Podcasts about public safety committee

Radical teachers play the victim as parents finally start pushing back on extreme gender ideology. Head of Washington's public school system is just begging Donald Trump to give us the Maine treatment. Chair of Public Safety Committee doesn't care if kids die, as long as families can die together. Joy has left the building. 

(The Center Square) – Seattle City Councilmember Cathy Moore has announced proposed reforms to limit the Seattle Police Department's use of blast balls for crowd control. Blast balls are rubber devices that create a loud sound and bright flash, and can also contain tear gas. Moore's reforms would be in the form of amendments for proposed Council Bill 120916, which is currently sitting in the Public Safety Committee. The bill would help the Seattle Police Department be in full compliance with a preliminary injunction regarding the department's crowd control measures.Support this podcast: https://secure.anedot.com/franklin-news-foundation/ce052532-b1e4-41c4-945c-d7ce2f52c38a?source_code=xxxxxxFull story: https://www.thecentersquare.com/washington/article_ebe9d3a8-cf9c-11ef-8d42-5b0c85ddb77f.html

Mysterious drones have been spotted in the skies above New Jersey, and no one really knows where they came from and what they're for. It has prompted alarm in Connecticut residents and now state senators are sounding the alarm about public safety protocols if these drones end up flying in our skies. Senator Paul Cicarella, ranking senator on the Public Safety Committee, weighs in on the conversation. Image Credit: Getty Images 

This week the full Oakland Council takes up the contentious issue of the city's use of ShotSpotter gunshot detection technology, used by the Oakland Police Department. Last week the council's Public Safety Committee did vote 2-1 to approve a new 2.5 Million three year contract with the company that provides service. For more, KCBS Radio anchors Margie Shafer and Eric Thomas were joined by KCBS Insider Phil Matier.

Funeral arrangements have been announced for the victims of the Park Tavern tragedy. Gabe Harvey will be laid to rest Thursday afternoon. A memorial service will be held for Kristina Folkerts next Thursday.Steven Frane Bailey has been charged in the case. Hennepin County Mary Moriarty said his blood alcohol level was four times the legal limit at the time of the crash. He had five previous DWI convictions and for a time had his license revoked and an interlock ignition device put on his car. That's a technology that prevents a driver from starting their car without first passing a breathalyzer test. That restriction on Bailey had expired at the time of the crash.The recent tragedy has raised the question of whether stricter penalties or restrictions could prevent future deaths. And a couple of lawmakers have said this question will be on the agenda during the 2025 legislative session. DFL Sen. Ron Latz represents St. Louis Park and he's chair of the chamber's Judiciary and Public Safety Committee. He joined MPR News host Cathy Wurzer to explain what he hopes to see changed at the capitol.

Ep. 155 Maryann Rivera-Dannert talks with TEDx speaker and coach Natasha Rawls about overcoming an unexpected divorce and depression. Natasha shares her journey from living the American dream to navigating single motherhood and rebuilding her confidence. They discuss the importance of faith, healing, and community, as well as Natasha's re-marriage and her work empowering women. Discover insights on mastering communication, financial resilience, and living fearlessly. Featuring Natasha's rebranding efforts, her best-selling books, and plans for 2024, including international travel and community projects. Key Takeaways: Confidence is Key: Building confidence is fundamental to living an empowered life and achieving extraordinary results. Healing and Resilience: Overcoming trauma and depression requires deep inner work, forgiveness, and the support of a loving community. Continued Growth: Natasha emphasizes the importance of coaching, continuous learning, and practical strategies in personal and professional growth. Service to Others: Engaging in community service and helping others can be a powerful strategy to combat depression and find purpose. New Adventures: Natasha's journey highlights the importance of embracing new opportunities and living life without fear. Notable Quotes: "I had to do the work to get rid of my own baggage, trauma, and negative mindsets before bringing anyone else into my world." "Even if my knees are knocking, I'm still going to go for it and push past my fear." "Just because you have a baby on your hip doesn't mean you can't make progress." "Write yourself a new chapter and make it as exciting as you want it to be." Resources: Natasha's Website: https://www.yourcoachnatasha.com/ www.facebook.com/YourCoachNatashaRawls (Personal Page) www.facebook.com/YourCoachNatasha (Ministry Page) www.instagram.com/YourCoachNatashaRawls Watch Natasha's TedxTalk: https://youtu.be/0JftQV7TMBE?si=8vNW3P0yuX9808mf Bio: Natasha N. Mackey Rawls has relocated to Tallahassee, Florida with the love of her live.  Previously she lived in New Mexico for 26 years. In 2014, Mackey Rawls was elected to serve on the City Council in Roswell, New Mexico; and was a key contender for Mayor of Roswell in the election of 2018. As a Council member, she served as the Vice Chair of the General Services Committee and on the Public Safety Committee. Mackey Rawls faithfully and effectively participated in the Roswell government to honor God and serve her community. Mackey Rawls holds a master's degree in business administration from the University of New Mexico, Anderson School of Management, and a master's degree in education from Eastern New Mexico University. Connect with Maryann Website: https://www.maryannriveradannert.com IG: https://www.instagram.com/maryannriveradannert/ FB: https://www.facebook.com/MRDEmpowermentSolutions Linkedin: https://www.bit.ly/maryannriveradannert Chapters 0:00 Overcoming Divorce and Depression to Become a Confident Leader 5:57 Rebuilding Confidence and Faith After Divorce 14:10 Living Fearlessly and Embracing New Chapters 24:43 Adjusting to Florida Life and Embracing New Adventures 26:49 Empowering Women and Veterans Through Confidence and Resilience Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

JACKSON, Miss. (WLBT) - A new Jackson ordinance will require businesses to hire security if they have at least three violent crimes in a 90-day period. On Tuesday, the Jackson City Council approved an ordinance requiring businesses associated with violent crimes to hire security during hours of operation. The measure was approved after about 20 minutes of heated discussion, and after several council members and City Attorney Drew Martin raised concerns about whether the ordinance could be enforced. “I've advised the council on a couple of occasions now that while I think this is a well-intentioned ordinance, I do not believe that it is enforceable,” Martin said. “I don't believe that the law would allow the city to require the businesses to hire personnel and also think the definition of a business associated with violence during hours of operation is going to be too ambiguous.” Ward 3 Councilman Kenneth Stokes disagreed, saying the council needed to send a message that the city is against crime. “If the legal department thinks they can't defend that, then I understand that, but we'll get somebody who can,” he said. “Don't tell these citizens you've got to keep dying in this city, and ain't nobody going to do nothing.” The measure was approved on a 5-1-1 vote, with Stokes and Councilmembers Ashby Foote, Angelique Lee, Aaron Banks, and Vernon Hartley voting in favor. Councilman Brian Grizzell voted against the ordinance, and Councilwoman Virgi Lindsay abstained. The vote came after the council amended the one-page ordinance to provide more specifics on what businesses would be impacted. Rather than businesses “associated with violence,” the council changed the ordinance to say any business that has had at least three violent crimes in 90 days. Banks initially recommended five crimes during that timeframe, but Mayor Chokwe Antar Lumumba said that might be too many. “What I'm saying is five crimes within 90 days, that's a lot. It's a lot,” he said. “I'm saying three crimes, two to three crimes within 90 days [are] too many. Linsday suggested putting the item back in the Public Safety Committee, “because we do not have time to sit here and dissect this line by line today.” Banks said the item was held over from a previous meeting and there had already been a request for the City Attorney's Office to bring forward any suggestions. “It's rolled over to the time of the adoption, so, I'm trying to help get it to a place where it's healthy enough to be passed [and] to have a good legal grounding,” he said. “I don't want council members to feel like if something goes up for introduction... and I know you're busy, I'm not trying to slight [you]... I'm just trying to get it to a place...” Martin said he'd be happy to sit down with Stokes to discuss the ordinance further, saying the first time he saw it was the first time it was on the agenda two weeks ago. “We've been doing that with Councilwoman Lee. We've done it with Councilman Hartley,” he said. “I think there's a way to address the issue he's trying to address and do it in a legal way that we can defend, and have confidence that our police can enforce it,” he said. Stokes also rejected holding off on the vote, saying putting it back into committee would be akin to killing it. “If legal wanted to do something with this ordinance to help stop these killings, they would have had a companion ordinance, which they do not have. That ain't nothing but fluff that you tell the new and green people,” he said. “We can vote, Mr. President, I'm ready. If it dies, it dies. But we'll keep fighting.” The ordinance will go into effect in 30 days, pending an appeal to the Hinds County Circuit Court.

June 21, 2024 ~ Crime survivors testified before the Senate Civil Rights, Judiciary and Public Safety Committee yesterday in support of The Safer Michigan Act. Guy, Lloyd, and Jamie talk with Priscilla Bordayo, statewide manager of Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice, about what the new bipartisan legislation would do for criminals and survivors.

University of Missouri graduate State Rep. Travis Smith (R-Dora) has filed "Danny's law" for the second straight year. It's named for Columbia hazing victim Danny Santulli, who is now blind and cannot walk after the alleged October 2021 high-profile incident in Columbia. Representative Smith's two-page bill would prevent someone from being convicted of hazing if they're the first to call 911 or campus security to report a need for medical assistance. While the Missouri House Crime Prevention and Public Safety Committee has approved Smith's House Bill 1443, it has yet to be debated on the House floor in Jefferson City. Missouri's 2024 legislative session ends on Friday May 17. "Missouri Times" publisher Scott Faughn joined us live this morning on 939 the Eagle's "Wake Up Mid-Missouri." Mr. Faughn is not optimistic about Danny's law passing, since it's so late in the session. We also discussed the federal reimbursement allowance (FRA), a key funding mechanism for Missouri Medicaid. Mr, Faughn tells listeners that he believes the Missouri Senate could third-read the FRA bill today. Faughn also says that if the state budget isn't approved by Friday's deadline, he wouldn't be surprised if Missouri Governor Mike Parson calls a special session to begin next Monday:

State Sen. Travis Fitzwater (R-Holts Summit) chairs the Missouri Senate Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety Committee. Senator Fitzwater joined us live on 939 the Eagle's "Wake Up Mid-Missouri" this morning, discussing education, home-schooling, his proposed constitutional amendment involving reducing the size of the Missouri House and tweaking term limits and Boone County's planned regional law enforcement training center. Senator Fitzwater tells listeners that Missouri has one of the best home-schooling laws in the nation, adding that legislation from State Rep. Phil Christofanelli (R-St. Peters) will make that law stronger. Senator Fitzwater and his wife home-school their children. Senator Fitzwater has filed Senate Joint Resolution 70, which is a proposed constitutional amendment. Senator Fitzwater wants to reduce the Missouri House's size from 163 to 102. Under the measure, ALL Missouri House districts would have to be wholly contained in one Missouri Senate district. The proposed constitutional amendment would also tweak Missouri's term limits law. Currently, Missouri lawmakers can serve up to eight years in the House and up to eight years in the Senate for a total of 16 years. Under SJR 70, lawmakers could serve up to 16 years total in the General Assembly, regardless of which chamber. Senator Fitzwater admits lawmakers in both parties don't like the idea of reducing the House's size to 102. He also says it's time to consider reducing the session's length. Missouri lawmakers currently meet from January to May. Senator Fitzwater also discussed Boone County's planned regional law enforcement training center in Columbia, which will have a statewide role. Ground was broken on Wednesday. He says Senate President Pro Tem Caleb Rowden (R-Columbia) and Boone County Presiding Commissioner Kip Kendrick (D) played major roles, adding that Kendrick also worked on this when he served in the House:

On Monday, the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee will hear a bill that makes swatting public officials a felony. Swatting is when someone makes a false emergency call of a violent incident such as a mass shooting or bomb threat, prompting the dispatch of emergency responders. U.S. Congressman Tom Emmer, who lives in Delano, was swatted earlier this year, and according to the FBI, more than 550 swatting incidents have occurred across the country since May 2023. At least two innocent people have died as a result of swatting-- one was shot by officers, the other had a heart attack.In Minnesota, swatting calls that send first responders to the home of an elected official, judge, prosecuting attorney, employee of a correctional facility, or peace officer is currently a gross misdemeanor. As a felony, perpetrators would receive up to one year in prison and a $5,000 fine. GOP Senator Warren Limmer joined MPR News host Cathy Wurzer to break down the Senate swatting bill.

Since 2020, L.A.'s 10th council district has had a revolving cast of councilmembers, both elected and appointed. Now, voters finally get to choose a permanent, voting representative on the council.There is a big and impressive field of candidates   – and on this episode I talk with Reggie Jones-Sawyer.An Assemblymember representing South Los Angeles since 2012, Jones-Sawyer revived the chamber's Progressive Caucus and has chaired the Public Safety Committee, where he was pushed major legislation to reimagine public safety and promote alternatives to incarceration. Prior to his election to office, Jones-Sawyer was an officer with the Los Angeles County Democratic Party. He served for several years in various capacities for the City of Los Angeles, including as deputy mayor, an assistant general manager, and director of real estate.You can find out more about his campaign here: https://www.reggieforla.com/

GDP Script/ Top Stories for Feb 20th      Publish Date:  Feb 19th         HENSSLER 15 From the Ingles Studio Welcome to the Gwinnett Daily Post Podcast. Today is Tuesday, February 20th and Happy heavenly Birthday to Steely Dan co-founder Walter Becker. ***02.20.24 – BIRTHDAY – WALTER BECKER*** I'm Keith Ippolito and here are your top stories presented by Tom Wages Funeral Home Search Underway for Gwinnett Teen Missing for Three Weeks Since Departing School Proposed Georgia House Bill Seeks to Boost Demographic Diversity in Invest Georgia Fund Selection Process Freedom to Drive Bill Introduced by Gwinnett Legislator All of this and more is coming up on the Gwinnett Daily Post podcast, and if you are looking for community news, we encourage you to listen daily and subscribe! Break 1: TOM WAGES   STORY 1: Gwinnett Police Looking For Missing Teen Last Seen Leaving School Three Weeks Ago The Gwinnett County Police Department is actively searching for Eva Virginia Cambron, a 15-year-old student from Lilburn, who has been missing for three weeks. She was last seen departing from McClure Science High School and was spotted running down Club Drive in the direction of Shackleford Road. Cambron's disappearance was reported through the Gwinnett County Public Schools Police Department. At the time of her disappearance, she was wearing a grey hoodie, dark pants, and light-colored shoes. She stands 5 feet 2 inches tall, weighs approximately 115 pounds, and has long, dark hair and brown eyes. Authorities are urging anyone with information on Cambron's whereabouts to come forward. You can contact the Gwinnett County Police or provide information anonymously via Crime Stoppers of Greater Atlanta. STORY 2: Georgia House Bill Would Add Demographic Diversity To Invest Georgia Fund Selection Criteria State Representative Darshun Kendrick, representing Lithonia, is championing House Bill 1138 with the goal of broadening the demographic reach of the Invest Georgia Fund. The fund operates as a "fund of funds", directing state resources into venture capital firms which subsequently invest in local businesses. The proposed legislation by Kendrick introduces a new criterion to the fund's objectives - promoting investment diversity that mirrors Georgia's demographic diversity. The objective behind this initiative is to stimulate economic growth and generate job opportunities for a wider range of Georgians. Presently, the bill is being deliberated by the Georgia House Economic Development and Tourism Committee. STORY 3: Gwinnett Lawmaker Files Freedom to Drive Bill In a move geared towards inclusivity and public safety, State Senator Nabilah Islam Parkes, representing Duluth, has tabled Senate Bill 478, also known as the Freedom To Drive Act. This legislation aims to extend driver's license access to non-U.S. citizens in Georgia. The bill proposes the provision of government-issued identification and driving authorization cards to immigrants, independent of their immigration status. The objective is to legally enable immigrants to drive, thereby enhancing public safety and fostering a more inclusive environment. This measure also seeks to allow them to contribute more effectively to Georgia's economy and societal fabric. Currently under review by the Senate's Public Safety Committee, the bill suggests an eight-year valid license for noncitizens and ensures non-discrimination during the application process. A variety of documents, including school IDs, employment IDs, and immigration-related papers like DACA approval letters, are deemed acceptable for this purpose. We have opportunities for sponsors to get great engagement on these shows. Call 770.874.3200 for more info. We'll be right back. Break 2: INGLES 6   STORY 4: Georgia Power objections cast long shadow over state lawmakers' efforts to expand solar energy In Georgia, there is a growing call for the expansion of community solar initiatives, which proponents argue could lower overall energy costs and broaden access to clean energy. However, these proposals face opposition from Georgia Power, the state's largest electric utility. The legislative measures under consideration would permit developers to construct small solar arrays within Georgia Power's jurisdiction. This would allow customers to subscribe to a share of the electricity produced by these arrays and subsequently receive credits on their utility bills. Advocates insist that this initiative would particularly benefit renters and homeowners with roof areas unsuitable for solar panels due to shading. Georgia Power counters this argument by suggesting that such a program could result in cost shifting to other consumers and potentially lead to confusion among ratepayers. Despite these concerns, supporters stress the urgency of expanding clean energy options in light of escalating energy costs and an anticipated energy deficit. For these bills to progress, they need to pass at least one legislative chamber by the deadline on February 29. STORY 5: Partnership Gwinnett Recognizes Local Companies For Creating New Jobs In a significant boost to the local economy, eight firms in Gwinnett County collectively generated over 1,500 new jobs and made an investment close to $486 million last year, according to Partnership Gwinnett. The companies, which include Leuze Electronic Inc., NEMA Inc., and Northeast Georgia Health System, were recognized for their contributions at the Gwinnett Company Reception. This event is dedicated to honoring businesses that have chosen to expand within Gwinnett or select it as the location for their new establishments. Deven Cason of Partnership Gwinnett highlighted how these companies are vital contributors to Gwinnett County's economic growth and community development. In addition to acknowledging corporate contributions, Partnership Gwinnett also uses this occasion to recognize the efforts of nonprofit partners such as the American Cancer Society and Junior Achievement. Looking ahead, Partnership Gwinnett is preparing to host the Movers and Makers Awards in May, an event designed to celebrate the manufacturing and logistics industry within Gwinnett. STORY 6: Hooper-Renwick Speaker Series To Feature Author Victoria Christoper Murray on Feb. 22 The Hooper-Renwick School, nestled in Lawrenceville and recognized as the only Black public high school in Gwinnett County prior to its consolidation with the Gwinnett County School System, is set to be transformed into a spacious 25,000-square-foot library. The project, which is financed by the Hooper-Renwick Memorial Programming Fund & Endowment with significant backing from Peach State Credit Union, seeks to uphold and celebrate the school's rich history. In addition to this transformative project, a speaker series has been organized to honor the experiences and stories of Hooper-Renwick attendees. This series will kick off on February 22 at the Lawrenceville Arts Center with Victoria Christoper Murray, a celebrated author known for her New York Times bestselling works. The event will feature insightful discussions led by Murray and fellow author ReShonda Tate, as well as Hooper-Renwick alumni Joyce Moore and Dr. John Maxey. STORY 7: Georgia House votes to expand paid parental leave for state workers In a significant move, the Georgia House of Representatives has decisively passed House Bill 1010, a measure designed to enhance paid parental leave for state workers. Under the terms of the bill, the allocation of paid leave would be increased from the current 120 hours to 240 hours, equivalent to six weeks. This provision would be applicable following the birth, adoption, or foster care placement of a child.   With a vote of 153-11, the bill received substantial backing. Speaker Jon Burns underscored the crucial role such legislation plays in supporting working families. Meanwhile, Speaker Pro Tempore Jan Jones stressed the importance of this expanded benefit in attracting and retaining employees.   Following this approval by the House, the bill will now proceed to the state Senate for further deliberation. We'll have final thoughts after this.   Break 4: HENRY CO SHERIFFS OFFICE Signoff – Thanks again for hanging out with us on today's Gwinnett Daily Post podcast. If you enjoy these shows, we encourage you to check out our other offerings, like the Cherokee Tribune Ledger Podcast, the Marietta Daily Journal, the Community Podcast for Rockdale Newton and Morgan Counties, or the Paulding County News Podcast. Read more about all our stories, and get other great content at Gwinnettdailypost.com. Did you know over 50% of Americans listen to podcasts weekly? Giving you important news about our community and telling great stories are what we do. Make sure you join us for our next episode and be sure to share this podcast on social media with your friends and family. Add us to your Alexa Flash Briefing or your Google Home Briefing and be sure to like, follow, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Produced by the BG Podcast Network   Show Sponsors: ingles-markets.com wagesfuneralhome.com henrycountysheriffga.gov   #NewsPodcast #CurrentEvents #TopHeadlines #BreakingNews #PodcastDiscussion #PodcastNews #InDepthAnalysis #NewsAnalysis #PodcastTrending #WorldNews #LocalNews #GlobalNews #PodcastInsights #NewsBrief #PodcastUpdate #NewsRoundup #WeeklyNews #DailyNews #PodcastInterviews #HotTopics #PodcastOpinions #InvestigativeJournalism #BehindTheHeadlines #PodcastMedia #NewsStories #PodcastReports #JournalismMatters #PodcastPerspectives #NewsCommentary #PodcastListeners #NewsPodcastCommunity #NewsSource #PodcastCuration #WorldAffairs #PodcastUpdates #AudioNews #PodcastJournalism #EmergingStories #NewsFlash #PodcastConversationsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, long time communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank! Crystal and Robert chat about Raise the Wage Renton's special election win, how a rent stabilization bill passed out of the State House but faces an uphill battle in the State Senate, and the authorization of a strike by Alaska Airlines flight attendants. They then shift to how gender discrimination problems in the Seattle Police Department create a toxic work culture that impedes recruitment, the inexplicable pressing forward by Seattle on ShotSpotter while other cities reject it, and the failure of a philanthropic effort by business titans to solve the regional homelessness crisis. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Robert Cruickshank, at @cruickshank.   Resources “Renton $19 minimum wage hike ballot measure leading in early results” by Alexandra Yoon-Hendricks from The Seattle Times   “Washington State House Passes Rent Stabilization Bill” by Rich Smith from The Stranger   “Rent Stabilization Backers Aim to Beat Deadline to Keep Bill Alive” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist   2024 Town Halls | Washington State House Democrats   “Alaska Airlines flight attendants authorize strike for first time in 3 decades” by Alex DeMarban from Anchorage Daily News   “The Seattle Police Department Has a Gender Discrimination Problem” by Andrew Engelson from PubliCola   “Harrell Plans Hasty Rollout of Massive Surveillance Expansion” by Amy Sundberg from The Urbanist   “Chicago will not renew controversial ShotSpotter contract, drawing support, criticism from aldermen” by Craig Wall and Eric Horng from ABC7 Chicago   “Despite Public Opinion, Seattle Cops and Prosecutors Still Prioritize Cracking Down on Sex Work” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   “Council's Public Safety Focus Will Be “Permissive Environment” Toward Crime” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   “The private sector's biggest bet in homelessness fell apart. What now?” by Greg Kim from The Seattle Times   “Amazon donation is ‘another step' after homelessness group's collapse” by Greg Kim from The Seattle Times   Find stories that Crystal is reading here   Listen on your favorite podcast app to all our episodes here   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical shows and our Friday week-in-review shows delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review. 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 week-in-review shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, longtime communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank. [00:01:08] Robert Cruickshank: Thank you for having me back here again, Crystal. [00:01:11] Crystal Fincher: Thank you so much. Well, we've got a number of items to cover this week, starting with news that I'm certainly excited about - I think you are, too - that this week, in our February special election, Renton had a ballot measure to increase the minimum wage which passed. What are your takeaways from this? [00:01:31] Robert Cruickshank: It's a huge win, both in terms of the margin of victory so far - nearly 60% of Renton voters saying Yes to this in a February election with low turnout. It will raise the wage to around $20 an hour in Renton. And I think it's a clear sign that just as we saw voters in Tukwila last year, and just as in fact voters in SeaTac 11 years ago - kicking all this off - moving to $15 an hour with a city ballot initiative that year, voters in King County, Western Washington want higher minimum wages. And I don't even think we need to qualify it by saying King County in Western Washington. You can look around the country and see - in states like Arkansas, when people put initiatives on the ballot to raise the wage, they pass. So I think there's, yet again, widespread support for this. And I think it also shows that the politicians in Renton - there were several city councilmembers like Carmen Rivera who supported this. There are others, though - the majority of the Renton City Council didn't. They spouted a lot of the usual right-wing Chamber of Commerce arguments against raising the minimum wage, saying it would hurt small businesses and make it hard for workers - none of which actually happens in practice. And voters get that. Voters very clearly understand that you need to pay workers more - they deserve more, especially in a time of inflation. This has been understood for well over 10 years now - that the minimum wage wasn't rising quickly enough and it needs to keep going up. So I think it's a huge wake-up call to elected officials - not just in local city councils, but at the state legislature - they've got to keep doing work to make sure that workers are getting paid well and that the minimum wage keeps rising. [00:03:04] Crystal Fincher: I completely agree. I also think, just for the campaign's purposes, this was really exciting to see. Again, not coming from some of the traditional places where we see ballot measures, campaigns being funded - great that they're funding progressive campaigns in other areas, but that these efforts are largely community-led, community-driven. The Raise the Wage Renton campaign, the Seattle DSA - the Democratic Socialists of America, Seattle chapter - were very involved, did a lot of the heavy lifting here. So really kudos to that entire effort - really important - and really showing that when people get together within communities to respond to problems that they're seeing and challenges that they face, they can create change. It doesn't take that many people acting together and in unison, speaking to their neighbors, to have this happen in city after city. And like you said, it started in SeaTac, and we see how far it's carried. I also think, as you alluded to, this puts other councils on notice. I know the City of Burien is talking about this right now, other cities are looking at this locally. And we have been hearing similar things from Burien city councilmembers that we heard from some of those Renton city councilmembers who declined to pass this on their own. They were parroting Chamber of Commerce talking points. They were parroting some old, disproven data. People recognize and so much data has shown that when you empower people, when you pay people, that is what fuels and builds economy. The economy is the people. So if the people aren't in good shape, the economy is not going to be in good shape. People recognize that. And we really do have to ask and reflect on - I think these elected officials need to reflect on - who are they serving? And where are they getting their information from? Because in city after city, we see overwhelmingly residents respond and say - This is absolutely something we want and we need. And there's this disconnect between them and their elected officials who are parroting these talking points - Well, we're worried about business. Well, we're worried about these. And I think they need to really pause and reflect and say - Okay, who are we really representing here? Where are we getting our information from and why are we seeing time after time that these talking points that have been used for decades, from the same old people and the same old sources, are completely falling flat with the public? I think they should be concerned about their own rhetoric falling flat with the public. They're certainly considering where these elected officials are as their reelections come due, as they're evaluating the job that they're doing. So I think they really need to think hard, evaluate where they are, and get aligned with the people who need the most help, who are trying to build lives in their communities. And stop making this go to the ballot. Stop making the people work harder for what they need - just pass this in your cities and make it so. [00:06:17] Robert Cruickshank: Absolutely. It would be certainly better for working people - for the elected officials to do this themselves. I am noticing a growing trend, though, of progressive and left-wing activists - socialists in this case, DSA - going directly to the ballot when needed. We saw it in Tacoma with the renters' rights legislation last year. We've seen it last year with social housing. And now again this week, House Our Neighbors came out with the initiative to fund social housing, which they had to split in two - due to legal reasons, you had to create the developer first, and then now you have to fund it. And again, the city council had an opportunity to do both here in Seattle. They had the opportunity to create the authority. They passed on that. Then they had the opportunity to fund it. They passed on that. And I am bullish on House Our Neighbors' chances to get their funding initiative, which would be through a payroll tax on large employers, passed by voters this fall. Because again, social housing was super popular at the ballot last year in a February election. Now they're going to go for November 2024 election when there's going to be massive turnout. It's unfortunate that people are having to put a lot of time, money, effort into mounting independent efforts to get things on the ballot - that's hard. It takes a ton of work, not just the gathering signatures and raising money, but just keeping a coalition going and all the meetings and stuff. But hats off to the people who are able to do that. It's not a sustainable way to get progressive policy done, but in a moment where there are more members of city councils who are aligned with the big corporations and wealthy donors, it's what you're going to have to do and it's building power. Ultimately - hopefully - it starts leading into successful victories in city council elections around the region, just as it's led to successes at the ballot box for initiatives. [00:07:59] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. We saw in this effort, as we've seen in others, significant opposition from some elements in the business community. There were some businesses, especially small businesses, who were supportive of this, who were either already paying their employees higher wages because that's how you attract people in business - is not doing the absolute bare minimum. But we saw significant resources spent. This campaign was outspent. And still, the people made it clear what they wanted with another really, really impressive and strong margin. So we'll continue to follow where that goes. We will certainly continue to follow other ballot measures on the ballot as they develop this year, especially with House Our Neighbors and the Social Housing Initiative in Seattle - just going to be really interesting to see. Moving to the legislature, significant news this week that rent stabilization has passed the State House and now it moves on to the Senate. What will rent stabilization accomplish? [00:09:03] Robert Cruickshank: So the bill, HB 2114, which passed out of the State House - it was the last bill they took up before the deadline to pass bills out of their original house - limits the amount of increase in rent each year to 7%. So a landlord can only raise your rent 7% a year. This is modeled on similar legislation that was adopted in Oregon and California right before the pandemic - in Oregon and California, it's a 5% annual increase. This being Washington state, we can't do things exactly the way that are done elsewhere - we've got to water it down a little bit, so it's 7%. But it's not rent control in which a property or a apartment is permanently capped at a certain level, no matter who's renting it. Like the Oregon and California laws, this one in Washington would exempt new construction. And the reason you want to exempt new construction is to encourage people to keep building housing. And there's plenty of research that shows now that one of the most effective ways to bring rent down, not just cap its growth, is to build more housing. So building more housing and then capping the annual rent increase on housing that's been around for a while generally works. And you're seeing this in California and in Oregon - especially in cities that have been building more housing, rents have come down while those living in older apartments, older homes, are seeing their rents capped, so they're having an easier time affording rent. This is all good, and it made it out of the State House on mostly a party line vote - Democrats almost all in favor with a few exceptions, Republicans almost all against. Now it goes to the State Senate where there's a number of conservative Democrats, like Annette Cleveland from Vancouver who blocked the Senate's version of the bill, who's against it. Surely Mark Mullet, a conservative Democrat from Issaquah running for governor - surely against it. And Rich Smith in The Stranger had a piece yesterday in which he related his conversation with Jamie Pedersen from Capitol Hill, one of the most rent-burdened districts in the city, one of the districts in the state of Washington - legislative districts - with the most renters in it. And Pedersen was hemming and hawing on it. And so it's clear that for this bill to pass - it surely is popular with the public. Democrats, you would think, would want to do the right thing on housing costs going into an election. But it's gonna take some pressure on Democrats in the State Senate to pass the bill, especially without watering it down further. The bill that Annette Cleveland, the senator from Vancouver, had blocked in the Senate would cap rent increases at 15% a year. It's like. - Why would you even bother passing a bill at that point? 7% is itself, like I said, watering down what California and Oregon have done, but 7% is still a pretty valuable cap. Hopefully the Senate passes it as is. Hopefully the State Senate doesn't demand even more watering down. There's no need for that. Just pass the bill. Protect people who are renting. [00:11:44] Crystal Fincher: Agree. We absolutely need to pass the bill. I do appreciate the House making this such a priority - building on the work that they did to enable the building of more housing, which is absolutely necessary, last session. And this session moving forward with protecting people in their homes - trying to prevent our homelessness crisis from getting even worse with people being unable to afford rent, being displaced, being unable to stay where they're living, to maintain their current job. So that's really important. But it does face an uncertain future in the Senate. I do appreciate the reporting that Rich Smith did. He also covered some other State senators on the fence, including Jesse Salomon from Shoreline, John Lovick from Mill Creek, Marko Liias from Everett, Steve Conway from Tacoma, Drew Hansen from Bainbridge Island, Sam Hunt from Olympia, Lisa Wellman from Mercer Island, and Majority Leader Andy Billig being on the fence. And so it's going to be really important for people who do care about this to let their opinions be known to these senators. This is really going to be another example of where - they've obviously had concerns for a while, they're hearing talking points that we're used to hearing - that we know have been refuted, that maybe that information hasn't gotten to them yet. And maybe they don't realize how much of a concern this is for residents. They may be - they're in Olympia a lot of time, they're hearing from a lot of lobbyists - and they aren't as close sometimes to the opinions of the people in their districts. But one thing that many people need to understand is that many of these districts are having legislative town halls coming up as soon as this weekend, but certainly in short order. We'll put a link to where you can find that information in the show notes. Make it a point to attend one of those. If you can't, call, email, make your voice heard - it's really going to take you letting them know that this is a priority for you in order for this to happen. It's possible. So we really need to do all we can to ensure that they know how we feel. [00:13:58] Robert Cruickshank: Exactly. And those State senators you named, they are all from safe blue seats. Not a single one of them, except for maybe John Lovick in Mill Creek, is from a purplish district where they have to worry about any electoral impact. Although, to be honest, this stuff is popular. There are plenty of renters in purple districts who are rent-burdened and who would love to see the Democratic majority in Olympia help them out, help keep their rent more affordable. So it's a huge political win for them. Some of this may be ideological opposition. Some of them may be getting a lot of money from apartment owners and landlords. Who knows? You got to look at the case by case. But gosh, you would hope that the State Senate has political sense - understands that this is not only the right thing to do, but a winner with the electorate, and passes the bill. But it is Olympia. And unfortunately, the State Senate in particular is often where good ideas go to die in Olympia. So we'll see what happens. [00:14:48] Crystal Fincher: We will see. We'll continue to follow that. Also want to talk about Alaska Airlines flight attendants this week authorizing a strike. Why did they authorize this, and what does this mean? [00:15:01] Robert Cruickshank: Well, I think it goes back to what we were talking about with workers in Renton. Flight attendants work long hours - they're not always paid for it. They're often only paid for when the flight is in the air. And their costs are going up, too. The expense of working in this country continues to rise and flight attendants continue to need to get paid well for that. Flight attendants' union is very well organized. There's the good Sara Nelson - Sara Nelson, head of the flight attendants' union, not Sara Nelson, head of Seattle City Council - is an amazing labor leader and has done a really good job advocating for the flight attendants across the industry. And you see that in the strike authorization vote - it was almost unanimous with almost complete 100% turnout from members of the Alaska Flight Attendants Union. Alaska Airlines has been facing its own issues lately, especially with some of their Boeing jets having problems. They've also, for the last 20 years, at least tried to cut costs everywhere they could. They outsourced what used to be unionized baggage handlers at SeaTac many years ago - that caused a big uproar. It was, in fact, concerns about Alaska Airlines and how they're paying ground crews that was a major factor in driving the SeaTac minimum wage ballot initiative way back in 2013. So here we are now - the Alaska Airlines flight attendants looking to get better treatment, better wages and working conditions. And huge support from the union. And as we've seen in this decade in particular, huge support from the public. And I think it's really worth noting - you and I can both remember the 90s, 2000s, when workers went out on strike weren't always getting widespread public support. And corporations had an ability to work the media to try to turn public against striking workers - now, teachers always had public support, firefighters had public support, but other workers didn't always. But that's really shifted. Here, there's a widespread public agreement that workers need to be treated well and paid well. You see that in Raise the Wage Renton succeeding. You see that in the huge public support for Starbucks workers out on strike who want a union contract. And if Alaska Airlines forces its flight attendants out on strike, you will see widespread public support for them as well, especially here in western Washington, where Alaska maintains a strong customer base. People in the Seattle area are loyal to Alaska, and they're going to support Alaska's flight attendants if they have to go out on strike. [00:17:20] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and there's still a number of steps that would need to happen in order for it to lead to an actual strike. The flight attendants' union and Alaska Airlines are currently in negotiations, which according to an Alaska statement, is still ongoing. They signal positivity there. Hopefully that is the case and that continues. But first-year flight attendants right now are averaging less than $24,000 in salary annually. And especially here, but basically anywhere, that's not a wage you can live on. Those are literally poverty wages. And this is happening while Alaska Airlines has touted significant profits, very high profits. They're in the process of attempting to acquire another airline for $1.9 billion right now. And so part of this, which is the first strike authorization in 30 years for this union - it's not like this happens all the time. This is really long-standing grievances and really long dealing with these poverty wages - and they just can't anymore. This is unsustainable. And so hopefully they are earnestly making a go at a real fair wage. And I do think they have the public support. It is something that we've recognized across the country, unionization efforts in many different sectors for many different people. This week, we even saw - The Stranger writers announced that they're seeking a union, and wish them best of luck with that. But looking at this being necessary across the board - and even in tech sectors, which before felt immune to unionization pushes and they used to tout all of their benefits and how they received everything they could ever want - we've seen how quickly that tide can change. We've seen how quickly mass layoffs can take over an industry, even while companies are reporting record profits. And so this is really just another link in this chain here, saying - You know what, you're going to have to give a fair deal. It's not only about shareholders. It's about the people actually working, actually delivering the products and services that these companies are known for. The folks doing the work deserve a share of those profits, certainly more than they're getting right now. [00:19:44] Robert Cruickshank: I think that's right. And again, the public sees that and they know that being a flight attendant isn't easy work. But whoever it is, whatever sector they're in, whatever work they're doing, the public has really shifted and is in a really good place. They recognize that corporations and governments need to do right by workers and pay them well. Hopefully the flight attendants can settle this without a strike. And hopefully Alaska Airlines understands that the last thing they need right now is a strike. They've had enough problems already. So hopefully the corporate leadership gets that. [00:20:13] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. I also want to talk about a new study that certainly a lot of people haven't found surprising, especially after two very high-profile gender discrimination lawsuits against SPD. But a study was actually done that included focus groups with Seattle officers, both male and female. And what was uncovered was a pervasive apparent gender discrimination problem within SPD. What was uncovered here? [00:20:45] Robert Cruickshank: All sorts of instances of gender discrimination - from blocked promotions, to negative comments, to inequities and inconsistencies in who gets leave - all sorts of things that made it an extremely hostile work environment for women. And some of the celebrated women of the department - Detective Cookie, who's well known for leading chess clubs in Rainier Beach, sued the department for gender and racial discrimination. And what the study shows that it's pervasive, but the only times it seemed to get any better were when women led the department - Kathleen O'Toole in the mid 2010s and then Carmen Best up until 2020 seemed to have a little bit of positive impact on addressing these problems. But under current leadership and other recent leadership, it's just not a priority. And it speaks, I think, to the real problems - the actual problems - facing police. You hear from people like Sara Nelson and others on the right that the reason it's hard to recruit officers is because - Oh, those mean old progressives tried to "Defund the Police' and they said mean things about the cops. That's not it at all. This report actually shows why there's a recruiting problem for police. Normal people don't want to go work for the police department. They see a department that is racist, sexist - nothing is being done to address it. Who would want to enter that hostile work environment? I remember when Mike McGinn was mayor - we were working for McGinn in the early 2010s - trying to address some of these same problems, trying to help recruit a department that not only reflected Seattle's diversity, but lived in Seattle - was rooted in the community - and how hard that was. And you're seeing why. It's because there's a major cultural problem with police departments all across the country - Seattle's not uniquely bad at being sexist towards women officers, it's a problem everywhere. But it's the city that you would think would try to do something about it. But what we're hearing from the city council right now - and they had their first Public Safety Committee meeting recently of the newly elected council - is the same usual nonsense that just thinks, Oh, if we give them a bunch more money and say nice things about cops and ease up a little bit on, maybe more than a little bit, on reform efforts trying to hold the department accountable - that officers will want to join the ranks. And that's just not going to happen. It is a cultural problem with the department. It is a structural problem. The red flags are everywhere. And it's going to take new leadership at the police department - maybe at City Hall - that takes this seriously, is willing to do the hard work of rooting out these attitudes. And you've got to keep in mind, when you look at this rank-and-file department - they elected Mike Solan to lead their union, SPOG - in January of 2020. Solan was a known Trumper, hard right-wing guy - and this is well before George Floyd protests began. Yet another sign that the problem is the department itself, the officers themselves, who are often engaging in this behavior or refusing to hold each other accountable. Because again, this toxic culture of - Well, we got to protect each other at all costs. - it's going to take major changes, and I don't see this City leadership at City Hall being willing to undertake the work necessary to fix it. [00:23:54] Crystal Fincher: I think you've hit the nail on the head there. And just demonstrating that once again, we get a clear illustration of why SPD has a problem recruiting. It is absolutely a cultural issue. It is what they have been getting away with despite dissatisfaction from women. And women in the department saying either we're targeted or discriminated against, but a lot of us - even though we're experiencing it - just try and keep our heads down and stay silent. And a lot of those people end up moving out eventually because who wants to work in an environment like this? We recognize this in every other industry. There's a reason why organizations and corporations tout their corporate culture, tout their benefits for women, their respect for women, their inclusion of women in leadership and executive-level positions. And we don't see that here. So if the leadership in charge of this - from Bruce Harrell, who is the ultimate head of the department, the buck stops with him to the police chief to the City Council - if they're actually serious about addressing this and not just using this as a campaign wedge issue with the rhetoric, they will have to address the culture of this department. Now, the Chair of the Seattle City Council's Public Safety Committee, Bob Kettle, who was recently elected in November, said that the hiring numbers were disappointed. He said - "The number of women that were hired in 2023 was not acceptable. We need to have a representative force where women are well represented. We need to be creating that culture and an environment of inclusion. And also the idea that you can advance, you can be promoted, you can move forward in the organization." So if he is serious about that, he has to address the culture - and that's going to involve addressing a number of things. That's going to involve, perhaps, addressing a number of the people currently in leadership who have created and who continue this culture and who are going to have to be dealt with if this is going to change. But this isn't something that's just going to change because there're new people elected in office. This isn't something that's just going to change because they're getting compliments more as a department and more funding has been thrown at them. This is going to take active engagement and a difference in leadership, a difference in training, a completely different approach. So we'll follow this. Mayor Bruce Harrell also said that he is planning to meet with women throughout the department to hear directly from them and listen to their concerns - we will see what results from those conversations and what happens. But now there is a lot of touted alignment between the mayor and city council here, so there really should be no roadblocks to them really addressing this substantively - if they're serious about addressing this. [00:26:58] Robert Cruickshank: I agree. And one of the ways you'll see whether they're serious or not is how they handle the SPOG contract. And one of the things that helps change a department's culture, where this sort of behavior is clearly known to not be tolerated, is for there to be real consequences. How are officers disciplined? How are officers fired? How are they held accountable? Right now, it's very difficult to remove an officer - the current contract rules make it very easy for an officer to contest a firing or disciplinary action and be reinstated or have the disciplinary action overturned. You're not going to eradicate a culture of racism and sexism without changing that as well. And that is at the core of the fight over the SPOG contract, and we will see whether the mayor and the city council are serious about cultural changes at SPD. And you'll see it in how they handle the SPOG contract - hopefully they'll put a strong one out and hold their ground when SPOG pushes back. But that's not going to happen, honestly, without the public really pushing City Hall hard. Because I think you see - from both the mayor and the city council - a desire to cut deals with SPOG, a desire to not go too hard at them. And I don't see - absent public mobilization - a strong SPOG contract coming. [00:28:07] Crystal Fincher: I think you're right about that. In other SPD public safety news, Seattle is planning a significant rollout of the ShotSpotter system. We've talked about that before here on the show - it's basically a surveillance system that's supposed to hear, to be able to determine gunshots from noises, to try and pinpoint where it came from. Unfortunately, it has been an absolute failure in several other cities - we've had lots of information and data about this. And this week, we received news that the City of Chicago is actually canceling their contract after this failed in their city. And so once again, people are asking the question - Why, with such a horrible track record, are we spending so much money and getting ready to roll this failed technology out in Seattle? Why is this happening? [00:29:04] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, I mean, that's a good question. I see people on social media speculating it's because of campaign donations and things like that. I'm not sure that's it. I honestly think this goes back to something Ron Davis said in the campaign when he was running for city council, criticizing his opponent, Maritza Rivera, who ultimately won, and other candidates in-line with Sara Nelson for wanting to, in his words, "spread magic fairy dust" around public safety issues and assume that would work. And that really, I think, is what ShotSpotter is. It's magic fairy dust. This idea that there's some magical technological tool that can quickly identify where a gunshot is happening and deploy the officers there immediately. It sounds cool when you first hear about it like that, but as you pointed out and as Amy Sundberg has written about extensively, it doesn't work - just literally doesn't work. The number of false positives are so high that officers are essentially sent on wild goose chases - you can't trust it, it's not worth the money. And Chicago, which is a city with a very serious gun violence problem, explored this. And for them to reject it means it clearly does not work, and Chicago needs solutions that work. I think honestly, the reason why the city is adopting is they want to do something that looks like they're acting, that looks like they're taking it seriously, even though this isn't going to actually succeed. It is very much that magic fairy dust of trying to appear serious about gun violence, without really tackling the core issues that are happening here, without tackling the problems with policing, without tackling the underlying problems in communities and neighborhoods that can cause gun violence. There is a growing issue at schools in Seattle with gun violence. And students have been trying to raise this issue for a while, ever since a shooting at Ingraham High School in late 2022, another shooting that led to another student's death in near Chief Sealth High School in West Seattle recently, to a group of students robbing another student at Ingraham High School at gunpoint in recent weeks. There's a serious problem. And what you're not seeing is the City or the school district, to be honest, taking that very seriously or really responding in the ways that the students are demanding responses. And I think the really sad story with something like ShotSpotter is all this money and effort is being spent on a clearly failed piece of technology when other answers that students and community members are crying out for aren't being delivered. That's a real problem. [00:31:21] Crystal Fincher: It is absolutely a real problem. And I think there's near unanimous concern and desire for there to be real earnest effort to fix this. We know things that help reduce gun violence - there's lots of data out about that. The city and county have done some of them. They've implemented some of them on very limited basis. But it is challenging to see so much money diverted elsewhere to failed technologies and solutions like this, while actual evidence-based solutions are starved, defunded, and are not getting the kind of support they deserve - and that the residents of the city, that the students in our schools deserve. This is a major problem that we have to deal with seriously. And this just isn't serious at all. I feel like - it was the early 2010s - this technology came out and it was in that era of "the tech will save us" - everyone was disrupting in one way or another. There were lots of promises being made about new technology. And unfortunately, we saw with a lot of it in a lot of different areas that it just didn't deliver on the promises. So I don't fault people for initially saying - Hey, this may be another tool in the toolkit that we can use. But over the past 10 years, through several implementations in Atlanta, Pasadena, San Antonio, Dayton, Ohio, Chicago - it has failed to deliver anything close to what has happened. In fact, it's been harmful in many areas. And so you have people who are interested in solving this problem who are not just saying - Hey, we just need to throw our hands up and do nothing here. We're not trying to minimize the problem. They're in active roles and positions really saying - Hey, this is a priority. And unfortunately, this is not a serious solution to the problem. The Cook County state's attorney's office found that ShotSpotter had a "minimal effect on prosecuting gun violence cases," with their report saying "ShotSpotter is not making a significant impact on shooting incidents," with only 1% of shooting incidents ending in a ShotSpotter arrest. And it estimates the cost per ShotSpotter incident arrestee is over $200,000. That is not a wise use of government expenditures. A large study found that ShotSpotter has no impact - literally no impact - on the number of murder arrests or weapons arrests. And the Chicago's Office of Inspector General concluded that "CPD responses to ShotSpotter alerts rarely produced documented evidence of any gun-related crime, investigatory stop, or recovery of a firearm." Also, one of the big reasons why Seattle is saying they're implementing this is - Well, we're so short-staffed that we really need this technology and it's going to save manpower, it's going to save our officers' time, it's going to really take a lot of the work off their plate. Unfortunately, the exact opposite was shown to happen with ShotSpotter - "ShotSpotter does not make police more efficient or relieve staffing shortages." In fact, they found it's the opposite. ShotSpotter vastly increases the number of police deployments in response to supposed gunfire, but with no corresponding increase in gun violence arrests or other interventions. In fact, ShotSpotter imposes such a massive drain on police resources that it slows down police response to actual 911 emergencies reported by the public. This is a problem. It's not just something that doesn't work. It's actually actively harmful. It makes the problems worse that these elected officials are saying that they're seeking to address. With the challenges that we're experiencing with gun violence, with the absolute need to make our cities safer - to reduce these incidences - we quite literally cannot afford this. And so I hope they take a hard look at this, but it is really defying logic - in the midst of a budget crisis, in the midst of a gun violence crisis - to be embarking on this. I really hope they seriously evaluate what they're doing here. [00:35:54] Robert Cruickshank: I agree. And what you're raising is this question of where should we be putting the resources? And shout out to Erica C. Barnett at PubliCola, who's been writing in the last week or so some really good articles on this very topic - where is SPD putting its resources? A few days ago, she had a very well-reported article at PubliCola about enforcement of prostitution on Aurora Avenue, which is a very controversial thing to be doing for many reasons - is this is actually how you should protect sex workers? But also, is this how we should be prioritizing police resources? Whatever you think of sex work, pro or con, whatever your opinion is - is that where police resources should be going right now when we don't have as many officers as the City would like to have, when there's gun violence, and when there's property crime? And then she also reported recently about, speaking of Bob Kettle, he put out this proposal that he wants to focus on what he calls a "permissive environment towards crime" and closing unsecured vacant buildings, graffiti remediation as priorities. Again, whatever you think about vacant buildings and graffiti - how does that rank on a list of priorities when there are problems with gun violence in the City of Seattle? There are problems with real violent crime in the City of Seattle. And how are police department resources being allocated? I think these are questions that the public needs to be asking pretty tough questions about to City Hall, to Bob Kettle, to Sara Nelson, to Bruce Harrell, and SPD. Because, again, they haven't solved the cultural problem with SPD. They're not going to get many new officers until they do. So how do you use the resources you have right now? And it doesn't look like they're being allocated very effectively, whether it's cracking down, in their terms, on sex work on Aurora or buying things like ShotSpotter. It just seems like they're chasing what they think are easy wins that are not going to do anything to actually address the problem. And we will be here a year or two later still talking about problems with gun violence because City Hall didn't make it a real priority. [00:37:52] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Also want to talk this week about news that was covered - actually in The Seattle Times and elsewhere - about the private sector kind of corresponding organization to the King County Regional Homeless Authority - We Are In, a philanthropic endeavor from some of the richest residents in the states and corporations in the state - actually folded. It was a failure. What happened? Why did this fall apart? [00:38:24] Robert Cruickshank: A lot of this stems from the debate in 2018 over the Head Tax - taxing Amazon to fund services related to homelessness. Mayor Ed Murray declared way back in, I think 2014, a state of emergency around homelessness. We're 10 years into that and nothing's been done. But what the City was looking to do in 2018 - Mike O'Brien and others were talking about bringing back the Head Tax, taxing the corporations in the city to fund services to address the homelessness issue. And the pushback from Amazon and others was - You don't need to tax us. We'll spend money better than government can and do it ourselves. And so that's what things like We Are In was intended to do. It was really intended to try to forestall new taxes by, in theory, showing that the private sector - through philanthropic efforts - can solve this more effectively. And guess what? They can't. In part because homelessness is a major challenge to solve without government resources, without major changes in how we build housing and how we provide services and where they're provided. And what you're seeing is that a philanthropic effort is not going to solve that. They keep chasing it because I think they have a political imperative to do so. But what happened was that We Are In wasn't producing the result they wanted to, leadership problems. And now Steve Ballmer is talking about - Well, maybe we'll just fund the King County Regional Homelessness Authority directly. It's like - okay, in that case, what's so different between that and taxation? There is a report that consultants came up with - I think got publicized in 2019 or 2020 - that the region would need to spend something like $450 million a year to really solve homelessness. You could easily raise that money through taxes and taxing corporations and wealthy individuals. And they are just so adamantly opposed to doing that. They would rather try to make philanthropic donations here and there, even when it's clearly insufficient to meet the need. It's not well thought out. It's not well programmed and just falls apart quickly. [00:40:27] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. I agree. Over so many years, we've heard so many times - Just run it like a business. We need to run government like a business. And over and over and over again, we see that fail - that doesn't work. When you can't target what you're doing to a certain market, when you're only serving a limited subset - when you have to serve the entire public, when you have to actually invest in people, and this isn't a quick product or service that you can use that automatically fixes a situation, there have to be systemic issues that are addressed. And sometimes there's this attitude that - Oh, it's so simple to fix. If you just put a business person in charge of it, they'll get it done. Look at how they built their company. They can certainly tackle this. And over and over again - this is the latest example - that just simply doesn't work. They aren't the same. They aren't the same set of skills. They operate on different levels. There's different training. Lots of stuff is just absolutely different. And part of me, fundamentally, wishes we would stop denigrating and insulting the people who have been doing this work, who have been really consistently voicing their concerns about what's needed, about what their experience shows solves this problem, about what is actually working. There are things that are working. There are things going right in our region that we seem to not pay attention to or that we seem to, especially from the perspective of a number of these organizations who spend so much money to fight taxes, spend so much money to pick councilmembers, saying - Well, we think we have a better solution here. And so we wasted time trying and failing with this when, again, the answer is systemic. We have to sustainably fund the types of housing and resources that get people housed once more, that prevent people from becoming unhoused, and that make this region affordable for everyone so that one unforeseen expense can't launch someone into homelessness. We have been doing a poor job on all of those accounts as a region for so long that it's going to take significant investment and effort to turn things around. Some of that is happening, and I'm encouraged by some things that we're seeing. But at the same time, we're also hearing, especially in the midst of these budget problems that cities are dealing with, that they're looking at unfunding and rolling back these things. Interesting on the heels of this ShotSpotter conversation, where we're investing money into that - they're talking about de-investing, about defunding homelessness responses, public health responses to these crises. And I think we have just seen that this group involved with this effort just does not understand the problem, had the opportunity to meaningfully participate in a fix, and it just didn't work out. That's great - they're doing a great job running their businesses. They can continue to do that. But it's time to really follow what the evidence says fixes this and not what business titans are wishing would fix it. [00:43:55] Robert Cruickshank: That's exactly right. And yet for the business titans, it's a question of power. They want to be the ones to ultimately decide how their money gets spent, not we the people or our elected representatives. I think of one of the things we started out talking about today is - rent stabilization bill in Olympia. Capping rent increases is a way to reduce homelessness. There are plenty of people who are pushed into homelessness by a rent increase they can't afford. Steve Ballmer calling up those State senators who are going to be tackling this bill saying - Hey, this would really help reduce homelessness if you pass this bill. I'm going to doubt that Steve Ballmer is making those calls. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to be wrong. I don't think I am. For them, they want the power to decide how their money is spent. And even when they spend it poorly, they still want that power. And I think they're willing to hoard that power even at the expense of people who really are in need, who are living without a home, and who need all of our help urgently. [00:44:49] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely agree. The last point I would want to make is that it's not like philanthropic funding is all evil, it's never helpful - it is. But this is about who is leading the solutions here and what we're doing. And I think that there are so many experts - so many people in organizations who are doing this work well - who need that additional funding. Let's put that philanthropic money into systems that are working instead of trying to recreate the wheel once again. So much time and money was lost here that so many people can't afford and that have had really horrible consequences. And I think a number of people who went into this were probably well-intentioned. But it just goes to show once again that - we know what works. And no matter how much we wish that it could be some simple fix over here, that it wouldn't require any public expenditure, it absolutely does. So it'll be interesting to follow and see what happens from there. And with that, I thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, February 16th, 2024. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is the incredible Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today was Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, longtime communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank. You can find Robert on Twitter at @cruickshank. You can find Hacks & Wonks on Twitter at @HacksWonks. You can find me on all platforms at @finchfrii, with two I's at the end. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in. Talk to you next time.

Learn about the latest in local public affairs in about the time it takes for a coffee break! Brian Callanan of Seattle Channel and David Kroman of the Seattle Times discuss the approach of the Seattle City Council's new Public Safety Committee, a bombshell report for the Seattle Police Department regarding its treatment of female officers, a renewed push by Governor Inslee on carbon pricing, a potential new ballot measure on social housing, and a sobering report on the lack of affordable housing Seattle may be able to build this year. If you like this podcast, please support it on Patreon!

The St. Louis Board of Aldermen Committee will consider three different bills Thursday focusing on guns in the city of St. Louis.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The stumbling start for Chicago's temporary casino prompted an influential alderperson to warn Thursday that the city may be stuck with the gambling den at Medinah Temple indefinitely.Ald. Brian Hopkins (2nd), chairman of the City Counci's Public Safety Committee, said Bally's was undercapitalized to begin with and he fears the company will run out of money to build the $1.7 billion permanent casino in River West.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Acting D.C. Police Chief Pamela Smith testified before the D.C. Council's Judiciary and Public Safety Committee earlier this week, kickstarting the process to confirm her as the next chief. This comes as D.C. hit a tragic milestone, logging its 200th homicide at the earliest point in the year in more than a quarter of a century. Smith joins Kojo and Tom to discuss her plan to address crime in the District. A federal shutdown Oct. 1 is looking more and more likely. It could wreak havoc on the local economy and lead to many lower-wage federal contractors not being paid.  WAMU/DCist Northern Virginia reporter Margaret Barthel discusses the local political ramifications and why Virginia might be most at risk during a federal government shutdown. Become a member of WAMU: wamu.org/donate Send us questions and comments for guests: kojo@wamu.org Follow us on Instagram: instagram.com/wamu885 Follow us on Facebook:facebook.com/thepoliticshour

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by staff writer at The Stranger covering policing, incarceration and courts, Ashley Nerbovig! Ashley and Crystal discuss (and rant!) about continued and international outrage over Seattle Police Officers Guild (SPOG) leaders caught on body cam laughing about a fellow Seattle Police Department (SPD) officer running over and killing Jaahnavi Kandula - how the SPOG contract makes it near impossible to discipline or fire officers, Mayor Bruce Harrell's responsibility in creating the mess by voting for the contract as a City councilmember and in possibly getting us out of it by delivering a better one from the current negotiations, and how our recruiting problem is a culture problem in a competitive marketplace. The show then covers passage of the War on Drugs 2.0 bill by Seattle City Council, the start of the trial for three Tacoma officers accused of murdering Manny Ellis, and a rally held by Seattle City employees for fair pay. 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, Ashley Nerbovig, at @AshleyNerbovig. Resources “Tanya Woo, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 2” from Hacks & Wonks   “Tammy Morales, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 2” from Hacks & Wonks   “Seattle Police Officer Probably Won't Get Fired for Laughing about Jaahnavi Kandula's Death” by Ashley Nerbovig from The Stranger   “Police response time to Wing Luke Museum 911 calls raises questions about priorities” by Libby Denkmann and Sarah Leibovitz from KUOW   “Seattle Police Officer Hurls Racist Slur at Chinese-American Neighbor” by Ashley Nerbovig from The Stranger   “‘Feel safer yet?' Seattle police union's contempt keeps showing through” by Danny Westneat from The Seattle Times   “Amid SPD controversy, Mayor Harrell leads with empathy” from Seattle Times Editorial Board   “Seattle Launches Drug War 2.0” by Ashley Nerbovig from The Stranger   “Council Passes New Law Empowering City Attorney to Prosecute People Who Use Drugs in Public” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   @daeshikjr on Twitter: “BREAKING: Seattle City Councilmembers revived a recently voted down bill that many community activists are calling War on Drugs 2.0. We spoke with Sara on her campaign trail about her experience with drugs, mushrooms, and what she hoped to accomplish while in office. …”   “Trial begins for Tacoma officers charged with killing Manuel Ellis” by Jared Brown from KNKX   “Trial of 3 Tacoma police officers accused of killing Manuel Ellis in 2020 gets underway” by Peter Talbot from The News Tribune   “Historic trial begins for 3 officers charged in killing of Manny Ellis” by Patrick Malone from The Seattle Times   @tacoma_action on Twitter: “Here's how you can support the family of Manuel Ellis during the trial…”   Trial Information for State v. Burbank, Collins and Rankine | Pierce County Courts & Law    “City Workers Rally Their Asses Off” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger   Find stories that Crystal is reading here   Listen on your favorite podcast app to all our episodes here   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical show and our Friday week-in-review delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed this week's topical shows, we continued our series of Seattle City Council candidate interviews. All 14 candidates for 7 positions were invited and we had in-depth conversations with many of them. This week, we presented District 2 candidates, Tanya Woo and Tammy Morales. Have a listen to those and stay tuned over the coming weeks - we hope these interviews will help voters better understand who these candidates are and inform their choices for the November 7th general election. Today, we're continuing our Friday week-in-review shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome to the program for the first time, today's co-host: staff writer at The Stranger covering policing, incarceration and courts - and rocking that coverage - Ashley Nerbovig. Hello. [00:01:42] Ashley Nerbovig: Hey, Crystal - thanks. Hi. [00:01:43] Crystal Fincher: Glad to have you on the show. We have no shortage of things to talk about and particularly this week where everything public safety was exploding, imploding, just all over the place. I want to start off talking about a story that is now making international headlines - the release of the video of an SPD officer, a SPOG executive, mocking the death of Jaahnavi Kandula, who was killed by another policeman while she was just a pedestrian just walking and run over by a policeman who - it didn't seem like he had his lights and sirens on, going over 70 miles per hour. Just such a tragedy in the first place, and then outrage was the dominant feeling nationally, internationally when that video came out. What is going to happen or what does it look like is going to happen? You wrote a great piece this week about that. [00:02:42] Ashley Nerbovig: Yeah, he's not gonna get fired - for sure - unless something wildly out of the normal process happens. And even if that does, the arbitration process is such that they would look at the SPOG contract and be like - There was nothing in this that he did that's actually fireable. - and it's super frustrating to watch. And in that story, I break down how we've seen these cases before - that cops have said really outrageous stuff, or even done something pretty outrageous, or something that the public looks at as pretty outrageous - and the reaction has been either it's a written reprimand or it's unsustained findings. One of the examples I gave was that there was multiple officers in one car who - one of them said - they accelerate toward protesters, people can be heard to be laughing. And so one of them says - I effing hate these people - or something along those lines. And because they couldn't narrow it in and prove who said it, and none of the cops inside said who said it - it's frustrating, but it also makes sense when you read the SPOG contract - because they have to prove beyond a preponderance of evidence, which is more than 50%, which sounds like a pretty low standard to hop over. But actually, I think they did a review of a bunch of different cops' policies on what they have to prove to require discipline across the country and SPD is in a very small minority - the majority of people have something that's lower or at a preponderance of evidence, and our standard is right above it. You see all of this outrage, and then you see Andrew Lewis and Lisa Herbold and Mayor Harrell and SPOG all say, essentially - We want to watch the OPA process, we're excited to watch that investigation. - as if they don't know that anyone reading the SPOG contract, anyone who's read enough OPA cases knows that this is going to end in the cop continuing to be on the force. And to some extent, you can make the argument that if this was one isolated comment, maybe it wouldn't be a firing that was justified. But when you look at his entire career, and then when you also look at what the actual other punishments are, right? You can get suspended, but you don't have that suspension served consecutively - you can serve it throughout a year. So it means that - the whole point of having a suspension is that they don't get paid, and it hurts their bottom line, and it's something to avoid. If you're just serving out a 15-day suspension over a year, and then you're making it up with tons of overtime, what are the consequences for cops in this city? And the answer is that our police accountability systems do not have actual consequences for our officers right now. [00:05:28] Crystal Fincher: Not at all. And it's infuriating. And this has kicked off a conversation that we've had before - just talking about the SPOG contract and the importance of that - there are a lot of people who are new here who weren't paying attention several years ago. There was an attempt that the City of Seattle - the council in particular - attempted to do this. They passed police accountability legislation that tightened that up. But then the current SPOG contract that's in place - was approved by Mayor Harrell on the council, by the way, who voted for the current contract that is currently handcuffing him and preventing him from being able to do anything about this - that superseded many of the City ordinances that dealt with this. And one thing that a lot of people don't know is that contract can supersede City law. So the things that the City thinks is happening, the process that we have - our democratic, our initiative process, the council process - all falls by the wayside when this is approved. And at the time, this was approved on a narrow vote - this was not, the conversation leading up to the approval of this current contract was not like - Oh, this looks great, it's fine. Lorena González infamously toiled over the vote that she was going to do, and later said that she regretted voting to approving it. But they were warned that this was going to happen. They were warned that moving backwards on accountability was going to produce really unsavory results. And lo and behold, here we are. So once again, we're in a situation where everyone - almost everyone - agrees. Most members of the public, of the national community, international community agree this is egregious. This is unacceptable. And the City's handcuffed because of this current contract. And I just want people to be aware that the next contract is currently being negotiated. The mayor's office - the same mayor who approved this current contract - is currently negotiating this next contract. And is Bruce Harrell going to ensure that something like this can't happen again with no remedy, or recourse, or consequence? That's really going to be up to how this contract is negotiated and structured. I don't know what's going to happen with this officer in this incident - he has a long record himself of issues, complaints - and I don't know what's happening with that is going to go through this process. But the executive's office, the council who will ultimately have to approve this contract does have a say in whether or not something like this can happen again. And I think they owe the residents of the city assurances that this shouldn't happen. We're seeing so many of these examples. This isn't the first example of a death mocked - it's just the first one that we have on video that's public. There was a tombstone before, there's been social media posts before. And also the fact that this was, I believe, VP of the Seattle Police Officers Guild. When you have leaders doing this - similar to the assistant police chief in Kent who displayed literal Nazi memorabilia - that speaks to culture. These are leaders. These are people dictating what we have here. And tangentially, and this is going on while we're having a conversation about police being short-staffed, while we're having a conversation about how hard it is to recruit - after the city has thrown money and recruitment bonuses and retainment bonuses at people. And can we just acknowledge that someone looking at this, now that they have the choice to join any police department, basically, they want to - they're all hiring - why would they join Seattle? This is the recruiting problem here. It's this culture. It's this continued drumbeat of toxic, distasteful stuff. [00:09:06] Ashley Nerbovig: I think you're right about it being a culture problem. But I also think that the strength of our SPOG contract - you could make an argument that these are some of the most protected City employees. And it's across the board that people don't want to be cops. And it makes sense because even if you take away all of the controversies, local governments overall are struggling right now to recruit people for any job. And then on top of it, you're talking about a job that requires a lot of no work from home - we've had a complete culture shift in what we value about work. And I think when you look at what the job of being a cop is, it's you have to live in a certain location, basically, you can live - although Auderer lives in Olympia, I think, so you can live far away - but you have to be able to go to work in-person. And then on top of it, you're tied to all of this really negative associations that we have with cops, and this shift in how we've thought about cops. And you're competing in a really tight job market where there's a lot of really - yes, you get a lot of money being a Seattle police officer, but that requires a lot of overtime. You can make that same money just like having a normal 40-hour workweek if you work something tech, and it can also be more flexible and more remote. I just think that the problem is exactly that being a cop is not appealing, and we can't change that - no one wants these jobs. And so why are we not talking about what people do want to work and starting from that place of - people do want to help people. I think a lot of cops in those positions talk about reshifting budget priorities, and that would mean changing their jobs. But cops were the first people to tell me that they didn't want to be social workers, that they weren't trying to do social work - and that they felt like they didn't have the tools and they weren't the people to be doing mental health intervention, or drug abuse intervention. Or homelessness intervention. You can't help someone unsheltered when you're a cop. The only thing cops can do is jail. I thought something really interesting - I know this is something we're going to talk about in a bit - and I really want to say something that I thought about with the SPOG contract. One of the things that I can't remember if it was Teresa Mosqueda or Morales who said it, but one of them was like - If we aren't funding these treatment options - when they were talking about the drug vote - If we aren't funding these treatment options, and we aren't funding these diversion programs, the only thing cops are going to be able to do if they want to get someone off the street is put them in jail. And I think that people have this idea that cops have other options, but that's their tool. It's not a choice for them. The only solution for cops is to arrest - that is their main job activity. And just this idea that people don't want these jobs, they are not effective for the problems that we have, and yet we have this desperation - and Bruce Harrell has this desperation to cling to tough-on-crime policies. And it's dumb. And you don't see any solutions, but people like to pretend like they saw some improvement - when they just like the feeling of, oh - you don't see anything change when you put a tough-on-crime policy. There's this idea that all of our - anytime we do something that's like violence intervention or like a community-based approach - that we don't see the results very quickly. And it always is so funny to me, because I'm like, you don't see - no one in their day-to-day life, if we tomorrow said you can arrest - other than maybe someone who went downtown and all of the homeless people, we can't even put anyone in the King County Jail. So I don't know what they're talking about right now, but you don't actually see a marked improvement - you just get a shift in media narratives - that's all that changes, really, in my opinion. [00:12:49] Crystal Fincher: This is the same thing that we're doing - and your point is exactly correct - we're only funding one thing. And what you fund, what you put resources to, is what you're going to have. We are so desperately short of other support services, behavioral health support services. And there are entities in the process of addressing that, right? Absolutely frustrating that it's not here now, there is some work being done there. So progress is being made largely at the county level and regionally. But this is not going to work. This is the same old thing. The thing that I find troubling, particularly as a progressive political consultant, is that this makes passing progressive policy harder. Because if you dress something up like progressive policy - Oh, it's really important that we treat root causes. And yeah, we all believe it. - and they all say that until it's time to actually put their money where their mouth is, to actually do the thing, to implement it. And then what we get is this warmed-over piece of legislation that does one of the things - yes, we can arrest - and makes it harder than it was before to do the other things. And it was astronomically hard before. We know what's going to happen with this. So the real question is, so what are they going to blame for the failure of this next? What excuse is coming up next? I talk to a lot of people, lay people, some people - I just like hearing an unfiltered opinion of someone who's not an insidery insider and paying attention to all the policy and stuff. And you would be shocked by how many people who are - they don't consider themselves super leftist, probably general Democrats, but they don't really pay attention to much - who are under the impression that Seattle's progressive city council has run amok. And it's like, when it comes to public safety, they are not passing progressive policy. Unfortunately, the conservative council - that is the policy that we have and that we've continued. And when everybody rushes to put that label on it - we're going to see a lot of political communication coming up soon, where I'm sure everybody is going to call themselves a progressive, probably pragmatic progressive, responsible progressive - but like they cling to that word and they want to present their policy is that. But when it's not, all it does is hurt actual progressive policy. So it's important for people to stand up and be like - No, we see that, and we see that it's not what the community is demanding and asking for. It's just really frustrating. We should probably get back to some of this news a little bit. [00:15:02] Ashley Nerbovig: There's just one last thing I want to say about Danny Westneat - this is going back a couple topics, but it was something that you said about the SPOG contract and that this is the leadership of SPOG. And Danny had a - bless his heart, he tried, probably - I quote tweeted it when I read the first couple of graphs. And then I went back and read his whole column about Auderer - I can't even say his last name - but the SPOG VP's comments. And he said quite a few things that were just absolutely ridiculous, where he talks about how SPOG uses public safety as a bargaining chip and says essentially - Oh, it'd be a shame if something happened to this beautiful city of yours. And then he goes on to give them that bargaining chip and say that Seattle desperately needs more cops. And then he goes to talking about how - he names a city that basically did defund because they also broke up their cop union. And it's just such a wild series of thoughts. And he concludes it on - SPOG needs to clean house. And it's so frustrating - even if you're just thinking of it logically - if you are a member of SPOG, and your vice president has gotten out of this many OPA investigations with little to no punishment - you don't think they know who is leading them? That's who I want as my union vice president - I want someone who's gotten away with a bunch of stuff - that is how you stay safe and stay protected - and who's going to clean house - the leadership? The leadership is the problem. Anyway, I just wanted to fully round that out by giving Danny like a 2 out of 5 stars on that column. [00:16:35] Crystal Fincher: There are a lot of people who are like - Wow, okay, didn't think there was going to be a day where many of them agreed with Danny Westneat. He got some of the way there. I think one of the challenges with that is a tendency to view unions as separate from workers, and the union as separate from the cops. They are elected by their peers in the union - this is representative of the culture, this is the result of them saying these are the people we feel best represent us. And this is what it is. If that's not a red flag, I don't know what is - but here we are. And it's hard for me to separate SPOG versus police because SPOG is police. And it's just time we had a serious conversation about real accountability. And it's a tangible conversation - there is someone responsible for this, there is an intervention that can work here - we can negotiate this. It's up to the mayor, the people on negotiating committee, it's up to the council who's going to approve this. This doesn't just happen - they're permitted to happen by a contract that is in place. And if we're unhappy with it, and if City Hall can't see that the people are unhappy with a contract that enables this, the question is - particularly for Bruce Harrell, who is the boss of the police department - they literally report to him, police chief literally reports to him, direct report, his responsibility. What is he going to do now? Is he going to respond to this and say, I'm going to ensure this doesn't happen again? Because that's a buck-stops-here attitude that is normally expected of an executive. That's the job. What is he going to do to ensure this doesn't happen again? How is he going to live up to his word that he's going to improve the culture and improve public safety? We're waiting. And it seems like they're just permitting this. They're just - Oh, that's too bad. [00:18:20] Ashley Nerbovig: The Seattle editorial board said he's been leading with empathy. If anyone really wants to rage out, read that editorial. I don't know if Bruce called and said he was going to cancel the whole city's subscription to The Seattle Times, but it's just absolute garbage. Kandula was killed while Officer Kevin Dave was responding to a guy who had too much cocaine and wasn't even ODing. Rich, my editor, said this to me earlier this week, where he was like, we were talking about the drug vote, and he was saying - This is just another example of how cops shouldn't be the ones responding to people overdosing. EMTs can go to these things. [00:18:56] Crystal Fincher: And do in most other cities - without police, to be clear. [00:18:59] Ashley Nerbovig: And you mentioned earlier that it was unclear about his lights. And I don't know for sure what was going on there, because I know his in-car video wasn't working. But I've read another OPA case where someone had said that a cop was just turning on his lights and sirens to get through red lights - and the justification for that that they showed was that it was like - oh, he was tactically using his lights and sirens, which means that they only turn them on to get through lights and stuff, even though he's responding to a call. And when they do that, it means that their in-car video doesn't turn on. And that's allowed because - oh, it's a tactic. And super curious to see the end of this OPA report for Kevin Dave. EMTs are not worried about sneaking up on people - they just turn on their lights and go. But yeah, it's going to be really frustrating to watch. [00:19:45] Crystal Fincher: So now can you break down what this legislation does? Because I've seen it characterized in a number of different ways - Oh, it's making drugs illegal. It's like doing different things. What did this legislation actually change? [00:19:56] Ashley Nerbovig: This particular piece of legislation - to do my full roundup of this - everybody knows that in 2021, the Washington Supreme Court struck down our felony drug possession law. The Washington State Legislature scrambled to pass something - and they passed this idea of we're going to do two referrals to treatment before we arrest anyone, and we're only going to arrest on a misdemeanor, and that went across the state for people in possession of drugs. That went on for two years and it was unworkable - they didn't structure it, they didn't create a database for people to be marking referrals - it's called a stopgap measure. It was one of those things where it was a really half thought-out piece of what potentially could be progressive legislation, did more harm than just making it a misdemeanor and then trying to talk about decriminalization a little bit later - I think that might have actually ended up being strategically a better way to go, except you would have seen a bunch of people arrested in that time. The result is that they came back this session and they said - Okay, no. They had that big fight and they said - We're going to make it a gross misdemeanor, your first two offenses you're going to get a maximum sentence of 180 days, any offenses after that you're going to go up to 364 days. And they said - We prefer people defer to treatment, we prefer cops defer. - that was one thing that Herbold and Lewis both kept saying is - their City bill, that it was different from the state bill and that it starts the diversion out of the system process at the cop level before people even have a case started, whereas they kept describing the state bill as getting started. There are multiple places throughout the system that you can get diverted - you can get diverted before you get arrested so there's never anything on your record, you can get diverted after you've been arrested by the cops and now the prosecutors are in charge of your case and they defer any charges or defer any charges from getting actually convicted and then you're able to get it off of your record. So that's deferred prosecution. And then there's, you can get stuff - after you've been sentenced, you can get stuff wiped off your record. The argument that the City was making in how their bill was different from the state bill is they're saying - Oh, we really make it clear that our policy is not to arrest. The state bill does too. They say that it's their preference that people are diverted to treatment rather than be arrested. They also put a bunch of deferred prosecution stuff in there to divert people out of the system once they have charges against them. It's easier to talk about what this bill didn't do. It set a policy that said - This is our preference by the City of Seattle. So the state law was already in place. And now because it's a misdemeanor, state law passes - that starts in August, like everything gets implemented. So technically, cops could find people who were using drugs in public or possessing drugs in public and arrest them on a gross misdemeanor. And I think the using is such an interesting part of this, because there's nothing about possession as a charge that doesn't get at the same thing that public use does. When you make it all about public use and you add public use plus possession to this law, it is such a dog whistle towards people who are just mad at unhoused people. Morales said something really clear in the City Council vote, which was that this bill is not going to curb public use because the people who this bill is targeting have nowhere else to use. And so the state law passes, SPD cops can do this. But if SPD cops right now in Seattle - or right before this, because Harrell signed the bill yesterday - before this bill passed, if they arrested someone, their charges, because Seattle doesn't have its own ordinance, would have gone to Leesa Manion's office, the King County Prosecutor's, which would have made a ton of sense. King County Prosecutor's has a bunch of programs already in place for this - they've already been dealing with felony versions of this for a long time. But her office did a weird thing and got really like - We don't have the misdemeanor staff to handle this and these felony drug courts that we have wouldn't even apply to this. They did a bunch of workarounds - they really quashed the idea of these cases getting referred to them really early on, or at least they asked for money from us that apparently City Council just was unwilling to try to negotiate - or they were unwilling to negotiate trying to work out a contract. I never really understood what her motivations were with that or were slamming it down so hard. And so the City said - We're going to implement this ordinance and we're going to send these cases to our city attorney, Republican Ann Davison. So that's what this law does is that it doesn't - anyone who describes it - all that this law does is say that now Ann Davison can prosecute these cases, and also we would really like it if cops didn't arrest people on these charges. And it says - and I'll give them this - it adds a bunch of paperwork that cops now need to have when they do arrest someone on a drug possession charge. But I think Morales really summed it up really well where she said - This does not expand any diversion, it doesn't expand any treatment. - and this is probably a little bit more opinion-based, but - It doesn't improve public safety in any way. And I think that's so key is that we can ask - even if it's not, even if you aren't someone that believes in the nefarious, like that cops are all like Auderer and don't care about behavioral health and don't really look at people who are addicts on the street as someone that needs public health intervention - let's buy the premise that there are well-meaning cops out there who want to take these people to treatment. We do not have resources. And this idea that - in the City Council staff member, or the City Council Central Staff's memo, they said - Diversion requires social workers. These are actually much longer, much more resource-intensive cases. And cops are going to maybe divert the first or second time that they find someone, but then there's no resources to pick that person up - there's nothing to actually help them, maybe they're not ready to get treatment yet. And at some point, they're just going to arrest them and they're going to go through all of the charges. And maybe they're not going to go to jail because King County won't take them right now, but it's creating the structure for that. And they're still going to have to continue to show up at municipal court until they get something on their record that ends up putting them in jail. And we know how bad jail is - we know that it increases the chances of overdose. I think this bill kills people - I think that's the bottom line of what this bill does - is that it's going to kill a bunch of people, and make a bunch of people poorer, and do nothing to curb drug addiction, and fill our jails, and just continue the cycle of mass incarceration. [00:26:51] Crystal Fincher: The outcomes from this type of policy are clear. We have so much information about what happens when you do just fund, enable sending people to jail without doing anything to address the root causes for why they're there. Also, there are some people rejoicing over this - like it is going to help - I'll be curious to see their evaluation after a period of time, to see what their perception of what results. But it's just frustrating because we could choose to do what has shown to be effective elsewhere. Everybody is frustrated. I don't think anyone is happy. I don't want to be in a space where someone is using publicly, right? And perhaps inhaling secondhand something or whatever. But I also recognize that generally people who do use in public don't have another place to use. And if it is an issue of - addiction isn't logical, right? Addiction isn't reasonable. It's not - Oh, there are consequences for me going to jail now, so I'm just going to stop being addicted. The thing about addiction is that you can't decide to stop being addicted. It's not up to you. And that people fall into addiction for a variety of reasons. And being addicted is a reality that so many people face - to treat it as like they're less than human for struggling with that particular issue is ridiculous. But we do that from a public safety perspective. And as you said, this is going to largely wind up targeting the homeless - that's usually who this applies to - people. We can talk about the drug habits of executives and rich people, and the rates of drug use are not low across the board. I always find it so curious. We drug test minimum wage and low wage workers, but not high wage executives. I'm pretty confident what results we would see if we did that. There's an interesting video with Sara Nelson - yeah, speaking of politicians using drugs, and then voting on drug ordinances - but Sara Nelson has a place to use privately. That's the difference. [00:28:52] Ashley Nerbovig: Because we're going after public use, we're not going after possession. And the casual way she talks about it - you are aware that you are growing drugs, and you're telling people where to find drugs - and I can hear her argument against this, right? But the point of it is that drugs are not inherently dangerous, and it was incredibly frustrating to watch that video. And then think about the fact that when this was in front of the Public Safety Committee, Mosqueda came out and said - I want to make it very clear that lots of public health agencies at this point have said that breathing in secondhand fentanyl smoke is not dangerous to your health. I am someone who opens a window if someone blows vape smoke too close to me - I don't like it, I don't want that smell, I am not totally convinced that the smell will not linger. But it's like that, right - it's a smell, I'm not worried about getting a nicotine contact high. And the way that fentanyl gets demonized as the worst drug that we've ever seen, it's part of how we can dehumanize the people who are using it. And I think it's so interesting, because if you ask someone to class their own drugs, shrooms and weed and cocaine would be the bourgeoisie of drugs - they're allowed, it's fine - alcohol. All of those things are totally fine. And the people who use them are not degenerates or any way bad. Maybe cocaine. But for the most part, we are totally okay with those kinds of drugs, no matter how alcohol is still one of the most harmful substances in our society. Whenever I call the King County Medical Examiner's Board to get the overdose deaths, it's overdose deaths and deaths due to alcoholism. But they're longer term, right? So I'm not saying that - fentanyl is absolutely killing people - it's in everything. And it is a new, very scary problem because we don't have a ton of ways to treat it. But it doesn't change the fundamentals of what we're seeing, which is you had someone like Sara Nelson who struggled with her own story of addiction. But as soon as it becomes a drug that they view as dirty or not fun to scavenge for, you get this attitude of - We need to crack down on this. And that's how it's got to be a punishment-based system - it's not a conversation, it's not help, it's not treatment - we've got to really show these people the errors, the way to be, and improve their life. And it's just so condescending. [00:31:30] Crystal Fincher: This is the crack playbook at play. And again, to be clear, not at all saying that fentanyl is not very troublesome, problematic, and that we don't want people using that. Those are all true. But to say somehow a unique and unsolvable addiction issue as opposed to opioids, as opposed to all of the other things. The one thing that we know is that there are new drugs created all the time for a variety of things. There's going to be something more potent. Fentanyl is not the last, right? It's just the current. There is going to be a next. We've been playing this cat and mouse game with the War on Drugs, with all that we're doing - it's here. But hearing the language around that is the same tactic that happened with crack, right? And the justification to pass a ton of laws, super harsh penalties, mandating mandatory time, adding it as a strike for possessing crack, lower thresholds for dealing and all of that, as opposed to cocaine, which was used by a different demographic largely and fueled there. This is pretty transparent. And unfortunately, you hear a lot of the rhetoric in public meetings. You hear it from people - Oh man, this fentanyl, these people are like zombies, this is something completely new we haven't seen before. Those are all the same things that they said with crack. Those are all the same things that they say with the new drug that they want to use when they're in the mood to crack down and jail people - here is where we're at. Acting like fentanyl is just - oh, if you're addicted, you're lost, you're hopeless, is untrue. It is a dangerous drug. We need to address it. Public health approaches have a better record of doing that than punitive jail-based approaches. But it's a problem that we do need to get our arms around, but we make it harder to do that when we pursue policies to jail - which are very expensive to do in every single way. And then say - Sorry, we just don't have the resources to provide more treatment services, to provide more behavioral health services, to provide more housing, to provide detox for people. Those are all necessary for us to deal with this problem, and we just aren't doing it. I would like to do it. I would like to meaningfully address this - most people would - but this makes it much harder. I do want to talk about this week, a very important - and for our state historic - trial starting, of the three officers accused of murdering Manny Ellis. What is happening here? [00:33:58] Ashley Nerbovig: Yeah. So they're still in jury selection. It's going to be a long, drawn-out process. I think opening statements start October 2nd. And for people who don't know the case, Manny Ellis was an unarmed Black man who was in Tacoma - this was March before George Floyd's death, and there are so many parallels. Everything that is terrible about George Floyd is terrible in this case. Bob Ferguson comes in, says that he's going to investigate this case, does an investigation. Tacoma Police Department does not cooperate with Washington State Patrol. Washington State Patrol and AG Ferguson ends up creating this probable cause statement and now three officers, three men are all on trial this week. Or the trial is starting and jury selection is starting. And there's one guy who - I can't remember his name now - but he's live tweeting all of it. And there's been some really interesting tidbits. One of the jurors - the judge asked if there were any jurors who might have conflicts presiding over a case involving law enforcement, no one raised their hands, and then the judge looks at this guy and says - But didn't you say you have a brother in law enforcement? And there's no other details, but that's where it's starting right now. And it'll be a really interesting case - it's horrible to see these cases get to this point - and you wonder about, I don't know anything about the disciplinary records of these cops. But yeah, that's where it's starting. And that's the background on it. [00:35:14] Crystal Fincher: And certainly - it's a trial. And I generally try not to follow these things or get emotionally invested in these trials - for good reason - they often don't seem to wind up with justice, and even what is justice when your loved one, someone you care about, a human being is killed. And just also lifting up - we hear about all these cases around the country - we have more than enough here locally. There's another police officer from Auburn currently awaiting trial for killing Jesse Sarey in Auburn. It's really troubling. And we also have family and friends of Manny dealing with this and having to once again hear the horrific details of this killing. And they're continuing to call for the firing of the cops who've been on payroll this entire time, who are still on payroll. There's a GoFundMe for the family. And court is something that people can show up to and show support if they want to do that also. It's a tragedy. And I hope the family is able to find peace and healing and that this can assist with that. I have no idea where they stand on this, but certainly, I'm thinking of them as this trial continues to go on. Last thing I want to talk about today is Seattle City employees rallying for fair pay. Why did this rally happen? [00:36:38] Ashley Nerbovig: Shout out to Hannah Krieg - she got all the great quotes for this one. This rally happened because apparently, and I'm quoting directly from her story - Bruce Harrell is funny, he's a funny guy, and if this is true, I believe it - Mayor Harrell told them to rally their asses off. The City started their negotiations for a pay increase of 1% and has settled on a pay increase of 2%. And the City workers are saying that's an insane way to start negotiations in one of the most expensive cities in the country. She puts this really good stat in there - that's a pay cut as the cost of, a 1% cost of living adjustment or even a 2% cost of living adjustment is a pay cut as the cost of living rose 8.7% this year. It's really important to note that the SPOG contract guarantees at minimum like a 1.5%, I think - I did a little tweet about this - it's plus COLA or something. But effectively, regardless of what their contract says, they have never gone a year without at least a 3% increase. Lieutenants and higher up guilds just got like a 4% increase. Sometimes I'll get these emails from the mayor's office that's - I'm really like unhappy with how you've portrayed us as prioritizing police. We really prioritize like other things too. - and it's, you can see it, where their money is going. So the workers are contract, are striking because they're not getting, at minimum, just keeping up with inflation. And the City of Seattle seems to think this is just like across the board, boy to cut is in general services and for the city. And that's - I really encourage people to follow Hannah's coverage on this because she's really on top of it. [00:38:17] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it's really challenging. We talked about police saying they have a shortage of officers and all of the action that has been taken to fix that including a retention bonus, healthy retention bonuses. And so we're talking about the shortages in the rest of the city, and it just doesn't seem like there is the interest in making sure the City is able to provide essential services and the level of service for everything that is currently happening and that people expect. There have been several council candidates who have said and agreed with - Yeah, we should be giving City workers the same kind of retention bonuses, investing in their retention, doing something tangible to actually address the shortage here. And we're going to be seeing Mayor Harrell's budget come out pretty soon. It's going to be interesting to see how he deals with that and what it is because a budget is a value statement - that's a document of values - where you're spending your money is what you value the most. And other things - you can talk about them and say they're great, but if you aren't funding them, clearly they were lower on the priority list in your estimation. And he may have his reasons to justify that. But it is disingenuous to say - Oh, I completely prioritize that, I value that, and I'm just not going to fund that while I'm going to fund this other thing. So it will be interesting to see. But it seems like the City has a lot of work to do to start to step up. And everyone on the campaign trail talks about their values and making sure people can live where they work, how important that is to our economy - and it absolutely is important - again, what tangibly is going to be done about that? What are we going to see in that budget? And if not, just what is really the tangible impact of that? So we'll continue to follow that. But certainly workers see some definite red flags there and are rallying to make sure people understand that this is a problem that has consequences for the entire city and beyond. And for all the plans that people say they have, they're going to rely on these employees to execute them. So we better make sure that there are people in place to deliver on the policy that we pass as a city. [00:40:34] Ashley Nerbovig: Yeah, I hope we get a strike. I think it would be good for people to feel what happens when they don't - I think that a lot of these services are invisible. And we already see that SPOG is doing all these sick-outs and they're not responding to calls - and a lot of them are blaming it on the staffing shortages. When you hear about sick-outs, you get a little bit curious about those call response times. I hope it turns into a strike because I think people do need to realize how essential these workers are. [00:41:00] Crystal Fincher: Certainly the public - some people definitely see that, some people definitely don't. But a strike will be a failure, right? We're having a rally because an initial offer was pretty insulting. It was not a serious offer. It's a pay cut. If you're starting saying - Okay, how big a pay cut are you going to take to people who are already short-staffed and overworked? Because really, let's talk about it. When we talk about short staffing, that means that the same amount of work is falling on fewer heads. And that's a hard position to be in - and many of these positions aren't like super high-paid positions anyway. People are struggling to just pay their bills and work is getting harder, and now you're going to ask them to take a pay cut. And being disrespectful when that happens - Okay, go rally your ass off. So I hope there is more respect in this process and that lines of communication open and are productive. Because strikes are disruptive, right? They're not fun, they create a lot of drama. It may come to that - and I absolutely support workers' rights to strike and sometime that's necessary to get the job done - but I hope it doesn't come to that. I hope they are able to talk. But it's going to take more respect from the City perspective, realistically - they just aren't starting in a serious place. [00:42:14] Ashley Nerbovig: Yeah, I like what you said there. It would be a failure. My chaotic evil side is - yeah, disrupt it, show people that you exist and stuff. But you're right. It would suck for these workers to have to go on strike because - the no pay and I'm sure they have a fund - you're 100% correct. What I would actually like to see is Mayor Harrell care about these people the way that he has been so consistently able to show care for our police department. [00:42:44] Crystal Fincher: I completely agree. And with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, September 22, 2023. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is the incredible Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today was staff writer at The Stranger covering policing, incarceration and the courts, Ashley Nerbovig. You can find Ashley on Twitter at @AshleyNerbovig, A-S-H-L-E-Y N-E-R-B-O-V-I-G. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter at @HacksWonks. You can find me on just about every platform at @finchfrii, that's F-I-N-C-H F-R-I-I. You can catch Hacks & Wonks - wherever you want to listen to us, you can listen to us - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar of your favorite pod player. And be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen - it really helps us out. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Seattle political reporter and editor of PubliCola, Erica Barnett! The show starts with the infuriating story of Seattle Police Officers Guild (SPOG) leaders joking about a fellow Seattle Police Department (SPD) officer running over and killing Jaahnavi Kandula - how the shocking comments caught on body cam confirm suspicions of a culture in SPD that disregards life, that the SPOG police union is synonymous with the department, and whether a seemingly absent Mayor Bruce Harrell will do anything about a troubled department under his executive purview. Erica and Crystal then discuss Bob Ferguson officially entering the governor's race with Jay Inslee's endorsement, Rebecca Saldaña jumping into a crowded Public Lands Commissioner race, no charges against Jenny Durkan or Carmen Best for their deleted texts during the 2020 George Floyd protests, the latest on Seattle's drug criminalization bill, and flawed interviews for KCRHA's Five-Year Plan for homelessness. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Erica Barnett, at @ericacbarnett.   Resources “Rob Saka, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 1” from Hacks & Wonks   “Maren Costa, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 1” from Hacks & Wonks   “"Write a Check for $11,000. She Was 26, She Had Limited Value." SPD Officer Jokes with Police Union Leader About Killing of Pedestrian by Fellow Cop” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   “‘Feel safer yet?' Seattle police union's contempt keeps showing through” by Danny Westneat from The Seattle Times   “Handling of Jaahnavi Kandula's death brings criticism from Seattle leaders” by Sarah Grace Taylor from The Seattle Times   “Political consultant weighs in on growing Washington governor's race” by Brittany Toolis from KIRO 7 News Seattle   “Jay Inslee endorses Bob Ferguson to succeed him as WA governor” by David Gutman and Lauren Girgis from The Seattle Times   “Rebecca Saldaña Jumps into Weirdly Crowded Race for Lands Commissioner” by Rich Smith from The Stranger   “No Charges Against Durkan and Best for Deleted Texts; Investigation Reveals Holes in City Records Retention Policies” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   “After Watering Down Language About Diversion, Committee Moves Drug Criminalization Bill Forward” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   “Harrell's “$27 Million Drug Diversion and Treatment” Plan Would Allow Prosecutions But Add No New Funding” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   “The Five-Year Plan for Homelessness Was Based Largely on 180 Interviews. Experts Say They Were Deeply Flawed.” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   Find stories that Crystal is reading here   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical show and our Friday week-in-review delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed this week's topical shows, we kicked off our series of Seattle City Council candidate interviews. All 14 candidates for 7 positions were invited. And over the last week, we had in-depth conversations with many of them. This week, we presented District 1 candidates, Rob Saka and Maren Costa. Have a listen to those and stay tuned over the coming weeks - we hope these interviews will help voters better understand who these candidates are and inform their choices for the November 7th general election. Today, we're continuing our Friday week-in-review shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: Seattle political reporter and editor of PubliCola, Erica Barnett. [00:01:37] Erica Barnett: It's great to be here. [00:01:39] Crystal Fincher: Great to have you back. Well, I wanna start off talking about just an infuriating story this week where Seattle police officers - a union leader - joked about killing of a pedestrian by another Seattle police officer - and just really disgusting. What happened here? [00:01:58] Erica Barnett: The Seattle Police Department and the King County Prosecutor's Office actually released this video from the night that Jaahnavi Kandula was killed by Officer Kevin Dave. It is a short clip that shows one-half of a conversation between Daniel Auderer, who is the Seattle Police Officers Guild vice president, and Mike Solan, the president of the police guild - as you said, joking and laughing about the incident that had just happened. And also minimizing the incident - so from what we can hear of Auderer's part of the conversation, he makes some comments implying that the crash wasn't that bad, that Dave was acting within policy, that he was not speeding too much - all of which was not true. He was going 74 miles an hour. The incident was very gruesome and just a horrible tragedy. Then you can hear him saying in a joking manner, "But she is dead." And then he pauses and he says, "No, it's a regular person." in response to something that Solan has said - and there's been a lot of speculation about what that might be. Then he says, "Yeah, just write a check." - after laughing - "Yeah, $11,000. She was 26 anyway, she had limited value." I'm reading the words verbatim, but I really recommend watching the video, which we posted on PubliCola.com, because you can hear the tone and you can hear the sort of cackling laughter - which I think conveys the intent a lot more clearly than just reading a transcript of it. [00:03:23] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, we will link that PubliCola story with the video in our show notes, but it's just infuriating. And just to recap what happened just in the killing of her initially - that was a tragedy and an infuriating event. An officer was responding to a call that arguably police aren't needed at - in other jurisdictions, they don't seem to be needed on those types of calls - but without lights and sirens blaring, going over 70 mph on just a regular City street. And yeah, that's illegal for regular people for a reason - common sense would dictate that would be against policy - we give them lights and sirens for a reason to alert people that they're coming really fast and to clear the way. And it just seemed like Jaahnavi didn't have a chance here. And then the slow leak of information afterwards - just the event itself seemed to devalue their life and the way it was handled - and then to see this as the reaction. If their job is to keep us safe, they seem gleefully opposed to that. [00:04:28] Erica Barnett: Yeah, I think that in the aftermath of the story going national and international, I think that one of the reactions I've heard is - Well, this is how we've always thought - from people who are skeptical of the police, I should say - this is how we've always assumed they talk, but to actually hear it on tape is shocking. And I think what happened in this video, the reason we have it is because Auderer perhaps forgot his body cam was on. 'Cause after he makes his last comment about $11,000, she had limited value, he turns off the camera and we don't hear any more of that conversation. This is a rare look into one such conversation between officers. And I will say too, that there was a - Jason Rantz, a local radio personality, right-wing commentator, tried to pre-spin this by saying that this was just "gallows humor" between two officers, and this is very common in professions where you see a lot of grisly and terrible stuff. And I will just point out, first of all, gallows humor is like making a joke about, I don't know, like a 9/11 joke, you know, 20 years after the fact. It's not on the night that someone was killed, joking about her being essentially worthless and trying to minimize the incident. That's not gallows humor. That's just the way, apparently, the police union VP and president talk amongst each other. It just shows that the culture of the department - we talk a lot about City Hall, which I cover - they talk a lot about recruiting better officers and getting the right kind of police. But the problem is if the culture itself is rotten, there's no fixing that by just putting 5 new officers, 10 new officers at the bottom of the chain. It comes from the top. And that is then - these two officials are at the top of that chain. [00:06:09] Crystal Fincher: It does come from the top. And this also isn't the only time that it seems they have really distastefully discussed deaths at the hands of their officers or other people's deaths. There was a story that made the news not too long ago about them having a tombstone in one of their precincts for someone who was killed. There have been a couple officers who've had complaints for posting social media posts that seem to make fun of protesters who were run over. We have had a protester run over and killed here in the city. This is something that we've talked about that we - as a community - project that is against our values, but we continue to let this police department just mock people's safety in the city. I mean, you know something wild is happening when even Danny Westneat - who I think most people consider to be an extremely moderate, feels in-line with the Seattle Times editorial board, columnist for The Times - even he thinks SPOG has gone too far, and he's notoriously sympathetic to the police department. [00:07:15] Erica Barnett: Yeah, I think that in that article, he almost got there. The article was basically - we desperately need more police, but this darn police union just keeps messing up and saying these terrible things, so we've got to reform this police union - which I just thought was a bizarre note in an otherwise pretty reasonable article because the police union is the top. It is the people that create the culture for the rest of the department in a lot of ways, perhaps more so than the police chief and the command staff. It's made up of cops. The cops vote in the head of the police union, the vice president - they are the ones that are choosing these folks. So if the police union's culture is broken, I think that means that SPD's culture is broken. [00:07:54] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, unions are the culture. I feel like that's a trickle-down effect of anti-labor forces trying to paint unions as separate entities as workers. They are the workers. They're elected and selected by workers. So if anything, they seem to be the distillation of the culture. And there is a problem - I don't think that's controversial to say, I don't think that's even in dispute anymore - widely across this. And there've been, again, lots of people pointing out these problems for years and years. And it feels like this is where we arrive at if we ignore this for so long. As I talked about in the opening, we just got done with a large round of Seattle City Council candidate interviews. And it was really interesting to hear, particularly from a few of them - there's three that I'm thinking of, that people will eventually hear - but who will talk about the need for more cops, who will talk about how important it is to rebuild trust with the community. But over and over again, it seems like they put it completely on the community to be responsible for coddling, and repairing the relationship, and building trust. And it seems like that needs to start on the other side. This is not even something that in polite society would happen, right? These are disgusting comments and disgusting beliefs, no matter who has them or where they come from. And we basically have sanctioned and hand over the power to violate people's civic rights to a department where this happens. And it's just a real challenge. And we have several councilmembers right now who have talked about needing to bring accountability and reform the police department in campaign materials when they were running. And it just seems like that dropped off the face of the earth. This should be a priority. But more than everything else, I wanna talk about the responsibility that the mayor has here - it's like he disappears in these conversations and we talk about the council and we talk about the police department. Bruce Harrell is their boss. Bruce Harrell is the executive in charge here. Chief Adrian Diaz serves at the pleasure of, is appointed by the mayor. This is the executive's responsibility. The buck literally stops with him on this. And he seems to just be largely absent. I think I saw comments that he may have issued an apology this morning, but - Where is he on talking about the culture? Where is his outrage? Where is he in dealing with this? And this is happening amid a backdrop of a SPOG contract negotiation. How is he going to address the issues here in this contract? Or are we gonna paper over it? There's a lot talked about - one of his chief lieutenants, Tim Burgess, a former police officer, and how sympathetic he's been to police - and is that going to create a situation where this is yet another event that goes unaddressed in policy, and we don't put anything in place to prevent this from happening again? [00:10:45] Erica Barnett: Harrell's statement was very much like a "bad apple" statement without completing the thought, which is that a bad apple ruins the bunch - that we're disheartened by the comments of this one officer. As you said, not addressing the culture, not addressing the fact that he can actually do something about this stuff. He is the person with the power. And as you mentioned, he was basically absent - made a statement in response to some questions, but it was pretty terse, and it didn't get at the larger cultural issues that I think this does reflect. [00:11:14] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And I know there were comments, I saw comments from a couple of City councilmembers as of last night - calls to hear from more on their opinion on this issue. I have not seen more - we'll see if those trickle in over the coming day or two. But Bruce Harrell has the responsibility and the power to do something about this. Is he going to use it? - that's the question people should be asking, even more than what Chief Adrian Diaz is gonna do. This is unacceptable behavior. This absolutely speaks to the culture, and it's time we have someone who takes that seriously as an executive. Now, I also wanna talk about news that came out this week - that wasn't necessarily surprising, but certainly a benchmark and a milestone in a campaign - and that is current Attorney General Bob Ferguson officially announced his candidacy for governor and came with the endorsement of Jay Inslee. How do you see him as a candidate and his position in this field so far? [00:12:17] Erica Barnett: It's a big deal. I think Ferguson has been waiting patiently - or not - to run for governor for a while. He's had this trajectory - waited for Inslee when he decided to run again last time - this is the reward. I think it puts him very much in the front of the field as Inslee's successor. Obviously we'll see, but I think Inslee is a fairly popular governor. You see this in a lot of races, where you have an anointed person - the King County Council, Teresa Mosqueda is kind of similar - comes in with all the endorsements and I think is well-placed to win. So yeah, I think this puts Ferguson in a really strong position. [00:12:52] Crystal Fincher: He is in a really strong position. As we know - I wish it wasn't the case, but unfortunately it is reality - that money matters a lot in politics right now. It's the only reliable way to communicate with voters en masse. There's earned media, but there's less reporters around the state than there used to be. So paying to put communications in front of voters is something that needs to be done. Paying a staff that can manage a campaign of that scale is something that needs to be done. And Bob Ferguson is head and shoulders above everyone else - he has more than double what all of the other candidates have combined in terms of finances, so that puts him in a great position. Obviously having the endorsement of the most visible Democrat in the state right now is something that every candidate would accept - I'm sure almost every candidate on the Democratic side would accept right now. It's gonna be interesting. But I do think we still have a lot of time left, there's still a lot of conversation left. It is an interesting field from Hilary Franz to Mark Mullet, a moderate or conservative Democrat. And then on the Republican side, Dave Reichert and Semi Bird - one who I think is trading in on his reputation, at least in a lot of media stories as a moderate, but from being pro-life, anti-choice, to a number of other viewpoints - I don't know that realistically he's a moderate, just kind of a standard Republican. And then Semi Bird, who's endorsed by people like Joe Kent and others, who are definitely on the far right-wing side. So this is gonna be an interesting race. There's a lot of time left. And I still think even though Bob Ferguson - I think it's uncontroversial to say he's the front runner - still important to really examine what they believe, to talk to the voters around the state. And it seems like he's taking that seriously and vigorously campaigning. So we'll continue to follow what this race is, but it is going to be an interesting one. [00:14:54] Erica Barnett: I will say really quickly too, that Reichert does not seem to be running a particularly active campaign. He's not, from what I hear, out there doing a lot of on-the-ground campaigning the way that Ferguson has. So while I think you're gonna hear a lot about him on TV news and more right-leaning publications, I think that we're talking about the Democratic side of the field because it's very unlikely that we'll have a Republican governor - even one who has a lot of name recognition like Reichert. [00:15:20] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. So we'll continue to follow that. And just as an aside, I thought I would mention that in the race, another statewide race, for Public Lands Commissioner, State Senator Rebecca Saldaña jumped into the race - joining State Senator Mona Das, Makah Tribal member Patrick Finedays DePoe, King County Councilmember Dave Upthegrove, and current State Senator Kevin Van De Wege. As well as on the Republican side - I'm not sure how to pronounce her name - but Sue Kuehl Pederson. It's a crowded race that's going to be an interesting one. And I'm really curious to continue to see what Senator Rebecca Saldaña has to say, as well as the other ones. But that's a crowded race, and that one could be very interesting. [00:16:03] Erica Barnett: Absolutely. Weirdly crowded race. [00:16:05] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, very interesting. [00:16:06] Erica Barnett: Or surprisingly - I don't know about weirdly - but surprisingly crowded. [00:16:09] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, surprisingly. Rich Smith of The Stranger did an article about that this week, which we will link in the show notes. Now, I also want to talk about news we received this week about another long-standing issue tied to both public safety and a former mayor. And that's news that we received that former Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan and former Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best will not be facing charges for deleting texts. What was the finding here and what does this mean? [00:16:39] Erica Barnett: Yeah, as we all know, they deleted tens of thousands of texts, many of them during the crucial period when 2020 protests were going on, when they were amassing troops - so to speak - and reacting with force to people protesting police violence after George Floyd was killed. And the finding essentially was that the King County Prosecutor's Office could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these deletions had been intentional and that they were trying to effectively conceal public records. It's a pretty high standard of proof that they have to meet at the prosecutor's office. I read the entire report from the investigator - what was released to reporters earlier this week - I have to say they put a lot of faith, I think, in or at least trust in public officials' statements that they sort of didn't know anything about the City's retention policy for cell phones, for text messages. The excuse was often - Well, I thought they were being preserved in a server somewhere, so it was fine to delete them. And I asked - because I think we all know when we delete our text messages, they're gone. You can't just get them back. AT&T doesn't have a server for us somewhere where we can get our text messages. So I said - Do they not understand how cell phones work? Was there any training on this? - and the response was - Well, I would dispute that they understand how cell phones work and there was training, but it was mostly about email. There's some stuff in here that kind of strains credulity a little bit, but again, it's a high standard of proof they had to meet, so that was their argument. There's a civil case where a federal judge said that it was unlikely that they didn't know what they were doing, but he had a lower standard of proof. So that's why it's a slightly different conclusion from basically the same facts. [00:18:17] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think these are always interesting situation - when it comes to an actual charging decision and what's needed there. I'm sure they're considering - unfortunately in our society today, they can afford significant defenses that are not available to a lot of people - that may have factored into their decision. But overall, it just once again seems like there is a different standard for people with power than those without power. And we're having conversations about people dealing with addiction, about people shoplifting for financial reasons - and even not for financial reasons - people being assaulted and in some instances killed for petty theft, or eviction, or different things. And it seems like we have no problem cracking down and expecting perfect compliance from people without power. But those that do just don't seem to be held to the same standard of accountability. And I think that's damaging and troubling. And I think we need to explore that and make sure we do hold people accountable. And it also just doesn't, once again, escape my notice that these aren't the first controversies that either one of them dealt with that did not have the kind of accountability attached to them. And so yes, it's a slippery slope. And if you keep sliding, you're gonna wind up in a low, dirty place. And once again, this is part of what undermines people's trust in power, and in institutions, and in democracy. And we need to be doing all we can to move in the opposite direction right now - to build trust and to conduct actions with integrity. And it just doesn't seem like that is a priority everywhere - they know they can get away with it - and it's really frustrating and disheartening, and we just need to do better overall. [00:20:05] Erica Barnett: To put a fine point on one of the things that the investigation revealed to me that I was not aware of actually about public disclosure - which is that text messages, according to the City, can be deleted if they are "transitory" in nature. And "transitory" is defined as not relating to policy decisions or things of substance like that, which means that according to Durkan and Best, it was fine to delete anything that was not like - We are going to adopt this policy or propose this policy, or our policy is to tear gas all protesters or something like that. So if it's tactical in the moment, that was not preserved. But I do records requests - I get text messages from officials - and a lot of times they include stuff that Durkan and Best are defining as transitory, like text message - I mean, I'm just making this up - but an official saying this other official is a jerk or somebody. There's all kinds of sort of process related text messages and texts that give some insight to decision-making that would be considered transitory. It is entirely possible that Durkan and Best are deleting all of those kinds of messages, which is not something I think should be deleted, and that I think is in the public interest to know about if people are requesting it. So I found that very disturbing - this notion that you can just destroy records if they aren't related to policy. I think in practice, most officials know better than that - and that's just based on records requests I've done - but apparently that's a big loophole that I think should be closed in the policies at the City, if at all possible. [00:21:33] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now I wanna talk about the return of the drug criminalization bill in the City of Seattle. What's happening with this? [00:21:43] Erica Barnett: The City Council's Public Safety Committee voted this week to basically move it forward to the full council. There's a new version that has a lot of nice language - in the sort of non-binding whereas clauses - about we don't wanna start another drug war and we definitely, for sure for real, prefer diversion. But essentially the impact of the bill is the same as it has always been, which is to empower the city attorney to prosecute and empower police to arrest for people using drugs in public and for simple possession of drugs other than cannabis. There's some language in the bill - and including in the text of the bill itself - that says there will be a policy in the future that says that police should try to put people into diversion programs first. And there's a couple kinds of diversion programs that we fund - inadequately currently - to actually divert the number of people that would be eligible now. So the impact of this bill is, I think, going to actually be pretty limited because - unless the mayor proposes massive investments in diversion programs like LEAD, potentially like some of these pretrial diversion programs that City Attorney's Office wants to fund. But we're facing a huge budget deficit in 2025 and years out, so it feels like a lot of kind of smoke-and-mirrors talk. We really love diversion, but we're not gonna fund it. And maybe I'll be proven wrong in two weeks when the mayor releases his budget, but my bet is that there's not gonna be massive new funding for these programs and that this is gonna end up being mostly talk. [00:23:19] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, mostly talk. And just on that specifically - that the mayor did announce $27 million to help support this effort. Is that $27 million - is it what it sounds like? [00:23:33] Erica Barnett: Yeah, this is like one of the things that I feel like I've been shouting from the rooftops, and all the other local press - I don't know why - keep reporting it as if it is a $27 million check of new money, but it's actually $7 million that's left over in federal CDBG [Community Development Block Grant] grant funding that has to be spent, but the City has failed to spend it so far. So that's a lump sum - some of that's gonna go to an opiate recovery site run by DESC that I wrote about at PubliCola a couple of weeks ago. And then the rest is a slow trickle, over 18 years, of funding from a previously announced opiate settlement. And so that's gonna be on average about $1 million a year. As City Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda was pointing out earlier this week, a lot of that - 20% of that goes to administrative overhead. So you're really looking at more $700,000-$800,000 a year, and it diminishes in out years - that is what they call budget dust - it is not enough to pay for virtually anything. I don't know what they're going to ultimately spend that trickle of funding on, but it's definitely not $27 million. That's what I mean by smoke and mirrors - that's a good example. It looks like a fairly big number, but then you realize it's stretched out into the 2030s and it's not nearly as big looking - actually, sorry, the 2040s, I believe, if I'm doing my math right - it doesn't look nearly as big when you actually look at what it is. So I encourage people to do that, and I've written more about this at PubliCola too. [00:24:58] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. We can also link that article. The most frustrating thing to me about Seattle politics, I think - in addition to just the endless process and reconsideration of things instead of making a decision and doing it - is this thing right here where there is a problem and people seem to actually, in public, rhetorically agree with the problem. Arresting people just for drug offenses does not solve that problem - it destabilizes people more, jail is not an effective place for drug treatment. Does that mean no one in the history of ever has ever become clean in jail? - there have been people, but they're few and far between. And experience and research and common sense, when you look at what actually happens there, really shows that is more of a destabilizing experience, that people who are in addiction need treatment, effective treatment, for that addiction and substance use disorder. And for people who may be recreationally using, sending them to jail doesn't help them when it comes to - and in fact, it's very hurtful - when it comes to finding a job, to securing housing, a variety of things. And that often has a more negative effect when it comes to forcing people into needing assistance, into needing help or completely falling through the cracks and becoming homeless - and dealing with the challenges there that we all pay for as a society. And so here we are again, where we actually did not solve the problem that everyone is articulating - and it seems like we just punted on that. But we're funding the thing that we say is not going to solve the problem, that we're confident is not going to solve the problem - and wrapping words around everything else, but that action isn't there. And I think what's frustrating to a lot of people, including me, it's sometimes - people on the left or Democrats are in this larger public safety conversation get painted as not wanting to do anything. And that's just so far from the truth. This is a problem, we need to address it. I just want to do something that has a chance of helping. And it seems like we're throwing good money after bad here and investing in something that we know is not going to be very helpful, meanwhile not funding the things that will be. And so we're going to be a year or two down the line and we'll see what the conversation we continue to have then is, but wondering at which point we stop doing the same thing that keeps getting us these suboptimal results. [00:27:20] Erica Barnett: And this is one place that you can blame the city council. I know the city council gets blamed for everything, but they are out there saying that this is a massively changed bill and it's changed in meaningful ways - in my opinion, it really hasn't been. [00:27:32] Crystal Fincher: I agree with that. I want to conclude by talking about a story that you wrote at PubliCola this week, talking about challenges with the way interviews for the Regional Homeless Authority's Five-Year Plan. What happened here and what were the problems? [00:27:49] Erica Barnett: Yeah, the new Five-Year Plan for homelessness, which was pretty controversial when it first came out because it had a $12 billion price tag, was based largely on 180 interviews that the homelessness authority did with people who are unsheltered in places around the county. And the interviews were basically 31 questions that they were supposed to vaguely stick to, but some that they really needed to get the answers to - for demographic reasons - and didn't always. The interviews were conducted primarily by members of the Lived Experience Coalition with some KCRHA staff doing them too. I've read about 90 of the 180, so about half of the 180 so far - and I would describe them as primarily being very discursive, very non-scientific. And it's not just that they are qualitative interviews 'cause it's fine for a qualitative interview to ramble - I talked to a couple of experts about how this kind of research usually works - and the idea is to make it more like a conversation, and that was the goal here. But in a lot of cases, the interviewers were doing things like suggesting answers, like interrupting, like talking at great length about themselves and their own experience, making suggestions, making assurances or promises that they could help them with services. There are just all kinds of things going on in these interviews that are not best practices for this type of interview. And then the interviews, which generally, people didn't tend to answer the question - there was a question about what has been helpful or harmful to you - and the goal there was to get people to say things that would suggest a shelter type, for example. They almost never said a specific shelter type except for a tiny house village, but the interviews were then coded by researchers to sort of lead to a specific set of shelter types. And without getting into too much technical detail, the idea was if somebody said they wanted X type of service or they had Y type of problem, that would suggest they needed Z type of service. So you're living in your car, you probably need a place to park your car safely. You're living in an RV, you need an RV safe lot. And the problem is, first of all, you're extrapolating from 180 interviews. And second, some of these solutions are pretty determinative. If you live in an RV, do you wanna live in an RV forever? Maybe not. Anyway, it just, it was not a great process to come up with this plan that ultimately is a plan to spend billions of dollars, even if it doesn't have that price tag, on a specific breakdown of types of service. And so I think they're not gonna do it again this way next year, but I think it did really inform this plan in a way that was not always super helpful. [00:30:23] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and I do know a little something about qualitative and quantitative research. As you said, doing qualitative interviews - in a narrative format, having a conversation - is not in itself a bad thing, but you can't interject your experience. You can't help inform the answers of the people you're talking to and that seemed to happen. And it really did seem like it was - they had an ambitious plan, maybe the training for how to do this was not as comprehensive as it needed to be - that certainly appears to be the case. Initially, they actually did hundreds, multiple hundreds of interviews for this, but a lot of them had to just be discarded - they were so outside of the bounds of what was supposed to happen, they were not able to be included in what they considered their final data set. And that's really unfortunate. It's a lot of time, it's a lot of effort - especially with populations that are harder to consistently contact and follow up with, any chance you have to connect with them is really meaningful. And so if you don't utilize that time correctly, or if you can't do anything with that, that just seems like an extra painful loss. I understand the ambition to get this done, but the execution really suffered. And I hope that there are lessons learned from this. Even in the ones that were done wrong - I say it seems like an issue of training and overambition, 'cause usually there is a lot of training that goes into how to do this. Usually these are people's professions that actually do this. It's not - Oh, hey, today we're gonna do some qualitative interviews and just walk up and have a conversation and check some things off the list. - it doesn't work that way. So that was unfortunate to hear. And the recommendations from this - I don't know if they change or not after review of this whole situation - but certainly when you know that eyes are going to be getting wide looking at the price tag of this, you really do have to make sure that you're executing and implementing well and that was a challenge here. So how do they move on from this? Was it at all addressed? Are they gonna do this again? What's going to happen? [00:32:25] Erica Barnett: I don't think they're gonna do the qualitative interviews, at least in this way again. I think this was something that Marc Dones really emphasized - the former head of the KCRHA - really wanted to do. And it got rolled into also doing the Point-In-Time count based on extrapolations from this group of folks they interviewed. They call these oral histories and really emphasized the need to get this data. I don't think it's gonna happen again based on what KCRHA officials told me, but qualitative data - I mean, I should say, is not as you mentioned a bad thing - it can be very useful. But the training that they received was a one-time training, or perhaps in two parts, by Marc Dones - I don't think they have anybody on staff right now that is trained in the kind of stuff that Dones was training them on. So I think this is probably one of many things that we'll see that happened under - in the first two years of the agency - that's gonna go by the wayside in the future. So doubt we'll see this again. [00:33:22] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I hope - there usually is really useful information and insight that comes from doing qualitative research. I don't think that we should necessarily throw the baby out with the bathwater here overall, but certainly this was a big challenge. And I hope that informs how they choose to move forward in the future. But with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, September 15th, 2023. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is the wonderful Dr. Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today is Seattle political reporter and editor of PubliCola, Erica Barnett. You can find Erica on Twitter @ericacbarnett, or X formerly known as Twitter, as @ericacbarnett and on PubliCola.com. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can find me on multiple platforms as @finchfrii, that's F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. You can catch Hacks & Wonks wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get the full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

Our guest this week is Steve Greenhut, director of PRI's Free Cities Center and a veteran California journalist.  Steve recaps the legislative session with the highlights and lowlights (unfortunately for Californians, mostly lowlights). He also weighs in on the new Speaker Robert Rivas, the ever-controversial Public Safety Committee, and Gov. Newsom's political prospects.

In this week's episode of Breaking Battlegrounds, we are honored to welcome a lineup of exceptional guests, each bringing their unique perspectives on pressing issues that matter most to our nation.Our first guest needs no introduction, as he is a dear friend of the show and a prominent figure in the political landscape. Matt Lewis, the acclaimed columnist at The Daily Beast and the author of "Too Dumb to Fail: How the GOP Betrayed the Reagan Revolution to Win Elections (and How It Can Reclaim Its Conservative Roots)," graces our platform once again. Today, Matt joins us to share insights from his newly-released book, "Filthy Rich Politicians: The Swamp Creatures, Latte Liberals, and Ruling-Class Elites Cashing in on America." Next on our show is Congressman James Moylan, representing Guam. As Guam Liberation Day approaches on July 21, Congressman Moylan joins us to shed light on this historic event and its profound significance to the people of Guam. We explore the remarkable journey of resilience and freedom, honoring the spirit of those who have shaped Guam's vibrant history.Our final guest, California State Senator Shannon Grove, enters the conversation with an urgent and compelling topic. She discusses her crucial bill that aims to designate human trafficking as a serious and violent felony. Despite the importance of this legislation, California democrats voted it down. Tune in to learn more about this critical issue and the efforts to combat human trafficking in the Golden State.Subscribe now and stay informed on the latest developments, only on Breaking Battlegrounds!-Connect with us:www.breakingbattlegrounds.voteTwitter: www.twitter.com/Breaking_BattleFacebook: www.facebook.com/breakingbattlegroundsInstagram: www.instagram.com/breakingbattlegroundsLinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/breakingbattlegroundsCalled a “first-rate talent” in The Washington Post and “super-smart” by John Heilemann, Matt K. Lewis is a center-right critic of American politics and pop culture.As a journalist, Lewis has earned a reputation as an “independently minded” (Columbia Journalism Review) and “intellectually honest” commentator (Ben Adler, Newsweek). He is a senior columnist for The Daily Beast, and his work has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, GQ, The Washington Post, The Week, Roll Call, Politico, The Telegraph, The Independent, and The Guardian. He previously served as senior contributor for The Daily Caller, and before that, as a columnist for AOL's Politics Daily.Lewis dissects the day's issues in conversation with other thinkers, authors, and newsmakers on his podcast Matt Lewis and the News, and co-hosts The DMZ Show with liberal pundit Bill Scher. He has appeared on MSNBC, CNN, C-SPAN, PBS NewsHour, ABC's “Nightline,” HBO's “Real Time with Bill Maher,” and CBS News' “Face The Nation,” and has contributed to radio outlets including NPR and the BBC.Kirsten Powers described Lewis's 2016 book, Too Dumb to Fail: How the GOP Went From the Party of Reagan to the Party of Trump, as “a lively and fascinating read for any person confounded by the state of today's Republican Party.” In 2011, Lewis released The Quotable Rogue: The Ideals of Sarah Palin in Her Own Words, an edited compilation of the Alaska governor's much-discussed public utterances.-Congressman James Moylan proudly serves as Guam's congressional delegate to the 118th United States Congress. As the first Republican to win the seat on Guam in nearly 30 years, Moylan's victory was historic. He is a strong and trustworthy leader who's focused on issues that affect Guamanians most. Moylan believes island residents have a right to know what's happening in their governing offices. Therefore, he has created an open door policy allowing constituents to have their concerns addressed. Moylan's history of service includes his time as a senator in the 35th and 36th Guam Legislature, a Veteran of the United States army and a parole officer at the Department of Corrections. Additionally, Moylan has more than two decades of experience working in the private sector, including healthcare, financial services, and insurance.In his current position, Moylan serves on the House Armed Services Committee and the House Natural Resources Committee.  Both Committees address issues that are vital to Guam.Additionally, Moylan is a native of Guam and is from the village of Tumon. He graduated from John F Kennedy High School and continued to the University of Guam where he obtained a  bachelor's degree in Criminal Justice.  Most of all, Moylan is a proud father to Abby and Krissy Moylan.-Senator Shannon Grove was born and raised in Kern County.After graduating from high school, Senator Grove served in the United States Army. While stationed in Frankfurt, Germany she witnessed the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.Following her service to our nation, she established a staffing company with her sister-in-law called Continental Labor and Staffing Resources. Senator Grove currently serves as the CEO.Prior to her election to the State Senate, Senator Grove was the first woman veteran elected to the California Legislature as she served the 34th Assembly District from 2010 to 2016.Senator Grove was elected to represent the 16th Senate District in November 2018, which includes portions of Kern, Tulare, and San Bernardino counties. In January 2019, she was elected Leader of the Senate Republican Caucus where she served in that capacity for two years. As the Republican Leader-Emeritus, Grove remains a committed representative working with legislators to advance policies that benefit the constituents, businesses, and communities within Senate District 16.Senator Grove is an advocate for small business, school choice, the developmentally disabled, farmers, and families. She currently lives in Kern County with her husband, Rick. They are the proud parents of five children and eight grandchildren.Transcription:Sam Stone: Welcome to another episode of Breaking Battlegrounds with your host, Sam Stone and Chuck Warren on the line with us right now. Fantastic new book out came out on the 18th. Matt Lewis. He is a friend of the program, columnist for The Daily Beast, author of Too Dumb to Fail How the GOP Betrayed the Reagan Revolution to Win Elections. Yeah, we are not too dumb to fail. That's been proven many, many times. And today he's joining us to discuss his new book, Filthy Rich Politicians The Swamp Creatures, Latte Liberals and Ruling Class Elites Cashing In on America. Matt, thank you for joining us and welcome to the show.Matt Lewis: Well, thanks for having me back.Chuck Warren: So what gave you the idea to write a book about this issue about filthy rich politicians?Matt Lewis: Well, to be honest, it was because I'm a capitalist. And I was I was actually approached by a book agent, believe it or not, who had this idea to rank the 100 richest politicians in America.Chuck Warren: Interesting.Matt Lewis: That was the original idea of the book. It was 100 chapters. Each chapter was just going to be on. Wow. The 100 richest politicians in just how they made their money. And that's how it started. And it evolved, I think, into a much deeper, more important topic, which includes, you know, the original idea, but but goes so much deeper into like, what it all means. And so it was one of those just the stars aligned and I think we ended up writing a great book.Sam Stone: We got the book a few days ago. I've gone through most of it, I admit, to skimming a few portions. Who is the richest politician in America?Matt Lewis: The richest politician in America is JB Pritzker, who's the governor of Illinois. He is an heir to the Hyatt fortune. There are 11 billionaires in his family and interestingly, when he was running for governor in Illinois, there were three billionaires running for the seat last year in 2022.Sam Stone: Well, amazing. You know what I love about Pritzker? I don't know if you've ever read the book Super Mob, but that family got its start with mob financing.Matt Lewis: Well, you know, it's like the Kennedys, you know, I mean, you go back far enough.Chuck Warren: I think we just call those hard money loans today.Matt Lewis: But in in Congress, it would be Rick Scott. Most people and by the way, it's impossible to know the actual net wealth of most politicians because the range have ways of hiding it. And it's reported in broad ranges. But it used to be Darrell Issa. Right now we believe it is Rick Scott, senator from Florida, who's the richest in Congress.Chuck Warren: Well, so why should this matter to the average voter? I mean, so, for example, you know, as a 2020, I believe about half the members of Congress had a median net worth of $1 million. Okay. And there's almost 22 million people in the United States that have that net worth now. Now, most of that's probably in their home, right. Something they've lived in 20, 30 years. And a couple other things.Sam Stone: I mean, half of California has, but it's.Chuck Warren: Still a lot of money. I mean, you know, a population of 350 million, 21, 21, 22 million people are worth $1 million. And, you know, and that seems like a lot of money. But we also realize that's a lot. And it's not in a lot of ways, right? I mean, you can't retire on that per se and just live on it. But why is this important for Americans and why should they demand some reforms on this?Matt Lewis: Well, so the book is about two things. It's about how the rich get elected and how the elected get rich. And I think both things are important. So right now, the average member of Congress is about 12 times richer than the median American household. And so I think you know, look, I don't begrudge rich people from, you know, for running for office. And in fact, there's some ways that I even admire that. But I do think it's it seems likely to me that when and by the way, I should say that this this phenomenon where the average member of Congress is 12 times richer than the rest of us is kind of new. It's been going on for about three decades now. The gap has dramatically widened. And it just stands to reason, to me that when our elected officials are that much richer than the rest of us, there would be some sort of a disconnect or just a worldview difference in terms of connecting with working class Americans. But that doesn't bother me near as much as the second half of the story, which is the fact that once people get elected, they tend to get richer. And I think that is much more corrosive and damaging than just having rich politicians.Chuck Warren: Well, it's true, though. If you have a certain amount of wealth, you have different concerns than somebody who's making 15, $20 an hour. I mean, that's fair, right? And so how can you really relate if you're all full of people who are highly successful financially?Matt Lewis: Totally. I mean, you know, because of, you know, I'm from a very kind of middle class, working class background. My dad was a prison guard in Hagerstown, Maryland, for 30 years. And that's kind of how I grew up. And I live in West Virginia. I went to a little a little college in West Virginia, but I've been blessed to get to, you know, also know some, you know, folks in journalism who come from maybe more privileged backgrounds than me. And there are some of the nicest, kindest, best people. But I'm telling you, they see they see the world differently than I do. And who could blame them? I mean, they've come from wealth, right? They grew up. And I just think we're all formed by our experience. And and it's impossible not to be at some level.Chuck Warren: Absolutely. We're with Matt Lewis. He is a columnist for The Daily Beast. He has come out with a new book that was released this Tuesday. You can get it at at Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble wherever you find your books. Filthy rich politicians, the Swamp Creatures, latte liberals and ruling class elites cashed in on America came out this Tuesday, July 18th. All right. So I want to ask a couple of questions, because your book covers many topics, but who are some of the politicians that we have that are married into money or inherited great wealth?Matt Lewis: So you're the first person to ask me this question. I have a whole chapter or a whole section on this. So thank you. Because this is so I ranked well Business Insider ranked the they have a ranking of the 100 richest politicians in America. And so when the appendix of my book I took the richest 25 and then I personally did kind of a deep dive into them how they made their money. And of the richest 25 members of Congress, more than half, 13 of them made their money through inheritance or marriage the.Sam Stone: Really old fashioned way.Matt Lewis: Yes. And I'll give you a few examples. Richard Blumenthal, his father in law, and by the way, it's usually fathers in law for what that's worth. Interesting.Chuck Warren: Interesting.Matt Lewis: Yeah. Richard Blumenthal's father in law is Peter Malkin, who basically owned the Empire State Building. In fact, he was involved in a in a fight with Donald Trump at some point over control of that.Sam Stone: There was a long time when he was the developer in New York, the real estate guy. Yeah.Matt Lewis: Indeed. There's a Texas congressman named Michael McCaul. His father in law runs Clear Channel Communications.Chuck Warren: Oh, wow.Matt Lewis: Rokana, who's a congressman out of California who's starting to really make a name for himself. His father in law owns a trans max or started trans max and also runs Mara Holdings. Wow. And Mitch McConnell, a lot of people were like, how did Mitch McConnell all of a sudden get all this money? And there are like conspiracy theories about.Chuck Warren: That cocaine.Matt Lewis: Mitch And and and by the way, who knows, right? I mean, maybe there's some secret, But but basically what happened is that, you know, Mitch McConnell is married to Elaine Chao and her mom. When her mom died, you know, she inherited a ton of money. And how much how.Chuck Warren: Much she did inherit, how much did she inherit?Matt Lewis: Oh, we're talking you definitely were talking tens of millions of dollars. Yeah. I mean, he became incredibly wealthy overnight and it looks super suspicious, but it's a matter of public record directly correlates to when her you know, it's money from her her father but but she inherited it when when the mother died.Sam Stone: Andy Biggs is a $10 Billion publisher clearinghouse sweepstakes win is starting to look more and more legitimate.Chuck Warren: Yeah, exactly. Exactly. You know.Matt Lewis: You know, what's you know, what's interesting is, is Kevin McCarthy, the current speaker of the House, won the lottery.Chuck Warren: Oh, really? I thought he did the sandwich shops. Did he really?Matt Lewis: Well, what happened is when he was very young, he won $5,000 in the lottery and he used that money to buy like a deli. And that is what led him to Congress. So.Chuck Warren: Oh, that's fascinating. Yeah, but see, that's that's a little more of a that's more of an all-American story. I got $5,000.Sam Stone: Yeah, that's a great story. Yeah.Chuck Warren: Yeah, it is a great story. It's sort of like, um. Oh, what's it what's that movie? Will Ferrell, where he gets sent to prison for insider trading and he's talking to us. He's talking to his father in law and said, I started this business all of myself with this computer and a $9 million loan from my father. And, you know, there's a lot of people like that. Um, so next to insider trading and I want to get into that probably the next segment. How do certain members benefit their family members, either via their connections or congressional campaigns? That happens a lot more than people think. And it always seems like a surprise to people that some kids on the payroll and we've got two minutes here, but can you give a couple of examples how that's happening?Matt Lewis: Totally. I'll give you it's a by the way, it's a bipartisan book. Um, both pretty much everyone's equally guilty of this. And so we'll start with Ilhan Omar, you know, a member of the squad on the left. She has directed millions of dollars, millions of campaign dollars to her husband's consulting firm. Likewise, Bernie Sanders, who, by the way, he became a millionaire from a book deal, but his wife, Jane, he has paid a lot of money to her over the years, including hiring her to be his media ad buyer when she had zero experience doing that. So she's basically getting a cut or a percentage of the money his campaign spends buying TV advertisements.Chuck Warren: Does she do that during the presidential, too?Matt Lewis: That is a good question. I think most of this happened in the his congressional races, like in Vermont senatorial races. But, you know, we're talking about a lot of money. And this one.Sam Stone: There's a lot of money when there's no risk, because he was never in doubt for any of those re-elections. Right. I mean, that's really kind of a.Matt Lewis: And Bernie. Bernie didn't just pay Jane. I mean, he paid her like her children, too. Which brings me to Ron Paul, a Republican who has employed six. In 2012, when he was running for president, he employed six family members, but he was a piker. He paid them a grand total of $300,000. So, you know.Chuck Warren: That's that's that's literally not surprising, though, right?Sam Stone: That that's chintzy, cheap. He's hosing his family.Chuck Warren: Do you think that do you think Congress should crack down on this and just not allow you in campaigns to hire family members?Sam Stone: We got 30s. We're going to. Okay. Going to head to break here in just a moment.Chuck Warren: We're with Matt Lewis. He is the author of a great new book came out this week, Filthy Rich Politicians The Swamp Creatures, Latte Liberals and Ruling Class Elites Cashing In on America. You can find this at Amazon, Barnes and Noble. Wherever you get your book, go buy it. This is a very important. We're going to come back and talk to Matt a little bit about what reforms he thinks need to be done so we can clean this up. This is Chuck and Sam breaking battlegrounds. You can find us at breaking battlegrounds vote. We'll be right back.Advertisement: At Overstock. We know home is a pretty important place and that's why we believe everyone deserves a home that makes them happy. Whether you're furnishing a new house or apartment or simply looking to update and refresh a few rooms, Overstock has every day free shipping and amazing deals on the beautiful, high quality furniture and decor. You need to transform any home into the home of your dreams. Overstock Making dream Homes Come True.Sam Stone: Welcome back to Breaking battlegrounds with your host, Chuck Warrem. I'm Sam Stone. We're continuing on here in just a moment with Matt Lewis, columnist of The Daily Beast, author of Too Dumb to Fail, and his newest book, Filthy Rich Politicians. We're talking about that one today. But folks, if you're looking to get filthy rich, maybe you should give our call. Our friends at Invest Y refy a call, go to their website, invest y refy.com that's invest the letter Y, then refy.com and learn how you can earn up to a 10.25% fixed rate of return on your money. That's right. 10.25% Phenomenal rate of return not correlated to the stock market. The stock market goes up. The stock market goes down, your investment continues, racking up the great interest and great returns for you. So give them give our friends there a call. You can do that at 888 y refy 24 and tell them Chuck and Sam sent you Matt.Chuck Warren: All right. So, so much to cover in your book, but tell us what are reforms of your king for the day? And they said, Matt, you make these changes and we start building a little trust back up in Congress again. What would you do?Matt Lewis: Okay. So the first couple we've talked about, I would the most important is to ban individual stock trading for members of Congress and their family. That is by far the most important thing we can do, because.Chuck Warren: Certainly I want to make one appearance.Matt Lewis: Of insider.Chuck Warren: Trading. Right. I don't want to hurt you, but you made a good point. I listened to on a fellow podcast, which you made this point. It's not even so much about them increasing their wealth. Sometimes it's that they prevent the loss of wealth. So let's use, for example, Senator Barr in North Carolina as an example, if you can share that with our audience.Matt Lewis: Yeah, this is really corrosive. So Senator Senator Richard Burr, he just retired, but he was chairman of the Intel Committee. So like in that capacity, you know, he had access to all sorts of of kind of classified briefings, classified information. And you might remember back in early 2020, like before most Americans realized how damaging Covid 19 was going to be like in terms of shutting down businesses and the economy. Um, Richard Burr dumped hundreds of thousands of dollars of stock in things like Wyndham Hotels, the kinds of things that would be damaged in a global pandemic shutdown. But making matters even worse. Then he picks up the phone and calls his brother in law and within one minute of hanging up with Richard Burr, his brother in law calls his broker and dumps his stock. And so that is the thing. It's it's not just that politicians are able to make money by virtue of what certainly looks like insider trading, but it's it avoids the downfall. And certainly during times of change and crisis, that's when they can really use information to dump stock and avoid like a major catastrophic loss.Sam Stone: Well, and that has the the so as someone who does trade stock issues, the other side of that is if you dump at the start of something like that on an industry like hotels, like airlines, all of that, you're going to get that going two ways. You're going to avoid the loss and then you're going to be able to buy back in at a low point and you're going to know when that low point is hit.Matt Lewis: Absolutely. And and again, think of it. I mean, the average American at this point doesn't know how bad Covid 19 is going to be. We're being told it'll disappear. It'll be, you know, like a miracle. It'll disappear or, you know, two weeks to slow the spread or whatever.Sam Stone: This is when you had De Blasio telling folks, go out in the streets and celebrate the Chinese New Year. Right. I mean, it's literally coinciding with that moment.Matt Lewis: And so that's a classic example, right? Our politicians are telling the public, don't worry, everything's fine. And yet what are they doing? What are they doing with their money? And so I think that is super corrosive. And that's by far, I would say, the most important reform in the book.Chuck Warren: Let me ask you this. I'm a follow up two questions real quick. How many members have siblings or family members that are in the brokerage business or selling and trading stocks? Do you know that you were you able to find that out?Matt Lewis: I it's in the book. I don't recall offhand. Okay. I do know it is in the book. And I will I will say this. I mean, in 20 so in 2012, up until 2012, it wasn't even illegal to engage in insider trading in Congress. It's only been the last decade when that was illegal. Now the problem is policing. And I can tell you that the law it's called the Stock Act that made it illegal has has done very little to alleviate. The problem.Chuck Warren: There's always a loophole, right? There's always some loophole they'll find. All right, what else would you do? What else would you reform?Matt Lewis: Well, we've talked about family. I would I would ban the practice of hiring family for campaigns or official congressional offices. If you want to volunteer on a campaign, by all means. I just. We just wouldn't pay you. I would have a ten year moratorium on lobbying so that after serving in Congress, you can't go out and just start lobbying your former colleagues immediately. You would have a ten year basically ban on that. Some people like Ted Cruz and AOC want a lifetime ban. I don't even know if that would be constitutional right now. It's, I think, two years in the Senate, one year in the House. But like you said, Chuck, I mean, there are ways around it. There's this thing called the Daschle loophole where politicians immediately start lobbying. They just don't register as lobbyists.Chuck Warren: They're consultants. They're consultants.Matt Lewis: Yes. They're yeah, exactly.Chuck Warren: You know, and you know what? You see this a lot, too. I mean, take Congress out of the equation. You see this a lot in legislatures. Legislatures. You know, you see people who couldn't rub two nickels together for their elected to the legislature, which doesn't take as much money. And now they're lobbying and making six high, six digits a year.Sam Stone: Watch every governor's staff, if they've just won their second term, they get into year five. Right. And that whole staff disappears into the lobbying land and they're all rich by year eight.Chuck Warren: Is that something that you think we should push also on the state level? And hopefully, you know, I find out a lot of times if states start pushing something, various states, then it goes to the national level is that's something that people should be pushing their state legislatures to pass?Matt Lewis: I would say definitely I would I would strongly encourage that. And, you know, sometimes states can be the laboratories of democracy. And if these reforms can begin there, that would be very healthy.Chuck Warren: What else? Okay. Lobbying, banning stock, hiring kids and family on campaigns. Those are three great things. What else could be done?Matt Lewis: One of them this is one that is not sexy, but it's book deals, believe it or not. You know, Bernie Sanders, who's a socialist, was asked, how did you become a millionaire? And he said, and I'm paraphrasing, but this is pretty close to the real quote. He said, I wrote a best selling book. If you write a best selling book, you could be a millionaire, too. But but the book deals are really I mean, people are using their their perch, their position to become millionaires. But the worst part of it is the bulk orders, right? So you write a book, but instead of real people buying the book, it's like the National Republican Senatorial Committee buys like 50,000 copies of it. And some of that money very well could trickle back into your pocket. Well, for example.Chuck Warren: For example, Bernie Sanders, I just looked it up, made $170,000 in book royalties in 2022, which almost matches his $174,000 congressional salary.Matt Lewis: There you go. There you go. And I don't think you wrote a book in 2022. No, he's still making royalties.Sam Stone: Well, and you know, the quality of most of these books, you know, they're ghost written or co-written, and most of them are just garbage. And you see these huge payouts, you know, it's not for their incredible insight in that in that no tome.Matt Lewis: Totally. Yeah. These are not this is not Hemingway you know.Chuck Warren: Well with Matt Lewis good friend of the show, daily columnist at The Daily Beast. He has come out with a new book. You can buy It now, Filthy Rich Politicians, the Swamp Creatures, Latte, Liberals and Ruling Class Elites. When we come back, we're going to talk about the latte liberals and what Matt dug in about that. I'm going to.Sam Stone: Bring up Joe Biden also. You can do.Chuck Warren: That as well. That's right. This is breaking battlegrounds. Find us are breaking battlegrounds vote. We'll be right back.Sam Stone: Welcome back to Breaking battlegrounds with your host, Chuck Warren. I'm Sam Stone, continuing on right now with Matt Lewis, friend of the program, columnist for The Daily Beast and author of the new book Filthy Rich Politicians, Swamp Creatures, Latte Liberals and Ruling Class Elites Cashing In on America, available right now at Amazon or your favorite bookseller? Matt As I read it, I did get to the section on the Bidens. And two things I think stand out is, one, they're cashing in less than most of of a lot of these other political families are. But two quite frankly, Matt, the stupidity of their schemes with Hunter Biden and all this stuff when there are so many ways that they could I don't want to say legitimately, but at least entirely legally make huge amounts of money. Did nobody in that family take notes from the Clinton Global Initiative?Matt Lewis: Well, I think if you've seen the pictures of Hunter Biden recently, you know that at least some members of his family are not operating based on reason and logic. Um, Joe Biden kind of has, it seems like I mean, who knows? I mean, I don't know if he's, quote, the big guy who's getting a cut from the Burisma money or whatever, from Hunter. But Joe, according to his actual, you know, disclosure reports, really wasn't all that wealthy compared to most of these politicians until he left the vice presidency. And then he had about three years where he really cashed in. He made about $15 million off of, you know, the usual boring stuff, speeches, book deals, being a adjunct professor, that kind of thing. But the one thing that is clear is that Biden has a long history of his family cashing in on on his name. And it's not just Hunter, it's James and Frank, I think it is, who've been doing this. And, you know, I found that way back in 1988, the first time Biden ran for president. He raised about $11 million. There's a lot of money. In 1988, he raised $11 million, and 20% of that money went to the Biden family or companies that employed the Biden family. So this thing of him spreading the money around to his family has been going on for 25 or 30, I guess 35 years something.Chuck Warren: Yeah. So in 1988, if you go and say, what's the dollar value, then that's worth about 5.1 million today. Yeah, I mean, it's real money. Sam, what are your what's your family doing for you?Sam Stone: I I've got to run for something more significant than city council is what you're saying. Chuck Yeah.Chuck Warren: Matt Let me ask you a question and Sam Biden Biden stuff, but I want to ask you a question. I, I heard you on an interview and I thought this was really interesting. And folks, Matt has just a wonderful wife. And the thing I love about Erin is she is so dang blunt. And you were talking to her about maybe on a walk running for Congress. Would you tell I want to understand really how hard this is to do, first of all, and why there is a certain wealth factor involved with it. I don't think they quite understand. You know, I have a congressional candidate friend who's running right now. He's put 300 grand on his race and just he just said it doesn't seem like it's enough. And that's what I have. That's what it is. Right. Would you explain your conversation and why this is so hard and why we are getting a certain amount of people in office?Matt Lewis: Totally. And this was eye opening for me as someone who's been, you know, in politics for decades, even for me, I had to kind of grapple with this realization. So but so my wife, as you know, Chuck, my wife is a Republican political fundraiser. And while I was writing this book, you know, we went out for a walk and we were talking and I was you know, I live in West Virginia and my congressman is running for Senate against Joe Manchin. And so we were walking. I said, you know, if things were a little different, maybe I someday I could run for Congress. And she's like, oh, you don't have enough money. And I said like, well, what are you talking about? Like, number one, I've been in you know, I know a lot of people. I've been in journalism for a couple of decades and I've got a good network and I'm like, number two, I'm married to a professional Republican fundraiser. Surely I could run for Congress in West Virginia. And she was like, Well, let me put it to you this way. If I didn't know you and you approached me and you wanted to hire me, I would say, come back to me. When you've either donated $300,000 or raise $300,000 from your personal Christmas card list, and then and only then would I introduce you to political action committees and high dollar donors. And that's when it hit me that even I who wrote on the Straight Talk Express with John McCain could not win a congressional seat in West Virginia because I'm not rich enough.Chuck Warren: Well, you need better friends. Yeah.Sam Stone: Yeah. Chuck and I are not going to be able to help you that much there. Matt Lewis, we want to thank you again for joining us. We have just about 30s before we end the segment here, we really appreciate having you on. How do folks stay in touch with all of your work?Matt Lewis: Oh, awesome. Well, first, get filthy rich politicians. Follow me on Twitter at Matt K Lewis and check me out at The Daily Beast.Sam Stone: Perfect. Thank you so much. Once again, Matt, we always love having you on the program. Looking forward to the next round breaking battlegrounds. Back in just a moment.Advertisement: At Overstock. We know home is a pretty important place and that's why we believe everyone deserves a home that makes them happy. Whether you're furnishing a new house or apartment or simply looking to update and refresh a few rooms. Overstock has every day free shipping and amazing deals on the beautiful high quality furniture and decor. You need to transform any home into the home of your dreams. Overstock Making Dream homes Come True.Sam Stone: Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds with your host, Sam Stone in studio with me today. Kiley Kipper dragged reluctantly onto the mic once again back.Kiley Kipper: By popular demand. I'm just.Sam Stone: Kidding. People love you, Kiley. They are always happy to talk to you. And you know what else makes people happy? Earning a really high rate of return on their investments. That makes almost everybody I know happy. And folks, if you haven't checked out our friends at Invest Refy.com, you need to do that right now. Go to invest the letter Y then refy.com you can earn up to a 10.25% fixed rate of return. The market goes up, the market goes down, your rate of return stays the same. It is a tremendous opportunity and we highly encourage you to check it out. So again, go on their website, invest y refy.com or give them a call at 888 y refy 24 and tell them Chuck and Sam sent you. Now, our next segment up, we have a returning guest, someone we really enjoyed having on the program last time, Congressman James Moylan of Guam. And we have something actually this is coming out on Saturday, the 22nd. We record on the 21st. And folks, the 21st is a very special day. July 21st is a special day in Guam. Congressman, tell us what's going on.Congressman James Moylan: Sure. I'll be happy to. Hi there, Sam. And hi, Kiley. And we as we greet folks from Guam, we say half a day. So half a day to you both.Sam Stone: And half a day to you as well, sir.Congressman James Moylan: Thank you. So we I was just on the floor today and gave a five minute speech for Congressional Record announcing the celebration of Guam's 79th Liberation Day 79 years ago. Guam was liberated and from during World War two. We also had a ceremony at the war. Let me see. World War II Memorial on July. July 13th here, where we had a wreath laying presentation on the monument at the War Memorial with Guam on it. This is a tradition that has been long ongoing for for quite some time. And we've joined in with our Guam Society of America, the oldest tomorrow group in the nation. We have so many different tomorrow groups throughout the nation, but this is the first and the oldest. We also had other members of Congress that were present. We had the undersecretary of the United States Air Force, Christine Christine Jones, and we also had the commandant of the United States Marine Corps, General Eric Smith, also do a presentation. So what's really happening is to remember this day for celebration. 79 years ago, on July 21st, 19, 1944, Guam, after two years of occupation by the Japanese Imperial Army military, the United States service members landed on our south west part of Guam, to liberate over 20,000 tomorrows and Americans from the occupation of Guam.Congressman James Moylan: The actual the war in World War II were not. Many people know that Guam was actually occupied by the Japanese soldiers, and that day came as an invasion on December 8th of 1941. This is a special day for Guam because we were celebrating the feast of Santa Maria Kamalen, and that's Guam's patron saint. And after people were coming out of church, the sounds of bombs were just dropping and planes flying overhead. And and it drowned out what was a peaceful neighborhood and a great celebration of of of our services there. And that's what started the occupation on Guam. So we're very thankful 79 years later for the liberation Day of Guam, when the Marines came on back on July 21st, 1944. So that's our celebration. And we we're very patriotic and we're we're rededicating ourselves to chorus. And Guam is even even just as important then as it is even more so now with the Indopacom situation and the Communist Chinese party threat for national security and our sister nations out there who are supporting us as well, with the U.S taking the.Sam Stone: Lead that has I mean, that is something that I think is so almost incomprehensible, Congressman, to any American right to you're stepping out of out of a services or a celebration in your country is being bombed around you. And there have to be people there who who lived through that experience, who still have that direct memory. Yes. And that has.Congressman James Moylan: In fact.Sam Stone: Never leave you.Congressman James Moylan: Right. And many of war survivors still tell the stories. And we did have a war survivor here for a celebration here in Washington, DC at the Pacific Memorial. So but my mother was also one. So my mother had told me this story and she was 12 years old at the time. She was coming out of the cathedral with her grandfather. And she she explained the story in this way, that as they were exiting and they see the Japanese zeros flying over and the bombs were coming on down and she's yelling at her grandfather, too, Grandpa, we got to go. We got to go. Let's run, run, run. As an older man, he said, No, just leave me here. And she started she had to pull him so they can run, run for protection and run and hide and get back home to their family. So them with my mother's explanation. And and by the way, my father was in Pearl Harbor at the time of the bombing in Pearl Harbor, too. So every everybody's generations and generations, families have been affected. And the war stories continue to the brutality that was taken against forced labor, forced marches, beheadings, stabbings, grenades and and caves where where locals were were killed and massacred. And it was it was tremendous loss of innocent lives. But that's why we celebrate the. With the Liberation Day coming out, with the Marines, coming out back with US soldiers, with the United States Navy there to re reclaim Guam and give us our freedom back.Congressman James Moylan: And my mother was part of that as well. There was what they called the Bennington Force march, where the Japanese troops used the local residents as a shield, As the Americans were coming onto the shore and coming inland, the Japanese were marching that direction, but using the local folks as a barrier. But of course, you know, the US is not going to kill innocent citizens. And my mom would explain to me as she's climbing up the hills in Menningen when they see the star on on the army, I believe it was an army tank or an army jeep. Then the soldiers would call them over and tell them to keep quiet, keep quiet, just come this way, come this way. And they felt so, so relieved to see the US, see Americans, see the military there. And it was a joyful celebration. And that's why this this has continued in celebrating and remembering in memory of this throughout the nation. We have Guam societies that we have calendars of events for just about every state where there's Guam residents. And they establish their organization and they celebrate to to remember those that have died, that have sacrificed. And if there are survivors to celebrate their lives as well for what we consider the greatest generation.Sam Stone: Congressman, one of the things I think people know from, you know, books and movies like Unbroken a little bit, some of the experience that, for instance, American POWs went through. But I don't think they know enough about what the people of the occupied islands of the Pacific, including Guam, went through. You were just, you know, referencing some of it right there. But that occupation was just absolutely brutal in every regard and with with really little consideration for the humanity of the people of Guam or any of the other islands of the Pacific.Congressman James Moylan: Very true. And and not all were able to talk about it some more. Chose to to forget my my mother's father was imprisoned in Japanese in Japan as well. And then when he came back to the to Guam after the war was over, he died shortly thereafter just from lack of lack of nutrition. So it was very it was it was brutal. And and the rules of war and Geneva Convention, there was there's nothing like that. The forced labor that was placed upon the people, the beheading of of local folks and the fights that went on and and what they had to endure. And you had to bow also to the imperial Japanese Army. And if you didn't, you're whipped and beaten. It was it was a sad day for those almost two and a half years of occupation. And that's why when the Americans came back, it was a great celebration. And since that time, of course, we've grown and we had we're considered per capita, the highest enlistment in the nation, where people joining the military, because of our commitment and the happiness and the joy that the United States came back to claim that U.S territory, which was the U.S territory at the time.Sam Stone: So there are few, few populations on the planet that love America and the ideals of America like the people of Guam.Congressman James Moylan: Yes. And I'm happy to represent as the delegate here. And there's a couple of committees that we were able to get ourselves on. And one is the House Armed Services Committee, which I play a great role in the readiness and also the personnel part. And I focus on on Guam and the Northern Marianas and and the Indopacom region. So we've had also we're able to have within the first quarter, a congressional delegation come through Guam. Second quarter, we just had another one, the House committee, House Armed Services Committee, to include the chairman and several other members of the House to come on up over an experience of what Guam is and what the role was and what it is now for the Indopacom region to defend against communist Chinese threat. And then we're going to have another one through the Natural Resources Committee, Department of Interior Affairs, which I'm a part of also, and the subcommittee specifically regarding our nation's Republic of Palau, Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of Marshall Islands as well. All these nations joining in so we can protect freedom and democracy. Right. And we are against the Communist Chinese party. So I'm very fortunate to represent Guam in these two committees that have a great impact in the Indopacom region. And we're I believe the United States will be here for a long, long time to ensure that the Chinese threat is is deterred by our show of strength with all our other countries that are involved with our democracy.Sam Stone: And people folks out there may not realize that as a territory. Guam, obviously, we're talking to their congressman member right now. Congressman, you don't have a vote on the House floor, but you do have a vote on committee. And I think most people don't recognize that what happens on the House floor is often kind of a dog and pony show, that the actual sausage gets made in those committees that dictates what's actually going to be voted on and how those bills, you know, interact with with the intent of the authors.Congressman James Moylan: Exactly. And we just were discussing the National Defense Authorization Act, the NDAA, which is the one of the biggest budget for the defense of the nation, and so much billions of dollars going into the Indo-Pacific region. Our influence there, we were able to double what we received last last fiscal year for for the island defense. So that's a great influence there. So in committee, yes, we do this and pardon me.Sam Stone: Sorry, we had a little technical glitch right there. Apologize for that. Let's just keep going here. I want to switch up topics just a little bit. We have only two minutes left. Are there any traditional celebrations, the traditional foods like here, obviously July 4th, Independence Day, it's hot dogs, hamburgers, fireworks. Are there celebratory traditions around Guam's Independence Day, their liberation day?Congressman James Moylan: Yes. Unfortunately, this year we didn't have it because we were hit with Super Typhoon Marwar. So we're still recovering from that. However, we'll we get back to our traditions. We usually have a parade with all the branches of the military, all our department agencies and a lot of villages are also represented with floats. It's it's it's a beautiful parade that goes down what's known as Marine Corps Drive. That's our main road on Guam. In addition, people overnight on the sides of the roads and they picnic because it's right next to the beach and they barbecue. We love our fiesta. We call it Fiesta food. We have what's called red rice barbecue chicken, barbecue ribs. And our marinade is delicious. We have a sauce called Vinodhini, which is our hot sauce. And we have something special called Chicken Kelaguen that everybody loves. So.Sam Stone: Congressman, I think we I think we need to check the weather and make some plans for next year to come. There.Congressman James Moylan: There you go. You're more than welcome and you're invited. Please come on down. It's going to be the 80th. And that's where you should have your show coming out of. That'd be great.Sam Stone: I think that sounds like an absolutely fantastic plan. Congressman James Moylan of Guam, thank you so much for joining us once again. We really appreciate having you on the program, folks. Stay tuned for our podcast only segment. You're not going to want to miss this one. Breaking battlegrounds. Back in just a moment.Speaker1: The 2022 political field was intense, so don't get left behind in 2024. If you're running for political office, the first thing on your to do list needs to be securing your name on the web with a your name Web domain from GoDaddy.com. Get yours now.Sam Stone: Welcome to the podcast. Only segment of breaking battlegrounds. In studio with me today the irrepressible haven't broken that out in a while the irrepressible Kiley Kipper. She remains irrepressible folks. She is our producer. She does a fantastic job. We've got Jeremy in the booth, as always, doing a beautiful job on all our audio and on the line. Now, I saw this come out a little while ago and it kind of blew me away. We have Senator Shannon Grove from California's 12th Senate District. Senator Grove has served in the US Army and had the amazing. It had to be amazing. Senator, the experience in Frankfurt, Germany, of watching the fall of the Berlin Wall. She's an advocate for small business school choice, the developmentally disabled farmers and families, and we're having her on today to discuss her proposed amendment to Assembly Bill 2167. Senator, thank you so much for joining us today. We really appreciate having you on the program. Tell us what this amendment was. First, I think this is news that was so much going on in the country, escaped a lot of people, but it really blew me away when I heard about your bill. I'm shocked California didn't have something like this already on the books and then shocked and disheartened at the Democrats response to it.Senator Shannon Grove: No.Senator Shannon Grove: And I appreciate you guys covering this subject matter. I really do. And thank you for having me on. Sb 14 was a simple solution that would just allow us individuals who sell children for sex, sex trafficking, minor children, 0 to 17in age group. It would make it a serious felony in the state of California right now, there's two subsections that deal with this subject matter. And selling a child for sex does not automatically make it a serious felony unless there's coercion, torture, violence, you know, all these different things that go along with it, then it can be considered serious. But I want the actual act of selling the child to be a serious felony.Sam Stone: And it shocks I mean, honestly, it we're sitting here in Arizona, obviously, we've had Republican leadership for a long time. So it's a very different environment. Obviously, every state is different. But this should be a no brainer, right? I mean, so much of the problem and we've dealt with the issue of sex trafficking and child sex trafficking here quite a bit. Obviously, with the border. Arizona is also another hub of that activity, just like California is, unfortunately. But a lot of times it's very difficult to prove those if you can prove any element of it at all. It's really difficult to prove those other elements. This has got to be just hamstringing prosecutors, this current law.Senator Shannon Grove: It really is hamstringing prosecutors. And that's why we work together with our district attorneys, including all the statewide district attorneys, with the exception of 3 or 4. But specifically Nancy O'Malley, the former district attorney of Alameda County, who established the heat unit, the human trafficking exploitation unit. And what happened is, is that that was the first unit set up like that in the nation that was victim centered. She's prosecuted over 850 cases of human trafficking. And one of the big issues that she has is that you can't convict these individuals because this particular bill, SB 14, the language is not on the books. When we first introduced the language, we wanted to make sure everybody was encompassed, that everybody in sex trafficking, labor trafficking were all included. But to get it out of the Senate, we had to narrow it to minors only. So we moved the football a little bit. We got a unanimous vote in the Senate. 40 senators in the state of California, all 40 voted I no abstentions and no no's. Fast forward to the Assembly Public Safety Committee, where the bill dies.Sam Stone: Oh.Sam Stone: I it stuns me. What was to hear that? I mean, it's sort of it's just gross. I mean, quite frankly, it's just gross. They clearly killed it when they they figured it wouldn't draw much attention by killing it in committee. But, my goodness, how how did what did they what did they say? How did these Democrats look at themselves in the mirror?Kiley Kipper: That's what I want to know, is what is their response when you're trying to have these conversations with the people that you work with?Senator Shannon Grove: So, yeah, no. So I did I was, you know, they requested me leadership, requested me to meet with the chair of the committee after it was killed and he wanted me to take an amendment. So let me explain the bill just a little bit more so people get a full grasp of it. If you sex trafficking a minor child in the state of California and you get caught and you get prosecuted, you get sentenced to either four, 8 or 12 years, let's just take the maximum 12 years with California's criminal justice reform laws. You go to school, you go to classes, you're a good behavior in prison. You can get out in less than four years. So let's just take that scenario, which happens quite often. You get out in four years and then you go back to sex trafficking a minor. That's when my bill kicks in and creates a strike offense that when you get busted on your second offense for selling a child for sex, then you have to serve your full 12 years and you have a strike against you, which could, if you continue your bad behavior, you could end up with life in prison. The chair wants me to take an amendment to allow the second offense of sex trafficking, not the first one. When you get convicted, you go to prison. You get out in four years, but then you get out again and you sex trafficker minor do or do another bad felony, something that's listed as a serious or violent felony. He wants me to take an amendment to allow the perpetrator to plea bargain down. I said no. So that's why the bill died.Sam Stone: That that is that is Kiley. That is stunning to me.Kiley Kipper: Just sitting here shaking our heads.Sam Stone: Yeah, My mouth is my mouth is on the bottom of this table right now because can you even.Senator Shannon Grove: Believe we're having this conversation?Sam Stone: No, no, no. Senator, we're talking to Senator Shannon Grove of California's 12th Senate District. She proposed this bill that would have made it a serious and violent felony to traffic minor children for the purposes of sex. That's a really narrow thing. I mean, trafficking any person should be a serious and violent felony. I like your original intent, but I understand cutting it back. You have to make a deal. I cannot comprehend the inhumanity that it takes to not move this out of committee.Senator Shannon Grove: Well, I think it just, you know, with the the media engaging the way they did and Californians raising up their voices and, you know, with the the the exposure that the bill got from dying caused the Public Safety Committee to reverse their decision, you know, 24 hours later. So it still is moving through the building. They are still pushing for amendments. You know, the public safety chair voted for the bill. We got it out of public safety. And now he's on, you know, TV. Every time he turns around going the bill is still flawed. I have to fix this bill. There's nothing wrong with my bill. It says that if you it just simply says you can't. It's a serious felony to to sex traffickers sell a child for sex. It's just ridiculous that you wouldn't be able to get this passed with flying colors. And what's interesting is, is that, like I said, every senator voted for it, including Scott Wiener out of San Francisco, The San Francisco Chronicle, and I'm talking about San Francisco, not normal California, but San Francisco. The San Francisco Chronicle even did an article, you know, against the chair's arguments like like you mean sex trafficking. The minor isn't enough like that. They have to brutalize them. You know, there's a whole list of things that they have to do in order to make it a strike or a default to life in prison. But I mean, branding them with a branding iron instead of tattooing all these different things in the details that will allow you to make it a fallback for the strike able offense. I just want to make it a strike able offense for sex trafficking. A minor like you shouldn't need all these other things. I think sex trafficking, a minor like my witness said it and it's kind of gross, but you have to get this vision in your head. Grown men all over a ten year old child, that in itself should be a serious felony.Sam Stone: Okay. I'm glad to be here. We are, folks, we are recording this just before lunchtime and I started the intermittent fasting thing. And I'm right now really glad that I don't start eating anything till noon because I think I would have thrown up right there. I mean, that's just.Senator Shannon Grove: This is disgusting. It's the hardest bill I've ever. I met parents that whose daughter was trafficked. And I said, How did you find out? You know, you know, tell me your story. She got a text message, a video. She clicked on the video and it was five guys gang raping her daughter. I met a and it's it's disproportionately does affect black women and people of color. If you look at Figueroa Street, the National Coalition of Human Trafficking down there says that 70% of the women that are in their shelters are are black or brown. And then also 55% of them on the streets are black or brown. So for them to say that this disproportionately affects black people, I agree with them in that portion only. They are concerned about the black people that could possibly go to prison for perpetrating these crimes against black women. And I to me, I don't care what color your skin is, I, I don't care what I was in the military. Everybody's green, but I don't care what color your skin is. If you're sex trafficking minors, I do want you to go to prison for a long time. Yeah.Sam Stone: I mean, this this hesitation on their part, it's protecting the evil people and not protecting the innocent ones. And who gives a darn about skin color? That just makes no sense at all.Senator Shannon Grove: But when they can't make an argument on the substance, they always throw in race. And they always do that. They always throw in race. And then you've got these people out there doing the q-anon thing. If they can't make an argument on the substance, they try to distract from the substance. And I keep saying the bill is very simple. If you sex trafficking a minor 0 to 17, you should go to prison.Sam Stone: Well, and part of the backstory behind some of their opposition, I imagine, is what they've been trying to do to essentially legalize or decriminalize however you want to put it, prostitution. But they present it as as a choice for the people that are engaging in that activity. This is not a choice. I mean, this is not somebody. Yeah. Who's who's making a decision about their own life. This is somebody who's being abused in the worst way possible.Senator Shannon Grove: You're exactly right. But when you get into the details, I guess you'd say the the the serious felony doesn't kick in when you traffic a minor because, you know, you just you have to imagine somebody's going, come on, you know, like a family member or do this for dad, do this for mom. You know, whatever a neighbor come on, just do this one time. Well, they're not they're not beating her into submission. They're not. So it doesn't count, right? It just doesn't count. So there are there are it is very, very hard to prosecute a serious felony in the state of California for this because the girls are scared. They're young. They they they're afraid to turn someone in. And so basically, they have to have all these additional things that happen once you sex traffic the minor. And that's why I was trying to make it simple that that selling the child or sex trafficking the child should be enough alone by itself as a serious felony.Sam Stone: I, I.Sam Stone: Would agree, Kylie, in part because when you talk to experts about this, about sex trafficking, particularly a minor, children, you know, even regardless of the physical abuse, what they're using is mental abuse and mental torture to to keep these these young people in a position where they can continue to be exploited. They're tearing their mind apart. Yeah.Kiley Kipper: And it'll never be recovered. Obviously, their life will never be the same.Senator Shannon Grove: I mean, Kiley, you're absolutely right when you think about it. You know, even my survivors that have gone on to have families and you know that I have Odessa Perkins, if you haven't watched her testimony, she really nailed them with her responses. But she was she was trafficked as a minor and went through the anger stage, the criminal stage, the whole bit where she was, you know, didn't function right in society because of the trauma in her. And then you become a survivor versus a victim. Right. And now she's an interventionist. She's a speaker and author. She has a nonprofit where she rescues at risk kids and deters at risk kids and rescues people out of human trafficking. So there is a is a road to recovery. But that doesn't mean that she doesn't deal with this trauma that affected her as a child all of her life, every single day. And the same with Jenna McKay, who does the Jenna McKay Foundation. And you know what's interesting about these two individuals, Odessa is a black a black woman trafficked as a child in a in a poor socioeconomic disadvantaged neighborhood. But Jenna McKay came from a Christian home, no divorce, got a full ride scholarship to Vanguard University and was lured out of that by someone who said they loved her. She fell in love. She thought she they'd been dating for a few months. He asked her to go to Vegas, knock on the door. When they get to Vegas, they exchanged money and men came in and raped her.Kiley Kipper: Wow.Senator Shannon Grove: So there's different stories in this human trafficking realm.Sam Stone: And it takes an enormous amount of courage to be able to come out and tell those stories. But it takes as much courage in the moment to be able to go and tell that story to police. And it just sounds like this, you know, anything you do that adds barriers, that makes it more difficult for them to have the the the resolution in part, I guess, of having their assailant be actually placed in bars and behind bars and face real penalties. That has to be part of the healing process for a lot of them. Right. Is is seeing justice actually happen. And this is this this hesitation by some California Democrats is really denying that.Senator Shannon Grove: It really is. And that's a perfect way to explain it, too. So we're trying to remove barriers. There's barriers now to testimony which you just said. So this bill would remove barriers. It just the act of selling the child for sex would be a serious felony. So there wouldn't be any barriers where you have to meet a certain level or did they beat you? Did they sodomise you? Did they I mean, all these crazy things, right? So just the act. So we're trying to remove the barriers for these these kids to testify. So that's a very good way to put it. Thank you for phrasing it that way.Sam Stone: Fantastic. Senator, anything else that we should be focusing, you know, people should be paying attention to around this upcoming hearings or anything like that. And then secondly, how can they support you in the work you're doing? Because I got to say, especially in California, you're you're swimming upstream in a big way. But they need more voices like yours who provide some balance.Senator Shannon Grove: I appreciate that. So the bill did get out of public safety. It quieted the media down a little bit. So now everybody's off on their what they call summer break. We come back on August 14th and the bill will go before the Appropriations Committee in order to get through one more committee, the opposition, the Democrats that killed the bill originally in public safety and then re voted for the bill two days later or a day and a half later. They are still saying that I they are going to fix this bill and they're going to make me take amendments. There is nothing to fix in this bill, so please stay engaged in the process. You can follow me at Shannon Grove, CA on Instagram, Shannon Grove, CA on Twitter, Shannon Grove, CA on Facebook, or Senator Shannon Grove on Facebook. But and we'll post the, you know, the day that the hearing is going to take place. We'll keep everybody updated on social media. So please stay engaged and to pray for this process because it really is just just a mess the way that the California state legislature operates. And then also, you know, participate in the hearing process. They still allow call ins. You can call in, you can write in, you can you can just participate to support the bill. So thank you, folks.Sam Stone: We have a lot of listeners out there right now who are listening to this who are in California. Make your voice heard. You know, make stand up, exercise your right as a citizen. I think that's incredibly important in this case. They need to hear from voices outside the political process and where people really stand, because I don't see. Senator, thank you so much for joining us. Senator Shannon Grove. I don't see anything at all that needs to be amended in this bill. This needs to pass.Senator Shannon Grove: I agree. Thank you so much for taking the time to interview me and get the message out there. I really appreciate it.Sam Stone: All right. Fantastic. Folks, remember to tune in every week to Breaking Battlegrounds. We're on all your favorite Salem network stations. And you can also download us wherever you find your podcasts, Substack, Spotify. Apple Podcasts. I think we still even post to YouTube, although I've never I've never actually been on our YouTube site. Kiley To find out what's up. It's up. Okay, folks, make sure you're tuning in. That's how we keep the lights on here in this studio. That's how we pay the bills and that's how we continue to bring you stories about what's going on around the country that maybe aren't getting enough coverage like this one. Again, thank you to all of our guests today and particular thanks to our final guest, Senator Shannon Grove of California. It is, as always, been an enlightening and and not always easy journey here with breaking battlegrou

Assemblyman Tom Lackey comes on the show to talk about the fallout from SB14 not getting approved by the Public Safety Committee. More on SB14. The heat wave is here. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

State Senator Shannon Grove comes on the show to talk about SB14 failing yesterday in the Public Safety Committee as she is the author of the bill. More on the fallout of SB14 failing. New study shows that red meat can be part of a healthy diet.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Assembly PSAC kills a bill aimed at child sex traffickersSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Senator Shannon Grove checks in about SB 14 and the Assembly Public Safety Committee blocking the measure that would have classified human trafficking of a minor as a serious felony under state law. Guest Co-Host: Matt Otstot See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Guy spoke at last night's committee hearing regarding The Indy Public Safety Committee advanced Hogsett's gun control proposal that is essentially “unenforceable.” See omny.fm/listener for privacy information.

There is a trend in California legislation to introduce and pass bills that have less accountability and less punishment for those that break the law.  At the same time many bills that would make crimes like domestic violence, sex with a child, rape of an unconscious or intoxicated victim and human trafficking are immediately shot down in the Public Safety Committee as being unnecessary.  Usually there is no explanation just a yes/no vote and the bill is dead.   At the heart of the matter is an effort by many activists (including Million Kids) to make human trafficking and child sex crimes to be consider "serious" and "violent".  Most people do not realize that human trafficking and child sex crimes are not considered "serious" or "violent". These classifications are not feel good terms but rather would allow for enhanced sentencing or qualify for the "Three Strikes Law".  This is resulting in a revolving door practice of allow sex offenders and those that commit crimes against women and children to be released back into the communities where they reoffend. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/million-kids/support

Ten lighthouses that for generations have stood like sentinels along America's shorelines protecting mariners from peril and guiding them to safety are being given away at no cost or sold at auction by the federal government. On Monday, May 22, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 341, which establishes a moratorium on California issuing new cardroom licenses for the next 20 years. Smaller existing cardrooms will be allowed to add limited new tables in the meantime. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is backing California Democratic Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis's bid to succeed Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) in 2026. The California Assembly's Public Safety Committee recently approved Assembly Bill 742, which aims to ban the use of police dogs for arrests, apprehensions, or crowd control, due to concerns of racial bias and violence. Dining on giant steaks offered by Pardini's Catering, the Fresno County chapter hosted 650 attendees at the Doubletree Hotel ballroom in downtown Fresno. The local industry, along with a few elected leaders, gathered to celebrate the best.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Common Council Approves Public Safety Committee Report Hosted by Himadri Seth

Gavin's Law would increase penalties for hit-and-run drivers has passed the Public Safety Committee and heads to the Appropriations Committee.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Recently, New Hampshire police chiefs came together to make a plea to lawmakers as departments continue to be plagued by staffing shortages statewide. The chiefs, including Hinsdale Police Chief Charles Rataj, told the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee that the required fitness test is making it difficult for departments to hire and retain officers. As a result, they've proposed a bill that would eliminate the test for law enforcement officers. In this episode of Policing Matters, host Jim Dudley speaks with Traci Tauferner, Director of Industrial Medicine and Wellness with Advanced Physical Therapy & Sports Medicine who has worked with law enforcement, fire, and EMS agencies since 2010, about the request made by the New Hampshire chiefs and the importance of maintaining officer physical fitness. This episode of the Policing Matters Podcast is brought to you by Lexipol, the experts in policy, training, wellness support and grants assistance for first responders and government leaders. To learn more, visit lexipol.com.

In this episode, Erin Hart, Megan Peterson, and Abena Abraham provide a legislative update, covering: Dr. Sarah Traxler, Chief Medical Officer for Planned Parenthood North Central States (PPNC), testified on the Reproductive Freedom Defense Act in the Senate Health Committee. Since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, PPNCS has seen a 13% increase in patients coming from out of the region for abortion and a 40% increase in second-trimester abortions. Efforts to pass SF 165, the Reproductive Freedom Defense Act, continue. This bill is to ensure that all Minnesotans have access to reproductive healthcare and that healthcare providers are protected in providing essential healthcare services. The Reproductive Freedom Defense Act passed the Minnesota House on Monday with 68 “yes” and 62 “no” votes. The movement cannot be stopped, and Minnesota will have the back of providers and patients who need to come here to get care. We also discuss the Trans Refuge Bill, which passed by the Minnesota House early Friday morning. The bill was led by Representative Finke, who spoke passionately about the importance of passing the bill. The bill has also been heard by the Senate Judiciary, and Public Safety Committee and hopefully is on a pathway to reach the governor's desk this year. ### Visit the "Gender Justice" Website here and "Unrestrict Minnesota" here. Erin Hart, Communications Director at Gender Justice, is hosting the Gender Justice Brief. The GJB is produced by Gunther Michael Jahnl & Audra Grigus. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/genderjustice/message

This week the panel caught up on assorted things. The Army Run dates have been announced and the early bird registration deadline draws near. Varusteleka's Remote Military March will be at the end of April and registration opened. The Public Safety Committee had a technical briefing on the amendments removed from C21. Alberta proposes Bill 8 which would limit firearms confiscations in Alberta. Confusion and mayhem ensue. Intro Hello to all you patriots out there in podcast land and welcome to Episode 386 of Canadian Patriot Podcast. The number one live podcast in Canada. Recorded March 13 , 2023.   We need your help! To support Canadian Patriot Podcast visit patreon.com/cpp and become a nPatreon. You can get a better quality version of the show for just $1 per episode. Show you're not a communist,  buy a CPP T-Shirt, for just $24.99 + shipping and theft. Visit canadianpatriotpodcast.com home page and follow the link on the right. What are we drinking And 1 Patriot Challenge item that you completed Pierre - whiskey, lots of whiskey Andrew - Water, so much water Gavin - Water for one last week Liz - Bee's Knees Grab the Patriot Challenge template from our website and post it in your social media Listener Feedback We'd love to hear your feedback about the show. Please visit  canadianpatriotpodcast.com/feedback/ or email us at feedback@canadianpatriotpodcast.com A version of the show is Available on Stitcher at and iTunes http://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=77508&refid=stpr and iTunes at https://itunes.apple.com/ca/podcast/canadian-patriot-podcast/id1067964521?mt=2 New Year New Ruck it is time. Time for a new ruck. Time to prepare for RESUL. No more hygge, only labour. Time to taunt other podcasts 9 weeks to prepare for RESUL, starting Jan 16. Weeks end on Sunday. Minimum weight is 22lbs. Maximum bonus is 44lbs. Record your best distance in the allotted duration each week. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kM4HNVE2XY-LugUhTqY3p7Ph8OevLuu01VZBUARFLeM/edit?usp=sharing Upcoming Events Varusteleka's Remote Military March April 28,29 https://www.varusteleka.com/en/event/varusteleka%E2%80%99s-remote-military-march-apr-28-29-2023/75618 Army Run - Virtual September 8- 29 https://raceroster.com/registration/f7936d15-5e7f-46c4-86cd-6679e3de69df/entry?team=503410 Discount code: ARMY2022 for 10% off News Public Safety's Technical Briefing About Nothing https://cssa-cila.org/public-safetys-technical-briefing-about-nothing/   Braid: Bill 8 embodies UCP thinking: 'Keep your hands off my six-shooters' https://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/columnists/braid-bill-8-embodies-ucp-thinking/wcm/e95cc98a-3bf1-4dcc-8110-8ebecf2be1e6   Minister Shandro Tables Bill 8: Alberta Firearms Act https://cssa-cila.org/minister-shandro-tables-bill-8-alberta-firearms-act/ Outro We're on Guilded now https://www.guilded.gg/i/k5a9wnDk Andrew - https://ragnaroktactical.ca/ Visit us at www.canadianpatriotpodcast.com   We value your opinions so please visit www.canadianpatriotpodcast.com/feedback/ or email us at feedback@canadianpatriotpodcast.com and let us know what you think.   Apologies to Rod Giltaca Remember, “you are a small fringe minority” with “unacceptable views”

On this Hacks & Wonks week-in-review, political consultant and host Crystal Fincher is joined by Seattle Axios reporter, Melissa Santos! Now that the Washington state legislature has passed a major bill cutoff deadline, Crystal and Melissa discuss a long list of bills that died and those still fighting to survive - including landmark gun safety and housing bills. They also discuss Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell's still-unfulfilled promise to advance alternate 911 response programs that can make our streets safer and help mitigate the SPD staffing crisis that the mayor says we have. They also discuss Mayor Harrell's decision to postpone the removal of cherry trees at Pike Place Market after community pushback. 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, Melissa Santos at @MelissaSantos1.   Melissa Santos Melissa Santos is one of two Seattle-based reporters for Axios. She has spent the past decade covering Washington politics and the Legislature, including five years covering the state Capitol for The News Tribune in Tacoma and three years for Crosscut, a nonprofit news website. She was a member of The Seattle Times editorial board from 2017 to 2019, where she wrote columns and opinion pieces focused on state government.     Resources Shasti Conrad, Newly-elected Chair of the Washington State Democratic Party from Hacks & Wonks    “Rifle ban, housing bills and more advance in the WA Legislature” by Joseph O'Sullivan & Donna Gordon Blankinship from Crosscut   “WA House votes to ban assault weapons” by Jim Brunner and Claire Withycombe from The Seattle Times   “Ban on selling assault weapons clears state House” by Melissa Santos from Axios   “The Olympia Waltz Continues for Middle Housing and Other Vital Legislation” by Ray Dubicki from The Urbanist   “WA's Missing Middle Legislation Threatened by Grab Bag of Municipal Excuses” by Ryan Packer from The Urbanist   “State Democrats Stiff Renters Again” by Rich Smith from The Stranger   “Legislative Cutoff Fizz: Police Pursuit Bill Moves Forward While Tenant Protections Die” by Andrew Engelson and Ryan Packer from PubliCola   “High-Speed Police Chase Bill Still Unpopular Among State House Democrats” by Ashley Nerbovig from The Stranger   “WA police a step closer to resuming pursuits under bill passed Wednesday by Senate” by Shauna Sowersby from The Olympian    “Innocent Bystanders are the Losers in this Week's WA Senate Shenanigans” by Amy Sundberg from Notes from the Emerald City   “Bills aim to protect abortion patients who travel to Washington” by Melissa Santos from Axios   “Seattle's alternative 911 response program falls behind schedule” by Melissa Santos from Axios “Removal of Seattle cherry trees near Pike Place Market paused” by KING 5 News     Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday midweek show, I spoke with new Chair of the Washington State Democratic Party, Shasti Conrad, about what the role of chair entails, lessons learned from the previous Chair, Tina Podlodowski, and her plans for continuing forward as a strong and effective political party in Washington state. Today, we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a cohost. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show, today's cohost: Seattle Axios reporter, Melissa Santos. Hey. [00:01:23] Melissa Santos: Hi, Crystal. [00:01:23] Crystal Fincher: Welcome back. Glad to have you and always enjoy the Axios newsletter in my inbox every morning. [00:01:30] Melissa Santos: I'm so glad - good, good. [00:01:32] Crystal Fincher: It's good stuff - good updates and easily digestible, which is good. Today we have just passed a significant deadline in our legislative session. We're just about halfway done. And with that comes the deadline to pass bills out of their house of origin. They need to pass a floor vote, and get to the other chamber in order to survive. So now we have a list of bills that have died, as well as those that go on to be heard in the other chamber. So I guess starting a roundup of what is living and what is dead, what is going on still in our legislature? [00:02:14] Melissa Santos: Oh, you're asking me - there are so many things that actually lived this year - I'm actually kind of surprised. For instance, a ban on selling assault weapons did pass the State House, and this has never happened before in our state. The governor and the attorney general and a lot of Democratic lawmakers have been trying to pass a ban on assault weapons - different versions of it - for, I don't know, six, seven years now, maybe since 2015. I don't know how many years that is 'cause time is like a vortex, but a lot of years - and this time is the first time it's passed a chamber. So that's actually fairly significant. [00:02:44] Crystal Fincher: Very significant and nationally significant. And was an issue that a lot of Democrats ran on in this past election - promising to take action, saying thoughts and prayers are no longer enough, we have seen enough of this. But this is a pretty substantial, major piece of legislation that we can expect to see also wind up in the courts. [00:03:05] Melissa Santos: Yeah, there definitely will be challenges. I think there are challenges happening in Illinois over there's - they've already been promised if they're not already in progress. And Illinois was the most recent state, I think, to enact one. We would be the 10th if we do so, unless someone somehow gets to it first - a couple of months before our legislative session ends. But there's still a big road. It has to pass the Senate. And you know - that we've had some shifts in the Senate, though. I think that legislators did take a message from last year's election results in which Democrats gained seats - didn't lose ground - after passing high-capacity magazine bans. There's no backlash, even in what was supposed to be a big Republican year. There's a lot of factors that go into that, but they're like this is not something that is hurting us at the ballot box at all. And in fact, Washington voters - I think you and I have talked about this before - they have been voting for stricter gun control measures for several years now. It's not an issue that loses in Washington state, or even the polls don't really show nationally. I think there's a big shift to - this is not 1994 when it comes to these gun laws. It's just not, and it's not the political football it was. [00:04:06] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And especially given the amount of mass shootings that we've seen, of just gun violence overall, of people dying by suicide using guns - it is just a lot. And we've had just about everyone say that we need to do something, and expecting our elected officials to do something. And we did see them take action - pretty significant action - in responding to the calls of parents, of students. We even saw students from Seattle's Ingraham High School, which experienced a school shooting, advocating for some of these gun bills, saying that they needed it to be safer in their schools. So this is something that Democrats promised - they took action on. This is something where they heard, and they've delivered - and we'll see how this legislation withstands court challenges - but certainly a big step here in our Legislature. Another big bill that was talked about - has been talked about really since last session - big time is the state's hallmark missing middle bill, HB 1110, which passed out of the House. [00:05:13] Melissa Santos: It did. And one thing I think that is one reason maybe why - I think there has been some conflict, not just the cities not wanting regulation - that was an argument that worked last year, cities saying - Hey, we don't want the state telling us what to do, essentially. We need local control over these things. Maybe it was an argument that worked last year, but I think the housing crisis is so deep that I think that that wasn't necessarily gonna work forever. But what I think was a genuine concern is whether allowing four to six units per lot, in basically all residential lots in some of these cities, might contribute to displacement. I think that's a concern for some people, and whether - there's a lot of stuff that goes into that. But what they did do was essentially make it so if you have neighborhoods where this upzoning would contribute to displacement - I'm not describing the bill very well, I'm jumping right in - but they basically said you can zone only 75% of your residential area to have these upzones and requiring four units or six units per lot. So that's a change that I think was made to try and assuage those who are worried about displacement. And it's possible the displacement argument is a front for other concerns - and that's just a - but that was a change they made this year that makes it a little more flexible. There's an alternate way to comply other than just saying - Hey, it's a strict four units per lot. You have to build a duplex on every lot - I should back up - zone for a duplex. God, you know what, Crystal? I really got ahead of myself. But my point is, changing zoning doesn't necessarily mean that there's a duplex going everywhere. It just means that the next time someone wants to do something, maybe they can do this thing. So yeah, there was never gonna be just suddenly everything's apartments. That never was gonna happen with any of these versions of this bill, but - [00:06:52] Crystal Fincher: Right - and we saw some hyperbolic headlines over the past week saying the Legislature's banned single-family zoning - which you can still build single-family - it just prohibits the exclusion of other types of housing. And the reason why this is so important and necessary - and there was such a broad coalition of business, labor, environmental groups, others saying - Hey, we absolutely need more housing - is because study after study has shown that we are behind on building the amount of housing necessary to house people who currently live in this state, even before we get to others who are moving to the state. And it's because so many areas have been prohibited from building anything but single-family homes - and the areas where you can build a duplex, a triplex, a sixplex, or a larger building are so small in comparison to all of the other areas. There just isn't the ability to build the appropriate and necessary density without a change in this zoning. And the way this manifests is - we have seen these rent hikes, these price hikes - when you have constrained supply and you have people moving here, that in and of itself has contributed to a lot of displacement and affordability crisis. And most people now recognize that we do have a housing affordability crisis. And so this is what has been proposed as a remedy - giving homeowners more control and property owners more control over what they can do with their lots and how they can build, and making sure that cities can absorb the amount of density that is there without the escalating costs that are driving so many people out of cities, out of housing, preventing seniors from being able to age in place, and their families from being able to live near them. And we've seen a shift in public opinion in support for this, where before it was something where it's like - Ah, it's dicey, a lot of people don't - but we've seen poll after poll showing northwards of 60% of residents across the state believe in this. And we've seen cities like Spokane and cities in Pierce County and Clark County take action on this already. This is actually an area where Seattle is behind the bend of several other cities. So interesting to see this going. Certainly there are a lot of cities who - judging by just some city and municipal meetings over the past week - who were hoping and thinking this would probably not get out of the House, but now it has made it to the Senate and they seem like they plan on stepping up their opposition to this bill. So people who are trying to get this passed also need to step up their advocacy of the bill and make sure that their elected officials know that they support this - even if they're homeowners, even if they're in higher income brackets, even if they're seniors - that this is something that they want in their communities if they want this to succeed, 'cause there certainly is a continuing battle ahead. Absolutely - and so other things that have survived, or are talking about housing and talking about the issues of displacement - for those really concerned about the issue of displacement - a couple of bills that didn't make it out, would have been nice and helpful for that. And those included some renter protections. One bill would have capped rent increases at 7% a year. Another would have required six months notice of rent hikes for more than 5%. Some cities also currently have some of those provisions, but certainly the majority of cities in the state do not. That would have certainly helped people. Rent increases are having a devastating toll on our communities and on homelessness, frankly. And those would have been really good to see pass the House - would have directly addressed issues leading to displacement and homelessness - and I'm disappointed that they didn't make it through. Other bills that didn't make it include a bill raising the age of juvenile sentencing from 8 years to 13 - that didn't make it through. A bill that would have ended design review statewide for residential developments didn't make it out of the House, nor did a WRAP Act bill that attempted to improve the state's solid waste system through bottle deposit and packaging reform. As well as a really common sense bill to ban jaywalking laws which are disproportionately enforced against BIPOC and low income people without an impact on public safety, it looks like, and so that didn't survive. One thing that looked like it was on its deathbed, but that was snatched out was a police pursuits bill. What happened with this? [00:11:36] Melissa Santos: Essentially, interestingly, the Senate had looked like it was not gonna advance this bill at all. This is a measure that kind of - it would roll back some of the stricter standards for police car chases that were passed a couple of years ago in 2021. It would say - We're not gonna be as strict in restricting when police can chase people in vehicles. Now, the Senate wasn't looking like it would advance it at all, but it was pulled from the floor and kind of skipped the whole committee process, basically - on Tuesday or so, I think - and it passed the Senate. And interestingly, what bill that looked like it had been moving on this issue in the House did not actually pass out of the House. So now we have a little situation where we don't really know what's gonna happen with it going forward. But, it essentially is just saying the Legislature, following the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests and the protests against police brutality that we saw - one of the things they did in the Legislature was say - Hey, you can't just chase people over stolen car or whatever and go on a high-speed chase that could be deadly for people. And it applied to more things too. It basically said that you have to have probable cause to chase people in some of these scenarios. You can't chase people for low-level crimes. Police have just been saying that they can't really do their jobs - that's been pushed back on quite a bit. But, there's been a lot of pressure for the Legislature to change this law and make it easier for police to engage in these pursuits again, especially when it comes to certain crimes that are violent. They still can chase them under the current law, but it would make it easier to with a lower-level evidentiary standard that that's the right person in the car - basically is what these bills would do. So we'll see what happens there. It is a weird bipartisan interest in this bill, I would say - the sponsor of the bill in the House is a Democratic lawmaker from a swing district. And I've got to look at the vote count again, but there are some Democratic votes for this. It's not like one party against another. So that makes it hard to figure out how it'll play out. But the House wouldn't take it up, so I'm not sure they'll take it up now - what's coming from the Senate - on the actual floor. [00:13:31] Crystal Fincher: We will see what happens with this. I think the House probably will end up taking it up, but maybe they won't, but - I hope they don't - because this is a bill that frankly, in my view, lacks the data behind it to justify what its proponents are saying. To your point, a lot of police have said - Ah, we just can't pursue anymore - and have been in community meetings where police officers and departments have suggested that their hands are tied, that they can't pursue anyone. It's never been the case that they straight up could not pursue anyone or that pursuits were outlawed. It really is a question between, as you said, two evidentiary standards - that of probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Probable cause having a much higher - or not a much higher, but a significant - a threshold that is significant, that is also higher in terms of what they can do and when they are authorized to chase. And so when it came to serious things, if they had proof of something - they can and have been pursuing vehicles, including continuing to pursue in ways that have endangered the public and have injured the public, even in recent weeks and months. And so really a challenge here is addressing the potential harm and expected harm to the community as a result of these chases that in many jurisdictions already - certainly across the country - they have limited when this can happen because of the collateral damage that occurs, especially when oftentimes they're able to identify who is in the car, apprehend them after the fact, or apprehend them in a way that doesn't endanger the public through a chase. And they've also, I think, tried to say - Well, we've seen some increases in certain types of crime and it's because these criminals know that we can't chase them. And so they're just doing stuff and chasing, running away from us and laughing at us. And it doesn't really look like there's much evidence to back that up. In fact, they've talked about auto thefts and tried to suggest that auto thefts were increasing because they were limited in pursuing somehow, when it actually looks correlated to the price of used cars and that being much more correlated there. So it seems like it would make sense to pass legislation that would deal directly with the challenges that are having instead of some of fighting to re-enact and re-allow practices that have just frankly been harmful to innocent people in the public. [00:16:03] Melissa Santos: I think the data is a little lacking. There was this weird data war going on on both sides with this bill at one point. And it was kind of like, but it is a little - some of the data that's being used to say - Look, look, look, this is all is a huge problem. It's incomplete. It is incomplete. Like for instance, there's a lot of been, did a lot of citing of the State Patrol saying - We've had more people fleeing stops - basically, and that sort of thing. But then they don't - there's not any sort of follow-up about - were they caught from another means, some other - like later, which you can do through investigation or if further down the road, if they're doing something, maybe you would find them and be able to pull them over for something. There's not complete data there. They weren't tracking the stat exactly before. So there's not a good way to compare. It's just really hard. So I think that that's one reason why the Senate committee chair and the Democratic side on this has really been saying - Can we, do get some more data on this before we change the law? And the Republicans have been like - We should have gotten the data in the first place before we changed the law in the first place. But it is true that people die. Vehicle chases are dangerous. There are people who die. And it looks like we've seen fewer deaths - but the number from police pursuits since the law passed, but the numbers are so small, that the percentages can fluctuate wildly. I think there's an argument to be made to get a little bit more information for sure on this. And there has been crime increases in a lot of places, so it's just - there's a pandemic, there's been a lot of stuff happening. Sometimes when people are attributing the rise in crime to certain things, there's just - there's been a lot going on in the last few years and there's been a lot of contributions to crime rising, and there's been a lot of economic problems and that corresponds, and other places have seen crime rise. So it's just really hard to pinpoint it on this law. It's really difficult to do that as much as people want to. And honestly, some of the stories actually - when I followed up on them - haven't quite been accurate about how these things have played out. So it's just really messy to untangle. [00:17:47] Crystal Fincher: It is. And it seems like even when things are messy and in need of being untangled, we find ways to expand and support increased policing, especially of Black and Brown bodies. Also, things that passed this legislative session - passed their house of origin - made it out of their house of origin into the other chamber to be discussed to see if it will be passed, include a new drug possession bill that increases penalties for drugs such as fentanyl, meth, cocaine - and pushes those convicted into treatment, mandated treatment - a lot of people consider that coercive treatment. And really addressing laws in the wake of the Blake decision and the subsequent legislation, which had a sunset provision, meaning that they need to take action again now. Anything notable you saw with this bill in the process? [00:18:41] Melissa Santos: Honestly, I think this bill is gonna be totally different potentially by the time the session ends. It's one of those - it passed out of a chamber and they're being viewed as like a vehicle. You know what I mean? They can, it maybe will look very different by the end. But I think it's - the problem here a little bit is you want people to basically make drug possession a felony again, especially on the Republican side. Some people want that and then other people want the state to have it be totally decriminalized. And people are trying to, I think, thread the needle on it and there's not really a lot of - those sides don't really agree. You're not gonna find a compromise on - between make it a felony and decriminalize drug possession - that makes any of those folks feel like it's a good policy. So I think it's gonna be a really tricky one for that reason. I think this compromise of being like - Let's make it a gross misdemeanor, it won't be a misdemeanor anymore, but it'll be, it won't be a felony. I don't think that's gonna make people who think that the War on Drugs has been damaging to communities of color and everyone happy that it's still criminalized. And then I don't think that Republicans think that's strong enough. And so that's another one where it's - I think you're gonna see some weird vote counts. You're gonna see some weird coalitions build and it could be very different by the end. [00:19:49] Crystal Fincher: This definitely could change by the end. I think one thing that is useful to just recall is that - in this reality that we're in, we have been enacting and tinkering with criminalization for drugs for basically my entire life. I went to DARE assemblies when I was in elementary school. [00:20:13] Melissa Santos: Does that mean we're old if we went to those? I just wanted to check. [00:20:15] Crystal Fincher: I am definitely old. [00:20:16] Melissa Santos: Oh, okay - I went to those too. [00:20:16] Crystal Fincher: I won't lump you in with me, but I'm old. [00:20:18] Melissa Santos: No, I went to those too, so I guess - I don't know, all right - [00:20:21] Crystal Fincher: But I'm okay with being old. [00:20:22] Melissa Santos: It's fine. We all accept it, but I just wanted to check if that's what that means. I don't know - [00:20:26] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, yeah, it does, it does. [00:20:27] Melissa Santos: Okay, all right. [00:20:29] Crystal Fincher: But we have seen this big War on Drugs - billions upon billions spent - for what? To be in arguably a worse position than we've been in - to have this entire criminalized approach that has supported mass incarceration, that hasn't reduced recidivism, that hasn't reduced addiction, that has allowed it to proliferate really. And what we really need is a public health approach, and we've seen a public health approach to substance use disorder be much more effective than that. But that's not what a number of people have grown up watching on TV, have grown up being told from the DARE assemblies - anything about drugs is just bad and illegal and immoral. And if you touch those things - especially if you're poor or Brown, really, or in a low wage job - you're bad and horrible and immoral. Even though, my goodness, drug use is rampant among high income and high powered people. It doesn't seem to carry the same social stigma with them that it does for people who don't have the benefit of a home to do their drugs in, or can't do it as privately as others are able to do it. But man, this thing has failed, and it just feels like we're doubling down on a failed policy here because of fear - some of the same fear that went into the vehicle pursuit bill conversation - of not looking sufficiently tough on crime, of not doing that. Even though the public really is in a better place than most of our elected leaders are here - on not looking at this as such a binary and understanding that public safety includes a lot more than policing, a lot more than punitive punishment penalties. And if we focus on people being well, and if we focus on building a healthy community, and focus on stopping the harmful behavior, addressing root causes - that we prevent a lot of the problem and do a lot better in fixing the existing problems that we have. But that seems like a conversation that many people are not entertaining about this right now, but I certainly wish they would and hope that legislation improves. Also a bill survived that would reform the state's criminal sentencing system so that the juvenile convictions no longer lead to longer sentences for crimes that people commit as adults. Also Growth Management Act climate change provisions. This was also discussed last year - forcing and mandating that counties, cities, as they go through their Growth Management Act planning, which is mandated by the state, consider climate change impacts throughout that and build that into this process. Certainly helpful. Another bill promoting transit-oriented development - that's assigned to the Housing Committee - a lot splitting bill, easing barriers for ADUs or accessory dwelling units. A bill which was - I think we talked about it last week - near and dear to my heart, especially this session, for free school meals was watered down significantly to now - what passed is if a school has 30% or more of their students eligible for free and reduced lunch, then any student at that school can request a free meal - which is better than nothing certainly, but would love to see that expanded to be universal for everyone. As well as a bill that creates a task force for promoting research into psilocybin and developing a pathway for legal access to that psychedelic substance. So a lot of things are still alive. A lot of good stuff is still alive. A lot of good stuff still looks like it's moving forward. Other stuff - there are some abortion bills that are still alive this session. What will they do? [00:24:22] Melissa Santos: There's been ones trying to protect people from other states with restrictive abortion laws who might come here for an abortion. So we have some bills that basically create a shield law so that - trying to say - doctors here really can't be, putting them out the reach of those abortion laws if they perform abortions on someone. So they would basically - one of those bills that did pass the House - would make it so courts here can't participate in subpoenas from other states that are trying to get information about abortions that maybe happen here, if someone from their state travels to our state. And so that's designed to protect the doctors as well as the patients who come here. And that's something that Democrats have been going for. Similar bill dealing with data and health data on apps, because we have federal protections for health data under this law called HIPAA, but that doesn't apply to everything. It doesn't apply to period tracking apps. And there's also apps that track if you're trying to get pregnant and then maybe have a miscarriage - that there's data in there that maybe could be used, is the fear, from some states trying to prosecute abortions if they've criminalized it or have created civil lawsuit potential. Getting that data could show you had a miscarriage, you terminated pregnancy, this shows that. So they're trying to say - You can't get that, basically. So those are some of the things that are still alive. [00:25:33] Crystal Fincher: We will continue to follow this legislation as they make their way through the House and Senate. Also, they will - the Legislature will be taking up Governor Inslee's proposed budget, $70 billion biennial budget, before adjourning on April 23rd. So a lot to be done - still special education and other educational funding is wrapped up also with the budget - so many things are, so we will follow along. Also wanna talk about some Seattle news that you covered this week about Seattle's alternative response - another leg in the public safety stool - running behind schedule, at least Bruce Harrell running behind schedule on the promise and commitment that he made for this. What is happening? [00:26:23] Melissa Santos: It's actually interesting to me to see the mayor's office have actually laid out a commitment, a bunch of commitments, in writing like this. 'Cause sometimes at this mayor's office, it's not really - I'm not really clear on what's happening with them. That's the case sometimes with a lot of administrations, I suppose. But in this case, there was a document that the mayor's office agreed to in September - I think under pressure from the council, basically, to be honest, from watching that meeting - just saying we need some deliverables. We have this program we've been talking about since, again, the Black Lives Matter protests. It's now 20 - as of last year, it was 2022 - we still don't have this pilot program that we said to the community - Okay, we're going to reimagine public safety. This is going to be part of it. We're going to try and not send police officers to some calls where maybe it's not warranted and it can escalate into police killing someone or injuring someone, or just even an arrest that's traumatizing, potentially. So they're trying to say - We want to have a way of sending mental health responders and others to some of these calls. But there was supposed to be a pilot program that was supposed to have a plan from the mayor's office in December that was actually delivered and it hasn't been delivered. So the mayor's office is driving this - it looks like that's part of the agreement - waiting on the mayor to develop sort of some policies, proposals for the permanent program, as well as this pilot. And they have not come forth. There's also some intermediate steps that I didn't get into in my story, but that were missed. The mayor was supposed to narrow down what calls would this would actually apply to, what calls would some mental health responder go to? Is it officer down calls? Is it welfare check calls? And that really hasn't been narrowed down, which means there's not really - when someone asks me, for instance, how does this interact with our new 988 system? You can't really, we don't know because we don't know what calls they're going to be directing this to. But the idea is at least the 911 center would be able to dispatch something other than a cop - even though it's called a dual dispatch for some reason, which I found very confusing - the cop wouldn't necessarily have to be on site for these responses. And it's just - if this was a response to this - I have a policy document that says the social outcry for justice for policing, this is a City document - and it's been now three years and we don't have a pilot in range of being started. I think there's a lot of frustration on the city council saying - What the heck? And they expressed that at a meeting last week in the Public Safety Committee. I think Andrew Lewis, one of the city council members said - It seems like the mayor's office is behind on every deliverable that was asked for. The city council staff was - demurred on that, was like - I don't know if I would say that, but they have working relationships to maintain. As much in Seattle speak, it could be - as much as a WTF could be said in Seattle municipal speak - that's what happened last week, I think, on this, honestly. And yeah, it's just, I don't know where, how things - things don't seem very far along, is what it seems fair to say. [00:29:08] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and it's challenging for me - looking at this administration and how confidently they talked about their ability to handle public safety in the City, particularly during the election and the commitments that were made. Bruce Harrell having sat on the city council and had been a former mayor of Seattle - very familiar with the workings of the City, the size of the bureaucracy, and the scope of what needs to be done. He has seen that from every angle for over a decade. And the response when you asked that office - Hey, why is this behind schedule? - was like, Okay, but it's really hard, is what the response boiled down to. And it's yeah, no kidding. That's what you signed up for when you say you wanna be mayor and can handle that job - and not only can handle it, but can handle it better than everyone else in the field. We want to see what's gonna happen. And this isn't just for good feelings and responding to a community call, even though listening to the community is absolutely important. This is also about public safety. This is about reducing the amount of people who are victimized. It's about keeping the entire community safe and making it safer. This is about a more effective response that keeps people safer. And that can eliminate the frustration that a lot of people have with seeing a revolving door issue where they're being arrested for a problem - that isn't primarily a desire to commit whatever crime or to be loitering in whatever area - that are exacerbated by a variety of different things, where if we actually addressed those things, we can also eliminate any criminal or harmful activity and more effectively deal with an issue of someone who is creating a disturbance or causing discomfort or whatever that is. This is good for the City. This helps keep everyone safer. And it seems like there is no bigger priority than getting this spun up. [00:31:13] Melissa Santos: If there's a concern - the mayor's office and the police department are concerned they don't have enough officers to send to important calls - if that's a concern, the people who are concerned about that, right? This theoretically could make it so officers aren't responding to stuff they maybe shouldn't even be responding to, or aren't the best equipped at responding to. Theoretically, freeing up officers to respond to stuff for which an officer is really needed. It seems like both people who want to have a less aggressive police response, and then also people who want to have more police response in a way - both kind of are coming together to say - This would be good for us. The business people want it - for again, more cops to respond to crime crimes would be - they want. And then people who want to not have traumatic police encounters want it too, which - theoretically, everyone wants to not have those, I would assume. But, people who, that's their focus, also think this is good. It's okay, so what - and I don't even think it's gotten to, to be honest, I don't know if it's had the chance to get to the part that's actually really complex. 'Cause I think the mayor's office and a lot - honestly, city council and everyone - it's easy to say the police union won't let us do this, or something. I don't even think they've gotten to the point where they're even talking about that, really, with labor yet. It's okay, so if that's always the hurdle in doing police reform and you're not even really - you haven't really decided what you want to do. It's like the Legislature passed a bill to create an independent office for police investigations that theoretically should have been ready to have takeover jurisdiction of police killings last summer. And I haven't checked on it for a couple months, I'm gonna say, but it still was not up and running six months after that. And there's still a lot of hiring to do and a lot of policymaking to do. And you could argue - Okay, maybe that was too fast. Maybe a year - okay, so some people would say maybe a year plus was 18 months or so. You can't really set up a whole agency in that time. I'm like - Well... eh, like, how long? I don't know, I don't know. This just seems like - there's a lot of stuff that ends up taking a long time and then other cities do have some of these programs in place already, so it seems like there should be some models. And I don't have great answers about - could you, Denver does this thing - did you ask them? What's going on? It's hard to get a sense of what conversations are happening within the administration about this stuff. [00:33:24] Crystal Fincher: It is. We know they've had tons of conversations about graffiti and there's definitely an action plan and things happening for that, so priorities - seems to come down to priorities. I hope this becomes a higher priority in this administration for sure. Also this week, we have seen trees at Pike Place Market make a lot of news. How come? [00:33:49] Melissa Santos: Seattle people love cherry trees. Everyone loves cherry trees. Does anyone dislike cherry trees? So there are cherry trees, one of - yeah, there's cherry trees by the entrance of Pike Place Market that kind of frame one of our city's biggest landmarks, biggest tourist attractions. And they were set to be removed on Tuesday, maybe Monday and Tuesday possibly, and there was a group that's called, I think, Save Our Market Entrance, something along those lines, that put out some press releases on Sunday and also went and demonstrated and were like - Why are we tearing these down? There's some - it's been raised that there's some significance potentially in the Seattle's Japanese and Japanese-American community of having these cherry trees. The origin is being traced to maybe there was a significant gift to these potentially, but even if there's not - it's just, there's some people asking - Why do we need to replace these trees? They're part of the sort of fabric of our city and what we love about our city. I think the mayor did, someone in the mayor's administration did press pause on the removal of the trees this week, so that was a pretty successful effort by people who wanted to see those trees stay. And their future isn't really certain right now because there's gonna be some probably very Seattle-esque discussions about the trees. And there's some disagreement about whether the trees are healthy and will be healthy for the next 50 years or not. And so that's just all kind of being worked out. But I think people in Seattle like their cherry trees and also there might be some cultural significance here to pay attention to, so that's - at least for now - saved the trees for time being. Yeah, definitely. And this is also happening amidst discussions of Seattle's waning tree canopy and a need to increase the amount of trees - mature and other trees - and certainly not lose trees in the process. And I know some people are concerned about that as we go through this whole thing. But with that, we will wrap it up for today, Friday, March 10th, 2023. Hacks & Wonks is produced by Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today is Seattle Axios reporter, Melissa Santos. You can find Melissa on Twitter @MelissaSantos1. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. And you can find me on Twitter @FrenchFries - it's two I's at the end - @finchfrii, I don't even, whatever. You can catch Hacks & Wonks wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a 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.

In this Hearing the Council interview, we discuss Transportation and the Environment with Ward 6 Councilmember Charles Allen. On January 2 of this year, Councilmember Allen took the helm of the Council's Committee on Transportation and the Environment. We chat about his legislative priorities for his new committee, how the popular free DC bus bill came together, how soon we may see free buses (July?), and other newly introduced legislation such as incentives for electric vehicle charging stations and gas stove swap-outs. We also talk about how his prior work as chair of the Judiciary and Public Safety Committee jurisdiction intersects with his new committee's work, as residents face safety challenges and concerns on Metrorail, on the bus, in cars, and on foot. Plus, he makes his picks for which of his Council colleagues he would choose to tackle odd tasks, from picking a musical playlist to driving cross-country to fighting off barbarians.

Producers/Hosts: Charlotte Warren and Zoe Brokos Music credits: Emma Reynolds. Music – Samuel James. Justice Radio is a WMPG production Justice Radio: Tackling the hard questions about our criminal legal system in Maine. This week: How do we End the War on Drugs in Maine? Join co-hosts Charlotte Warren and Zoe Brokos as they discuss the harm of the Drug policy in Maine and what changes are needed. Guest/s: n/a About the hosts: The Justice Radio team includes: Leo Hylton is currently incarcerated at Maine State Prison, yet is a recent Master's graduate, a columnist with The Bollard, a restorative and transformative justice advocate and activist, a prison abolitionist, and a Visiting Instructor at Colby College's Anthropology Department, co-teaching AY346 – Carcerality and Abolition. Catherine Besteman is an abolitionist educator at Colby College. Her research and practice engage the public humanities to explore abolitionist possibilities in Maine. In addition to coordinating Freedom & Captivity, she has researched and published on security, militarism, displacement, and community-based activism with a focus on Somalia, post-apartheid South Africa, and the U.S. She has published nine books, contributed to the International Panel on Exiting Violence, and received recent fellowships from the American Council of Learned Societies and the Guggenheim and Rockefeller Foundations. MacKenzie Kelley is a formerly incarcerated woman in long term recovery. She is a teachers assistant for inside-out courses through MIT. MacKenzie works at the Maine Prisoner Reentry Center as a reentry specialist, peer support and recovery coach. She is the program director for Reentry Sisters, a program designed to assist women reentering the community from prison. Zoe Brokos (she/her) is the executive director of the Church of Safe Injection, a comprehensive harm reduction program that operates in Southern and Central Maine. Zoe is a person who uses drugs, a mom, a wife, and has led harm reduction programs in Maine for 15 years. She is part of the Maine Drug Policy Coalition, sits on the board of Decriminalize Maine and joined Justice Radio to promote compassionate conversations and drug user-led advocacy efforts that focus on evidence-based, public health responses to the housing and overdose crises in Maine. Marion Anderson: Before joining The National Council for Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls in January of 2022, Marion worked as a harm reductionist, housing navigator, certified intentional peer support specialist, CCAR recovery coach, and a re-entry coach for a diverse range of non-profit organizations. Charlotte Warren is a former State Representative. She served on the Legislature's Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee for eight years – six as the house chair. Warren previously served on the Judiciary Committee and as the house chair of Maine's Mental Health Working Group and the house chair of the Commission to Examine Reestablishing Parole. Previous to her time in the legislature, Charlotte served as Mayor of the city of Hallowell. Linda Small is the founder and executive director of Reentry Sisters, a reentry support organization specializing in a gender-responsive and trauma-informed approach for women, serving Maine and beyond. She is a Project Coordinator for the Maine Prisoner Advocacy Coalition. Linda serves on the Maine Prison Education Partnership board at UMA and the New England Commission for the Future of Higher Education in Prison through The Educational Justice Institute at MIT. The post Justice Radio 2/2/23: Ending the War on Drugs in Maine, Part 1 first appeared on WERU 89.9 FM Blue Hill, Maine Local News and Public Affairs Archives.

Producers/Hosts: Linda Small and Mackenzie Kelley Music credits: Emma Reynolds. Music – Samuel James. Justice Radio is a WMPG production Justice Radio: Tackling the hard questions about our criminal legal system in Maine. This week: What’s it like to come home from prison? Join cohosts Linda Small and Mackenzie Kelley as they discuss the stigma in housing, jobs, and the daily life of returning citizens and their children. Guest/s: Rebecca Kurtz, Peer Services and Recovery Manager of Maine's National Alliance on Mental Illness Wendy Allen of the Restorative Justice Institute of Maine About the hosts: The Justice Radio team includes: Leo Hylton is currently incarcerated at Maine State Prison, yet is a recent Master's graduate, a columnist with The Bollard, a restorative and transformative justice advocate and activist, a prison abolitionist, and a Visiting Instructor at Colby College's Anthropology Department, co-teaching AY346 – Carcerality and Abolition. Catherine Besteman is an abolitionist educator at Colby College. Her research and practice engage the public humanities to explore abolitionist possibilities in Maine. In addition to coordinating Freedom & Captivity, she has researched and published on security, militarism, displacement, and community-based activism with a focus on Somalia, post-apartheid South Africa, and the U.S. She has published nine books, contributed to the International Panel on Exiting Violence, and received recent fellowships from the American Council of Learned Societies and the Guggenheim and Rockefeller Foundations. MacKenzie Kelley is a formerly incarcerated woman in long term recovery. She is a teachers assistant for inside-out courses through MIT. MacKenzie works at the Maine Prisoner Reentry Center as a reentry specialist, peer support and recovery coach. She is the program director for Reentry Sisters, a program designed to assist women reentering the community from prison. Zoe Brokos (she/her) is the executive director of the Church of Safe Injection, a comprehensive harm reduction program that operates in Southern and Central Maine. Zoe is a person who uses drugs, a mom, a wife, and has led harm reduction programs in Maine for 15 years. She is part of the Maine Drug Policy Coalition, sits on the board of Decriminalize Maine and joined Justice Radio to promote compassionate conversations and drug user-led advocacy efforts that focus on evidence-based, public health responses to the housing and overdose crises in Maine. Marion Anderson: Before joining The National Council for Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls in January of 2022, Marion worked as a harm reductionist, housing navigator, certified intentional peer support specialist, CCAR recovery coach, and a re-entry coach for a diverse range of non-profit organizations. Charlotte Warren is a former State Representative. She served on the Legislature's Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee for eight years – six as the house chair. Warren previously served on the Judiciary Committee and as the house chair of Maine's Mental Health Working Group and the house chair of the Commission to Examine Reestablishing Parole. Previous to her time in the legislature, Charlotte served as Mayor of the city of Hallowell. Linda Small is the founder and executive director of Reentry Sisters, a reentry support organization specializing in a gender-responsive and trauma-informed approach for women, serving Maine and beyond. She is a Project Coordinator for the Maine Prisoner Advocacy Coalition. Linda serves on the Maine Prison Education Partnership board at UMA and the New England Commission for the Future of Higher Education in Prison through The Educational Justice Institute at MIT. The post Justice Radio 1/26/23: Creating Windows Not Bars first appeared on WERU 89.9 FM Blue Hill, Maine Local News and Public Affairs Archives.

The D.C. Council overturned Mayor Muriel Bowser's (D) veto of the revised criminal code. We talk with the new chair of the Judiciary and Public Safety Committee, Councilmember Brooke Pinto (D-Ward 2), about why the council is pushing through the changes to the century-old code. And we ask Pinto about her efforts to make e-bikes more affordable and cut down on car noise. Then, we turn our attention to Maryland, where Wes Moore (D) was inaugurated this week, making him the fourth Black governor in the nation's history. Bruce DePuyt talks about the inauguration and what's ahead for Maryland politics.

  Skagway's Public Safety Committee met Wednesday evening to discuss the recent loss of two community members to apparent opioid overdoses. Officials shared resources that could help people facing addiction and those who care for them. The post Newscast – January 19 2023 first appeared on KHNS Radio | KHNS FM.

Producers/Hosts: Marion Anderson and Craig Williams Music credits: Emma Reynolds. Music – Samuel James. Justice Radio is a WMPG production Justice Radio: Tackling the hard questions about our criminal legal system in Maine. This week: From courtrooms to convictions and everything in between join co-hosts Marion Anderson and Craig Williams as they share their perspectives having been directly impacted by our criminal legal system. They take a deeper look at their own experiences and ask the question – was this helpful or harmful? Guest/s: n/a About the hosts: The Justice Radio team includes: Leo Hylton is currently incarcerated at Maine State Prison, yet is a recent Master's graduate, a columnist with The Bollard, a restorative and transformative justice advocate and activist, a prison abolitionist, and a Visiting Instructor at Colby College's Anthropology Department, co-teaching AY346 – Carcerality and Abolition. Catherine Besteman is an abolitionist educator at Colby College. Her research and practice engage the public humanities to explore abolitionist possibilities in Maine. In addition to coordinating Freedom & Captivity, she has researched and published on security, militarism, displacement, and community-based activism with a focus on Somalia, post-apartheid South Africa, and the U.S. She has published nine books, contributed to the International Panel on Exiting Violence, and received recent fellowships from the American Council of Learned Societies and the Guggenheim and Rockefeller Foundations. MacKenzie Kelley is a formerly incarcerated woman in long term recovery. She is a teachers assistant for inside-out courses through MIT. MacKenzie works at the Maine Prisoner Reentry Center as a reentry specialist, peer support and recovery coach. She is the program director for Reentry Sisters, a program designed to assist women reentering the community from prison. Zoe Brokos (she/her) is the executive director of the Church of Safe Injection, a comprehensive harm reduction program that operates in Southern and Central Maine. Zoe is a person who uses drugs, a mom, a wife, and has led harm reduction programs in Maine for 15 years. She is part of the Maine Drug Policy Coalition, sits on the board of Decriminalize Maine and joined Justice Radio to promote compassionate conversations and drug user-led advocacy efforts that focus on evidence-based, public health responses to the housing and overdose crises in Maine. Marion Anderson: Before joining The National Council for Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls in January of 2022, Marion worked as a harm reductionist, housing navigator, certified intentional peer support specialist, CCAR recovery coach, and a re-entry coach for a diverse range of non-profit organizations. Charlotte Warren is a former State Representative. She served on the Legislature's Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee for eight years – six as the house chair. Warren previously served on the Judiciary Committee and as the house chair of Maine's Mental Health Working Group and the house chair of the Commission to Examine Reestablishing Parole. Previous to her time in the legislature, Charlotte served as Mayor of the city of Hallowell. Linda Small is the founder and executive director of Reentry Sisters, a reentry support organization specializing in a gender-responsive and trauma-informed approach for women, serving Maine and beyond. She is a Project Coordinator for the Maine Prisoner Advocacy Coalition. Linda serves on the Maine Prison Education Partnership board at UMA and the New England Commission for the Future of Higher Education in Prison through The Educational Justice Institute at MIT. The post Justice Radio 1/19/23: From Our Perspective: Voices of the Directly Impacted first appeared on WERU 89.9 FM Blue Hill, Maine Local News and Public Affairs Archives.

Producers/Hosts: Leo Hylton and Catherine Besteman Music credits: Dino Raymond. Music – Samuel James Justice Radio is a WMPG production Justice Radio: Tackling the hard questions about our criminal legal system in Maine. This week: Are prisons the answer? What makes us safe? How should we address harm? Join co-hosts, Leo Hylton and Catherine Besteman as they address the hard questions about justice, accountability, harm, safety, and repair. #communitybuilding leads to #communitysafety Guest/s: Jonathan Sahrbeck, former Cumberland County District Attorney Jeremy Pratt, Defense Attorney About the hosts: The Justice Radio team includes: Leo Hylton is currently incarcerated at Maine State Prison, yet is a recent Master's graduate, a columnist with The Bollard, a restorative and transformative justice advocate and activist, a prison abolitionist, and a Visiting Instructor at Colby College's Anthropology Department, co-teaching AY346 – Carcerality and Abolition. Catherine Besteman is an abolitionist educator at Colby College. Her research and practice engage the public humanities to explore abolitionist possibilities in Maine. In addition to coordinating Freedom & Captivity, she has researched and published on security, militarism, displacement, and community-based activism with a focus on Somalia, post-apartheid South Africa, and the U.S. She has published nine books, contributed to the International Panel on Exiting Violence, and received recent fellowships from the American Council of Learned Societies and the Guggenheim and Rockefeller Foundations. MacKenzie Kelley is a formerly incarcerated woman in long term recovery. She is a teachers assistant for inside-out courses through MIT. MacKenzie works at the Maine Prisoner Reentry Center as a reentry specialist, peer support and recovery coach. She is the program director for Reentry Sisters, a program designed to assist women reentering the community from prison. Zoe Brokos (she/her) is the executive director of the Church of Safe Injection, a comprehensive harm reduction program that operates in Southern and Central Maine. Zoe is a person who uses drugs, a mom, a wife, and has led harm reduction programs in Maine for 15 years. She is part of the Maine Drug Policy Coalition, sits on the board of Decriminalize Maine and joined Justice Radio to promote compassionate conversations and drug user-led advocacy efforts that focus on evidence-based, public health responses to the housing and overdose crises in Maine. Marion Anderson: Before joining The National Council for Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls in January of 2022, Marion worked as a harm reductionist, housing navigator, certified intentional peer support specialist, CCAR recovery coach, and a re-entry coach for a diverse range of non-profit organizations. Charlotte Warren is a former State Representative. She served on the Legislature's Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee for eight years – six as the house chair. Warren previously served on the Judiciary Committee and as the house chair of Maine's Mental Health Working Group and the house chair of the Commission to Examine Reestablishing Parole. Previous to her time in the legislature, Charlotte served as Mayor of the city of Hallowell. Linda Small is the founder and executive director of Reentry Sisters, a reentry support organization specializing in a gender-responsive and trauma-informed approach for women, serving Maine and beyond. She is a Project Coordinator for the Maine Prisoner Advocacy Coalition. Linda serves on the Maine Prison Education Partnership board at UMA and the New England Commission for the Future of Higher Education in Prison through The Educational Justice Institute at MIT. The post Justice Radio 1/12/23: Are Prisons the Answer? first appeared on WERU 89.9 FM Blue Hill, Maine Local News and Public Affairs Archives.

All Local Morning for 08/30/22

A glimpse into the state of the international fire service... Hello Smart Firefighting Community! Welcome to another episode of covering real world innovations via interviews with fire service and technology industry experts that empower YOU to develop your very own Smart Firefighting strategy! This is the first episode of our Interschutz 2022 Mini Series. Interschutz 2022 was an international trade show hosted over six days and included exhibitions plus engaging forums covering the various aspects of firefighting, rescue services, civil protection and safety and security. In this episode: - How can we share and learn from best practices within the international fire service? - Why is the vernacular in wildfire fighting so important? - How can implementing Community Risk Reduction strategies help prevent disasters and improve response efforts? At the expo, SFF met with Dr. Lori Moore-Merrell - an expert in executive leadership, emergency response system evaluation, public safety resource deployment, community risk assessment, data science/analytics, and so much more. Dr. Moore-Merrell recently served on the Biden-Harris Transition Team to conduct agency review for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as part of the COVID-19 response planning. She has also served on the Public Safety Committee of the transition teams for both the mayor of New York City and the mayor of the District of Columbia. During her 26 years at the IAFF, Dr. Moore-Merrell spent more than 17 years leading a research team made up of international fire service organizations and other partners. As principal investigator and senior project manager on projects funded by FEMA/Assistance to Firefighters Grants totaling more than $23 million, she led the team to produce landmark reports and other tools to improve residential and high-rise fire ground operations, community risk assessment, fire and EMS resource deployment, and “Big Data Analytics” — all to help drive executive decision-making. These reports and other resources have changed the face of fire and EMS deployment in countries throughout the world. Connect with Dr. Moore-Merrell: LinkedIn | Twitter Episode Resources: - Additional biography on Dr. Moore-Merrell Join our SFF Community! Head to www.smartfirefighting.com to discover how SFF accelerates innovation for emergency responders, to find out when our next event is or review our curated resources! Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | LinkedIn

The state of Colorado is facing a housing affordability crisis, inflation, dealing with soaring crime rates, and homelessness. The list of challenges Coloradans are facing is daunting. But across our great state local leaders are digging in, rising to the challenge and coming up with innovative ways to create opportunity for their residents. On this episode of Common Sense Digest, Host and Chairman Earl Wright welcomes Mayor of Colorado Springs John Suthers and Aurora City Councilman Dustin Zvonek to the show to discuss how each municipality is approaching the complex and intermingling challenges of housing affordability, homelessness, crime, economic opportunity and much more. They share ideas, opportunities and roadblocks to the creation of cities in which we all thrive, prosper and find happiness in the face of wicked problems and entrenched thinking. It's a wide ranging and informative conversation featuring two leaders working to shape the future of two of Colorado's most prominent cities. Thank you for listening to Common Sense Digest. Please rate, review, and subscribe on your favorite podcatcher. All of our podcasts can be found here. John Suthers was re-elected to a second term as Mayor of Colorado Springs by an overwhelming majority in April of 2019. Before being elected Mayor, Suthers served as Attorney General of Colorado from 2005 to 2015. Under Suthers' leadership, the Colorado Attorney General's office earned a national reputation for excellence. Prior to being Attorney General, he was named by President George W. Bush in 2001 to be United States Attorney for Colorado and he was unanimously confirmed by the US Senate. In 1999, Suthers was appointed by Governor Bill Owens as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Corrections, based in Colorado Springs. In that position, he managed an organization with 6,000 employees and a budget in excess of $500 million. In 1988, he was elected District Attorney of the 4th Judicial District, which includes El Paso and Teller Counties. The 41st mayor of Colorado Springs, Suthers' first term began in May of 2015. Dustin Zvonek is the President and founder of Zvonek Consulting, an executive management consulting firm, and a Partner and Senior Advisor at Rising Cloud, a first to market tech start-up. Dustin was elected to the Aurora City Council in November of 2021 to a four-year term as an At-Large Member. On Council, Dustin is currently the Chairman of the Public Safety Committee and the Vice Chairman of the Planning and Economic Development Committee. Dustin also serves as the Chairman of the Red Tape Reduction Committee and is a member of the Management and Finance committee.

On Tuesday, May 31, 2022, Buckeye Firearms Association presented testimony in the Senate Veterans and Public Safety Committee supporting HB 99 to expressly exempt persons authorized to go armed within a school safety zone from a requirement to complete extensive peace officer basic training and return authority over security to local school boards. The bill was amended to include annual criminal background checks for those carrying firearms in schools and also amended to incorporate Senate Bill 168, which creates a mobile training program. Members voted on party lines to pass the bill out of committee 4-2. This was the second hearing for this legislation, sponsored by State Representative Thomas Hall (R-Madison Twp.). There were many opponents to the bill testifying, most of whom appeared to oppose guns in schools even in the hands of trained personnel, or wanted severe gun control in place instead, such as AR-15 bans. On this Lawyer Talk Roundtable, we talk with Jim Irvine from Buckey Firearms Foundation about this, and the https://fastersaveslives.org/ (Faster Saves Lives program.)