A RESOLUTION recognizing the service and dedication of the Seattle Police Department’s police officers, detectives, and sergeants; and requesting the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington conduct a judicial review of the Collective Bargaining Agreement reached between The City of Seattle and the Seattle Police Officers’ Guild.
And. We thank everyone for coming out, whether you got what you wanted or not. Thank you for your testimony and participation. Please read the next edition item into the record. From the amended agenda. Resolution 318 55. Recognizing the service and dedication of the Seattle Police Department's police officers, detectives. And sergeant are requested. The United States District. Court for the Western District of Washington to conduct a judicial review of the collective bargaining agreement reached between the city of Seattle and the Seattle Police Officers Guild. Councilmember Gonzalez. This is a resolution that would advance the tentative agreement that we just voted on it to the city attorney's office for a for consideration by and review of judge. In terms of making sure that there is compliance with the consent decree and the United States Constitution. Good. Very good. Any comments about the resolution? Council members who want. Council members. Have. Gotten worse. So I just want to speak that to the fact that I had concerns that though the resolution asked, the city attorney joined the city council in requesting judicial review. And I appreciate the city attorney's expression of his willingness to do so. I had concerns that the executive might have a separate interest in might want to argue in court that these items fall outside. The scope of the court. In opposition to their request in this resolution. Council central staff director has consulted with the Executive on my behalf and she has confirmed what Councilmember Gonzales has assured me this morning that the executive will not be arguing before the court that these six items are outside the scope of the judge. That said, though, I absolutely support us asking. I do have serious reservations that in short shrift Judge Roberts will be telling us that the six items in the resolution for which we are asking the court review for consistency with the consent decree are outside of the scope of the court, and we will be stuck with those terms until they are bargained out. And I hope that I'm wrong. Thank you. Concerning Herbold, council members who want. Thank you, President. Hope this resolution does nothing but deflect responsibility for the attack on police accountability in this contract that was just voted in. And councilmembers know that voting yes on the contract undermines police accountability, even though they say it doesn't, because this resolution lists six distinct restrictions on accountability in the contract. If council members know that these are problems, they should have voted no on the contract and sent it back to the mayor to renegotiate to fix these six problems. Instead, this resolution is an attempt to hide from their responsibility, asking Judge Robert to do the councilmembers job and to review the contract to see if it violates the consent decree. This is particularly absurd given that Judge Robert announced last week that he intends to do that review already. So this resolution literally does nothing, but it is being used as a clumsy attempt to direct the movement for police accountability into ignoring that they have just been betrayed. I also would like to point out a particularly imaginative whereas clause which describes the Seattle Police Officers Guild as quote, strong partners in ongoing efforts to implement lasting police reforms and accountability structures. And, quote, over 100 Seattle police officers sued to try to block the consent decree. The Seattle Police Officers Guild as a whole opposed I-9 40, the De-escalate Washington initiative that was just overwhelmingly passed by voters last week. And for the past months, they have been swarming the city to attempt to block elements of the accountability ordinance. And this resolution calls them, quote unquote, strong partners on accountability structures. I have no problem with Judge Robert reviewing this contract. He should and clearly will do so. However, I will not be party to this attempt to distract and disorient the movement for police accountability. So I will be voting no on this resolution. Thank you so much, Shaun. Okay. Any other comments before we vote? I see. No. Let's move forward. So I will move to adopt resolution 31855 their second. To those in favor of adopting the resolution, please vote i. I. Those oppose vote. No. No. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Please read the next agenda item.