SCC budget committee meeting starting now. I'll summarize for those who can't watch:

Starting with Amendment #40 after public comment

First 2 commenters in support of defund, particularly in investment in homelessness outreach and in favor of Sawant's amendments

Commenter Alex clarifies $85m MINIMUM cut from SPD budget, not the 3% discussed last week

Kelsey, D3: Disappointed in earlier amendments, calls the plan so far "coopting the movement"

Jaslyn (sp?), D3: Support's defund & asks about where $ for SPD lawsuits will come from.

William: Supports defund, do not fall for police union propaganda. Begs them not to confuse anger from constituents as anything other than begging for our lives

Peter, D4: Supports defund. Appreciates earlier amendments & urges them not to be satisfied with 42%. "Get the layout notices sent out ASAP"

Maya, D6: Supports Defund specifically the Navigation team

Catherine, D3: Supports defund. Does NOT believe the earlier amendments meet the demands. "You promised 50% and we have your back, but if you only delvier $2.6 million you're no better than ___(my audio cut out)

(missed her name) Againt defund, doesn't feel the plan is "thought out" and says it's not working in other cities

Jessica: Supports defund, concerned about the earlier amendments & supports the Sawant amendments

Joanna, D7: Reminds that 7/9 councilmembers committed to 50% defund. Stand by your word.

Rita (sp?): Supports defund, "We have ALREADY seen rampant crime. It came from the Seattle police AND we paid them overtime for it"

Elizabeth, D4 homeowner: Delivered a petition to CM Pedersen this morning from >300 homeowners in the district in favor of defunding

Anitra: Formerly homeless resident calls for disbanding the Nav team, more tiny homes, and funding for shelters

Jason, D5 homeowner: Defund NOW. We are civilians living in a police state.

Karen, Downtown resident: This is an historic opportunity to address use of force and systemic racism. Believes 50% defund is too fast and will result in disaster

Yes, her name was really Karen

Christian, D3: Put your money where your mouth is. If you don't defund and reinvest, you're complicit in the system of racism.

Madeline, D7: Extremely dissappointed in the majority of the council. Supports Sawant's amendments. "We can do math."

Ashlyn (sp?): Describes her experience with SPD abuse in jail. Supports Sawant's amendments & asks if they can do anything more while we continue to demonstrate until our demands are being met?

Kate, D3: Supports defund. The draft budget resolutions from Froday don't go far enough. "Nothing less than defunding by at least 50% will begin to heal the community"

(missed his name) D7: Supports defund.

Ashley: "Defend, not defund, SPD" and praises Best.

Erin: "We will lose some of the most highly trained officers in the nation" and urges the council to slow down and work with Chief Best

Kimberly, South Seattle: Takes issue with last commenter. Calls proposals from Friday insulting to the black community. "Did you think we wouldn't notice? Did you think we're stupid?" Calls for full defund. End of public comments

Now we begin going through the last of the amendments, discussing, and co-sponsoring if interested.

Amendment 40 (Morales): discontinue ALL funding for the Nav team

Amendments 41 & 42 (Sawant) Same as 40, but ALSO includes defunding the parks department funding for the Nav team

41 would not specify where the funds would go, 42 would specify the funds go to tiny home villages. All 3 would conflict with 31.

Morales: 40 would be updated so as not to conflict with 31. Would end the sweeps and fund existing proactive services like crisis intervention & shelter referral. In contrast to 40/41 this one allows HSD a month to make changes. 40/41 only allows 2 weeks. Keep parks $ for litter.

Sawant comment: Happy to work with Morales to consolidate these amendments. We need to stop the sweeps

Coalition to End Homelessness supports #40

Herbold, Sawant, and Mosqueda sign on as co-sponsors for #40

#42: Already summarized below. Added note: dollar amounts are estimates since nav team did not respond with specifics of how much has already been spent/encumbered.

Sawant: The total of my amendment imagines the team will be disbanded as a whole, not leaving the managers in the human services dept and parks people. These people should be moved into other open roles, not laid off.

No cosponsors

#41: Sawant is withdrawing this amendment in support of Morales' amendment #40

CORRECTION: #42 retracted, not 41

#43: Similar to another amendment on Friday. Sawant: This amendment would reduce patrol ops by $3m and add them to community based orgs. Contrasts that earlier amendment withdraws the funds from the covid-relief funds Durkan just vetoed anyways. The money MUST come from SPD.

Sawant repeats the talking points from her statement Friday, discussing the difference between the Dems' amendments cutting 3% and hers cutting 50%, and contradicts excuses given by others.

Mosqueda interrupts to take offense at some of Sawants comments and ask her to stick to only discussing the amendments. Sawant reclaims her time and continues.

Sawant points out how qucikly unionized bus drivers have been laid off as counterpoint to Dems on council arguing that deufnding SPD would be a months-long protracted union negotiation with SPOG.

Herbold comment: Asks about WHEN the funds would be available/out the door. "Given the lag time between layoffs and SPOG potentially appealing, when would this money actually be available for the community?"

Staff member Dan responds: (paraphrased) CM Sawant's assertion is that we could move a lot quicker than we have been. Estimates 3-6 weeks instead of 3 months as central staff has been averaging

Mosqueda Q: (her) understanding was that the staffing cuts would have had to have started on Aug. 1 in order to reach the $85m number. What's possible now?
Dan: The proposal expects the layoffs to happen in 2020 and there's risk the city will take to see that assumption pay off

Sawant: I think it's important to state that these are mainly questions of political judgement and will. Happy to compromise on whether funds go to HSD or legslative dept. But the main question is whether WE have the will to lay off officers, and if you want that fight for it.

Herbold: The other package IS proposing layoffs and cuts for 70 officers, but it is not true that we control whether layoff notices go out. That's out of our purview: we have to recognize that we have to identify dollars we DO have control over and can get out the door.

Herbold, ctd: That's crucial to create the community-based solutions & create the infrastructure to make that shift. Points out the Mayor wants SCC to wait to have any of these discussions until 2021 budget.

Sawant: Calls the idea of delay flatly untrue & says the budget is definitely in the purview of the council, so what the people and I are boggled by is what is stopping us? Points out last year they CHOSE to approve a bad contract & give hiring bonuses, so make the CHOICE.

Mosqueda: Q for Dan - my concern is that layoff notices would have had to go out over the weekend in order to realize the kinds of cuts we're talking about. If we do it NOW we would be laying off the entire SPD by Nov. Can you comment?

Dan: "I don't know that that analysis is anything that's come from central staff" aka Don't trust Chief Best's talking points. "Our estimates envision a 3 month lag between layoff notices & cost savings.

Dan ctd: But no we wouldn't be able to reach $85m by Nov 1

Sawant: Yes, labor relations is being conservative, but those are the same labor relations staffers that supported the bad contract last year.

They then all go back and forth about political will vs. pragmatic/conservative planning.

Mosqueda: There isn't any equipment/travel/training money left in SPD's 2020 budget so ALL of these cuts would come from staffing, and I want to make sure the people understand that we're talking about laying off all the cops.

CORRECTION: The above was Gonzalez, not Mosqueda

Sawant: We would not intentionally violate bargaining requirements. That is the law and of course we will bargain. What I'm saying is that it doesn't have to take 3 months. If bus drivers get laid off with 25 days, why can't cops? You're admitting SPOG gets special treatment

Sawant: People are saying they want a smaller police department and yes that means laying off officers. I'm confused what you thought you were supporting when you said you supported defund. THIS IS WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT.

Mosqueda gives another comment after saying that Sawant would have the last word.

Asks for cosponsors, gets none.

#44 (Sawant): Expand the free parking program for homeless care responders to include additional 300 parking spaces. MOney to come out of general fund.

No cosponsers, moving on

#45 (Sawant): $80 cut from SPD patrol ops and added to green new deal oversight board. This would restore the money the Mayor cut from the GND board last Fall.

No cosponsors, moving on

#46 (Strauss): Impose a proviso on all SPD funds contingent on the council receiving a report showing which positions could be fully civilianized and/or removed from SPD. If they don't get the report, SPD doesn't get funding.

Herbold comment: This aligns well with the Mayor's stated intentions to work together with us to realize between reductions to the 2021 budget. I'm hopeful this will allow us to realize the shared goal of saving an additional $86m in the next budget.

All 9 cosponsor this one, moving on

#47 (Strauss): Proviso on SPD's entire budget requiring a report every 2 weeks providing details on departmental expenditures. Any missed reports will mean withholding all funds until it's received. This would include info on expenditures on law firms to defend cops & on weapons

Strauss: Grants, contracts, overtime, training, weapons etc. expenditures would be transparent to the council in real time. This would allow us to plan future budgets based on data.

Reports on litigation expenditures would include whether there's a pattern of the type of allegation and whether there's a patter with specific officers.

Notes that he intended to co-sponsor this with Herbold.

Cosponsors: Juarez, Pedersen, Mosqueda, Lewis, Gonzales, Sawant

#48 (Sawant): Cap total annual salary + OT for SPD at $150k/year

Sawant: "A handful of officers are paid over $300k and one is paid over $400k a year. They average $268k.year. OT is often linked to the oppression of peaceful protests. This is more than the overwhelming majority of those in our cities are paid. This $ should go to teachers, etc

Sawant ctd: Capping just 4 people's salaries would save the city $1m alone by June. This is an attempt to reign in the excessive overtime. I want to be clear that this amendment isn't just about $ - the ones who rack up the most OT have the longest complaints histories.

Pedersen comment: "I'm interested bc I agree there are excessive salaries" but wants to know if this also applies to chief/assistant chiefs/edept. heads?

Sawant: Yes.

Pedersen: "I think there are department heads that warrant higher salaries than that" and suggests amending

Sawant: Disagrees, but would welcome co-sponsorship & wiling to work together to amend it if necessary.

Herbold: Asks central staff for info on how other cities have approached this issue. "Generally agree with the principal here" but wants more info.

Central staffer: We answered you. But I'll re-send it to you.

Me: LOLLLLL

Cosponsors: Juarez, Mosqueda

Pedersen says he's "potentially" cosponsor it after talking to Sawant's staff.

#49 (Lewis): Cut $50k of general fund for jail contract services in anticipation of an extension of a current waiver through October. Invests $50k into youth intervention programs.

This model is very similar to CAHOOTS. Would get our own pilot going and hopefully scale it up in the 2021 budget session. Target unit was decided on in consultation with community partners.

Herbold question: How do these funds add value given the $3m community-driven research project that already includes this goal?

Lewis: I wouldn't have any problem rolling this into that process or using this to augment that process. I imagine they're complimentary efforts

Cosponsors: Mosqueda, Sawant, Juarez, Strauss, Morales

#50 (Sawant): Cut $700k from SPD and give it to eviction defense & tenant rights orgs. Cut primarily from patrol officer payroll and would result in layoffs.

Sawant: This is very similar to the one to fund the GND oversight board.

Sawant ctd: Over 30% of renters nation-wide were unable to pay rent this month, and although our eviction moratorium runs through December, they need to start working to save their homes NOW.

No cosponsors, moving on

#51 (Morales): Cut $500k from SPD computer aided dispatch project & reinvest in community outreach programs.

Morales says this amendment is being re-worked given the speed things are moving and some of this has already happened.

Sawant cosponsors, moving on

#52 (Sawant): Impose a proviso on funds that NO SPD funds would go toward prosecution of individuals for actions taken during the Justice for George Floyd protests.

Sawant: Prosecutors have a hard time charging protesters if the cops can't give them evidence/testify

Lewis Q: Is this saying that if there's a subpoena it would be an exception?

Central staff: Yes. Unless there's a subpoena the city would be restricted from paying officers to appear in court or provide evidence.

Sawant: Its beyond our power to limit their ability to support the prosecutions, but we can avoid paying them to do it.

Lewis thinks the subpoena exception would limit the overall impact because it would be the majority of cases.

Sawant gives counter-examples of false charges

Sawant points out that even if Lewis is right, that would mean "a LOT of subpoenas" which would highlight the actions of the prosecutor for the people and might provide a PR check. Lewis appreciates the nuance, asks how we protect people being "arrested for nonsense" while...

...not creating road blocks for legit prosecutions. Sawant answers that the numbers are SO heavily tilted in the other direction that non-action because we're worried about the one is dereliction of duty.

Central Staff says it will come down to the interpretation of "while participating in [the protests]". Lewis sees "a huge problem" with the suppression of civil rights but wants to make sure acts of physical violence still have some accountability for. Wants to work w/ Sawant.

Cosponsors: Mosqueda

#53 (Sawant): Move 911 from SPD to Dept of Finance and Admin services.

Sawant: Talks about Charleena Lyles and says we must move the funding & responders out of law enforcement temporarily to take the SPD chain of commant out of the decision making process. Sees this as a first step to pave the way for community-led steps in the future

Herbold: Asks CM Lewis to refresh us on the timeline in the resolution to move 911 services and how that goal would align with this?

Lewis: This was one of the ideas of where we could temporarily park 911 while working on creating the successor. Thinks the timeline says Dec '21

Sawant: This would be an important 1st step and indicate a real commitment from the council.

Strauss: Agrees with Sawant and Lewis. Wants to work with both offices to compromise on this.

Cosponsors: Herbold, Morales

#54 (Sawant): Reduce allocations from GF to SPD by $34.7m and reallocate it to HSD.

This is the big one, folks! (also the last one)

Sawant: It's up to the Chief and the Mayor to decide how to implement the cuts. We can make suggestions, but it's their call. OUR call is simply how much money they get. This isn't just a budget cut, it's a policy discussion.

No cosponsors.

The meeting Wednesday will be 10am! An hour earlier than planned. Registration for public comment begins at 8am Weds morning. They will also be scheduling a special committee meeting to discuss Durkan's veto of the covid relief bill. The end.

CONTACT YOUR REPS RIIIIIIIIIGHT NOW.

The big takeaway I got from today is that it's going to come down to taking a big risk by actually meeting our demands to defund, vs. taking baby steps to set up the infrastructure for what will replace SPD now (but fund it from elsewhere) & count on actually defunding in 2021.