AN ORDINANCE proposing the position of King County sheriff be returned to an appointed position with a requirement for consideration of community stakeholder input during the selection process, and with the county executive being responsible for bargaining with the department of public safety's represented employees; amending Sections 350.20.40, 680.10 and 890 of the King County Charter and repealing Sections 645 and 898 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.
Thank you. By your vote, would you pass recommendation to motion 2020? 240 will expedite that to full council next week. The next item on our agenda is proposed ordinance 2020 205, which would submit to the voters an amendment to the county charter to reestablish the county sheriff as an appointed position. Nick Bowman will brief us on the ordinance. We also have a presentation from Keenan Williams and David Heller from the Charter Review Commission. Their presentation is not in your packet but was sent to members prior to the meeting and I hope that Mr. Bowman can tell us when the email was sent, because I know I don't have that at my fingertips without Mr. Bowman. Nothing like setting you up. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe the additional materials were sent out yesterday, so let me pull that up for you. Yes. They were sent out yesterday at 8 a.m.. Or this morning I'm sorry, this morning at 8:58 a.m.. Thank you. All right. All righty. Good afternoon. Council members, for the record, Bowman Council Central Staff. The materials for agenda item 11 begin on page 75 of your proposed ordinance 2020 0205. I would submit to the voters of King County an amendment to the County Charter to be placed in the next general election, which would reestablish the county sheriff as an appointed position. Under the amendment, the county sheriff would be appointed by the executive and confirmed by the County Council. Imminent would also designate the executive as the bargaining agent for the county related to any collective bargaining negotiations with representative employees of the Department of Public Safety, also known as the King County Sheriff's Office. For a bit of background, from 1802 to 1969, the King County sheriff was an elected position that operated more or less independently of the three county commissioners who exercised both legislative and executive power in November 1968. The voters of King County approved a home rule charter which replaced many quasi independent elected officials, including the sheriff, with appointed positions subordinate to the executive. For the next 25 years. The top law enforcement officer in King County was appointed by the executive as the director of the Department of Public Safety as the sheriff's office was issued under the charge in May 1996. Proposed ordinance 90 5755 was adopted by the County Council. This ordinance submitted to the voters a charter amendment to establish the county sheriff as a nonpartizan elected official with a four year term. The ordinance maintained the Department of Public Safety as an executive department and also maintained a civil service employment status of the department's employees. In November 1996. Charter Amendment number two Establishing a King County sheriff as a nonpartisan elected official was approved by the voters with 57% voting yes. In November 1997, Dave Reichert, Evader, a veteran of the county police force, was elected sheriff. There have been a total of five elected sheriffs against Sheriff Richards first term in 1998. Turning to the ordinance before you, as I said, proposed ordinance 2020 0205 would submit to the voters an amendment to the King County Charter, reestablishing the county sheriff as an appointed position. And this would be placed on the ballot for the November 2020 general election. As an appointed position, the sheriff would be appointed by the executive and confirmed by the Council. The proposed amendment would also establish the executive as the bargaining agent for the county with respect to collective bargaining with represented employees of the sheriff's office. Table one starting on the bottom of page 76 of your materials, provides a crosswalk of the changes to each charter section under the proposed amendment. In the interest of time, however, I won't go through each of those unless you would wish me to do so. Okay. If not hearing no desire to hear that, I just I'll move on quickly to cover the general election timing requirements in order to place this November 3rd ballot and effective ordinance must be transmitted to the Elections Department by August 4th. Therefore, the last regular council meeting the council meeting date for adoption is July 21st, 2020. August 4th 2020 is the last special council meeting date to adopt this ordinance as an emergency. There are amendments to this item and if there are no questions to the underlying ordinance, I'll move on to those. Eric. Yeah. Okay. Amendment S-1, which is found on page 85 of your packet. Would make several technical and substantive changes to the proposed charter amendment. First, the state of the sheriff's deputies shall be prescribed by ordinance rather than general law, and removes the language prohibiting the sheriff's office from being abolished or combined with another executive department and from having the department's duties decreased by the County Council. Second, it would require the executive and the Council to consider stakeholder input before appointing and confirming a sheriff, and that the stakeholder process shall be prescribed by ordinance. And third, it would make technical language and phrasing changes as recommended by the legal counsel, by legal counsel's legal counsel . And there is also Amendment T one, which is on page 91 of your packet. And this conforms the title of the proposed ordinance to the changes made by Amendment one. Lastly, I just wanted to note that proposed ordinance 2020 0231, which is the next item on today's agenda, would establish the duty sheriff and the structure and the duties of the King County Sheriff's Office by County Ordinance. However, this ordinance would retain the county sheriff as an elected office. Therefore, in the event the Council were to adopt those Ordinance 2020 0205 and proposed Ordinance 2020 0231 there would be competing charter amendments on the November 2020 general election ballot one which would establish an appointed county sheriff and one which would retain an elected county sheriff. That concludes my staff report. As the chair mentioned on the line today, our charter review commission members Ken Williams and David Heller, who I understand will give a presentation on the Review Review Commission's decision to recommend both charter amendments. Mr. Chairman, that's a procedural question. You're a council member about this. Thank you. And it might not be appropriate at this time, but let me put it on the table. I guess I don't fully understand why we need to make these two proposals competing. Why could you not have one proposal that addresses the method for appointing or electing the sheriff and one that addresses how you change the duties of the sheriff? That seems so much cleaner to me. And so what I'm concerned about is it listening to people talking. It seems to me that there's going to be a fair split opinion on the question of whether you elect or appoint the sheriff. And if you merge the two topics together this way, I think we're likely to lose both of them. And I would really like to see the second one pass. So is it possible to keep them separate? Can we do that today or when we get to full council? That's my question. Chocolate and peanut butter. Can we separate them? To great taste. The taste. Great Tibetan beauty. Then you either get chocolate and peanut butter or neither. I want the chance to have at least one. It's just absurd with. I was going to ask if you can respond to that with more than a advertising jingle. So with the way the tickets are currently drafted, it would set up a competing ballot. Measures were adopted. Now is obviously a policy choice of a council. Which ordinance? If you want to adopt one or the other. My note only if all are adopted and both questions are provided to the voters. Is there any reason why they need to be drafted this way? Well, I think I'll let this ask. You might have an answer. I'm sorry. I don't mean to interrupt you. Councilman Mickey Mouse. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilman Belushi, I think your point is well taken. I believe that the reduction of duties as and have been established by ordinance this this proposed amendment that's coming later was developed maybe after the election of the sheriff won. And what I would suggest. I think you're right on and was thinking the same thing. That if it advances to full council that we should remove that alteration of duties language from the appoint the shearer amendment and have that be a separate standalone item to determine if the voters want to pick and choose. They may choose. They can then adopt them both. They would not be competing, or they could adopt one or the other and they would not be competing. So I would pledge to make those changes affordable council. If we advance this out today so that they would integrate together, and I believe that's entirely possible and makes much more sense. I think it's just a timing issue, developing the second one by other members. Yeah, that all makes perfect sense. Thank you. I appreciate that. I think it's also clear to the voters they have a yes or no on X and a yes or no on y is much easier than competing, I think always confuses people. Thank you. I'm pretty sure I think that most of the if I could just one more before we're going to just resolve one thing I did want to include in this writing them was the notion of establishing a consultation process with interested stakeholders in the appointment of a sheriff. And that that's important. But I think. Hello. Oh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Banducci, I fully agree with you that they should be two separate things, and we actually tried to work on that. But maybe, Nick, can you talk through some of the challenges of separating them? You know, when when I tried to talk through that, it sounded like, you know, the scope of one amendment would capture the other change. And I'm trying to explain it in the right way. But basically, there is no way to do a line item amendment to just the specific sentence you want to remove. You have to change the whole section. And that section encompasses both changes that we're trying to make. Did I describe that right? Well, I won't I won't way too much into the legal without legal counsel coming to save me. But what I will say is that the where the meaning become, where the amendments would become competing is strictly that one ordinance has the sheriff being appointed and the other ordinance has of being elected. And so despite what else is in the ordinances, those two are in direct competition. And so in particular, if both ordinances were put forward on the ballot, which would set up the competing amendments. So if I believe I understand what happened, she was asking, is it could we separate or could you all ask me to draft something to separate the question of the sheriff's duties, separate from the issue of whether or not they are appointed or elected? The answer is yes. Okay. Thank you. My understanding was that there was an issue with doing that. But we can talk to our legal counsel after this. Up the grove as a member of the Grove. Thank you. I was just going to echo councilmember off allies and then I had received similar feedback from legal counsel on this exact question. So I'd encourage us to and I want the same resolution that everyone else has suggested here. Thanks. Thank you so. Mr. Bowman, you have you returned to our charter review commission, correct? That's correct. And I also just wanted to say that we have Undersheriff Gary Colton from the sheriff's office here to answer questions as well. Remember you. Did you explain to me a little bit more on page seven? I've been under the influence of Section one. Exactly. What does that mean? As I read it and a general view all across the state, you have a sheriff's office that cannot be abolished or combined with any other executive function. If we take that out, then are you saying that the sheriff's office could totally be abolished and also it could be embedded in some other organization that says. Also general law referred to in some parts. General law refers to state law in general, which is RTW 3628. So those are the duties that are listed in state law for county sheriffs and which the charter that refers to as the general duties of the sheriff and their deputies. The line specific to the charter, the King County charter states that the sheriff's office shall not be to be combined or abolished with and abolished or combined with another executive department, and their duties shall not be decreased by the County Council. Removing that as my understanding, the intent of the sponsor would allow the Council to determine what the duties of the sheriff deputies are, as well as the structure and duties of the Sheriff's Office. If there was a proposal to completely abolish the sheriff's office, then back then this might or might. I would say that would require legal review and the rest of it might allow that. I think the other aspect of it is the if certain duties that are done by the sheriff. Now, if the council chose to have a different department do that, there is a barrier in the charter right now to doing so, and this would remove that barrier. When I read that it is a glass breaking great shot. And one of the things that I've always thought about government is providing for the peace and safety is the number one value. And so how would that fit with the other duties of being a local government? I don't know of any local government. I've never heard of local government didn't have a law enforcement branch. So how would we comply with the basic duty of a local government? Not thinking regional government. Right. I'm talking about local government. I wouldn't be focusing on a local government duty. I'm sure there must be some other RTW that requires local governments privately service. Hello. I got you. Well, I guess I don't want to go, because I don't want to go down to the hypothetical, as there is no proposal before us to abolish the sheriff's office. And I would not deem to figure out in my, first of all, what the wisdom of the council might be in the future. But yes, but you don't write a love that opens a huge trap to go into and not realize you're doing that. So I think it's important that we look at what the potential ramifications of this are. So. Okay. And so anyway, answer was yes. That is what it says. And I have very big concerns of the idea of what that means as well. And if that falls in with the municipal code to be providing local services such as the chair, if you. But Pedro, I understand that our legal counsel, Kendall Moore, would like to make a comment, but was having trouble being unmuted or being recognized. Kendall. You're unmuted on the Zoom feature. Can you hear me? We can. Super. I just want to point out that. That there are distinctions between the. A striking amendment offered by Mr. Dombroski and the. Proposal by Mr. Zala that that go beyond just the difference between if one is appointed and if one is elected. So what I what I was hearing from Councilmember Balducci is. And correct me if I'm wrong Councilmember is could we have a choice between is the sheriff elected and appointed and then a separate charter amendment on the the duties. And I think that's what I was asking. And I heard Councilmember Tim add that he also was trying to include in the selection of the sheriffs and a process requirement of including community, which I support. So it seems like you could take just the two topic areas and separate them in the best interests of the voter you can. There would just have to be concurrence on the what I'm going to call the duties portion of the. On the. Charter amendment. So this would kind of be bifurcating those issues. Because right now the the charter review. Version only changes that the sheriff will be elected. That's the only thing it does, really. I heard a fair bit of support to keep the chocolate and the peanut butter separate, so perhaps we could try to find a way to do that. I don't think this will not be a Reese's peanut butter Reese's fan. We all are. But I hope to be more s'mores numbers. Hello. Thank you for asking to be recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Kendall, I just want to clarify one more time. There is a way of having proposing a charter amendment that addresses appointment versus election that is silent on the duties. And then separately, there is a way to have proposed a charter amendment that is fully silent on elected versus appointed, but removes the duties section. Is that right? We can have two separate ones that are silent on both issues and don't require us to implement the other thing. I think. Yes, you can do that. Your the the concern I have councilmember is yours does not do does not go as far as council member Dombrowski is striker. With regard to removing the sheriff as the bargaining agent as an example. So there would have to be some agreement as to what's in the what I'm calling the duties charter amendment versus the whether the sheriff is elected or appointed. Oh, but I think I think it can be done. Look. I'm happy to connect with anyone on this to try to resolve this. Thank you. Thank you. We've identified a concern. A number of members have an interest in separating the two, and we're in the process of introducing Mr. Williams and Mr. Heller from the Charter Review Commission to speak to the their recommendation of the Charter amendment to make the Sheriff appointed. Mr. Heller. Mr. Williams. I turn it over to you. There are two. Good afternoon, Mr. HILLARD. I believe that's you speaking. We have to go. It's Mr. Williams speaking. Mr. Williams? Well, we really hope all your audio is very garbled, and I suggest you turn off your video. We don't hear you at all now, Mr. Williams. Oh. Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams seems to have frozen up. And may now be logging out to log back in. Mr. Heller, would you be prepared to take in? I can start. Thank you. So we prepared a PowerPoint, which I understand was not sent to the council until this morning. I certainly don't want to read it to you, but I would urge everyone to take a look at it. It. It lists some of the reasons why we did what we did. I want to start by telling the council that we studied this issue for more than a year. It was not something that we did lightly or precipitately. It is not targeted at the current sheriff or any sheriff. It was the view of 21 of the 23 members of the commission that this structural change should be made. And I've heard a lot of public comments about a power grab by Seattle. I don't live in Seattle. Mr. Williams doesn't live in Seattle. There were commission members from Seattle and there were commission members from outside Seattle. The first concern that we have and none of the proposed amendments seems to address it. And let me just say that the commission did not studies proposed amendments, so I can't speak for the commission about those amendments. But the first concern that we had is that we believe that changing the sheriff to an appointed position is, in this case, actually more democratic than what we are doing now. The reason is that the percentage of the county population that is in unincorporated King County and must be policed by the sheriff is 11%. So the voters of unincorporated King County, when it comes to choosing their sheriff, are outnumbered by a factor of 9 to 1. Even if you include the people who are being policed by the sheriff voluntarily through the cities that have contracted with King County for police services, it still only represents 25% of the population. Three quarters of the voters in King County. Are not being policed by the sheriff. And under the current system, those folks have the ability to impose whomever they want to be sheriff upon the people whom the sheriff actually polices. We don't think that's democratic. On the other hand, seven of the nine council members have at least some unincorporated King County in their districts. So we believe that the input of the Council on who gets to be sheriff would. Be more democratic and would enhance the input that the unincorporated areas have. A lot of our PowerPoint shows, graphs and lists of populations that illustrate that point. David, this is Kim and Williams. Oh, you're back. Hopefully the chair. The chair can hear me. Yes, I've been listening to you. And thank you for filling in on that first part for me. One of the things that I wanted to point out is that yesterday there was a town hall, and during the hall, Councilmember Lambert had expressed some questions and concerns regarding qualifications. Right now, you don't have the ability to determine the qualifications of the sheriff by those members of the county council that represent the unincorporated areas would be able to weigh in, at least we envision them weighing in during the proposal, much like you or is appointed, reflects the values and quality of the sheriff that you want, who's going to be also policing, primarily policing the unincorporated areas. We think that that's an important factor. The other question would be because it does allow you a little bit more oversight in the situation. Councilmember Well, did she basically summarize this was sort of an ultimately a choice between who actually sets a policy for policing. Is it going to be the executive and the county council or is it going to be the sheriff at that point? I think part of what we were hearing in the comments yesterday, as well as the comments today, is that there is a small disconnect in the electorate in the county believing that they are the only ones that vote on the sheriff when the reality is, as Mr. Heller stated, was that the largest voting blocs in the county come from cities who do not have their primary policing. As far as the sheriff goes. Thank you for letting me interject, David. Oh, sure. Do you want to go on or do you want me to resume? Sure. Sure. Once you go ahead and resume. All right. I'll let you take the lead. Okay. Thank you. The second issue that concerned us was flexibility. And as Mr. Williams pointed out, he did the part of the PowerPoint that has a picture of Russell Wilson. It's not a great idea to limit your candidate pool. And someone pointed out that there are 3 million people living in or almost 3 million people living in the Puget Sound area. Mr. Hiller. Yes. If it helps you. We do have members did receive a link to and would have access to the PowerPoint you're referring to. Oh, excellent. All right. Well, that number does help members. That was the PowerPoint that Mr. Bowman's that was sent. What was it? 858 this morning. It's 848 this morning. And it has both a PDF copy and a link to a browser copy of the PowerPoint that the. You can certainly go back and use more material. The picture of Mr. Wilson is on page 14 of the the last page of the PowerPoint. That is the single attachment to that email. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So Mr. Williams likes football. I like baseball, and I see that almost everything in life ultimately comes down to baseball. Someone pointed out that we have millions of people who live in the Puget Sound area. Surely we have a big candidate pool here. But as Bill James, the guru of baseball statistics and sabermetrics, pointed out many years ago, the population of Kansas City is approximately the same as the population of London in the 1600s. But Kansas City has not produced even one William Shakespeare in all the years. So the fact that there's a lot of people here doesn't necessarily mean that the right person is available. And again, it may be that the current sheriff is the right person. But if at some point the council and the executive believe that there needs to be a change in who is the sheriff? Why would we restrict ourselves to someone who's already in the office? And since we acquired an elected sheriff in 1996, no one has been elected to the office who did not come out of that office . Sometimes you want to promote from within, but sometimes when you want to change a culture, you need to bring someone in from the outside. That's really not an option that's available under the current system. And connected with that. One of our concerns was the election process and the divisiveness that it can cause sometimes where you have a competing either an insurgent candidate or if the office is open and you have two candidates running for the open office and something that it's in the power point, it just came out. So we stuck it in right at the end of the bottom of a page where it's kind of squeezed in. There was a situation in Missouri where the sheriff was gone and there were two people running, one who was a deputy and one who was not a deputy and the one who was a deputy told the other deputies, If you don't support me, you will lose your jobs. And this person won the election, fired the deputies who hadn't supported him and the deputies who hadn't supported him, sued. And the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, a federal court in the Midwest, just came out with a ruling that the sheriff could not be sued for suing the deputies, even though he had blatantly told them that they would be fired if they didn't support him. And I found that kind of shocking. But that's least that's the law in the Midwest now. I'm not, again, suggesting that anyone who is or has been sheriff would do such a thing. But I found it worrisome and troubling with respect to the current situation. We came out with our recommendations a year ago or last year, rather, before either viruses or the current protest wave had occurred. But we were concerned about bias policing and use of force in all police departments. There's certainly been a lot of publicity about the Seattle Police Department, but I don't believe that any police department can be assumed to be immune from those problems. And we hope and believe that the current sheriff is taking steps and that those steps will be good and appropriate to start changing some things. But if at some point, some sheriff did not make some of the changes that the executive and the council believed were necessary, then it might be appropriate to change the sheriff. And in the current moment, when something that has been going on literally for centuries may finally be being addressed. We believe that the council and the executive would want to have at their disposal every possible available tool that it might need to use to help to address these problems. And this would provide a tool which would allow you to address the problems. The last thing I wanted to mention. With respect to one of the proposed amendments. And again, I can't speak for the commission because the commission didn't ever study it. I have a couple of questions about it. I am a lawyer, but not in the field of municipal law. If you have an independently elected. If so, I merely pose the question if you have an independently elected official, if the sheriff remains elected. Would the county council be able to instruct the sheriff in policing policies or would that not be legal? I don't know. But I posed the question, and the only thing I wonder about related to that is what would the enforcement mechanism be? We have had a situation where, at least according to the Office of Law Enforcement Oversight, there's an ordinance that authorizes Oleo to issue subpoenas. And according to some people at Oleo, the subpoenas are not honored, even though it's the law. So what's the enforcement mechanism if you have an independently elected sheriff and the county council? Issues are an ordinance requiring something to happen or something to not happen. I don't know how that would work, but I think it would be something to consider. In any event. As I said at the beginning, we studied this extensively. We came to the conclusion that this was a structural change that should be made. It enhances democracy. We believe it improves accountability and the the quickness of accountability, if quick accountability is necessary. And and this is why we proposed it to the council. I will turn it back over to Mr. Williams if he has anything to add. And the only thing I will say is after that, if the Council has any questions, we would be happy to try to answer them. Thank you. Thank you, David. A couple of things that I would like to point out on our PowerPoint beginning on page six. It actually shows what has happened to the population of the county in the last few years. First, first, you'll see that in 1976, 74% of the county lived in cities. Now that is down to now that 89% of the population lives in cities. I also if you notice, if you look at the decrease of the population of unincorporated King County, that continues to decrease. On Pages nine and excuse me, they slides nine and ten. You'll subtract cities that are being served by the sheriff. But again, those are going to decide who they want to have as their chief of police appointed. And they follow they follow a couple of phone calls. Finally, I guess I would like to point out the fact and use my last slide of my presentation with Pete Carroll and Russell Wilson. And I look at a sheriff as a professional and someone that we should be able to do what you should be able to as elected officials, select the most qualified person regardless of the location. We have a lot of baseball players, football players, whatever, throughout the Puget Sound region. Yet even at the college level, we always look for the best. The eye is the most talented and most importantly, in former Coach Peterson's view, there is what he called the okay, he's our kind of guys, the right fit that Pete Carroll describes to look elsewhere. We are a world class county, and being a world class county means that we are part of a world. And they love our organization. And so we have to be able to look around the world to find the person that's going to be the best fit. And it's going to reflect the values and policies that we wish to incorporate only by having an elected and appointed sheriff. Will you be able to do that? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much for not only your presentation today, but for your work as a member of the Charter Review Commission. Both of you. Mr. Bowman, any further, anything further from a staff report perspective? Sir. Counts as the prime sponsor council member Dombrowski. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Here's what I would suggest we do. I'd like to move adoption with a do pass recommendation of the ordinance to send it to full council. I would suggest that we hold on the striking amendment and refine that to take out the duties language. I would want to bring that forward with the stakeholder process at full council and that we do the duties issue in the separate charter. So I do move adoption of the recognition of ordinance and the basis and rationale for it has been set forth in the town hall and by the commissioners today and in the hour. I will not give a speech in favor. Councilmember Dombrowski is moved that we give a do pass recommendation to ordinance 2020 205. Further discussion. Now the question for legal staff. Council member Lambert. Thank you. So earlier when the gentleman was speaking, I think you completed two issues. You said that the ordinance says that the only director will have the ability to subpoena. And that is accurate. And the statement that it is not happening is also accurate. The thing in the middle is that it has not been bargained. And there's been years of discussion about that for a number of reasons that have come forth why that has not happened. But the subpoena power we've had for as long as I know and it has never been used. I've been on the council. So I think the part that was not said is that it is bargained upon and it has not been bargained. So it's not a matter of a problem with either one. It's a matter of bargaining situation is what it is for a variety of reasons. So I wanted to point that out legally and then object or of the hand at the very first. And the very first thing where it talks about this will be impartial and not aided by politicians. And I'm not going to look for an answer on this because it's kind of recoverable. But in watching the news in the last couple of weeks, the idea we've had a appointed chair I'm sorry, an appointed place to stand before us and say she doesn't know or made the decision that the briefing was going to go away and. And many decisions were made very politically. I think that we've seen it played out where the statement on first line of number four hasn't really worked. So I just want to clarify that there's a couple of things in here that are completely. Well stated. So anyway, those are my comments. Thank you. Thank you, colleagues. Further discussion on the motion before us council member up to growth and Mr. Chair at our committee of the hall meeting we had was out yesterday. Time flies. I think I kind of laid out the lens through which I'm weighing my decision on this, and it really is whether or not it's going to help or hurt our efforts to deliver justice for black, indigenous and people of color. Help ensure public safety. Help us address institutional racism throughout the criminal justice system. And. I see a lot of opportunity with this. My jury's out a little bit, but I think. Even if we're going to be successful in advancing an agenda that has been really developed by the community, we are going to need every tool at our disposal and I think it is we at least need to keep this conversation going at this point. So I'm supportive of putting this on the ballot so that we can continue to have that discussion. And I'm going to continue to do my, you know, analysis and understanding of getting my head around. To what degree will this help or hurt? But I, I think it is important for this to move forward, and I would encourage placing it on the ballot. Thank you. Councilmember Banducci. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I. I have a lot of thoughts about this. And I said some of them yesterday, some of them were quoted again today. The the there is definitely the possibility that you can switch from one method of selecting to a to another and find that you have similar problems or even the exact same problems in slightly different ways. There are pros and cons to either method of selection, and today's been fine because I've been going down personal memory lane on a number of these topics. This one is the one where I remind everybody that I've served as both an appointed head of a criminal justice agency and as an elected official. And there are pros and cons you are. You can be stronger in some ways on hard public issues when you elected with a term of office than you can when you're appointed. However, in I am convinced and listening to the presentation yesterday and today that the Charter Commission get a great deal of deep thought and has a really strong set of recommendations and rationales for those recommendations. I am also convinced that we're in a moment now where people are looking for change. And that can mean I mean, even a change that could be more neutral or isn't guaranteed to have the policy outcome you want shakes things up in a way that enables you to to try. And I think that we owe it to the advocates and the folks who want to try to make try to drive transformational change in public in public policy. They have the opportunity to vote on it, and so does everybody else. And so I am supportive of moving this out with a recommendation to put it on the ballot, as I am with the next one. And then we have the ultimate Democratic debate over what to do and the people decide. And I think that that is correct and fair thing to do. So I'm going to vote for this. I'm going to vote for this measure today. Thank you. For the debate. Seeing Mr. Bowman with Councilmember Dombrowski not moving the striking amendment. There is no amendment or title amendment in order. But I think that if yes, then Madam Clair covered, as you recall, the role. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Council member WG. I found about 90 minutes. I remember Dimasi. I don't remember to ask you about the council member. Done. No. Councilmember Dunn votes no. Councilmember Caldwell's. I don't remember. Colwell, but I can't remember. Lambert. Oh. Council member, Lambert. No amount of snow comes out of the ground. I can't remember off the ground, but I can't remember if I'm right there. No. Councilmember Yvonne, right. There were votes now council members online. I also. Members. ALL Hello? Votes. Yes, Mr. Chair. Hi. Mr. Chair. Votes. I'm. Mr. Chair. The vote is six eyes. Three numbers are your vote. We have given a do pass recommendation to ordinance 2020 205. We will expedite that to full council one week from today. On the next item on the agenda is the ordinance 2020 231, which which would submit to the voters of King County a charter amendment.