AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Police Department; prohibiting training, exchanges, and partnerships with certain governments; and adding a new Section 3.28.141 to the Seattle Municipal Code.
Report of the Public Safety and Human Services Committee agenda item for Council Bill 120 142 relating to the Seattle Police Department prohibiting trainee exchanges in partnership with certain governments and adding a new section 2.20 8.1 41 to set limits for code the committee recommends the bill passes the matter with council members for both moral lessons to watch in favor with abstentions from Councilmembers Gonzalez and Lewis. Thank you so much, Madam Clerk. Okay, folks, this is going to be a long discussion and there are several late breaking amendments. So I appreciate in advance your patience and courage and go get a snack if you need one. But we will get through this in a appreciate in advance your patience and the patience of members of the public as we work through what might be some challenging procedural issues. But hopefully everything will go as smooth as possible. We do have for this discussion available council central staff Ali Velshi and and Gorman, who I can call for comments and questions that might come from council members. I will need to suspend the rules in order to allow for that to occur. But if it needs to happen, please do not hesitate to signal that need to me. And I am happy to do that, not our preferred method of doing it. Our preference is obviously to have all of the policy conversations occur during committee, but there are several amendments that have come out since committee and want to make sure that we as councilmembers and members of the public are getting the the benefit of our central staff and analysis and before we take a vote. So with that being said, I am going to acknowledge council member want who is the sponsor of this bill. The chair of the Public Safety and Human Services Committee thought it was appropriate to allow you to have the first and the last word on this bill as the sponsor of the bill and a member of the committee. So I'm going to end it. Thank you. Guns and prison Gonzalez and Public Safety Committee chair Herbold. This is an ordinance that, as you all know, has been months ago requested by the and the deadly exchange movement, which comprises a large number of organizations that I've been in solidarity with and which I will acknowledge later. But this is an ordinance requested by this movement, which bans the Seattle Police Department from sending officers for training in countries with a track record of human rights abuses. This bill originally banned the Seattle Police Department from training specifically in Israel, but because they have done so in the past, learning the tactics brutally used to oppress Palestinians . My office originally drafted this bill to support the end of deadly exchange movement several months ago, when thousands of Seattleites marched to protest the bombing of the Gaza Strip by Israel's right wing political establishment. Since then, we have expanded the bill to ban the Seattle Police Department from training in any country that has a track record of human rights abuses as documented by established and mainstream international human rights bodies. Thank you to the two members, Morales and Mesquita, for co-sponsoring this bill. I especially want to thank the hundreds of community activists from a wide range of movements were brought forward and demanded that the City Council adopt this legislation. Black Lives Matter and Palestinian rights activists, Indian American activists, members of the progressive Jewish community, along with other faith communities, socialists and human rights activists, have been engaged in a wide range of struggles around the world. They have spoken with many voices, but one singular, powerful message. Seattle police training practices must align with the human rights values that this city council has repeatedly declared our paramount to our city. On behalf of the activists leading this struggle, I am bringing three amendments this afternoon to the bill. And just to clarify, none of those none of the amendments on my office are late breaking there. They have been in process and I've been completely transparent about them, not only with members of the public, but also in successive city council briefings on Monday mornings. So the amendments from my office are to amend how the bill defines what countries have committed human rights abuses to close loopholes that may have been created in the amendment that passed in committee last week and a Third Amendment that came out of the discussion during council briefing this morning. These amendments preserve a country neutral, evenhanded approach to limiting police training. If these amendments are adopted, the Seattle Police Department would still have viable training partners, with nearly 100 countries around the world, including Canada, the U.K., Sweden, France, Germany and Italy, among others. While honoring the commitments to human rights that the city council has gone on record as supporting. If the President Gonzalez agrees, I will move those amendments now and then we can have a general discussion on the bill itself after. Yeah, I think that makes sense. There are your amendments plus amendments from Councilmember Strauss. So let's do what we ordinarily do, which is go through all of the amendments before we have a conversation about the underlying bill. If that's okay with you, it's okay with me. I do see that Councilmember Strauss has his hand raised, so I will go ahead and acknowledge Councilmember Strauss before we go through that. The the movements related to the amendments. Thank you. Council President. There was a drafting error in the email and the amendment that I sent around at 2 p.m. There should be in the new amendment in your inboxes now as long as law has appropriately reviewed. So if you don't see that now, you'll see it in just a second. Um, just wanted to alert that before we brought my amendment forward. Okay. Your amendment is we got a little, little bit of time here. We've got two amendments to consider and debate before we get to yours. Appreciate the head's up on that and we will keep an eye out for that email. Okay. So let's go ahead, Councilor. Excellent. Why don't you go ahead and make your motion and see if it gets a second and then I'll hand it back over to you to address the amendment after it has received a second. First I will move Amendment one, version two, as emailed to council offices this morning. Is there a second? Okay. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to amend. The bill is presented on version two of Amendment one. I'm going to hand it back over. It comes first. Want to address this amendment. So for members of the public, this amendment is in substance the same as Amendment one that was linked on today's agenda earlier with one word technical correction. This amendment makes it clear to include in the definition human rights abuses occurring not just within a nation's borders, but also within territories that the nation occupies. There are numerous instances of the military or police forces of a nation abusing the human rights of others outside that nation's borders. And this amendment simply reflects that reality. Thank you to Councilmembers Morales and Mosquito for co-sponsoring this amendment. Great. Thank you so much. I am looking for comments now on the amendment and I see that Councilmember Herbold has your hand raised, please. Q As well as language change was a good change that we had discussed a little bit in committee, but sort of talked about what the intent was, but decided to wait and give central staff an opportunity to actually draft it. This is the amendment that I characterized this morning in council briefings as an amendment that I felt was a friendly amendment. And when I asked central staff what impact this amendment would have, the central staff response was that looking at the purview of the ICC and how that body defines and organizes its work, that the ad does not make any substantive change. And I'm just adding that I do support the clarification that the amendment provides with the understanding that there's no substantive change. People so much. Are there any additional comments on this amendment? I'm not seeing any additional comments. Councilors want anything else to add? No. Okay. Thank you so much. In that case, will debate is now closed on the amendments. So will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of version to of Amendment One? So what? Yes. Strauss Oh. Herbold. Yes. Whereas now. Lewis. Now. Moralez. Yes. Oscar Peterson. No. President Gonzalez. Sorry. I'm having Internet issues. Are we still on the first day? We're still in the First Amendment. Yes. Okay. Sorry about that. Yes. That is five in favor and four opposed. The motion carries and the amendment is adopted. And I'm going to head it back over to Councilor Russell. Want to walk us through amendments to. A move amendment to an email to council offices this morning. Is there a second? I can. I can. It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill has presented an amendment to I'm going to hand it back over to councilors want them to walk us through this amendment. Thank you. This amendment was drafted in response to the discussion during this morning's council briefing. Councilmember Strouse said he wanted to make sure that our bill does not preclude the Seattle Police Department from providing executive protection to the mayor. I don't know. The mayor was mentioned, but public officials on official visits to other countries. This amendment makes it clear that this bill is not referring to the times that the Seattle Police Department may act as the security detail for any elected officials from the city. Simply adds a sentence that says, quote, The city is not prohibited from providing executive protection to city elected officials on an official trip to a country meeting, either or both. Exclusion criteria in subsection 320 81418 and 320 8141 be enforced. Thank you so much. Customer So-and-so That is the underlying amendment. My understanding is that Councilmember Strauss has an amendment to the amendment and it and that's what my notes are telling me anyway. So. So I will open it up to comments on this amendment first before I recognize Councilmember Strauss on his amendment to the amendment. Councilmember Herbold. Because I don't know if this is a point of order or maybe it's not a point of order, but it's a question about an email that we received at 12:34 p.m. from number science staff. I was under the impression that Councilmember Swan was only putting forward amendments one in three. I we did receive earlier an amendment two as described by Councilmember Swan, but I was under the impression that Thomas Swan was not moving that forward. So should I respond? You're welcome. You're welcome to you. I'll just sort of note that the that regardless of what was communicated before the amend, the motion has now been made. So we have the motion before us unless the sponsor wants of the amendment would like to withdraw that motion. It is now officially before us. So customers want. I'll go ahead and hand it over to you to provide any additional clarification about your intent. Um, maybe there is, maybe was talking about each other, maybe there should be some clarification. But as far as my officer's emails are concerned, I as far as I understand, we were clear that we were moving three amendments and we showed them at 11:45 a.m., I believe, including this one. And as members will remember this, the context of this one only came up this morning. So it was added today. So I'm actually not sure about the source of the confusion. I just want to make sure so that the records clear it is your intent. Just remember to want to advance amendment to as you just described it. Yes. Excellent. Okay. We are all on the same page. Slate is clean. We are considering and debating amendments to. Are there any additional comments on Amendment two again before we consider the amendment to the amendment? No additional questions. So I'm going to go ahead and recognize Councilmember Strauss, who indicated that he has an additional amendment amendment which was not distributed by 12 noon today because it was not distributed before noon today. And the council will need to first suspend the rules before this amendment can be moved. If there is no objection, the council rules relating to distribution of amendments 2 hours before the City Council meeting will be suspended to consider an additional amendment. Hearing notes. Oh, sorry. I thought you knew the second council president. I apologize. Okay. Just making sure that was not an objection. No, no objection. Okay. Thank you so much. Hearing no objection, the council rule is suspended and Councilmember Strauss is recognized in order to move amendment. I think it's still to be and. That's what I was hoping to confirm. I believe it is now to see. And can you help me with this or ally? We cannot hold on a minute. We cannot hear from non councilmembers or the city clerk without a suspension of the rules. So, I mean, so what would you need if you need to hear from Ali and or. And I'm happy to suspend the rules accordingly. Just 1/2, please. Just. Or we need a second. Now we are looking. Councilmember Strauss is confirming the version of which amendment he would like to. Move. Before we look a second. To be or to see. Yeah. So I promise you all that it was going to be might get a little messy with these last minute amendments. Council President I am moving, if you will, in just a second. I move to amend Council Amendment two by substituting it with the corrected version of Amendment to be, which was distributed at about 415 this afternoon. Okay. So hearing no objection, the council will assist and then in Councilmember Strauss is recognized in order to move the corrected version of amendment to be. Councilmember Strauss over to you. Thank you. Council president. Do I need to make another motion or speak to it? We haven't yet suspended the rules. We are waiting for you to confirm which version we were suspending the rules in order to hear. So now is your opportunity to actually make your motion and ask. And then I will ask for a second. If there is second. If there is a second, then we can hear from you on the substance of the proposed amendment. Great. Thank you. I moved to amend Amendment two by substitute, substituting it with Amendment A corrected amendment to B, which was recently distributed. Second. It's been moved and seconded to amend Amendment two by substituting it with a corrected version of Amendment to be, which was recently distributed. I'm going to go ahead and hand it back over to Councilmember Strauss to address the substitute version of the amendment, please. Great. Thank you. Council president, colleagues. As I'm not on the Public Safety Committee or the committee in which this has come from, I was only beginning to review what came out of committee late last week. I thought some of the concerns that I had shared months ago had been addressed, and alas, unfortunately, they had not been addressed . And so I worked quickly this morning to address those. We did create a drafting error before distributing the original amendment to be. And my apologies for any confusion that that has created. The amendment before you and council president. If we are able to see it on the screen, I would ask central staff to put it on the screen. One of the drafting errors, we were just trying to make the sentence flow more correctly. So the corrected version retains the formatting of the original version and simply makes this nation neutral by being, uh, by including all nations in the world, rather than engaging in an attempt to understand which countries have or have not signed on or are in accordance with UN declarations or committees. This simply says all nations period does not change any of the other content. And can I confirm, can we pull this up on the screen so that colleagues can see it? Yeah. If if somebody from central staffs prepared to screen share, I have no objection to that. And then also including as it is allowed to provide executive protection, my apologies. If I had had more time with this, I would have included British Columbia, because they are our state to the north, our province to the north. But unfortunately, we're out of time today. Thank you so much, Councilmember Strauss. The colleagues, you do see the language that is being proposed to be changed here. So let's go ahead and take comments and questions on this particular amendment. Again, if we do need to hear more directly from council central staff, someone just needs to let me know. That's what they want to hear from. And I'm happy to suspend the rules to allow them to address the city council's questions. First person with their hand raised is Councilmember Lewis. Yes, Madam President. I would so move to suspend the rules to talk to central staff for just a moment. Possible break if there's been a formal request for that, colleagues, if there's no objection to hearing from our council central staff on the proposed corrected amendment as described by Councilmember Strauss, I would like to provide them an opportunity to do that. Hearing no objection. The rules are suspended and we can hear directly from our council central staff, which at the moment is Allie Banerjee and Anne Gorman. So please feel free to respond to Councilmember questions as appropriate. Go ahead. Lewis Thank you so much, Madam President. On the question of to be or not to be, I'm not sure which of the two central staff folks I should be addressing it to. So just take it however you will in the way that this is crafted. Are we assuming in the underlying like the text that is not crossed out above that that that is going to stay consistent regardless of what we decide? Because in reading that the scope is limited to military forces and not to foreign police. So it's a foreign military. Oh, no, sorry. We're partnerships with the police forces, intelligence agencies, security services. So then this would ban trainings with Canadian officials. And I think Councilmember Strauss alluded to that. But I just wanted to ask that the top here. Correct? Yes. Yes. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Councilmember. Oh, and you're great. I was just going to say yes. That's correct. If I had had more time, I would have created an exemption for British Columbia as our province to the north. But alas, at a time. Okay. And so and are we going to rest then on Councilmember Strauss's answer to that? I don't have anything else to add as as written, this. Ward ban training programs, exchanges or partnerships with with police forces in Canada. All right. I don't have any additional questions. Thank you. The much I see that Councilmember Herbold has her hand raised. And then Councilmember Morales. Councilmember Herbold, please. Do this exclusively to ask questions. Or could I make a statement? Its any comments on the proposed amendment are suspended however. So if you had a question, you need that question. But this is an opportunity for any and all comments on Council Member Strauss's proposed amendment. Thank you. So just to sort of underscore the the issue raised by Councilmember Lewis, we received information from from central staff that from 2013 to 2021, Esprit took 48 trips to Canada. To be clear, though, a trip is one incident of travel by a single staff member. But it looks like 13 trips were to attend a conference, two to provide executive protection, which would be exempt by this by this amendment. And two, to support a partnership and 32 receive training. In addition to the fact that this amendment would scoop in scoop in Canada. I've spoken to Seattle Police Chief Diaz, and I understand that the Seattle Police Department is currently working with agencies both in the United Kingdom and Sweden on crowd management processes, which have been along the lines of recommendations of our police accountability agencies and as drafted. And it appears that this amendment could potentially impact this work. There are about 195 nations in the world. I just I'm just very concerned that the the impact is is is is is very broad of this with this amendment and is not. And I understand that the intent of the amendment sponsor, it's not tied to an objective assessment of human rights violations and the human rights records. So I'm listening for my my colleagues arguments on this, but I am unlikely to be able to support this amendment. Because remarkable to Councilmember Morales, do you still have a question or comment? Um. Well, I was just pointing out as as Councilmember Peters sorry, Councilmember Lewis did that the first sentence here and the second sentence seemed to a slightly different things. The first sentence is shall not participate in training programs, exchanges with military forces. And then the second one goes on to say, intelligence agencies or security services. So I my real question is, does that matter or will the broader interpretation be what is adhered to here? Yeah, and I think and I think just to be clear on my understanding, that might be relevant to. Two sort of context for that question is that the that language exists in the underlying legislation. So the only parts that are being proposed to be changed are those are sort of the the strikeout of A and B in the addition of the last line. So the that the part that you're identified that may have a inconsistency in is included in the in the baseline bill. So thank you, counsel, central staff, whoever is doing this for highlighting the the text that is in yellow is what Councilmember Strauss's amendment is proposing. Everything else is included in the base legislation that we are considering today. So at council central staff, any response to that particular question as presented by Councilmember Morales? No, no, no response. I, i, i agree with her characterization generally. Okay. Councilmember Silence, please. So I have two questions. It's possible that at least one of them has already been answered, but I'll go ahead and ask that just, you know, just to make it clear. So and my two questions are under this new amendment and would this ban all training programs, exchanges, our partnerships with the police forces of all other countries , including countries, would almost be has had exchanges in the past, just Canada. It seems like the answer is yes. We had this exchange between you and Herb also just confirm that. And then secondly, under this amendment, would the CBD be permitted to attend training inside the United States that involve police forces, intelligence agencies or security services of foreign countries? Those are my two questions. President Gonzalez. I do have comments about this. I will observe them for a bit. The president may respond. And then Social Staff Councilmember Swan What I will say is that as to your second question, whether or not those trainings can or cannot occur on domestic soil is a question left for your base bill that's not under consideration for this amendment. That doesn't happen. This amendment simply removes the characterization of which types of countries we can work with to just say all countries. Otherwise, it is not truly nation neutral. This is a nation neutral amendment. And to your first question, yes, the answer is yes. Thank you. And if and if you have follow up, please. Enter in response to the first question. Yes, this this amendment would ban such work with Canada as as SPG is currently engaged in. And with respect to the second question, the way I read partnerships with the military forces of any country that would exclude United. States military forces. But all of the other descriptions of the types of units, foreign, military, police forces, intelligence agencies, those all have the. Qualifier foreign attached to them. The only one that does not is military forces of any country. So but I don't I don't know. And if you address the my specific question was, what would they ask me to be permitted to attend training inside the US that like if the training happened on U.S. soil, that in a training that involves police forces, intelligence agencies or security forces, all foreign countries. So for example, good SBT officers go to training in Chicago, say to train with some foreign police forces. The way I read this bill, the operative word. Is with their training programs. Exchanges or partnerships. With the police forces. To me, this does not specified geography. Certainly we work to clarify that. But that that. Is the way I understand the bill as currently written. What I might say is that this has been a process for counsel that should have been taken up at committee tells members. So it seems like you might also have questions about the base bill. I might. Ask. I don't have this, but you have provided this amendment at a very last second. It's about your amendment. It's the base bill that you're that you have the question about. No. No, absolutely not. Your amendment is sweeping, as my verbal also alluded to with other words. But so that's why these questions are coming up. This is not a minor amendment. That's why the question that you just had was about the part not highlighted. No, it was not about the base. I mean. Council president. My apologies. I'm going to I'm just like if we get I appreciate this is not council briefing or committee meetings. So we do need to just take a pause and start going back and forth if we can, you know, work hard to not interrupt each other in the spirit of having an open democratic debate. I recognize and appreciate that these are several of these are last minute amendments. And those of us who have not been on the committee are working hard to catch up. And so I appreciate the opportunity for us to extend grace to each other as we are trying to catch up on some of these amendments, some of which are more substantive than others. And again, as I stated at the top, my preference is always to do these kinds of work sessions in the midst of a lot of committee work. But alas, we are in a situation now where that is not the situation. So we are going to go ahead and do our best to get through all of these amendments in a way that is hopefully useful to those of us who have to make decisions on the underlying. Bill. And on these respective amendments, I really appreciate you all working together to hopefully achieve them. So again, I want to make sure that council members want you got answers to the questions that you asked? Not yet. No, I don't think so. If you don't mind. I just want to follow up. You know, I don't I it's not clear to me, actually, what the impact of this amendment is. I again, just to ask the question again, can the SPV be permitted to attend training inside the United States? And I heard what and said that the amendment does not comment on that. But that's the whole point. It does not. That is why there is this ambiguity that I think is here. And so, for example, can be a speedy participate in a training session in Chicago where the Israeli police shows up. I mean, I, I the problem is that the amendment removes all of the human rights standards out of the base bill, which is the which is the basic, which was the main and fundamental criterion for the existence of the bill. And by that, by doing that, it creates ambiguity. And I just feel like the question I'm asking is a yes or no should have a yes or no answer again yes. BD For example, participate in a training session in Chicago where the Israeli police show up if this amendment were to pass. And because now there's a because of this amendment, there is ambiguity about whether or not that hypothetical Chicago trip can happen. Because we know I mean, at least I know I don't know if council members will agree, but I believe that introducing any ambiguity is problematic, which is why the base bill, as amended, was taking great pains . And we went to a lot of discussion with community, with council members who make sure that we remove these ambiguities. And from my standpoint, that that was extremely important, not only to make sure that everybody is genuinely in agreement, but also because I am very much afraid, given the track record, the overwhelming track record of the Seattle Police Department will, if we introduce ambiguity, will interpret it in a way that they want to, given their established practices, as opposed to what the community wants to want to accomplish with this legislation. So I would really appreciate some clarity. Thank you. To President Mary. Darby. Ali Banerjee, please. Thank you. And I'm going to invite my colleague and gourmand to jump in if I'm getting this wrong. But I'm going to attempt for just a moment, if you can bear with me to just do a bit of a close reading of the text on the screen. So sentence one in the base bill would prohibit a study from participating in participating in training programs, exchanging exchanges or partnerships with the military forces of any country or engage in the travel. So I read that to mean you cannot travel. To that country to engage. With the military forces, nor can you participate in a training, whether it's within the United States or housed elsewhere. Similarly, the base bill, as currently written, would prohibit expeditious, participative participation in any training programs or exchanges with police forces, except etc. and then it limits which countries you are talking about from which they are participating in. Councilmember Strauss's amendment doesn't change whether or not the Seattle Police Department can participate in trainings with military forces or with police forces within the United States. So as in your example, a training in Chicago where a military force for another country must participate, participating the base, Bill Northey, and the amendment would prohibit that. What Councilmember. Strauss's amendment does is it removes any specificity about. The countries that this. Ban is applied to and broadens it, makes it neutral. It says SBT can't do this with any police force and and and clarifies that they can, however, provide executive protection if city officials. Are. Traveling to those. Countries. Please. And or Councilmember Strauss, correct me if I'm mischaracterizing. I'll tell you. It. Agreeing with him. That sounded correct to me. Okay. Because there was a lot. This was your line of questioning. So I just want to circle circle back and make sure you have finished your line of questioning here so we can I can call in councilmember misstatements. Yes. I just was I was just going to thank Ali for the Constitution. Rates. Okay. Thank you so much. Customers want customer data. Your hand has been raised for a while. Thanks for your patience, David. Thank you. Thank you very much, council president. Thank you, colleagues, for this dialog. I want to thank Councilmember Siwon for initially bringing this legislation forward. Councilmember Herbold, for all of your work in committee and Councilmember Strauss for this amendment in front of us and really just bring us back to the answer that Ali just provided. I think the underlying goal here, as many community partners have continued to underscore, is to really keep us focused on making sure that as we re-envision community policing, it's really done through the community's lens and that we have a chance to hit a reset button when we think about what training looks like for our police personnel. It doesn't, and it shouldn't be done only by military personnel. And we are making a value statement here that going forward, training will not include partnership with other military entities or other countries and their and their military bodies. So I just want to orient us to the why we're doing this, which is to really refocus us back on. Community. Orientation to what public safety should look like. And I think this is an important piece of legislation in that longer term goal. I also think that the legislation was enhanced in committee and community excuse me, in committee and and appreciate the clarification that's been offered by central staff here today about both the underlying bill and the amendment in front of us. Councilmember Strauss, appreciate the time that you've worked here to help make sure that we have a full understanding of how both the police forces, intelligence agencies, security forces, all of which we want to make sure are not getting trained by other military personnel or with other countries in their military personnel, regardless of where they are, including to our friends in the north. We do want to continue to reach out to our trainings in the future to be focused on community. Strategies. And partnerships with community, especially those upstream investments to create greater security so fewer folks ever interact with officers to begin with. I appreciate the clarification that's been offered on this amendment, and with that, I believe that there's support in the community for this. With that clarification that's been provided by Allianz and Central South, thank you again and I look forward to supporting this amendment as well. Okay. Just to be clear, customer must get a year supporting Councilmember Strauss's amendment. And I wasn't the amendment to the amendment. Yes, which I also was the other amendment. But I'm happy to support this amendment that I think acts as additional strength, especially given what central staff has just said in their clarification. On Councilmember Strauss's amendment. Okay. Gets more her. Your hands been raised for a while. I'm not sure if that's new or a hold over or mover. Councilmember, you are next. Thank you. Madam President, my comments were actually somewhat similar to Councilmember Herbold. So. So I guess you could have called on her again, but I would just reiterate and lift up what Councilmember Herbold had said earlier. I like I appreciate what Councilmember Strauss is trying to do here, and I appreciate anything that makes this conversation less about any particular country and more about a generalized set of our values as a city. The issue that I have, especially as this is broad enough to include any foreign police force, is there are examples of police forces in other countries that do have practices that we might want to study, that we might want to emulate, that might benefit from some kind of foreign exchange where our police can go and talk with their officials about what they do. Great example being crowd control practices in Sweden or other Nordic countries. Obviously, the United Kingdom historically has has stood out as a place that is generally considered to have a good model of community policing by international standards . And then certainly our biggest trading partner, trade probably trading as well. But our biggest trading partner is is Canada, as demonstrated by the historic foreign trips taken. And I don't really know enough right here in the session about the nature of our training exchanges with Canada. So given those things, I do think at this time, without knowing more information, I can't support this amendment given the broadness. Thank you. Councilmember Lewis. Councilmember Salant. And then Councilmember Strom. Thank you. Going to present Gonzalez. I firstly want to congratulate all the activists and community members who called in to public comment in opposition to the original version of the amendment that Councilmember Strauss had sent out at 2:01 p.m.. I just wanted to let all the members of the public who spoke and have been paying attention to this issue that you're organizing clearly had a powerful impact. The 2:01 p.m. version of this amendment would have removed the restrictions on training with police forces of human rights abusers. This 4:17 p.m. draft has been updated to now put police forces back and that does close a substantive loophole. But and, and that's good. But I, I also but I still have concerns about the whole point of this amendment. So at this point, really, the only difference is this amendment also prohibits the Seattle Police Department from training with the police of countries that are not human rights abusers in addition to those that are human rights abusers. And keep in mind, I'm defining human rights abusers as per the mainstream, independent international human rights organizations define these issues . So my intent and the intent of the exchange activists and with whom we have worked closely to draft this legislation, was to focus on human rights abusers as defined as that. And this amendment does not change how the bill impacts human rights abusers. But I am concerned that if this amendment passes, that it will be used to, you know, to overall undermine the law, even if it went in place, because then it would be sort of a blanket term law which will not be accepted by a lot of forces in the you know, in the political establishment. And for that reason, I will be voting no on this amendment. And and I just wanted to clarify, August 1st, I said that he brought this amendment because he he didn't think that the base bill brought in the idea of nation neutrality. I just want to clarify, the idea of nation neutrality was in the context of human rights abuses, not just in general. The objection to the very original version of the bill was that it only mentioned Israel and not other countries that might have also been recorded by the international human rights organizations as having abused human rights. We we agreed with that and we changed it accordingly. So in that sense, it is nature neutral thinking. Thank you so much. Obviously because we're strauss. I thank you and council president if there's no other further comments hopefully this my I will close it out for you. Thank you. Councilmember Lewis, to answer your question about being too expansive or restrictive as you sit on the committee, I would suggest voting yes in favor of this amendment today and then separately creating a list of countries that are allowed to train with the Seattle Police Department. So being specific and proactive rather than looking backwards and trying to define councilmembers to want in response to your comments about my amendment. Without this amendment, there is a large loophole in your bill. And that loophole is being able to ascertain or understand whether or not the country in question does or does not comply with international standards . Among a number of different lists that even we here at council have had a difficult time understanding today. And so I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment, to make it to to remove the loophole that is in the bill, to make it nature neutral. And if further refinements to these policies are needed in the future to take that up in a proactive way. Thank you, council president. Thank you so much, Councilmember Strauss colleagues. I do think it's time for us to wrap up debate on this particular amendment. I appreciate the opportunity to have additional conversation about it and and thought that it merited having a little bit more time than perhaps we would ordinarily have, if for no other reason than the fact that we all just are learning about the this proposed amendment in the last hour or so. So thanks so much for your patience. Really appreciate your openness and willingness to to have that public debate. Okay. There are no additional comments on this this amendment. So will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the substitute presented on excuse me on the on the substitute presented on the corrected version of amendment to be recently distributed by Councilmember Strauss. So what? No. Strauss Yes. Or both? No. Juarez? No. Lewis? No. Or Alice? As. I. Petersen i. President Gonzalez. Now. Four in favor, five opposed. Okay. I turn my camera on, see? My Internet will cooperate with me. Great. The motion fails. The substitute is not adopted and amendment to is before the council. Are there any additional comments or questions on Amendment two as previously described by Council member? Somewhat. And hopefully all still remember what Amendment two is to so maybe councilmember slot in an effort to close out debate on Amendment two. You can just quickly remind us what it was about because it's been a while since we talked about it and then we can take a roll call vote. Thank you. That is exactly what I was going to do. Just remind everyone, because it's been a while. This, as I said earlier, this amendment was drafted in response to the discussion we all had during this morning's council briefing. Councilmember Strauss had said at that time that he wanted to make sure that our bill does not preclude the Seattle Police Department from providing executive protections to city public officials on official visits to other countries. This amendment makes it clear that this bill is not referring to the times that that happens. It simply adds a sentence that says, quote, Speed is not prohibited from providing executive protection to city elected officials on an official trip to a country meeting either or both. Exclusion criteria in the. The two subsections. And. Great. Thank you so much. Okay, folks, if there's no additional questions, I would like to go ahead and call the roll on this. So will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of Amendment two? Somewhat. Yes. Strauss Herbold. Yes. Suarez. Yes. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Moschella. I. Peterson. II President Gonzalez. I nine. Favoring unopposed. The motion carries and the amendment is adopted. Councilmember. So don't you have a Third Amendment that you would like that I understand you would like to make a motion on? I'm going to go and hand it over to you to make your motion. And again, it's seconded. We will have a discussion. Thank you. I move Amendment three as emailed to counsel offices this morning. On their second second it's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment three. First one on the handed over to you to address the amendment. Thank you. And thank you to Councilmembers Morales and Miskito for also co-sponsoring this amendment. This Third Amendment adds a reference to the International Criminal Code statute, which was left out of the amendment that the Public Safety Committee approved last Tuesday. The current draft of the legislation cites two multilateral human rights treaties, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as indicators of a government's intentions to abide by human rights and international law. However, the amendment left out the International Criminal Code Statute also called the Rome Statute as another indicator of a government's intentions to abide by human rights and international law. Since the bill's exclusions provision in subsection B immediately below relies on the International Criminal Court as the body determining the violations of humanitarian law, it's only logical to cite the ICC statute along with the other treaties. So that's simply what this amendment does. Thank you so much. Colleagues, any comments on Amendment three? Hearing no comments on Amendment three. Will the clerk please call the roll on the. Oh, I'm sorry. We're not calling the roll. Councilmember Herbold, go ahead. I'm so sorry. I'm so important. Objective. Satisfied with the criteria on the side of commodity was because we verified criterion that are both based in the foregrounding of human rights and our easy staff supply. As it relates to the I.C.E., as they are in the ICCPR, there are lists associated with those two treaties that establish those countries that are not signatories to the treaties. As it relates to the Rome Statute, it is in the inverse, whereas the lists that exist are indicators of nations that are signatories to the the treaty. I also have some confusion about what what is a signatory, what is a party to what is ratifying? What does it mean to not sign? There's a lot of confusion about this addition. I'm I'm really sorry. I'm not comfortable supporting right now. Currently available data suggests this amendment would expand those exclusion criteria to an additional 48 countries beyond the approximately 35 countries that would be excluded by that criterion in the base Bill. That's about 45% of the world's nations. And I'm and I'm very uncomfortable with, again, broadening the scope of the exclusions on the exclusions that I, I moved in my amendment. This the amendment that is being proposed to the language is being proposed to be amended is a mandatory language to an amendment that I offered last week, specifically , again, with with the intent of making sure that the exclusion criteria are are verifiable and simply implemented by the Seattle Police Department. I don't want the Seattle Police Department to have to do Google searches to make to figure this this out. And I just again, I'm uncomfortable with this expansion, and I feel really strongly that we're kind of making the perfect the enemy of the good here. And we have legislation that accomplishes the goals of of the bill sponsor, as well as community members who have been working to support the efforts. Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. Councilmember silence as. Thank you. I as of 2019, 123 countries are party to the International Criminal Court statute and therefore would remain liable training partners unless of course in the future they fail other criteria in the ordinance. And I'm actually not clear at all what the problem is. I mean, as far as I can understand, it would take a police bureaucrat about 30 seconds disasters. It's easily verified. You go to the ICC website and you can see all of the participants. And just to clarify, also, my staff member did send Constable Herbold and others the link this morning when one council member first raised this question. I don't understand why the police should not be doing a sergeant, because it is it is a very it's a verifiable data on on a reputable website. It's not some random Google search. And also, I will add that this is an amendment that has been advocated for strongly by the community activists who first proposed the legislation . We referenced the ICC in the following paragraph. So it's also about just technical clarity and consistency. It only stands to reason to include the statute in the earlier section because ICC is already being referred to in the following. And the Center for Constitutional Rights Experts say that this will help clarify the legislation further because of, you know, because it eliminates these inconsistencies. And that's where this amendment is coming from. It's not just the the the social activists who've been pushing for that and the exchange. They are also they've also been in consultation with people who have some expertize on international human rights law. If First Councilperson. Are there any other comments or questions on the ministry? Hearing none I will accept comes in our salons closing remarks to me just that closing remarks on Amendment three unless there's anything else you'd like to add. No, I'm hearing no. Okay. Well, the clerk please call the rule on the adoption of Amendment three. So what? Yes. Strauss No. Herbold No. Suarez No. Lewis No. Morales Yes. Let's get to I. Peterson No. President Gonzalez. No. Three in favor, six opposed. The motion. The motion fails. The amendment is not adopted. Colleagues, now the amended bill is before the council are there and now is the time to make. And this is. Let me back up. This concludes the amendments that I'm aware of that were slated for discussion and consideration today during full council meeting. So now is the opportunity to to hear general comments on the amended bill. I do want to acknowledge that we have two council members during council briefing this morning request an opportunity to be added to this underlying legislation as co-sponsors. Those two councilmembers are Councilmember Morales and Mosqueda, in your comments on the amended bill, to the extent you intend to make comments, please indicate now in open session that you'd like to be added as co-sponsors to be the amended bill so that we make that notation. And I just let you start recording. So, colleagues, now's the time to make general comments on the underlying bill. Councilmember Salant Because you are the sponsor of the bill, you'll have an opportunity to make final wrap up comments at the end of end of debate. And we have had a lot of discussion about this particular bill. So so hopefully we'll be able to get through this quickly and take a final vote on this proposed legislation. First in line is Councilmember Morales, followed by Councilmember Mosqueda and then Councilmember Peterson and then Councilmember Lewis. Thank you. Council President We have had lots of conversation about this bill. I've had conversations with constituents who support this piece of legislation and those who oppose it. And I've tried to be really clear that my support for this comes from a place of really a deep commitment to human rights, as well as a firm belief that we as a city should not be spending public dollars to send police abroad for the purpose of training with countries that are violating human rights. I'm also firmly believe that we should be moving our police department away from militarization. And really, as Councilmember McKenna was mentioning earlier today, really moving away from a militarization and towards more community based alternatives and toward a different way of policing. And that requires that we invest in the department in a different kind of way as well. I don't think they should be training with militaries or security services in countries that are engaging in human rights. So I do want to express my interest in co-sponsoring the legislation. And the last thing I want to say is that to those who condemned this bill as anti-Semitic, I don't believe this is about the Jewish people at all. It's not about the Jewish religion. This is about the policies and practices of jurisdictions and of states and governments. And as a municipal official, I don't think we should be spending resources to send our police departments to other states and other countries for the purpose of any sort of training. So I look forward to supporting this bill, and I want to thank council members for sponsoring it and the activists and advocates who have been working with with her office and I think with all of our offices to garner support for the legislation. Q. Thank you, councilmember morales. Councilmember Mosqueda and then after councilmember Mr. will be councilmember peterson. Thank you very much, Council President. Colleagues, I want to thank. You all for all your work to get us to this day and really. To the community. Partners, folks that I've met with on all sides of the issue as well. But mostly I want to say thank you to Palestinian and Jewish voice for peace, who I know have done a tremendous amount of research on this legislation in front of us. And I will continue to work with folks who we might not agree on this piece of legislation to continue to find pathways forward for greater support for humanitarian rights locally and across the globe. This is an important piece of legislation, and I want to thank House members for bringing it forward and Councilmember. Herbold. For your work in committee. Again, I think that is important to really lift up that amendment that you made in committee that I know had quite a bit of support to help get this bill across the finish line here today. Councilmember Strauss, thank you again for the legislation that you were aiming to amend today. Happy to have supported that. And Councilmember, so once amendment number three, that included the Rome Statute. I did support that. I do support it, I think would be helpful for us as a body and as a community to continue to look at the Rome Statute. This Rome Statute, quite literally led to the creation of the ICC International Criminal Court. And so I think it would have been a good addition to this piece of legislation. It would have still allowed for us to have trainings with other countries, over 100 additional countries, including countries that we lift up as good models, including Sweden, Canada and some may include Britain as well. So I know that there will be ongoing work as we continue to try to make sure that this piece of legislation is adhered to. And I will continue to do a research on the Rome Statute to see if we can further strengthen in the future. But this is a piece of legislation that I think is a really important component to our ongoing work to. Redefine what community. Safety looks like and the different types of trainings that we want our officers to receive, trainings that are rooted in community alternatives to traditional responses, trainings that are not led by military entities, and trainings that no matter the country, are in line with our values of really wanting to have harm reduction strategies and to make sure that we are not pulling in militaristic styles of engagement nor militarizing personnel. I do appreciate all of the works that all of the work that has been undertaken to move this legislation in front of us today and thank the organizers, the community and again, the council members that I noted for all the work that they put into making this legislation possible for us to vote on today. I look forward to supporting this bill in its current version, and thank you very much, Council Members, for your engagement as we consider various strategies to have public safety really rooted in community. Thank you very much. Thank you. Councilmember Skinner. Next step is Councilmember Peterson. And then after Councilmember Peterson, it will be Councilmember Lewis and then Councilmember Herb. Thank you, council president and thanks for guidance through all that parliamentary procedure with the various amendments while we actually share common ground to demilitarize our police force. I believe this legislation has been not only distracting, but also divisive. We have heard from the Anti-Defamation League, the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, and Leaders synagogues in our city who are very concerned about the origin, intent and impact of this legislation. From a policy standpoint, I believe the legislation is seems to be an errant solution in search of a problem. And the legislation has definitely been a time consuming distraction away from pressing matters such as our homelessness crisis. Countless hours have been spent trying to analyze which nations are or are not included in this legislation. And it appears that our Office of Intergovernmental Relations was not appropriately consulted by the original sponsor of the bill. Rather than veering into international law and international relations, we have plenty of ways right here in Seattle to deepen reforms and safety. And that includes revamping the police union contract, which expired eight months ago. I'll be voting no on this final bill. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Peterson. Next up is Councilmember Lewis. And then after Councilmember Lewis will be Councilmember Herbold and then Councilmember Lawrence. Thank you, Madam President. So I will also be voting against this ordinance today. And I want to say at the outset that I have appreciated the access that the advocates of this ordinance have maintained with my office. And I have gone throughout this process with an open mind to hear folks out. What was really dispositive to me was getting the information back from central staff, particularly this email we received from an informant on September 16th detailing the training that is occurring internationally, at least over the last decade, to illustrate the bottom line of what we're even talking about. You know, this does not, I would add, still substantively go into what exactly these foreign trips entailed, just numbers that foreign trips occurred. I don't know the nature or quality or substance of the trainings that have occurred that were ostensibly banning. There's been assumptions and presumptions made by members of the public and other stakeholders, attributing perhaps that we learned the Seattle Police Department learned core crowd control techniques that have led to the recent extreme and on forgivable abuses that we have seen in recent months in regards to the demonstrations last summer. But I've not actually seen anything indicated anywhere that there's any causal relationship. Between these trips. But in any event, we do have quantitative or we do have quantitative information about the trips that have occurred. So from 2013 to 2021, SBT apparently took six trips to Israel. Four of those trips were for tactical training, and they occurred in 2013, 2014. So there has been no training trip to Israel that's occurred in over seven years from the police department. Again, we don't have the particular nature of those trainings except that they were tactical in nature and I'm not really sure what they were or what bearing they have on the current department and the activities of the department. There were two additional trips to Israel, but they were for executive protection. They were there for with the amendments, for without fall outside of the scope of this ordinance and would not be banned by this ordinance. There has not been a foreign travel event, like I said, to Israel, of any kind in the last seven years. It's notable that the 2016 trip that chief guest took that has been discussed extensively by advocates of the ordinance was not cited by the department as a trip that would be preempted by this ordinance. Presumably there's some loophole we're not aware of, or for some reason that falls outside of the scope of what the department considers a training trip. That was a trip. I'm just as background that was sponsored by the Anti-Defamation League that she took in 2016 and involved visits with Israeli and Palestinian officials in various capacities in the military. At least that was not cited in the report that and gave us one of trips. Not really sure why that is, but given that. Scant. Record of trainings with Israel and I'm not aware in the last ten years of any other international trainings aside from with Canada, which involved 48 trips of various types by far our largest trading partner, and given the amendments that passed and were considered, those trips are not banned by the ordinance. It seems that there is no ongoing or frankly concerning practice that this ordinance would prevent or stop. I'm not aware of any pending or planned trainings that the department is going to undertake in Israel. Indeed, it's been seven years and they have not does not seem like that is an ongoing exchange that the city has. Were there a briefing or more process in the committee providing more detailed information about the nature of these trainings, why they're concerning what the Seattle Police Department is learning in Israel or similarly situated countries? That might change my analysis, but from what I'm seeing here, it's been seven years. We don't really know the substance of the trainings that did occur before then, and that seems to be the bottom line. Given that I don't think I need to go into any more detail. Those are my primary concerns. And for that purpose, I'm not going to be voting for this ordinance. Thank you. Council member Lewis, appreciate you walking us through that rationale. Next up is Councilmember Herbold. And then after Councilmember. Herbold will be. Councilmember Suarez. So very briefly, as background, when this bill was first brought to my attention, I did tell advocates that I would only allow a bill to be heard in the Public Safety and Human Services Committee if it were nation neutral, focused on human rights standards as applied to all countries. I would not permit a bill on my committee agenda that singled out Israel because of the concerns that I heard from members of our community that told me that they were worried that legislation specific to Israel would inflame hate crimes against the Jewish people already on the rise. My support for this bill is very simply based in Seattle Council's statements in Resolution 31858 and 31928 and centered in the very first recital in the bill that Seattle is a human rights city. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, Councilmember Lawrence. Thank you, council president. Thank you, everybody, for your work. I will be voting no today as well for many of the reasons that some of my colleagues have already shared. But in general, let me just share a little bit of what my analysis is and then what my thoughts are. I don't think this is the right arena, if you will. And I think today's discussion that started at 415 underscores the discussion, the confusion and the disagreement. We are not an international tribunal. It isn't our job to go through the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. We are not the U.N. we're not the Hague. I'm not going to go back and read the fourth Geneva Convention and what happened in Switzerland. We're not the International Criminal Court or the Rome Statute, which I'm familiar with. I'm with the International Criminal Court statute. I do agree with what Councilmember Mosqueda said, and that was always my thought and intent, including what Council Herbals said. If the focus in the tent was on our values for human rights and that we get away from the militarization of our police force. But based on what Councilor Lewis said as well, we have scant facts, quite frankly, that she can't convince me that we actually need to pass an ordinance, because I think what we're doing is we are punishing Israel. I think that this creates division. I think that we're not being intellectually honest about what's actually going on here. Obviously, this is there is a bigger picture here of human rights that these issues, these human rights issues have been going on for decades. We are spending an inordinate amount of time on this when we have 16 items on today's agenda. And let me just share this with you, which really concerned me. I received three phone calls from three or national organizations, Jewish organizations that wanted me to know. And I also looked it up that the recent FBI hate crime statistics study for 2020 of the 57% religious based hate crimes were all focused on Jewish people. And that to me is alarming when Jewish people make up 2% of the population. So, again, I don't want to go into this this about what is about going down this rabbit hole of international law. I think what we're really saying here is, is we're weaponizing our vote. And one thing that's always disturbed me and most of the time I'm quiet about it or I listen, but sometimes we go and we weaponize our votes to hurt, to punish, to retaliate, to humiliate. And I think that's what we're doing today. And I don't think it's to enlighten, to live, to educate, to lead us into a better place in the right direction. I understand the principles of human rights. I understand why we want to have those values spoken to and addressed. And little known fact about Deborah warriors here. I did study international law and human rights in Strasbourg, France, in Geneva, Switzerland. So I know a little bit about some of this. And again, this isn't that people are against all of these principles and values that we want to uphold as a city. But this shines more it doesn't shine more light on the issue. It creates heat. And those of you who are familiar with the saint, as I'm sure you talk about Gonzales, when something creates more heat than light, then then there's a problem there. And we don't need a law to say this. And this is you can hide behind it all you want. But the reason why we had to change it and we should have, you know, and I made a mistake, by the way, I wanted to make this country neutral, as is Councilmember Peterson was saying. I'm sorry. Councilmember Yeah. I'm sorry. Councilor Lewis was saying. I just I just think that it's intellectually dishonest to put something forward. I know what we're really trying to do. I'd rather that we get right to the facts and be honest about it, have that discussion. And I just want to end on this note. I'm not saying that what council members want is doing is a bad thing. What I'm saying is that we need to be honest about what we're really talking about. And I think that. Thank you, council president, for walking us through all of this and all of the different changes they created. But again, I think it underscores my purpose and the point I was making that it does create division. And I believe as leaders that we have to do more than that. So thank you. I'll be voting no. Thank you, Councilmember Suarez, for walking us through your rationale. You know, I, I also really wanted to, you know, sort of emphasize my agreement with many of the comments expressed by Councilmember Suarez and Lewis in particular. Like Councilmember Lewis, I was one of two council members during the committee meeting that abstained in hopes of being able to do some sort of curing of some of the issues that we discussed in committee. And unfortunately, I just don't feel like that curing has occurred. And am I. Councilmember Whereas, you know, I really am committed to addressing the realities of not wanting to be part of a city that actively participates in, in practices in which other nations are supporting and advancing human rights violations. And, and I just don't have a sense of confidence that that the formula as described in this bill is actually going to have the intended effect. And I also worry that it is that the intent is actually about the ongoing dispute in the Middle East. And I become very concerned about the impacts of our local actions in that space that could ultimately result in some harm, whether we intended it to or not. When our local, local community and I to, like many of you, have engaged with a lot of people in our community on this and have heard and heard, you know , a lot of differing opinions. But I think the overwhelming number of folks that I have spoken to have, have pleaded with, with us to, um, to find a different way to accomplish the underlying goals of demilitarizing our police department, of remaining a human rights city. And I think that I think that there are ways for us to accomplish that that will be both meaningful and productive and and not divisive, to use councilmember words as words. And I would encourage us to do that. So with that, I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Strauss, who I now see has his hand raised. I'm so sorry about that. I'm I for for disclosure, I had to switch to my phone because my Internet has been so unstable. So I apologize if I skipped you in saying that the hamze features. But go ahead. Councilmember Strauss. Thank you. Council President colleagues. In July, when I met with both the Jewish Federation and Jewish Voice for Peace in the same week, I told them both that I would be putting forward a nation neutral amendment and that if it was truly expansive to all nations, that I would vote in favor of this ordinance. I told Councilmember Herbold, as chair of the committee, I told you this about the same timeline, at least over a month ago, and I've been consistent in my position that that is where we need it to be. It is not not your fault or my fault that I was not consulted last week in preparation for this bill to come out of committee. It is important for me to make it nation neutral by not attempting to understand international law, to not create loopholes for countries to slide through. And it's important for me to also put on the record that it is important to be said another way. We are able to be critical of Israel without being anti-Semitic. There are many ways to be critical of Israel that are in place no matter. It is important for us to understand that the way that Israel is operating now is not in line with how the United Nations initially found Israel to be with a two state solution . It will help Israel by having a two state solution. What is before us today is a bill about police and training, and I have been very clear about my position since the beginning of this conversation. I've been I've been consistent with each person that I've spoken to about how I will vote with what is presented. That unfortunately has not come before us today. And the bill that I have said that I could support is not before us today. Councilmember Peterson and Councilmember Lewis. Some of your commentary was very hurtful. I'm going to sit there with that because I don't really think that anyone else on this committee knows. I'll take a step back. I'll share with you in private how your comments were hurtful to me today. But I'll leave it with that. I won't be voting for this bill. Thank you, guys. Thank you, Councilmember Strauss. I appreciate you sharing your comments and your perspective with us and hope that you have an opportunity to connect with your colleagues offline as you process what is clearly been hurtful to you. And with that being said, I do think we're ready to conclude debate on this. And so I'm going to hand it back over to councilmembers to want to close out debate and to and to then allow us to take a vote on this proposed ordinance. Thank you to councilmembers Morales and Mesquita for adding yourselves as co-sponsors on this legislation. I really appreciate the organizing work of many community members to bring this legislation forward. Over the summer, hundreds of people wrote letters Justified and demanded that the City Council pass this ban on police training with human rights violators. Seattle's and the deadly exchange struggle has been working on this legislation for years. But let me the collective of Palestinian feminist activists whom I've been proud to march alongside in recent months, later pivotal leadership role as well. And I also must commend the active role played by members of Socialist Alternative. My organization were being absolutely dedicated to this issue, both attending the organizing meetings, helping the efforts on the ground, and also being active in public comment. I have especially appreciated the discussions our office has had over the last several months with rabbis and Jewish activists from throughout our community. My council office, which includes staff members who are themselves involved in Seattle's Jewish community life, are acutely aware of the insidious and dangerous nature of antisemitism, as are our allies in the Palestinian communities and community, and as am I as a socialist and as an immigrant woman of color. We all and they all fight alongside us against anti-Semitism because they understand the common struggle against all forms of oppression internationally. But the presence of this ideology of hatred does not absolve any nation or any government, including the city of Seattle, from calling out human rights abusers wherever they are, and from aligning policies and police training with our declared human rights values. As a matter of fact, failing to do this, failing to pass legislation of this kind actually creates more openness for divisions and hate of various kinds, which then adds impetus to oppressive forces. I want to highlight the many groups that are back the efforts here for this legislation. Jewish Voice for Peace, the Seattle Education Association, whose rank and file members adopted a resolution supporting the bill. One America. Seattle Maps. Women Transit Riders. Union Veterans for Peace. Chapter 92 Real Change. Social Justice Fund. Northwest Socialist Alternative Democratic Socialists of America. The Freedom Socialist Party. The American Friends Service Committee. Alcoa. United Church of Christ. The Rachel Corrie Foundation for Peace and Justice. The Center for Constitutional Rights. Kerry Washington. The Coalition of Seattle. Indian-Americans. Palestine Solidarity Committee. Palestine Legal Decriminalize. Seattle Ifnotnow, Kadima, Reconstructionist, Community, La Distancia and many more groups that signed on to a powerful letter in July circulated by the deadly exchange. These are the tremendous community organizations that together, I have no doubt represent the voice of tens of thousands of Seattleites, and those are the voices that are going to be rejected. It seems like by a majority of the council getting ready to vote no. But I do want to appreciate every community member who spoke up in the last six months and joined our council office in demanding action. Collectively, our voices matter. And I'm going to say something about this in a second. And we can demand accountability from the political establishment. Today we have the council has a bill. City council has a bill in front of us that establishes a transparent and evenhanded police training policy that is aligned with the City Council's previously stated and professed human rights values . To fail to adopt this legislation would be to give a pass to Seattle police to continue to train with forces of human rights abusing nations. That would be appalling. The choice is clear, and that is why I am proud to stand with the community and with human rights activists everywhere to urge a strong. Bill and. The legislation. I do want to respond to some of the points that have come up like onto members. In their closing comments, a gang member, Warren said that we are weaponizing our vote to hurt, punish, retaliate, humiliate. I'm sorry. I literally don't understand what that means. I mean, as opposed to the actual weapons that are hurting, punishing, retaliating, humiliating and killing not only Palestinians, but so many oppressed groups around the nation, not to mention the oppressive tactics and repressive tactics used by the police department here on the Black Lives Matter protests. Resident Gonzalez said she didn't see the things that she wanted cured in the legislation. But we never heard any specific. Things, not one thing on what needed to be cured. We have repeatedly reached out to all council members and I don't accept Gordon Bristow saying he was not consulted. What does that even mean? You know, there is a bill to be voted on. You get all the emails. It's your responsibility to let us know if you have specific objections that need to be dealt with. You brought up one thing in the city council briefing today and my office immediately moved to address that issue, which we agreed with, and that amendment was passed. So I'm I'm just not understanding how these arguments can be taken as genuine. And I just, you know, Councilman Restore said three months ago you would put forward an amendment. He did that at 2:01 p.m. and then he was. For council members want to stop talking. Because because of community pressure. And I've also said. Council members won't stop talking about it. I'm sorry, these are not. Talking. About me who made points. I had to respond that you said that we should be so said that the bill creates loopholes for nations to fall through. I literally have no idea what I was just talking about what loopholes mean. We don't know what this is about. These are just talking points that are being said, but no explanation as to why these are the objections that have been that have been put forward. Back in July, we circulated legislation and invited feedback and ideas for improving the bill. We have never we never heard back from Gordon Bush. I was not once we have not heard back from President Bandar either. We still don't know what needed to be cured in the bill. And my last point, but this is the most important point as far as members of the public are concerned. You are my main audience as as a working class elected representative. You all are listening to this debate. You know that it sounds like it's not going to pass. This should be a grim but important lessons to us all. There is no substitute for mass organizing by rank and file community members, labor union members, all of those of us who are committed to social justice. There is no substitute for mass organizing by all of us independent of the Democratic Party establishment, because you see what happens. You rely on, you know, private conversations with council members. You rely on what you consider collegial conversations. You don't want any kind of real feedback. And this is what happens when we do have a fight that we do when this whole year we are one incredible renter's rights victory after renters. Renters, a victory that is not because all these want to move. Well, the. Question that I have. This. Question, please, please, let's call the question so we go this and. So that organizing needs to happen and this needs to be a lesson to all of us. When we fight, we can win. When we don't fight, we often don't pick. Let's fight all the time. Councilmember Salon and everyone I want I want to just sort of take a moment to encourage us to I know that temperatures are running really high right now. And this is exactly part of the reason why I think this bill is perhaps not as helpful as you would have desired for it to be. Even among this very diverse city council, we are seeing lots of very strong emotional reactions. And so I want to encourage us to just bring the temperature down. I think we have now closed debate, I am sorry to the viewing public for for what has occurred. And I want to encourage us as leaders in this city to and to strive to lead by example. And I know that some of us have, even though we have disagreed, we have professionally and thoughtfully stated our opposition to this bill, which is in our right to do. And I do not believe that those reasons or the votes are morally corrupt, nor do I think that people are are abandoning our values to being a human right city. I think we're just disagreeing on how to best effectuate that and look forward to continuing to work with all of you and with each other as we work towards healing and modeling to our behavior of what healing and what a true coalition and community building can look like. So with that being said, Will Kirk please call the roll on the adoption of the amended bill? So on. Yes. Strauss now. Herbold. S. Rice. No. Lewis. No. Morales. Yes. Must get a high. Peterson. No. Is it eight GONZALEZ Now. Four in favor, five opposed. The bill fails and the chair will not sign it. Let's go ahead and move to item five. Will the court please read item five into the record? Agenda item five. Resolution 32019 providing an honorary designation of Thomas Street between First Avenue North and Second Avenue North as Lenny Wilkins Way. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted.