AN ORDINANCE clarifying Title 1, Title 2, Title 3, Title 4 and Title 4A of the King County Code, establishing a gender neutral code and making technical corrections; and amending Ordinance 1371, Section 1, and K.C.C. 1.02.010, Ordinance 11348, Section 2, and K.C.C. 1.05.020, Ordinance 11348, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 1.05.040, Ordinance 13320, Section 2, as amended, and K.C.C. 1.07.020, Ordinance 13320, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 1.07.030, Ordinance 13320, Section 4, and K.C.C. 1.07.040, Ordinance 13320, Section 5, as amended, and K.C.C. 1.07.050, Ordinance 13320, Section 7, and K.C.C. 1.07.070, Ordinance 13320, Section 8, and K.C.C. 1.07.080, Ordinance 13320, Section 10, and K.C.C. 1.07.100, Ordinance 13320, Section 12, and K.C.C. 1.07.120, Ordinance 13320, Section 14, as amended, and K.C.C. 1.07.140, Ordinance 13320, Section 15, as amended, and K.C.C. 1.07.150, Ordinance 159, Section 2, as amended, and K.C.C. 1.16.020, Ordinance 159, Section 8, as amended, and K.C.C. 1.16.080, Ordinance 159, Section 9, and K.C.C. 1.16.090, Ordinance 11683, Section 9, as amended, and 
The next thing on the item anyway, we'll go to number five and hold off on roll call and approval of the minutes until we have a few more folks. Thanks. Welcome. So number five, I recall that in 2016, the council put a charter amendment on the ballot to make our charter gender neutral, and it passed by 65% , which was very nice. That was motivated by the, I believe in part by the election of two new female council members who found ourselves surprised that our orientation day to be referred to as council man. I'm sorry, Heidi, we didn't go far as your item. And I'm just kind of juggling the balls here this morning after that charter amendment passed with our staff to review and update the county's code to make a general gender neutral. This is a much larger body of work, a significant body of work, and we're going to take it in stages. Today's ordinance is the first of what will be several ordinances to eliminate gender specific terms from the county code. And we are lucky to have Sam Porter and Aaron Osnes here to brief us today. Thank you for your work on this. Thank you. Please go ahead. Sam Porter, Council Central Staff. The materials for this item begin on page seven of your packet. Proposed Ordinance 2017 0489 is the first in a series of four ordinances that would make changes to the King County Code to remove gendered pronouns and historically gendered terms wherever possible. This ordinance pertains, as the chair mentioned, to titles one through four of King County Code. No substantive legal or policy changes are proposed to be made in this ordinance, but other drafting corrections are proposed by the Code Advisor. This proposed ordinance is consistent with Washington state law and county code bars to be written in gender neutral terms. In the proposed ordinance, gendered pronouns such as he, him, she or her are replaced with the title of the actor and impacted sentences, for example, in sections that refer to the director as he or she. The revision changes the gendered pronoun to the director, naming the title of the actor and disregarding gender. Table A on page two contains a sample of other proposed changes to historically gendered terms. A comprehensive list of the gendered terms addressed in the ordinance is available in attachment two of the staff report on page 213. In your packet, executive staff and the King County Ombud have been consulted regarding the proposed changes. Their feedback has been addressed and incorporated into the proposed ordinance in attachment three. On page to 21 of your packet is the timeline for future ordinances, and the plan is for three additional ordinances to be presented to this committee completing the review of remaining titles of the King County Code. This work should be completed by May of 2018. This concludes my report. I would like to recognize Russell Patel from the clerk's office and the Council Coder Advisor Bruce Bruce Ritson for their extensive work during this process. Aaron and I can answer any questions at this time. ABRAMS Thank you very much. So I hope that, colleagues, you've had a chance to take a look at this. It seems fairly non substantive and non-controversial. I think the only thing that stood out to me certainly was the change from ombudsman to ombudsman. A quick search through the Internet suggests that that is a movement that is happening. Lots of other places have changed. Their ombudsman office to ombudsman is going to take a little getting used to. But are there any questions, concerns? Councilmember Caldwell. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just on that issue, on ombudsman, as compared the ombudsman, we wrestled with that at the state legislature as well, and the code revised its office and it was changed to ombudsman there. But I expect we may run into some more issues that will come up as we go along, because some are terms of art, some are terms that are recognized by the federal government in terms of occupation. So there's a lot more in to involved with this than I initially thought. It took the legislature six years to complete this project and I had thought it was going to be pretty straightforward at the onset. So thank you for your work rustles and as well. Thank you. Is there any other discussion or questions? Are we prepared to move this out today and take this first bite and let the staff move on to the next one? I'd entertain a motion I can't remember. Lambert Thank you. The Post Ordinance 2017 0489 with a do pass recommendation. Okay, it is. The motion is before us. Any comments? All those. There's no amendments, so I suppose we're prepared for. A roll call. Marcus Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilmember Dombrowski. Hi. Councilmember Dunn All right. Councilmember Gossett Council Councilmember Commonwealth. I. Council Member Lambert I'm Councilmember McDermott. Right, Councilmember of the Grove. Councilmember One right there. Madam Chair, I Madam Chair, the vote is 18 is no nos. Councilmember of the Grove excuse. Okay, by your vote you have passed this ordinance number 2017 zero 49 of the do pass recommendation. I'm going to suggest we send it. We're going that we expedited just because December 11th is starting to get to be a very packed meeting. And I understand the chair has asked that we take up as many things December 4th as possible. Okay. That's what says here on my notes. Anyway, somebody wrote that for some reason it's on and I would suggest that we put it on consent. It doesn't seem like it needs to be. Yeah. All right. Thank you very much. Can we go back and do the roll call at this time?