Week in Review: June 21, 2024 - with David Kroman

Reykdal Touts "Relentless Passion to Close Barriers and Open Doors" in Re-election Bid for Superintendent of Public Instruction from Hacks & Wonks

“Former Seattle police Chief Adrian Diaz speaks out against allegations” by Caitlyn Freeman from The Seattle Times

“Diaz Comes Out as Gay to Right-Wing Radio Host, Who Says this Proves His "Innocence"” from PubliCola

“Seattle commission recommends against new test for police recruits” by David Kroman from The Seattle Times

“Report: Police Hiring Test With 90 Percent Pass Rate, Supported by Deputy Mayor and Council President, Isn't Appropriate for Seattle” by Erica Barnett from PubliCola

“Another Death at SCORE Jail, Officer In Deadly Collision Didn’t Have Valid Washington Driver’s License” by Andrew Engelson from PubliCola

“Defense in Auburn Officer Nelson’s murder trial rests without his testimony” by Mike Carter from The Seattle Times

“Jury to deliberate whether Auburn officer killed in self-defense, or committed murder” by Mike Carter from The Seattle Times

“City Hall Fizz: Shakeups On the Second Floor” from PubliCola

“Transportation Levy Amendments Would Fund Missing Link, Ballard Avenue, and More” by Ryan Packer from The Urbanist

“King County Council approves crisis care centers plan, mental health funding” by Taylor Blatchford from The Seattle Times

“Sounder’s South Line Could Get Frequency Boost Sooner in Program Reset” by Stephen Fesler from The Urbanist

“On eve of Juneteenth, Newcastle mayor disparaged reparations and pride” by Lulu Ramadan and Nina Shapiro from The Seattle Times

“Conservative group smears a Chinese immigrant running for office” by Mahlon Meyer from Northwest Asian Weekly

“Man charged in fatal shooting of teen outside Renton BIG 5 removed from Newcastle safety committee” by Kipp Robertson from King5 News

Find stories that Crystal is reading here

Listen on your favorite podcast app to all our episodes here

[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 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 our Tuesday topical show, Chris Reykdal, current Superintendent of Public Instruction, joined me to discuss his re-election campaign. Today, we are 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 Times City Hall reporter, David Kroman. Welcome back!

[00:01:15] David Kroman: Hi, thanks for having me.

[00:01:17] Crystal Fincher: Well, this is a week that is chock-full of news once again. Wanted to start out talking about a story that caught a lot of people - some by surprise, some were proud to see that he came out - but a lot of people had some mixed reactions to the ramifications of this news of Adrian Diaz, former police chief of the City of Seattle, coming out as a gay Latino man and suggesting that's a defense against some sexual misconduct allegations against him. How did this happen and how did he decide to come to the decision to come out?

[00:02:00] David Kroman: I don't know how he came to the decision to come out - he kind of made it sound like it's something he's been grappling with for a bit. And the last few months of his tenure, which were chaotic - to say the least - never presented the time for him to come out and say it. And far be it from me to tell people how and when they want to come out, and I'm sure it was a difficult decision - he's got a family with kids, I'm sure that this is a difficult personal situation for all of them. I think that the reason some people have raised their eyebrows a little bit is the timing and means, which is mostly that he did this on a conservative talk radio show - a show that has been kind of defensive of him and the Seattle Police Department, generally. And I think there's some sensitivity around - he's been very vehement in defending himself against some of the allegations. And for some folks - my sense is, especially in the LGBTQ community - the implication, or at least perceived implication, that coming out as gay is a defense, I think, is offensive to some people. I can't get into his brain. I can't get into his heart. I don't know why exactly he did it in this way or in this time. But you can't deny that it comes at a time when he and the department are under a lot of scrutiny.

[00:03:07] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. The decision to come out, as its own issue - certainly people deserve and are entitled to their own space and way of coming to that decision, to do that publicly. If they do, navigating through that with his family, if that's the case - how ever they're navigating that, certainly wish them the best - and people deserve the space to do that and to be accepted for who they are, regardless of who they love, who they're attracted to. I do think, to your point, it was the seeming tying the coming out directly to a defense against these allegations, and the suggestion that sexual attraction is a prerequisite for sexual misconduct - which is just not the case. And obviously, this is going to go through a process. It's being investigated, there are lawsuits - it'll go through the legal system, and I'm sure more facts will come out to determine or get to the bottom of what actually happened. But especially coming from a police chief - to the wider community, regardless of what happens in this individual case, I think it is very problematic to the general public at-large to hear this errant belief reinforced by a police chief. And this is another reason why so many people - men and women - don't report sexual assault, sexual harassment, misconduct to police. It's hard enough dealing with the stigma that comes with it, the questioning. But flat out hearing that so many people believe that there needs to be an attraction - especially when so many people in their own experiences have been gaslit with that after experiencing harassment - is just really challenging for the community, especially in light of so many allegations of sexual misconduct in the police department and the history in the City. We had a mayor that had to resign in the wake of very troubling allegations, so I do think about how this impacts just people who are going through it, people who have gone through it - and I don't think that was great for them to hear, not a great message to reinforce. And I wish it would not be tied to the issue of his coming out, which he should be accepted for. So just a challenging situation.

[00:05:30] David Kroman: Yeah. And again, irregardless of intention, his sexual orientation and these allegations are now unfolding in the same conversation as one another. Again, I respect however he wants to come out. He can do it on a conservative talk radio show - that's fine. But doing it in that way does add a sort of political element to that conversation. So again, I don't know what's in his heart of hearts, what he's trying to accomplish - maybe it's just that's how he felt was the best way to get this out there. There is a sort of natural, therefore, marrying of the two issues in your minds because they are literally happening in the same conversation, sometimes in the same sentences.

[00:06:10] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. Well, there's some other news about the Seattle Police Department. This week, the Seattle Public Safety Civil Service Commission recommended against a new test for police recruits that is supported by the mayor and the Council President, Sara Nelson. Why do they want to change the test and what were they hoping it would accomplish?

[00:06:31] David Kroman: This is an interesting situation. The idea behind changing the test, or at least the hope, is that - the Seattle Police Department uses a test that it helped develop around the time of the consent decree, so 2012, 2013. And it's a test that's now used by a lot of pretty large departments, especially on the West Coast - San Francisco, Oakland, San Diego all use this same recruitment test. But, departments in Washington almost entirely use a different public safety recruitment test - both of them are administered by private companies. The thought, and it makes some logical sense from the Mayor's office and the City Council, was - Hey, our data shows that we're losing a lot of officers and recruits, specifically to other departments in Washington state, not as much to large departments in San Francisco. That if a recruit lives in Washington state and wants to become a police officer, they're probably going to stay in Washington state. And so we want to have the same test as the neighboring department so that it makes it easier for those recruits to check the Seattle box on their test and have it sent to Seattle. There's nuance to that, as there always is, because the test that the Seattle Police Department uses now was tailored specifically for Seattle - had a lot of questions around use of force and bias. And so there were questions of - would this other test preserve that? And then also this new test that they're looking at has a higher passage rate - it's something like 90% compared to the one that's used now, which is 73%. And so that raises other question about - are standards going to be lowered?

The thing about this test is the City Council and the Mayor's office can say whatever they want about which tests they want to use. At the end of the day, it is the decision of this independent commission, the Public Safety Civil Service Commission. In fact, Sara Nelson's original intention was to pass a bill mandating the City shift to that, and then backed off because lawyers basically told her - Hey, you can't do that. This is this commission's purview. The executive director of that commission, Andrea Scheele, was doing some research and what she found was, A) if Seattle wants to switch to this new test, it's probably going to need to rewrite it anyway, because the current test does not really fully capture the complexities of being an officer in a large city department. And so if you have to rewrite the test anyway, pretty good chance that defeats the purpose because recruits won't be able to just send their same test scores to Seattle - they'd have to do some extra steps for Seattle anyway. And then B) she kind of ruled out the possibility of using both of these tests at the same time, which is what some City councilmembers have pushed for, because that raises a lot of legal and logistical challenges. If you're a recruit and you apply to the Seattle Police Department and you take one test and then you don't get accepted. And you think - Hey, the reason I didn't get accepted is because I took the harder test, this other person took the easier test. I'm going to file a lawsuit because I think I was rejected because these are not apples-to-apples comparisons. That raises a lot of challenging questions. And so her conclusion at the end of the day was - I don't think this will be that helpful to the City of Seattle to make this switch. There are a lot of logistical and legal challenges. Therefore, I'm recommending that we keep the test we're using now.

I haven't heard from the Council President yet on this. I did hear from the Mayor's office and I think "apoplectic" is not too strong of a word. They are furious about this decision. They think it's really important to make this switch. I think it sets up a pretty interesting possible fight going forward of - what does the political side of City Hall, elected officials, what happens when they get into a fight with these independent, nonpartisan City staffers? I think it would be wise to keep an eye on what happens in that relationship between the City Council, Mayor's office, and this independent commission.

[00:10:09] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and it doesn't seem like this is the first challenge that the Mayor or Council has had with people inside commissions and departments, partly seeming to stem from maybe some misunderstandings about what their scope of power is - certainly on the Council perspective. This is happening while they're feeling pressure to deliver on their promises to hire new police. They've been struggling with hiring the amount of police that they say that they want and need. Lots of people have said - Okay, you're kind of tinkering around the edges, whether it's increasing various bonuses or trying to bump up some perks and benefits. But something that seems to continue to go unaddressed, or maybe they haven't fully gotten around to addressing it yet - have heard a couple mention it - is the issue of culture. This is happening while there are several lawsuits against the department, whether it's racial discrimination, retribution and retaliation, sexual misconduct - a variety of things, in addition to use of force challenges. And so it seems like there's definitely challenges that need to be addressed with the culture of the department to make it just more inviting for people who do want to come to become officers. So it certainly is something that the Mayor and Council definitely feel is necessary. It'll be interesting to see if this or the other things that they've done move the needle in light of all of the culture problems that they're currently experiencing.

[00:11:46] David Kroman: Yeah, and I think part of the reason why the Mayor and the Council care so much about this particular legislation is because it's one of not very many tools they have to actually try and do something about this. Because there's pay - and of course, there's a whole separate conversation around the SPOG contract and what's in that, but it does give police officers a big raise. And then there's the squishier stuff, which, like you said - How do you change a culture of a thousand-plus person department with - police culture is what it is - and it's a cargo ship, it's not a speedboat, as they say. So that's a slow and sort of amorphous process to shift that, and so what they're left with is - the kind of clear cut thing they can try and do is bureaucratic process and improve that. So that is why they have cared so much about this particular piece of legislation. I think that was never going to be as easy as maybe they hoped. Converting more applicants to actual police officers seems like low-hanging fruit, but I think it's probably pretty complicated. The conversion rate of about 3% has been the same for at least 10 years, probably more than that. And so it's not like you can just overnight bump up - we're going to hire 10% of officers without sacrificing standards. It's the reality of the situation, which is recruiting new officers in this environment is a challenging thing to do and is a lot of times based on amorphous perceptions of the department and the City. And so what's left for the department to try and tweak is process, and here they were running into some challenges that I don't think they anticipated.

[00:13:17] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, definitely. Do hope that with Interim Chief Sue Rahr and the permanent chief that they do eventually hire that they are able to make some changes and inroads to the culture and also hoping - the goal of all this at the end of the day is to help make Seattle a safer place. I hope they continue or start to explore all of the options at their disposal - from how existing cops are deployed and assigned, to alternative response and working on ways to beef that up and work on supporting that in this next contract that they're negotiating.

Do also want to talk about news related to qualifications for officers that we assume are in place, but evidently aren't or are not checked. Really disturbing news uncovered by Andrew Engelson with PubliCola that the cop who hit and killed the pedestrian last year didn't actually have a valid driver's license. There are several other challenges that this officer has had - seems like some significant misconduct, suspected driving while impaired, various things - but was hired in Seattle, did have this incident that was very troubling. And how does he become a police officer without a valid driver's license? How does that happen?

[00:14:42] David Kroman: I don't know - is the answer to that question, but I think that's worth following up on. I think what Andrew has done here is a great example of the value in just having somebody stick with the story long-term, because kind of the more layers you peel back on this, the more concerning it is. I don't understand how that's not a thing that's checked pretty regularly. I think it was probably somebody made an assumption somewhere along the way that as he was transitioning from Arizona to Seattle, that there would be some little gap and that that gap would be filled quickly. Clearly, that didn't happen. So, yeah, I don't have a lot of answers to how that happens, but I think finding them out will be - this, to me, seems like a job for the Office of Inspector General. I think this is why that office exists now. The Office of Police Accountability exists for complaints against specific officers, of which I think there are probably several against this one officer. But there's also the systemic question here, which is clearly some process failed - nobody caught that. And so that, to me, is what the Inspector General exists for, which is to bring accountability to the system itself. And this seems like a great example of that system failing.

[00:15:52] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Well, I do hope that they get to the bottom of what happened and make the necessary changes to ensure that this doesn't happen again. And by this - certainly having valid licenses and making sure that they're qualified to do the driving that is required by the job, but also the several other issues surrounding this officer resulting in an innocent loss of life. I just hope they. do the necessary introspection and make the necessary changes to make sure that doesn't happen again.

And in the realm of accountability, there is an Auburn police officer currently on trial for murder - for killing a resident in Auburn - and the defense just rested without testimony of the officer. What is being alleged here in this trial and what comes next?

[00:16:46] David Kroman: It's a murder trial, and Mike Carter's the one covering this - I'm not there gavel to gavel, of course - but you would assume that the officer would take the stand and defend himself, or that the defense attorneys for him would put him up there to explain - Here's exactly what happened. Here's what I was feeling. Because as we know, what an officer was thinking or feeling at the time carries a lot of weight, for better or worse - I think for a lot of people for worse - but that the mindset of the officer is an important factor in considering whether they've committed a crime or whether they were seen as doing their job. The changes to state law de-emphasize that a little bit - you now no longer have to prove that they had malice in their hearts, which of course is impossible. But saying that you feared for your life and perceived that this person was threatening to you carries a lot of weight with juries. And so the fact that he's not getting up and saying that, I don't know what that says - perhaps the defense attorneys decided he was not a very sympathetic character, and I think there's a lot of evidence to suggest that might be the case. So I think this is really the first time it feels like a legitimate possibility under the new state law that an officer could go to prison for killing somebody. I'm not going to make any predictions about that because we've seen a lot of these trials not end up in that - there was the trial for the Tacoma officers and Manny Ellis. The officers were acquitted in that trial, so this would be the second test. And it seems like, especially with this news that the officer is not going to testify in his own defense, feels more likely - not saying it is likely, but more likely than past cases that this could actually lead to a conviction.

[00:18:23] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I'm definitely with you in that I am definitely not making any predictions about the outcome of this trial. Closing arguments are due to start on Thursday - yesterday, for people listening to this program - and will go to the jury after that. So we'll see how this turns out and should be getting a verdict within - well, we'll see.

I also want to talk about news this week that Seattle City Council President Sara Nelson hired a new communications head for the City of Seattle who donated to efforts to defeat two sitting councilmembers, which seems a little controversial. What was the process that was followed with this? Was this a pretty standard hire and process?

[00:19:12] David Kroman: Well, it's been so long - because the previous communications director, Dana Robinson Slote, had been there for a long time. I don't know exactly how many years, but certainly since at least 2014, which was the first time I had done any reporting in City Hall - she was there, and I think she'd been there for a little while. So it's been a long time since they hired a communications director, so I don't know exactly what the standard process is. And at the end of the day, it is up to the Council President to choose the process they want. My sense is there was not a lot of process. I think some folks in City Hall and in the City Council were surprised to see this hire and didn't really get much heads up. If there was an interview and application process, I haven't heard much about it - not to say there wasn't, but it was not widely advertised that there was, and as far as I know, there weren't pile of applications or interview. Again, maybe - but nobody I've talked to had participated in that process or heard about that process. I want to make a distinction though, which is everything I've heard about this person who has been hired is positive. My colleague, Anna Patrick, has worked with him pretty closely because he's been a point person on the situation in Tukwila with the asylum seekers, because he was maybe on a contract with the City of Tukwila to basically handle a lot of that. And she's had no complaints with how he's handled that situation - sounds like he's been open and provided information. I've had some preliminary interactions with him - he seems responsive. And so I don't have any reason to believe he won't do a good job.

Also, on the other side, though - kind of separate from him - is the perception that you alluded to. Which is - because the communications director job in the City Council is kind of strange. Most communications people are representing one department or one person. You've got the Mayor's spokesperson - they speak on behalf of the mayor. City Council communications, you're representing nine people - and so sometimes those people don't agree with each other. And so you see this occasionally on a vote, where the same communications person will have written two separate press releases saying basically opposite things competing with each other. And so it's kind of a delicate balance - in some ways, it's not unlike being a reporter, which is you have to give everybody their due say and fair treatment as best as you can. And so the perception of him having a political background, including a political background that was directly oppositional to some people on the City Council right now, the image there is different - we'll just say that - than what it had been before. Again, I don't have any reason to believe he won't do a good job at this. I've only heard good things so far.

But I think it says more about the City Council than it does about him, which is this isn't the first time that Council President Nelson has brought in somebody that she wanted to work with. Early on in her presidency, she fired the previous head of the Central Staff who was close with Lorena González and Teresa Mosqueda and some of the other Council people - and hired Ben Noble. Again, kind of similar situation, actually, which is Ben Noble is pretty good at his job and has a lot of respect in City Hall and people are happy to work with him. But his position sort of came to symbolize a new way of doing things in City Council. And so it could be a similar situation here, which is a guy who may or may not be perfectly fine at his job, but brought in via a process that for some people who have been in and around City Hall for a while feels different - we'll just say that.

[00:22:18] Crystal Fincher: Certainly feels different. I agree, on paper, there's some people who, when they're hired, you're like - How did that happen? Do they have any experience here? This is not the case in this situation - previously worked in the City of Bellevue. As you said, has a contract with the City of Tukwila, so seems to be qualified. However, especially from a Council that gave so much lip service to civility and positivity and working together - and then appointed someone who was an opponent and lost to a current councilmember, then hires someone who contributed to efforts to oust two councilmembers and then is going to have to work with them. One, that does seem like that's a challenge to overcome - not to say that it can't be overcome, but certainly a challenge that may not have been there with everyone. And don't know how the Council President addressed that with anyone, if it was addressed at all - don't see indications that it really was addressed. But it doesn't seem like prioritizing a collegial relationship and the ability to work together cohesively as a Council is a priority based on the actions that are taken. And it seems like that may already be posing some challenges or be reflective of challenges that are experienced on the Council right now, in them trying to get some legislation passed still - that has been challenging and that has been contentious. So we'll see how this continues to roll out, but certainly a challenge here in the City. And also interesting just to hire someone who does have a background with so many Republican donations in the City of Seattle, which is notoriously on the left-leaning side - not exclusively, but predominantly. So, very interesting - this person is in the role, no indication they're going anywhere or that they should based on their qualifications, but really interesting to see what the dynamic between councilmembers and with the process for how Sara Nelson is running and conducting the Council and the staff here.

[00:24:23] David Kroman: Yeah, and for all the talk about good governance and civility on the campaign trail - I think at the end of the day, Council President Nelson's goal is she has priorities and she's going to do what she needs to do to achieve those priorities. And so she wasn't on the campaign trail recently, she was not talking as much about good governance and civility - she's talking about good governance, not talking as much about civility. I think she is political. She's a very political actor, clearly. And she's shown that she's willing and going to use her position. The Council President can be as powerful as you want it to be - it could just be basically you're setting the schedule or I think Council President Nelson's intention is to use it as a powerful position. And we're seeing that some - mostly in staffing. And I don't think it's going to be the end of staffing changes in City Hall and City Council. And as we talked about with the police recruitment test, there's fairly clear tension between some staff in City Hall and this City Council. And there are two ways to look at that. On the one hand, I think a lot of members of the City Council feel like things are moving too slowly, there's too much process, we need to speed things up, streamline things. We're not going to do things the way we used to do it anymore. We're going to challenge people, so on and so forth. There's a lot of talking points around that that suggests - Hey, we're bringing accountability to a bogged down system. The other angle of that is that they're going after institutional knowledge at a time when a lot of the City Council people are brand new - two-thirds of the council is still getting briefings on what individual departments do. And so there are various lenses you can look at this through, but I think it does say a lot about how Councilmember Nelson views her position and her willingness and intention to use it.

[00:25:56] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Well, one big priority for the council this year is putting a Transportation Levy on the ballot for voters to decide on. And they made some amendments and decided not to make some amendments to the levy proposal that is currently on the table. What is being proposed? What were some of the changes they were looking at? And what ended up being moved forward?

[00:26:20] David Kroman: What's being proposed is - this levy started at $1.35 billion, which sounds like - the line is "the biggest levy in City history," which is technically true, although inflation means $1.35 billion was roughly the same size as the $930 million levy before it. So kind of a technical distinction. It's since grown by $200 million, which is interesting. For one, it's interesting that there's not really any organized opposition to this. The last time around, there was basically Faye Garneau and her friends - the wealthy Aurora Avenue businesswoman. She has since passed away and as a result, there's not really any stop signs being put up to this City Council. And if you're an elected official, it's more fun to add and grow things than it is to cut things. And there's a lot of transportation needs in the city. My sense of what's been changing recently is moving things around - I haven't drilled down super into the specifics because we have a new transportation reporter, Nick Deshais, who's been covering this stuff. But this Council, I think, is likely to peanut butter around the money to an extent. And they're going to try and satisfy the freight people - they talk a lot about going, "back to the basics" - what basics are isn't always defined. It certainly doesn't include new projects - for example, the streetcar is not in this. And so they talk a lot about new paving projects, filling in potholes, that sort of thing - more about driving and what people experience when they're driving down the road. It seems like there has been some questioning of the "CompleteS Streets" mandate, which is basically, that every time you do an intersection improvement project, for example, you have to include safety improvements along with it. It's a process that of course adds time and money to every project, but also more people are dying on the roads right now than for the last 30 years. And so the hope is that you're integrating in safety improvements into the day-to-day work, but it does take up time and resources, so it'll be interesting to see if the City Council does anything there.

Like I said, I haven't gone through the full list of projects recently because my colleague Nick has been following this, but we haven't seen a clear, broad bike network goal laid out. I think in general this Transportation Levy is going to go a lot lighter on specifics than maybe the last one did - it seems like the money is going to end up more in buckets. $20 million for "Vision Zero" rather than $20 million for this one specific project. I think the last mayoral administration and City Council feel like they got a little bit by being too beholden to specific projects and so they want to keep it a little more vague so they can be more flexible on the money. You can kind of understand why they want to do that. At the same time, voters like being told - Here's what your money is going to buy - so I don't know what the political implications of that more vague approach will be.

[00:29:03] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it will be interesting to follow this. Certainly, lots of people were hoping there would be more pedestrian, bike, transit investments and improvements. Hearing the decision was influenced by the feeling that may have been a lot to ask of people right now - given challenges that various people are having in the city, issues with affordability - and wanting to, I think Rob Saka has talked a lot about getting back to basics, which seems to be road and car-focused maintenance and improvements. So we'll see where this goes. Certainly, there are climate commitments that the City has made that this is going to heavily influence one way or the other. Certainly, advocacy and communicating with your councilmembers about what your priorities are and what you want to see is useful during this period of time.

Also, really exciting, I think - progress on an initiative passed by voters of King County. The Crisis Care Levy is moving forward - the County Council passed a Crisis Care Levy Centers plan. What is in this plan and what can people expect to see?

[00:30:15] David Kroman: This plan starts to push forward some specifics about where they might actually put these crisis care centers. It seems like there's some commitment that there will be one downtown, some other cities have signaled that they would be interested in having these centers located in their cities. Also, the proof is always in the pudding, so to speak - when elected officials might say one thing, but it's a whole other to actually site and build these things - I imagine there will be some community opposition. But it seems like this plan starts to actually suggest - Hey, here are where these centers are actually going to be.

[00:30:49] Crystal Fincher: And what will these centers do?

[00:30:51] David Kroman: Right now, if a cop or a designated crisis responder is interacting with somebody in crisis, kind of the only option is using the Involuntary Treatment Act, sending them to Harborview, which is - it's not literally an arrest, but legally speaking, it's not that different than an arrest because you're taking away this person's freedom, basically. And then they get a public defense lawyer - there is a whole court system in Harborview around involuntary treatment. There's a lot of desire to have something less, a lower bar entry point for people, because to get somebody into involuntary treatment, they have to be in that moment - not sort of broadly, but in that specific moment - a threat to themselves, threat to their mother, somebody else, or gravely ill. That's a high bar to meet. I think the crisis care centers - the idea is you have another interim option to bring people where there's resources and people that they can work with directly. And then people can also bring themselves there, or family members can refer them there. You just hear this so often - people in the City of Seattle want to help, but they don't know what to do other than call the police. And then there's concerns about what flows from that. And so I think these crisis care centers - the idea is they are scaled up interim options.

[00:32:02] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, certainly I think all of us have seen and experienced seeing someone who is clearly in a crisis - mental health crisis, behavioral health crisis - and police don't have the tools to deal with that. It's not necessarily criminal. Oftentimes, it's not actually criminal in nature, but this person -

[00:32:21] David Kroman: Almost never.

[00:32:22] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. And so it's not really a police matter. And police resources are getting tied up in a lot of these calls when they're saying that they're short staffed and don't have the resources and staff to deal with it. But what to do? Certainly, I know I feel helpless when I see someone in crisis and there seemingly is nothing to be done about it. And we've had this drastic shortage of resources and space, not knowing who to call. Even for people who are looking at the 988 system - is there capacity on the other end to handle the needs that arise from that call? And so this moves us closer to building that capacity, to providing those services that can help stabilize and connect people to the services that can help address the root causes of those issues. So I'm certainly excited to see this moving forward and excited for these desperately needed resources that will hopefully address so many of the challenges that we're seeing in our community.

[00:33:27] David Kroman: Yeah, and they're not a panacea by any stretch. And I think there are some questions about who can qualify to get in and then what comes next. But at the end of the day, again - kind of right now, the only options are hospital, commitment, or jail. And if there's anything where there's fairly broad agreement across political lines, including among police officers - police officers aren't happy with that reality either - they don't love seeing the same people over and over that they arrest or sent to Harborview. And so I think there's fairly broad agreement that there needs to be other options here. And so hopefully these provide at least some of that.

[00:34:00] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Also, exciting news - certainly to me, to a lot of people in South King and Pierce County - news that the Sounder South line, the big heavy rail trade line, could get a frequency boost. What brought this about?

[00:34:18] David Kroman: What brought this about is just the change in commuting patterns and how those lines are used. Because they mostly serve a commuting public - the South Sounder line has a good number of trips, but it still ends in the middle of the day. There's a gap in the middle of the day and it does not allow for say, sticking around after work and going out to dinner with your friends. And so since the pandemic - I wrote about this a couple of times when I was on the transportation beat - which is, even as the Light Rail or Metro was seeing increases, the Sounder line was still really struggling to get ridership back. And I think it's because so many more people are just staying home. I don't know what the recent numbers are - I think they've probably improved, but it did kick off a conversation around - Hey, how can we use the Sounder differently? There was a pretty broad outreach effort from the people who work on the Sounder. And not surprisingly, the feedback was - I would use it more if it was available to me more on the weekends and late at night or even in the middle of the day. It's a complicated thing because the tracks are not owned by Sound Transit, they're owned by BNSF. And BNSF has priority over those tracks - they can say yes or no - they can basically veto any request from Sound Transit to use them. And so adding more service means you've got to engage in some pretty complicated negotiations with BNSF.

But I think long-term, looking at growth in the region - of course, there's already more density in South King and Pierce County, is going to continue to be more. So question around - How do you use this line more effectively as the region grows? Can it serve more of a purpose that some of the heavy rail lines on the East Coast do, which is not just commuting - you're actually using it as a lifestyle line. And then I think long-term, it can connect nicely into the light rail network as that expands south. 'Cause light rail is not supposed to really be a commuter, a long-distance line - that's supposed to be between neighborhoods lines. So the Sounder, I think, people hope that it can be used as a more efficient way of getting into the big population center, which is Seattle, and actually being able to take advantage of what Seattle has to offer.

[00:36:21] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. As you were talking about - before the pandemic, there were a lot more people commuting regularly, and this was basically built and billed as commuter rail. It operates during rush hour in the morning, rush hour in the evening - predominantly bringing people into Seattle in the morning and out of Seattle in the evening, on weekdays only and gaps in the middle of the day, gaps early and late. And it's actually an extremely convenient and quick way to get between Seattle and these South Sound cities - almost universally faster than the freeway, one of the rare instances where transit is reliably quicker than driving to these places where it goes. And especially for people in an article covering this - heard from the mayors of Puyallup, the mayors of Auburn - people don't think of those places as transit meccas, places where they're super excited about all types of transit. But as I've said many times, when it makes sense - when people can really conceptualize how it's going to be used, people do get excited about transit. And a real desire to use this as a lifestyle and entertainment type of train - when it's 20 minutes to get from downtown Seattle to Kent, half an hour to get to Auburn or Puyallup. Between those two, it offers a lot of opportunity on weekends, on evenings, just to allow people to drop in that space. And so I'm looking forward to the non-commute centered trips that they're talking about - the more entertainment and just moving people back and forth, the more traditional regional rail focus. And think it could do a lot for transit support regionally, which definitely could improve outside of Seattle, particularly in light of a lot of the other delays and implementations that we've seen in South King County over the years in delivering transit infrastructure and improvements. So definitely excited to see this and it can make a big difference for a lot of the residents in South King and Pierce County.

Next, I'm going to hop on my soapbox to talk about a big controversy in a little city - Newcastle, Washington, a suburb nestled between Bellevue and Renton - just outside of Seattle. On June 4th, Councilmember Paul Charbonneau made what seemed like a routine motion to fly the Pride flag - something that the City had done for at least three years. However, this year it sparked a heated debate. Mayor Robert Clark voiced strong opposition, saying, "If we start raising flags, we got to raise everybody's. We want a Hamas flag flying over the city of Newcastle? A MAGA flag? How about a Trump flag? Or an antifa flag? We're not going there, folks. Not while I'm the mayor. To all of you in the pride movement, you're very welcome in our city, but be careful of the hate that's in your midst. Right? It's not coming from outside, it's coming from within." Mayor Clark went on to say that a, "small, vocal minority that does not stand for Newcastle's shared values is creating dissension for personal and political gain." Councilmembers Paul Charbonneau, Sun Burford, and Ariana Sherlock all voted in support of raising the Pride flag, but were outnumbered by the conservative majority on the Council, with Mayor Robert Clark joined by Councilmembers Tom Griffin, Steve Tallman, and Deputy Mayor Pratima Lakhotia in their vote against raising the Pride flag. This decision sparked immediate community uproar. A rally was organized, and the next Council meeting on June 18th saw two and a half hours of public comment. But the atmosphere was tense - an anti-Pride contingent actively booed queer speakers and community members. In a particularly troubling incident, an 11-year-old girl who wanted to testify in support of her LGBTQ+ classmates was allegedly called a "sinner" by protesters when she was on her way into City Hall, and she said she felt intimidated by that. At the meeting, though, the Council did take a new vote with Deputy Mayor Pratima Lakhotia reversing her stance, tipping the balance and allowing the Pride flag to fly - and it's currently flying right now above City Hall.

But the controversy did not end there. Mayor Clark made additional comments that raised additional concerns. He suggested that the LGBTQ+ community harbored internal hate and made controversial statements about slavery and what he called a "perpetual victim mentality." And he said, and here again, I'm quoting, "How long do we hold on to grievances? A couple years, a couple decades, a couple centuries? You want to pass down to your great-great-grandkids that, 'Hey, one day, you know, I was called a bad name, you know, 200 years ago, so don't forget, man. Be a victim. California was a free state with no slaves and nobody is a slave there today," Clark claimed, incorrectly. Important to note - California, although it entered the Union as a "free state," had slavery that existed out in the open, well-documented by the state's historical society. Mayor Clark also ignored the impacts of Jim Crow, redlining, and institutional racism while he continued to say about slavery, "But they can't let go and that causes the division and hate that creates victim groups." These remarks shocked many people, including members of Eastside Pride Pacific Northwest, who was there to speak on behalf of raising the pride flag. A member of the organization said his jaw was on the ground hearing the comments from someone in power. Another person said they were shocked also.

So, with all of this in mind, it's very important to understand that this was not an isolated incidence of intolerance in Newcastle's recent history. Just last year, in 2023, we saw a troubling incident where a conservative organization co-founded by a former Newcastle City Councilmember made racist allegations in public political communications against Sun Burford, a teacher and Democratic City Council candidate. So that conservative group's independent expenditure publicly branded her as a "Chinese Communist sleeper agent," based on a city planning job she held in China three decades ago before immigrating to the United States, which she had disclosed her application. Working in a different country, living in a different country, being an immigrant is not evidence of some conspiracy or being compromised - that is wild and racist. They said, "Newcastle voters may want to ask Sun Burford: Have you ever been a member of the Chinese Communist Party? Newcastle voters may also want to ask Sun Burford: Have you been trained by the Chinese Communist Party to remain neutral in the public eye and never show your true colors until you are secure in your position?" These communications endorsed her opponent and other conservative council candidates in the race. When those candidates - conservative Councilmembers Tom Griffin and Steve Tallman - were asked directly to reject the racist independent expenditure, they declined. Even more recently, as we discussed last week on the podcast, was the tragic shooting of Hazrat Ali Rohani, a student at Kent Meridian High School. Rohani was murdered by Aaron Brown Myers, a 51-year-old man who served on Newcastle's Public Safety Committee - who was very paranoid about crime. Rohani was returning an Airsoft rifle to a sporting goods store when Aaron Myers assumed that Rohani was about to commit an armed robbery and shot and killed the boy in the parking lot - all while Sheriff's deputies were conducting training exercises in that same parking lot. The dehumanizing rhetoric we've heard from the City officials and the conservative media that they've been consumed by appear to be fueling a dangerous atmosphere of paranoia and division in Newcastle, Washington.

One of the reasons that this Hacks & Wonks show exists is to not only talk about what happened, but what we can do about it. The situation with Newcastle's intolerant Mayor Robert Clark and its Council majority is fixable. So, let's start with some context about that community. As of 2022, the median household income was a substantial $151,000, so pretty affluent community. That's also a diverse community - 53% of residents of Newcastle are people of color, with 34% identifying as Asian. 30% of Newcastle residents were born outside of the United States. It's a bit wonky, but it's also useful to note that Newcastle has a council-manager form of government. The council-manager form consists of an elected city council, which is responsible for policymaking, and a professional city manager appointed by the council, who is responsible for administration of the city. So the city manager provides policy advice, directs the daily operations of city government, handles the personnel functions, and is responsible for preparing the city budget. The council-manager form of government that Newcastle has is different than the mayor-council form of government in cities like Seattle, where the mayor is elected by the people, who serves as the city's chief administrative officer or executive, and there's a separately elected council which serves as the city's legislative body. So the mayor-council form separation of powers are based on the traditional federal and state models that we see in the United States. Back to Newcastle's council-manager form of government, where the mayor is largely ceremonial and kind of feels similar to a council president in the other form of government - with the way they administer meetings and their responsibilities. The mayor is not elected, but is actually selected by the city council from among its members in this form of government that Newcastle has. That means that changing the composition of the council can have far-reaching effects on the city's leadership and direction. There are not separate elections for a mayor - it's all based on the council. The council selects the mayor from among its membership.

So Newcastle has never had a Democratic majority on its council, but it's gotten a lot closer as it's maintained a 4-3 split over the past six years. So what's significant is how close the recent races have been. In the last two election cycles, four council races were decided by fewer than 75 votes, with two races coming down to margins of just 10 and 15 votes. So looking ahead to next year's 2025 elections - thoroughly problematic Mayor Robert Clark, Deputy Mayor Pratima Lakhotia, who initially voted against raising the Pride flag but then changed her vote to raise it, and a vocal supporter of the LGBTQ+ community, Councilmember Paul Charbonneau, will all be up for re-election next year. So that presents a big opportunity to vote out the mayor and flip the council. What a lot of people don't realize - because most political coverage focuses on the federal government and Congress and the president and not local politics, which is extremely impactful - is that cities are so dynamic because a literal handful of people who are passionate about their community can change the government and the direction of their city, largely because so many people aren't paying attention to their city government and the politics there. So the few who do have an outsized amount of influence, especially in smaller cities like Newcastle. So in these cities, your vote counts and good organizing wins. So even though next year sounds like it's a long way away, now's the time to start showing up to community and council meetings, getting involved with the 41st District Democrats - because Newcastle is in the 41st Legislative District - and the King County Democrats, or the DSA, and the Transit Riders Union. You name the community group - just get involved, meet your community, talk to precinct committee officers in Newcastle, or become an appointed PCO yourself. Get to know your state legislators there - Representatives Tana Senn and My-Linh Thai, and State Senator Lisa Wellman. You can call them up. You can talk to them. You can meet them when they go to community meetings. They have district offices. You should do that. Find out who in the community is interested in running for office and attend trainings. Training is important - there is actually reliable things that you can do to run for and win elected office. And there are lots of people willing to share and help you with that information, or you can take it for yourself if you're interested. So now's the time to put all of that in motion so that late this year and early next year, the infrastructure and the organization is in place to flip the council and elect candidates who will do better to respect and represent the community. If you get stuck while trying to do any of that, message me - I'll try to help and connect you with folks. I know that Newcastle Councilmember Paul Charbonneau, who I've spoken with, who's been such a vocal supporter and defender of Newcastle's queer community and for making the council more progressive, along with Councilmember Sun Burford and Ariana Sherlock, would love to hear from you. The future of Newcastle and every community in our state has an outsized dependence on people like you - who listen all the way to the end of podcasts like this - getting involved in your communities. You don't have to do everything. You just need to do something.

And with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, June 21st, 2024. Happy summer! The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today is Seattle Times City Hall reporter David Kroman. You can find David on Twitter at @KromanDavid. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter, as well as me at @finchfrii with two I's at the end on most platforms. 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, please leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full text transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at OfficialHacksAndWonks.com and in the episode notes.

Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.