Speaker 0: And Madam Clerk, will you please read item number nine into the record.
Speaker 2: Report of the Public Safety and Human Services Committee? Agenda Item nine Resolution 32050. A resolution relating to the Seattle Police Department stating the council's intent to lift the proviso on anticipated 2022 salary and benefit savings to fund staffing incentives for police officers. The committee recommends the council adopt the resolution as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Casper Herbold, chair of the committee, you are recognized.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. Really appreciate it. And given that this is legislation that is sponsored by Councilmember Nelson, I am happy to turn the floor over to Councilmember Nelson to address the resolution. Resolution is complementary to the bill. That's next on the agenda and the work that the executive is proceeding with. We know that Mayor Harrell has indicated that his administration is continuing and develop a comprehensive plan to restore staffing before turning it over to Councilmember Nelson. I just want to emphasize that although I did not have any objections to hearing her resolution first, and I acknowledge that complementary pieces of legislation, I do not want to give the impression that my council bill was in response to her development of of of this resolution.
Speaker 0: The sort of the.
Speaker 2: Framework for the bill that we have before us was begun during the Council's.
Speaker 0: Budget deliberations.
Speaker 2: Last fall. And with that, happy to turn it over to Councilmember Nelson. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Casper Nelson.
Speaker 2: It's very much so. It is our duty to do everything we can to bring the Seattle Police Department back up to adequate staffing levels, or at least slow the net losses in order to keep our communities and our neighborhoods safe. Every other city in our region has some sort of staffing incentives program, which gives them an advantage over us. Now we know from the hiring hiring bonus that was implemented between June 2019 and May 2020. We know that they work because that program resulted in a level of hires that was quoting central staff disproportionately high when compared to historical averages. And in fact, hires during that period were 75% higher than the previous year. Plus, we had the money. All we have to do is allow the executive to use projected unspent salaries, savings and benefits dollars that are already in Spd's 2022 budget for this use and have to do that by separate ordinance, which I hope will do today. It starts the ball rolling. So finally, the last section of this council of this resolution, States Council's intent to consider approval by a separate ordinance of said hiring incentives program. And I want to underscore this point, because there's there's been some confusion about how this resolution relates to council member troubles, council bill. So let me just say that my resolution is silent on how much money is in Spd's budget for incentives, because that number started out in February at 1.4 million and has grown now to at least 4.5 million. And it's also silent on how much we would modify the the existing proviso to allow for money to be spent for incentives and even for what kind of incentives we're talking about. It could be used for for hiring bonuses, retention bonuses, educational stipends, child care, frankly, whatever. I don't really care what it's used for. What I want is for a staffing incentive program to be developed, ideally with collaboration with the executive in council. That ends up being the most competitive we can get to to attract recruits and really good recruits, recruits that reflect the diversity of our community and and our values, because that's what I believe will we'll do. We'll go a long way to increasing trust between the department and our community and as will accountability. So, you know, we don't have to choose between supporting community driven solutions for safety and equitable development and ensuring adequate staffing of our police department. We can do both. And so this is simply focusing on this spd's severe staffing shortage by calling for a a second incentive program to jumpstart or to accelerate the hiring of new officers . So in I do have to think, taking a side to thank the members of our Bipoc communities for speaking out strongly in support of this resolution. So just in closing, my goal for this resolution was just to begin a policy conversation on what we should do about SPD staffing shortage. And what this resolution does is set the stage for future council actions to implement this particular solution. It's not a magic bullet, but we have to do something, and this is the necessary first step. So I will look forward to your questions and comments.
Speaker 0: Madam Clerk, can you please do a point of order for me too? We need to have Councilmember Nelson move her proposed amendment. Right now or. Yeah. Yeah. Can you, can you do that and then we can open up the floor to. Okay.
Speaker 2: I move. I move! Resolution 32050.
Speaker 0: Is there a second? Second. I'm sorry. Shall we say for the record, shall.
Speaker 2: We say as amended?
Speaker 0: Yes. Thank you. Yes, I will. Second. The proposed amendment by Councilmember Nelson. So now we have in front of us the amended resolution.
Speaker 2: I think that's a vote on the amendment.
Speaker 0: Okay. Right. I'm going to do that right now. So are there any comments regarding the amendment? I second guess the second. Any comments regarding the amendment before we go to a vote on the base legislation or the base resolution? Okay. Clark, do we go to a vote on the amendment and then we will go to another vote on the base resolution?
Speaker 2: Yes. Yes, Council President. We should take a vote on the amendment. And then following that, then we'll take a vote on the resolution as amended or is not amended, depending on what happens with the vote on the amendment.
Speaker 0: Okay. So if that Madam Clerk, were you, please call the role on the proposed amendment.
Speaker 1: To its present order. Yes. Just clarifying that this is amendment as showing attachment or item three on legislator. Is that correct?
Speaker 0: Yeah, it's amendment A, version one two, resolution 32050 SPD staffing incentives. And once we move that and then Councilmember Nelson can speak to that. Correct.
Speaker 1: So I'm seeing Amendment One, version one to D two. Is that correct?
Speaker 2: The committee looking at the committee amendments, not the circulated amendment from earlier today. Yeah. But the point of order, I believe Amendment eight was distributed via email prior to noon today, and that is what I understand we're voting on. I want to make sure I'm following the right amendment.
Speaker 0: That's correct. It came from Craig Goss and today, amendment a version one. Speedy staffing incentives. And Councilmember Nelson is amending a recital which are the two sticks.
Speaker 2: So tell me to clean it.
Speaker 0: Yes. So, Madam Clerk, to elect council member Nelson, explain it and then we go to a vote.
Speaker 2: There are no further comments. A vote would be taken. Thank you. Okay.
Speaker 0: I know, but I need to have Councilmember Nelson.
Speaker 2: Explain the amendment before.
Speaker 0: The vote. Correct.
Speaker 2: Yes. I thought she had. So excuse me.
Speaker 0: She kind of spoke to the resolution, but not the amendment. So go ahead, Kilburn, to speak to your amendment.
Speaker 2: Yep. Thank you very much. I'm sorry I did that backwards. Basically, I wrote this a long time ago in early March. And so the amendments are simply updating one recital, the fifth recital to reflect the the numbers in the May 12th shots fired report, which shows that gun fatalities increased 100% compared to year to date to 2021 . And the Second Amendment is to the eighth recital, which changes the response types in the current median response time to priority nine when when calls is 7.3 minutes and the current median response time to priority to nine on one calls is 22.9 minutes. So those are the two amendments I made with new information from the department.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Are there any questions for Councilmember Nelson regarding her proposed amendment? Okay. Not seen any. Will please call the role on the amendment. The proposed amendment. Councilmember Strauss. Yes. Councilmember Herbold? Yes. Councilmember Lewis.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Morales. No. Councilmember Mosqueda now.
Speaker 1: Spoke.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Nelson, I. Councilmember Peterson.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Council councilmember want. Yes. Council president. Whereas. Yes. Seven in favor. Two opposed. Thank you. So the motion carries the amended is adopted in the amendment. The amended resolution is now before the council. So if there's anyone that wants to speak to the amended resolution, this is the this is your opportunity to speak to Council Member Nelson's amended resolution.
Speaker 1: On the.
Speaker 0: House version.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I will be voting no on this resolution relating related to reestablishing hiring bonuses for the Seattle Police Department. I will also be voting no on the next item, which is a related ordinance. And I just wanted to clarify for the members of the public who are watching, I voted yes on the amendment to the resolution because it was just related to a factual correction to the text of the resolution. Those are shocking double standard when the political establishment advocates for hiring bonuses in the Seattle Police Department. The police have been some of the highest paid people among Seattle employees, making more than double what is paid to social workers like homeless service workers , corporate politicians and indeed, most of the city council members have claimed and in the past and continue claiming that they cannot open homeless shelters and dining villages because there are not enough homeless service workers to staff new spaces. And when there are hiring bonuses or just a decent wage, where the hiring bonuses or just a decent wage increase. For the impoverished homeless service workers who actually helped people turn their lives around. There isn't any I mean, I don't remember when we had a vote on hiring bonuses for social service workers. For years, the city's Democratic Party establishment has used the police contract as an excuse for failing to hold officers accountable. Yet here we are. After months of contract negotiations with the Seattle Police Officers, Guild and Council members are offering the police extra money without an agreement on accountability in a new contract. What other contract negotiations are treated like this where we're essentially saying we'll give you the money first and ask for an agreement and accountability next or not at all. It is completely ridiculous. This is these are not the actions of elected officials who want to increase police accountability regardless of the words they might use. These are the actions of a political establishment that desperately wants an excuse to say that police brutality is beyond their control. Not much they can do about it. They can, you know, hold forth on it and make speeches. But but in reality, they are they're admitting that they have no way forward to address the serious lapses in accountability and the serious problems, ongoing problems in the police department. These are the actions of the Democratic establishment that wants to distract from their abject refusal to address the housing and homelessness crisis. The amount of police funding does not have any statistical impact on the degree of public safety in a community. Public safety is a real issue in Seattle. I absolutely share the concerns that ordinary people have about the rise in gun violence. There is no doubt that this needs to be addressed. However. Data systematically show that it is reducing inequality and providing affordable housing and living wage jobs, affordable services, including childcare that has the greatest statistical impact. Also, what has an impact is well-funded public schools with well-funded afterschool programs and avenues for young people and community members to engage in that. And if you look at data, you would see that this is happening, even though the increase in crime and the concerns with public safety, all of this is happening, even though the police budget has been bloated for many years, while the social services and affordable housing that working people rest, communities and the poor need continue to be gravely underfunded. And at the same time, we know that rents are skyrocketing. Studies show overwhelmingly that the best and really only solution to public safety issues is to fund the needs of our society to address crime, and particularly to stop crimes before they even happen. We need to fund housing. We need to increase wages and end worker exploitation, not increase repression. And as far as the police are concerned, what we urgently need is an elected community oversight committee with full powers over the police, including hiring and firing and subpoena powers. For all those reasons, I will be voting no on this resolution and the ordinance, which is the next agenda item. Thank you. If you ever saw one. Are there any other comments? Okay. Councilmember Herbal.
Speaker 2: So I just want to make a comment at some of the amendments in committee clarified that a incentive or bonus program would have to come back to council for our adoption. And I think the sponsor of the resolution might have one idea of what an incentive program looks like, but that hasn't been settled. And I would not assume that the mayor's office is going to be bringing us a package that necessarily includes traditional hiring bonuses, where we write a check to somebody to thank them for agreeing to come and work in the city of Seattle. My understanding of what the mayor's office is looking at is a different approach for addressing our recruitment issues and and our retention issues and.
Speaker 0: Retention of.
Speaker 2: Funding. Retention programs very likely will have to be bargained. So just because we talk about an intent to consider.
Speaker 0: A.
Speaker 2: Recommendation that is going to come to us later doesn't mean that we're giving a blank check for it. And so I think it's just really important to be clear on what this particular resolution does and doesn't do and where it allows for continued dialog and debate. And I would really urged us not to harden our positions around this this issue. We did vote for a hiring plan that we're not going to meet. And if you supported that hiring plan in November, I would hope that you would support addressing the reasons why we're not going to going to meet it. And so, again, I really I'm hoping that people, as we continue these discussions, keep an open mind. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Before we move on. Councilor Herbert, thank you for, as usual, very straightforward and candid comments about how this came out of committee and what the the timeline here has been. We've been discussing this for a while, and you're right, we did vote back in November and December. But anyway, are there any other questions before we move to a vote? Customers get it?
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Madam President. And I think, unfortunately, what we're seeing with this resolution in front of us is that we are going to be okay with less funding being available at the end of the year for 2023 and 2024. Priorities, priorities like investments in mental health, something that we spent a good portion of the beginning of this meeting speaking about in terms of the importance of this investment, especially in the wake of so much trauma, hardship and death and injury over the last two years. We know that there's increased needs across our community, and responding to public safety crises requires a multifaceted approach. We have, again, fully funded the hiring plan, as requested by the Seattle Police Department. The question is not whether or not these funds are available and if we should use them for this purpose. It is if these funds are going to be available in the midst of this crisis that we're having on a budget crisis, how are we planning to prioritize investments for our city? I think that it's important to look holistically at the budget dollars available at the end of this year to invest those into strategies that we know upstream work to help reduce harm and trauma, to invest in mental health priorities, to make sure that there's alternative systems so that officers who are armed with a gun and a badge are not always the first responders who have to show up. So much work has been done. And I want to thank Councilmember Herbold for her leadership on that, both in budget conversations and in her policy conversations in committee. I think the important opportunity in front of us is to look at the amount of funding at the end of this year and truly make investments in upstream priorities for 2023 2024. Right now we have a budget proviso that is in place and if we go the route of exploring this resolution and the upcoming piece of legislation, then we are making early decisions about what is a bigger priority. And we're making those decisions according to this resolution for investments in broad swath, investments in hiring strategies. While the original intent was clearly focused on hiring bonuses and the sponsor has and has made it clear she doesn't care what policies this funds. I do care. And I do care that what's been recommended by our city family from the recruitment and retention workgroup, their final report, which included members of the Human Resources Department and the Seattle Police Department, they did not identify hiring incentives as a recommended strategy to addressing recruitment or retention. Again, I think it's important to look at how we can utilize every dollar available at the end of this year and invest those and strategies in 2023 and 2024 to create a whole host of public safety investments that will create healthier communities. And if we're interested in what it might look like to improve retention and recruitment strategies, including at Seattle Police Department, then we would be talking about investments in the in the budget coming up that look at what the Human Resources Department actually prioritized. And they made four recommendations, none of which were related to hiring incentives. They focused on, number one, a focus on leveraging technological solutions. Number two, revise business practices and engaging candidates during the hiring process. Number three, advance top talent quickly through the process. And four, extend offers more quickly in a more competitive timeframe. These are the strategies that come from within our own city department. And so in the midst of this crisis, where we are telling every single department in 2022 to hold on critical investments, things like public restrooms and outreach and education for domestic workers, we're asking folks to hold on investments that this council has prioritized along with priorities from the executive team. And we're asking the departments, as you heard from Julie Dingley, our city budget director, in our May 4th meeting in the Finance Committee, to be prepared for up to a 6% reduction across the board. I am very concerned about a resolution that authorizes us to go down a path of asking for us to invest in something that's either A, not recommended and B, not proven. Now, again, it was there was some data suggested earlier that this is a proven strategy to invest in incentive programs generally. But let me quote, Madam President, from the statement of legislative intent CBO 013a002, which is from last year's budget process, that asked the departments to look at a citywide hiring incentive impact analysis, to look at exactly the speedy incentives that were offered in the fall of last year. And the report from the statement of legislative intent says hiring incentives are a short term strategy to attract more applicants. The city began offering incentives in October 2021 for certain public safety positions. Again, not authorized by the city council. That's a different topic. It says the Seattle Police Department did not. Experience an increase in hiring since implementing a hiring incentive into their process in October 2021. While it goes on to talk about how the hiring pool for the Community Safety and Communication Center did increase, it could not say that hiring incentives or a strategy for increasing retention. So we don't have recent data saying that this is a good practice. We don't have specifics in this resolution on what it would go towards, and nor has there been any legislative intent since the beginning of this discussion about actually investing in what the Coalition for City Unions are. Existing city workers want and what they want is to make sure that they're feeling respected and cared for in this time. The Coalition for City Unions, our city frontline workers have expressed exactly what the Human Resources Department said that there would be serious. Unrest, distrust, feelings of resentment. If those who are being hired knew to come into our city are given incentives or bonuses or some sort of encouragement to come, when we're not looking at better pay within our own city, when we're not looking at strategies for recruitment and retention among diverse workforce, when we're not investing more in apprenticeship and internship opportunities that already exist in our city. Those are the strategies that our own city workers want. So I'll be voting no on this resolution. I will be voting no on it for a myriad of reasons. As you've heard me talk about before, because of the city shortfall in the budget that we're experiencing and the need to use these dollars at the end of this year. Number two, because this was not part of a list of recommendations that came from the Human Resources Department and the workgroup that included the Seattle Police Department. And number three, because I think that there's investments that we could be using with these precious dollars if they are available at the end of the year or upstream investments. And we'll talk a little bit more about that in the legislation coming. But you again, want to underscore my concern about us moving in a direction that has not proven, recommended or frankly requested from our own frontline workers and city staff. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: So any other comments or concerns? Okay. Councilmember Nelson and then Councilmember Peterson and then we're going to move on to the next agenda item. Go ahead. So I think that.
Speaker 2: It really comes down to do we prioritize public safety or not? Pure and simple. And I have already touched on all the other things that we can do to support city community development. Ways of addressing safety in communities. For example, in I believe that in 2021 Council spent $29 million or so on the implementation of the Equitable Community Investment Task Force's recommendations for REC investments. So what we're talking about really is using the money that is already in the police budget and they can't hire, they won't meet their hiring plan because they're having a hard time because they aren't able to recruit. So let me just read something from the central staff memo from 20 from May 10th. Since 2020, SPD incurred a net loss of 255 police officers. Actually, it was 400 total and then there were some hires. During that time, SPG transferred more than 100 officers from specialty, investigative and other units to 911 response to address Spd's goals for response times in patrol coverage. The transfers required that they won disband problem solving community police teams and precinct based anti-crime teams to reduce the number of officers on bike and foot beats from 55 to 4 and reduce investigation in specialty units below prior staffing levels. So if we want to get guns off the street and the drugs that are causing the overdoses, we see everywhere, we actually do have to make sure that there are enough officers. Like I said, this is not either or and this is not taking money away from your other priorities. I would say that this van making that point is another version of defunding CPD for other priorities in other departments. So this is what we hear the public saying, that they want to feel safer in their communities. And this is one way to go about that. And you're right, I do. I am ambivalent about the whatever staffing incentive programs. And as you'll hear in discussion about Council's Councilmember Herbold Council Bill, there was collaboration between me and and Councilmember Herbold and the mayor about what could be spent most effectively to destroy, to begin a more robust recruitment process. So like I said, I leave it to the pros to figure out that. I think I just simply say that we have got to do something about the emergency that we're facing.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Casanova Nelson. We're done. And Councilor Peterson. And then we will go to a vote. Ezra Petersen.
Speaker 1: I thank you. Council President Juarez. I just wanted to. Note that Mayor Harrell helped to. Broker this compromise and this collaboration. And so these two things go together, the resolution of the council bill. I want to thank Councilmember Nelson for this resolution and for her role for her ordinance, because what I hear from my constituents is a concern about the loss of the hundreds of officers. And we're all trying to take a holistic approach to community safety. And to do that, we have to also recognize that piece of it, which is trying to restore and bring in some new officers and train them. And we want to reform the police contract. We're going to do more upstream programs. We're going to we're going to try to do it in a comprehensive manner. And Mayor Harrell's leadership is going to be key to this as as we're seeing today. So thank you very much. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Charles Marie Lewis. And then we're going to move on.
Speaker 1: I think you council president. So I just want to put it in the context a little bit, given our discussion today. Right. Like we're not. This resolution is not the be all, end all. The only public safety plan that is before the city of Seattle to completely restore community safety. It's not a significant or at least the ordinance that's attached to it is not in the scheme of all of our public safety spending, a significant, overwhelming investment in terms of what we're unlocking today for the executive part of the deal. And the reason I just want to highlight that is there is a lot more that we need to do in collaboration with Mayor Harold to focus holistically on the public safety situation that the city is facing. You know. That we've been citing at various stages in this discussion today. 92% of our neighbors indicated mental health services to be the biggest thing that they thought would be outcome determinative for public safety. I completely agree with that finding from the poll. If I was polled, I would have said the same thing. It's critical that as we work with the executive to get more promulgated initiatives, that we really make sure we're focusing on those lower acuity responses and also places, as we discussed in the Public Safety Committee this morning, for people to go and have some version of inpatient assistance or easy access, transitional housing, like what U.S. care does with their hotel shelters. And, you know, I'd be remiss just very quickly not highlight. Right. Like Denver and Eugene have very mature programs that have been doing this for years. Cities from Saint Louis to Fort Worth to Portland, Oregon, are experimenting with these kinds of programs. And as we are looking toward how we can continue to invest, underspend, salary, savings, whatever else, I would just encourage the Herold ministration to work in collaboration with the Council on initiatives like that to also try to meet the crisis of the safety situation in the city. I would also just add, you know, Mayor Harold and his administration has emphasized many times to this council and on the campaign trail that he is interested in developing responses like that that will be part of the comprehensive public safety plan. So in voting for this today, we're not rejecting other things. We're just highlighting that police recruitment and retention has to be part of a comprehensive public safety strategy. But I just wanted to emphasize that I fully expect the Harold administration to promulgate additional proposals to us in line with low acuity, first response and public health interventions like behavioral mental health services. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And since this is I apologize, Councilmember Nelson, I will let you have the last word and then we'll move to a vote.
Speaker 1: I hear you.
Speaker 2: I'm coming.
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Yeah.
Speaker 2: I know. So another way of putting it is simply that resolutions are policy statements of intent. They don't carry the force of law, but they do communicate our priorities. And this resolution signals to the vast pool of potential recruits out there that Seattle is simply upping its game and ready to compete with our neighboring jurisdictions. It demonstrates to our own officers that we value the work that they do, and we're trying to get them some support. So it's not so hard to do their job because they're stretched really thin. And it it most importantly, I think it tells our constituents that we're listening, that we hear their concerns, and and we're just committed to putting their safety first. That's it.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. So with that councilmembers, will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of the resolution as amended? Councilmember Strauss. Councilmember Strauss Strauss, are you there?
Speaker 1: Yes. Sorry. Audio problems? Yes.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Herbold? Yes. Councilmember Lewis?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Morales. No. Councilmember ROSQUETA.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Nelson, I. Councilmember Peterson. Yes. Council members want? No. Council. President Suarez, I. Five in favor, three opposed. The resolution is adopted as amended, and the chair will sign it. And Madam Clerk, please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf and accept Council President. The count was wrong. It was added six in favor, three opposed. I'm sorry, 6 to 3, but it's still there. It does pass is adopted as amended. Okay. Thank you. So with that, folks, we will go back to item number eight and that is Councilmember Herbold. And that, of course, will you please read item eight into the record?
A RESOLUTION relating to the Seattle Police Department; stating the Council’s intent to lift a proviso on anticipated 2022 salary and benefits savings to fund staffing incentives for uniformed police officers.