Speaker 4: The report of the full council. Each and one can spell 1191 26 billion to city employment. The Rise and execution of collective bargaining agreement between the City of Seattle and Seattle Police Management Association to be effective January four, 2014 through December 31st, 2019, and many awnings 125207, which adopted the 2017 budget, increasing appropriations to the Seattle Police Department for providing the 20 1415 1617 payments therefor and ratifying, confirming and prior acts all by 3/1 vote of city council.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, Councilman Gonzalez.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I was going to start off my comments by making a motion about the motion for the motion for the following motion to hold that motion. But I'll move into substance now. This ordinance is an ordinance relating to final ratification on a proposed agreement, on a collective bargaining agreement between the city of Seattle and the Seattle Police Management Association. That would be effective from January 1st, 2014 through December 31st, 2019. On May 22nd, as you might have heard folks from there, can you police commission say the council passed a police accountability ordinance which set us on a path for a new standard for accountable policing in the city of Seattle. The legislation created and empowered three oversight entities to, among many other improvements, to create fair and transparent processes, both for the police and for the public. This legislation is subject to bargaining was the legislation that is the Police Accountability Ordinance was subject to bargaining by the Seattle police with the Seattle Police Officers Guild and the Seattle Police Management Association. Today we have one of those two agreements before us, and it is that is the agreement that is before us right now, which will provide a six year agreement on wages, benefits, hours and other working conditions for once again the period between January 1st, 2014 through December 31st, 2019. This legislation will provide these modifications in wages, benefits and hours and other working conditions for approximately 69 members of the Seattle Police Management Association. There is a few things that change through this that are notable. One is there is additional clarity on the 180 day timeline for when investigations should be completed. It creates a rapid adjudication track for officers to accept discipline and bypass investigation. It removes officer representation on the Public Safety Civil Service Commission, one of the tracks for officer appeals of discipline, and it agrees that the city can civilian ize lieutenants and captains in the Office of Police Accountability and creates a path forward for implementing body worn video for lieutenants and captains. And you might have also heard the commuter police commission say that inherent in negotiation is a give and take process. They gave some. We took some, we gave some, they took some. And so at this juncture, we are looking forward to in my committee very soon after passage of this particular bill to reopen the police accountability legislation on the parts that are needing modification as a result of this collective bargaining agreement to make those changes. There will be an opportunity to do some modification of of not excuse me, not modification to make changes in the accountability ordinance that are still consistent with a collective bargaining agreement and still meet the full spirit of what we were trying to accomplish through the accountability ordinance. And look forward to working with my colleagues and with the Community Police Commission on making sure that the modifications to the police accountability legislation that will need to occur as a result of adoption of this bill happen and that they happen in the spirit that we have always intended them to be, and as reflected in the agreement before us today.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you very, very much. Why is the scale, please, from the public? So any other comments on Councilman Gonzales presentation? Any other comments would be Councilmember Swan.
Speaker 0: Thank you, President Harrell. I intend to vote no on this contract for police managers, and I want to take a moment to explain why. First, I'm concerned about police accountability. Every time a police accountability issue comes up, often councilmembers opined that there's not much that can be done outside of the fact that it's a contractual issue. But if I believe that the police accountability legislation would solve all our problems, I would be less worried about this. But I'm obviously not confident of that. And I'm concerned about what may come up over the next two years and even within the context of the police accountability legislation. Constituents have approached me and other councilmembers with concerns that this particular contract introduces a less transparent arbitration option into the police manager's appeals process in cases of indiscipline, cases like excessive use of force. That's an example. And this is just one small issue, but I think it is indicative of what we should be worried about over the next two years. Finally, I think it is ironic that at a time when community based organizations are being denied the funding they need in the budget at a time when we have a homeless state of emergency, this bill before us commits to allocating extra money to the already bloated police budget, not only in 2018, like everything else in this budget, but in 2017 as well. Out of the city's reserves and these extra millions for the police budget is going to the management level of the police. Keep and keep in mind this is the Police Management Association contract. It is certainly not my priority and so I will be voting no.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Swan Dove, is there any water.
Speaker 8: Any council tax?
Speaker 1: Any other comments on this particular legislation? Are we ready to vote? Council member Harris Tally.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilmember Gonzalez, for the thorough overview of the process up to this point. And I, I too have some concerns with the changes that have been made and whether or not we've had enough time from the time that these changes have been made to have review within committee for more public comment and interaction and whether or not there has been enough time for consultation with C.P.S. and others. Who would help us know if this is in close enough compliance with consent decree considerations and other pieces that we know? Could be pieces where we know that the contract negotiation process and there are deviations. My other concern is a balance. I've spoken to some neighbors who find themselves under their spa contracts, who find themselves in waiting because of the process that this has to move forward before we can start the negotiation process and review process for the spot contracts. And my concern is that we have not with the timelines that had enough time for consideration of how changes here may impact the contract process. So I too have some concerns. And the arbitration piece does, I think, have some question marks for a number of folks about whether it does enough due diligence to add the type of transparency that I know has been a deep consideration in the committee up to this point.
Speaker 1: Where you going? Thank you very much. Any other comments on this particular legislation? Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I just wanted to speak to the the public comment related to specifically the arbitration language in the legislation. It's true that arbitration was not included in the accountability ordinance, but the arbitration model that is in this contract is vastly improved over the arbitration method that was used previously to this contract being bargained. The selection process for arbitrators included in the SPM, a contract says that the parties will jointly request the US federal mediation and conciliation services to provide a list of Labor arbitrators in a random order. It allows the city and S.p.a Esparza to alternate who goes first in the selection process. It allows whoever goes first to either accept or strike the name of the first name on the list. Whoever goes second can also accept or strike the top line of the list, and after both have taken turns, the top name on the list. Here's the grievance. The parties will continually sequence sequentially down the list for future arbitrations. The reason for this is because of concern under the previous contract that arbitrators were sort of cherry picked to favorably represent the the interests of SPM and smog. With this approach, that cannot happen anymore. And so I'm very, very happy with the the progress that this this.
Speaker 1: That you've been you've been warned now that.
Speaker 6: This legislation proposes. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Council member GONZALEZ Thank you.
Speaker 6: I was just going to end my comments on exactly what Councilmember Herbold highlighted. The previous alternative was a a lot of us talked about the disciplinary review board, which had two representatives from the unions and one non officer representative on it. That was categorically closed to access by the public. And I think that this arbitration process.
Speaker 1: It's just one moment. Yeah. Security, I've just warned and I haven't asked that to be removed yet. I haven't asked that to be removed. I just gave my verbal warning. Thank you very much. I'm sorry, Councilman Gonzalez.
Speaker 4: That's okay.
Speaker 6: I just wanted to make sure that folks understand that. All right. All union represented employees in the city of Seattle, including the SPG. Members currently have the right to appeal to civil service or arbitration. So this current contract before us, as Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 4: So articulately.
Speaker 6: Outlined for us, improves the arbitration track in in the ways that she described. And I think that's an important improvement. And I'm really pleased with the fact that we were able to come up with an agreement that not only gets rid of the disciplinary review board, but also drastically improves upon the arbitration track that currently exists. The issue with regard to whether or not it's open to the public, there's clearly a meeting of the minds at the table that these processes will be open to the public. There is language within the contract that references Triple A, rules that that provide that these proceedings will be open to the public and and unless otherwise provided by law. And we will, through the process of opening up the police accountability legislation, make sure that our law is clear that there was a meeting of the minds on that issue and that these proceedings will be open to the public, just like the Public Safety Civil Service Commission proceedings are open to the public. Another modification that we made to our accountability ordinance. Ultimately, our effort here is to create parity between the two tracks and to make sure that both the imperative includes in my mind. In the mind, as I see it, represented by virtue of reading the tentative agreement that we will have an open and public, transparent, transparent process on both the public safety civil service track and on the arbitration track.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Gonzales. Okay, let's vote. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 4: Herbold, I. Johnson.
Speaker 9: I.
Speaker 2: Suarez. I. O'Brien. I saw what? No Big John Harris tally.
Speaker 3: I heard my name. I.
Speaker 2: Gonzalez. I. President Harrell.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Eight in favor. One opposed.
Speaker 1: Thanks very much. So please read the next agenda item, which I believe will be number three because we referred number two. Correct. So please read agenda item number three.
AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment; authorizing the execution of a collective bargaining agreement between The City of Seattle and the Seattle Police Management Association to be effective January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2019; amending Ordinance 125207, which adopted the 2017 Budget, by increasing appropriations to the Seattle Police Department for providing the 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 payments therefor; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council.