Harrell, Nelson, spit in Seattle's face on way out.

Seattle’s residents have been abundantly clear that they want accountable policing and a large-scale civilian response to non-violent calls. These things are so popular that centrist candidates who clearly have no interest in them have to lie and pretend they support them to get into office. But we don’t have accountability or a large-scale civilian response because our labor contract with the police union disallows them. 

The reason our contract blocks these things is that people like Bruce Harrell and Sara Nelson don’t care what the people of Seattle want, nor do they share our values. On their way out the door, Harrell and Nelson just now made sure we cannot have any of this, and six council members–Nelson herself, plus Maritza Rivera, Bob Kettle, Deborah Juarez, Joy Hollingsworth and Dan Strauss, ratified their action. 

A little bit of history. We all remember that not long ago, the Seattle Police Department was hemorrhaging officers and recruiting was very difficult because every department everywhere was losing staff. 

In addition to the rough hiring market for police, another huge problem facing the department was that Harrell’s inept, dishonest, scandal-a-week choice of a chief continued to fester like a wound at the head of the department, while Harrell characteristically did nothing. 

But the labor contract negotiation provided him an opportunity that he grabbed. The administration wanted to make Seattle police jobs more competitive, and it was hankering to give the boys in blue a big raise. Most sensible folks thought a big raise also meant a huge opportunity for quids and pro-quos: accountability could be negotiated into the contract, and space made for a much-expanded civilian response. In fact, there was good reason to think this would create more peace between the police and the populace, increasing morale and civilian cooperation in investigations. 

No dice. Harrell gave the cops a raise so big they became the best paid in the state, and got pretty much nothing in return. But his buddies quietly whispered that while this was necessary for stabilizing the department, he was going to do great things next time. 

Now, it isn’t crazy that a person might think a big raise would stabilize the department and morale. True, this ignores the fact that throwing money at police didn’t initially grow the department, and that it only worked when paired with a growing market for police hires around the country and after the sacking of Harrell’s shit-at-the-job Chief Diaz. Probably all these changes played their part. 

But no one in their right mind could justify the steaming pile of garbage he negotiated the second time around as necessary for recruitment. You see, our police are already the best paid in the state and the new contract gives them a 42% raise, costing an extra $52 million a year by 2027 when we already face a serious budget deficit. Any business leader, manager of people, or recruiter from the public or private sector will tell you that going from “best paid” to “even better best paid” is a foolish, expensive, low return-on-investment approach to recruiting.  

Yes, we got a teeny bit in return–some small procedural changes to accountability stuff that amount to very little. And while we are formally “allowed” to spend money to expand the civilian response “CARE” department, there were so many rules added added regarding when CARE can actually respond to certain types of calls, that it is unclear whether CARE will be allowed to meaningfully increase their share of calls much at all!

The contract was SO bad and the negotiation SO pitiful that MAGA agitator (and police union head) Mike Solan took to social media with a gleeful picture of himself in a superhero outfit. King County Republican Chair Jolie Landsdowne went on KUOW to defend the cash bonfire, saying to detractors who pointed out the flagrant waste, “is this the place we want to save money?”

Unsurprisingly, Alexis Mercedes Rinck, who is by far the most popular member of the council and who just won with 80% of the citywide vote, voted no. So did Eddie Lin, who just won by a landslide in District 2 and has already replaced Mark Solomon (who was temporarily appointed until the seat could be filled by election). More surprising to some, was when fairly-reliably conservative Councilmember Rob Saka voted no, and penned a pretty compelling write-up in The Stranger. Here is an excerpt that was discussed on social media:

Nobody who has been paying attention would be surprised that barely-there Dems like Nelson and Rivera and Kettle (the latter can be good on housing, but is deeply conservative about public safety) would vote for this. These three will always think simplistically, fancifully, and usually militaristically about how to address public safety. 

But the two yes votes from actual moderates–Joy Hollingsworth and Dan Strauss–drew a lot of fire. Hollingsworth was criticized for reneging on campaign claims that she opposes police union agreements that have the very terms she had just ratified. She didn’t speak up in the meeting about her reasoning. Her other moderate colleague, Dan Strauss, defended his decision. Strauss noted that the formal expansion of the CARE team and the small adjustments to accountability (which he noted are inadequate) cannot wait, so for him it was painful, but worth it. 

I think he is wrong. The gains here are way too small, and they cost $50M a year, and that will have very little impact on recruiting (but a huge impact on other important work we can do to, say, prevent crime). It was, as Saka said in his speech, “a bad deal for the city of Seattle.” 

Whatever the merits of Strauss’ reasoning, it is painfully clear that Harrell was always lying when he feigned an interest in pushing for accountability. It’s always been clear that Nelson (and Rivera and Kettle) don’t give a damn about police accountability and that all their talk of “auditing” budgets and “looking at programs to see whether they work” was utter, bad-faith bullshit.