AN ORDINANCE proposing to amend the King County Charter to grant the office of law enforcement oversight subpoena powers; amending Section 265 of the King County Charter; and submitting the same to the voters of the county for their ratification or rejection at the next general election to be held in this county occurring more than forty-five days after the enactment of this ordinance.
Any other questions for Coach Miller? Being none. We thank you very much. And we will take up the first of the two charter amendments that are on our agenda today. This is proposed ordinance 2020 206, which would amend the county charter to grant the Office of Law Enforcement Oversight subpoena powers. Nick Bowman will give a staff report on the proposal. Mr. Bowman, the one is yours. Good afternoon, council members. For the record, Nic Bowman, council central staff. The materials for this item begin on page 389 of your packet. Proposed Ordinance 2020 0206 would submit to the voters of Clayton County an amendment to the county charter to be placed on the next general election, which would add the authority to subpoena documents, witnesses and other relevant evidence. The list of charter powers granted to the Office of Law Enforcement Oversight. As the council is well aware, King County has worked for many years to improve oversight of the King County Sheriff's Office. In the interest of time, I won't go into the full background of those efforts, but I will say that they began in 2006 with the establishment of a blue ribbon panel on police oversight and the adoption of Ordinance 15 611 Creating Aliyah. In November 2015, the voters of King County approved an amendment to the county charter that established OLEO as a charter mandated county office within the legislative branch. This amendment, now Section 265 of the King County Charter, increased oversight responsibilities for Oleo and requiring that those authorities be established by ordinance. And in April 2017, the Council adopted Ordinance 818 500, expanding all those authorities to include investigative authority with subpoena powers for the office, complaint and concern intake responsibilities, including the authority to review Ccso complaint intake classifications, authorization to review policies, procedures, training and operations and to make recommendations. Access to relevant information and crime scene authorities. Notification requirements regarding cases of Complaint Handling Processes and review of inquest findings. Proposed Ordinance 2020 0206, as I said, would submit to the voters an amendment of the King County Amendment to the King County Charter, which would add the authority to subpoena witnesses, documents and other evidence relating to its investigations or review to the list of all your powers described in Section 265 of the County Charter. As stated earlier, Oleo has subpoena powers under King County Code 2.75.055. However, unlike its charter provision that can only be added or removed by a vote of the people lost, ravished by ordinance is transitory and can be changed by the council adopting a new ordinance. If the subpoena power were added to the charter, it can only be removed by a vote of the people. According to Olio director Deborah Jacobs, without the ability to compel the sheriff's office personnel to be interviewed and to produce relevant records. OLEO has limited ability to complete, thorough and objective investigations. Now the authority to issue subpoenas is an established power within oversight agencies around the country and one granted to numerous county entities. A non-exhaustive list of oversight offices in other jurisdictions across the country where some form of subpoena powers can be found on page 391 of your packet and includes. Oakland, California. Washington, D.C.. Chicago, Illinois. Denver, Colorado. Indianapolis, Indiana. Detroit, Michigan. Los Angeles, California. New York City. Cambridge, Massachusetts and Rochester, New York. The table on page 392, your packet lists the county entities with the authority to issue subpoenas as well as any limitations to that authority. And some of these entities include the County Council, the Ombud office, the Office of Civil Rights, the auditor, the chief medical examiner. The Personnel Board and the hearing examiner. It should be noted that should the proposed ordinance be adopted and subsequently approved by the voters, the amendment passage alone may not be enough to effectuate the desired change , as the proposed amendment may affect the working conditions of cso's unionized workforce. The county would most likely need to engage in bargaining with the affected unions before Oleo could exercise the powers granted by that amendment. I also just want to touch briefly on some election timing requirements in order to place on the November three, 2020 ballot and effective ordinance must be transmitted to Elections Department by August 4th, 2020. Therefore, the last regular council meeting date for adoption is July 21st and August 4th. 2020 is the last special council meeting date to adopt the ordinance as an emergency. Finally, there are two amendments. Amendment one would make changes to the language and substance of the proposed charter amendment, including changing the general election date in which the proposed charter minute would appear on the ballot from November 2019 to November 2020. Granting Oleo the authority to administer oaths to witnesses subpoenaed by Oleo and clarifying that any witness subpoenaed by Oleo shall have the right to be represented by legal counsel. Amendment One confirms the title of the proposed ordinance to the changes made by Amendment One. With regards to changing the general election date in which the proposed charter amendment would appear on the ballot from 2019 to 20 2nd November 2020. That concludes my staff report. We have also director for Jacobs and she's Patrick Singleton, CSO Online to help answer any questions the committee may have. Mr. Bowman For my clarity. Clarity? The two amendments are the one substantive amendment and the title amendment. Is that correct? That's correct. Thank you. And next, I'd like to call on our commissioner from the Charter Review Commission. I believe, as I'm prepared to present on this amendment. Alejandro. Pausing at 100 trees. There we go. Hi, everyone. One thing, Councilor McDermott, first of all, is that it says that my Internet is a bit unstable here in rural unincorporated, which I think all of us feel a little unstable during COVID. So let me know if I'm lagging. And I can try to adjust or shut off my video. I wanted to thank you, Councilmember German pair and all the council members for this discussion. I also want to express my gratefulness to the charter commission, some of whom are watching especially. At 100, you just walk up. Of 100 drives. I suggest you turn your video off. Okay. Will do. Is this any better? Yes. Okay. Excellent. So just wanted to say thanks again to the charter commission, especially the equity committee, especially my co-chair, Liz Ford, who was a main driver. I think Nick actually mentioned quite a number of things, so I don't know that I'm going to be doing a lot more of fleshing that out. But I just want to say a little bit from the charter conditions perspective as to what we felt that this amendment would do and also why we felt it was necessary. As Nick mentioned, this also needs to have the authority to subpoena records and provide effective civilian oversight for law enforcement. And, of course, the amendment for subpoena power would add to that list of oleo of authority charters granted to oleo in the charter, and the county code already has a reflection and contemplates granting this authority to oleo. But it is not listed as in the charter as it is with other agencies. Now the CRC believes this amendment, if this amendment passes and ultimately can be bargained, that subpoenas rarely be used as parties will share information and not want to have to use the subpoena process. Well, with that in mind, why do we feel this is necessary? The Charter Commission believes that the residents can county have expected civilian oversight of the King County Sheriff's Office since 2006 and before, but at least 2006 when the council created the office, and certainly since 2015, when the voters added oleo to the county charter. However, efforts for effective civilian oversight, including subpoena power, have consistently been thwarted by the collective bargaining process. The issues to this day, the charter commission believes, continues to this day and we feel is a powerful statement to add the subpoena power to the charter and make it consistent with other agencies. It's been almost 14 years since the council first created Oleo, and that way it is long enough for effective civilian oversight. We feel by you moving this forward to the ballot, voter approval will help clarify the public's desire for more empowered oversight of our sheriff's office. Thank you. Thank you. Council members questions of Mr. Goldman Miss Trace and I'm Patty content. I'm sorry, Miss Court. And I don't know your current title, Undersheriff. In another week, I'll be the undersheriff. And currently you don't, chief, but okay. And also Director Jacobs are all available for questions as well. Colleagues. Ashton Lambert Councilmember, remember? LAMBERT Thank you. So I have two questions. One is, will this change the requirement for it to be parliament? And secondly, if you look at the chart, there are many departments that have the subpoena, including us. And to my knowledge, we have never used it. So how often in all of this has it ever been used? To my knowledge, it hasn't been. So I would like to be updated on that. I can speak generally to the first question, which is that it may require bargaining. It is our understanding that, yes, bargaining would need to take place before the olio to actually be able to subpoena you. So personnel that but that of course we would have to actually have the men would have to be adopted by the voters . So I don't want to put the cart before the horse too much. Right. And in addition, I do not have on hand a record of how many Times County entities have issued subpoenas. I would have to query all of those offices to determine that. It should be pretty easy because I think the answer is probably zero. I don't understand what is different. We already have the ability for them to subpoena. And as she said, it's been years that it hasn't been fired and for a variety of reasons that we probably should get to the bottom of. But this this doesn't change it. We'll be back exactly where we are right now in my mind. So that's a concern. We're making a pretty much false assumptions public that this will change the underlying. Richard Jacobs, did you have a response either to the previous question or the current one? Yes. Thank you. I appreciate you hearing from me a couple contextual comments. So the officers in the county that have subpoena power are counsel of Ombud, Office of Civil Rights Auditor, Chief Medical Examiner, Personnel Board and hearing examiner. And I also want to let folks know that it's a pretty much a norm for investigatory oversight agencies to have subpoena power. And I have a list of about 15 or 20 that I'm aware of that have it. In fact, almost none of them use it. And there's a good reason why. The reason is, is that once they have it, the threat of using it suffices to get the access to information that they need. That's been the lesson I have learned from hearing from my nationwide colleagues, is that once you have it, it sort of works without having to assert it. But Councilmember Lambert's comments are so well taken. The other thing I did want to mention is that there's specifically a real concern, the current collective bargaining agreement. It says that. That if the charter is amended, then it's a reopen after bargaining subpoena power as required by law. So that's one reason to do it now, because I know we have a lot of ambitions for the next round of bargaining. I also feel like having the voters affirm that this is their desire and make it consistent with the council's understanding of the role and the investigation role will be very important. And I think that affirmation would be meaningful and even potentially meaningful if there are challenges in the context of bargaining. So no, it's definitely does not overcome the state law challenges presented by collective bargaining for or oversight. But I still think it's important and worthy thing to be in the charter, to speak the will of the county . Thank you. Thank you. Further questions, colleagues. John. Councilmember Dunn. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate. And this is a question for our two questions. One is, does the sheriff's office have a position on this particular the charter amendment aside, appreciate your articulating it. And then the other question I have is, and maybe Debra countered, there are different kinds of subpoenas in the world. There are civil or criminal. There are legislative subpoenas. What is the what is the type of subpoena we are talking about here? And is there any standard that has to be met in order to request the subpoena? In other words, does it have to be within the scope of an active investigation, or can it be very broadly used in terms of various policy? What is what is the charter amendment speak to with specificity? Thank you. So I can keep cold Tindal sheriff's office, so I can answer Councilmember Dunn's question. So the position of the sheriff and our office is that we really are not taking a position on this. Obviously, this is something that has been an issue, if it goes to the voters, becomes part of the charter. It does have to be bargained. At least that's my perspective as your previous director of labor relations responsible for collective bargaining in the county, and that currently it is the executive who has that responsibility to negotiate this, which is really a working condition but because the voters previously. Basically approved that, you know, we would not bargain our own working conditions, which makes sense. Thank you. You're welcome. And on the second. So I don't have a full answer to your question. What I can tell you is the intent is that it would be able to have compel people, personnel to be interviewed about incidents and also to compel to get banking or phone records as far as the legal complexities of sort of how it would be administered. I don't have the familiarity and we'd have to have some research done on that. Can I just make one state? I'm sorry. Yeah, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead. I want to ask I think that like some other issues, I need some legal clarity on it. It may be just that it's substantially similar, as you said, are other independent counsel appointed positions. But I'd like to know and in particular, I'm interested in the in the contours or in other words, the limitations and what the subpoena power provide for my own information at some point. I mean, we're going to take action to travel with your passport. Helpful. So appreciate that. And go ahead. I just want to clarify one other thing about a reopen or that Deborah mentioned. That still has to be something that the guild would be interested in doing while it's in the contract. It still requires that there is the willingness to reopen. So I just wanted to point that out. Thank you. I mention one other thing, Councilmember. Councilmember Dunn, you know, the questions you're asking also would relate to what kind of independent investigations are being conducted. And this is something I'm really eager for a council to give some thought to and hopefully have a stakeholders conversation that includes guild members and KSO and the public. There are different ways it could be approached and I won't go into details now because I know we're short on time, but I think that there's a lot into sort of what this might look like. Yeah. And I appreciate that and I'll just finish with this. And so I'm not like, you guys aren't like searching in the dark. What I'm looking for is that the subpoena power is rationally related to the charter, the mission of Oleo in the charter, and other subsequent motions and legislation we put forward as well as staffing that is that it if it goes forward, that it move in a way that is directly related to that mission as opposed to some, you know, blanket authority to subpoena whatever it is that is desire for the purpose of driving some policies or set of policies forward. That's a little bit different and it just needs to be discussed so we don't work or buy in here, so to speak. Up the road. Can about the growth. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I know the answer to this, but I want to make sure is the Sheriffs Guild contract next up for renewal at the end of next year. The crisis heads nodding. This charter amendment wouldn't take effect. The November ballot take effect, I assume, January one. And imagine that timing would be just about right to begin going into negotiations and. Right. So perfect timing. So that speaks to me as one reason to act. And I'd just one comment, if I may, if that's appropriate, Mr. Chair, then I. My constituents or people I hear from are often very confused about this process. And it's frustrating as an elected official because the heat is on us. I don't think most people realize that the only tools of civilian oversight that we're able to conduct over our sheriff's department or those in which the police agreed to. Because of this provision in state law that allows not only for the police guild to negotiate, but if we don't reach agreement, it goes to a third party and that decision is final. And when that third party often looks at comparables, it means it's a barrier to change. And so this. Just to be clear about communicating what we're doing, we're. You know, this is being proposed to go in front of the voters, be put into our county constitution or county charter to strengthen our position there . Whether legally, politically, structurally. But at the end of the day, the only oversight we're allowed to provide is that in which the police agree to let us provide intel if and when state law were to change, and so not to get people's hopes up too much who are advocating for this? Because unless again, unless that state law changes, this is going to be. Only if the police want us to, basically. So that's my my comment on it. But I'm very supportive moving forward. Colleagues. Edification. Was my remember. So could you clarify? I think all of us had the right to do independent investigations. And I thought that there was a grievance at some point about that. Can you tell me where the grievance landed in and is there the right to do independent investigations? So I can say on the history that there was a grievance filed after the audience was initially passed in 2006. Most of that ordinance was repealed and then the grievance was dropped and the ordinance was passed in 2008 that aligned with the contract with guilds at the time, and then the powers were later established. I'll let Deborah speak it to the individual or the independent investigations, but that the initial grievance was for the initial ordinance, and then another ordinance was put in place. So I you're talking about the more current grievance. The grievance was over a systemic review of the shooting of my chance to get involved. And the guild has been on hold with its grievance because it wants to present it to Oehler in person and because of the virus that has not happened. 310. I do not believe that report is an investigation is because no investigation was done, meaning no one was called. It was just the review of the file, much like, you know, of adding and then adding expertize. So if they don't like that, they're really not going to like what an investigation is. And that's something that, as I mentioned earlier, we really need to discuss, but that's a status after it's presented to all our rules. And then it's possible it could be appealed to arbitration. That would be the next step. I would love for us to be able to resolve it peacefully before that myself, and I've expressed that to Olara. So at this very moment, you have the right to do. Whatever. I'm sorry. The right to what? You independent investigations. So on a very limited scope, for example, it would be possible under limited circumstances to investigate someone who is not represented by the Guild. Yes. So basically, Deborah is correct. That would mean the chiefs, the undersheriff. Perhaps our legal advisers, those that are know, I think there's seven or eight of us that are not represented. A very limited. And beyond that, Patty, I believe the scope is also limited, meaning it might have to be a use of force or something like that as well. I'd have to look at the language, but I think it's along those lines. Thank you. Councilmember Dombrowski. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We've had some discussion about this. And I want to remind folks and please Deborah or Nick or legal counsel, correct me if I'm wrong, but Nick mentioned the 2017 implementing ordinance that I had worked on with councilmen, Councilmember Gossett, which carried that brought to life the the charter amendments passed by the voters. And we, I believe, already adopted in that ordinance the authority for the Office of Law Enforcement Oversight to issue subpoenas so that the the it's in their charge today. And I know that hasn't really been mentioned or has it's maybe got lost a little bit that this charter amendment would basically the thinking behind putting in the charter is that it elevates the importance and to the extent we don't get agreement from the guild at the bargaining table coming up, the grove is 100% right. And I like the way you phrased it, that we can only do the oversight that the guild lets us do. But the thinking is that perhaps what the voters speaking on this particular topic, that it might, if necessary, to go to an arbitrator, have some extra strength in terms of the the people speaking so that the power is there by ordinance. This just puts it in the charter. We're not changing the contours of it at all in terms of the kind of subpoena power. And I think with respect to the individual investigations, the investigations of individuals, their use of force versus other investigations by the office, the subpoena power could be helpful in their systemic review as well to the extent they need documents to complete that. And maybe that's my question to Director Jacobs. Would you agree with that? I would say at this point we are fairly successful in getting the documents we need from the sheriff's office. They have capacity problems, so there's a timeliness issue. But besides that, we have that kind of access. So it would be hard for me to envision that systemic review. I guess we would have to be trying to get data from like outside sources. It's possible, but I'll have to think a little bit more on that and I'll let you know. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You're welcome. Colleagues, anything else? Would you like a motion? I would welcome a motion. They, Mr. Chair, I'd be happy to move. Adoption of proposed ordinance number 2020 0206, which would with a do pass recommendation of the full council. The ordinance would put before the voters in the November 2020 election the question of whether they would like to amend King County Charter to specifically grant the Office of Law Enforcement Oversight, which was created by Charter. The power to issue subpoenas. And if amended here by Amendment one, to compel witnesses to testify with the assistance if they wish to counsel. Councilmember Dombrowski is moved to give a to pass recommendation to ordinance 2020 206. Councilmember Dombrowski if you want to move adoption of the amendment so moved to amendment one is before us. Staff addressed the amendment as the discussion on the amendment. All those in favor. Please say I i i opposed nay. A. The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. Move t one and two. Two. One is before us discussion. All those in favor of Taiwan. Please signify by saying I oppose. Nay, the ayes have it. Total amendment is adopted. We have ordinance 2020 206 as amended before us discussion. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to speak. As a member of No Duty. Thank you. Thank you. It's been a while since somebody did that. I didn't speak up during the question and answer, but I wanted to just make my feelings on this clear is I have always believed as somebody who spent a lot of time working with internal investigations, people as labor advisers, legal adviser, as a director, I have always believed that a good oversight, oversight that is accepted by all sides, by the public, by the people who have been harmed in most situations where we're doing an investigation and somebody has been harmed somehow and by the people who are providing critical services like law enforcement, feeling that they get a fair shake, I think that public oversight provides that kind of assurance to everyone when it's done right. But in order for it to be done right, the investigators need access to the information they need to to do their job without full information. They cannot provide the transparency. That's what we seek with oversight. And so I think this is almost almost a no brainer. I don't have any concerns with this level of of of authority at all. I hope that we can implement it. I personally also believe that oversight should not be subject to bargaining. I should not be able to say whether somebody what somebody how somebody judges me. I should not control that process for myself. That's just that's almost unethical. And so I think it's really important that we move in this direction for everybody. By the way, I'm very much in favor of having a process that was briefed to us in that earlier briefing about how elected officials can be held accountable, not holding in on myself or my colleagues separate from this. So I just feel very strongly this is a good step. I will vote for it. I hope that it passes in November and that we can find a way to implement it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Other colleagues. Councilmember Dombrowski. I think it was I know the meeting's running long and I'll try to be very brief here, but I echo the comments, of course, from about 80. And I've been thinking a lot lately about the phrase law enforcement. And there's two pieces to that, the laws and the enforcement. And I think in the debate we're having here in our country right now, we should look at what laws we are passing and have passed and determine whether they are laws that have just put impacts in the way they come down on folks and make changes. We also need to look at our enforcement side and make sure that it's just and fair and effective and that people have confidence in it. This is one small piece of building confidence in the enforcement side of the laws that we as politicians and others have adopted. And like any profession, I just think that independent oversight, checks and balances, if you will, on that is par for the course. And it not only builds confidence by it in the system, by the public, or at least it can if it's done well, but it can also improve the organization. This is not about getting somebody or going after somebody. This is about ensuring that there is transparency when something goes wrong and that there is accountability and that there can also be vindication and clearance. Right. Let's let's keep in mind that these outcomes are not predetermined. We have independence in the structure to take a look at things when there's been a complaint made and make sure that when the decision is rendered that it comes from not an internal investigation unit or somebody part of the organization, but rather somebody outside. It's why our courts are independent. It's why the judge wears a black robe to signify neutrality. This is these are values enshrined in our in our in our country. And this today is just a tool for our independent oversight office to be able to hopefully carry out that mission. I want to just signal to colleagues, we've had a good discussion today about the role that the labor negotiations plays in this. And I've heard some new statements, including one echoing our county executives leadership saying, hey, you know, buffer state law, we wouldn't and maybe shouldn't have to negotiate this. We set the labor policy today for the county as the county council. And I think that we shouldn't wait on this issue and also on the ability of Oleo to conduct independent investigations until the next bargaining cycle. I know a lot has happened since we adopted that contract a couple of months ago. And I, I want to just let you all know that we're working on a draft labor policy that would ask the executive to go back to the bargaining table and see if the guild is willing to reopen the contract on those two items and get it done. Because I just don't think you can watch what's occurred here in America and have the same answer that we've had for a decade, which is no. And if it is no, I think that tells us some valuable information about what policy responses and what budget steps we might need to take. Because as I said at the last meeting, we talked about this on Friday. I think our public wants us to fund a law enforcement system that protects and serves in a fair and just way. And effective oversight and transparency is a part of us, a critical part of that and is necessary, in my view, before significant funds are put in. So I think the governor about it, she got it right. This is like almost a no brainer. We've already done it. The ordinance, this enshrines it if the voters approve it in our county constitution and courage colleagues support. Appreciate the co-sponsors that have come on councilmembers alkali co wells and McDermott. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The discussion. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Council member, Belgium. I Councilmember Carducci, but I also remember asking. I. Councilmember Demovsky both to council member. II. Council member done both I Council member calls I Council Member Caldwell's full time Council Member Lambert No. Council member Lambert Voltz, now council member of the drop. By. Council member of the Girl Scouts, council member Conroy Fowler. I council member by night thereabouts. I council members are high. I council members on halibut i. Mr. Chair. Hi. Mr. Chair. The vote is eight ice. Councilmember Lambert. No. By your vote, we've given a do pass recommendation to ordinance 2020 206 and. We will. Staff. Is this the one that time to engross might be needed? Yes, I think it's possible. But it's it's also if if there's a desire to expedite, that would be fine as well. Is there a desire to expedite? Mira. Then I will. We will not expedite. It will be a regular course of action to full council and not on consent. That takes us to item nine. Proposed Ordinance 2019 to 36, which would amend the County Charter to clarify when an inquest was being held and to provide for legal representation