guest cohost. Welcome to the program today's co-host and publisher of the excellent South Seattle Emerald and columnist with the Seattle Times, Marcus Harrison Green. Welcome Marcus!  Marcus Harrison Green: [00:00:31] It is such a pleasure to be here, Crystal. Thank you so much for having me. This has been a long time coming and I'm glad that I'm here. Crystal Fincher: [00:00:39] Absolutely a long time coming. I'm such a fan of your work of the South Seattle Emerald. I have just followed you for so long - your writing, your columns, everything that you're doing. And now the South Seattle Emerald is a resource that I and so many people refer to every day for critical information about our community. So I am just thrilled that you are here. And so what happened this week? Just a couple things, right? Not too much. Pretty low-key, I guess. So starting off, what, what kind of everyone was paying attention to for so long - the culmination of the 2020 election. This week we had the inauguration of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. So there was a lot surrounding that - I guess, your thoughts on the events of the day? You know, we were kind of holding our breath to see if there was going to be any violence that day. Lots of people have feelings about, Okay, so what does this actually mean in terms of changes of policy moving forward? As you are absorbing this, I guess, what did you take from the inauguration and what are your views on what lies ahead? Marcus Harrison Green: [00:01:51] Yeah, I mean, I, it's a small thing, but it was - I was like, I was hoping that the Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who swore in Kamala Harris, would have gotten her name correct.  Crystal Fincher: [00:02:04] It's not a small thing, and it is a significant thing and - Marcus Harrison Green: [00:02:08] It is a very, very significant thing. You're watching it and you're like, Ooh, 'cause you're seeing it in her eyes. It's just like, but you know, but other than that, right, the rest of the day in terms of the inauguration day seemed to go off pretty much without a hitch relative to what many people were expecting. Like, I'll say this. I mean, I certainly was on alert for any violence that was going to take place, but it, you know, it's really was a fairly low-key day in the sense that it was somewhat normative, right? And, and I think that was - I think that was the main message that they were trying to convey, right? I mean, as much as I've been critical over our past presidents and heck, this one, that we are newly - our new president as well. If there was sort of something about - and look, all inaugurations are propaganda, let's be honest. But there was something about, right - seeing all the past presidents there together. You know, obviously it's a photo-op, but sort of this message of, Okay, we've gotten through sort of this one bout of chaos, most likely to go through another bout of chaos, but at the very least it was like, we can be calm and assured and breathe at least a sigh of relief for 24 hours. And I think that's really kind of what the nation needed regardless of, you know, what, where you fall along the spectrum.  Crystal Fincher: [00:03:42] Yeah, I agree. I mean, one of the, just kind of huge picture hallmarks of democracy is the peaceful transfer of power. And this has not been a completely peaceful transfer of power, but there is something to just the, the ceremony of handing off power. This is not something that - I think we've seen - we can take for granted. So now that we've been able to move on, I mean, I certainly saw a lot of conversations from people going, You know, there, there are some problematic histories and issues that we have with, you know, Joe and Kamala. This isn't going to be any different and why is this worthy of celebration? And I think that we can hold space for multiple things at one time when we look at this inauguration. Certainly, people may have issues - and justified issues - with some of Kla Harris's policies and Joe Biden's policies. I am one of them.  And , but I do think that there is space and it is okay and, and shoot - with all we've had to endure, it is okay to, to take a moment of joy and celebration and commemoration to mark us seeing a, you know for me, certainly - a Black woman , an Indian woman being inaugurated as the Vice President of the United States of America. This is something we have never seen before and, and little boys and girls growing up now can say, Oh, this is something that, that is normal. This is in my realm of possibility. I see someone there and can put into context that they belong there. It does not seem foreign anymore and, and, you know, certainly they're going to be facing a lot of obstacles and, and everything that is the challenge of running federal government and trying to move policy. But I do think that - and also celebrate that - Wow, one, we just got rid of a nightmare and you know, at least we are not going to be continuing to head full speed down that road. Now we're gonna, you know, push in the right direction as hard and as fast as we need to? To be determined. But for that day, I am, am with everyone else and saying, let's pause and celebrate. Let's feel this joy. Marcus Harrison Green: [00:06:08] Right. It's more of a - it's almost like a holiday of catharsis, right? In the sense of, No, it's going to take a much more than, right, an hour and a half inauguration to heal true. But at the very least, it's sort of a, Hey, we can stop. And we can just pause, and we can reflect, and we can - I mean, I hate to admit this - but like I found myself singing with the Garth Brooks, you know, during the Amazing Grace rendition. And I'm just , you know, I had to almost catch myself. I'm like, You know what? Whatever, right? I mean, I mean, this is a time to invite a level - yes, of healing. But let's be honest though - a level also of accountability, you know, in our country. Right. And you can't have healing without accountability.  Crystal Fincher: [00:06:59] Right.  Marcus Harrison Green: [00:06:59] And you know one of the things and look - I think, quite frankly, the, you know, Biden's speech - it was a little overblown with some of the praise and, and the lauding of it - I think Chris Wallace called it "the best he had ever heard." I'm like, come on.  Crystal Fincher: [00:07:12] Oh my gosh.  Marcus Harrison Green: [00:07:14] But I mean, it was, it was definitely better than his predecessor's. Crystal Fincher: [00:07:17] Yes. Marcus Harrison Green: [00:07:18] But , right - exactly.  Crystal Fincher: [00:07:20] And I think that's - that's an example of moving forward - like, okay, we have to recalibrate the bar that we have. The previous bar from the previous president was, you know, underground. And so, you know, yes, it is better than that, but, but how can you not be? And so it's kind of this recalibration of, of the standards that we hold people to. And, and also, yes, it is better, but that doesn't mean it's where we need it to be. And we do need to continue to advocate and push and be involved to stay engaged and hold this administration accountable. Just because someone has the D next to their name and you voted for them does not mean that, that they are above all criticism and critique, they don't need to be called in or called out - they absolutely do. And that's how we actually get progressive policy - that I'm a fan of, obviously - progressive policy. But that's how we get policy passed - is by continuing to hold people accountable and making sure they hear our voices. Marcus Harrison Green: [00:08:24] Well and I think, yeah. And I, and I think to your point in what a lot of criticism has been lobbed already, right, at Biden and Harris for some of their past policy misdeeds - you know, everything from, you know, helping shepherd the crime deal to when Harris was the AG over there in, in California, essentially wanting to jail folks for - for parents, for truancy, if you will. I think that at the end of the day it's also like, look, politicians aren't static, right? They're reactionaries. And so the thing - the thing that they react to, right, is their constituency and their base and to movements, right? And so at the end of the day, it's up to us to hold folks accountable who are supposedly on our side, right? I mean, that wasn't that of the prior administration. That is at least ostensibly this administration. And so I think it has to be pushed, right? It's that old apocryphal story of FDR - he's talking to somebody , you know, from a, I want to say it's a labor union - and he says, you know what? I agree with everything that you said, but you gotta go make me do it. You gotta make me do it, right? And so I think, you know, we're in this position right now with Biden-Harris - we gotta go make them do the things that we think are the best possible things in terms of, you know, progressive legislation and moving this country in a direction that , you know, is equitable for everyone. Crystal Fincher: [00:09:41] Completely agreed. And, and, you know, on that same vein of staying engaged, it's not just on the federal level - the local level counts too. And, and a lot of the changes that people are really pushing for across the board, and certainly that protests are focused around, and that will bring equity in all of the areas that we need to - require action at the local level. And, and the City of Seattle is a perfect example. And we have a police department in Seattle that refuses to take a seat, really , and continues to stay making headlines for all of the wrong reasons. And, and the community being engaged is the reason why - why we're also able to, to have these issues and items surfaced and why we're one of the only cities in the country-  like one of three, I think it is - who actually reduced the funding of the police department. But I mean, this week we saw - you know, more officers were in DC during the "Stop the Steal" rally, which just the premise of the event is so problematic. Marcus Harrison Green: [00:10:51] Yeah, we thought it was only two. And now it's five. It's yeah.  Crystal Fincher: [00:10:54] Now it's five that we know of so far. And so, you know, this is a continuing challenge. More officers were there. You have a police guild chief - head - who is, you know, Mike Solan, who just was called on to resign by several members of the community and the City Council because of his false and inflammatory statements about an insurrection , an anti-democratic attempted coup. So, so do we trust this mindset with policing? I mean, the structure of the department is something that we can certainly spend a lot of time, and have before, talking about. But my goodness, just on a daily basis -  Marcus Harrison Green: [00:11:39] Yeah that is like an absolute, no - I mean, it's been that way forever. I'm a lifelong Seattleite. I mean, it's been that way since I've lived here - so, which has been all my life. Goodness. I - where to begin - I think the press conference that interim Police Chief Diaz held earlier in the week where he said you know, that he would fire any police officers that were, that were proven to have been involved in the actual insurrection, in riots. And then he sort of goes on to say, But you know, if they were just there to protest and, you know, and had the belief that the election was stolen, then, you know, that's, that's a different thing. I'm thinking like - these are public servants who are tasked, right - they are public servants tasked with protecting people. I would want to say, could they at least have some, like, I don't know, relation to reality? I mean, that, that bothers me - that bothers me that they would think that this - the election is stolen. I mean, that, that, that shows their character and that shows right, also their thought process. I don't want somebody like that with the license to kill. I'm just sorry.  Crystal Fincher: [00:12:50] A hundred percent. And, and to be clear, not just stolen, but stolen by Black people fraudulently voting - and in a mass conspiracy across the country to upend an election. Like that - and so all of the Black people's and Black areas' votes should be invalidated. That is where they're at. And so I don't feel comfortable with that as yet another thing that we are contending with and, and I think we have to address - we absolutely have to address this culture. We can't act like that has nothing to do with how they would be performing their job. It has everything to do with how they would be performing their job. And they are taking this direction from someone who has said "it's okay to rough them up a bit," who has encouraged police violence, who has excused murder from white people and from police officers, and has advocated for the death of Black people who are innocent and just existing. So it absolutely has to do with how they police and, and the attitude that they take. And this is on the heels of other news this week, that as we've all seen numerous times - Seattle police officers , several of them, many of them, refuse to wear masks when this is required, when they are interacting with several members of the public in vulnerable places. And there was a tweet that a nurse made who was at a local hospital who recounted the experience from a night prior saying that, Hey, there was a Seattle Police Department officer in here who was not wearing a mask. This was near COVID patients. This was in a hospital. Obviously these are people who are ill or with compromised immune systems and every precaution needs to be taken - there at the very top of the list of places where we need to be careful. And when asked to put on a mask, got an attitude, refused to, and so you're looking at an officer of the law who can detain whoever he wants, who really has the authority in that situation to - to violate people's rights and put people's health in jeopardy and like, this is a real threat - you're in a hospital, you might be killing people. You might be giving people an infection that will kill them. And, and to do that with impunity and to have that attitude, that that is okay, is just so far beyond unacceptable. And I don't understand how, how this has been able to linger for so long - watching so many police without masks on.  Marcus Harrison Green: [00:15:27] It's - it just goes back to, right, I mean, the whole thing with power corrupting. And police officers for too long in our society have been too powerful, quite frankly. And that - you can't tell me that that mentality, right, doesn't start to become a part of you, where it's like, I - I can enforce and lay down the law, but I don't need to be subject to it myself. And I mean, it's just the whole not-wearing-a-mask thing - it's just ultimately, right, a microcosm, an epitome - of the whole fact that police officers largely do not want to be held accountable for their actions. You know, this whole mask situation is just, you know, the microcosm of that. And the fact is when you also ask them to be accountable, then it's all of a sudden it's, Well, we can't do our jobs, or we're being attacked, or this and that. And it's like, at the end of the day, nobody is drafted to be a police officer. You are - you voluntarily entered into this, and so that you should have guard rails to what you can and can't do, especially if you are given such an outsize, I don't wanna say, you've been given sort of an outsize presence within our society. So you should also have an outsize responsibility. Unfortunately doesn't seem like too many people want to buy into that.  Crystal Fincher: [00:16:35] Yeah, absolutely. I mean, you know, we have the saying, "With great power comes great responsibility," for a reason. And it's true. We are not advocating that they go home injured. We're not advocating anything. We just don't want our rights to be violated. And given that they have the power to - to violate them - that they can detain people, that they can , you know, strip people of their freedom , interrogate people - they have the ability and the authority to go so far beyond what every other citizen, resident can, that - that they should be held to a higher standard. This is something so simple and obvious that we have to continue to push back on the idea that, that, no, we shouldn't question anything. We should just let them do whatever they're doing and whatever request they make, whether it's legal or not, whatever mood they're in, whatever whim , you know, they feel, we just need to capitulate and obey and, and do whatever they say at whatever time. That's not how this works. It's certainly not how it should work. And, and if that is happening, it should be completely , you know, overhauled and fixed. And so there's so much work to be done.  You know, it was very revealing to see the support for the [King County] charter amendments in the November election, especially one having to do with reforming and bringing more accountability to the Sheriff's office. Because a lot of people are under the impression that, Oh, only, only Black people care about this. Only these young, you know, radicals and left-wing progressives and Antifa, as if that's an organized thing, only cares about that. And, you know, to see a super-majority of cities in King County come out strongly in support, in favor of reforming - it just really underscores that this behavior has persisted and has been so visible that - no, we're actually in agreement as a society, whether in the suburbs or not, whether you're in high income or low income areas - people understand this needs to change and have voted to change it. And in the City of Seattle, the numbers are, are huge - astronomical in support. So, you know, this idea that, Oh, people just want law enforcement officers to keep doing what they're doing and they support them. You know, I think people want to, you know, say, Hey, let's all work together to keep each other safe, but, but that means that we have to keep each other safe. And if there are members of our community that are not feeling safe, we have to do something about it. So I'm definitely gratified to see that people are willing to vote for change at the ballot box. And I hope, especially as we have city council elections, the mayor election coming up this year in 2021, that we - that they see that the residents across the board in Seattle are demanding change and willing to vote for it. And, and to take that also as a caution - that if they're acting against that, then that is a problem for them at the ballot box also. This is something that the residents of Seattle want and the most important poll that could possibly be taken - the one that actually happens when people vote - supports it. So we'll have to see what happens.  Marcus Harrison Green: [00:20:06] I'm cautiously optimistic, Crystal.  Crystal Fincher: [00:20:09] I am cautiously optimistic too. And by the way, you at the South Seattle Emerald are running an excellent series - so people should stay tuned to the South Seattle Emerald because you have interviews with people who have declared that they are running for mayor so far and will continue doing that. So people should definitely know that that is a resource for finding out where people stand right now. I know that, you know, as I was reading - certainly went into more detail with one candidate in particular than I had seen anywhere else. So I appreciate how thorough you're being in examining who these candidates are and the issues that they support .  Marcus Harrison Green: [00:20:51] Appreciate that, Crystal. And you have - I have to say it, especially because it's your show - you have definitely helped with sourcing of, of some questions. So you are the mayoral whisperer is what I'm going to start calling you. Crystal Fincher: [00:21:04] I don't know about that. I've just been around long enough to to have absorbed that over time. I think that's it. And I'm just approaching dinosaur status, pretty much. So I wanted to talk about, just a little bit, about the candidates that have announced so far. I guess, looking at the City of Seattle elections - what is on-deck, I guess, for the next few months at least? We're going to see more people announcing their candidacies - what types of issues, I guess, are immediately on the docket for them right now? I anticipate, certainly, dealing with COVID - getting the vaccinations out. What are we looking at there?  Marcus Harrison Green: [00:21:45] I mean, obviously COVID - we're still in the midst of a pandemic and then the same crisis that we've had - that have yet to be fully satisfactorily addressed. And I'm talking about homelessness, obviously - affordable housing, income inequality here in the city. How do you balance companies paying their fair share, but also I think things that keeps some companies here for quote, unquote, create jobs and so forth. So it's not going to be an easy task. I mean, I think, you know, love or hate our current mayor - I think her tenure has definitely shown that it is a extremely hard job in a city that is changing, evolving, and has multiple interests that quite frankly, don't always align. So it is going to be tough. I don't know if there can be a unifying force, if you will, in terms of the mayoral candidates who have already declared and some who I've heard are considering running. That being said, I don't know if we necessarily even need a unifying force, right? I think we need strong leadership in this city. And it's yet to be determined who can provide that type of leadership.  Crystal Fincher: [00:22:46] Yeah. I, I definitely agree with that. I think that we have seen , certainly, with Jenny Durkan , before her, with Ed Murray, that there seem to be a desire to not make people unhappy. And wanting to please everyone. And as we all know, especially when it comes to being the head of a major city, that doesn't work. And that's just going to get everyone mad at you. And it's a recipe for paralysis. And when there are pressing urgent problems that you're dealing with, you know, that usually winds up moving you backwards. And, and we have seen, throughout the 10 years of both of them, moving backwards on the issue of homelessness, income inequality, housing instability, so many factors. And so I certainly am hoping for someone who is willing to be a strong leader and who is not going to be kind of that same, well, let's, let's try and find a consensus and let's try and, you know, take a uniform approach. And I've commissioned four task forces to take a look at that. And you know, I'm not going to implement any of their recommendations, but treat their report as like a win. We cannot afford - literally, residents can't afford to have that happen anymore. People are, are trying to avoid COVID, trying to stay in their homes with the highest unemployment rate. So certainly a challenge moving forward. And we'll just have to see how it unfolds.  Marcus Harrison Green: [00:24:19] Crystal, I do want to ask you this - I mean, you talked about the, our last two mayors. Like I could not tell you who their base actually was, right? I mean, you know, like who, who are these people's base, right? Like, I can't tell you who Jenny Durkan's base is right now. Might be one of the reasons she's not running for reelection.  Crystal Fincher: [00:24:37] Aside from the Chamber?  Marcus Harrison Green: [00:24:41] Right. Right. But obviously, Chamber support isn't enough, in and of itself, to, to, to gain you friends. And, you know, enduring influence in the city - and endearing, I should say - well, endearing and enduring influence in the city. So how do you, I mean, how do you - how would you suggest - if you were giving free advice, if you will, to our next leader, whoever whomever that might be, what would you tell them? Crystal Fincher: [00:25:13] I mean, so I guess I should say this. Obviously coming , having worked on Seattle mayoral campaigns before, having you know - knowing people who worked within several campaigns, probably had a little bit more visibility into the coming together of, of policy. You hit the nail on the head and that you actually have to have a base of residents who vote in the city. And, and that's a challenge. And, and so my advice would be to be who you are and lead according to your values - that's really all you can rely on. And, and that actually builds trust with voters. I think people underestimate that, that - if you give voters a clear understanding of, of what your values are, and the lens through which you process information and policy - that even when you disagree, even, even when they don't see eye-to-eye, that if you're able to explain to them - this is how I came to this decision. This is how I come to these decisions and the same way that, you know, this policy that you supported. There's a reason why I did that. And, and this is the reason why I did this and to be transparent. And certainly that's not going to please everyone, but people would be surprised. Many politicians would be surprised that that does carry weight with a number of voters. And that they feel that if you are straight with them and that you actually care about helping them - that's really what they're looking for. Not, well, if I do this, I'm going to make this person unhappy. And gosh, my re-elect is going to need an endorsement and financial support from that organization. And, Oh, these, you know, this trade organization that's, you know, headed by people who don't even live in the city - that becomes so problematic. And so I think you just have to be where you are and, and that has to match where the voters are. And really if that doesn't match, then you aren't right for the moment anyway. You're going to have to make your case. And, and if they decide to go in a different direction, that's what happens. But, but the way that you actually build power and build political capital is by saying - you know what, I'm going to lead in this direction and then leading in that direction and, and bringing the coalition with you that comes. Your mandate comes from being elected and people need to understand that. And operate accordingly.  Marcus Harrison Green: [00:27:36] Crystal's mic drop.  Crystal Fincher: [00:27:39] Well, I thank you so much for joining us today. You know, this has been a wonderful conversation. Again, I encourage people to continue to read the South Seattle Emerald and support the South Seattle Emerald financially because it's such a necessary media platform here in the city. And thank you to everyone for listening to Hacks and Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM this Friday, January 22nd, 2021. Our chief audio engineer at KVRU is Maurice Jones, Jr. The producer of Hacks and Wonks is Lisl Stadler. And our wonderful co-host today was South Seattle Emerald publisher and Seattle Times columnist, Marcus Harrison Green. You can find Marcus on Twitter @mhgreen3000. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii. And now you can follow Hacks and Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type Hacks and Wonks into the search bar and you will get our almost-live show and our midweek show sent directly to your podcast stream. And of course we will have a full audio transcript available for people there and the links to articles and information that we referenced in the show. So thanks for joining us and talk to you next time.

Today Crystal and Ashley Archibald, local reporter and friend of the show, get in to what is going on with Covid-19 vaccine distribution, the local ramifications of the white supremacist insurrection in Washington, D.C., and the Seattle Police Officer's Guild president cosigning their actions. 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, Ashley Archibald, at @AshleyA_RC. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Articles Referenced: Vaccine reserve was exhausted when Trump administration vowed to release it, dashing hopes of expanded access by Isaac Stanley-Becker and Lena H. Sun, The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/01/15/trump-vaccine-reserve-used-up City Council members call for Seattle police union president to resign after Capitol remarks by David Gutman, The Seattle Times https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/pressure-mounts-on-seattle-police-union-president-mike-solan-following-capitol-siege-remarks-city-council-members-call-for-resignation/ SPD confirms two officers at U.S. Capitol riot, CPC seeks documents, and calls increase for SPOG president to resign by Paul Faruq Kiefer and Andrew Engelson, The South Seattle Emerald https://southseattleemerald.com/2021/01/11/spd-confirms-two-officers-at-u-s-capitol-riot-cpc-seeks-documents-and-calls-increase-for-spog-president-to-resign/   Transcript: Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] Welcome to Hacks and Wonks. I'm your host Crystal Fincher. On this show, we talk with Political Hacks and Policy Wonks to gather insight into state and local politics and policy through the lens of those doing the work and provide behind-the-scenes perspectives on politics in our state. Today, we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a guest co-host. Welcome back to the program today's guest, local journalist, Ashley Archibald.  Ashley Archibald: [00:00:25] Hi, thank you for having me.  Crystal Fincher: [00:00:27] Well, there certainly has been a lot that's transpired since the last time we have spoken . You know, so much has gone on - we had the insurrection and attempted coup at the Capitol, we have ongoing talks of violence, Joe Biden is supposed to be sworn in next week and Trump heading out. There is a lot going on locally still - Session just started - there's just so much happening - in the middle of a pandemic. So I guess the first place that we should probably start is just talking about where we stand with COVID and vaccinations. And when thinking about this show earlier in the week - thought, well, you know, we'll talk about how the vaccination - how vaccinations are running under the capacity that we have and we're having a hard time in this state and nationally, kind of across the board, getting all of the vaccine into people's arms. But actually this morning, there was a new dimension and wrench thrown into this story. Do you want to talk about that Ashley?  Ashley Archibald: [00:01:34] Sure. So the Washington Post came out with a story, and if somebody else got it first, my apologies, I saw it in WaPo. The Washington Post came out with a story that basically said that the reserves that we thought we had at the federal level of this vaccine that was supposed to make sure that people who got their first dose would also get their second doesn't exist. So earlier in the week, when the federal government said that they would be releasing all of the vaccine that was available and expanded the ability of people to get it to basically anybody over 65 from the previously a bit more constricted criteria, that was just impossible because they don't have additional doses of this vaccine, which is a little bit mind-blowing. Crystal Fincher: [00:02:19] It's absolutely mind-blowing. And just as a reminder, these vaccines are not a one shot deal. What was studied and what these vaccines are designed for is - two shots, around a month apart , and really designed - for the full efficacy, for the full effectiveness, you need both shots. That's what gets you to the 95% number that they achieved and observed in their clinical trials. So the thought was, Hey, America is starting out with 40 million doses. The federal government, from their own mouth, said, Hey, we're going to hold back 20 million of them, understanding that people need to get the second dose. So we'll get out the 20 million - get the first dose, get them scheduled for the second - but we know that we'll have 20 million people vaccinated with two doses. We're holding it back to make sure that everyone can get their second dose. States made plans based on that information. People have proceeded according to that. In the interim, some conversation did start - because we're in a pandemic that is spreading so rapidly, and this new strain is spreading so rapidly, and reports today say that they expect the new strain to be the predominant one in America by as early as March. And they said, Okay, well, you know, we're going to hold these back. And a lot of people said, Well, maybe just give everyone one and to help speed up the effort, we're gonna reduce the requirements and just anyone over 65 is now what the administration is recommending. And the CDC recommended just to give it to everyone over 65. States are in process, Washington is in process of developing high-volume vaccination sites, mobile vaccination sites, thinking that there is another 20 million doses being distributed throughout the country - we're going to double our supply. Only to hear this morning that, Hey, never mind. There is no more vaccine coming. You actually already have almost all of it. So this vaccination effort is so far behind and now half the small scope that we thought it was going to be. And for just the average person who is not a frontline health worker or first responder, I mean, we may not get the vaccine for, until late this year. What, what does this mean for the overall effort? Ashley Archibald: [00:04:51] Well, it's not good. It's not great, Crystal. I mean, we were already behind, we were already deploying these shots very slowly. There's a writer with The Atlantic whose name is, I believe, Zeynep Tufekci, and she's been very critical of the rollout of the vaccine, not specifically in Washington state, but in general, because people have been fairly precious about how they're releasing this. And it varies so much state by state, but the overall vaccination rate has been quite slow in general. And I understand why they were doing that - because they do want to prioritize people who are most at risk, like healthcare workers, frontline workers, essential workers, people in nursing homes, that sort of thing. And that does make good sense, but sometimes the perfect has been the enemy of the good here and we need people to be getting these shots in the arms. Because at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter if we have the extra 20 million doses of vaccine if we're not actually putting it in needles and injecting it. Crystal Fincher: [00:05:58] Right. And that has been a huge problem - here in Washington state, less than a quarter, less than 25% of the vaccine that we currently possess has been administered to people, has gotten into people's arms. And so, as this is raging, and as businesses are closed, and everything is on pause as we try to get this under control, it's pretty important to try and get this on track as soon as possible. And certainly , localities have been underfunded. They've requested a significant amount of funding from the administration to build out the necessary infrastructure to get this virus, to get the vaccine into people's arms , and have been denied that funding - it's been delayed. There's some that was part of this most recent package passed that is going to start to help the states, but that's just coming now. And so there's still a lot of infrastructure that is in process of being built, but now it looks like we may be - you know, we need to get the existing vaccine out and kind of do a surge with that, but at the same time, we seem to be building infrastructure that there is no vaccine left to use it for. So this just continues to be a mess and depressing and people's lives continue to be affected. People continue to get sick and die. You know, this has major consequences and will cost lives. And certainly a lot of wheels have been spinning - trying to get the infrastructure in place to deliver 40 million doses. And now we have half of that. It's just frustrating to be just a regular person and just to see this spiraling downhill and think, When is it going to stop? Even the light at the end of the tunnel seems to be getting further away again.  While we're dealing with this pandemic, we're also dealing with a wave of very violent and insurrectionist white supremacists that are roving the country. And we are not exempt from this locally , here in the Seattle area, and as a matter of fact, members of our own local police departments made their way to DC to try and overthrow the government. And on top of that, the head of the Seattle Police Guild made horribly false, demonstrably false, unprovable and inflammatory allegations - somehow in his logic, blaming Black Lives Matter for the Trump supporter insurrection at the Capitol. And sticking by it - doubling down on it. So, many people have called for his resignation, including the Seattle City Council, people who've been sympathetic to him in the past. He has been radicalized and his rhetoric continues to prove it. How do you see this week and what is happening within the police department and SPOG in regards to this insurrection and what it says about the state of law enforcement? Ashley Archibald: [00:09:11] It is - I mean, first of all, yes, it is demonstrably false that the insurrection on January 6 at the Capitol building where, you know, the Capitol was taken over and lawmakers were threatened , was a result of Black Lives Matter activists. And we are, we can - even us, who have no special knowledge, I feel, can feel very comfortable saying that - because I've read the articles. I have seen some of the quoted chats - this was planned in some part out in the open, it was encouraged by the President of the United States. You know, this is not, this is not a false flag operation by any stretch of the imagination. There's no evidence to suggest that - it's a little bit wild. At the same time, I think that it was also interesting to watch that information about the participation of SPD officers drop at like 9:30 on a Friday night. The Friday night news dump usually doesn't - usually doesn't mean like Friday, middle-of-the-night news dump, so that, that was unexpected but certainly noted by people who are interested in this information. And I think that, we will see what SPD does with that. It seems from the statement released by interim Chief, Adrian Diaz, that if people were simply there exercising their First Amendment rights in the places where it was legal to do so - they probably will not see consequences for that. It would be more of the actual, you know, storming of the Capitol that people need to have avoided. I think that is - that's basically what he said, right?  Crystal Fincher: [00:10:49] Yeah. That is what I recall him saying. Saying if they were part of the storming of the Capitol, they would definitely be fired, but that would have to be proven. If they weren't part of that activity that - he commented on being fired. I don't know if he commented on there being no disciplinary action, but certainly drew a distinction that just being in DC was not going to be the determining factor. And as I look at this, there are two issues - clearly , you know, someone that was involved in the storming of the Capitol - not only should they be fired, but you know, charges would be appropriately brought as they're being brought in the other cases. I mean, this was done with the explicit intent and, you know, planned intent, as we see with so many of their videos and social media posts leading up to this event. They planned to interrupt the process of certification. They planned, as federal  prosecutors have detailed and reiterated this morning, they planned to violently overtake and physically detain legislators and people working in the Capitol. This was a coup attempt. You know, no - no two bones about it. Not technically - this was literally a coup attempt. So it was literally an interruption and a direct attack on the peaceful transfer of power. And, you know, fortunately employees there had the foresight to take out the elector ballots so they could be counted later on - otherwise we could be in a humongous, constitutional crisis right now. So one, they may not be charged, but certainly the event was billed as Stop the Steal. The only reason to go was if you felt so strongly that there was widespread voter fraud, despite 60 lost elections, and hearing all of the rhetoric blaming massive voter fraud, committed by - coincidentally, conveniently - Black people. And the attempt at invalidating predominantly Black and Latino votes in key states - is scary to think about that mindset, that conspiracy theory taking hold so deeply, that they aren't just spouting that in their conversations here. They're flying to DC to be part of a group whose explicit purpose was to Stop the Steal, allegedly, of the election. This attitude is terrifying - and the Seattle Police Department, and we're finding out that several off-duty cops from several departments across the country, were police. And Capitol police talking about how many of the people in the mob were flashing their police badges at them - that they were off-duty, but they were law enforcement taking part in the activities to interrupt the election on the 6th. To me, we have the information that we need to understand further, Wow, how toxic is that? How toxic is that belief? And if someone believes all the things that are being said - to lead them to fly to DC, because they're so upset at the things that they've heard from Trump mouths and the mouths of other white supremacists, to stand side-by-side with people with Confederate flags and Camp Auschwitz T-shirts - open, proud white supremacists. Law enforcement has been infiltrated. The SPD has been infiltrated. This is not surprising, not shocking. I mean, we've seen this, we've seen them protect people with these beliefs in protests downtown. But it just continues to show how broken these processes are and how urgent it is that there be accountability tied and massive culture changes.  Ashley Archibald: [00:15:07] We exist in a society where people are engaged in two completely different realities. And I don't know what you do to overcome that. I don't think everybody in that crowd genuinely believed that the election was stolen. I don't know that - that's just, I find it difficult to believe - how about that? But some people are true believers. Some people truly believe that the election was stolen, that Trump is here to save us from a cabal of like, Well, I mean, we don't even need to get into the QAnon stuff - that's just a whole other thing. But it's - people live in bifurcated realities and I don't know what to do. I don't know what the answer is - to bring people back to what I consider to be evident on its face, which is Trump lost this election. And what we saw on January 6th can be described in no other ways than trying to overturn a certified election in what we like to call, but I would argue isn't really, the world's oldest democracy. Like it's just - it's maddening.  Crystal Fincher: [00:16:21] Yeah, it is - it is maddening. And I actually want to underscore something and to not minimize it. I mean, to be clear, this was a publicly pre-planned event. You know, this is something that Trump and his cronies organized and paid for. Trump spoke at the event. This was a planned event with the title of Stop the Steal, with the  explicit pre-stated purpose of - come to stop the stealing of the election by Joe Biden. So for anyone traveling to DC for this event, it seems to be a necessary prerequisite that they think that this - that they have fully bought in to the conspiracy that there was widespread voter fraud, widespread enough that it would have changed the election. And it should have been a landslide in favor of Trump, which we know has been rejected, in every legal and serious forum we have in the country. But as you stated, that doesn't prevent people from falling prey to the conspiracy and the depth of disinformation. And of people who are completely separated from the reality as we see it and do genuinely believe that this election is being unfairly stolen from Trump and the QAnon stuff - it is, it sounds almost laughably ridiculous, right? But there are tens of millions of people who believe it.  Ashley Archibald: [00:18:01] And rejected by Republicans - rejected by Republican Secretaries of State - who, I mean, I'm not trying to lionize some of them - they have participated in what I consider to be voter suppression, hands down - especially, you know, look at Georgia. But for their own self-interest they're saying - minimally, you could say, I ran this election. This election was run correctly and you lost. And those people have been, for their  trouble, been given death  threats and told that they're the enemy and that sort of, I mean, it's just, it's amazing. It's a cult of personality that I don't - I don't fully understand.  Crystal Fincher: [00:18:44] Right. And it's hard - it's hard to understand because it is such an extreme view that seems so detached from reality. That it is - that it seems like it should be literally unbelievable, but we have watched, we have witnessed, the increased radicalization of people here. And it's concerning. And the problem we now find ourselves with is that these people are able to remain separated from the reality as we see it - they have an entire media ecosystem. They have an entire social media ecosystem - that was somewhat disrupted this week by the purging of so many QAnon, alt-right white supremacists , Trump conspiracy, election conspiracy  websites. And Twitter, Facebook , Amazon has stopped hosting people, so there has been some de-platforming of some of the most visible people. But this is the Republican party. There are a small percentage of Republicans who have publicly said, This is actually not theft. But the very telling thing is that there are more Republicans who have refused to say, Hey, that's not true - it's a conspiracy. Or they've just flat out promoted the conspiracy themselves and far worse. We have congresspeople and state representatives who are QAnon believers. They were elected really recently. And they're sharing this information openly. We have lawmakers at the federal level who are refusing to go through metal detectors and disobeying orders of police , of the Capitol police, daily. They just do not feel that they are subject to the same laws and rules that we are, and they are operating with the encouragement of supporters, a base that they have cultivated, that cheers this lawless activity on. So they continue.  Ashley Archibald: [00:20:58] Going back to what you mentioned on the social media front - of those accounts being taken down. Obviously, Parler was basically got rid of when Amazon stopped hosting it. But it was one of the funnier things when you saw personalities complaining about how they'd lost tens of thousands of followers. And I'm like, Guys, why are you telling on yourselves? Like, is that really, is that really what you want to broadcast right now? Just shhhh - it's okay. You don't have to say it. Crystal Fincher: [00:21:25] Yes - to see how many open racists and insurrectionists are in your network - and it is wide and vast. But I think that's - that's what we need to contend with - is that these are not people - there were many comments and I've heard a lot of punditry - trying to suggest that these people were downtrodden, economically anxious, didn't really know what they were saying, didn't really know that - didn't plan violence. Who was to see and to know that something like this could happen and subsequently, a ton of video footage, a ton of posts, where they are explicitly, frequently, broadly - planning, explicitly planning, violence . You know, they had blueprints and plans. And we're talking about locations that they needed to get to. They were talking about who they needed to detain. They beat savagely, viciously, several police officers who were there. This was a violent mob and, and yes, and killed an officer. This is a violent mob that was explicit about their violent intentions and that continues to be explicit about their continued violent intentions. And I still feel like so many people just do not take threats of violence from white men, in particular, seriously. Oftentimes because they don't feel like they're a direct threat. And I think the action that we saw was because this was a situation where, Hey, actually, a number of the people who can pass laws and institute consequences for this were directly threatened. They had to shelter and they were in immediate danger of physical harm. I just think that they're detached from understanding that there's a lot of people in this position today, and these people are among us. The people at the Capitol were not downtrodden, poor - the picture of, They're just turning to this because they're struggling and, you know, they're just having a really challenging time. These were CEOs, there were several legislators. These are former military, former and current police officers. This was an upper middle-class  crowd, actually , by and large. And so we need to contend that these are the people that we are interacting with every day. And to somehow act as if this can't permeate your communities, and you don't have a responsibility to say something when someone pops up with a conspiracy theory - to say, You know, actually, no, we're not going to normalize that. We're not going to act like that's rational. It is not and it's dangerous to continue this line of thought. That this has to be confronted and called out. And we can't allow beliefs like this to go on unchallenged because they have for too long and this is the result.  Ashley Archibald: [00:24:25] That being said, I'm kind of circling back to what you had mentioned at the top of this topic. You know, I very much doubt - unless interim Chief Diaz actually takes action, I really don't see the SPOG chief, the SPOG union head going anywhere. I mean the City Council and the Mayor's office and people who are otherwise, I would classify as pro-law enforcement, asking him to step down is one thing. But Mike Solan was elected by  70% of the SPOG membership, if I recall correctly . You know, people have - people seem fine with this kind of rhetoric coming from the head of the union.  Crystal Fincher: [00:25:03] Well, definitely - certainly a number of the police officers, the ones who elect the SPOG head -certainly are okay with it. Unfortunately, SPOG, you know, Solan is paid for by our tax dollars. He is on the public payroll and so there should be some public accountability for what he says. And certainly, he's poisoning the waters for the negotiations that are upcoming. He has continued to take belligerent , violent, mocking stances and using that kind of rhetoric. He has defended  what has been objectively viewed and legally ruled to have been abusive, civil rights violating behavior - has made inappropriate jokes about violence committed by officers. And when you are in a position with so much power, there is a higher standard of accountability that should be instituted. We've talked about this, you know, broadly - just in the overall police accountability conversation, but my goodness, how much more clear and obvious do you need to make it? That there is a dangerous mindset that has taken hold with too many officers within SPD. And to see that these beliefs are being supported by so many officers, that this attitude and stance is not found to be objectionable, and that there have been officers that went to DC to be part of the Stop the Steal activities that Trump called for - we need massive changes.  And we saw with the [King County] Charter Amendment [6] vote that people, not just in Seattle but in a super-majority of cities in the county , want substantive reform. The unique thing is that even when you listen to police talk - they talk about calls that they don't feel that they are the appropriate response for. They talk frequently about not wanting to be social workers and that not being an effective place and way for them to intervene. Why don't we listen to that? But we do need to talk about what the structure and purpose is - what we actually want our officers doing. And if they're in a place where they are indoctrinated with a demonstrably false conspiracy theory that Trump won this election and are taking action, significant action, based on that - how is that influencing the communities that are also being blamed for the stealing? What kind of resentment are they harboring? That that is not only what they believe , but what they are so dedicated to, that they would invest their own resources. And how are they enacting and carrying that belief through their actions and interactions with everyday people. I don't like the implications of that. I think we've seen numerous examples of what happens, and we've seen the continuum of attitude and behavior that leads to people's civil rights being violated and the over policing, over-incarceration of poor communities and communities of color.  So thank you for listening to Hacks and Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM this Friday, January 15th, 2020. Our chief audio engineer at KVRU is Maurice Jones, Jr. The producer of Hacks and Wonks is Lisl Stadler. And our wonderful co-host today was local journalist and friend of the show, Ashley Archibald. You can find Ashley on Twitter @AshleyA_RC. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii. And now you can follow Hacks and Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts. Just type Hacks and Wonks into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live show and our mid-week show sent directly to your podcast stream. Thanks for tuning in. Talk to you next time.

Today's Patreon-fueled shout-out is for the Plant Northern Piedmont Natives Campaign, an initiative that wants you to grow native plants in yards, farms, public spaces and gardens in the northern Piedmont. Native plants provide habitat, food sources for wildlife, ecosystem resiliency in the face of climate change, and clean water.  Start at the Plant Northern Piedmont Natives Facebook page and tell them Lonnie Murray sent you! On today’s show:City Council suspends search for a new city manager Three Georgia men have been arrested in connection with a shooting yesterdayAlbemarle’s design review panel briefed on restoration of several “entrance corridors”Details on two “community reads” currently being assisted by the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library The Virginia Department of Health is reporting another 4,377 cases of COVID-19 today, and reports another 59 deaths. The percent positivity rating has risen to 16.2 percent, up from 12.2 percent a week ago. In the Blue Ridge Health District there are another 55 cases and one more death, bringing the total COVID-related fatalities in the district to 97 since March. Yesterday the Blue Ridge Health District posted a video that showed the inside of the temporary structure that has been erected in the former KMart parking lot. The structure will be the location of mass vaccinations beginning tomorrow. Blue Ridge Health District spokeswoman Kathryn Goodman said in an email this morning Emergency Medical Services personnel, Region 10 residential facility staff and dialysis center staff will be the first to receive doses as part of Phase1A of the vaccine roll-out. Meanwhile, many health care workers at the University of Virginia and Sentara Martha Jefferson hospitals have received their second doses. Source: Virginia Department of Health*Charlottesville Police have arrested three men from Columbus, Georgia and charged them with several felonies related to a shooting on Emmet Street yesterday. According to a release, a 21-year-old resident of Fluvanna County was shot and is in stable condition at the University of Virginia Hospital. The suspects were apprehended by the Albemarle County Police Department and being held in the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail pending a bond hearing. *Charlottesville City Council has suspended its search for a new city manager to replace Dr. Tarron Richardson, who resigned last September. "Council has decided to pause working with a search firm for the City Manager recruitment and is evaluating next steps to stabilize the organization over the next 12-24 months,” reads a statement from Council sent to the Daily Progress yesterday by Councilor Heather Hill. “We anticipate providing additional information to the public in advance of our next regular meeting on January 19th."  In a Facebook post, City Councilor Lloyd Snook said the city had interviewed five search firms in October and selected Ralph Andersen and Associates in part because one of that company’s officials had made a statement that “it is going to take a special kind of person to want to come to Charlottesville at the moment.”  That official was Robert Burg, the company’s vice president.  According to Snook, Burg had a virtual meeting with city staff on December 4. A story in the Daily Progress today based on a Freedom of Information Act request from Tanesha Hudson quotes an email from Police Chief RaShall Brackney in which she described Burg as “unprofessional.” In his post, Snook said that Charlottesville Mayor Nikuyah Walker had disagreed with the hiring of Ralph Andersen and Associates. He quoted a December 10 email from Walker in which she said she would not meet one-on-one with Burg, but only as an entire Council. In the email, she said she did not think the firm was interested in hearing her point of view. “I explained to you all in the summer that I believed that it would be extremely challenging to select a city manager with this current council and that I had hoped that things would have worked out with the previous city manager,” Walker said in that email. Walker’s first four-year term is up later this year, as is the first four-year term of Councilor Heather Hill. In 2017, Walker was the first independent candidate elected to Council since 1948, and she announced last February she would seek another term. In his Facebook post, Snook said Burg told that he had never seen this level of dysfunction before and that it would be difficult to hire a manager at this time.“In my opinion, we will not be able to hire a permanent City Manager until after the next election, in November, 2021, and we should not try,” Snook wrote. Council has now had four managers since the contract of Maurice Jones was not renewed in 2018. Deputy City Manager Mike Murphy served as interim until May 2019, when Richardson took over. City attorney John Blair is serving as interim manager.  Council also recently suspended its strategic plan process. They are next scheduled to meet on January 12 in a joint meeting with the Planning Commission. That meeting will be on the Capital Improvement Program. So far, no candidates for Council have filed paperwork, according to an email received this morning from City Registrar Melissa Morton. *Albemarle County might soon pursue scenic and historic designations for roadways that until recently have been under the jurisdiction of the Architectural Review Board. The ARB reviews projects within what are known as Entrance Corridors, but several roads such as Route 6 do not qualify because the Virginia Department of Transportation does not classify them as “arterial” roadways. Margaret Maliszewski is an Albemarle County Planning Manager.“For four of the non-arterial streets, we are recommending that they be upgraded to arterial status,” Maliszewski said. “They include the full length of Avon Street Extended, Barracks Road from the city limits to Georgetown Road, Thomas Jefferson Parkway or Route 53 for the full length, and Richmond Road from Route 22 to the County.”Maliszewski said staff is also recommending restoring a county-level scenic or historic designation for several other streets such as the rest of Barracks Road, Route 6 and Route 22. Other roads could become Scenic By-Ways, a designation granted by the Commonwealth Transportation Board.  The Board of Supervisors will be presented with the information at their meeting on February 3. “If the Board wants us to start to consider the county scenic highway and the historic designation that is a multi-step process that would have public hearings and we’re not ready to jump into that yet. Really what we’re asking for in February is whether they want us to start pursuing it.”ARB Member Frank Stoner said he wasn’t sure that all of the entrance corridor designations needed to be restored.“Some of these corridors don’t really have any commercial development on them and I just wonder whether it’s worth the effort to pursue this designation,” Stoner said. “I don’t exactly know what’s involved once you get into VDOT.” Stoner said he was most concerned about restoring ARB’s jurisdiction over Avon Street Extended, which he said was not a major arterial. “And it’s a road that already has a fairly industrial character and so I worry that there aren’t many places anymore in the county where you can actually build something akin to a warehouse or a purely functional structure and Avon already serves that purpose,” Stoner said. *The year is still relatively new and there’s still time to pick up the habit of reading a book. If you’d like to read along with several hundred other area residents, the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library has the book for you as part of their Same Page program. “So this year for 2021 our Same Page pick is Brown Girl Dreaming by Jacqueline Woodson,” said Abby Cox, a reference librarian with JMRL. “This is the same book we picked for last year but Same Page takes place during March so as you can imagine, most of our book groups did not get to meet last year to discuss the book and we weren’t able to bring her in person because of the pandemic.”Cox said Brown Girl Dreaming is a memoir in poetry of Woodson’s childhood in South Carolina and New York in the late 60’s. And this year’s programs will also be virtual due to the continuing nature of the pandemic. JMRL has adapted. “We have pivoted a lot of our programming to virtual programming so we’ve been having book groups meet through Zoom where people can also call into participate so that’s really how this is going to look for our Same Page programming,” Cox said. Woodson will be on one of the sessions on March 17 at 7 p.m. as part of the Virginia Festival of the Book, which will be entirely virtual this year. The “community read” is under the Same Page program, which is funded by the Friends of the Library group in partnership with the Virginia Festival of the Book. It used to be called the Big Read and was paid for through a grant from the National Endowment of the Arts. The University of Virginia’s Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion are also doing a “community read” in commemoration of Martin Luther King Jr. Their book for 2021 is Dr. King’s 1967 work Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community. A panel discussion for that will be held on January 25 at 6 p.m. (details)“One of the things that is so great about a Community Read is it gives people to have conversations with neighbors or members of the community that they may not otherwise be in dialogue with,” Cox said. Copies of both Brown Girl Dreaming and Where Do We Go From Here are available to be checked out from JMRL branches. Are you going to read it? If so, let me know. Let’s have some dialog!Details on the Same Page program are on the JMRL website*Today in meetings, the Charlottesville Tree Commission meets at 5 p.m. They’ll discuss their annual report to Council and hear a report from the city’s arborist. (agenda) This is a public episode. Get access to private episodes at communityengagement.substack.com/subscribe

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.

Katie wraps up her conversation with ChangeMaker, Maurice Jones, the CEO and President of the Local Initiatives Support Corporation. LISC is the largest community development organization in the country that provides access to capital, grants, and loans, plus affordable housing and technical assistance to places such as schools, health care centers and organized groups.

Today Crystal is joined by political consultant and friend of the show, Heather Weiner, to discuss the news of the week, including:  Jay Inslee's new capital gains tax proposal and its prospects this legislative session. Deb Haaland, the first indigenous person to be appointed to run the Department of the Interior. Jenny Durkan's renewed focus on clearing out homeless encampments, against public health advice. A full text transcript of the show is available below, and on the Hacks & Wonks blog at https://www.officialhacksandwonks.com/post/week-in-review-december-18-2020. Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and Heather Weiner at @hlweiner. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com. Articles Referenced: Inslee unveils Washington budget proposal with taxes on capital gains and health insurers to fund COVID-19 recovery by Joseph O'Sullivan, The Seattle Times https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/inslee-unveils-washington-budget-proposal-with-taxes-on-capital-gains-and-health-insurers-to-fund-covid-19-recovery/ History Walks With Deb Haaland to the Department of the Interior by Charles P. Pierce, Esquire https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a35013654/deb-haaland-interior-department-joe-biden/ Interim Guidance on People Experiencing Unsheltered Homelessness from the Center for Disease Control https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/homeless-shelters/unsheltered-homelessness.html Full Transcript: Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] Welcome to Hacks and Wonks. I'm your host, Crystal Fincher. On this show, we talk with Policy Wonks and Political Hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy through the lens of those doing the work, with behind-the-scenes perspectives on politics in our state. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes.  Today, we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows, where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program friend of the show and today's co-host: local political consultant extraordinaire Heather Weiner.  Heather Weiner: [00:00:46] Hi Crystal! So nice to be here.  Crystal Fincher: [00:00:49] So excited to have you back on! And we have a lot to dive into and we will start with Governor Inslee's budget - and he is proposing new revenue - he's ready to tax the rich. Is everyone else ready? What are your thoughts on this development?  Heather Weiner: [00:01:06] Oh boy, I have so many thoughts on this development. So first of all, Governor Inslee is now in his third term. It does not look like he is going to be leaving to join the Biden administration, which some had been speculating on. The positions - and we'll talk about that a little bit more - about who is being picked for some key spots. So Jay is here, and Jay is the Honey Badger of Governors right now. He is out there - he just rolled out a four days - exhausting everyone, including the press - as he, without any apparent fatigue, started just rolling out his plan for racial equity, his plans to combat climate change, his plans to help small business owners, and his plans to pay for it by taxing the rich ... finally. Crystal, you know - I don't know if your listeners do - that Washington is the worst in the country. We are #51, including DC. We are the worst in the country when it comes to taxing the poor and not taxing the rich. In other words, if you are a low-income person, 17% of your income likely goes to taxes. If you're a high-income person - and by high-income, I mean millionaire - likely somewhere around 3% of your income goes to state taxes. It's time we fix that. And Jay Inslee has proposed something that will help take us from worst to best.  Crystal Fincher: [00:02:29] Literally it will bring us to the best.  Heather Weiner: [00:02:35] Well, not single-handedly, but it's a plan to get there.  Crystal Fincher: [00:02:38] Gotcha. So what is he proposing?  Heather Weiner: [00:02:42] So Jay - I'm sorry, we're not on a first name basis - he doesn't ever call me up and say, Heather! So let me just say ... I wish he would though - call me anytime, Jay! So Governor Inslee has proposed something he's proposed in previous budgets - and that is to tax capital gains. Capital gains from the sales - large sales, windfalls - from the sales of stocks, bonds, other intangible type passive wealth - wealth that people make off of doing nothing other than just letting their money continue to sit there. This is not a tax on the sale of your house, the sale of your small business, anything like that - it doesn't apply to retirement funds. Just if you were a gazillionaire, like, I'm not going to name names, Jeff Bezos, and you are making millions and millions of dollars every day. You will then have to pay about 9% of your profit to the state to help pay for small business support, helping struggling families, and public health. And I think that's a great first step.  Crystal Fincher: [00:03:47] It seems like an excellent first step and something that, as you said, had been proposed before, but didn't progress through the session or have much of a strong push. This seems like the case is different this year. Do you think there's a chance in the legislature? Heather Weiner: [00:04:04] Yeah, I do. I do. I think there's a big chance. And I'm going to tell you - I'm going to tell you why Crystal. Number one - we are in a huge economic hole right now in the state of Washington. You know, we still have a quarter of a million people laid off without work, small businesses - we've had 2,000 restaurants alone - just restaurants - close permanently here in Washington state. We're in tough shape right now and it doesn't look like it's going to get better in 2021, honestly, even with the vaccine. So we've got to do something and we've got to do something now. And so I think the pandemic is really lighting a fire underneath the shoes of our legislators. The second thing that's happened is the elections. Although the makeup of the House and Senate haven't changed dramatically in Olympia, we are seeing a lot of new people coming in - freshmen who very much support progressive revenue - T'wina Nobles, one of your former clients, to name one - who are going to be out there advocating for it and a lot of the older legislators who've retired were still kind of stuck in the nineties. So I'm hopeful that that will work. This is - listen, capital gains is the very least that we can do - it is passive wealth. It only applies to the very, very wealthiest people here in Washington state. It is the least that we can do. There's a whole bunch of other things we can do - taxes on big corporations that have been making so many big profits off of, and during the pandemic, not to name any names, Amazon - and all different kinds of loopholes that we have been overlooking for the rich and the very wealthy for years at the expense of the health of our state. I'm psyched. I'm ready. I'm like, Go Jay, go.  Crystal Fincher: [00:05:49] I am ready also, especially on the heels of, as you referenced, so many loopholes and tax giveaways to some of the wealthiest corporations in the state with absolutely no accountability tied to it. We saw a record-breaking hundreds of billions of dollars given to Boeing with no jobs guarantee attached, and they just started laying people off and then announced that they're leaving town. If we can have no problems shoveling money to those with resources, how in this pandemic and emergency that we have, do we not show ourselves as eager to make sure that we're taking care of people - by taxing and just asking people to pay their fair share as they do to a greater degree in every other state. It just seems fairly basic, particularly in light of the fact that we're hearing that the congressional stimulus relief package is really disappointing, lackluster - probably does not include any bailout or help to local and state governments. So help that people even thought was coming in the midst of this emergency is not, and it really is up to us to provide for our own residents. And the only way we can do that is if everyone pays their fair share, and we don't continue asking those with the least to bear the greatest burden. So I'm excited. The House is saying that they believe they have the votes to pass this, which is really exciting. There's a number of new members in the House - I think they have a lot of new energy. I think that a lot of the new members on Finance are excited to push this through. And so it really looks like it's going to be a question about, is there the political will to do this in the Senate? I know a lot of people have that will - is it going to be enough? And I think that paying attention to where all of our Senators stand is going to be really important.  Heather Weiner: [00:08:02] Yeah. Agreed. For example, let's talk - well, last time I was here, we talked about Senator Mark Mullet and he is once again, a key vote out in Issaquah. This is the guy who last time has held up all kinds of things by sitting on these Senate committees and voting with Republicans. So I am hopeful that Senator Mullet is going to be changing his tune a little bit, or that the rest of the Senate Democratic leadership is going to be willing to override him and move forward. We'll see what happens. Again, this is a great first step I think Jay is doing - I'm sorry, Governor Inslee - is doing the right thing. Now it's up to the legislature to really find a progressive revenue package that again, takes Washington state from being worst in the nation to eventually - I think we should be the best. We've been the best on minimum wage, we've been the best on LGBTQ rights. We should be the best when it comes to revenue. Crystal Fincher: [00:08:56] We should be the best and on so many other issues in other areas, we're leading the country in terms of policy and we're setting the standard with, as you said, minimum wage, with paid sick leave, with so many different things - and to be this behind on the revenue that funds everything else and makes those things more possible for more people, I would think that we would be more excited to get this going. So hopefully this is the year and hopefully people look around at the need, which is only going to increase in 2021, and they get on board. And I guess, kicking this off, obviously session is going to be starting in January - on January 11th. Is there anything else that you're keeping your eye on that looks like it's going to be a topic and going to have legislation moving forward in this session?  Heather Weiner: [00:09:49] So it's super interesting because the legislature is going to be doing a lot of their deliberation by Zoom online. I think the whole apple cart is going to be turned over. The first thing we're going to see is a lot of legislators wanting to do a lot more grandstanding because there's going to be a lot more people watching them, a lot more constituents who have the time and the access online to comment and to see what they're doing. At the same time, leaders have said that they want to limit their legislative work to focus on the pandemic and dealing with our budget crisis. So I think there's going to be some really interesting things happening. We see a little bit about police reform, a lot about racial equity work, a lot about the environment, moving forward. I don't know - I think a lot of those small bills, the little gifts to lobbyists that we often see, may not get through this year. So I don't know - we'll see what happens. I'm really excited, though, about the access for the public to watch the sausage being made and to hold their legislators accountable. And I think our legislators who are more social media savvy, like Joe Nguyen, for example, are just gonna, mmm, they are just gonna rock it. I think it's going to be a real fun time to watch. And since I'm not as excited about the Seahawks this year, unfortunately, this is my new sport that I'm going to be just yelling at the TV about.  Crystal Fincher: [00:11:08] Well, I will out myself as a 49ers fan - I'm a huge 49ers fan. I have been a 49ers fan for my entire life. So, you know, that's just too bad. We'll see what happens with the Seahawks - Russ looks a little challenged right now. I don't know what's going on with that, but I also will not talk about what's going on with the 49ers.  Heather Weiner: [00:11:30] Right, all right, right, right, right, I know. Someday Crystal, we're going to have a long podcast where we're just going to talk about women's basketball. Someday I'm going to suck you away from the NBA and into the WNBA where the basketball is just amazing. But we'll talk about that some other time.  Crystal Fincher: [00:11:44] I am on board. We can talk about that another time - I'm down to talk about the Storm - anytime, anywhere we go. But you know, I share your enthusiasm and excitement about this session, and the possibility for the public to engage to a greater degree than they have before, to participate without a lot of the barriers that we've seen before - because of the pandemic - the opportunity to be able to offer testimony remotely and to really standardize having all of this available, not just on TVW when you have to happen to tune in, but available via Zoom where the public can participate - where the legislators can see how many people are paying attention, and who is paying attention, and they know that eyes are on them in a way that they were not able to see or feel before. And I think, especially in light of the protests that started in the wake of George Floyd, and here locally, Manuel Ellis, and that have continued to now and continue still, there is a greater degree of interest and attention still being paid that I think is going to be fairly unprecedented. And that excites me. Heather Weiner: [00:13:03] Yeah, it's fantastic - and as I've said to a couple of legislators, I hope that you keep the Zoom and public testimony, electronic public testimony, available. It certainly increases democracy and we've seen that with the Seattle City Council this year, where so many more people are able to testify when they weren't able to physically come down, both for income issues, work issues, and physical ability. So this is - I think it really improves democracy, I think it's great. Of course, I say that 'cause I usually agree with the people who are testifying - if it was a whole bunch of people that I disagreed with, I would say shut it down. Crystal Fincher: [00:13:41] Well, I think what we see is - most of the public is representative of the people who don't set aside time and have the privilege and ability to do nothing but pay attention to those meetings and attend those meetings. And usually the people who do - have more resources, are members of majority populations and communities, and certainly do not face some of the same barriers and challenges that people who have been marginalized and who don't have the resources that they do. So that is most of us. And so when more of us - just regular people - and, you know, obviously I work in politics, I'm not really that regular, I'm a little weird - but for just the average person, they're more represented when we expand access. And that's really what we need to continue to do - I think being forced to do this through the pandemic has just really brought on so many accommodations and changes in process that should have happened a long time ago, and that we need to continue to explore - how we can expand this access and make it even more accessible to people. With that, we can look at the Biden administration planning, and they're in the process of their transition. Certainly, Trump is still trying his little - literally coup - to defy the will of the people, and despite losing over 30 court battles, being turned away from courts at every level and the Supreme Court - thoroughly, handily, completely, he has lost the election and the electors have now voted. Biden is the President-elect. So he's moving forward, despite all the noise from everyone else. And he's moving forward with some particular picks for his cabinet that have a lot of people excited. You want to talk about that?  Heather Weiner: [00:15:53] Yeah - I'm so excited about the Department of Interior pick, which is Deb Haaland. Deb is a Native American woman from New Mexico. She was just elected in 2018, first Native American woman from that district to come in, and she has already just hit historic levels by being tapped to be the new Secretary of Interior.  Now I used to be a lobbyist in Washington, D.C. for 10 years. My job was to lobby the Department of Interior specifically on environmental issues. And it always shocked me that they had a very large bureau that went almost unmonitored, called the Bureau of Indian Affairs. And the Bureau of Indian Affairs has wreaked havoc on Native American families and tribal governments for over a century. And here, finally, is a badass Native American woman, who is coming in to take over not just the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but the entire Department of Interior - and that includes Bureau of Land Management, US Fish and Wildlife Service - it's just going to be - and the National Park Service. It's just going to be an amazing shift, both in representation and leadership, but also in the policy and direction for the Department of Interior. Go Deb Haaland - what an amazing feat - and kudos to Joe Biden for picking her. We had heard that Governor Jay Inslee - my beau, my boo - was considered for that appointment. Of course I was a little bit disappointed that he wasn't picked, but Deb Haaland, I'm going to give it 10 - 10 stars on that one. Great, great pick.  Crystal Fincher: [00:17:38] Great pick. And Biden is being universally lauded for that pick - a number of people have been lobbying for Haaland's appointment to that position for quite some time. And across the spectrum of Democratic leanings, she has been extraordinarily qualified. She has already set the course - one of her tweets on Thursday was, Hey, in four years, Trump failed Indian country and only broke more promises. It was exacerbated by the administration's failure to take this pandemic seriously - looking forward to turning the page on this dark chapter. So we are going to see a radical change from certainly this past administration, but also our past period. And hopefully this can start to right some of the wrongs, mend some of the broken trust, and really get to work on really moving forward - considering everybody's needs, and living up to the promises and the potential that we have when we all respect each other and move forward together. Heather Weiner: [00:18:46] And, you know, when people say that elections don't matter, this is a great example of where elections do matter. That by having President-elect Biden in leadership - he is able to pick amazing people like Deb Haaland to dramatically change the on-the-ground daily lives of other human beings. And I think that that right there makes it worth, makes it worth the votes. You know, I'm not as thrilled with some of the other picks or I'm a little befuddled, shall we say, by some of the other picks, but this one's pretty good.  Crystal Fincher: [00:19:22] That one's pretty good. Also, another pick - Biden's pick to head the EPA, Michael Regan - from North Carolina, African-American man, who comes with a long history of accomplishments. But certainly, in terms of the environmental movement and policy and priorities, this pick has been involved in environmental justice movement, has been involved in the EPA for over a decade - really understands that this isn't just a niche concern as it had been viewed by some in the past, but this really impacts us all. Climate change is not affecting us in the future - our environmental priorities - air pollution, water pollution - is something that is impacting communities today. And that, especially, is impacting communities of color, low-income communities, to a greater degree than others. And understanding that that is as much a health issue, as it is a racial equity issue and a social justice issue, is something that he certainly understands and a lot of people are excited about that pick. Again, similarly, some thought that this could be a place where Jay Inslee could fit into this administration and were considering that. But if the pick isn't Governor Jay Inslee, then this certainly is a great alternative.  Heather Weiner: [00:20:54] And I do have to say that as much as you and I would have loved a little bit of the drama that would have come from Jay leaving, because then, of course, we would have the cascade of - then Bob Ferguson runs for Governor and then who runs for AG, and so on. Despite the fact that we're not going to have that tea to drink, we are going to, at least, have some stability and really focused leadership out of our executive branch. So I'm very excited about that.  Crystal Fincher: [00:21:21] Very excited about that too. And he's putting forward a budget that here, on the state level, I am digging, and I want to see passed and want to see him continue to push this forward. And he certainly has been a strong and steady hand in leading throughout the pandemic. You know, from the very beginning - and charting the course and putting Washington on more stable footing than most other states in the country, so we're still happy to have Jay here, and look forward to his leadership throughout this pandemic and meeting the needs of the people who need it most. So speaking of leaders, that brings us to Mayor Durkan, who isn't viewed quite as magnanimously or positively as Governor Inslee. And so this week - we know that last week, Mayor Durkan announced that she will not be seeking re-election. And I don't know if she feels like that frees her up to do more of what she was trying to do before with no apologies. But this week she decided to proceed with evicting people who have no homes from Cal Anderson Park, even though there are no homes for them to go to. What do you think about that, Heather?  Heather Weiner: [00:22:46] I am heartbroken this morning - 10 people have been arrested already today - protesting the eviction of people who were living in tents in Cal Anderson. Look, I agree with everybody - it's not the thing I want to see in the middle of my park - is people - I don't like to see human suffering. I like to turn away and not look. But as human beings, we have to witness that this is what has happened with our massive wealth, inequality and housing crisis in Seattle. And here we have actual human beings who are living out in the cold, in the rain. They have nowhere to put their trash. They have nowhere to cook and they have chosen a safe place, which is a park in the middle of a very busy district next to a community college, next to Seattle U, next to a lot of businesses. So businesses started complaining about there being people living in the park there and today , SPU and then the Seattle Police Department went in and started clearing people out. And they were met with protesters, and the protesters were doing their thing and 10 of them have been arrested so far. Look, I mean, City Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda pointed out in an email today, and a statement today, that there is no housing - safe, COVID-safe housing available. No COVID-safe shelters, even - not even just talking about housing, but just daily shelters. There's no COVID-safe daily shelters available. Where are people supposed to go? And so they're just going to continue moving their stuff from place to place and in misery - why are we doing this? Why are we spending taxpayer money doing this? It boggles my mind and also boggles my mind that Durkan's not being held accountable for this. The story that the news media are talking about right now are blaming the protestors and blaming the people living in tents, instead of blaming this administration for not coming up with a solution - that means renting hotel rooms, opening up unused City buildings to make sure that there are places where people can safely get out of the rain and the cold.  Crystal Fincher: [00:24:59] It is infuriating. It's infuriating for a number of reasons. First and foremost, we need to acknowledge and understand that these sweeps are specifically recommended against by the CDC and by public health authorities, including King County Public Health, because in a pandemic, this increases the chance and exposure of people to COVID-19. And this is a population that is also specifically vulnerable, more vulnerable than average. They're an at-risk population for COVID-19 and now you're increasing the likelihood of them being exposed, and everyone involved in this effort - it is so deeply irresponsible from a public health perspective and flies in the face of guidance. So at a time when she's saying she wants people to do what's necessary to keep each other safe, it would be nice if she did that herself, and didn't defy the CDC in order to push out people from a place where, at least they have a stable place that they can call their own and they can sleep right now in the pandemic, and not push them out because some people get their feelings hurt and get riled up by having to see them, as if that is the offense and not that someone doesn't have a home - when, as you said, there are many, so many hotel rooms available. There are so many vacant spaces available. And in a time when we have the hospitality industry, in particular, asking us to help them because they're struggling - rooms aren't being rented - wow, this does seem like it makes sense - that this can meet a number of needs if we were to partner or procure those rooms for people who did not have a place to live. And this is also happening in the face of State Supreme Court ruling that says that you can't kick someone, you can't remove someone who does not have a home, from public property if there is nowhere for them to go. And that's what we're talking about here and what infuriates me about Durkan - one of the things that infuriates me about Durkan - is that her and her administration seemed to put so much effort into acting like they were solving the problem, and a public relations effort with a Navigation Team who wasn't obligated to offer real services, and who was actually working in tandem with police officers to sweep instead of spending that money and effort and time on actually just providing people with housing. And it's so frustrating and it's so upsetting and angering, that the focus is on people who are upset by visible poverty - as if just the threat to their idyllic vision that other people - "those people" - shouldn't be around here and I shouldn't be subjected to them is just maddening and against everything that we should be standing for. It's offensive - protestors were out there for the same reason - they're out there for other items that are unjust. This was an unjust, unwise, and unhealthy action, and I hope we see the end of these when Durkan leaves.  Heather Weiner: [00:28:40] Yeah. Well, let's see if people are gonna run, if somebody's gonna run on fixing homelessness, like she ran on in 2017 - that was her major issue. And in fact, I remember the Chamber of Commerce ads in support of her, specifically showed tents in parks and said if her opponent, Cary Moon, was going to win, there would be more tents in parks. Guess what? Durkan won. We see tents in every single park - and it's not because she's not being tough enough. It's because there is nowhere else for people to go. And when you tell people to go get a job, to get themselves "cleaned up", to deal with substance use disorder or other mental health issues - suddenly, we are in a chicken and egg scenario because there is no way for someone to get a job or to deal with mental health or substance use issues when they are just trying to survive in a cold wet tent. Crystal Fincher: [00:29:41] Absolutely. So I - we will certainly be hearing more about this. There is certainly a lot of resistance to this effort and obviously, one of the reasons why Durkan is choosing not to run again is it looks unlikely that she would have been elected again, because she and her leadership and policies are unpopular with the majority of Seattle residents. So we'll continue to stay tuned.  I thank you for tuning in to Hacks and Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM this Friday, December 18th, 2020. Our chief audio engineer at KVRU is Maurice Jones, Jr. The producer of Hacks and Wonks is Lisl Stadler. And our wonderful co-host today was Seattle political consultant, Heather Weiner. Thanks for joining us, Heather.  Heather Weiner: [00:30:30] Oh, so nice to chat with you and I'm happy to come back on again soon.  Crystal Fincher: [00:30:35] Thank you. You can find Heather on Twitter at @hlweiner. And you can find me on Twitter at @finchfrii. And now you can follow Hacks and Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, and wherever else you get your podcasts - just type Hacks and Wonks into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe, to get our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in. We'll talk to you next time.

On today's rebroadcast, Crystal's interviews King County Councilmember Girmay Zahilay, and they discuss police accountability and what it really means to invest in community. In the conversation they discuss the King County Charter Amendments that were on the November ballot and have since been approved by the voters, changing how the sheriff is selected, and requiring investigation over all police related deaths. Councilmember Zahilay also goes into the important work he's doing to increase investment in Skyway, without displacing the people who already call it home. A full text transcript of the show is available below, and on the Hacks & Wonks blog at https://www.officialhacksandwonks.com/post/king-county-councilmember-girmay-zahilay-talks-sheriff-reforms-supporting-skyway. Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and Councilmember Girmay Zahilay at @girmayzahilay. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com. Articles Referenced: Learn more about the King County Charter Amendments from People Power at https://www.wethepeoplepower.org/kcca. Transcript: Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] Welcome to Hacks and Wonks. I'm your host, Crystal Fincher. On this show, we don't just talk politics and policy, but also how they affect our lives and shape our communities. As we dive into the backstories behind what we read in the news, we bring voices to the table that we don't hear from often enough. So today on Hacks and Wonks, we are excited to be joined by Girmay Zahilay, King County Councilmember for District 2, who has been doing a lot of work in the community. You've probably seen and heard from him - he's everywhere, just about, but we are excited to have a conversation today just about what you're working on. So thanks for joining us.  Girmay Zahilay: [00:00:52] My pleasure, Crystal. Thank you for having me.  Crystal Fincher: [00:00:54] So I guess starting out, what are you working on? What's top of the agenda right now? Girmay Zahilay: [00:01:00] We're working on a lot of stuff. I would say the two biggest policy agendas that we have are number one, Skyway, which is a neighborhood just south of Seattle and north of Renton. And that encompasses all things for the wellbeing of that neighborhood. And the second area that's our top priority is our criminal legal systems and imagining the future of public safety and making sure that marginalized communities are uplifted, supported, and feel safe rather than brutalized by a system that is racist and that hasn't seen much of any innovation for a long time. So, I would say those are the two biggest and we can dive into each of those umbrellas, as you like, Crystal, but there's some exciting stuff in each one of those.  Crystal Fincher: [00:01:46] Sure, absolutely. I mean, both of those are related - Skyway has the largest African American population, in the State, per capita. And so we see under-investment, and an under-resourced  area that's been ignored and neglected, despite it's absolutely prime location. And so the conversations that we're having with public safety go hand-in-hand with conversations that we're having there, and that, if Black Lives Matter, as you've said, Skyway has to matter - and the types of considerations that we're talking about in public safety extend to the whole conversation - just about racism and inequalities, and really setting people up for very different outcomes in life from the very beginning, based on the way we're set up systemically. So in terms of public safety, what are you working on? Girmay Zahilay: [00:02:48] Right. Your point, Crystal, about these two issues being intersecting is so spot-on. Right now we're seeing possibly the largest civil rights movement in the history of the United States. The Black Lives Matter movement has brought in millions of people nationally and tens of thousands of people locally. I grew up in South Seattle, so seeing our streets packed with tens of thousands of people like we have, shows me that there is momentum to support Black Lives. The Black Lives Matter movement is not just about ending police brutality. Of course, that's a central message, but it's also about ending all kinds of systemic harm and uplifting Black people because our systems have not done that so far. And like you said, Skyway is the place where we must start. It has the highest proportion of African Americans in the state of Washington and simultaneously, it's also the area that has been disinvested from the most. When you have an area that has the highest proportion of Black people and the area that has been disinvested in the most, that is systemic racism, plain and simple. So it, just to me, it points out this issue where again, our region says one thing and does another. We can drive around South Seattle and Skyway and see Black Lives Matter signs everywhere, but we don't invest in Black people the same way that we should. These issues are intersecting - Skyway, our system of public safety, police brutality - these are all intersecting issues.  Crystal Fincher: [00:04:29] They're absolutely intersecting issues and have been issues for so long, and we're really late in having this conversation. And it's a matter of having a representative in your position continually stress that this is a priority - this is urgent. And someone with lived experience who this is not a theoretical issue for and who has spent many years leading up to this, working on how to change from the root, systemically, the issues that we're dealing with. And one thing that I do want to point out that, from my perspective I appreciate, is, as an elected representative, we want you to take great votes and people are certainly excited about that. But the leadership goes beyond just what you do in the meetings and the votes you take. And you talked about being part of the largest civil rights movement happening right now, that we're in the middle of, and there were nights when we saw horrifying video coming out of the streets of Seattle and surrounding areas and, certainly SPD, behaving questionably. And some just, unambiguously, inappropriately and violently. And there were protesters and people in the community who said, Hey, we need help down here. We need someone down here to witness this, to address this. This is wrong, from being teargassed, to being beaten, to being corralled, and you answered that call. You were there, you were available - one, you were in a position to even see that. I mean, between Twitter and Facebook and Instagram, you are there and present when a lot of other people are not. And you were like, Hey, I'll be there. And you were there. And that just meant a lot to me, it means a lot to community to see - not only as someone willing to take the vote, but this is personal and this is real, and they're willing to stand shoulder-to-shoulder on the front lines and say, You know what, I'm part of this too. And this affects me too. And I'm in a position to use my platform and power to change this, not just when it comes to taking a vote, but just using your voice, shining a light on it all around. So I just want to say - I appreciate that, I saw that, I know a lot of the community sees that. And it matters to have someone who understands and who has felt and experienced, what this really means and the consequences of these actions. And so beyond that, or I guess looking through that lens, what is your approach to turning just the understanding, the pain, and the need into policy - and what is in process? Girmay Zahilay: [00:07:30] Thank you, Crystal, for highlighting that. There were a number of other elected officials who came out that day as well, and just the community members who've been organizing and protesting for the past six months. They've been putting their bodies and their lives on the line every day, to advance justice. And we, as elected officials, need to be out there with them. 2020 is such a special and different year, right? Before 2020 happened, we already had so many crises - it's not like we were in peace times before this and there were a lot of issues to resolve. But then 2020 starts and the issues get bigger and our tools for resolving them diminished greatly - because the usual tools that we have for advocacy engagement, understanding one another, are completely obliterated when we're not allowed to gather or be near each other. So as elected officials, we have to find other opportunities of engaging and learning and listening, because it can't all happen virtually. We cannot believe and be lulled into the false sense of understanding our constituents from a laptop or from a cell phone. We have to be out there. And that's why I try my best to be out as much as I can, in a safe way, every opportunity that I get - whether that's outside delivering masks - I could have my staff or King County officials go out and do that for me, but I want to be out there, I want to see people, I want to talk to them - or that's going out and protesting with people, because I need to experience the police brutality and overreach firsthand if I'm going to shape effective policies. I think it's really important for us to be out there, to be visible, to show people that we're truly listening, and crafting our policies based on what we're seeing and hearing from our constituents. Otherwise, we're susceptible to just believing the spin, and the narrative, and whatever media agenda there is out there of the people who have access to media, telling the story for us. And I think the most perfect example is the evening marchers and the young people who are organizing and marching every night. If I were to just to open up my news apps and read about them, I'm seeing - mobs, destructive mobs. When I went out there and actually sat with them and spoke to them, I was blown away by the level of nuance and informed discussion that I was able to have with these teenagers and young adults. They were pulling up our voting records, they were pulling up things that we have said in the past in various committee meetings. It was just the most intellectual conversation that I've had in my time as a councilmember. And I would have never known that if I hadn't gone out there and spoken to them.  Crystal Fincher: [00:10:28] Well, and what you talked about is very important in needing to be present and experience it yourself 'cause you just mentioned, if we watched the typical evening news, they'll focus on, Hey, if there is some property damage, if there is someone that they can view looking aggressive, or if the police department says, Hey, this is our take on things today, whether or not that story changes later on down the line. That's really been the focus of our local TV coverage that a lot of people catch. A lot of people don't have the time or ability just to do a deep dive into news and the social media and to see what's actually happening. So for you to be able to experience it yourself and be on the ground and understand that this isn't - these aren't people without a plan. These aren't people acting impulsively.  These are people who understand that lives are at stake and who have taken it upon themselves to educate themselves, to arm themselves with knowledge, and to say, You know what? We are going beyond what we've done before and we're demanding better. And I tell you, young people are the best at holding everyone accountable. And out of necessity - because their preceding generations have slipped and didn't do the job they should have. So they're actually coming around and saying, Okay, let's actually show you all how it's done. And we just saw that result in the Seattle City Council recently - overriding Jenny Durkan's veto of the rebalanced budget that significantly defunds SPD and sets the stage for even more defunding in the next budget.  Girmay Zahilay: [00:12:16] Right.  Crystal Fincher: [00:12:16] So, from the County perspective, and talking about the Sheriff's that are within your jurisdiction - are you also looking at defunding and what are the specifics of the plan? Girmay Zahilay: [00:12:29] I would encourage everyone to look into Charter Amendment #6, which will be on your November ballot. When anybody who's listening to this opens up their ballot in November to vote on things like who they want their next president to be, they're also going to see a list of seven King County Charter amendments, and four of these amendments relate to your County system of public safety. If you vote Yes on Charter Amendment #6, it would allow the King County Council to shape the future of public safety. This is not some kind of symbolic, or incremental, or performative change around eliminating police brutality. This would allow the King County Council to move away from a system where we send armed police officers to respond to every single challenge on the streets of our city and county - to assist them - that is a diverse toolkit of public health alternatives. So, if we see a mental health crisis on our streets, we can send trained mental health professionals. If we see somebody in need on our streets, like an encampment, we won't send officers with guns - we send rapid response social workers who can help people in need. If our youth are having conflicts or issues, we can send violence interrupters and mentors to respond. If somebody has routine, everyday things like a noise complaint, or wants to do a wellness check, or a fire code issue, we can send code enforcement officers who aren't armed. Our default response to every single issue does not have to be to send police officers who have guns, because that's how Black and Brown people die unnecessarily. That's what we've seen all around the nation and this charter amendment, if it's passed - and it is something that our office proposed - would remove certain restrictions that would allow, then, the King County Council to transfer public safety functions away from traditional law enforcement and toward community-based and public health alternatives. I think this would be a huge and beneficial change for our county and all it takes is our public approving it through the voting process. Crystal Fincher: [00:14:49] You're listening to Hacks and Wonks with your host Crystal Fincher on KVRU 105.7 FM. So that's going to be on the November ballot.  Girmay Zahilay: [00:15:30] The one I described is just 1 of 7, but there are others - like shifting our Sheriff from an elected position to an appointed position, which would increase accountability to the Council and allow us to give the Sheriff policy instruction, which we can't right now. Crystal Fincher: [00:16:24] You just mentioned the charter amendment to make the Sheriff appointed and not elected. A lot of people feel like, Hey, if we elect people, they're directly accountable to the people - we can hold them accountable, we get a consistent voice. Why is having them report or be appointed and accountable to the council a better system? How does that increase accountability?  Girmay Zahilay: [00:16:56] Well, an independently elected sheriff is exactly that - more independent, and we do not need a more independent police department. We need better checks and balances, we need to be able to oversee them, we need to be able to provide policy instruction to them. And yes, on the surface, it does feel like electing someone feels like accountability to the voters, but once you've elected them for four years, who are they exactly accountable to? The Council right now has budgetary power - we can provide incentives through budgetary sticks and carrots, but we cannot give them policy instruction. We cannot transfer public safety functions elsewhere. And the King County Executive right now - if the Sheriff did something wrong, the King County Executive cannot fire the Sheriff, for example. There would have to be a recall process, which is way more complicated than a King County Executive just saying, Hey, you've done something wrong. You are not being accountable to our constituents. We're going to look for somebody else. And also an appointed position would allow the King County Council and the Executive to do a nationwide search and find the best quality person for the job, whereas an election, you are inherently through that process - you're attracting politicians to that job. People who are going to be accountable to - more accountable to the police unions and to their donors - than to people who want better policy instructions for them.  Crystal Fincher: [00:18:35] It's always interesting to have this conversation with politicians, but it's usually only politicians who hold themselves accountable and allow the public to hold themselves accountable, who want to bring that up. that is a legitimate issue - that there are a lot of politicians who do feel beholden to their donors and to, a lot of times, the special interests that helped provide the funding and resources to get them elected - but that often have competing agendas with the people who they're actually elected to serve. So as we're looking at this overall - one issue that we have recently talked about in Seattle, and especially looking at the Mayor and the control that Jenny Durkan has over the Seattle Police Department, and even the Police Chief for the Seattle Police Department - not really having power or authority to impose appropriate discipline, to make appropriate changes, because of the police guild's contract for Seattle. Is that also an issue with the Sheriff's department in King County? And how do you fix that? How do you begin to change that, so that there is accountability?  Girmay Zahilay: [00:19:49] It's a huge obstacle for justice and accountability. One of the things that we talk about most is the fact that oversight - the process of holding police officers accountable for misconduct, for example, that process is subject to bargaining - meaning that we can only hold police officers accountable in the ways that the police unions agree to. Imagine if any other profession, a high risk profession, say surgeons, or anything like that. Imagine if they told you, Hey, you can only hold us accountable the ways that we agreed to. Is that real accountability? Of course not. That's what we have here - that's the issue that we're facing here - the fact that oversight is subject to negotiation and bargaining. I understand why some things are subject to negotiation - we want workers to be protected - police officers are workers as well - things like benefits and workforce conditions, things like that, of course. But when we're talking about holding you accountable for misconduct, for example, that is not something that we should have to negotiate with you. That should be a completely independent function not subject to negotiation, but it is right now, because of state law. And last month, I actually held a round table discussion with several state-elected officials and community members, especially out in Skyway, and people in the union world, like MLK Labor Council. I had them all on a call and we discussed what can we do to solve this issue without deteriorating workers' rights? Because the last thing we want to do is have anti-union people using this police union issue as a way of deteriorating union rights. That's not what we want to do. Is there a way to carve out this specific, special situation? And that's what we would discuss with the state-elected officials as a state matter - it's not something that King County Council can change, but we did get some commitments from state-level people - that they are going to look into this and address the collective bargaining laws that  allow police unions to be an obstacle to true accountability. Crystal Fincher: [00:22:16] Okay, that makes sense. So, in terms of what is possible in this next legislative session, are there fixes that they're committing to bring forward, or that are currently in discussions? And then how much is an issue of state law preventing that, and how much is an issue of direct negotiation of the contract? Girmay Zahilay: [00:22:41] So it's both for sure. And I, the sense that I got from the state-level people is that they are going to introduce something that allows - that would carve out police unions from this collective bargaining law. Or at least carves out accountability measures from the requirement to bargain and negotiate. Because again, that should be independent. I can follow up with them to hear if a specific bill is going to be proposed, but that's the sense that I got.  Crystal Fincher: [00:23:12] Yeah, that makes sense. And, appreciate you trying, even though that is not in your direct area of control - to make an effort to work in cooperation with your partners at the state, and to say, Hey, we need action. What can we do? And to get that conversation started, and we will certainly be talking more about that here on Hacks and Wonks.  So broadening the conversation - and we started talking about Skyway - and we started talking about the disinvestment and, really, the institutional neglect and hostility, which is certainly harmful and a form of violence. How do we - what are the best ways to address that? What change can meaningfully be made? What policies can be changed, especially right now in the middle of a pandemic, when every local government and state government is saying, We're experiencing a budget crisis at the same time - so what can be done? And looking at the near term, and then in the next six months to a year, what is planned? What is possible? Girmay Zahilay: [00:24:29] For sure, Crystal, and I think the most important thing is to start off understanding what the problem statement is. The problem statement is not - how do we get more investment into Skyway? I actually just got into a Facebook argument with somebody on Facebook - which I tell myself every day, Don't get into Facebook arguments because it's a losing battle - you're not arguing rational people most of the time. But I posted how Skyway needs investments, et cetera, and this guy who, of course, had a vote Trump thing in his profile pictures, somewhere deep in there, was saying that, The easiest way to fix Skyway and to have it catch up with the neighborhoods around it, is to reduce regulations for developers, handout permits as quickly as possible, and private capital can flow in and we can develop it so fast - this is such an exceedingly simple solution. And I have to tell him, Again, you are working with the wrong problem statement. The problem is not where we need to find ways of having private capital flow into Skyway. If that were the only thing we're trying to solve for, the solution is exceedingly simple, right? It's just to eliminate all regulations, hand out permits to developers. And of course, they would take that in a heartbeat. The problem statement is - How do you invest in Skyway without displacing the people who already call it home? And the solution to that is much more nuanced and requires us to be much more thoughtful about how we proceed with development. It requires us to, yes, invite development, but do it in a way that is lockstep with anti-displacement measures, that invests in existing people and existing small businesses that are already there. It requires us to down-zone certain areas so that we can slow the pace of gentrification as much as possible. It requires us to be really thoughtful about what kind of requirements we're putting on developers - we're not just saying, Hey, developers, it's a free-for-all. No, you have to have a certain number of your units be affordable. You have to - right of first return to people that you displace in the process of development. You have to invest a certain amount of money in existing small businesses. You have to create community land trusts and community ownership. Those are all things that we're trying to do right now, because as far as I can tell, I have not been able to identify a single neighborhood or region in Washington State that's gotten it right so far. If it was so simple, I asked this man who argued with me on Facebook, give me the list of neighborhoods in our state where this has worked before. Just - we don't have to argue - just lay out the facts for me, because again, if you're going to point to places like the Central District - no. South Seattle - no. Anywhere you point to me, I'm going to show you that - no, we did not get it right. Yes, private capital flowed in and development happened, but what happened to the people who already live there? And that's what we're trying to solve in Skyway. And I can talk about the things that we've been working on so far, but I know it's always best to give myself some breathing room and not talk endlessly.  Crystal Fincher: [00:27:50] Well, we do have a few more minutes, but it would be good just to get an idea of what the focus is. Girmay Zahilay: [00:27:59] For sure. So the first thing that we did was help get a Skyway Land Use and Zoning Plan pushed across the finish line. This is something that people had been working on before I got here, but we helped push it across the finish line. And that's the first thing - is setting the foundation for investment - and that means we down-zoned certain areas from bigger commercial areas into smaller neighborhood commercial areas. Because again, we don't want speculative developers coming in here and putting in giant high-rises, and Targets, and Walmarts, and all that. Not yet. We also changed the areas that are already zoned for multi-family housing, like apartment complexes - we included some affordability requirements into those, so if you are going to develop areas that are already marked for multi-family, you have to have a certain level of affordability for lower income people to be able to live there. That's just setting the foundation. And then, now what we're working on is bolstering the level of investment that King County is willing to put in - for things like a community center, we just got earmarked for $10 million. For things like participatory budgeting, where the community gets to choose how it wants to spend money - whether that's for housing, or youth services, or roads and infrastructure - $10 million is going to go into that. We're getting $4.6 million - and this is all part of King County Executive Dow Constantine's proposed budget - $4.6 million is going to be redirected, of marijuana revenue, is going to be redirected from law enforcement and go toward community-based alternatives. So you lay the foundation of slowing the rate of gentrification, and then you slowly invest and build up - and at the same time, in lock step, we're going to also be placing, preparing anti-displacement measures, like just cause eviction, which would require that landlords and other big commercial developers - that they have a just reason for kicking out tenants and can't just do it for commercial reasons, or whatever it might be.  Crystal Fincher: [00:30:21] Right. That is helpful, certainly. And excited to hear that you're picking that up - other local jurisdictions have taken that up, and so others are just beginning to follow their lead and I'm glad to see that you're on the leading side of that. So I appreciate you just talking to us about everything today and what's going on and just understanding more of one central point. It isn't simple. It isn't simple, it isn't easy, but that is not an excuse not to do the work. And in fact that means that we really have to double down and dive in to understand the issues and get to work now, because we really can't wait any longer. We can't afford to wait any longer - people's lives are at stake and in the balance - and everything from health to education, just to what someone's neighborhood and school and street looks like, and what their future is set up to be - depends on the work that we're doing today. So I appreciate you spending this time, I appreciate the work that you're doing. Can you give your Twitter handle one more time, so people can get more information about what we've talked about today?  Absolutely. It's @girmayzahilay. Thank you so much, Crystal. I Girmay Zahilay: [00:31:48] really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. I really love the work that you do, and your whole team does. Thank you for highlighting the voices of our most marginalized communities and some of the solutions that would get us on track to being a region that works for everyone. Crystal Fincher: [00:32:10] Thank you for listening to Hacks and Wonks. Thank you to KVRU 105.7FM in Seattle where we record this show. Our chief audio engineer is Maurice Jones, Jr. And our producer is Lisl Stadler. If you want more Hacks and Wonks content, go to officialhacksandwonks.com, subscribe to Hacks and Wonks on your favorite podcatcher, or follow me on Twitter @finchfrii. Catch you on the other side.

This week’s ChangeMaker is Maurice Jones, the CEO and President of the Local Initiatives Support Corporation. LISC is the largest community development organization in the country that provides access to capital, grants, and loans, plus affordable housing and technical assistance to places such as schools, health care centers and organized groups.

BE SURE TO SEE THE SHOWNOTES AND LISTEN TO THIS EPISODE HERE Eve Picker: [00:00:11] Hi there. Thanks so much for joining me today for the latest episode of Impact Real Estate Investing. My guest today is Annie Donovan, COO at LISC, an organization deeply rooted in the community. Annie has built a truly remarkable career in community investment by embracing a pursuit of fairness in economics and finance. She found her way to this mission through her roots in Pittsburgh, growing up in a working-class family where she was exposed to ideas of social justice early in life. In no particular order, she has served as a senior policy adviser in the Obama administration's Office of Social Innovation, as the CEO of the social enterprise, Core Metrics, heading the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, and she spent two decades at Capital Impact Partners, all before taking over as COO at LISC. Be sure to go to EvePicker.com to find out more about Annie on the show notes page for this episode, and be sure to sign up for my newsletter so you can access information about impact real estate investing and get the latest news about the exciting projects on my crowdfunding platform, Small Change.   Eve: [00:01:39] Hello, Annie, I'm really honored to have you on my show and pretty excited to talk to a fellow Pittsburgher.   Annie Donovan: [00:01:46] Well, thank you, Eve. I'm very happy to be here and I'm always thrilled and delighted to talk to Pittsburghers.   Eve: [00:01:55] Good. So, the first question I have is actually about Pittsburgh. So, you grew up in Pittsburgh, and I'm wondering how that shaped the way you see the world.   Annie: [00:02:04] Thank you for that question. It very much did shape the way I see the world. Well, first of all, let me just tell you a little bit about my context. I grew up on the North Side of Pittsburgh. From an Irish Catholic family, I am the 10th of 11 children.   Eve: [00:02:19] Wow.   Annie: [00:02:19] My father's family, so he was first generation American. His parents both came from Ireland. They actually bought a house on the North Side. So, the way that my, my parents were actually able to afford to raise a family that big was because my grandparents passed their home on to my parents. And so they never had to pay a mortgage. So, yeah. So, that's how we sort of made ends meet economically, and, you know, were able to create some mobility in our family.   Eve: [00:02:58] What neighborhood was that?   Annie: [00:03:00] Brighton Heights.   Eve: [00:03:01] Brighton Heights. Ok.   Annie: [00:03:03] But the things about Pittsburgh, you know, when you're from there or when you've lived a long time there, you know, Pittsburgh can take a hit for, you know, being provincial. And that's certainly the case. I mean, in my parents' generation, my parents had an ethnically mixed marriage because, you know, my father was Irish, and my mother was part German. But in their generation, people even went to church based on ethnicity. So, you know, so there's a lot of that sort of ethnic pride and it can feel a little provincial. But Pittsburghers are also very unpretentious and very warm and open hearted, I think, and just possess a lot of resilience and, you know, grit. Those are qualities that I'm very proud to have had instilled in me growing up that I've relied on throughout my career.   Eve: [00:03:58] So, you know, I think also what I noticed in Pittsburgh and I heard stories about the steel mills actually purposefully separating neighborhoods into ethnicities.   Annie: [00:04:09] Yes.   Eve: [00:04:10] And that sort of prolonged that here.   Annie: [00:04:13] Yes.   Eve: [00:04:13] And it's made the city architecturally interesting ...   Annie: [00:04:15] Yes.   Eve: [00:04:15] ... because the neighborhoods are really distinctive and unique ...   Annie: [00:04:20] Yes, yeah, very much so.   Eve: [00:04:21] ... and look very different. It's fascinating. And then, of course, there's the managers neighborhoods and the steelworker neighborhoods, so you know ...   Annie: [00:04:28] Right. And you know, interestingly, what happened in my family, I grew up in a working-class neighborhood and it was very working class. My father actually went to school at night and earned a college degree from Duquesne, and he was the only person in the neighborhood who had a college degree. And he was an accountant. He worked for the Allegheny County. So, we had this interesting blend of, you know, when our country was experiencing sort of white flight. Right, so lots of white folks moving out to the suburbs.   Eve: [00:05:03] Yes.   Annie: [00:05:03] And those white folks moved out and then they went on toward more upward mobility. And we stayed in the working class neighborhood. But we were still, in my family, able to experience upward mobility because we owned our home. And my father had a college degree.   Eve: [00:05:21] A degree, yeah yesh, yeah. What led you into the world of community finance?   Annie: [00:05:25] I had always had, I think, a heart for social justice work. I thought a lot about poverty, and I thought a lot about the kind of injustices that were in my world growing up. Of course, I was born in 1964, Pittsburgh being, you know, not only ethnically divided, but lots of really hard lines around racial division, as well.   Eve: [00:05:54] Yeah.   Annie: [00:05:54] And I have to say, I have to hand it to my mother, because when we were growing up, this is probably the mid-70s and my brothers ... well, so, in my family, there are six girls, and then three boys, me, and a boy. So, it's almost like having two generations, you know. And I grew up with the boys. They wanted to start a street hockey league. And you know so, of course, I was out there playing street hockey with them. I'm a Title IX gal, and they were looking for a coach. And so they put an ad in the newspaper and a guy responded to it. And his name was Curtis. He was from the Hill District. And of course, the Hill District is the historically Black neighborhood. And so they signed him up and he came over to Brighton Heights, which was a very white place, and coached the street hockey team. For me, you know, they just got me thinking about, like, why why do we have these divisions? And I have these ideas of what people from from Black communities were supposed to be like. And he wasn't like that. He wasn't like my image. And my mother, you know, they'd play street hockey and it'd be time for dinner, and of course, whoever was around my mother invited in for dinner. So, often times Curtis would eat dinner with us. When we said Grace before dinner, the way he bowed his head and prayed, you know, it just struck me that everything I'd kind of learned about our Black neighbors I didn't see in him. And so this is what got me thinking, like, what was all that education about? And so I've always been on a quest to understand what these racial lines are, too, and what the class lines are. And so, you know, I studied economics in college. Early on in my journey there was a 101 economics class and we were learning about rational thinking and optimization.   Annie: [00:07:53] And I remember thinking, well, this isn't really a fair way to allocate resources across a society. And so I said that to my professor afterwards, who was, you know, a classically-trained economist who was like, Chicago School. And he said, well, this isn't about fairness, it's about efficiency. And that was like, OK, I've found my mission. And so, you know, and then I joined the Peace Corps, went to the Peace Corps after college. You know, lived in a very poor place. And then, you know, then it really sunk in because the people that I lived around were supremely resourceful and smart and really dirt poor. And so, what was that about? So, that's when I became sort of even more fiercely committed to it. And, you know, that's so, that's been the pursuit of my career since then, is how do we use the tools of economics and finance, and how do we rewrite them in a way that produces a more inclusive prosperity, because we are leaving a lot of talent on the table.   Eve: [00:09:10] Ok, so you've had some really big roles from the White House to the head of the CDFI Fund. And now you're at LISC. And I'm wondering, I'm familiar with LISC, I actually benefited from a loan from LISC years ago ...   Annie: [00:09:23] Good.   Eve: [00:09:23] ... for one of my projects. And I'm wondering what brought you there.   Annie: [00:09:28] Yeah. So, what brought me to LISC was, so after my experience at the CDFI Fund, I knew I wanted to go back into practice, because that's kind of where my heart and soul lies. And so, one of the characteristics about LISC is that it is very committed to local – 'local initiatives' is part of our name. And I wanted to be in a place that was toiling more closely to the ground. You know, we have local offices, we have 35 and growing, local offices that really are programmatically focused and focused on capacity building alongside lending. And so, that's where I saw the ability to more closely connect those pieces and not just be finance oriented. But to get deeper, closer to the community. And then the second thing was I saw in Maurice Jones, a leader in our industry who is boldly ambitious, is ambitious for the sake of impact, and I was attracted to that as well. So, yes, so that's what drew me to LISC.   Eve: [00:10:41] Then like about community capital, what does community development capital look like today versus 20 years ago?   Annie: [00:10:49] Yeah, that's a really good question. So, I think 20 years ago, if you think about, or even 25 years ago, you know, the sort of the history of community development or community capital, community investment ... The community investment world, really, it braids together organizations and institutions that come from different origin stories. So, there's the origin story of the black-owned banks and minority depository institutions that got underway right after emancipation, for Black Americans to build wealth. There is the credit union movement that was tending to people of modest means who wanted to come together and save together and, you know, have access to financial services that were owned and controlled by them. And then you had the nonprofit loan fund world that emerged because community development really took shape in the war on poverty and the commitment of the federal government to funding community development corporations. There was an era there where there's a lot of federal funding, and we can talk about urban policy and how that, you know, CDCs kind of shifted urban policy. But then in the beginning of the Reagan era is when the feds really pulled back. And that's when loan funds really started to emerge to say, well, we have to create new ways to finance the activity of community development. And that's when the loan funds really started taking root. And then when Clinton came into office, he created the CDFI fund. And that has been a really important policy innovation, still as a policy innovation today, that has been investing the kind of equity capital that the industry needs to grow, that you can't really get anywhere else.   Annie: [00:12:46] So, the industry has really blossomed, partly because we had good seed capital and partly because we just have been a bunch of people who have had a faith in the people and the communities that we're investing in and have found a way to work with traditional and non-traditional sources of capital, to blend them in a way that allows investments to work in, you know, places where, you know, my old economics professor would have said you wouldn't invest in because it wasn't efficient, the rate of return wasn't commensurate with risk, and all those sort of traditional measures, you know, that's the reason capital doesn't flow to some of the communities that we care about. And we are becoming more mainstream. And even though we're still a tiny percentage of the financial services sector, I think through, even through the pandemic, you start to see CDFIs emerge, getting more attention in mainstream media. And certainly LISC has gotten a lot of, we've been able to raise a lot of resources through this pandemic because there's a recognition, and we've not only done the investing and gotten the money there where people said it can't go, but we've done it financially in a fiscally responsible way. So, we've proven that the places and the people we're investing in are creditworthy. That has allowed this industry to grow. And I think it's going to continue to grow. I'm optimistic about that.   Eve: [00:14:19] Years ago, I helped found a CDC in Pittsburgh. And what was really fascinating to me, because I was pretty new here and I didn't really understand this lay of the land very well, you know, I sort of dropped in from another country. But, you know, all of the work we did was to get us to the same place as neighborhoods and places that were doing OK. And I've been in, I've been in this work for a long time and we never seem to get there. And so, I'm wondering, you know, because when you take a step forward with CDFIs, and maybe this is, you know, a really naive way to look at it, but you take a step forward with CDFIs, and you take a step back with banks who no longer really want to bank in or lend in communities, or want more equity or want, you know, more traditional products to lend in, and it's just this never ending catch up, so, how does it all get better.   Annie: [00:15:30] Yeah. So, of course, I, I've been doing a lot of thinking about this and I think a lot of, a lot of folks have been soul searching around this, particularly because of the uprisings, demanding more, you know, racial, that we address racial equity. And so, it does often feel like, you know, some days it really just feels like we are just doing the work of bandaid, you know, putting bandaids on things. And that's, that's where I think this the work right now is really important because we can't be satisfied with what we've done because it's clearly not enough. And, but I think we are in a moment that we have to take, make the best use of, because we can't do this on our own, as our, with our little bitty organizations. And even if we're a billion dollars or two billion dollars or 10 billion dollars, we're still to itty bitty to to create change on the scale that needs to be, that needs to happen. But that doesn't mean this stuff shouldn't happen. And it's, and it does have to happen because even over my career, you know, 25 years ago if somebody had said that you'll be working for a CDFI or you will help the, you know, build a CDFI, that will get to be a billion dollars. You know, wow, that would have been, because we, these loan funds were starting at, they just wanted to get to 10 million, you know.   Eve: [00:17:04] Right.   Annie: [00:17:05] And and we we wouldn't be we wouldn't have the opportunities that are in front of us now if we hadn't taken all those baby steps to get to here. So, over the long haul, you know, I hope that we can get there. But, you know, there's the bigger, we have to be able to impact the bigger picture. And, you know, for example, it was discouraging to me when I was at the CDFI Fund, and the second two years I was there under this administration that, you know, that a tax policy got, got enacted that just, you know, felt like it was going to undo everything that we were trying to do. So, there are these macro forces that, you know, that we have to try to turn the tide on.   Eve: [00:18:04] Yeah, that's depressing. But I know (laughter) but I know it's a really long patient game because I've been, I've seen that, you know, on things I've worked on that initially were like, what are you doing? You're nuts to now being, OK, this is mainstream. Like co-working or lofts downtown or revitalizing downtowns ...   Annie: [00:18:27] Exactly.   Eve: [00:18:27] ... or all of that. And we're actually ...   Annie: [00:18:29] Exactly.   Eve: [00:18:29] ... I think you're right. We're in a moment. All of the progress we were heading towards has been unbelievably compressed by everything that's happened this year. So, maybe that's a good thing, but ...   Annie: [00:18:44] Yeah, and I think that it's also very complex too, right? Because, even we see in some places tremendous progress running exactly alongside of things that feel like tremendous regression ...   Eve: [00:18:56] Yes.   Annie: [00:18:56] ... you know, so, and both of those things are happening at the same time.   Eve: [00:19:01] Well, what's ... I'm going to ask you, may not know the answer. But I really puzzle about what's happening in traditional financial institutions. So, you know, I have this crowdfunding platform and what's been startling to me and, you know, and our purpose is to help raise money for creative change-making projects and help developers get a little equity together, that seems to be a little more and more equity every year as banks change their position on what they lend for. Because we think that creative, those projects are important for making cities better. B   Annie: [00:19:41] Yeh, yes.   Eve: [00:19:41] But it seems to me that they're retracting even further because we're just being flooded at the moment, and equity requirements go up. It just seems to be harder and harder to borrow money, to do things, that are different than the things we have today. And we know we need to do things differently to fix some problems.   Annie: [00:20:09] Yeah, yeah. Well, the way I think about this and what I see from my perch is that I think that we have to, we have to start thinking about the world beyond banks, and, you know, think about and work hard on this, you know, the idea of having broader stakeholders. I mean, banks have been brought to the table on community finance because of the Community Reinvestment Act.   Eve: [00:20:45] Right.   Annie: [00:20:45] And so, so what are the ways in which, you know, there might be policy levers that need to be pulled to get more folks to the table. But also, you know, what the next generation of employees and employers, I mean, I think that we're in for change and I'm really hoping that we're in for change with the next generation of leaders. Because they have been raised with different expectations and they are already changing, corporate, the way ... corporations are reacting. And you see now, you know, we've been the beneficiary of, you know, almost a 100 million dollars in corporate contributions that are going out to small businesses, as, you know, in this pandemic, in the form of relief grants.   Eve: [00:21:44] That's pretty fabulous.   Annie: [00:21:45] And what we did was, the first one that came in, the first corporation that came in and said, can you do this for us? And we said, yes, we can do it for you, but we're going to do it in our LISC way. And that means we are going to get to community-serving businesses that are majority-owned by people of color and women. And they said, OK, cool. Go ahead and do it. So, you know, and then the next company that came in said we want to buy that, we want to buy, especially as PPP, the paycheck protection program and SBA, major piece of the the CARES Act, you know, was clearly written in a way that was just going to follow the old rules for how you distribute capital. And then people started saying, wait, wait, wait, there has to be other ways to do this. And so the work that we were doing was tipping the scales. We put our thumb on the scale in favor of community-serving small businesses and gave preference, and we're ending up with, you know, somewhere in the low 90 percent, of the businesses that we're funding, are owned by people of color.   Eve: [00:23:04] That's pretty great.   Annie: [00:23:05] And yeah, and in the paycheck protection program, we got to about 80 percent of our companies being minority women- and women-owned companies. And when you put together and in the, on the private sector side, our formula was where we're going to advantage certain census tracts. We're going to advantage minority ownership and women ownership, and we're going to advantage certain size. So, when you line all those up, it's not that hard to come up with lots of folks to invest in. And that's where our money's gone.   Eve: [00:23:43] So, another question I have is looking at the other side of it. If a real estate developer has access to community capital, what should her reciprocal responsibilities be to that community?   Annie: [00:23:59] I think that's really, really very important because, and we have to all get better at this as well, in terms of how we doing community engagement, and how we're bringing people into ownership of what happens at the community level. And so I think, you know, there are just these models and this seems to me to be what's out there on the fringe right now, you know, and it's always what's happening on the fringe that's eventually going to be where where we all go, hopefully. But what I see is, I've been been advising on a project that's being done by a foundation of philanthropy. It's not a traditional philanthropy. It's one of the newer philanthropies. And they are, they're going to do they're investing in a real estate project in a very, one of the most distressed census tracts in Washington, D.C. And they are bringing together community stakeholders to say, how do we create a vehicle for people who live in that community right now before the development happens? How do we create a vehicle for them to invest in it and to get ownership in it? And those are, I think, the kind of strategies we need to be thinking about. You know, how do we, because otherwise if you just let this play out via market forces, you get gentrification a lot of times.   Eve: [00:25:40] Right, right, right.   Annie: [00:25:42] So, you know, we don't want to go in that direction. And that that means giving people real ownership stakes.   Eve: [00:25:48] I mean, I agree. That's what we at Small Change, I'm having similar conversations with some very large developers who are starting to think about that ownership piece, in really humongous projects in D.C. and New York. And it's really exciting to see that people are thinking about it. It is hopeful.   Annie: [00:26:08] So, yeah. And if you think about like, so, another example, and this is not at the project level, this is at the fund level. But, you know, we're managing we're going to be managing money on behalf of Netflix. And Netflix went out, and this was somebody inside Netflix who said, you know, in their treasury department, why are we sitting on all this money and not thinking about where it's invested? Why don't we get this to black-owned institutions and, you know, and that, and that's when, so, you know, like back to your question, when are we ever going to see this get better? I mean, that's when it's going to get better, right? When that person inside that corporation goes to the CEO, and the CEO says, yeah, absolutely, why aren't we doing that?   Eve: [00:26:53] Yeh, yeh.   Annie: [00:26:53] And then you put it out there. And once, when Netflix put that out there and they made the investment in us, we had so many corporations respond to say, well, how do we do that, too? So, that's what we have to do. We have to create the bandwagon. But the bandwagon that's moving money in this direction.   Eve: [00:27:12] Yeh. Yeh, yeh. So, I mean, how would you define impact investing then?   Annie: [00:27:20] Ok, so impact investing to me, I always define it as it's a spectrum, right, because I like I think it's important for all of us to have a big umbrella and be inclusive. Right? And on one end of the impact investing spectrum are the folks that would say, you know, you can invest, and do good and do well at the same time. Right? And there's not really a trade off. And then the other end of the spectrum is, you know, where my work has always been, which is on the whether you call it concessionary or catalytic capital, where you're trying to, because on that that first end of the spectrum, you're not disrupting any kind of the market forces. You're sort of saying the market can do this, but there's something missing in terms of information flow. So, if everybody had perfect information, then you know that that would solve the problem. So, I've never bought into that because I don't think that it accounts for the systemic racism that exists in our society and in our economy. And so, I think you have to be more disruptive than that. And that requires capital that, that is, that can be designed in a, and stacked and engineered in a way that allows more people to get access to it, to do the kind of projects, to create the kind of businesses that are going to let them into, you know, more economic activity. So, yeah. And my dream is always in my work is always trying to think about, how do we get the people who are on one end of the spectrum down toward the catalytic end? Because if you want to disrupt poverty, you can't do it on the market end, purely market end.   Eve: [00:29:28] No. Interesting. I mean, impact investing has been growing, I still think it's small. Do you expect, I'm, I suppose I'm wondering if you expect this, the events of this year to rapidly increase interest in that, too. Well, certainly if you see it from Netflix.   Annie: [00:29:52] Yeah, I think I think it is. And I think the question is, you know, the question that's on our mind at LISC is how do we, how do we convert the short-term interest into long-term relationships. Because, and how do we get people to see? Because actually, frankly, in the short run, it's good for a corporation's brand to step up and do this kind of work.   Eve: [00:30:17] Oh, yeh.   Annie: [00:30:17] I mean they're ... Yeah, and there's not really much at stake there. And frankly, you know, they could direct, if they wanted to, they could purely direct this out of their PR budgets.   Eve: [00:30:28] Yes.   Annie: [00:30:29] You know, and so how do we, how do we, you know, convert people to the long-term play? That's the work that's in front of us right now.   Eve: [00:30:40] Right. So, Just shifting gears a little bit, how, you know, what do we need to think about to make our cities and neighborhoods just better places for everyone?   Annie: [00:30:55] Yeah. I think that we have to, we have to think comprehensively, first of all. So, I don't think, that's the other another reason that I wanted to join LISC is because I like the comprehensive approach. Because I don't think there's any one dimension to neighborhood life that is a silver bullet. Right? So we have to invest more in education and housing stability is fundamental to economic mobility. And so, we have to invest in all of these things. And, you know, back to, back to the big picture of tax policy and how we tax and spend. I do think we just, the thing is, we know exactly what we need to do.   Eve: [00:31:54] Yes.   Annie: [00:31:55] We just have to invest in it. Right? We know the payoff of early childhood education. We know the payoff of education in general. We know the payoff of preventive health care. So, you know, what more evidence do you need? We just need to have the will and the commitment as a society. And once that's there, I think everything else follows.   Eve: [00:32:24] Yeh. And I see physically, too, we know the payoff of neighborhood parks and better streets and better lighting and all of those things that everyone wants in their own neighborhood. And some people don't have.   Annie: [00:32:39] Right. And we have to develop we have to develop our collective will to say that that's not OK. That's not the world we want to live in.   Eve: [00:32:49] So, what community engagement tools have you seen that have worked that, you know, you mentioned that that's a critical piece of it and that's hard.   Annie: [00:32:59] It is hard. It's hard for a lot of reasons, one of which is that when community developers who don't know community, if they don't know the community, if you're coming in to this, you know, as a sort of professional, you may have certain assumptions about what people, and I think one of the things we make a mistake on this all the time, like what does the community want? Well, you know what? Not everybody in the community agrees on what they want, just like, and just like in your community, you know.   Eve: [00:33:35] Yes.   Annie: [00:33:35] So, I think starting with listening, and being open is really, really important. And so, I mentioned a, you know, the project where, you know, in Washington, D.C., where the funder was coming in and actually saying, OK, we want to do, we want the result of, to be that people have an ownership stake. But why don't we find out from the community what that means to them, how they would do it? What, is that what you, is that what's really wanted? You know, so I think, you know, good community engagement starts with listening, not making assumptions and and bringing people in and just providing the space for voices to be to be heard and listened to. And, you know, just having a faith in that. That that's, you know, that that's going to going to lead you down the right path is a good way to get people involved. And I think that also, you know, when I started my career, after I got back from the Peace Corps, I went to work for the Campaign for Human Development. And in that work, we funded a lot of community organizing. And the ability of communities to organize themselves is also an important piece of this. Like the, there's very little investment that goes into community organizing. And I think that's a really important component.   Eve: [00:35:24] You know, that's what I was just going to say, because I think about, like when you're a very large developer doing a large scale project, you can absorb that community organizing piece.   Annie: [00:35:35] Yes.   Eve: [00:35:35] But when you're a small developer doing like interstitial projects that are, you know, fit into a neighborhood, that becomes a pretty heavy lift in terms of resources ...   Annie: [00:35:46] Exactly.   Eve: [00:35:46] ... and there to help, and how do you get that done properly. It's really, it's hard. It's hard.   Annie: [00:35:53] Right. Right. And it's also, you know, and we need more philanthropy dollars in that because that's a really hard role for government to play. And we administer a lot of Section 4 money, and that's out of the HUD budget, and that's for capacity building of local organizations, and, tt's really hard money to work with.   Eve: [00:36:16] Yes. Yeh, yeh.   Annie: [00:36:16] You know, it's, so there's a need for investment in, of flexible dollars into neighborhood organizing and leadership development.   Eve: [00:36:27] Yeah, no, I agree. So, what's what's next for you and LISC? I mean, what do you think the next five years will look like in this pretty fast-moving time that we're having here?   Annie: [00:36:40] Yes. So. Well, I think that we are on a pathway, move, you know, moving to the next level of growth and scale. And for us, that's about how do we, how do we use the assets that we've built so far to get to the next, to get to that next level? And I think for us, you know, putting impact first, you know, the racial equity piece of this is really important. And I think, I am very hopeful that we are going to be able to do the deeper work there, that we're going to, you know, take, choose the pathway of doing the harder, deeper work. Because the long-term outcome is going to be better. And we're going to, you know, try to bring our partners along for that ride. And I think that we are through this period, we have greatly increased our capacity to reach small businesses, and to think about inclusive economic development. How do we build the infrastructure for more inclusive economic development? And ecosystems that support community, small community-owned or locally owned small businesses? And, you know, and we have to be thinking about how are we disrupting systems? So, because we're at the edges of them now, you know, in terms of their usefulness and we have to build something that's built to suit, for the next level of scale. So.   Eve: [00:38:41] Thank you very much. I really enjoyed the conversation. And I can't I really can't wait to see what you build and where LISC goes and where you go with all this.   Annie: [00:38:52] Well, thank you and I love the work that you're doing, every dimension, you know, that, every strategy that brings in more capital and the, you know, more of the kind of equity capital that you're pulling in and democratizing that, I think is a really powerful strategy. And I also wish you the best.   Eve: [00:39:17] Yeh, all takes ... Thank you, Annie.   Annie: [00:39:19] Yes. I can't wait to. I can't wait to see that happening.   Eve: [00:39:22] Bye.   Annie: [00:39:22] OK. Bye, bye.   Eve: [00:39:29] That was Annie Donovan. Annie thinks we need to start thinking about the world beyond banks. We need to find a way to let communities invest in order to change how we tackle development. To give them a real stake in their own future. Listening is key, as is providing the space for people to be heard. For Annie, impact investment needs to have a big umbrella and be deeply inclusive. She also understands playing the long game, saying that we know exactly what to do, but that we need to develop as a society, the collective will to invest in that knowledge. You can find out more about impact real estate investing and access the show notes for today's episode at my website, EvePicker.com. While you're there, sign up for my newsletter to find out more about how to make money in real estate while building better cities. Thank you so much for spending your time with me today and thank you any for sharing your thoughts. We'll talk again soon. But for now, this is Eve Picker, signing off to go make some change.

This week's headlines, David and Monique round up our "systemic investing" call, plus Maurice Jones is this week's Agent of Impact. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/impact-alpha-briefing/message

This week's headlines, David and Monique round up our "systemic investing" call, plus Maurice Jones is this week's Agent of Impact. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/impact-alpha/message

Welcome to More Than Profit Season 2! On this episode, Bryce talks with Maurice Jones, President and CEO of Local Initiative Support Corporation (LISC). They talk about the history importance, and future of Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs); the importance of the intentional use of race when addressing racial gaps and systemic issues that resulted from an intentional use of race; and, the ways in which specific relationships have impacted Maurice and his work. Maurice and Bryce discuss the necessity of giving increased support to black and brown communities that were previously redlined and intentionally excluded from ownership and the financial markets. Learn more on this episode of More Than Profit, Banking Reimagined with Maurice Jones. Learn more about our work at Access Ventures

This week we are joined by Maurice Jones, CEO of Scooks Cleaning. Join us to hear his story, motivation and the service that he and his team are committed to provide to the community. Anything from needing your lawn maintained to installing hardwood floors, Scooks Cleaning is the company for you. Contact information is Scooks Cleaning on Facebook. We hope that you receive motivation and inspiration from this episode and give this business owner an opportunity to provide service to you. To support the podcast $ntellect1 on Cash App http://www.gospelgains.com

This episode of Organize Your Butterflies explores how COVID-19 has affected low income communities across the country, and the ways in which community investment though (Community Development Financial Institutions) CDFIs is helping provide support during these challenging economic times. With their distinct niche as financial institutions with a mission driven bottom-line, CDFIs do so much more than just provide access to capital. Episode guest Maurice Jones, President of Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) chats with Alejandra Y. Castillo, CEO of YWCA USA about these important institutions, the significance of community investment, and the future of rebuilding commercial spaces in places where they’ve been historically overlooked. For more information on how LISC is helping out, be sure to check out their website and follow Maurice on Twitter @LISCMaurice!

In the first episode of Real Good, we speak with Maurice Jones, CEO of the Local Initiative Support Corporation about how even systemic problems must be fought at the local level, why broadband available is one of the biggest problems facing rural America today and how access and opportunity are one in the same. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The following is a conversation between Maurice Jones, President and CEO of LISC, and Denver Frederick, the host of The Business of Giving. In this interview, Maurice Jones, President and CEO of Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), shares the following: • LISC's plan to support small business • The need for competency when using technology • Future trend: Workplace Cleanliness

In what might be her last in studio interview for a while (for obvious reasons), Kristen spoke with Maurice Jones this week, the General Manager and Co Founder of PAR Recycle Works. PAR stands for “People Advancing Reintegration”. This non profit e-waste recycling company keeps busy “recycling electronics and restoring lives”. They serve as a transitional employer for people returning from prison, helping to provide them with skills and opportunities, while working to build safer communities. Consider PAR Recycling Works for your e-waste recycling needs. They offer drop-off and pickup options. They are a registered organization on Amazon Smile, so think of them next time you’re shopping on Amazon.  https://smile.amazon.com/ch/47-2545218. Every little bit counts. As a 501c3, PAR Recycling Works accepts donations and is always looking for volunteers. Follow them on social media for information on upcoming e-waste recycling events, and find more information at https://home.par-recycleworks.org/ Then Kristen speaks with Liz Luczyszyn, the President of Luv-N-Bunns, a rabbit rescue and placement organization for abandoned bunnies in the Philadelphia area. They work to rescue domestic rabbits from abandoned stray situations, kill shelters, private relinquishments and hoarding cases. Once rescued, the organization provides each ‘bunn’ with a nurturing foster home, proper care, shelter and love, plus all necessary veterinary care, including spay/neuter surgery. Since its inception in 2007, Luv-N-Bunns is responsible for saving the lives of almost 2,000 abandoned rabbits. Help them by purchasing from their Amazon Wish List. Learn more about Luv-N-Bunns and their mission at www.luvnbunns.org.

In part two of this AHA Advancing Health podcast, Jay Bhatt, D.O., AHA senior vice president and chief medical officer, and Maurice Jones, president and CEO of the Local Initiatives Support Corporation, continue their discussion on social determinants of health and how collaborations between hospitals and community development organizations advance health equity

On this AHA Advancing Health podcast, Jay Bhatt, D.O., AHA senior vice president and chief medical officer, and Maurice Jones, president and CEO of the Local Initiatives Support Corporation, discuss social determinants of health and how collaborations between hospitals and community development organizations can advance health equity.

Episode 8 of the NNC podcast features Maurice Jones, the Artistic and Communications Director for MUTEK Japan. MUTEK is a worldwide organization that produces events at the intersection of art, music, technology, science, and more. In this discussion, Maurice described what brought him to Japan from Germany in the first place, how he found his current position with MUTEK, and what they're working on now. The discussion includes how MUTEK is working to prioritize diverse, inclusive lineups in their events (as well as how they're making spaces to engage in discussion about these topics). Find more about MUTEK and their events from their homepage!MUTEK Japan Website: https://mutek.jp/MUTEK Japan Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mutek.jp/MUTEK Japan Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MUTEKJP/MUTEK Japan Twitter: https://twitter.com/mutek_jp?lang=enMUTEK Home: http://www.mutek.org/en/Maurice on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mauricej.studio/Follow Nonnative Creative on social media for regular updates to keep your creativity flowing!Twitter: https://twitter.com/nnativecreativeInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/nonnativecreative/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/nonnativecreativeproject/Website: https://nonnativecreative.com/Find Alisha on social media:Twitter: https://twitter.com/ArishaInTokyoInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/arishaintokyo/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/arishaintokyo/Support Nonnative Creative on Patreon and get access to bonus materials like interview transcripts, vocabulary worksheets, and patron-only extras! Your support will help make sure the series can continue!https://www.patreon.com/nonnativecreative ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Maurice Jones continues our Go: series. In Acts Chapter 9, Maurice looks at Saul's conversion and calling.

Maurice Jones

Maurice Jones begins our new series on Moses by looking at "Living with the past" from Exodus 1:8-14

Maurice Jones

Maurice Jones

This week we're joined by Maurice Jones, President and CEO of LISC (Local Initiatives Support Corporation). Maurice talks about working with communities and existing businesses to develop talent in the workforce, breaking down barriers to entry in certain professions such as property development, and the history of policies and practices that intentionally excluded certain populations from opportunity.  

This month on the Rail~Volution podcast we chat with Maurice Jones, President of the Local Initiatives Support Corporation or LISC.  Maurice talks about how he got into community development, their involvement in a new Bay Area housing initiative, and the potential for investments to make big changes for the better.

Maurice Jones and JK Hamilton

Maurice Jones concludes our series on Micah 6v8. The final part is: Walk Humbly

Maurice Jones

Charles Ellison interviews Maurice Jones about his work with PAR-Recycle Works, a local nonprofit that teaches returning citizens to break down electronics—and sells the resulting scrap metal. 

In part 2 of the discussion on Zombie homes, Maurice Jones, Helene Caloir and Morgan Harper delve deeper into the world of Zombie and vacant properties and suggest successful ways to bring these properties back to life to revitalize communities. And the best part is … it can be done!Support the show (https://secure.givelively.org/donate/local-initiatives-support-corp)

PC101 Opportunity Zones... a freshly minted new community development tool poised to incentivize private investments in low-income and distress communities across the nation.Welcome to the CRA Podcast. I’m Linda Lewis Ezuka, your host and Founder of CRA Today. This podcast is part of my mission to transform communities through the power of economic development and the Community Reinvestment Act. We are lucky enough today to have with us a very good friend of mine and a spectacular human being, Maurice Jones. Maurice Jones is the President and CEO of Local Initiatives Support Corporation (otherwise know as LISC). Mr. Jones will share his perspective on the Opportunity Zones Program recently enacted by Congress.

How does government currently work in Charlottesville? That was the general question posted to panelists Sunday at a forum cosponsored by Charlottesville Tomorrow and the League of Women Voters. "People tend to look at local government to solve all community problems even though their powers are limited," said Bitsy Waters, a former Charlottesville mayor. "It's the job of [city] Councils to listen and figure out what they can and can't do.” The event held at the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library’s Central Branch was the first of a series designed to educate newcomers to local politics on what’s come before and what could change. "In the aftermath of the events in Charlottesville this past August, many citizens have asked us to hold educational programs that would inform citizens about how the local city government is structured today and how it might be structured in the future," said Kerin Yates, president of the League of Women Voters. Richard Schragger, a professor of law at the University of Virginia, is the author of City Power: Urban Governance in a Global Age. He said citizens should understand both how local governments fit into our country's federal system as well as how localities are structured in Virginia. "Often the folks that are exercising power are not in fact the elected officials of the city but are actually officials either in the state government or the federal government," Schragger said. "Cities all across the country are considered to be creatures of the state as a matter of federal Constitutional law." Schragger said most localities across the country have a council-manager form of government such as Charlottesville. In this set-up, elected officials serve as a legislature that acts as an executive and sometimes makes quasi-judicial decisions such as those related to land use. "We do not have a singular executive that exercises power," Schragger said. "The mayor is elected among the folks on the Council and that person speaks for the Council to the extent the Council wants them to do." Since 2010, City Manager Maurice Jones has made decisions that in other U.S. localities would be the realm of an elected mayor. In Virginia, only Richmond citizens have what is known as a "strong" mayor. "The city manager doesn't have political authority, but managerial authority," Schragger said. "It's a little bit confusing about who is supposed to do what in these kinds of systems." Charles Barbour served as the first African-American mayor from 1974 to 1976. He was clear who had the power when he was an elected official. "The buck stopped with the Council even though the city manager ran the city," Barbour said, who was served on Council from 1970 to 1978. At the time, Barbour said Charlottesville was still coming out of state-sanctioned segregation and there was an opportunity for many changes. When Barbour joined Council in 1970, there was only one African-American on the school board, which was an appointed body at the time. He nominated a second person of color. "That created a big stir because traditionally there was just one African-American on the school board," Barbour said. "If you look around today you have many things that have changed." Barbour said African-Americans in the mid-20th century and before could only live in the heart of the city. "Yet anyone could build a service station or garage next to African-American housing because that was the rule," Barbour said. "We changed those rules. We rezoned so that could never happen again." Bitsy Waters was first elected to Council in 1988 and was made Mayor during her first term, just as has happened with current Mayor Nikuyah Walker, "It was a steep learning curve," Waters said. "Lots of things have changed since then but our form of government is basically the same." Waters explained that Councilors are elected in staggered terms to provide change as well as continuity. Each member represents the entire city rather than an individual ward. She said Virginia is unique in that cities and counties are separate from each other. That leads to duplication of services. "We have the constraint of state and federal governments that have substantially reduced their financial support for schools, affordable housing and other services," Waters said. "City government does not have the financial resources to make up for all of those deficits." Waters said the effects of those constraints can be seen in current events. Council cannot remove Confederate statues in municipal parks without permission from the General Assembly. A House bill to allow cities to relocate them to a museum failed to make it out of a committee late last month. Tom Walls, executive director of the Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership at the University of Virginia, was also a panelist. The next event in the series will be held on Feb. 25 at the Jefferson School African-American Heritage Center beginning at 2:00 p.m. The topic will be "How might Charlottesville be governed differently in the future?"   TIMELINE FOR PODCAST 0:01:00 - Introduction from Kerin Yates, president of the  League Women of Votes 0:03:00 - Comments from Brian Wheeler of Charlottesville 0:04:00 - Comments from Andrea Douglas of the Jefferson School African-American Heritage Center 0:07:15 - Opening comments from Richard Schragger, a professor of law at the University of Virginia 0:21:15 - Opening comments from Charles Barbour, the first African-American mayor who served from 1974 to 1976 0:26:00 - Opening coments from Bitsy Waters, mayor from 1988 to 1990 0:38:10 - Opening comments from Tom Walls of the Jefferson School African-American Heritage Center 0:45:30 – Question and answer period begins   Download

This week we’re sharing the last plenary session of the Rail~volution conference which was a panel discussion of three current mayors of major United States cities hosted by Maurice Jones of LISC.  Mayor Libby Schaaf of Oakland, Mayor Bill Peduto of Pittsburgh, and Mayor Michael Hancock of Denver discuss transportation and innovation in their cities including civic focused non-profits, public-private partnerships, neighborhoods pressures and resilience. 

A (fictional) Director's Commentary from the (fictional) short film that inspired the (fictional) big budget feature romantic comedy "Then I Saw Her Face". Performed by Birgit Huppuch, with Maurice Jones and Libby Woodbridge. Written by Chris Kipiniak and Louis Kornfeld, and produced by Jonathan Mitchell.

A (fictional) Director's Commentary from the (fictional) short film that inspired the (fictional) big budget feature romantic comedy "Then I Saw Her Face". Performed by Birgit Huppuch, with Maurice Jones and Libby Woodbridge. Written by Chris Kipiniak and Louis Kornfeld, and produced by Jonathan Mitchell.

A (fictional) Director's Commentary from the (fictional) short film that inspired the (fictional) big budget feature romantic comedy "Then I Saw Her Face". Performed by Birgit Huppuch, with Maurice Jones and Libby Woodbridge. Written by Chris Kipiniak and Louis Kornfeld, and produced by Jonathan Mitchell.

Episode 10 features the works Crawl and Perfect, both written by Crystal Skillman. Casts include: Maurice Jones, Sheldon Best, Saundra Santiago, and Karina Arroyave.