AN ORDINANCE proposing an amendment to the King County Charter to clarify when an inquest will be held and to require the county to assign an attorney to represent the family of the decedent in the inquest proceeding; amending Section 895 of the King County Charter; and submitting the same to the qualified voters of the county for their ratification or rejection at the next general election occurring more than forty-five days after the enactment of this ordinance.
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 for the family of the decedent. I know my colleagues are aware of litigation surrounding the inquest process. I want to point out that the litigation is separate from the charter amendment we'll be discussing. And it's my hope that we'll be able we will focus on the charter amendment and not discuss the litigation issues which would it would necessitate in executive session. Jennie Jim, John Batiste will give a staff report on the proposed charter amendment. And Ms.. Jon Batiste, the line is yours. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jenny. Jon Batiste, Counsel. Staff. Agenda item nine begins on page 43 of your packet. As you noted, Mr. Chair, this is a charter amendment related inquests, and it would add language to the charter about when an inquest is to occur, and it requires the county to assign an attorney to represent the family of the decedent in the inquest proceeding. In the interest of time. I will be covering highlights in each section of my staff report. I'd like to start with a few background facts on inquests on page 404 of the packet. An inquest is an administrative fact finding inquiry into in the review of the manner, facts and circumstances of the death of an individual in King County. Inquests are held when a death involves a member of any law enforcement agency within King County, while in the performance of his or her duties. The scope of the inquest is limited to the cause and circumstances of the death, including whether the law enforcement member acted pursuant to policy and training. The purpose of the inquest is not to find fault or determine whether the use of force was justified. An inquest is not a trial in the sense that there is no judgment on liability or found fault is produced. However, an inquest has some of the attributes of a trial, including hearing, sworn testimony of witnesses and a selection of a jury in the case of an inquest known as a panel is the finders of fact. As you are well aware, there have been recent changes to the inquest process in recent years. I wanted to highlight a few of those changes on page four, oh five and four and six of the packet. In December of 2017, the executive convened a six member King County Inquest Process Review Committee. Then in January of 2018, the executive temporarily halted all King County inquests in order to allow more time to review the existing inquest policies and procedures. In October of 2018, based on some of the review panel recommendations, the executive signed a revised executive order for the policies and procedures for the inquests. Then, in May 2019, under the new inquest process, Judge Michael Spearman was appointed as an inquest administrator. There was a pause again in the inquest process in December 2020 as the parties indicated that they intended to seek review of the inquest procedures in King County Superior Court. Petitions were filed with the King County Superior Court subsequent to that, and most recently on Friday, June 11th, the Executive signed a revised executive order which includes revised policies and procedures. However, of note, there were really two things that were revised. Substantive changes to now allow for subpoenas to be issued to involved officers and to allow counsel for the involved officers to participate in the inquest hearings regardless of whether they offer testimony. The next date. That's coming up is July 17th of 2020. That is when you hear your court is scheduled to address all of the pending petitions related to the inquest process. I want to note that it's my understanding that the outcome of the litigation won't affect implementation of the charter amendment if it's approved by the voters. Page 5405 of the packet provides a very high level summary of the current inquest process that is outlined in the executive order. The process starts with the prosecuting attorney's office receiving information from a law enforcement agency within King County of a death of an individual involving more law enforcement. The PAO then reviews that information and advises the executive as to whether there should be an inquest. Upon receiving the advisory opinion, the executive determines whether to hold an inquest. If the inquest is to be held, the executive then directs the manager to proceed with the inquest and the manager then assigns one of the inquest administrators to preside over the inquest and the Superior Court provides the facilities, the jurors and the courtroom staff. Specifically now looking at the language in the charter amendment. Please turn to page four of six and four seven of the packet. The proposed changes to the Charter, if adopted by voters, include several substantive changes to Section 895 of the Charter. Specifically, it adds additional language regarding when an inquest is to be conducted. This additional language specifies that an inquest shall be held where a member of any law enforcement agencies actions, decision or possible failure to offer the appropriate care may have contributed to an individual's death. Was this language the intent of the Charter Review Commission was to expand and broaden the number and circumstances under which the inquests are to occur. The next substantive change in the charter amendment is that it defines what a member of any law enforcement agency is for purposes of this section of the charter. And that is the second substantive change. The third one is that it requires the county to assign an attorney to represent the family of the deceased decedent in the inquest proceeding. But the family has the option of accepting the attorney or not. As Council members are aware, in January of 2018, the Council did adopt Ordinance 18652, which requires the Department of Public Defense to provide legal representation to the family participating in inquests regardless of the income level of the family. The proposed charter amendment is very similar to this language. Mr. Chair, I would note that there are two amendments in your separate amendment packet starting on page seven. These amendments are not substantive to the First Amendment, which is on page seven, and it also has a corresponding title amendment reflects suggestions by legal counsel so that all the charter amendments use the same language when referring to the election dates. The Second Amendment on page nine is really a style and readability change so that the sentence reads a little bit better. Well, Mr. Chair, that concludes my comments. I'm happy to answer any questions for you. Thank you. Mr. Jon Batiste, before we go to questions, I would call on Mr. Surkov to take to present. Minister from the Review Commission. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, Council members. My name is Rob Soca and I'm a commissioner. Can you hear me? Yes. I'm sorry. Right. And I'm a commissioner on the Charter Review Commission. It is my honor to appear before you all today, and especially Council Member Sala. Tommy Lee. Hey, Suz Fernandez Marial. Joseph Pepin. My chance. Dunlap. Giddens. Malina Lyles. These are just a few of the people. That when we talk about inquests, irrespective of whether the death is is deemed to be justified or not, we must never forget to acknowledge the humanity in the names of those killed in encounters with police. Sadly, the lives of families and communities are forever changed when someone is killed by police. Nationally. We're also mindful of the recent brutal killings by law enforcement of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and others across the country. And I'll tell you that in my personal capacity over the last few weeks, I've been absolutely honored to march alongside my my dear friend and old colleague council members Natalie. As well as thousands of others in the movement for Black Lives across our region and our nation. Personally, I've also been moved by Dormice devotion to serving others and humbled by his presence and inspired by his bold leadership. And I thank him. And I think every one of the council members who have supported this particular proposal today. I'm also hopeful that our region. Our region's unified voice will bring meaningful, lasting policy change to address issues of police accountability and transparency. But in this forum, in this legislative body in which I virtually stand before you today, you must move from protest the policy. And here is the opportunity at hand. And when we're talking about the proposed charter amendment, what will it specifically accomplish? Well, on the commission, we believe that this common sense charter amendment recommendation before this committee would directly advance three basic ideals and law enforcement accountability, truth and transparency. Therefore, the Commission recommends making two substantive changes, which Jenny already highlighted. As it pertains to inquests. To recap. We want to do. We want to elevate to the charter the relevant county code provision for writing a county funded attorney, the families of the deceased during the inquest process. Again, this particular proposal, with respect to this particular proposal, it's 100% consistent with existing law and interpretation. The second thing that we want to do, as Danny alluded to, is we want to ensure that the inquests process occurs in the event of an in-custody death. She talked about some of the the textual underpinnings and some of the specifics as it relates to the exact language. But broadly, what we want to do is make sure it applies to law enforcement agencies and corrections agencies and require an inquest at any time that any action or decision or failure to act may have contributed to a death. We talked about what an inquest is. There's some egregious myths out there. We've heard from the community during this process, but the overwhelming majority of community input that we've heard and gathered during this process was was strongly in favor of having the inquest, as we we've proposed today. It's just the Administrative Fact-Finding Inquiry. The purpose is not to determine liability or fault. It doesn't address wrongdoing or whether the death could have been avoided or whether it was justified. So why do we why do why are we moving this specific proposed charge, a charter amendment before you today? Well, broadly when we began our work on the commission to help enhance the inquest process potentially at the charter level, we started with the premise that agree families deserve answers, they deserve truth as well. Again, inquests are not a finger pointing exercise to assign blame. One way or the other, the findings of an inquest help all stakeholders, including policy makers, including you all help you understand the causes and circumstances of the death to enable people to learn and grow from these experiences. We we found that inquest reform at the charter level helps maintain and improve public confidence and trust in the integrity and professionalism of the community's various law enforcement agencies across King County. During officer involved killings. Again, the goal is to enable departments to be held accountable for creating better safer. And more equitable ways of protecting and policing. So we know that it adds legal representation and affirmative right to legal representation for family members of the deceased. We think that this will fully and more equitably allow participation in the in the inquest process, regardless of a family's financial means. And we also learned that providing legal counsel for all families of the deceased will better ensure each party to an inquest will have equal opportunity to participate. Again, that one is 100% consistent with the existing law, but we felt strongly that as a matter of policy and priority. Before the current crisis that we're seeing. And I'm not talking about the COVID crisis. That it was important to up level that particular provision to the charter. And then with respect to the in-custody death clarification. The Commission wanted to shine a light. The light of transparency that's inherent with a more robust inquest by expanding the requirement to all in-custody death situations. And we felt that understanding in-custody deaths, learning from each other's deaths, and using that information to make positive, positive changes to the system outweighed any potential concern or cost of having too many inquests. Again, we felt that aggrieved families deserve answers. So does the public and members in the law enforcement community. They all deserve a full and complete investigation of the facts that led to any tragic death. Which of course, is tragic. So, Mr. Chair. And Council. In sum, we believe that these common sense reforms to the Charter to create additional transparency and accountability and trust in law enforcement are necessary. And now the time for action and accountability is more. Is more clear than ever, in my view, and we must move forward together to get to the truth. And I'd finally like to make it clear that this was one of the early action items that Chair Miller identified earlier, that we moved forward last summer because it was adopted unanimously. We thought it was less controversial, and so we felt strongly about it then. And given current events, we feel well. I personally feel even even more strongly about it. So, Mr. Chair, that concludes my overview of the inquest proposals. At this time, I welcome any questions or comments that you all may have. Thank you very much. Colleagues questions. Seeing no questions. Council members all i. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to first thank Rob soccer. Thank you for first of all, for making me blush. I appreciate you. I got to know Rob when I was an associate at Perkins Curry, and he's always been an exceptional attorney and tireless champion for justice. I want to thank him all and trace Mikita, Oliver, Chair Miller and everybody on the Charter Commission, Charter Review Commission for all the hard work that you all have done. I'm very supportive of this amendment. You know, families that have gone through the inquest process, our families who we owe the most to these are families who lost loved ones at the hands of the government. And this charter amendment would make sure that if one of our constituents has had to suffer the death of a loved one , that they would be provided an attorney to go through the inquest or investigation process. So it's the absolute minimum that can be done, in my opinion, to provide the fundamental right to representation during what is the most unimaginable situation that a family could go through. So I ask for everyone's support on this, and thank you also to the co-sponsors on this legislation. Some of those. Councilmember Dunn. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm a little unclear. I got all the good arguments and the good arguments in favor of the legislation. I didn't get sort of a real breakdown with specificity of the of the language. Is this are passing an ordinance is charter amendment. I guess I'm missing exactly what the details in terms of the inquest language. This is a charter amendment as recommended by the charter commission. Okay. So let me ask this question. What I heard was was a very good explanation of the arguments in favor of the charter amendment. I didn't hear a central staff breakdown, and we're not going to do that. We're just going to rely on the charter review commissioners to provide the briefing. And that's fine. But I think there needs to be. A little more analysis in terms of what it does with the language does. And in terms of pro and con, there's a mr. Sanchez presentation is the commissioner was preceded by a staff report by Getty Jon Batiste. And if you have questions of Mr. Batiste or or want further information, we can certainly facilitate that. Yeah. I mean, Jenny, can you just break this down to quick parameters? I might have missed that. I was out of service for just a little bit longer. Can you break down the parameters of what the language changes? Yes. So on page 4:06 a.m. 407 of the packet, it's just a sentence that we're talking two sentences. The existing language is is very short and the changes are also very short, but they are substantive. So I'll go over it again. If adopted by voters, these changes to Section 895 of the charter would add the additional language regarding when an inquest is to be conducted. This additional language specifies and so this is the following is new language. An inquest shall be held where a member of any law enforcement agencies actions, decision or possible failure to offer the appropriate care may have contributed to an individual's death. Additionally, there is another sentence added for the purposes of this section. Members of any law enforcement agency includes a commissioned officer, noncommissioned staff and agent of any local or state police force, jail, detention facility or corrections agency. The next substantive and it's an is again, a one sentence but very substantive. The county shall assign an attorney to represent the family of the decedent in the inquest proceeding, but the family has the option of accepting the attorney or not. As Mr. Sokka indicated. Currently, the current code provides that the Department of Public Defense shall provide an attorney to represent the family. So this would not change. The county's the current practice now, but it would elevate that to the charter. Additionally, as I noted earlier, the added language is intended to expand and broaden the number of inquests that occur with that additional language. Got it. Very good. That's okay. That that that helps me. I try and thank you for that. And I missed part of that. Is there a beneficial note or anything in terms of the cost associated with it, with that those additional changes. There has not been a fiscal note currently the. County does fund the administration of the inquest process. But there has not been a fiscal note to specify how many what the additional costs, if any, would be. And Mr. Chair, real quick on this, we got 11 charter amendments to the plan will be a central staffer will introduce the issue, then we'll have a charter review. Commissioner, make the pitch essentially. That's the point. Just so I understand. That's how we've done it today. If there are additions, if when we take up additional charter amendments. And to date, only five of the 11 have been introduced. There are commissioners who wish to make presentations. The commission supplies somebody. Then, yes, we would follow a very similar format. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Yvonne, regular. True. That was the question. Council member Dunn's question was the one I was curious about. If there is a fiscal note, if there is a limit on how much we pay and I want that, we'd have an opportunity to evaluate that and the forecast. Thank you, Councilmember Lambert. You can understand it. Agree with Councilmember Graham there couldn't be a more horrendous experience than life for anybody but to lose a loved one's. I did support the inquest process and paying for the attorneys. But the reason for a charger for me is how the government works not to pick special laws. We like the Mexican charter so can't be changed for ten years. So the things that are important here are writing in law or providing the attorneys and we have inquests. And so I think that as a policy, taking our favorite pieces of legislation and sticking it in the charter, that's not what the charters for. And I have some concerns about some of the language, like possible failure, appropriate care, who who decides what was appropriate care. And that's the reason we have laws so that we can define what is possible failure, what is appropriate care. So we have a definition, we put it in the charter. We don't have that. These are already existing in the existing law. And I think that they are important. I can't imagine them being changed. So having them clearly defined in law is in my mind where these things should be, not in charter. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Further discussing colleagues. Councilmember Bell DC. Mr. Chair, just a brief comment. I really appreciate the what appears to be some serious care that went into drafting the language around when an inquest will be required. I'm glad to see that this came out of the executives process because I think, as we all know, currently, the executive or prior to his executive orders of recent times would have a decision. Yes, this one gets an inquest. No, that one doesn't get an inquest and that can. And that in and of itself can be, I imagine, a very difficult decision to make, but also seems very odd and unfair to the people who have been infected by the person who's been, you know, their family member's death. Like, why is one one death worthy of this kind of deep public inquiry? And another one isn't? So I think the standardization of it is really good. But also, the the Department of Justice has standards for when we report what what in custody death is. That counts for purposes of data collection. And it sometimes doesn't make a whole lot of sense, I'll tell you. Like so we have had people who have never, ever set foot in our jail, who died in custody and were counted as a death inside the King County jails. We have likewise had people who have come into jail, had bad things happen to them in jail, got sent to the hospital because of the injuries they incurred, died at the hospital from their injuries and don't count as an end to custody death, which is just crazy, right. So I like when I read this, it to me it makes a lot of sense that the way it's been stated and I appreciate the work that apparently went into that and I'm happy to support both the standard that's being set here for a routine inquest be happening whenever there is a death in our custody, whether that be in police custody or in or in like sheriff's custody or in our jails. And I really I mean, I don't I'm very happy to support the proposal that the family gets a support person who understands this difficult process, which I think would be hard for a layperson to navigate at the best of times. It all makes good sense to me and I support it. Thank you. Further questions. Councilmember Carlos. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to chime in, I also support, since I was pleased to work on this issue in one justice committee when it came through earlier. And I think it's an important step forward thinking. Council members are prime sponsor. I'd like to move the amendment. Mr. Chair. Councilmember Sala has moved adoption of Ordinance 119 to 36 and moved adoption of Amendment one. There are two amendments, correct? That's correct. There are two amendments in a title amendment to conform with the First Amendment. Can you remind us the contents of Amendment one in Amendment two? Yes, they are both non substantive amendments and Amendment One is simply to make the same changes to the election date language. And then Amendment two is intended for style and readability changes that. The sentence reads a little bit better. Councilmember Zala has moved to adoption, a move that would give a two passed recommendation to Ordinance 2019 to 36 and adoption of Amendment one. The date change discussion on Amendment One seen none of those in favor of Amendment One. Please signify by saying i. I. I opposed. Nay, the ayes have it. Amendment one is adopted. Council members all by Amendment two. So move. Mr. Chair and some of his allies moved the adoption of amendment to see no discussion. All those in favor of amendment to please signify by saying i. I opposed nay. The ayes have it. Amendment two is adopted. Council members on how they would you move it? Adoption of Title Amendment one, please. So move, Mr. Chair. Adult Amendment Tier one as before. See no discussion. All those in favor of title amendment to one please signify by saying I, i all those opposed. No, the ayes have it. Total Amendment one is adopted. We have Ordinance 2019 to 36 as amended before us. Discussion Council members. Hello. Would you like to open? Sorry, but I think we have said everything that needs to be said at this point. I hope everybody supports this amendment and I'm very thankful for all those who worked on it and co-sponsored it. Thank you. Thank you for the discussion, Councilmember Caldwell's. Sorry, Mr. Chair. I just left the unmute. None. It's my little trick to see. Oh, I think it's my advance warning if I realize some of these mute is off. I see people meeting all over the place right now. See no further. No one further to speak. I'd ask the clerk to please call the roll. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Belushi. Hi, Councilman. Douchey Council member Dombrowski. I. Council member Dombrowski. Both I Council member. Done. No. Council member done votes now. Council member Cole wells. I. Councilmember Caldwell's votes I. Councilmember Lambert. No. Councilmember Lambert. Votes. No. Councilmember. Autograph. I. Councilmember after grove votes. I. Councilmember Yvonne Wraith. Our. No. Councilmember von Right. Thereabouts, no. Council members only. By. Council members on high votes? Yes. Mr. Chair. Hi. Mr. Chair. The vote is six I's Council Councilmembers Lambert on rank power and one vote no. By your vote, we've given a do pass recommendation to ordinance 2019 to 36, and we will advance that to full council. We will expedite it. So it would appear on next Tuesday's council agenda. That takes us to the next to them on our agenda.