A MOTION calling for establishment of a task force to conduct a review of cultural infrastructure across King County, the accessibility of arts, cultural and heritage programming and the structure and practices of 4Culture, the cultural development authority of King County, and to report its recommendations to the council.
Thank you. Wendy Sue, who counsel, staff. And the next item on the agenda is proposed motion 2018 0155, which would establish a cultural development task force. Under the proposed motion, the County Executive in Council, in coordination with for culture, would convene a task force composed of local elected, local elected officials, representatives from Fort Culture, and then also representatives from local, regional and statewide arts, cultural and heritage organizations. The task force would be charged with leading a review of cultural infrastructure across the county. They would also look at the accessibility of arts, cultural and heritage programing, as well as the structure and practices. Of fort culture. The task force would be comprised of at least 14 members, including at least two from the King County Council, the executive or the executive designee, two representatives from Fort Culture and representatives from arts, culture and heritage organizations, including at least nine from small organizations. The county would provide funding to support an independent consultant that would be selected by the Task Force and the Office of Equity and Social Justice would also provide additional staff support to the task force. The task force would be charged with preparing a report containing recommendations to the county to promote geographic and social equity in the allocation of funding, to support the development of cultural infrastructure being developed around King County and also to improve the accessibility of programing. The report would be transmitted under this motion. It's requested to come to the Council by April 1st, 2019, and that's a high level description of what the motion would set forth. And I'm happy to answer any questions. I think Councilmember Caldwell's maybe you can say a few words about the motion since it's your proposal and it's new. Thank you, Madam Chair. And as everybody here knows, they did want this motion on to the at the council meeting on Monday, which is normally not something I would do. However, I in from a lot of discussions that were going on last week among council members, among staff and council members with staff I had really hoped to have today offered a striking amendment and there was confusion about that, whether it would be something that we could do procedurally or not. So I went ahead and had staff draft this and some motion. And it had been too late to introduce it by last Thursday morning. So that's the reason why after this is the motion. I would like to say, though, that the idea of a task force really came from my colleague, council member Dombroski, and I thought it was a brilliant idea and I really applauded him for contemplating that and talking with people in his community. I know he's worked very hard to engage individuals and organizations in his community, and where I had some heartburn about that was more on the timing of it, and that was in effect to delay implementation initially of the idea of the ordinance going into effect. And after that, the task was to report its recommendations. As it turns out now, that delayed implementation is not in there. And for his amendment, if I'm saying this correctly, so to me it's the cart before the horse to follow an amendment on to the either the underlying ordinance as it was introduced or on the striking amendment that we have before us. I believe very strongly that to have things really work, really work, there should be collaboration and an engagement of those in the community who are artists, who work in culture, heritage, and to be able to get their input and then go ahead with an ordinance. And I'm afraid that if we go ahead with an ordinance now, then we would lose all of that opportunity for increasing access to the arts. And that is why I would like my motion to go forward in lieu of the ordinance so we could do it in the right order. And I would like to say something that it's been on my mind for a long time, and I think it's really important to state we had a, I thought, a terrific public comment period two weeks ago that demonstrated the care, the emotion, the passion that is felt among our arts, cultural heritage, communities. But some people, I think, unfortunately, took a very aggressive approach. And I believe that some of my colleagues took umbrage with that. I believe strongly and I will say it over and over again, I know that every one of my colleagues is a supporter of the arts and our cultural and heritage efforts to expand into all communities of our county. I know that is an absolute certainty, and what demonstrates that is many of my colleagues want to have more in their own neighborhoods, in their communities, and that's part of the reasoning behind introducing and sponsoring the ordinance. Given that, I think we need to step back and say, okay, some people may say that our culture is not broken, so why try to fix it? I'm probably more in that direction. If we had a continuum, some people are saying it is broken, we need to fix it. My district doesn't get enough awards. Underrepresented communities do not have enough outreach to them. The process isn't a good one. Well, if that is the belief, then we need to work together to come up with the best solution so everybody can buy into this. And every every area of our counts as a county will have the opportunities and the actual access to the arts, culture and heritage programs that we also want to be part of. And Councilmember Gossett, in my taskforce, my motion, I do include on page four, line 85, if I may read, Madam Chair, one of the recommendations that this task force would be charged with would be to promote geographic and. Social equity and the allocation of funding, including strategies to promote the submission of award applications. Because I have heard loudly and clearly from Council member Goss, who so superbly represents the underserved communities in our county, that many artists do not apply for for cultural works , even if there's outreach about the awards possibility and solicitation of applications. But they don't submit applications. And that is a very important part of what our culture should be doing more of. I know they do it, but they should be doing a lot more of that. I don't want to belabor this, but I think this is the proper order to take. Work together collaboratively, make recommendations and then. Then we go on to having an ordinance, a proposed ordinance that would deal with what the real solutions can be. So please, let's not jump the cart before the horse. And, Madam Chair, I'm not sure how you want to deal with this. I also have a striking amendment that would I be able to do this as well. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. So I just want to say, as a process matter, I recognize that the motion is after the ordinance on the agenda. I thought it was appropriate to have it briefed so people understood what was before us. And to give Councilmember Caldwell's an opportunity to explain the rationale, because she is offering a path that is different than the ordinance. And if there was interest on the council in pursuing that path, we really can only take that opportunity before we vote on the ordinance. After we vote on the ordinance, it's kind of moot. So that's why we've discussed it in this order. Is there anybody else who'd like to comment? I will comment. I believe that Councilmember Caldwell's is correct. There have been a number of things presented in our meetings and in public discussion about the rationale behind the ordinance. And I think the best of them and the ones that bring us all together that we all agree on are the need to do a better job of pushing arts and cultural organizing opportunities out into different geographic parts of the county, and especially to underserved communities, neighborhoods, groups of people. I don't think there's a one of us in this room or on this dais that doesn't think that that's a priority. We talked about it at length during the debate about the Cultural Access Washington proposal last year, and it was universally agreed that we need to do more of that and with those more resources, that would have made it easier to do more of that. Now we're dealing with the resources that we have. But but there's a desire, clearly, for that to become a more concrete effort, for that to become a more urgent effort. And I think that that is the best rationale I have heard for us at the council talking about for a culture now. And I think that Councilmember Caldwell's motion goes directly at that issue. It asks us, as elected officials representing our constituents to get together with the arts and cultural and heritage community and work on exactly these issues, and then come back with a proposal that attracts them directly. So I think it makes good sense. I would support it if I don't see anybody else here who would support it. However, then I think it would be time to move into talking about the ordinance. And so I'm looking around to see if anybody else wants to say anything. Councilmember McDermott. Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't know that I alone provide critical mass, but I want to offer some thoughts as well. And that is that the sponsors of the original ordinance before us today have said that some of their work is to address transparency and involvement across the county, but also that there isn't a particular problem that the ordinance is trying to address. Well, if there isn't a particular problem the ordinance is trying to address, then I think a community wide conversation with the council well-represented in the task force along with for culture other arts advocates, including regional around the county and local small arts organizations across the county, in each of our districts is the way to put together a conversation about what improvements could we make? I'm not about to argue that Fort Culture is a perfect organization, but I do believe it is a very good one. And if there are ways we can improve it, let's have that broad community conversation about a mutual agreement, about where those opportunities are and then enact them. And so I really do believe that Councilmember Caldwell's motion is the way to start the conversation and then have a group private come before the full council. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I my preference would be the the ordinance that's listed on the agenda. And while I don't question my colleague's motives, I believe she's sincere. There is to be a joke in Olympia that if you want to kill a bill, turn into a study or a task force. I don't believe that's her intent in this case, but I also believe it can be an unintended consequence of it. Also, I would note, I believe one of our colleagues, Councilperson Belsky, has an amendment that would do an evaluation and continued work after implementing some changes in the underlying ordinance. So there's a path forward that is not, as I know it's not in the order or doesn't achieve the same effect, but it does provide for some engagement, an analysis of the impact. And for those reasons, my preference would be to move forward with the ordinance. Thank you. Councilmember Gossett. Thank you, Madam Chair. I concur with Councilman of the Grove, and I wanted to ask you, why did you make a distinction between accepting this and going forward with the other amendments to the original ordinance? Audie. I think if we adopted that, that would mean that we wouldn't go forward. That essentially my understanding of the intent of the motion is that it would be to take a step back from the proposal that's in front of us that is represented by the ordinance and convene this group of people, work through issues and recommendations and bring those recommendations back as. A different ordinance based on whatever the recommendations would be as opposed to going forward with this ordinance. Council member of the Grove is correct. There's another amendment coming to the ordinance that would do this differently. That would it would add on top of the governance changes a task force to look at something. So but Councilmember Cole Wells, you want to speak to that question because I answered for you. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I would like to speak to this without coming across as being defensive. But but I also was in the legislature. And, yes, there was a strategy that was used occasionally, even frequently, times, to really forestall anything from happening by setting up a task force. The federal government does that with commissioner, and I would like everybody to know totally. That is not my intention with this task force. And I know council member to go was not referring to me as someone who would do that, but he still said it right here. And I want to make it clear I had this task force motion drafted so that it would be very specific to get at the underlying issues that are in the ordinance that is before us and in the striking amendment. I just cannot believe that we really would be going ahead with this ordinance that would have some very dramatic effects on our artistic, cultural heritage community in our county without having. A collaboration to bring about real recommendations. And that's my intent. Not to just forestall something. Not to do something symbolically. My preference, Madam Chair. Yes. Is that we would adopt this motion, give it a do pass recommendations, send it to the full council without going ahead with the ordinance. I think that's the proper thing to do. And I, I really would like it if my colleagues would just think about this and what we could do if we were to go ahead with this motion, if we do not have the support here. I understand that. I just hope that people don't get so vested in this ordinance that I think would have actually the unintended consequences that were referred to by another colleague of mine. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Councilmember. I am sensing that the will of the body is to move to the ordinance at this time. And if. Unless I hear objections, I've heard three objections, but I have not heard more than three objections. And so understanding that I think we should go on with our agenda. We have lots to discuss about this ordinance and let's do that now. So I will start by calling on Councilmember Up the Grove. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move the proposed ordinance to 18 0086 advance to full council with a do pass recommendation. And there is a striking amendment. Councilmember the. Thank you, Madam Chair. And move that striking amendment s one point to be adopted. Okay. Now, you didn't brief the striker when you briefed the ordinance, so maybe now would be time to brief the. Strike guide and overview so the striking amendment can be found on page 81 of your packet, and it would make a number of changes from the proposed ordinance. First, in terms of the budget, it would stipulate that the pop culture budget be transmitted to the executive 125 days before the end of the fiscal year, rather than being transmitted directly to the council. In that way, the For Culture Budget could then be transmitted to the Council by the Executive along with the Council's normal budget work in the fall. It would then defer the requirement for culture, budget review and acceptance to begin in 2020 rather than on the effective date of the proposed ordinance. It would allow transfers of funds to for culture to continue in the next fiscal year if the Council did not act on the motion by November 30th. Transfers would only discontinue if the Council rejected the for culture budget by motion by November 30th so that this would have an affirmative requirement of the Council to act. Next, the striking amendment would make a number of changes to the for culture Boyd Board appointment process. In would provide for a process for notification and input from the for culture governance nominating committee on board vacancies and require that the current for culture process for nominating vacancies in the board occur only by request of the executive or council member making the appointment. And I do have I know that the whole process for appointments and nominations has been confusing. We do have a fairly detailed matrix on the different iterations of this. If we have many more questions on that that we can distribute. Finally, I will note that the striking amendment would make changes to the provisions related to the Executive Director by eliminating the ability of the county to remove the four culture executive director. Okay. I think the proper way to do this is to entertain amendments to the striker and then have discussion about the whole thing. However, it looks after we've gone through that process in the way I'm going to proceed with this as I'm going to take up each one in order on your matrix, we have six plus a title amendment which may or may not be relevant when we get to it. The title amendment is required if the striking amendment passes without amendment pending on other amendments, there may need to be more changes to the title at form. So that will hopefully be the least of our problems today. And then and I will ask staff to brief each one and then ask the proponent to make a motion and speak to it, and then we'll have to be served. So amendment number one, if I can ask staff to brief that one and then I'll call on Councilmember Dombroski. Okay. This means members, this amendment would establish a task force as part of the ordinance. It would be similar to what Councilmember Colwell proposed. There are a few differences and I would just point those out on page two of the packet. The task force membership differs from what was in the motion that we discussed in Councilmember Dumbbell Ski's amendment. The task force would be staffed by an independent consultant and that consultant would be funded both by the county and the Cultural Development Authority with the Office of Equity and Social Justice and Counsel providing technical assistance to the Task Force. The task force would similarly be providing a report on the governance and social equity practices for culture and make recommendations around those particular issues. Under Councilmember Dombroski approach, the report would be required by February 1st, 2019, and I would note that it would not delay implementation of the governance practices, and instead it inserts language such that if the Council were to approve the report by motion acknowledging receipt no later than April 1st, 2019. So about two months after the report in motion would come to the council, then the budget review process provisions would essentially kick in in 2019 as opposed to 2020, which is what's included in Striker as 1.2. Okay. I want to actually allow the proponents to speak first and then maybe it's actually actually this is going to be just a flow. But let me give Councilmember Dombroski the opportunity to speak. First thing about chair. I move adoption of Amendment one and would like to speak to it. Please go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair. Amendment one is less my amendment and more of the communities amendment. And it it it is not perfect in terms of its timing. I agree, frankly, with Councilmember Carl Wells. I had occasion to refer to another piece of work this body did that was related to our Immigrant and Refugee Commission, which we stood up a week or so ago. And the process with that started over two and a half years ago in the community with a request for some additional work in the county around that. And I was interested in just proceeding to have a commission and get going and my staff and the community said, no, really, we need to have more of a process to develop what that commission should look like. And so we had a task force and they did two years of work and and had a number of meetings around the county with our King County Office of Equity and Social Justice, and came forth with a recommendation which was ultimately adopted by the Council and stood up. And it had that at that time I thought that was a very good process here. You know, we were going a little bit different and it is in a more of a traditional role where council has got a set of policy solutions that are aimed at addressing a number of of perceived issues. I, I think that it's good enough, but I don't know that it's perfect. And so my notion here is that I think we can benefit and have even further refinements, improvement by having more listening. And if one thing has become clear to me from all of the input I've received on this from the community and my confab and collab session at the Sandpoint Arts and Cultural Center and additional meetings with community members here and elsewhere, is that I think more dialog is necessary around arts, culture and heritage funding in the county. I don't think that if this legislation passes that it's the end of this process, but maybe rather the beginning. And I also reflect on the Prop one debate, the access for all debate and the issues that came out around that, around equitable funding, countywide and governance and that kind of dollars. And those were real challenges that we addressed here. So this this amendment would say, rather than this being the end of this discussion, this legislation ought to carry that it's maybe more of the beginning and that we ought to look through an equity lens. And that's the core of this and the frame in which we approach it, an equity lens at how far culture is doing with respect to its mission, and then have a series of dialogs and discussions around the county. This task, it would be overseen by a task force and staffed by an independent consultant, jointly funded by the county and for culture. And so we'd have to ask for our culture's help on that. They get to decide it would bring in a representative from the council, from the executive, from for culture, also from COA Cultural Access Washington, which I think is an important entity here, but then have mostly in the task force small and diverse arts, culture and heritage representatives throughout the county. We'd ask for that report back to us with recommendations with respect to how far culture is doing its governance and and really broader issues about how we can really support and improve our funding and support for arts, culture and heritage in the county. This amendment was drafted in close consultation and work with some community members and the in the arts and theater community. It has been reviewed by an independent equity consultant. We took every single suggestion made and put it in here and it's been a multi-week process. So I've shared it with each of you real time as it's been developed and calling Councilmember Caldwell's last last week in terms of the concepts as soon as it was ready, we've we've shared it with you and, you know, that's, that's that's what it does. I just remain convinced that we need more dialog on, on this topic doesn't mean that the solutions here today aren't something that should be done, but we need more dialog and then I'm personally open to continue to have further changes in a go forward basis depending on what this work comes back to and on. So I would ask for your support. Okay. There was a question from Councilmember Caldwell's and then Councilmember McDermott. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, I do have a question of either Wendy or Councilmember DEMBOSKY directly or a councilmember up the grove. And that is. I had heard councilman. Up to Grove in an earlier comment that this amendment would serve as an evaluation. And I wasn't clear on that. It looks the language looks very similar to my task force motion's language, which is to look ahead and collaborate with the community and come up with recommendations rather than an evaluation of either what's being done with the ordinance. I'm just not sure. Maybe maybe Councilmember Grove could answer that. Who would like. This? I'll take a stab at it. And then, Wendy can I would turn your attention, Councilmember Caldwell's to line 57 on page three, which in the paragraph outlines the task force report contents and it says it shall include its assessment, its task force and evaluation of four cultures, governance, structure, processes and practices, including but not limited to its grant award process through equity and social justice. Lance should say an acronym such as using the Community Stakeholder Process. In this section, the results of its assessment evaluation to make recommendation to for cultures, practices, governance and oversight structure to promote geographic, social, racial equity. So it does include an evaluation of what we have and it may come back with an but a grade or it may say, hey, pretty good, but you could refine and improve. And I think it would benefit. My my intention is that it benefit everybody in this community to understand where we stand and how we might be better. Thank you very much for that clarification. It's a little different than the language in my task force motion, but I think we're trying to get at the same thing. It's just mind would do is be forward instead of perhaps having to unwrap some of what's already been placed in our codes, which can be a much more difficult process item. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is making it easier for them. Excuse me. Sorry. 1/2, Councilmember McDermott. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Councilmember Dombroski, for talking with your colleagues and me in particular last week as this idea was coming together and being crafted, I was I need to say, I was more interested in the idea of it conceptually might have included the delay in when the overall ordinance was put into effect, because that way I believe the task force would better be able to inform future work of the Council and how one culture might respond to the recommendations from the task force if in fact the ordinance itself goes into effect in the same time frame. Meanwhile, the task force is asked for ideas. It's I'm concerned that we're presupposing what the outcome is and not investing as much value in the task force's work as we might otherwise do. And so in its in its form before us today, I don't know that I'll be able to support it. I think Councilmember McDermott and I agree it is imperfect, but it seems to me that the underlying ordinance and its three core changes, and that would be confirmation of the executive director approval of basically now a part of the budget after this work is done, and the third being the geographic change of the board appointment process. Those are just three things. And frankly, this is a more comprehensive, open ended assessment. So I it's a broad we we would be open to and presumably receive a broader set of recommendations. So I understand where you're at, but my sense was of the body that there was the will to proceed with these three basic reforms or some shape of them. And I didn't want to have that be the end of the conversation. I didn't think there would be I didn't sense there was support to put a stop to the underlying ordinance. So that's why it's worded that way. Okay. Other comments or questions? I have a comment. I think I'm going to be a little repetitive and preface pretty much all my comments today with the statement that I really do believe that everybody on this council is intent upon reaching a similar goal of expanding access to cultural opportunities in multiple ways. But I do think that some of the steps that we are proposing to get there, either, in my opinion, missed the mark in that they don't actually get us there, or they could be actually concerning. And and I'm I'm going to speak just to the language of this section either we've been talking about. The amendment says that will convene a task force, it says. Generally, the types of people to be on the task force and their work is to assess and evaluate. Quote four cultures, governance, structure, processes and practices including but not limited to grant award processes. And it says that how they will do that is through an equity and social justice lens. So this. I have two serious concerns with the way this is written. And I don't believe this is the intent, but I'm concerned that this is the result. My concern my first concern is it says that we need to look at the governance structure and processes and practices through an equity and social justice lens. So we're going to make changes to the governance and some of the processes and practices. Now, without having a discussion through an equity and social justice lens, we're just going to make those changes because we know they're right. And then we're going to go back and see whether there are changes that should be made and apply our equity and social justice lens. It's just it's backwards in my mind. But more importantly, the concern all along that I have heard loud and clear from the arts advocacy community is that they want to join in this work of looking at more equitable ways to support arts, culture and heritage in communities. And their concern with this ordinance is that it's really just a power grab that's going to allow a like log rolling, that it's going to allow a combination of five or more council members to decide how money gets moved around. And I have defended that to some extent and said I don't think that that's the intent nor what's really going to happen. But now this amendment would actually get us into grant processes. It gets us into talking about how the grant process has happened. I think it takes us a step further towards exactly what the community is afraid of. I don't know that that was what was intended. In fact, I'm fairly sure it wasn't. But this also kind of just feels like, okay, you all, we don't really you don't care for what we're doing. We heard that. So we're going to give you some more homework on top of it. We're gonna do it anyway and we're going to give you some homework to do. I just don't. It's too much to me in this order and I can't support this, although I could certainly support something like this if it was developed in a collaborative way with the folks who are going to have to implement it. So I'm going to vote no on this amendment, but that's not because I don't think that it could be made to work. I just think that this the way this is written doesn't work. And it, in fact, triggers some of the things that I think are the things people most are most concerned about. So I'm going to vote no on the amendment and no one else, anyone else. Councilmember Kowalski. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a question. Are we taking up each amendment one at a time and then vote on yes, one. This one as before as it's been moved and it is before us for. Then, Madam Chair. Yes. And I move on to Rule 18 be for the committee to withdraw from consideration. That's one too, so that I may move strike three for deliberation and action. Okay. You like me to explain what. Rules I would, and then I'm going to need some parliamentary help because I did not know I. Robert's rules would be here today. Thank you. Okay. Yes, please. Do you want to read? Do you want? Sure. Lawyer. Lawyers. We got them. We got lawyers. Yeah. We don't need the guns and the money. Yet, but. It's coming. Please. For the record, Kendall Moore. Under your rule 18 B, after a motion has been stated by the chair and read by the clerk, the. Motion can then be withdrawn by the consent. Of the committee as long as it is done before any. Decision or. Amendment has been made. So the timing of the councilmembers motion is appropriate to take up before there's any vote on amendment the Demovsky amendment to S 1.2. So is the motion to remove consideration of the amendment to the striker or the striker itself? I believe that the. Motion. Is to the striker itself so that it can. Be withdrawn and then as three be considered. If S three it fails. Then you can go back to Striker 1.2. Is this a debatable motion? It seems like one of those non debatable motions, but I'm not 100% sure. It is it. We don't want that. No, it is not listed under Rule. 17 as a motion to be. Decided without debate. Okay. So that means there can be debate. Councilmember Caldwell's, we want to speak to your motion. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Do I have to move? Oh, no. You made a motion. Just. I made a motion. I do not want to get to this point, but as it was not determined by my colleagues to go ahead with my motion to create a task force, I decided to go ahead with this motion. But again, I cannot stress enough how important it is that we work with the community and we come up with recommendations before we implement a new law in our code. That just does not make sense to me as the order that we would customarily do things. We need to have that dialog. If we're talking about transparency and we're talking about accountability, why have a task force that is something and come back to us with recommendations after we've already created a new ordinance? It just doesn't flow. It's not it's not workable. And therefore, I do have a striking amendment, striking Amendment three that would create a task force in code instead of through a motion. This is what makes sense. This is where everybody can be pleased with what we're doing. We can have a meaningful, significant working together of all of the different players, and that will have the opportunity for real success and to get to resolutions and solutions, which is what we all want. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Any other comments? Council member of the group. Thank you, Mr.. Madam Chair, I was unaware this motion was coming, so I didn't care to discuss it, but I. I think at this point there is support for the process that we've embarked upon, which is consideration of an ordinance, a strike amendment that we're into and amending that. And I think to take an unusual step of stopping our debate on that, it, I don't think makes sense. I think we've had an opportunity here for voices. I think the making of the motion has allowed a an argument to be made that needs to be made and heard. But I would encourage people to vote no on this so we can continue to do our work. Thank you. I'll make a comment as well. I feel like I need to explain my vote on this. I agree in substance with Councilmember Caldwell's 100%. I think that that is absolutely. Right. She has outlined the path that I wish had been taken, but it wasn't. And we're here and we have got a majority and in fact, a supermajority of this body that is supportive of this ordinance. And I'm committed to trying to make it the best it can be and to go forward from here. I don't I'm not a I'm not a sponsor or even a supporter of this path. But sometimes you have to make the best with what you possibly can achieve. And that I feel like that's more important than trying to go sideways into a vote that I know will fail. And so I'm just not I'm not going to vote yes on this. And it's not because I'm not with you, Councilman Raquel Welch in spirit, but I think the procedural side trip is going to be unnecessarily divisive, and I just don't think we should take it. Councilmember McDermott. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms.. Moore, may I ask you a question? We currently have before us striking Amendment 1.2 and if an amendment to it, if we were to follow our normal procedure, take up the amendments to it, then take it up perhaps as amended. If it were to fail, we would then be able to take up an S3. That's correct. Okay. So this motion before us at the moment is not the only way we might consider s three if ifs. S 1.2 as amended does not pass, then yes, you may take up a subsequent strike. Thank you. That's a really good point. Thank you for pointing that. Out there about. Okay. Question from Councilmember Gossett, can you you might not want to walk away. Thank you, Madam Chair. What do we do? I mean, I support changes to the budget review and acceptance process as well as board notification and input. Our process for vacant for future vacant positions. But I still want us to go forward with having the ability to be involved in the process of hiring and firing the executive director . So I went out to vote no. Well, what you have just described is an option that is not in front of us today to keep those two processes that you like and and or to keep the process that you like and change the two that you don't like. That that is looking down my list of amendments. That is not a combination that will be in front of us. At least it doesn't seem likely to be in front of us today. And then so whatever comes out of this process of amending the striker, I think it's going to be up to every individual council member to decide whether the balance we ultimately strike is something that we can support or not support. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you. So let me make sure that I understood the answer you just gave. So if we voted no on S1, then we could have the same thing happen that we just had happen, that we could end up with S3 at both S1 and as three get no votes, then we go back to the underlying ordinance. So, yes, although I understand that procedurally, they're actually that we're actually going to be there's a striker that makes some maybe technical changes or just a striker that it's like a substitute ordinance, but it is exactly the same as the underlying. There is a striker that has been prepared. S2 That is exactly the same as the underlying ordinance. With one difference it adds a line numbers to the attachments so that when you make amendments, we can easily describe where they are. And where is that on a list? You do not have that in front of you, but will should the need arise. Okay, so how do we get to the need to arise to that? If one thing breaking amendment fails, then councilmembers can choose to either amend the underlying ordinance which would be presented to you as a striker as to or to move forward with Councilmember Caldwell's amendment, which is striker S3, which, as she noted, would delete everything in the ordinance and replace it with a requirement for a task force. So just so I'm clear, because this is as clear as mud. So I want to make sure as clear made as to. As we got to where I want as well to. What? Okay, so s 1.2 goes down. Then we have the opportunity to look behind door number two or door number three. Door number three would be why Councilmember Caldwell suggested door number two. Is the original. The original. So we would get back to all the points that we had thought about originally. So. Right, is that right? That's my yes. Okay. So there is an option to get to the original by going to eschew it as 1.2 goes. And I would note you could just adopt the underlying ordinance with no changes if you wish to amend the underlying ordinance. And we had received a number of requests to do so for the purposes of being able to describe and identify excuse me, where any changes were to the two attachments to the ordinance. We created a striking amendment that had line numbers just just for procedural ease. I know it's confusing, but it's hard when you've got a 54 page packet and you're trying to make line amendments in it. Can I just clarify, please? Okay. So for clarification purposes, to make life easier, because this is a little complicated, we could vote down if we chose to one, point to three and go back to the underlining underline underlying. And then if we felt at council that. It needed. Some minor. Adjustment for the amendments. We could do that at council. Certainly that would make life much easier because then it would be exactly like what we do normally. So I just put that out as a way of simplifying the unsayable. Thank you. Okay. Councilmember Caldwell's to close. Thank you, Madam Chair, to this. I have no illusion that my motion will be adopted, but I do want to make sure everybody knows this was not made capriciously. It is totally within the rules of our council proceedings, as I mentioned, that it is under rule 18 B, so it was proper to do and I do. I would love it if you all supported it, even though I don't think that will happen. Thank you. Okay. With that, I'll call for a vote on the pending motion. Does everybody understand the pending motion? Yes. All right. All those in favor please signify by saying I. All those opposed. No. Okay. The motion does not carry. And I believe that was since that was kind of an intervening motion. Now we are back to the pending motion, which is Amendment One to striker one point to. Are there any further comments on Amendment one? Councilmember De Bousquet, would you like to say anything before we vote? Just just to close. And I think there are good points on both sides, and that in an ideal world, we would perhaps, on an issue this complex, have a broader look and do this process leading up to it. But where we are, where we are and and I think some of the base reforms and the reason I co-sponsor this are necessary. My district has been without a voice for two years. The for culture folks say that they've had since there were 23 clean audits. It's not true. The state auditor had a cygnet had a a a internal controls weakness which taking the other represented a significant deficiency in 2009. That's why I support the budget approval for financial accountability and oversight. I think that these light touches, if you will, are important and necessary. But again, and why I'm ready to move forward with them today. I don't like the higher fire. I think that the underlying striker that changes that is good. But I do also think that this topic and I give credit to the Arts and Culture and Heritage Committee for coming forward needs more discussion. And I'll say this. I've heard from folks in my community who are too afraid to come into this chamber and raise a different you're shaking head to share their differing view because of the nature of the testimony that's been that's been given and they have a different view about for culture. But I've reached out to my office so and I'll say this, a lot of them look a little bit different than than than the voices we've heard from in terms of diversity. And I'm I care about those voices and those artists and those organizations, and they're not they're not able to be here. So I think we do need some reform. I also think we need some more discussion. And I think that this process has shown that. And I think that the debate around Prop one last year and its results have shown that. And that's why I'm offering this. I also think, by the way, I didn't say this that it sisters in with a process that has been recently commenced by for culture and I give them credit for it to reach out. I think they've heard the message that more dialog is necessary and they have commenced. I understand a listening process and this would marry up with that. At least that's the intention and have a more comprehensive approach. So I ask for members support. Okay. With that, I will call for a vote on Amendment one to the striker. All those in favor please signify by saying I opposed no. Can we do that one more time with hands? All those in favor, please raise your hand and signify by saying I all those opposed. No, no. The motion carries 5 to 4. Okay. This brings us to number number amendment two and I'll ask staff to please brief Amendment two. Sure. Amendment number two, excuse me, which is being offered by Councilmember Balducci, would add language to a section of code that describes the county's policies regarding cultural programs and that new language would read. King County recognizes that meeting its goals for regional distribution of cultural activities requires regional planning, outreach to cities and communities throughout the county and a regional investment strategy. So again, this would make changes to an existing code section to add language. Regional policy goals. He's got a complaint. Okay. Thank you. And since I'm the sponsor, I'll speak to it really briefly. The key language change is it's a very brief one. It's on page two of the amendment. It lines 29 to 31. And all it does is state the that the whereas is or the factual finding type language in this ordinance is framed differently than I'm used to seeing. It says King County recognizes, as opposed to other framings that I'm used to seeing. So this one follows that framing and says King County recognizes that meeting its goals for regional distribution of cultural activities requires regional planning, outreach to cities and communities throughout the county and a regional investment strategy. And I believe what this does is just sets a it's non-binding, goal oriented language that sets our goal to to do that broader regional outreach that we've been talking about since the access for all, at least at this council, since we've been talking to the council about the access for all. I know that the board has been talking about it as well. So I think it's simple. I don't think it adds much other than to make explicit the policy that many of us have been talking about. And I would ask for your support. Councilmember of the. Grove. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that amendment to be adopted. Oh, and oh, thank everything. Mr.. The girl. At in discussions. That. I've had with the for culture board leadership. I think that clearly articulates a vision that I've heard from both the agency and from colleagues on this dais. So I think it captures a common vision. Well. I appreciate your support both for the amendment and the process. I don't know if that makes me a bad chair or a bad member or both, but there you go. It's before us. Any other. I would just. Be in your vice chair to. It. Thank you. Anyone else on this one? Okay. All those in favor of amendment to please signify by saying i i any opposed the motion carries. And that brings us to Amendment three. Amendment three would simply require that six votes would be necessary in order to reject the foreclosure. By my Motion. Councilmember. Madam Chair, to move adoption of Amendment three. Showing us how it's done. Would you like to speak to Mr. McDermott? Thank you, Madam Chair. If the Council is going to take control of the foreign culture budget, then we're going to need to have a compelling reason to deny the approval of that budget. If there's truly a troubling and compelling reason to reject the budget a problem with it, then that would easily be a90 vote up here on this council. And this amendment would ensure that the council wouldn't be accused of trying to steer money to our own districts or politicize the funding of foreign culture or the grant process, as some are concerned this ordinance might be doing. And so to protect the integrity of the budget in the process, I ask for support in a supermajority of six votes to approve to disapprove the full culture budget. Okay. Any questions or comments? Councilmember Gossett I wanted to ask Councilman Mike what happened to the adherence to the old reliable American rule of majority rule? Councilmember Gossett When something spots in our rules, we require a supermajority for particular actions. And this is one where some members of the public are concerned that by needing to approve for culture the Public Development Authority's budget, that we are in some sort of a power grab and this offers them a very direct assurance that's not the case. And as I said, if there's a problem with the budget, there's an audit finding this comes from a democracy raises or a concern, then there should be an easy nine o vote. And this offers the public assurance with a by requiring a nine and a six vote supermajority. Okay. Councilman Bloomberg. Thank you. I ever heard that term power grab and it's very disconcerting to me. My job is to represent the citizens of the county and not just any one particular category in any one particular budget. We have sat down and made 17 budgets since I've been here and we've worked together collaboratively, and I think 16 of the 17 have been unanimous. So I don't see where there would be any problem as using the same that we use for regular budgets to do this. I think that taking any budget. Whether. It's this one or any other one and saying, oh, you're special, you need seven or you even more special, you need eight or you're worse, but you need nine. I just don't think that's right. We we do the budget 16, 17 years. It's been unanimous. And I don't think that that is. Necessary for any budget. To be able to get special privileges. So I wouldn't be earning no on this. Okay. Any other forms of cancer, preventive medicine, anything. That I'm sure just to help me get some context on this is is there anyone, lawyers or staff that could give us some examples of what else in our counsel processes or ordinances that might require a six vote majority or super supermajority? I will note that an emergency ordinance requires the supermajority and then takes effect immediately. I will defer to legal counsel for any additional examples. Vetoes of or overrides of the County Executive vetoes also requires will. I remember that. Of the article I. Cannot. See, and I did actually look at this specific and there are other examples that the higher the other example that I. Found, particularly. In the code, is with regard. To a transportation section. In for a title for a 29 that requires. Six affirmative votes in order to accept. A report. So it would and that was by ordinance. So so I wasn't able to find another one with regard. To. Motions in the code in. Our rules. In the council rules. There are provisions that require six votes by motion with regard to regional committees. Yeah. Not a license. Okay. And that's both that's both ordinances. And I. Stand, if I might. Madam Chair, is more on the regional committees. You're referring, I think, to our kind of override procedures, is that right? We, the County Council, wanted to take a different position than one of the regional committees. Yeah, that's right. Okay. No water policy. I'm getting nods from colleagues. So it's six affirmative votes to adopt a motion dealing with countywide policies after referred to the regional committee and fired when they failed to act. When the regional committee failed to act within the required time or that, as you say, as. When you are going to be when the council is going. To be adopting something different than the. Regional committee adopted. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay. Comes from rapporteur. Thank you, Madam Chair. We have sort of a strange process as it is right now, either an annual or depending on how we're doing our budget biennial basis. This Council votes to appropriate funds to for culture. Right now it can be very modest for certain elements their programing. Soon we will be administering and transferring hotel motel tax dollars again where we were. A simple majority of this body can vote right now to not transfer that funding. I think it sets up a bit of an odd scenario. If we were got to a point for some reason where a majority of this body was unhappy transferring those funds for whatever reason. I don't see that scenario. But if that were to happen, the funds could be withheld by a majority vote today. And regardless of the outcome of this amendment, this amendment speaks to whether or not this process of going the budget up or down and the triggering of that would require a supermajority or regular majority. And I just think it would be kind of odd to have this scenario where if you had half of the council got to a point where they were uncomfortable providing the public funds and then but if five, but not six. And so this doesn't trigger it. But then you when it comes time to appropriate your a it's a a simple majority. So I, I think it's an issue worth exploring how this this process works a little bit more. But I think this sets up a little bit of a weird, a weird scenario. And so I'm I think today I'm going to vote no and. I'll say a few words before turning to Councilmember McDermott to close on this amendment. I agree. It's a little unusual. I think the example of the regional committee override is actually an an example that's on point. If we don't like something that comes out of the charter based regional committees that are are, you know, a city county committees, this council can override what they're doing by a vote of supermajority vote. So there is some precedent. It is also a little bit odd. And perhaps the oddest thing about it is, given the timelines that we typically have when we take our budgets, a simple majority of the council, even with this ordinance in place, could change the ordinance back to a majority vote and then have a majority vote to deny the budget. So, I mean, it's just it's it provides some protection, but not a ton of protection. However, I'm going to vote in favor just because I think with with because we're making changes in a direction that is causing concern about council, uh , using our, our split vote power to drive money to certain places. Since that's the concern. And I think this provides some level of comfort to people who have that concern. On that basis, I will vote for the amendment. Councilmember Lambert and then Councilmember Mike. Thank you very much. And your example and from in my mind has a dichotomy in the fact that the Regional Policy Committee, the Regional Water Committee, is all made up of elected officials, people who people can. Unelect if they don't. Like that choice. This is the first time I can think of where a body that is getting that authority, who is not made up of unelected elected people. And I am very concerned that elected people need to be making the decisions so they're accountable to the people. So that difference for me is huge. If if all the people were elected as a separate body, then I would have no problems. But being that these are not elected people getting the duties, but without the responsibilities of having to go to the elected people with. This is what they did. I think that's not okay. So no thank you, Councilman McDermott, to close on this amendment. Thank you, Councilman. Councilmember Balducci, Councilmember Lambert, the Fort Culture Board is a public development authority, and we're not trading in this ordinance. The Fort Culture Public Development Authority like we do every other public development authority. They have budget authority. We're setting this one aside and treating it very separately. So when addressing whether elected officials make those decisions and other public development authorities, in fact, they do not. Council member at the group speaks to the majority vote being able to stop the transfer of hotel motel tax funds today to the foreign culture accounts. And that's very true. But what would change under this ordinance is the requirement that the Council approve the budget, adding that one more authority or power, if you will, in this council. And that's why I think it's important to address and add a supermajority, six votes to reject the budget because of that change from what we currently do. It won't be now perfectly analogous to what we're doing today. And as Councilmember Lambert addressed, I share your concern that people would think this was a power grab. And when people think there's a power grab involved, it is serious and concerning. And I think that this amendment is one way to offer the entire public across King County. That is not what this is about. In fact, this is about making sure that if there is a significant problem in the budget, this council steps up and stops it. I would ask for your support. Okay. With that, I think we're ready to vote on amendment number three. All those in favor please signify by saying I opposed. No. I'm not sure I heard the vote on that. Whether we'll do it by hands again. All those in favor, please raise your hand and say I. I am opposed. Nay, the amendment carries. All right. We're doing well on amendments. Let's move on to amendment number four. And this is another one regarding the budget process. And I'll ask staff to please go ahead and brief it. Thank you. Amendment four is also, as we mentioned, related to the budget process. This particular amendment would essentially set forth criteria under which the council could reject the for culture budget. The Council would have to find that the budget would result in a deficiency or we're not sure that the purpose of the Authority's programs could reasonably accomplished . And then there would be three specific criteria that would, one of which would have to be present in order for the Council to reject the budget. And those are shown at the bottom of page one, in top of page two. But briefly, if projected revenues for the following fiscal year were less than budgeted expenditures, if the revenues were at least 15% less than in the current year, but there was not a commensurate reduction in expenditures and vice versa. And then if the Cultural Development Authority has not complied with requirements that are specified in the county code related to for culture reporting. So those three, one of those three criteria would have to be in existence in order for the council to reject. And then afterwards the Council would or this amendment would set forth a process by which the Council or representatives of the council would meet with representatives of poor culture within 15 days of the Council rejecting the budget. Within 15 days of that meeting, the Four Culture Board would transmit a revised budget, and then within 15 days the Council would either need to reject the budget again by motion, or if they did not take such action within 15 days, then the transfer of funds would continue. Okay. Does that cover it? Okay. Council Member Coel's, would you like to put this before a statement? Thank you, Madam Chair. I move the amendment number four. And if you're. A council member done right there. I'd like you to reconsider the motion. We have a motion pending. Can you hold off until we finish the motion that's pending, and then we'll get to you. I want to make sure that my place in line with you on what I believe would. Feel like it. We have a motion. We have a motion before us. If I may, Kendal Moore, the council members motion. Is a motion to reconsider the last. Amendment. So I think it's appropriate that you take. His motion to reconsider. He was on the prevailing side for I believe it was amendment number three. Before you take up. Amendment number four. Well, a member for is on the table already, just got moved. But I have to be. It has not been acted on. No, I'm asking staff just one time if it's the will of the count of the chair and there's no objection, then you can continue with number four. But it was just to preserve the council members motion for reconsideration. Reconsideration of Amendment three. Can we see? Back after we do for you. Go back to three without him losing his opportunity to make a difference in the will of the. If there's no objection to that. And it's the will of the. Okay, hold on. Hold on, hold on. We're discussing. Okay. Right now, we have a point of order about whether we're taking up for first and then a motion to reconsider on three or something else. Council Member McDermott to discuss the point of order. Thank you, Ms.. Moore. After a. Afternoon, Mr. Brewer. We're trading up the lawyers here now. We have our senior attorney. With a new motion already before the committee. Is it still appropriate to move for reconsideration of a previous motion that's been adopted? Yes, it is. And I think. If I may follow up on the prior advice, the in generally it's preferred to take motions for reconsideration as soon as you can in relation to the thing that's being reconsidered. However, under your rules, the only real final deadline is prior to passage of the ordinance. So you could roll it back later. Consider around Rick Perry's being prudent by moving it now to make sure what happened earlier. But in answer to the chair's question, you probably could go ahead, finish consideration of four and go and then move to reconsider three. Since it doesn't amend the prior one itself. Okay. So if if the motion on amendments three to be for reconsideration is not precluded, which is what I hear you saying. Yes, then just as a matter of logic and flow, it would make more sense to take that up first. Yes, I don't see that there's an alternative, so let's do that. Okay. Let's move on right there. Would you just state your motion one more time so we may. Okay, let's just clean up the record here a second. We have a motion pending on Amendment four. Councilmember Cole Wells, will you. Would you withdraw that motion just for the moment? I'd be glad to withdraw that. Thank you very much. And Councilmember Bond right there. Would you restate your motion for reconsideration, please? For the record, having voted on in majority sided on the previous motion, I quote, I ask for a reconsideration of the vote. Okay. Motion for reconsideration is on the table. You speak to a. Point of inquiry. Point of inquiry? Yes. Can somebody walk me, refresh my memory on what votes would would come before us as a revote to reconsider that, then I vote on the revote in the motion itself. Yes. There are two votes in this process. Yes. Yes, that is correct. You first vote on whether to reconsider. If that passes, that puts you in the position of the previously. The amendment. Should still be before. You. Okay. Is there any particular vote requirements on the reconsideration of the record. Of those present? Actually, I don't believe that my motion is debatable. Is reconsideration, I believe may not be debatable. Oops. Why do I think this is a point of inquiry which are actually is a point of order? We're asking for process. We are really working out the rules so that. We. Don't have to go back and read them again overnight. Know, usually you just all do this by consent. I guess that speaks well to the general run of this behavior. Yeah. You have. Three lawyers who you want to get. That done. Don't move your bags. Until you get my picture. That is an expensive billable hour right there. It is not listed as one of the motions. That's non debatable. So that being the case, we have a motion to reconsider in front of us. Council member Von right there. Do you want to speak to it or shall I just. Councilmember McDermott wanted to say something. No. All right. Not seeing any comments or questions. All those in favor of reconsidering Amendment three please signify by saying I. I opposed no. Division. As opposed division calls for a roll call. Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. No, it's not fair for him. Okay. All those in favor of the motion to reconsider Amendment three. Please say I and raise your hands. All right. Opposed. No reconsideration is approved. Is there a motion upon reconsideration? So moot. What are you moving? What are you moving? The original. I'm. I'm changing everything. Before. Oh, I see. So somebody needs to move Amendment three again. Yeah, and we're going to vote on it. Again, and then I'm going to vote no. Okay. I think we gather, but thank you. He's making it clear. But Councilmember Bowen right there, you have not heard my silver tongued argument this time. Give him a. Chance. He let him talk. Madam Chair, I move. Adoption of Amendment three. Okay. Amendment three is before us again. Is there any further comment? Madam Chair, I would I would stand by my earlier comments and again point out that if an if, as we require for the first time the authority to approve the for culture budget, not simply the transfer of funds, but approve their budget new authority. And there is concern in the public about a power grab. This is our opportunity to offer firm commitment to the public. That is not the case. If there is a concern about the budget, it should in fact be one of those nine no budget votes. Councilmember Lambert speaks of a supermajority of six votes would not be a high hurdle for a flawed budget. And so I would ask members to join me in supporting Amendment three. Okay. Councilmember one right there. Thank you. Councilmember McDermott. All right. Any further comments or questions? All those in favor of Amendment three please signify by saying I and raising your hands. I know, I know. And they are in favor of. Oh, no, I'm sorry. I keep. Raise your hands and keep them up. One, two, three, four. All those opposed. Councilmember Colwell So you're voting no on the amendment bring down. Yeah. Okay. If the amendment fails on a vote of 5 to 4. So let's correct the record for debate. No. It fails 5 to 4. Yeah. Five opposed. Thank you. All right. So this brings us back to Amendment four, which has already been briefed. Councilmember Colwell. Thank you, Madam Chair. I once again move the amendment for. OC amendment pause before us to speak to it. Councilmember Caldwell's. Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, I have full confidence that this strike or some variation of it, were to go to the full council and be approved. That it's I full confidence that all members of our Budget Committee and all members of our council will be very prudent in terms of how they would vote on a budget submitted by Ford culture and that there would not be any game plan. We don't know about the future. However, none of us would want any mischief to take place with the vote on a very important measure that not only means a great deal to the staff of Fort Culture, but also to the arts advocacy community across our country , across our county. So this amendment simply places some parameters around what would need to occur. And as Wendy brought out, one of the three criteria would need to be present in order for us to vote to disapprove the budget that was submitted. Certainly, if there were deficiencies in the Ford culture proceedings, then I would be very much concerned with that and likely vote against their budget. I if there were instances in which there were unexplained fluctuations in the revenues or any expenses or failure to submit financial documents as required, then I think that that would be very compelling to vote against the budget and have Ford culture take it up again. But I do believe that having these private parameters in place, the criteria as well as the process for what happens if the Council were to deny the Ford Council budget is very important to include, and therefore I ask for your support of this amendment. Okay. Councilmember Gossett. Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to ask Councilman Cowell's what is the reason for this special treatment of for culture? Because the cultural programs in this county were on the county directly for 37 years. And it's been about. Two years that has not been on our jurisdiction. Plus, we have six independent agencies that we vote on and we don't they none of them can come back and say, please take another vote. We have no information, so why would we do it for a culture? So I'm going to interject here just for a quick second. I think it's funny. Just let me interject for a moment, please. Just privilege of the chair. It's fine to ask, I think, each other questions about the meaning. But if you're basically making an argument, pro or con, against the amendment, I don't think that council members need to answer to other council members directly. You basically you're making an argument to say, I don't see the reason why we need this. Councilmember Caldwell's, when it comes around to her time again, can certainly speak to that if she chooses. But I just I don't want to get into that because I think that that way we end up debating each other, which is not the purpose of. And I apologize. Councilmember Gossett, I appreciate your. So you just want us to ask the question. Or make your statement? I mean, if I were if I were Councilmember Caldwell's lawyer, which I'm not, I would object and say that that was a leading question. It could be framed as an argument. I just would. You're welcome to make right. Which everyone here is welcome to make if you're interested in hearing her rationale in more detail. I think you've made that clear. And she it's up to her. She has the the right to decide whether any of us would have the right to decide whether we want to to make particular arguments or not. So let's go round and let everybody state their case. And then Councilmember Caldwell's will have an opportunity to close and hopefully she will speak to that, I'm sure. Councilmember Dunn, I'm sorry. Could Councilmember Gosset repeat his question? I missed it. Okay. I think that is a question that is an informational question. If you will yield to the question, will you yield to the question, Councilmember Garcia, what was your can you can you state your question one more time for Councilmember Dombroski? My question to Cousin Nicole well, sir, was why do we need to impose further parameters around the acceptance or rejection of the for culture budget? Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank Councilmember Garcia. Thank you. Okay, Councilmember Lamberts in waiting. Thank you. I have a question of staff. So online 48, the projected revenues are at least 15% less than the current year. So that's the criteria that they couldn't get less than 15%. So isn't that similar to supplementation? I'm. I'm sorry, could you. Repeat your question? Yes. Online 48 on page three. Of the amendment. The projected revenues are at least 15% less than the current year. That's one of the effects of this. So as I read that, it looks to me like it either is supplementation or is the reverse of supplementation. Madam Chair. Yes, one of them promotion. Can we please be clear that the you're not you're citing from the effect statement and not the actual amendment itself? I think staff could have pointed that out to look at. Yeah, but let's proceed. I'm hoping that they jive. I am. I do, too. Yes. So I'm not too worried about that one because they should be driving. Otherwise, I had two big problems. Yeah, go ahead. Councilmember Lambert. So the actual lines in the amendment that I think you're referring to are 13 and 14 on peak one where projected revenues are less than budgeted expenditures. I, I don't believe that this relates to supplementation, which is something that which is a state law that restricts certain county property tax levies, as well as the sales tax. But it would be a situation where, you know, you're you would be looking at a budget where the expenditures were greater than the revenues. So I've written out or assisted in writing about 24 budgets. So let's just say the fact that we were in Olympia about six or seven days ago complaining that we're the only county in the state that. The. The state is holding over us, the supplementation issues, and we are present in that. And now we are asking somebody, we are allowing in this the same thing to happen. So it's just it's just jointed here. On one hand, we're saying to the state, don't do this to us. And on the other hand, we're saying, but we will allow for culture to do this to us. So to me. It's a little schizophrenic. And the other thing is that I'm feeling a little resentful about the word game playing power grabs. You know, those are names. Somebody could say, you're a martian. It doesn't make me a martian. It doesn't make me a power grabber or that I'm playing games. And I think it's really sad that we are allowing anybody or any group to. I guess the word I would use is impugn the motives for those of us that been in the legislature. So anyway, I will not be voting for this. Thank you. The other kinds of questions that council member McDermott. Thank you, Madam Chair. The first time around, my arguments on the last amendment were successful. So I will try them again here. And that is to point out, the full culture is a public development authority. Public development authorities have authority over their own budget. Sure we transfer the revenue to fort culture as is stipulated. But they have the authority over their own budget for the first time. We are assuming the authority over approving or disapproving their budget. If we are going to do so and treat this public development authority in a special way, unlike the other public development authorities across this county that serve the people of King County, then I think it is appropriate to have be very specific about on what accounts we would disapprove their budget in this amendment. Steps in to do that and I think it's very important that if we're going to treat foreign culture differently, especially uniquely than we do any other public development authority in their budget, then I think it is imperative upon us to be very clear about by what measurement we will hold them. This amendment does that. Please vote yes. Thank you for their comments. Councilor Tomasky. I'm going to vote no on this because it it it specifies a limited number of bases. But frankly, if I if there were concerns heard from the community otherwise that the budget was inequitable, didn't meet our equity and social justice objectives that are shared by our culture, continued the pattern of of. Deficit funding to the extreme. I'm not sure where the 15% comes from. I mean, this just this these criteria, even if you agreed with the notion that there should be criteria, which I think takes away all of the kind of judgment that folks send us here to try and exercise, and we always get it right. But I think more often what we do I from watching this on today and seeing it for the first time, I couldn't say without. You have to reflect that these are all the criteria. Even if the argument is that there should be some criteria and these are the only criteria. Not not not not a flaw, but a ceiling. So I just based on those concerns, I can't support this one. Thank you. And I'll speak and then give Councilmember Caldwell an opportunity to close on this amendment. I have to say, and I this is where you get to see the legislate, the sausage being made, because although I am a council member who doesn't believe that we need the approval authority over the budget at all that's being contemplated in this ordinance. If we are going to adopt legislation that says the Council has budget authority, then these kind of restrictions don't make a lot of sense to me. If 15% is some kind of a threshold, is 14.9%, just not good enough. But 15% is it just it strikes me as odd. I don't see budget authority being constrained this way in any other scenario that I can think of. And I've lived through too many experiences where we've had decision making constraints, say, on hiring or firing of a high level manager of some kind, and found that with all the good intentions, the restrictions that were written years before didn't give us the flexibility to do something that made a total sense in the moment when we got to making the decision. And so I'm just concerned that this kind of thing could come back to be a real problem, even though I don't support us actually having this new power of voting over the budget in a way that's different than we have, just generally because we have power over the funding stream. So I'm going to vote no on this amendment. But it's it's not because I disagree with the concept of limiting. And I will say that because over my objection, the task force is going to potentially be a thing. I would say if this all goes forward, that we ask the task force to take a look at what makes sense in terms of budget approval or disapproval, those criteria, because I think those folks would be better positioned to advise and make referrals after they've completed their work if that happens. So I'm going to be a no on this amendment. Councilor McDermott. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think you and Councilmember Dombroski make a really good point, and that is this amendment, although I supporting it, and think that some parameters on why we might reject the budget once we have the authority to approve a public development authority's budget for the first time is inexact. I'm choosing to support it. You both have made arguments about what's not included, and I'm not certain that it's the exact right criteria. I have to say, I think that's why the task force to study and reflect before we take the blunt action of the ordinance before us is a good idea. Okay. Councilmember Coles. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a very emotionally wrought situation that we're in right now. But I do need to clarify a couple of things, at least from my perspective. It was said that the use of the term game playing was very offensive and I'm not sure the good council member heard me say that. I am confident there would not be any. Here you have heard it. Okay, well, that was my reference and I'm sorry if I misheard you, but it it's not my intention that we would have any game playing. And I have not cast aspersions on anybody's motives here, and I would not do that. Secondly, a comment was made that this is the first time that individuals had seen this amendment. Well, we were all sent out the packet last night electronically. I have not seen the other amendments, just as no one had seen this amendment of mind before that packet was sent out. So I do just want to make sure that it's understood that this was not something that magically appeared and was kept from anybody, but really more to them to the amendment itself. I hear what people are saying and I can see both sides of it. We don't want to place unreasonable, unreasonable restrictions on our ability to vote for or against a budget that's been submitted. I can't think of all the potential in the universe of restrictions to put in here, but we put in three criteria, one of which could result in a legitimate vote against endorsing supporting the budget that's been submitted . I'm more comfortable with having some parameters here because this is an action that will have very serious consequence for a public development authority, which we're not imposing on other ones. And I think that we need to take that seriously. And that's why I'm comfortable with including these parameters of the if the will of this body is to not do that, I think it's going to make it more willy nilly in a sense. You know, somebody could just say, well, I don't like this budget because of this one little thing. And that would be something that could just emerge. And it would have profound it could have profound impacts. So I'm asking you to support this. But this amendment. And that's it. Thank you. Okay. Motion in favor of Amendment four is before us for a vote. All those in favor please signify by saying I. I oppose. No motion does not carry in the opinion of the chair. Okay. That brings us to amendment number five and I'll ask Jeff to please brief Amendment number five. Sure. Amendment number of amendment number five is proposed by Councilmember Bell Dutchie and it would reinstate the expertize requirements for the board of directors, as we had discussed earlier, the professional requirements for the board that exist currently but would be removed by the proposed ordinance and would continue to be removed by the striking amendment would be that the board would include one expert in arts, one expert in public art, one expert in heritage, one expert in historic preservation, and one person from business. I will note two things about this amendment. The first is that the combination of the professional requirements and the geographic requirements could prove could produce additional challenges in finding people who are qualified, who both live in the district and have the needed expertize. I will note, however, that the striking amendment that is before you sets up what I would describe as a somewhat iterative process in which the OR Culture Governance Nominating Committee would notify for the district appointed positions, would notify the relevant council member prior to a vacancy , and provide information about the board composition, as well as recommendations about helpful attributes, which could, if this amendment passes, include the type of professional expertize that would be needed. That's councilmember. SAMBERG If you could put that before us and then I'll speak to it, then we can have questions in the world. And be great. I will be a ventriloquist. Thank you. I would like to put your amendment before us. Amendment number five. Thank you, Councilmember Lambert. And I'll just speak to it briefly. The intent here is really just to retain a requirement that has existed since the Foreign Culture Board was adopted, was created to have expertize in at least four seats arts, public art, heritage and historic preservation. This is a 15 seat board, and it will require some coordination and work among the executive appointees and the district appointees, and probably a little bit of keeping more than one person in each of these categories around so that we can balance over time while inserting while strengthening the geographic representation as the ordinance anticipates. I think it will require some work. We will have to cooperate together with the executive and with the nominating committee and the and the for culture board to maintain this. But I think it is a incredibly valuable level of expertize, and I would hate to lose it. So I'm going to ask that we retain this language by putting it into the Stryker. Thank you for your consideration. Councilmember Lambert, followed by Councilmember Garcia. Thank you. I think it's a really good idea because it brings in lots of different perspectives. And I'm really glad to see that the business person is there because this is a big budget and it's nice to have somebody with. The business. Aspect bringing it to the table. My concern is that it might need a little bit of tweaking in that, you know, if if I'm going to put somebody forward, hopefully they'll be called this time and that person doesn't have one of those specialties. Then they might be able to say, Well, we don't want that person. So I'm wondering if it should come from the at large appointees, because then there's more discretion if it came from the at large appointees, because there is. A department like that. There is five At-Large appointees. So anyway, I just throw that out as an idea. Thank you. Mentioned Councilmember Gossett. Thank you, Madam Chair. I I'd like to reinforce a little bit about what Mary said that we should at least think about, and that is that we have nine individual appointments. And right now these four appointments are being requested that we consider and are nine appointments. And I know the situation is going to arrive where the board recommends someone with a particular expertize, but it's not the one that the County Council member had in mind. It doesn't mean that the person that the county council person has in mind does not have experience and judging art and culture. Shares. And. The. Preservation needs of particular communities. It just means that he or she district is not already considered an expert in those four areas. I think it's burdensome to require. I don't like. That there are work and having these four, but I think it's very appropriate for when we do get input from the board of our culture that the input that we get will say we really thank you, we really like for you excuse me to exclude someone or consider someone who we've helped identify that lives in your district and has really excellent preservation experience. I think that's sufficient. I don't want it just this prescribed, so therefore I will be voting against the amendment. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr.. As member Lambert has a question. Thank you. Well, I just went out, Councilmember Goss, that I was listening to you and you convinced me I'm going to be changing. I have. Influence. And you always do. And I'm going to be changing to it now. I did have an idea of how to change it so I could remain a yes. And that would be to have been what I was hoping was a friendly amendment to say at least one director from the at large positions shall have expertize. But without that, I don't feel comfortable. I think that it could be a. Really good whereas whereas. We'd like that to happen. But I think that the problem you suggests could happen will happen. And so in that case, I've changed. My mind a. Know. Thank you. Up. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think Councilor Lambert suggested a path forward that also is attractive to me. I if I think whether this passes or not, I think we ought to talk about this issue more between now and full council and. I really considered that idea that country Lambert mentioned as one way to get at it. I don't have real strong feelings. I think that one of the purposes of the technical advisory committees is to bring the technical expertize. On the other hand, I think there's value in making sure you have different points recommended. I believe the underlying audience. And. Staff may have to remind me, did we actually enhance the requirements to ship move these specific requirements to the technical advisory committees? Or were they already there? They were already there, but they are strengthened. In your proposed ordinance, sir. Okay. So it would not be as if there was not input in those technical areas. That being said, I, I think I think the changes were made. The underlying ordinance in part to not create such a puzzle of assembling, of combining the geographic and the skill based. And I think there is a path there ought to be a way to do both. And I don't know that this hits the mark, but I think there's a lot of logic to the idea of saying, okay, the At-Large positions will be. You know, sort of expertize based and the the council positions would be geographic based. So regards to happens today I think we ought to keep working on this. So thank you for that. And I just want to make a quick statement before we carry on here. I should have said this in my opening, and I apologize for breaking it up this way. I think that there underlying this amendment for me and part of why I'm proposing it in this way and why I didn't consider having the executive appoint these folks for the five or six At-Large appointments. Why I didn't propose that and why I don't consider it a friendly amendment is because I believe that we as the council member, even in a future where we would have geographic only appointments that we make as council members, have a shared responsibility to continue to create a balanced board. I think that to say that there's going to be geographic seats and then maybe expertize seats sets up a sense of a split potentially on the board where we're sending people who are from our districts who are just there to look out for. Am I getting as much money as I should and or into the places I want to see it go? Or are we thinking broadly about what we're doing to the arts and culture ecosystem together in a balanced way with expertize across the board? Yes, it is a little more complicated, but I've seen it done in places before. This is a big county with a lot of people with a lot of expertize. I believe the way the ordinance is written, for example, if I was able to appoint somebody from District six, I could appoint somebody who lived or worked in District six. That is a pretty wide swath of people that I would have to choose from. Councilmember I just want to make a clarification. Your amendment number six, which is coming up, would have the live or work requirement with the the striking amendment as drafted currently would have to be someone who resides in the deceased or resides then your amendment that is coming up next would change it. Time for work. Well, let me amend my statement to say in hopes that at some point before the end, we allow the council members enough flexibility to select somebody who lives or works in their district, which would, I hope, seem non-controversial, especially if we have a say, then we should be able to do this. And it keeps the council engaged in making sure that the board as a whole has a broader point of view and a localized point of view, as opposed to just strictly a localized point of view. I think that's healthier. I think it's a better functioning board if we do it that way. So that's why I proposed this this way. I understand if people feel differently, but that's why I proposed it. Councilmember Carlos. Thank you, Madam Chair. I support this amendment. Currently, the process for fort culture, I think, is actually very positive. One where there's an effort, a very strong effort to achieve a balance of for a new council member excuse me, a board member to be appointed and confirmed. There is a nominating committee that reaches out to me currently to the council member where there is a vacancy on the board. And there also is a determination of what skill set is needed in a new vacancy for appointment that would complement the skill sets that are in existing board members, also addressing geographic distribution and ethnic and economic and so forth. A whole lot of factors go into this. All the meetings of the nominating committee are open to the public. They're totally transparent. Now, if we were to adopt this, and I hope we do not, we are going to lose some of that balance. I don't think it would be lost completely, but it would be more difficult because there would be more of a vacuum of looking at the whole context. We will lose some of the holistic efforts that go into selecting board members, and that's a real concern to me. And there's also the situation that can happen and has happened where somebody who is on the board of per culture moves away. I had no concerns. I had no board member representing. In the fourth council district. I do now. There is one, but that individual had moved from another council district and now shows up on mine. Then Councilmember Gossett has three members of the board from his district. But we have to look at it as a whole, and I believe that this amendment would be very helpful to go more toward that direction. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember and Incumbent Councilmember McDermott. Thank you, Madam Chair. For culture, we talk about it, but visually in writing, it is not two words a full hour. It's the word. It's the number four. That four represents art, public art, historic preservation and heritage. Those are the four areas of expertize we're talking about that are currently required on the For Culture Board. Let's be really clear about what we're doing by not adopting this amendment. We are standing for a for a culture board that doesn't have expertize in the four areas for culture addresses, oversees and directs on our behalf, please vote to include expertize in the four areas for culture overseas on the four culture board. Okay. All right. I think we've debated this one fairly thoroughly, and I don't have any need to add anything. So I will call for a vote on amendment number five. All those in favor please signify by saying I opposed. Oh, me being in a chair. Okay. All those in favor please signify by saying I and raise your hand. You got four eyes. All those are signifying. All those voting. No. Please raise your hands. That's five. The motion fails on a 5 to 4 vote. Okay. This brings us to amendment number six. And I think everybody will be very pleased to know that after a debate on some very simple amendments, now we have a really complicated amendment. Yes, let's go. I will. This is the hardest one. This is an amendment offered by council members Balducci and Caldwell's that would make a number of changes to the board composition and appointment process. Can I just also say that it's also the last one, at least on this sheet. So just for those watching at home, if we make it through with this striker, there's not a lot more amendments that we're aware of. So just in case you're trying to figure out how much longer we're going to go, you know, well, that's there's lot I'm not promising anything. If a striker fails, then we're in a different position. But so we're getting close to the end of this segment, I guess I should say. Please go ahead. So I will say council member. There is a detailed matrix that describes all the many iterations of the board composition and appointment process. I'm hesitant to distribute it at 1140 in the morning, so I'm going to try to quickly talk through it and hope that I will make sense. First of all, board membership. The way the striking amendment is written, there would be 15 board directors with nine of them appointed by district, by individual council members, and the remainder the remaining six appointed by the county executive in Amendment six to the striker. The positions one through nine would be council district specific but broad in that the director must live or work in the Council district. So that would would be a little bit broader than what is now that they must reside in the district next. In terms of the role of the nominating committee in the striking amendment, the nominating committee may nominate one candidate for each open position and send to the full board after they have solicited input for the positions one through nine from the relevant appointing council member in Council in the Councilmembers Amendment six to the striker, the nominating committee would again be required to solicit recommendations from the relevant County Council Member for positions one through nine or from the County Executive for positions ten through 15. In addition, would be required for positions one through nine to invite the relevant County Council member to attend the meeting or meetings when the district has that specific position is discussed . And then the nominating committee would recommend two or more candidates for each open position and send to the full board. The four culture board would then recommend two or more candidates to the executive for each position within six months of a vacancy occurring four vacancies in the Council district specific positions. These recommendations would also be sent to the relevant County Council member for those County Council Member positions. The Council Member, instead of appointing that position, would have 30 days to forward on a name, either from the board's recommendations to the executive or to reject the board's recommendation and ask the board to start over with a new slate of candidates. The executive, similarly for positions ten through 15, could reject all recommendations from the board or choose to appoint one of the board's recommendations and would appoint would make the formal appointment for all 15 directors. The County Council would then confirm all 15 directors. So it's a little complicated. I hope I've described it accurately. Can I just ask one question, since this is a time before us yet, but it's I'm a co-sponsor to this one. My understanding of the districts specific ones, at least the intent was that the the nominating committee would do their job, the for culture board to do their job. And they would recommend the names to the council member, not to the executive and the council member, just to the councilmembers. Is that not what it says? We went back and forth with this language. Yes. Yesterday, I think it I'm sorry. I think yeah. It's to the council member and then the council member has 30 days. To move some one or more on Virgin. Active takes action if the council member does not take action within 30 days. Okay, that's that's all I wanted to confirm where where we landed on that particular issue. Thank you very. Much. My matrix had not caught up. Okay, we have questions on this one and I'm going to entertain questions before we have a motion councilmember of the girl was waiting and then Councilmember Lambert. And then two quick questions. One, would you verify that the and maybe staff is doing this right now that the underlying striker, what the limitations are on who a councilmember can appoint I think. Okay so in the striker in section 5.2 of Attachment A, which is the For Culture Charter, it notes that director. Shelby, residents of King County and Shelby chosen to reflect the geographic and cultural diversity of the county. I would need to go back. And so then the positions one through nine and I may have been misstating this was my understanding of the intent. The appointed positions have to represent the Council district. I had interpreted that to mean reside and that may not have been your intent council member of the group. So I realized I have I misspoke. I don't think it's important. It was it was meant to be more flexible. So I wanted to clarify that. And then another and this is wading into debate because it may be a leading question. Forgive me, an I'll keep it brief. Nonetheless, as I understand the process designed here, this does give the for culture board the ability to reject it. If there's someone that the county council member wants to appoint from their district, there is a mechanism here where they would that person would still have to be approved by the For Culture Board and existing for Culture Board members. It would be an iterative process. The For Culture Board could make a recommendation. The County Council member could then choose to reject the entire slate and ask the for culture board to start over the for culture. So can they reject our name? I think that they could choose not to recommend the name from the county council member. Okay. The mayor weighed in on this factual question. As this exists and as many people have said earlier today, this is by no means a perfect process. This was an attempt to balance out and include roles for the nominating committee, the for culture, the for culture board, the council member for each individual district, and then the council as a whole who confirms and it does as I see it, and intentionally so allow each party to have a real a real point in the decision process. So, yes, in your scenario, there could be those frustrating situations where the board is just not sending forward the person that you wish they would, but you also have this ability to send them back and say, let's do work again. And I think the entire process is intended to be set up to drive some advance collaboration to avoid those. I mean, it sets up motivation anyway. Then somebody down to my left had a question. Were you done council member of the girl with your questions. Okay, Councilmember Lambert. Thank you. So just to clarify what you just said and this is like amazing. You can keep all this in your head, so thank you. Yeah. So would it be that that you have to turn the whole slate back or just the nomination. For your. District that you didn't particularly want? Just going to try to find the exact language here. What it what it specifically says is that the relevant county council members shall have 30 days to either one recommend one or more candidates to the county executive for appointment for the board position or to request the board recommend two or more different candidates. And if the County Council member does not take any action, then the County Executive shall appoint a director from those candidates recommended by the board. Okay, so but if if we didn't like the person for some reason that they put forward, then we could say, No, that's not okay with us. Pick a different person. You could say to the board, the slate that you have sent is not acceptable. Please start over is the way that the. Okay, so that's the word I would have to have. I would then have power over everybody not getting their way, which I don't think would go over very well. Correct. That is, I know my peers I can. So that may be what it says in the in the but that is not what is intended for you. Typically these happen vacancy by vacancy. And so you're taking up like let me just use my own district. District six has a vacancy and the nominating committee comes up with two names. The four culture board forwards those two names. To me, I get to say whether those two names, one of them goes forward to the executive, two of them go through the executive or all of them go back to the board. Those are my options, the way we intended not. I get to say whether District three or District nine go by i, i now we do. Have and I may have misunderstood Councilmember Lambert's question. Council members would not weigh in on each other's districts. Each council member would be would be in charge of the nominations or the recommendations for their own district. So the word. Slate is what threw me. I apologize. Okay. So I meant that the number two or more for that position, that would be. Oh, okay. Okay. I was thinking a slate of all. Of us, your ability would be to say to the board. None of those candidates. The two or more meet my needs. Please start over. Now, here's my last question. And I was told it might be more complicated than I think it is. So online 22 position. For works for District four. But online the next online 24 position five works for District eight. That could later on be confusing. So I'm wondering if it would be a friendly technical amendment that at some point when this is drawn, I realized it was the existing law. But that doesn't mean we have to keep it that way. Everything else is position one is district one. Position two is district two. Position three is district three. So I. Know when position three. Is missing. That's my job to take care of. So on here I would have to remember the position seven was mine, which would be a list. So here. Here is the challenge. Councilmember and Leah was the one who originally drafted this with Mr. of The Grove. This was very complex because you are dealing with a board that is already in existence and already has positions. And so short of essentially vacating the board and starting over, the best option that staff could come up with was to say, identify the board positions that had someone from existing districts already in them and then continue that district representation in that position. It is confusing. We could certainly try to find another way. We we did this was one I will say that had quite a bit of study and work with legal counsel to try to figure out the best way to sort of reorient the board moving forward. We know that. It's at the risk of unduly lengthening the medium to councilmember positions. Have numbers. Yes. Are they the same as the district numbers? Anyway. It seems like something we could work on after today, but it's I don't know that it has any substantive meaning. It's no. Substantive. It's just that it makes it confusing for going forward. And I see what your dilemma is. Let's think about it later. Let me ask the four culture board members here by show of hands. Do any of you know what number position you hold? I am seeing no hands for the record, so I don't think it has any substantive meaning. But we could talk about it after. All right, Councilmember Dombroski, we're doing questions. It hasn't been moved yet. If this amendment were to hang, could somebody live in Snohomish County, Pierce County, kill Test County, other county, so long as they worked in the district and be appointed? There is a different section in the Fort Culture Charter that requires board member board directors to be residents of King County. And that would remain unchanged. That would remain unchanged. Anchor gossip. Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. I think that this amendment will be too cumbersome, too complex, and not likely to work. Mr. Arthur Grove had an in the original ordinance that for culture board would be able to recommend people to each of us for consideration when we have a board appoint to their work. And that's open in our district. I don't know what happened to that for us to move to something this complex. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Because Councilman Coles, at this point, would you put the motion before? It is not before us yet. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move amendment number five. Thank you. It's a moment. I'm sorry. Do you mean I'm going to. I'm going to hear that as Amendment six. Okay. Did you want to speak to me? Very cute. As the co-sponsor of this amendment, I had had a lot of discussions last week with colleagues and staff that what I wanted to get at would be to codify the really the process that occurs presently, but to make it even stronger. And if we are going to have appointments by council members to our own district, basically, I think it's important to note that the process that has existed so far on codify but based on custom, is that the nominating committee, again, look at the whole picture, look very holistically in terms of skillsets needed, but also to determine that that all parts of the county are being represented geographically, so socio economically, ethnically and so forth. And I thought they were doing a pretty good job, very transparent, very, very deliberate. And when I was contacted about a possible vacancy in my district, I provided a name of someone I thought would really work well. Ultimately, he was not selected. However, I want to make sure that we can. We go along with what is recognized as the need for geographic distribution, and that appears to be having an appointment by District Council member. In doing so, though, I think that there is a process that could be undertaken similar to what our culture does now, but be enhanced. And I think this amendment embodies that. But to say that any council member can appoint anybody in consultation with for culture I think opens up the potential may not be the reality hopefully, but the potential for having members support somebody appointment in turn appointing agreeing to appoint the one that I want. And I think that would reduce transparency. This amendment will not only reflect a process that will be transparent, but also serve the needs of what we want to have a balance with skill sets, geographical representation, ethnic representation and so forth. So to me, it's it's a really essential amendment. And I ask for your support. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Councilmember Dombroski. Thing. Madam Chair, I'm not going to able to support this. I think it is overly. Cumbersome. And the process that Councilor Caldwell's has described, with all due respect, has not been my experience. And I want to take this moment to correct the record that was made at the last committee of the whole hearing by the For Culture Board member who said, We reached out to your office and your staff, Mr. Maskey by email and otherwise. And I sat next to her and I said, I don't believe that occurred. I received your broadcast email to the community. I then had a lunch with the executive to say, I'd like to be involved, but when asked to say, Show us where you reached out otherwise to my staff and me, they couldn't because they didn't. And I don't think it's fair to my staff to have their commitment to their work publicly and incorrectly impugned. And so I wanted to take the moment to correct the record. I think as the ordinance itself exists, it calls for a consultative process. I intend, if this carries, to engage in that in a serious way and to take seriously the input and recommendations of the Recruiting and Appointment Committee for Culture. I think I'm interested in a balanced board that brings the talent and resources with respect to expertize to it, but. I think that we need to we need to have a little more flexibility than than would result if this event were to carry. And finally, I note that the full council must confirm every one of these nine appointees. So if there were some serious problem, if the foreign culture folks said, hey, this, this person is no good, it's really bad, I think that could be a problem here at the fall for council. So I think there is that safety check as well. But based on the experience I've had, I think that I would like to be involved in this process. I want to do it in consultation with the board. I think that we can do it without the strictures that this amendment would impose. Councilmember McDermott. Thank you, Madam Chair. I see the existing independence of foreign culture as a very good thing. I'm passionate about our public art, historic preservation, cultural activities throughout my district and frankly, across the county as well. I serve as a board member of the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation, whether it's general interest of mine or particular interest as a member of the Board of the Washington Trust. I take an active role in promoting projects and giving that input to, for culture, their board members in their process. That's my input. That's my process. That's the current process. I'm concerned by the ordinance and the striking amendment before us in that. Then it has each councilmember a point one person from their own choosing. Losing that oversight, that public transparency and that selection process. And this amendment takes a step toward more reflection and interaction about who that will be, more transparency. It does not go back to the underlying existing foreclosure process, but it is a step closer to it rather than individual council members being able to make their own appointment to the OR Culture Board to represent their own interests. I would ask for support for the amendment. Thank you. Councilmember Councilmember Lambert had a question. Yes, thank you. I hope that as an elected official that I'm not here for my own interest. I have 234,000 people whose interests I'm supposed to be representing. So I know this conversation. It's there's several different ways that this. This. We've talked about. So I need clarification. What does the underlying bill S1 and State one. S 1.2. What does that say about how we appoint somebody? Briefly, because I know there's ten different. Ways in the striking amendment council member, the nine board directors who are district specific are appointed by individual council members. There is a nomination process that the for culture board and nominating committee would engage in, but the appointment is made by the council member. The executive appoints the remaining six At-Large positions. All 15 positions are confirmed by the Council. So let me just make sure I understand this so I, I could get. Currently, I get names from whatever board it is and I can look over those, interview those people, see that many times I know them. So it's just like, great, that person is super and it goes or I never met this person, so I need to have coffee with them and get to know them. So then it goes through the process. Is. Is it just that. Seems different. It's a. Little bit more. Like what you're referring to is, is your confirmation process where the executive has made an appointment and has submitted a motion of confirmation to you and you're trying to determine whether to approve that confirmation. In the striking amendment, you would actually be making an appointment to the position that represents your district. You could do that either from someone who had been nominated by the board or the language says or other qualified candidates. Then after that appointment is made, the full council would confirm by motion. Okay, so. So in my mind I get the. Best of both. Worlds. They can give me suggestions which is helpful to me. Or I could go find somebody else if I didn't like that to suggest those are three suggestions, but either way I have a hand in collaboration with them. But I make the final. Decision that would make the appointment in for the positions one through nine in the striking amendment the executive would not play a role in. A council would make those appointments and then the council would confirm. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. It help me a lot. Thank you. Councilmember McDermott has a question for you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I actually wanted to make a clarification, and that is as we talk about previous appointments in previous work in the Foreign Culture Board, there haven't been vacancies from districts because we haven't had district seats to date. There may people, the members of the Culture Board obviously live around the county and live in various districts, but there aren't currently district seats. So it's there may not be someone serving from a particular district, but I don't know that it's accurate to say there is a vacancy from a particular district because there is not a district seat at this point in time. That's a fundamental change would be making if this ordinance was adopted. It seemingly in any form today in that there would now be seats by each district. Was that a question? No. Okay. Thank you. Sorry, I got a little lost there. All right. I think we're ready to vote on this one. Just to close. This is my final substantive amendment. I've offered two substantive amendments and one policy amendment to this Stryker. I have really appreciated the efforts of the chair to try to soften the underlying ordinance through the Stryker. I get that this one is possibly not 100% of the way there in terms of the process, maybe could be made less cumbersome. But what I'm asking my colleagues, if you are willing to support this amendment, is to send a signal that we intend to allow the nominating committee, the for culture board, the council members from each district, some level of balanced decision making that that causes us to work together, as opposed to a position where the councilmembers just picking and we have a nominating committee and a board process where they go through potentially a lot of labor and effort to find good people. And then we just pick whoever we want anyway. That doesn't strike me as the right balance, the right relationship between the council members and for culture. So I'm going to ask my colleagues to please consider voting yes on this with the understanding that I will be very open between now and final passage to work on any aspects of it that seem too complex or cumbersome to try to streamline it. But I will also say that I'm disappointed that the substantive amendment that I offered before couldn't be acceptable. And so if this one goes down, I'm going to have a real struggle with how I support putting the ordinance together at the end. I just need to lay that out there. All right. All those in favor please signify by saying I, i. Any opposed? No. Okay. The motion fails that I think we now come to final passage on Stryker 1.2 discussion on the Stryker as amended, pointing out that the amendments are to add the task force and significant workload and a nonbinding statement of policy that we're going to work on regionalization. So basically the underlying motion is before us, which removes the ability to fire the executive director, set some process and timing around developing of the budget review process, including a timeline for us to act on the budget or it goes through. And let's see, I think that's then there's other there's other minor amendments and any if there's no. Councilmember Gossett Thank you, Madam Chair. May I ask a question of Councilmember of the Grove or if. You will yield to a question? Here's what it is. Okay. That's the right answer. To the Remove Council ability to fire executive director. When you developed the original ordinance, being able to fire the executive director was in there. Why did you decide to take it up? Thank you, Councilor Gossett. Following the introduction of the original ordinance, I spoke with colleagues on this body who had concerns about the ordinance. I met on a number of occasions with the leadership of the Fort Culture Board, consulted with the county executive and listened to public testimony. And as a result, I felt it was important to me as elected official to respond to what I heard, offer to compromise from my views and seek a path forward that could receive broader support than the underlying ordinance. And so that is why. Broader support than sticks. The question was, were you seeking broader support than six councilmembers? No, I was seeking to find a public policy that I thought had broader general support from. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be voting no on the striking amendment, as I prefer the underlying bill that had been worked on. So I'll be voting no. And that's why I didn't have any amendments striking today. However, if the speaker does pass, I'll have some amendments at full council. You know, the question of the council having the ability to move the executive director, it's difficult to get everybody to agree on anything up here, as you probably noticed. And when we do, it's because there's some good reason for it. And I don't see that there would be that problem unless there was not good communication and there have been problems. And so that says, as I said earlier, that there has been some lack of communication and that goes on two sides. And on final passage at the end, I'll have some comments. But given that we are the fiduciary agents of tax dollars, as our budget chair said earlier, we have to authorize the money going into there. And in doing so, we are giving up some of my fiduciary abilities. And and it's going to people who are not really elected by the citizens. So I do get comments from people saying this happened or that happened or why did so much money go here or there? And I think it's good for us to be more involved in knowing we will not repeat. We will not be getting at the granular level of saying this grant or that grant it be talking about buckets of money that are going out in the four categories, but we won't be going into the grant level. And I know. That there was a lot of. Concern about that, but that was kind of a straw man that was never going to happen, or at least not at this point wasn't going to happen. So I think that keeping our fiduciary responsibilities is important. I don't think we'll ever have to exercise those. I think that would be sad if we had to. We have lots of groups that bring us forth like conservation futures that bring us things for us to improve. And and we do and we do a really good job of collaborating and working on that. And most of the time we say yes because we feel very strongly that a good job has been done. So I support the underlying ordinance that is not the striker, the underlying ordinance. And so I'll be voting no on the striker. Thank you. Other comments? Councilmember Colwell. Thank you, Madam Chair. The question for staff, because the last amendment failed with the provision that an individual who can be appointed or I assume retained, if the individual moves his or her residence, that individual would still be eligible to represent that district if he or she were employed in that district. And I'm assuming the way the intent was in an and a capacity that has to do with our culture, etc.. So that would no longer be in there. And the only requirement would be for residents. Is that correct? Councilmember I had earlier spoken about living in one of the nine districts. I misspoke. The actual word in the striking amendment is representing you. So there is no language about live or work that was in Amendment six. The word in the striking amendment is representing. And I will look through the charter to see if there is a provision if somebody moves. I don't believe that there is there are provisions that board members can be removed for Nonattendance But I don't believe there are provisions for board members to be removed if they move. But let me just double check. Thank you. I'm going to fill the silence by reminding us that we also confirmed in response to a question that there is a residence requirement that board members reside within King County. I think everybody's got that in. So I'll note that there is a provision in the striking amendment in the charter that the county may, by ordinance, remove any board director or directors. And there is not that I can see anything that relates to people moving out of their district. That is certainly something we could add. Okay. Did that answer the question? Yes. All right. Any other comments? Council member of the group. Would you care to speak to close Stryker US 1.2. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think I spoke to it in answering Councilor Gossage question that it was my attempt to listen and respond. I know it doesn't go as far as everyone wants, but I think it strikes a good compromise and a good balance and a good path forward by making some changes that will make this, I think, even more workable and have broader support. So I encourage your support for the striking amendment. Okay. With that, I'm going to call for a vote. All those in favor of Striker s 1.2 as amended. Please signify by saying I am opposed. No, no division those saying I please raise your hands. Five eyes others opposed. No, the motion carries all right. Because that striker carried the other strikers don't pertain and we move to final passage and this is to refer the or. There's a title amendment title amendment one. And the title amendment is good to go. Let me that it will need to be amended at full council. But it would be good to get this title amendment done. And then we we have just one amendment to your policy language. We would have to add in. Councilmember after provision of title amendment one, please. Thank you, Madam Chair. Remove a title T one, be. Adopted t one is before us with the acknowledgment that it will have to be amended further. All those in favor please signify by saying i i any opposed the title amendment at least carries without objection. Yes. Okay. So this brings us to the underlying ordinance. Any comments on the underlying ordinance as amended? Councilmember Paragraph. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the members of diligence and debate today. This ordinance represents good government. It is responsible, measured and fair. It ensures an appropriate role for elected officials directly accountable to the voters in the management of public funds. It makes modest changes to our processes we as a council use to oversee an entity which we created and for which we administer 100% of the funding. It completely maintains and protects the independence of the grant selection process. In other words, it does not put us directly or indirectly in the business of selecting which individual arts and cultural programs or projects get funded. I think comparing this to other PDAs is like comparing apples to oranges. The relevant comparison is how do other local governments fund arts and culture? And let me be clear, under this proposal, King County arts and culture funding will still remain much more independent and much more removed from elected officials than any other local government in our region. Take the city of Seattle, for example. The Seattle mayor can hire and fire the director of their Office of Arts and Culture. Every member of their commission is appointed by elected officials, and the City Council approves their budget. Under our proposal, the County Council will simply confirm the executive director nominees selected by the For Culture Board. I think this will result in greater support for and buy in from the County Council and that's a great thing. Under our proposal, the County Council will approve or reject the budget. But unlike Seattle and most other local governments, King County will not have the ability to amend the budget for arts and culture. No pork barrel politics. The budget is a very basic, high level document that includes things like revenue assumptions, financial plans and staffing levels. The budget does not identify which projects or programs are to be funded. That grantmaking process only takes place after the budget is approved and the funds have been transferred. Only then will the agency begin their work of reviewing and distributing grants using the exact same process as has always been used in the past. The County Council will not be involved. The process for reviewing and selecting grant recipients does not change under this proposal. Finally, the changes to the board appointment process, which give greater flexibility to the county executive and a more direct role for county council members are common for local governments. We, however, retain in the striker a formal role for the for Culture Board Nominating Committee to help recruit and recommend individuals to the executive and make general recommendations to council members. This change will help ensure the alignment of the general priorities of the Board with the priorities of the County Council and in turn, the citizens we represent. Specifically, this closer connection between the people through their elected representatives and the Board will be beneficial as we hopefully consider making major new investments in arts and culture in the years ahead. The pathway to greater council and public support for new revenue to manage. Simply expand arts and cultural funding in our region will require greater integration and coordination. Taken together, these changes will strengthen political and public support for arts and cultural funding and provide an appropriate role for elected officials while preserving the independence of the grant selection process. Now I want to finish by sharing some of my philosophy that shaped my thinking on this issue. The most important and most powerful person in a democracy is the citizen. When you remove the elected representatives of the people from having any authority, you have removed the people from having any authority. Elected officials. Not appointed board members. Not hired staff members. Elected officials are the only people in a democracy over whom the citizens have power. We answer to voters we stand for election where the points of accountability in a democratic government. And I've always seen arts and culture as a populist democratic endeavor. It's why I believe that governments have a responsibility to invest public dollars in arts and heritage. It's not because of just the benefits to our economy or the benefits to our quality of life. It's because they represent vehicles for free expression of the people through which social change and enlightenment occurs. It's often said that art doesn't just mirror changes in society. It has the power to drive those changes. And to ensure this continues, the people need to be part of the process. And in a democracy, the way we do that is through the people selecting their representatives at the ballot box. If we, the council, wanted to select what art projects get funded, we could do that. But we're not. We're preserving the independence of the grant making process. If we wanted to dismantle or get rid of for culture, bring it back in house. We could do that. But we are not. We are simply providing a very modest and responsible role for the elected officials who are accountable to the voters. And I encourage your support. Oh, no, no, no. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We can't have outburst from the audience or the day as everybody does. This is the time for the council members to speak. Okay. Who is who is not? If we have I'm sorry. If we have outburst, I'm going to have to ask people to leave. So let's just. I understand this is very emotional. I feel I think everybody up here is feeling it. So thank you for your professionalism. I really do appreciate it. Oh, that's okay, then. I think that's I think that's best. Thank you. All right. Now, I'm sorry. We need people to let the elected officials have their opportunity to speak, whether you like it or don't like it. That's how this works. I'm sorry. Council member of the Grove. Okay. Anybody else like to say a few words? Councilmember McDermott. Thank you, Madam Chair, that we have an ordinance before us today that the sponsors have said isn't. This isn't in response to a problem. And so I have trouble understanding exactly why we have it before us today. I spoke, um, a fair amount this morning about comparisons to other public development authorities, PDAs, and their level of independence . The analogy of how other jurisdictions handle their arts heritage preservation programs, I believe, are advisory. And that's the fundamental difference between for culture and, for instance, the city of Seattle in who makes up the board and how that and how they're appointed. The other public development authorities across King County, the Pacific Hospital, the Washington State Convention Center, Safeco Field, CenturyLink, others don't have the same level of oversight. This is unique and unnecessary and in my opinion, inappropriate and particularly troubling to me in this ordinance is the loss of expertize in the four areas that for a culture overseas, we currently in current operation require expertize in public art, art, historic preservation and heritage. The four areas that for a culture overseas directs and enhances for our communities across King County. A vote for this ordinance removes the requirement for expertize in the Board of Foreign Culture for these four areas. I find that exceptional. I find that I find that exceptionally disappointing and I cannot support this ordinance. Councilmember Cole. Wells Thank you, Madam Chair. This time I would like to thank our staff who have just worked incredibly for quite a while, even over the weekend, to get our amendments ready and very appreciative, I'm sure, by everybody here. I'd also like to thank Councilmember Upton Road for his willingness to meet with individuals, to hear their perspectives, to consider other lines of thought in having his striking amendment drafted. And I appreciate everything that he's had to say. I was really tempted to vote for the striking amendment if it had included the amendments that we brought forward. And I think they were really critical ones. Now I will be voting against the striking amendment. Unfortunately, I think it's a lot better than the underlying proposed ordinance. But to me, we're making a very grievous mistake in going forward with this. I think that I don't even think I believe strongly that for culture has been a model of transparency, openness, accountability, responsiveness. I'm not sure what happened with Councilmember Dombroski because I have heard directly when there is an appointment open and in my district and I certainly have been responsive to that. I don't understand that that message that I guess is what she said. But this is a very problematic proposal that is going to the County Council, and I am hopeful that we can continue to address those areas in which we may be imposing some very deleterious, quote, unintended consequences and effects not only on this agency, but in terms of what we want to come out of this. And I'll say we more generically, but I don't want this to go forward, period. But if it does, I want it to do so in a way, in a manner that will not be harmful. And I very much fear that it will be harmful not only for the agency itself, but more importantly for what it reflects and who it represents. It's not solely the artist and those in the cultural heritage, etc., community. But it's also reflective of our communities to further diversity. Geographic Yes, that's critical. And I want to codify what the practice has been and even strengthen that that was voted down. And it's also reflective of our in a sense, our constituencies. I am very blessed. No one would think otherwise. Representing the fourth Council District, where we have the large institutions, we have the small galleries, we have a plethora of fabulous arts, culture organizations. But I want that to be available all across the county. I don't believe this is the best way to effect that. Not just change, but a continuation of what the Ford Culture Board has worked very hard to achieve more outreach in some communities so that they will have more applications submitted. That's really critical. And an amendment address that that was turned down. But please, really, let's all take a step back and think this through before it comes up for a council vote. I think this is better than the underlying ordinance, but it's not where I think we need to get to to make this a win win situation . But I still think my taskforce is the best approach to do that. But with that, Miss Madam Chair, I will be voting no. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Councilmember Lambert. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is really been hard because everybody actually wants the same thing. Everybody loves art. And, you know, frequently when we feel pressured by any group and this week has been an exciting group because we've been pressured by several groups, unfortunately, none of them been the taxpayers. And so when when we have to balance and I guess maybe because I've helped raise six kids, I've learned about how you have to balance for everybody to sort of get along. But I was here when the PTA was formed and I know why it was formed. I know how it was formed. I was in those room when it happened. It it worked well when it was in house, but there were some recessions, there were other problems, and we were made some promises. And so we went along with it. Sessions Over the promises for no fault of anybody's were things that happened that nobody anticipated on both sides. So I'm not nuts. Anything bad about anybody. But some of the promises for reasons beyond everybody's control didn't happen. So, you know, that happened. It's out there. I served on the board for a while. I loved serving on the board. It was a great board, professional people, people excited about the arts. You can't have too many people around you that are excited. About art because. They're usually very happy people and like unity. So it bothers me that we're at this place, bothers me that people would say that anybody up here would appoint somebody that didn't have artistic talents or artistic interest. I did have a curator from New York that had moved into my district and came to me and said, You know , I'm really lonely here. I would really, really like to get involved. And I said, Well, you know, maybe we can find a border commission. What are you interested in this as well? You know, I was the curator of museum in New York and I'm like, oh, my gosh. So I put her name forward and said she was a curator. And so I think she's pretty talented. But then when I called to see why, you know, she'd gotten the appointment and why her name hadn't come through my office, and they said, Oh, she wasn't qualified. And I'm like, What do you mean she wasn't qualified? Well, when we interviewed her, she wasn't really qualified. So I called her and said, How was that interview? Did you feel like things didn't go well in the interview? She said, Nobody called me, so that was a problem for me. So then I have been on a number of taskforces where departments are getting the 1% for the 1% for the arts, for their department and for various reasons because of what the duties of the. Department. Were there very specific ideas. About what they needed. In art? And one of the specifications was not be sharp, which I thought was a particularly. Reasonable request. And the comments that they got back were pretty much we know this better than you do. And I was like, well, actually you don't, because these people over here, this is the art that's going to be in their office on a regular basis, and that's not helpful. So. You know, I'm sorry that I'm right. So I think that the communication issue is a problem and it's something that needs to be solved. The people who are going to be living with the art every day need to have more input than they've had in the past. You know, there was an issue where we got international news for a piece of art that was not appropriate. So there have been things and I'm hoping that as we go forward, there will be better communications because we all want the same thing. We all want good art. Thank you. Thank you. In other comments, Councilmember Dunn. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that. There's been a lot of stuff going on here in details, some of which are detail, some of which aren't. But I appreciate the work that people have been putting in and Catherine to Boesky said committee that will look at these issues in little bit more detail with the consultation of floriculture in and sports. I just want to take a moment. I'm going to support this legislation. I think it's necessary and I think it's good to drive. I don't think it's necessarily the system is broken. I don't actually think foreclosures do a very good job. But I do think it creates greater accountability. And so there's always room for improvement in any agency, and I think we can create improvement here. I just want to take a moment to thank those for culture, for their tireless work over the years. We have a wonderful community, a great arts community, something to be very proud of. The supporters and organizations of that group need to be thanked. Thank you for being here for your activism. It's hard not to take this as a snub before culture, but I don't see it that way. I see it's taking a good organization and making it better, and so I'm going to support it. Thank you all for your work. Thank you. Before I call for the vote, I'll just say a few words. I'm not going to add a whole lot. I have a lot of thoughts and and a very serious level of concern. But I'm going to reserve lengthier comment for final passage when we get to the full council, because I continue to hold some hope that between now and then, perhaps the those of us who feel strongly that we're sending the wrong message and those of us who feel strongly that we're sending the right message with this ordinance can maybe find slightly more middle ground. And I would like to see us get to a place where there could be a90 vote as opposed to a 6 to 3 vote, as was alluded to earlier. I think that because you can doesn't mean you should. And when we say that we're trying to achieve a certain result with what we're doing, then we ought to be really mindful that our methods, how we go about things, what we do, actually drives towards the goal we say we're trying to achieve. Because I don't feel that that has been the case with this process or with this result on this ordinance. So I will be voting no today just for purposes of the folks following who may be following along, who don't watch our processes. Very often this vote that we're about to take will be to move this ordinance as amended with the do pass recommendation to the full council, where it will be taken up at a later date. So with that, I will call for the roll. Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilmember Dombrowski. Councilmember Dunn. Councilmember Gossett. Hi. Councilmember Colwell No. Councilmember Lambert. Council Member. McDermott. No. Council member of the Grove. Councilmember Yvonne Bauer. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the vote has six eyes. Three. Nos by your vote. Ordinance number 2018 0086, as amended, is passed out of committee with a do pass recommendation. We will move it to full council without expediting and it will be on the regular agenda. All right. Thank you very much. We have gone way over, but council members, council members, if a quorum of us could stay, we have one poor gentleman who's been waiting for his confirmation for hours. Let's bring him in. Thank you. And before we do that, though, I'm sorry. I am I am totally forgetting my script here, but I need to, just as you all are standing up and moving on, I need to say thank you to staff Mary Bergen on Wendy Sue, who led critical Zoghbi who wasn't able to see this all the way through because she's home, hopefully having a very healthy baby. And Kendall Moore, our attorney and Bruce from the Coder Advisors Office, I know you all worked so, so, so, so hard to help us walk through all of the changes and get us through this today. Thank you very, very much. We all appreciate your work. All right. We're moving on to motion, not motion. We're moving on to there is a King County code, so motion 2018 0087. The next one and this is our final item today as council members will recall, the position of deputy director of the Department of Elections is a position that is designated as