April 11, 2025 • 63 mins
On this week-in-review, Crystal Fincher and Lex Vaughn discuss:
🪧 Thousands protest Trump admin
🧑🎓 WA student visas revoked
🐀 Union head blasts “Ratfink” Ferguson
🤞 Progress on rent stabilization
👀 Fingerprint levy on April ballot
💥 Seattle City Council tensions
As always, a full text transcript of the show is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.
Follow us on Bluesky at @HacksAndWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Bluesky at @finchfrii and find today’s co-host, Lex Vaughn on Bluesky at @lex.vaughn.theneedling.com and at TheNeedling.com.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Welcome to Hacks & Wonks.
I'm your host, Crystal Fincher.
On this show, we talk with policy wonksand political hacks to gather insight
(00:21):
into local politics and policy inWashington state through the lens of those
doing the work with behind-the-scenesperspectives on what's happening, why it's
happening, and what you can do about it.
Today, we're continuing our Fridayweek-in-review shows, where we review
the news of the week with a co-host.
Welcome back to the program, friend ofthe show, and today's co-host: Pulitzer
(00:44):
Prize-winning journalist and founderand editor of The Needling, Lex Vaughn.
Welcome back!
Hey, always good to be back - gettingnerdy and wonky with you on here.
Always good to have you.
And routinely - just like TheNeedling is one of the best
things in existence right now.
(01:04):
And I'm sure everyone listeningreads The Needling religiously.
And if you don't, you definitelyneed to be - just to capture little
moments of joy and making it througheverything that we are having to make
it through now - makes it easier.
Yeah, some days I want to write aboutwhat's going on, and some days I'm
(01:26):
like - I'm pretty sure everyone justwants to think about anything else.
And here's this reallyabsurd joke instead.
Oh my gosh.
The amount of times I have laughedout loud while just sitting
alone at Needling headlines.
It happens so often - sothank you for that.
(01:46):
But we will talk about a number of thingsthat have happened in the past week.
Starting out - protests.
Thousands of people across the state - inSeattle and beyond - turned out for
protests last weekend to protest theTrump administration, Elon Musk, and
(02:06):
what they say they're unhappy with.
What happened and what were people saying?
It was a huge turnout across thecountry and people definitely
showed up here in Seattle.
I think a lot of people would considerit more like a rally than a protest
- that's a whole other conversation, but-
It really is.
(02:26):
I
really like how some people have kindof brought a nuanced take to that.
Ijeoma Oluo posted a video that I relatedto where it's like - I think some of us
who've done a little bit more show up toa rally sometimes, go - This is nothing.
This isn't a real protest.
(02:47):
You're not really doing enough tochange the direction of things.
But it is worth it to just gather people,and get people pumped up, and to build
community and support for resistance.
I think the cold hard fact is we'regonna have to do a little bit more
than write funny signs and show up atSeattle Center over the next few years,
(03:11):
but it was an important weekend forjust rallying people and owning that
there is resistance in this moment.
And I'm sure just kind of gavepeople a boost spiritually
- just to pump each other up.
And I have to say the signs were on point.
I loved so many of the signs.
(03:35):
There was a great local sign withthe Space Needle in the background,
that said - Can't wait for theseason finale of White POTUS.
Oh my goodness.
So I got to hand it tosome of these sign writers.
I'm like - That's pretty good.
Yeah, very good.
And I think you hit the nail on thehead with - I don't know what kind of
(03:56):
impact this is going to have on theactions of the federal administration.
But what a lot of people talked about wasthat it was very useful and heartening
for people to see that they weren't alone- whether it was in their fear, or their
anger, or their confusion, indignation- that they have lots of community members
(04:21):
that are not just feeling the samething that they're feeling, but willing
to come and stand up and say that andstand shoulder to shoulder and say that.
And even beyond - Seattle wasa huge gathering - I think
they said they estimated 20,000people turned out in Seattle.
But there were people inEdmonds, and in Port Angeles,
(04:43):
and in Olympia, and in SeaTac.
And especially in some of those suburbsand smaller cities, cities in red areas,
a lot of people found it hearteningto see that they had neighbors there
who felt the same way they did.
And not everybody realized that was thecase - sometimes when you just look at
(05:05):
how the votes turn out in some areas.
So letting people know that they aren'talone and that there are people willing
to fight, I think, is a very useful thing.
And beyond that, just even - there's a lotof people responsible for a lot of things.
Besides the federal administration, inaddition to the federal administration
(05:26):
- whether it's our Congresspeople, orthe mayor, or city council, or county
council, or state representatives - andthem all seeing so many people care
enough in their community to turnout and make their voices heard.
I think caught the attention of alot of people and realizing that
(05:46):
some of these voices that they'rehearing, complaints that they're
hearing, fears that they're hearing,are not just happening in a vacuum.
They're not few and far between.
That these are pretty broad andwidespread community concerns.
And it is something when peoplewho don't usually show up to
a protest are at the protest.
(06:07):
I think one of the signs was like, It'sso bad the introverts are out here.
It does go to show that even people whodon't usually show up to these things are
out here - it means something's going on.
So something can build from that.
And there was a boycott againstTarget at the end of February because
(06:27):
of getting rid of the DEI thing.
At that moment, I was like, I don'tknow if this is really worth it.
Or I was rolling my eyes alittle bit at that movement, too,
because I was like - Oh, really?
Are you just beginning to realizeshopping at corporations is bad?
Like, you should shop moreoften at small businesses?
(06:48):
But that small action did havean impact - for weeks, actually.
Target's taken a bigfinancial hit from that.
So I think we're in a moment whereit's just - everybody needs to take the
action that they can, the ones that theycan do comfortably to make an impact.
Because I think it's very easy to feelpowerless in this moment, and it's
(07:13):
just not true that we don't have power.
No matter how awful our presidentialadministration is, there's always
something - especially that we cando on a local level - and we all have
control over how we spend our money.
So, yeah, these things are just goodreminders that we always still have power.
(07:34):
We have our voice, we have our dollar,and we can use them in effective ways.
Absolutely.
The Trump administration has canceled thevisas of at least 15 current international
students and recent graduates of collegesand universities across Washington state.
University of Washington officialsjust learned that nine visas were
(07:58):
revoked when they ran a statuscheck in the federal government
database of international students.
Five are current students,four are in post-grad training.
Seattle University reportedthat three recent graduates who
are completing post-graduationtraining had their visas revoked.
In Spokane, Gonzaga University, alsoduring a recent review, found that two
(08:20):
international students' records hadbeen terminated and their visas revoked.
A Gonzaga leader said - With theirlegal status to remain in the country
revoked, these students have been putin difficult and uncertain situations,
in some cases being ordered toleave the country with little notice
or risk of detainment or arrest.
And so it is a challengethat people are dealing with.
(08:43):
These students are among hundreds acrossthe country who are stripped of their
legal status and ordered by the Departmentof Homeland Security to leave the country.
The University of Washington says theyplan to provide the affected students
access to legal services that are paidfor by their student fees, as well as
mental health and academic support.
(09:04):
They're saying in this reporting byThe Seattle Times - Paige Cornwell,
Jessica Fu and Kai Uyehara saying - We'redeeply concerned about the well-being
of these students and graduatesand are working to support them.
International students and scholarsare essential and valued members of our
university, and they contribute immenselyto our community, state, and nation.
(09:29):
The UW will continue to support them andprovide the resources they need to be
able to learn, teach, and succeed here.
This is obviously troubling toa lot of people in community.
This came up during the protestsrepeatedly - was a motivation for
a lot of people showing up to thoseprotests and rallies over the weekend.
(09:50):
What are your thoughts about this?
What I've heard is that a lot ofthese students found out their
visas had been revoked - and thesecolleges said that they had also not
been given any notice that this wasgoing to happen to their students.
I heard, I think on a KUOW report,that there's some suspicion that AI is
(10:11):
being used to comb through records anddecide who gets their visa revoked.
Because in a lot of cases,it's just really random.
In some cases, it seems like they don'thave a criminal record or something, they
might have had some sort of interaction.
But then some people just haven't hadany law enforcement issues ever, and
(10:33):
they're getting their visas revoked.
So I think there's a lot of uncertaintyabout why some of these people are
even getting their visa revoked.
Obviously, it seems like the prominentreason - if you look at what's happening
nationally - is that a lot of these peoplehave some sort of record, maybe online
or in person, of being opposed to whatIsrael is doing to Palestine right now.
(10:58):
There's more reporting recentlythat more visas will be revoked if
there's any social media comments thatare "anti-Semitic." And the use of
"anti-Semitic" there, I think, is just- there's tons of Jewish groups across the
world that are against what Israel isdoing to Palestine, because it's sick.
(11:18):
I think it's a genocide.
I think it's cowardly to not say thatit is, because it's pretty clearly
ethnic cleansing on every level.
But yeah, it seems like people are gettingtheir visas revoked just for saying
that they're against that atrocity.
So I'm very worried about everyone who'sgetting their visa revoked right now.
(11:41):
But then also, just as an American, Ijust think this is a huge loss to us, our
country, to treat these people this way.
Because these are some of themost courageous, talented people
this stuff is happening, too.
It's a loss for our culture aswell for them to not be here.
And it's just a really sad ironythat a lot of these people probably
(12:04):
came to America because they thoughtthis would be a place that's more
free for them to do their work.
And our government is saying - Ha, nope.
And it's really sad to see our countrynot be a bastion of free speech
that we like to say that we are.
Yeah, or free speech as it is beingused in this administration, having
(12:27):
a very different definition than onemost people or those familiar with
the First Amendment are used to.
We have seen Secretary of State MarcoRubio stand up in defense of these
revocations of visas, and in fact,promising that there would be more
- essentially saying that if peopledisagree with America, or what they
(12:51):
believe is American thought or beliefs- as defined by them - then they are up
for having their visa revoked withoutany notice or, essentially, recourse.
And-
Really, that's just like - itseems like some of these people are
lucky if that's all that happens.
They're not literally disappeared.
(13:12):
People are being disappeared right now.
Yeah, it's challenging.
And specifically for students, forpeople who have various statuses - one
of the biggest challenges, and thatwe're seeing here, is that it is not
clearly defined what is inbounds to thisadministration and what is out of bounds.
(13:35):
Even if people disagreed with that,it would make things much easier
to navigate because you wouldknow what to them is considered
permitted and what to them is not.
And to have that be undefined leaves justall of that up to interpretation, leads
to a lot of unease, lack of clarity.
(13:57):
Lots of people do feel like - and itseems pretty clear that a number of
these are related to pro-Palestineactivism - but some there doesn't
seem to be much of any indication.
So there's a lot going throughour court processes to try
and address and mitigate this.
We will see what, ifanything, results from that.
(14:17):
But it's a very uneasy time and witha lot of answers that just don't
exist, but consequences that do.
But obviously, the overall intentionis just widespread intimidation.
It's almost more effective to not makeit specific - just follow these rules.
It's like, just don't talk aboutwhat's happening in Palestine at all.
(14:42):
We got to not follow suit on that.
And especially if you have moreprivilege than someone who's here on
a visa, we need to speak out louder.
Because if more of us are just saying theobvious - that killing innocent people
every day with American paid for andmade bombs - just saying that's wrong.
(15:05):
The more of us who just say thatplainly, the easier it is to
protect everyone speaking out.
Gotta try.
Yeah, we will see.
Now I want to talk about Washingtonstate dealing with their budget and
new news and reporting by Jim Brunnerof The Seattle Times that a Washington
(15:28):
employee union head blasted Governor BobFerguson as a 'Ratfink' over his budget.
[laughter] He deserves all the hate.
As we talked about on the showlast week, Governor Bob Ferguson
said that he opposes a wealth tax.
Those wealth taxes are currently proposedby the state House and state Senate
budgets that are working their waythrough the legislative process right now.
(15:52):
But Bob Ferguson said - Hey, if youpass those and they wind up on my desk,
I'm going to veto it - which has causeda lot of consternation and discussion
because the state is facing a budgetdeficit and either it will be closed
through cuts or through new revenue.
With important context that Washingtonstate is 49th out of 50 states in
(16:14):
terms of how regressive our tax systemis - meaning the people at the bottom
of the income ladder, those makingthe lowest incomes, pay the highest
percentage of their incomes in taxes,and those at the very top pay the lowest
percentage of their income in taxes.
In Washington state, we don't have anincome tax, so the taxes we pay are
(16:38):
often more regressive and are in termsof sales, taxes, fees, assessments.
It doesn't seem huge in any individualelement, but when you look at the fees
and level of sales taxes, various businesstaxes - those are all trying to make
(16:59):
up for the fact that we don't have therevenue in our state from an income tax.
And that is very, verybeneficial for the wealthy.
And actually, it turns out to be worsefor people making moderate to low incomes.
So here, as we face this in our budget- the Washington Federation of State
Employees, the state's largest publicemployee union, are pretty unhappy.
(17:24):
Mike Yestramski, the head of theWashington Federation of State Workers,
or WFSE laid into Ferguson in apress conference and Ferguson saying
that he would not sign a wealth tax.
Yestramski said - "The legislatureneeds to pass a budget that
doesn't harm state workers and DARERatfink Robbie Ferguson to veto it.
(17:46):
And when he does, I expect ALL of laborto join WFSE in calling for a revocation
of his endorsement and a real effortto fund a primary challenger for him."
Yestramski added that he would "doeverything in my power to make [Ferguson]
a one-term governor and a footnote inpolitical history." Very interesting.
(18:10):
This came on the heels of reportedly,Yestramski saying that Bob Ferguson
has not yet met with them - which wouldbe unusual for a Democratic governor,
especially one that appears to have metwith several other people and interests.
But notable that he had not met withthem, and that he had met with aides
(18:32):
for the governor instead - doesn'tseem to sit well with the Washington
Federation of State Employees.
Also, state employees are being askedto take a furlough - essentially
a pay cut - and Ferguson feelingthat that is acceptable, but a
wealth tax is not acceptable.
Now, Ferguson has said that hisopposition to a wealth tax is because it
(18:57):
appears to be unconstitutional to him.
He feels like it would bechallenged in court and not win.
Although he did seem to say maybe he wouldconsider a much smaller wealth tax - I
don't know why that wouldn't encounterthe same constitutional challenges.
Does that mean the objection isreally just to that tax and not
(19:19):
about the constitutionality?
Ferguson has not said he'sopposed to any new revenue at all.
He says that potentially there is revenuethat he could support - that has the
legislature talking about a high-earnerspayroll tax, similar to the JumpStart
Tax in the City of Seattle, looking atapplying that statewide to raise revenue.
(19:43):
There are a number of things they'reconsidering and that's making
its way through the legislature.
But certainly, any Democratic governoris not going to be thrilled or shouldn't
be thrilled to see one of their bastionsof support and of Democratic support
in the party, like a state workerunion, blasting him as a 'Ratfink,'
(20:06):
threatening to primary him, calling onthe rest of labor to not support him.
This is a real significantdisagreement that might come
with some real consequences,depending on how it plays out.
What do you see here?
Even before the Trump administrationcame in here, it was pretty clear
(20:30):
that we were going to have this budgetshortfall of - I've heard different
estimates - is it $12 billion or more?
$16 billion, but the way we do - thebudget deficit is calculated is different.
So that's not an annual number - that'sover the next four years, essentially.
So that's not the one-year number, butthere is - regardless of the number
(20:52):
and the length - it is a shortfallthat they have to deal with right now.
But from Day One, with Ferguson - veryboldly - basically being a textbook
DINO, Democrat In Name Only.
It seems like he's trying so hardto make Republicans like him.
(21:15):
And it would be a slap in the face ofall the Democrats that voted for him at
any moment, but especially under thisadministration - you're aligning yourself
that tightly to people on the right?
It's really disappointing,to say the least.
And it's also just reallyimpractical because we were facing
(21:39):
this budget shortfall beforethis administration even came in.
And now it's clear there's going to bea lot of really drastic situations where
there's going to be some major programs inour state that get less federal funding.
And this is not a moment to do anausterity budget and think that we can't
(22:00):
get through this without any new revenue.
He tries to brand himself as like thispractical accountant type or something.
It's like - This doesn't pencil out.
You're not being practicalat all about this situation.
We need more revenue, and we're a statewith some major billionaires in it.
I'm so tired of people likeFerguson acting like - Oh, no.
(22:25):
What if this handful of super richpeople in our state have to put
this little drop in the bucket forus to keep our public schools open?
I don't feel bad for them.
And when they threaten to move - where?
What, middle of Texas?
- because of a tiny tax they mighthave to pay here to keep our state
(22:47):
financially solvent, I don't evenbuy the threat that they would move.
Obviously, like Bezos did - somaybe some would, I don't know.
But for the most part, I think we shouldbet on our state a little bit more.
This is a beautiful state.
People live here for more reasons thanjust no state income tax - it might be a
perk for several people and corporations.
(23:10):
But there's a lot that brings peoplehere, and we need to know our worth.
Let's just tax at least this groupof - what, like 4,000 people that
might have to pay that wealth tax.
And it's just really frustrating thatthere's actually so much support for it.
(23:30):
All of the research shows thatthere's a voter support for it,
the legislature is supporting it.
And really, the only roadblockis Governor Ferguson.
So screw that guy.
[laughter] I'm going to keepon roasting him mercilessly.
He deserves it.
[laughter]
You are not the only oneroasting him mercilessly.
(23:52):
Also saw some other people bring upthat in our State Constitution, as has
been reiterated by our state SupremeCourt, we have a paramount duty to
fully fund education in our state, whichwe are clearly not currently doing.
That is unconstitutional.
And yet this budget proposed by thegovernor also does not make enough
(24:13):
progress on that to seemingly bring thatin line with what would be constitutional.
So it really looks like this is an issueof disagreeing with the wealth tax.
We'll see where that goes.
But really, this feeling in thesestatements by the Washington Federation
of State Employees, looks likethis is not a new thing - it's been
(24:34):
developing, it's been a long-term coming.
Yestramski said the governor had a"ghost" approach while he was governing.
And then he said he would elbowpeople aside "Charles Barkley-style"
when they were in a room together[while campaigning] to make sure
that he would get the union support.
Now, WFSE represents 50,000 stateand other public sector workers.
(24:58):
And a lot of them showed up yesterday atthe Capitol - they showed up in force.
They actually did.
And showed up for a rally or protestat the Capitol, where a lot of them
made their voices heard - saying thatthey're questioning whether Ferguson
is even a labor-friendly candidate.
I think he's just, from Day One,destroyed a lot of trust with
(25:20):
anybody on the left in this state.
And honestly, it's just astoundingjust how deliberate it's been.
And what a 180 it is from Jay Inslee, whoyou could nitpick and say wasn't perfect,
but he was a very well-liked governor.
But I think Bob Ferguson isgoing to bait everyone to force
him to do some sort of tax.
(25:43):
I don't know all the legal ins andouts of this, but I'm hearing people
talk about doing an initiative.
Because it's just - Hey, there issupport for this in the legislature.
If you're going to veto it,all avenues will be explored
here for making this happen.
So I also just think it's reallyunwise on his part to just obstinately
(26:04):
be against some of these proposals.
His flat statement of just not doingmore taxes right now is insane - it
doesn't pencil out without a lot of painthat he's not going to be forgiven for.
So this week, Ferguson did say an all-cutsbudget would harm core state services.
(26:26):
And he has not said that he's opposed toall and any revenue, but he has flatly
said he does oppose the wealth tax.
Coalition of business groups of ourstate's largest corporations, including
Microsoft and Amazon, is praisingFerguson for holding the line on spending.
His donors - Brad Smith, what up?
(26:48):
[laughter] I really just haveto think that some of those
corporations are a major reasonFerguson is doing what he's doing.
Because he's very not liked right now.
So there have to be some bigdeep-pocketed hitters giving him
a pat on the back in the meantime.
Because I don't know why else he woulddo this period - doesn't make sense.
(27:12):
So we will continue to follow that and theevolutions of the House and Senate budgets
here in our state to see where that landsand what we can look forward to, or if
we're moving forward to a veto threatshowdown if those wind up in the budget.
(27:33):
So stay tuned.
Also related - not necessarilyto the budget, but certainly with
state legislation - we are closerthan ever to rent stabilization.
This was covered by Hannah Kriegin The Burner, new independent
publication in the area.
But really, a rent stabilization bill,essentially saying - Hey, landlords,
(27:57):
you can't jack up rent by 75%, by 50%.
This has happened to a lot of people,happened to one of my neighbors.
These huge increases and rent prices thatwe've seen across the state that people
are having such a hard time dealing with- with housing prices already being so high,
(28:19):
the rent already being so high, and thenhaving it increase by really high amounts
has been damaging to our communities,to our economy, destabilizing,
causing a lot of displacement.
And the legislature looks committed topassing something to deal with that.
The attempt started last year,it's continuing into this year
(28:40):
with House Bill 1217, which wouldcap rent hikes at 7%, making it
through our legislature right now.
Has passed some key hurdles and isin the final stages here - and a
lot of people are hoping it passes.
How do you see this?
(29:00):
Honestly, I'm proud of theDemocratic legislature pushing
forward bills like this.
And it's hopeful that there'sa real path forward for this.
I think it would be a real giftto the state right now to at
least pass something like that.
Because just this week, we experiencedso much financial or just economic
(29:22):
volatility from the tariffs happening.
No matter what kind of line of workyou're in, I think we're feeling
like - Wow, at any moment, thingscould just really get shaken up here.
I don't know in what direction.
But I think it helps all of us ifprotections like that are in place that
(29:43):
keep people from having just a suddeninsane cost of living increase, or
just price of keeping their housing.
It should have been passed like a billionyears ago, but if we can get it now,
that would be really great and lessensome of the anxiety about the economy.
Absolutely.
Representative Nicole Macri from Seattle's43rd District is the bill's lead sponsor.
(30:07):
She has been fighting for this andshepherding it through the process.
She's staying optimistic.
Now, it has had some amendmentsthat have watered down the
original legislation somewhat.
Senator Lisa Wellman had an amendmentthat created some carve-outs for
(30:28):
new construction, so people in newerbuildings may not be able to receive
the full benefit of this legislation.
There have been some other attempts- Rep. Macri said that they voted down
18 bad amendments, which is a lot.
So there have been a lot ofattempts to weaken this bill.
(30:48):
Few made it through, a lot didn't.
Still would be beneficial for somany people in the state - hopefully
it survives intact from here.
And I just want to highlight thatI really like the way Hannah Krieg
wrote about some of these amendmentsin her new publication, The Burner.
She said - On Monday, the committee voteddown 18 "bad amendments," Macri noted.
(31:14):
And then Hannah writes - "Bad"is one way to put it.
I might have suggested"unhinged," "diabolical," or
"class-war inspiring" amendments.
So there's a little bit of a war overthese amendments, but I'm glad that
a lot of the bad ones are gettingdunked on, at least a little bit.
(31:35):
Yes.
So it is now heading tothe Senate Rules Committee.
If it clears that, it'llmove to the floor for a vote.
So lawmakers have until nextWednesday to get this done.
Lots of people are payingattention closely - we will
see what happens from here.
(31:56):
Also, a lot of people were surprisedto get ballots in the mail, to get
ballot alerts - alerting them tothe fact that we have a special
election coming up on April 22nd.
Ballots are due by then about fingerprintID technology from the county.
(32:17):
What is this?
What is happening with thisvote coming up on April 22nd?
Yeah, I got that ballot.
And then I looked online for informationand it was not easy to figure out
what this even was - even though itseems like an old levy that has just
been getting passed since the 1980s.
(32:38):
I couldn't find anything theday it came in, at least.
I had to look in a West Seattle Blogcomment section to try to narrow
down what my opinion was on it.
And what I've gathered so far isjust, even without going down the full
rabbit hole, the levy is to fund a lawenforcement cooperative fund for IDing
(33:05):
fingerprints, and it funds technologyfor identifying little body markers.
And it's involved in facial recognitiontechnology as well, isn't it?
Something like that.
It was written so that it couldpotentially involve that before.
And lots of people have thatquestion now, and that doesn't
(33:25):
seem to be completely clear yet.
It is the Automated FingerprintIdentification System to identify
fingerprints, handprints thatis used by law enforcement
agencies across King County.
This was last approved in 2018.
This levy is actually for a smaller amountthan the existing levy, but says that it
(33:51):
will support enhanced forensic fingerprintand palm print tools for identification.
And that it has responded tomore than 5,000 crime scenes,
processed nearly 26,000 items ofevidence in the past two years.
And the system currently holds nearly3 million identification records.
(34:13):
So we'll see what that is - but lots ofpeople have lots of questions, and it
doesn't look like it's very specific.
There is not an organized oppositionto this, like we see with some levies.
So we have the statement from proponentsof this, it is currently in effect.
I've seen people be concerned that - Hey,this is funding more law enforcement.
(34:36):
We already see, in terms of fundingallocation and scenarios, that it appears
to be unbalanced to a lot of people- so they're questioning the priority
of funding this over other things.
And just the fact that it's being donein this format as a one-issue ballot that
got sent to us in the middle of April.
(34:58):
So that alone is firing off a littlered flag of - Well, I don't think the
people doing this are really thinkingabout being financially responsible
with tax money here, because it'sexpensive to do a whole special election.
Why wasn't this on the fall ballot?
I have to think that they thoughtthere was some benefit to doing it
(35:21):
this way, but it's kind of costly.
And I don't think that was a smartthing to do considering that, when I
just do a little bit of superficialresearch on this to understand what
it is, I'm like - Why does this kindof thing need a whole separate levy?
I don't understand why thiswouldn't be part of funding at
(35:43):
the state level or a county level.
I don't understand why thiswouldn't already be part of
a law enforcement budget.
When I read about it, I didn't quite getit, but there was some vague explanation
of - Oh, well, there's smaller townsand unincorporated communities that
need funding for identification,and they can't get it another way.
(36:06):
I just don't buy this.
How is it that a county sheriff'sdepartment or our state law
enforcement doesn't have thefunds for this kind of work?
Why wouldn't that already be integratedinto a law enforcement agency's budget?
I don't get it.
(36:29):
And it does seem like it's justthis other easy way for law
enforcement to have a ton of money.
And so I rejected it because I thinka lot of departments are already
getting too much money the way it is.
Bob Ferguson - the only thing he'sadvocated for adding funding to is
law enforcement, for some reason.
So I'm not for this 'cause Iknow that these departments
(36:53):
have a law enforcement budget.
Why isn't this part of their budget?
I don't understand why there's a wholelevy for this weird, specific thing.
'Cause if you think about it, it'slike - Okay, then they could do a
levy for everything they want to fund.
We need a levy for snack room donuts.
What?
Why are you funding it that way?
This doesn't make sense.
(37:16):
I also wonder why this is notfunded out of their regular general
budget, especially going beyondthe fingerprinting and some of the
other identification technologies.
I don't know that answer.
We have made some calls, pulledtogether some preliminary information,
(37:37):
have not gotten that information yet.
And it's actually worrisome to seethis on the ballot and there being
so little information about it.
And the information that doesexist - seemingly just mirroring the
language of the levy, without muchadditional reporting surrounding
(37:57):
it yet for this existing levy.
I see that it is included in theProgressive Voters Guide without any
statement in opposition, and it largelymirrors the language of the levy.
And also says that it can be used toexonerate people also potentially.
The Progressive Voters Guide endswith saying - AFIS, A-F-I-S, the
(38:19):
Automated Fingerprint IdentificationSystem, has been an asset to victims,
defendants, and the community since 1986.
Vote Yes to renew fundingfor this important technology
that keeps our community safe.
That's what they are saying.
In a 2023 annual report of the KingCounty AFIS program, which we will
(38:40):
include in the resources on the website,it says that as far as the technology
is concerned, it stores nearly 3 millionrecords for matching to incoming and
unidentified prints, 56 live scandevices deployed throughout the region
capture prints, photos, and demographics.
The data collected is transmittedelectronically to the local, state,
(39:03):
and federal identification systems.
And 295 mobile ID devices allowofficers in the field to quickly
identify people without the need totransport them to a secondary location.
One of the questions that we have outis - Yes, this does share information.
As this says, it is able to transmitinformation to local, state, and
(39:26):
federal identification systems.
So what is that data sharing like?
Are they directly sharinginformation with the FBI?
With ICE and Customs and Border Control?
Yeah, the environment and the contextfor passing this has certainly
changed, especially in the last twoor three months - seeing what the
(39:48):
Trump administration is willing to letICE and other federal agencies do to
people, completely unconstitutionally.
So I think it was pretty - whoever'sputting this levy out there - kind
of naive about how willing peopleare to support this right now.
(40:08):
Because I don't think there's alot of trust in law enforcement,
especially with data like that.
It's a big question.
The King County Council isthe entity responsible for
putting this on the ballot.
So they approved this andthis timing for this levy.
I also find the timing to be curious,particularly when we're talking
(40:29):
about budget deficits at the countylevel - and opting into a one-issue
special election in April for allof the county is questionable.
And I wonder why that happens- sometimes when we see issues like
this, just politically, it comesfrom people being afraid of putting
(40:51):
multiple revenue initiatives or ballotmeasures on, feeling that people
get ballot fatigue or tax fatigue.
If there are multiple revenuemeasures on one ballot, it makes
them all less likely to succeed- that is not supported by data.
And so it wouldn't surprise me ifthat was part of the reasoning behind
(41:13):
this, but it would be disappointingbecause it's not supported by data.
Councilmember Rob Dembowski was theperson responsible for expanding this
levy beyond purely just fingerprints- so talking about capturing photos,
other identification technology.
According to reporting from Cascade PBSback in 2018, when the last levy was
(41:38):
put up to a vote, quotes Rob Dembowskitalking about expanding it to include
some of those identification technologies.
He said that there were privacyprotections built into this, but we
don't see any detail addressing thatin the current levy explanation.
(42:00):
And so we would be eager toreceive more information on that.
And if we receive it,we will share with you.
Yeah.
I'd also like to hear moreabout - I don't know how this system
interacts with AI - because I thinkthat's become really problematic.
But I think AI is being usedreally irresponsibly right now in
(42:22):
a lot of different environments,including law enforcement.
One other thought about this levy.
This is just a suspicion, but it seemslike this levy has just kind of been
approved casually since, like the 1980s.
It's like - Oh, just re-up thesame thing that has been funded
for like a couple decades now.
I wonder if part of the reason this endedup a levy in the 1980s at first is - in
(42:47):
the 1980s, this was really like whoa,innovative crime fighting and technology.
And maybe it just dazzled people so muchin the 1980s that it got its own levy.
But now I think we're a lot less dazzledby how our personal information is being
used by law enforcement, how technologyis being used in law enforcement.
(43:12):
Again, I question why this isfunded through a levy, period.
I don't understand why this wouldn't beintegrated into the operations of any law
enforcement agency in the first place.
I just kind of assumed it was.
Yeah, it's a good and valid questionthat we were hoping to have an answer to
by the time we recorded that we don't.
(43:33):
The other issue that I've seen discussedin a variety of places and formats is
- Okay, so if this doesn't pass, then what?
And that actually influencing thedecisions that some people make.
There are people who are sayingadditional funding for this - figure
it out within the current budget,you don't need an additional one.
(43:55):
And some people expressing concernsthat - Okay, so if we don't fund this,
it's essentially to them is going tofeel like a loss of funding or something
unfunded now that they're going to haveto find funding from an existing source.
And given all recent evidence, folks ableto fund this, whether at the county or if
(44:18):
it falls on individual municipal entities- since this is a regional shared resource
- is that they would just pull the moneyout of the general fund, they would pull
money from other things, like we've seenthe Seattle City Council and so many
other city councils do - taking fundingfrom housing or from public services.
(44:39):
And lowering the funding there, takingthat money and redirecting it to
fund public safety elements there.
And so feeling like to - a vote Noon this, if it doesn't pass, would
essentially just set people up forhaving the money taken from somewhere
else that they feel is valuable.
(44:59):
I don't know if that's what would happen.
Looks like that probably wouldhappen based on recent actions.
Is that enough of a reason for peoplewho would be inclined to vote No,
to vote Yes, or people who would beinclined to vote Yes, to vote No?
I don't know.
I very much want a reporterto do a deep dive on this.
(45:20):
I think it's worth it, evenif it seems like this random
mid-April special election thing.
I want someone to really giveme a solid report reevaluating
what this is right now.
I also would really like that.
And if we happen to get those questionsanswered before we see that, we'll
(45:41):
just put it together and report out.
So stay tuned.
But that is on your ballot.
Your ballot is in your mailbox ifyou haven't already received it.
If you haven't received your ballot,call for a new one because you
should have received it by now.
But you can send in your ballotanytime, either in a drop box or
(46:01):
mailing it - does not require a stamp.
It just must be postmarked byApril 22nd or dropped into a ballot
drop box by 8pm on April 22nd.
Also want to talk about an articlewritten by David Kroman in The
Seattle Times this week - Tensionsbetween some members of Seattle City
Council spilling into public view.
(46:22):
This is coming on the heels of apretty contentious battle leading
up to the passage of new legislationto allow new housing in the city's
industrial district - but that exposeda number of faults that weren't super
apparent to a lot of other people.
In addition to very vocal and strenuousopposition from the Port of Seattle,
(46:47):
other councilmembers found fault here.
Not just with Sara Nelson and hersupport of this legislation, but
also with some of the administrativemaneuvers used to advance and
ultimately pass this legislation - withDan Strauss, Councilmember Alexis
Mercedes Rinck, and even CouncilmemberBob Kettle voicing opposition not
(47:13):
just to the policy, but also to theprocess involved with doing this.
And highlighting that there may havebeen some missteps, and certainly
things that are not precedented inthis way with this type of legislation.
This is coming on the heels of othercontentious legislation - proposals to
(47:37):
rewrite wage laws for small businessesand app-based delivery drivers,
lower the minimum wage effectively.
A bill to talk about a local capital gainstax, which fell short by a slight vote.
So we're seeing some fragmentation,some splinters in ways that some
(47:58):
people weren't necessarily anticipating- viewing the majority as a solid block.
But the solidness of that block is inquestion, as some of these other maneuvers
have taken place and have proceeded.
What do you think about this?
It seems like, in general,especially Sara Nelson is becoming
(48:24):
increasingly unliked across the board.
I think for those of us who have notliked Sara Nelson for a while, this
is kind of funny to see - especiallythe way that she's treated my
district's councilmember, Dan Strauss.
I think earlier on in this set ofCity Council members doing their
work, it seemed like people werejust kind of aligning with Sara
(48:46):
Nelson - going along to get alongwith this more conservative agenda.
And going along with some of thatstuff is still not working out for
people like Dan Strauss, because she,I think, took him out of a committee,
replaced him with no warning.
And then it also seems like, inother contexts, Sara Nelson is just
(49:07):
blindsiding people with like the SODOor the Stadium District housing thing
that she kind of barreled through- that blindsided a lot of people.
In general, it just seems like - eventhough her apparent mission in
joining the City Council was tomake the City Council more civil, it
seems like she's anything but that.
(49:29):
She's not doing the very basicthings to move forward legislation
in a collaborative way with hercolleagues or most of Seattle voters.
I don't like her.
I really want her replacedas soon as possible.
It's interesting with this article.
(49:50):
And to me, there are a fewdifferent things happening here.
One, issues exposingfault lines in policy.
And those things happen, and there aredisagreements over policy - I've certainly
found myself on the opposite side ofa number of councilmembers where they
landed, and sometimes on the same side.
But I think one of the majorthings that we're seeing is Sara
(50:14):
Nelson is a council president whois using the power that she has.
We are seeing Donald Trump rightnow use the power that he has.
Use it in ways that people whopreceded them haven't taken advantage
of - haven't used, haven't thought wasappropriate, and then potentially pushing
(50:36):
the bounds of that power and kind ofdaring people to do something about it.
And finding that a lot of times,there's a shortage of people
willing to do something about it.
And so that just reinforces the powerthat they have and their willingness
to use that power in similar ways.
Or even go beyond, if there is no onewilling to stop it, or no way to stop
(51:01):
it for those that feel like it should.
Now, on this council, Sara Nelson isnot operating alone or in a vacuum.
The Council majority generallyagrees with Councilmember Nelson.
And so it's not a situationgenerally with Sara Nelson, where
the majority of the council isfinding fault with what she's doing.
(51:21):
She has a number of allies there.
And those who have been in the minorityhave been ignored, have been - in the case
of someone like Tammy Morales - insulted.
Many people would characterize itas bullied - having resources that
they used to have access to, takenaway, punished for disagreeing.
(51:43):
And it looks like Dan Straussperhaps has found himself on
the opposite side of that.
The interesting thing about - when youalign yourself with someone, not because
of ideology, but because they have power,that can and usually will eventually be
used in ways that you don't see fit, butthat you no longer have the ability to
(52:04):
stop or influence or do anything with.
I think we've seen that insome of those circumstances.
But kind of beyond the issues of thesefault lines, like between Councilmember
Strauss and Sara Nelson or Maritza Riveraor others, is - I think one thing that
is not covered as much as it shouldbe and sometimes gets misclassified
(52:29):
under the umbrella of an ideologicaldisagreement are issues of competence
or compliance - skill issues, right?
[laughter] You're saying itso much nicer than I want to.
[laughter] The problem with categorizingissues of competence or compliance
(52:50):
as issues of disagreement over policyis that it shortchanges everyone.
Those issues should concern you,especially if you agree with the policies
being put forward - because the issuesof competence and skill directly impact
whether the policy that you're in favor ofgets implemented successfully and provides
(53:16):
the benefits that you believe they willand that they're sold as providing.
So even with things like police hiring- now, certainly there are disagreements
over whether we should be hiring morepolice or not, whether we should instead
be using and investing some of that moneyinto community violence interruption or
(53:40):
other areas that impact public safetyand the realm of public safety that
aren't necessarily officers, that aredifferent things that work in conjunction
with police to make a safer community.
But there are certainly a number of peoplewho feel like more police are necessary.
They've made commitmentsto hire new police.
(54:01):
And we've heard for the past three years,from both Sara Nelson and Mayor Bruce
Harrell - Hey, we want to hire morepolice, we commit to hire more police.
And as has been making the rounds in anumber of different formats, satirical
and otherwise - last year, after spendingmillions upon millions of dollars,
(54:21):
all of that effort to hire resulted inone, literally one, net new officer.
Doesn't seem very efficient.
Doesn't seem like they're deliveringon their promises, or that the policies
that they passed are delivering thebenefits that they were sold as doing.
But what was frustrating for me andmany other people who were watching
(54:44):
that entire process unfold from thebeginning was that there were issues of
competence and compliance and skill thatmade it obvious that they were going to
have problems hiring people, achievingtheir stated goals, and delivering
results with what they said they weredoing - because they did not go about the
(55:07):
crafting of that legislation, investingin the types of things that have shown
to be successful in hiring officers.
Or they didn't address issuesthat have shown to be a hindrance
to hiring officers - that werepoisoning and damaging the culture.
There were several things that theyjust didn't listen to directly from
(55:32):
officers on SPD, from public safetyexperts, from people in the community.
Some of the basic stakeholderingthat councilmembers, public servants
need to do in order to craft solidlegislation, to hear from people impacted
from the police department to thecommunity, and hearing, understanding,
(55:55):
and responding to the challengesthat they are presenting you with.
So even if you wanted to see morepolice officers hired - the people
who were voting for that, the peoplewho were crafting that policy did not
craft it skillfully or compliantly.
(56:15):
And that has harmed their abilityto hire more officers - to do
what they said they would do.
And the challenge is, thenyou hear everything but
themselves get blamed for that.
When all along people were callingout - Hey, this isn't going to work.
(56:36):
But if you just say - Well, they just sayit's not going to work because they're
haters, or they just say it's not goingto work because they disagree - you're
really shooting your own self in the footif you are a proponent of that policy.
Because you're not hearing the reasonwhy - hey, even if you want that to
happen, here are the problems with it.
(56:57):
If you wanted that to happen andyou wanted to succeed, this is
what you would do differently.
This is what the law says you need to do.
This is what other people who havedone that successfully have done.
But that kind of advice, reason - we'veseen so many times where the experts
hired, subject matter experts, peoplewith lived experience, people impacted
(57:19):
by these policies are frequently not eveninvited to be part of the conversation.
But the feedback that theyprovide is not listened to - it's
disputed, it's discounted,it's just not treated as valid.
And somehow, their intuition andcircle of friends and donors - they
(57:44):
feel do have all that knowledge andexpertise, and that's all that they
need in order to pass this policy.
And it just does not turn out thatway - that's not how it works.
And so in the news this week, again,is news that the Port of Seattle is
taking the City of Seattle to court overthe recently passed legislation by the
(58:05):
Council, which will allow housing to bebuilt in the SODO area, in an industrial
area, which the Port and other industrialadvocates have vigorously opposed.
And there were some steps that werepointed out that appear to have
been - potentially look like theywere skipped, like environmental
(58:28):
reviews and other reviews.
That may come back to bite them ifthat legislation gets overturned.
So again, even if you agree withthat - the lack of compliance and
competence and the crafting of thatlegislation is what's going to torpedo it.
And I wish we would pay more attentionto that, because when we just let that
(58:50):
slide, because - Hey, we agree with it.
So whatever they can do to get it through,without paying attention to the detail
necessary to set it up for success andimplementation - we're just allowing
everyone and everything to fail up.
We're spending good money after bad.
And here we wind up, three yearslater - after all of these initiatives
(59:14):
and hundreds of millions of dollarsspent, with very little to show for it.
And so then we wind up with things likeperformative, toothless resolutions
- saying "Defund is bad." And really, ifyou look on the record, this is probably
the fourth time that Council has madea big deal in the past few years of
(59:37):
saying "Defund is bad" for the media.
And it would be nice if they actually hadmore substantive things to show, which I
think would happen if we all had more ofa focus on the competence and compliance
aspects of legislating and governing.
(59:59):
So that's me on my soapbox - andgetting off - but it's really
missing in this conversation.
And both nationally and locally, we keepwanting to do this horse race thing - and
this is how it impacts this elected, andthis is how it impacts the other elected,
and their chances for getting elected.
But the actual job ofgoverning is an important one.
(01:00:20):
It requires oversight.
There are people who are good at it.
There are laws and rules thatmust be followed when you do it.
And when you don't do it - when you don'tfollow those rules, when you don't adhere
to the law, when you don't do the basicthing that any organization needs to
(01:00:40):
do to set itself up for success, thereare bad consequences for everybody.
So, especially if you agree withthis Council, if you are a super
strong supporter of this Councilmajority, you should really be
a super strong supporter of them
making sure that the competence andcompliance issues are addressed.
(01:01:05):
Yeah.
We've got a lot of councilmembers doingbluster and not a lot of the real thing.
Absolutely.
What has also passed a lot of people'snotice is what looks to me to be
an unprecedented amount of formerSeattle City councilmembers who have
(01:01:26):
stated on the record - in public - howwhat this current Council is doing
is problematic in ways that addressthe competence and compliance.
Oftentimes, you don't see formerelecteds get super involved in
policy debates unless they'redirectly working on something.
(01:01:47):
But it certainly has been notable tome how many former Seattle City Council
electeds - from the past 30 years - havestated online how troubling they view some
of the actions of this current Councilwhen it does come to the compliance
(01:02:08):
and competence aspects of the job.
And with that, we thank you forlistening to Hacks & Wonks on
this Friday, April 11th, 2025.
The producer of Hacks & Wonksis Shannon Cheng.
Our insightful co-host today was PulitzerPrize-winning journalist and founder
and editor of The Needling, Lex Vaughn.
(01:02:28):
You can find Lex on Bluesky at@lex.vaughn.theneedling.com.
You can follow Hacks & Wonkson Bluesky at @HacksAndWonks.
You can find me on Bluesky at@finchfrii - that's F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I.
You can catch the podcast on ApplePodcasts, Spotify, or wherever you
get your podcasts - just type "Hacksand Wonks" into the search bar.
(01:02:51):
Be sure to subscribe to getthe full versions of our Friday
week-in-review and Tuesday topicalshow delivered to your podcast feed.
If you like us, please leavea review - it is very helpful.
You can also get a full transcriptof this episode and links to the
resources referenced in the showat OfficialHacksAndWonks.com.
Thanks for tuningin - talk to you next time.
Welcome to Hacks & Wonks.
I'm your host, Crystal Fincher.
On this show, we talk with policy wonksand political hacks to gather insight
(00:21):
into local politics and policy inWashington state through the lens of those
doing the work with behind-the-scenesperspectives on what's happening, why it's
happening, and what you can do about it.
Today, we're continuing our Fridayweek-in-review shows, where we review
the news of the week with a co-host.
Welcome back to the program, friend ofthe show, and today's co-host: Pulitzer
(00:44):
Prize-winning journalist and founderand editor of The Needling, Lex Vaughn.
Welcome back!
Hey, always good to be back - gettingnerdy and wonky with you on here.
Always good to have you.
And routinely - just like TheNeedling is one of the best
things in existence right now.
(01:04):
And I'm sure everyone listeningreads The Needling religiously.
And if you don't, you definitelyneed to be - just to capture little
moments of joy and making it througheverything that we are having to make
it through now - makes it easier.
Yeah, some days I want to write aboutwhat's going on, and some days I'm
(01:26):
like - I'm pretty sure everyone justwants to think about anything else.
And here's this reallyabsurd joke instead.
Oh my gosh.
The amount of times I have laughedout loud while just sitting
alone at Needling headlines.
It happens so often - sothank you for that.
(01:46):
But we will talk about a number of thingsthat have happened in the past week.
Starting out - protests.
Thousands of people across the state - inSeattle and beyond - turned out for
protests last weekend to protest theTrump administration, Elon Musk, and
(02:06):
what they say they're unhappy with.
What happened and what were people saying?
It was a huge turnout across thecountry and people definitely
showed up here in Seattle.
I think a lot of people would considerit more like a rally than a protest
- that's a whole other conversation, but-
It really is.
(02:26):
I
really like how some people have kindof brought a nuanced take to that.
Ijeoma Oluo posted a video that I relatedto where it's like - I think some of us
who've done a little bit more show up toa rally sometimes, go - This is nothing.
This isn't a real protest.
(02:47):
You're not really doing enough tochange the direction of things.
But it is worth it to just gather people,and get people pumped up, and to build
community and support for resistance.
I think the cold hard fact is we'regonna have to do a little bit more
than write funny signs and show up atSeattle Center over the next few years,
(03:11):
but it was an important weekend forjust rallying people and owning that
there is resistance in this moment.
And I'm sure just kind of gavepeople a boost spiritually
- just to pump each other up.
And I have to say the signs were on point.
I loved so many of the signs.
(03:35):
There was a great local sign withthe Space Needle in the background,
that said - Can't wait for theseason finale of White POTUS.
Oh my goodness.
So I got to hand it tosome of these sign writers.
I'm like - That's pretty good.
Yeah, very good.
And I think you hit the nail on thehead with - I don't know what kind of
(03:56):
impact this is going to have on theactions of the federal administration.
But what a lot of people talked about wasthat it was very useful and heartening
for people to see that they weren't alone- whether it was in their fear, or their
anger, or their confusion, indignation- that they have lots of community members
(04:21):
that are not just feeling the samething that they're feeling, but willing
to come and stand up and say that andstand shoulder to shoulder and say that.
And even beyond - Seattle wasa huge gathering - I think
they said they estimated 20,000people turned out in Seattle.
But there were people inEdmonds, and in Port Angeles,
(04:43):
and in Olympia, and in SeaTac.
And especially in some of those suburbsand smaller cities, cities in red areas,
a lot of people found it hearteningto see that they had neighbors there
who felt the same way they did.
And not everybody realized that was thecase - sometimes when you just look at
(05:05):
how the votes turn out in some areas.
So letting people know that they aren'talone and that there are people willing
to fight, I think, is a very useful thing.
And beyond that, just even - there's a lotof people responsible for a lot of things.
Besides the federal administration, inaddition to the federal administration
(05:26):
- whether it's our Congresspeople, orthe mayor, or city council, or county
council, or state representatives - andthem all seeing so many people care
enough in their community to turnout and make their voices heard.
I think caught the attention of alot of people and realizing that
(05:46):
some of these voices that they'rehearing, complaints that they're
hearing, fears that they're hearing,are not just happening in a vacuum.
They're not few and far between.
That these are pretty broad andwidespread community concerns.
And it is something when peoplewho don't usually show up to
a protest are at the protest.
(06:07):
I think one of the signs was like, It'sso bad the introverts are out here.
It does go to show that even people whodon't usually show up to these things are
out here - it means something's going on.
So something can build from that.
And there was a boycott againstTarget at the end of February because
(06:27):
of getting rid of the DEI thing.
At that moment, I was like, I don'tknow if this is really worth it.
Or I was rolling my eyes alittle bit at that movement, too,
because I was like - Oh, really?
Are you just beginning to realizeshopping at corporations is bad?
Like, you should shop moreoften at small businesses?
(06:48):
But that small action did havean impact - for weeks, actually.
Target's taken a bigfinancial hit from that.
So I think we're in a moment whereit's just - everybody needs to take the
action that they can, the ones that theycan do comfortably to make an impact.
Because I think it's very easy to feelpowerless in this moment, and it's
(07:13):
just not true that we don't have power.
No matter how awful our presidentialadministration is, there's always
something - especially that we cando on a local level - and we all have
control over how we spend our money.
So, yeah, these things are just goodreminders that we always still have power.
(07:34):
We have our voice, we have our dollar,and we can use them in effective ways.
Absolutely.
The Trump administration has canceled thevisas of at least 15 current international
students and recent graduates of collegesand universities across Washington state.
University of Washington officialsjust learned that nine visas were
(07:58):
revoked when they ran a statuscheck in the federal government
database of international students.
Five are current students,four are in post-grad training.
Seattle University reportedthat three recent graduates who
are completing post-graduationtraining had their visas revoked.
In Spokane, Gonzaga University, alsoduring a recent review, found that two
(08:20):
international students' records hadbeen terminated and their visas revoked.
A Gonzaga leader said - With theirlegal status to remain in the country
revoked, these students have been putin difficult and uncertain situations,
in some cases being ordered toleave the country with little notice
or risk of detainment or arrest.
And so it is a challengethat people are dealing with.
(08:43):
These students are among hundreds acrossthe country who are stripped of their
legal status and ordered by the Departmentof Homeland Security to leave the country.
The University of Washington says theyplan to provide the affected students
access to legal services that are paidfor by their student fees, as well as
mental health and academic support.
(09:04):
They're saying in this reporting byThe Seattle Times - Paige Cornwell,
Jessica Fu and Kai Uyehara saying - We'redeeply concerned about the well-being
of these students and graduatesand are working to support them.
International students and scholarsare essential and valued members of our
university, and they contribute immenselyto our community, state, and nation.
(09:29):
The UW will continue to support them andprovide the resources they need to be
able to learn, teach, and succeed here.
This is obviously troubling toa lot of people in community.
This came up during the protestsrepeatedly - was a motivation for
a lot of people showing up to thoseprotests and rallies over the weekend.
(09:50):
What are your thoughts about this?
What I've heard is that a lot ofthese students found out their
visas had been revoked - and thesecolleges said that they had also not
been given any notice that this wasgoing to happen to their students.
I heard, I think on a KUOW report,that there's some suspicion that AI is
(10:11):
being used to comb through records anddecide who gets their visa revoked.
Because in a lot of cases,it's just really random.
In some cases, it seems like they don'thave a criminal record or something, they
might have had some sort of interaction.
But then some people just haven't hadany law enforcement issues ever, and
(10:33):
they're getting their visas revoked.
So I think there's a lot of uncertaintyabout why some of these people are
even getting their visa revoked.
Obviously, it seems like the prominentreason - if you look at what's happening
nationally - is that a lot of these peoplehave some sort of record, maybe online
or in person, of being opposed to whatIsrael is doing to Palestine right now.
(10:58):
There's more reporting recentlythat more visas will be revoked if
there's any social media comments thatare "anti-Semitic." And the use of
"anti-Semitic" there, I think, is just- there's tons of Jewish groups across the
world that are against what Israel isdoing to Palestine, because it's sick.
(11:18):
I think it's a genocide.
I think it's cowardly to not say thatit is, because it's pretty clearly
ethnic cleansing on every level.
But yeah, it seems like people are gettingtheir visas revoked just for saying
that they're against that atrocity.
So I'm very worried about everyone who'sgetting their visa revoked right now.
(11:41):
But then also, just as an American, Ijust think this is a huge loss to us, our
country, to treat these people this way.
Because these are some of themost courageous, talented people
this stuff is happening, too.
It's a loss for our culture aswell for them to not be here.
And it's just a really sad ironythat a lot of these people probably
(12:04):
came to America because they thoughtthis would be a place that's more
free for them to do their work.
And our government is saying - Ha, nope.
And it's really sad to see our countrynot be a bastion of free speech
that we like to say that we are.
Yeah, or free speech as it is beingused in this administration, having
(12:27):
a very different definition than onemost people or those familiar with
the First Amendment are used to.
We have seen Secretary of State MarcoRubio stand up in defense of these
revocations of visas, and in fact,promising that there would be more
- essentially saying that if peopledisagree with America, or what they
(12:51):
believe is American thought or beliefs- as defined by them - then they are up
for having their visa revoked withoutany notice or, essentially, recourse.
And-
Really, that's just like - itseems like some of these people are
lucky if that's all that happens.
They're not literally disappeared.
(13:12):
People are being disappeared right now.
Yeah, it's challenging.
And specifically for students, forpeople who have various statuses - one
of the biggest challenges, and thatwe're seeing here, is that it is not
clearly defined what is inbounds to thisadministration and what is out of bounds.
(13:35):
Even if people disagreed with that,it would make things much easier
to navigate because you wouldknow what to them is considered
permitted and what to them is not.
And to have that be undefined leaves justall of that up to interpretation, leads
to a lot of unease, lack of clarity.
(13:57):
Lots of people do feel like - and itseems pretty clear that a number of
these are related to pro-Palestineactivism - but some there doesn't
seem to be much of any indication.
So there's a lot going throughour court processes to try
and address and mitigate this.
We will see what, ifanything, results from that.
(14:17):
But it's a very uneasy time and witha lot of answers that just don't
exist, but consequences that do.
But obviously, the overall intentionis just widespread intimidation.
It's almost more effective to not makeit specific - just follow these rules.
It's like, just don't talk aboutwhat's happening in Palestine at all.
(14:42):
We got to not follow suit on that.
And especially if you have moreprivilege than someone who's here on
a visa, we need to speak out louder.
Because if more of us are just saying theobvious - that killing innocent people
every day with American paid for andmade bombs - just saying that's wrong.
(15:05):
The more of us who just say thatplainly, the easier it is to
protect everyone speaking out.
Gotta try.
Yeah, we will see.
Now I want to talk about Washingtonstate dealing with their budget and
new news and reporting by Jim Brunnerof The Seattle Times that a Washington
(15:28):
employee union head blasted Governor BobFerguson as a 'Ratfink' over his budget.
[laughter] He deserves all the hate.
As we talked about on the showlast week, Governor Bob Ferguson
said that he opposes a wealth tax.
Those wealth taxes are currently proposedby the state House and state Senate
budgets that are working their waythrough the legislative process right now.
(15:52):
But Bob Ferguson said - Hey, if youpass those and they wind up on my desk,
I'm going to veto it - which has causeda lot of consternation and discussion
because the state is facing a budgetdeficit and either it will be closed
through cuts or through new revenue.
With important context that Washingtonstate is 49th out of 50 states in
(16:14):
terms of how regressive our tax systemis - meaning the people at the bottom
of the income ladder, those makingthe lowest incomes, pay the highest
percentage of their incomes in taxes,and those at the very top pay the lowest
percentage of their income in taxes.
In Washington state, we don't have anincome tax, so the taxes we pay are
(16:38):
often more regressive and are in termsof sales, taxes, fees, assessments.
It doesn't seem huge in any individualelement, but when you look at the fees
and level of sales taxes, various businesstaxes - those are all trying to make
(16:59):
up for the fact that we don't have therevenue in our state from an income tax.
And that is very, verybeneficial for the wealthy.
And actually, it turns out to be worsefor people making moderate to low incomes.
So here, as we face this in our budget- the Washington Federation of State
Employees, the state's largest publicemployee union, are pretty unhappy.
(17:24):
Mike Yestramski, the head of theWashington Federation of State Workers,
or WFSE laid into Ferguson in apress conference and Ferguson saying
that he would not sign a wealth tax.
Yestramski said - "The legislatureneeds to pass a budget that
doesn't harm state workers and DARERatfink Robbie Ferguson to veto it.
(17:46):
And when he does, I expect ALL of laborto join WFSE in calling for a revocation
of his endorsement and a real effortto fund a primary challenger for him."
Yestramski added that he would "doeverything in my power to make [Ferguson]
a one-term governor and a footnote inpolitical history." Very interesting.
(18:10):
This came on the heels of reportedly,Yestramski saying that Bob Ferguson
has not yet met with them - which wouldbe unusual for a Democratic governor,
especially one that appears to have metwith several other people and interests.
But notable that he had not met withthem, and that he had met with aides
(18:32):
for the governor instead - doesn'tseem to sit well with the Washington
Federation of State Employees.
Also, state employees are being askedto take a furlough - essentially
a pay cut - and Ferguson feelingthat that is acceptable, but a
wealth tax is not acceptable.
Now, Ferguson has said that hisopposition to a wealth tax is because it
(18:57):
appears to be unconstitutional to him.
He feels like it would bechallenged in court and not win.
Although he did seem to say maybe he wouldconsider a much smaller wealth tax - I
don't know why that wouldn't encounterthe same constitutional challenges.
Does that mean the objection isreally just to that tax and not
(19:19):
about the constitutionality?
Ferguson has not said he'sopposed to any new revenue at all.
He says that potentially there is revenuethat he could support - that has the
legislature talking about a high-earnerspayroll tax, similar to the JumpStart
Tax in the City of Seattle, looking atapplying that statewide to raise revenue.
(19:43):
There are a number of things they'reconsidering and that's making
its way through the legislature.
But certainly, any Democratic governoris not going to be thrilled or shouldn't
be thrilled to see one of their bastionsof support and of Democratic support
in the party, like a state workerunion, blasting him as a 'Ratfink,'
(20:06):
threatening to primary him, calling onthe rest of labor to not support him.
This is a real significantdisagreement that might come
with some real consequences,depending on how it plays out.
What do you see here?
Even before the Trump administrationcame in here, it was pretty clear
(20:30):
that we were going to have this budgetshortfall of - I've heard different
estimates - is it $12 billion or more?
$16 billion, but the way we do - thebudget deficit is calculated is different.
So that's not an annual number - that'sover the next four years, essentially.
So that's not the one-year number, butthere is - regardless of the number
(20:52):
and the length - it is a shortfallthat they have to deal with right now.
But from Day One, with Ferguson - veryboldly - basically being a textbook
DINO, Democrat In Name Only.
It seems like he's trying so hardto make Republicans like him.
(21:15):
And it would be a slap in the face ofall the Democrats that voted for him at
any moment, but especially under thisadministration - you're aligning yourself
that tightly to people on the right?
It's really disappointing,to say the least.
And it's also just reallyimpractical because we were facing
(21:39):
this budget shortfall beforethis administration even came in.
And now it's clear there's going to bea lot of really drastic situations where
there's going to be some major programs inour state that get less federal funding.
And this is not a moment to do anausterity budget and think that we can't
(22:00):
get through this without any new revenue.
He tries to brand himself as like thispractical accountant type or something.
It's like - This doesn't pencil out.
You're not being practicalat all about this situation.
We need more revenue, and we're a statewith some major billionaires in it.
I'm so tired of people likeFerguson acting like - Oh, no.
(22:25):
What if this handful of super richpeople in our state have to put
this little drop in the bucket forus to keep our public schools open?
I don't feel bad for them.
And when they threaten to move - where?
What, middle of Texas?
- because of a tiny tax they mighthave to pay here to keep our state
(22:47):
financially solvent, I don't evenbuy the threat that they would move.
Obviously, like Bezos did - somaybe some would, I don't know.
But for the most part, I think we shouldbet on our state a little bit more.
This is a beautiful state.
People live here for more reasons thanjust no state income tax - it might be a
perk for several people and corporations.
(23:10):
But there's a lot that brings peoplehere, and we need to know our worth.
Let's just tax at least this groupof - what, like 4,000 people that
might have to pay that wealth tax.
And it's just really frustrating thatthere's actually so much support for it.
(23:30):
All of the research shows thatthere's a voter support for it,
the legislature is supporting it.
And really, the only roadblockis Governor Ferguson.
So screw that guy.
[laughter] I'm going to keepon roasting him mercilessly.
He deserves it.
[laughter]
You are not the only oneroasting him mercilessly.
(23:52):
Also saw some other people bring upthat in our State Constitution, as has
been reiterated by our state SupremeCourt, we have a paramount duty to
fully fund education in our state, whichwe are clearly not currently doing.
That is unconstitutional.
And yet this budget proposed by thegovernor also does not make enough
(24:13):
progress on that to seemingly bring thatin line with what would be constitutional.
So it really looks like this is an issueof disagreeing with the wealth tax.
We'll see where that goes.
But really, this feeling in thesestatements by the Washington Federation
of State Employees, looks likethis is not a new thing - it's been
(24:34):
developing, it's been a long-term coming.
Yestramski said the governor had a"ghost" approach while he was governing.
And then he said he would elbowpeople aside "Charles Barkley-style"
when they were in a room together[while campaigning] to make sure
that he would get the union support.
Now, WFSE represents 50,000 stateand other public sector workers.
(24:58):
And a lot of them showed up yesterday atthe Capitol - they showed up in force.
They actually did.
And showed up for a rally or protestat the Capitol, where a lot of them
made their voices heard - saying thatthey're questioning whether Ferguson
is even a labor-friendly candidate.
I think he's just, from Day One,destroyed a lot of trust with
(25:20):
anybody on the left in this state.
And honestly, it's just astoundingjust how deliberate it's been.
And what a 180 it is from Jay Inslee, whoyou could nitpick and say wasn't perfect,
but he was a very well-liked governor.
But I think Bob Ferguson isgoing to bait everyone to force
him to do some sort of tax.
(25:43):
I don't know all the legal ins andouts of this, but I'm hearing people
talk about doing an initiative.
Because it's just - Hey, there issupport for this in the legislature.
If you're going to veto it,all avenues will be explored
here for making this happen.
So I also just think it's reallyunwise on his part to just obstinately
(26:04):
be against some of these proposals.
His flat statement of just not doingmore taxes right now is insane - it
doesn't pencil out without a lot of painthat he's not going to be forgiven for.
So this week, Ferguson did say an all-cutsbudget would harm core state services.
(26:26):
And he has not said that he's opposed toall and any revenue, but he has flatly
said he does oppose the wealth tax.
Coalition of business groups of ourstate's largest corporations, including
Microsoft and Amazon, is praisingFerguson for holding the line on spending.
His donors - Brad Smith, what up?
(26:48):
[laughter] I really just haveto think that some of those
corporations are a major reasonFerguson is doing what he's doing.
Because he's very not liked right now.
So there have to be some bigdeep-pocketed hitters giving him
a pat on the back in the meantime.
Because I don't know why else he woulddo this period - doesn't make sense.
(27:12):
So we will continue to follow that and theevolutions of the House and Senate budgets
here in our state to see where that landsand what we can look forward to, or if
we're moving forward to a veto threatshowdown if those wind up in the budget.
(27:33):
So stay tuned.
Also related - not necessarilyto the budget, but certainly with
state legislation - we are closerthan ever to rent stabilization.
This was covered by Hannah Kriegin The Burner, new independent
publication in the area.
But really, a rent stabilization bill,essentially saying - Hey, landlords,
(27:57):
you can't jack up rent by 75%, by 50%.
This has happened to a lot of people,happened to one of my neighbors.
These huge increases and rent prices thatwe've seen across the state that people
are having such a hard time dealing with- with housing prices already being so high,
(28:19):
the rent already being so high, and thenhaving it increase by really high amounts
has been damaging to our communities,to our economy, destabilizing,
causing a lot of displacement.
And the legislature looks committed topassing something to deal with that.
The attempt started last year,it's continuing into this year
(28:40):
with House Bill 1217, which wouldcap rent hikes at 7%, making it
through our legislature right now.
Has passed some key hurdles and isin the final stages here - and a
lot of people are hoping it passes.
How do you see this?
(29:00):
Honestly, I'm proud of theDemocratic legislature pushing
forward bills like this.
And it's hopeful that there'sa real path forward for this.
I think it would be a real giftto the state right now to at
least pass something like that.
Because just this week, we experiencedso much financial or just economic
(29:22):
volatility from the tariffs happening.
No matter what kind of line of workyou're in, I think we're feeling
like - Wow, at any moment, thingscould just really get shaken up here.
I don't know in what direction.
But I think it helps all of us ifprotections like that are in place that
(29:43):
keep people from having just a suddeninsane cost of living increase, or
just price of keeping their housing.
It should have been passed like a billionyears ago, but if we can get it now,
that would be really great and lessensome of the anxiety about the economy.
Absolutely.
Representative Nicole Macri from Seattle's43rd District is the bill's lead sponsor.
(30:07):
She has been fighting for this andshepherding it through the process.
She's staying optimistic.
Now, it has had some amendmentsthat have watered down the
original legislation somewhat.
Senator Lisa Wellman had an amendmentthat created some carve-outs for
(30:28):
new construction, so people in newerbuildings may not be able to receive
the full benefit of this legislation.
There have been some other attempts- Rep. Macri said that they voted down
18 bad amendments, which is a lot.
So there have been a lot ofattempts to weaken this bill.
(30:48):
Few made it through, a lot didn't.
Still would be beneficial for somany people in the state - hopefully
it survives intact from here.
And I just want to highlight thatI really like the way Hannah Krieg
wrote about some of these amendmentsin her new publication, The Burner.
She said - On Monday, the committee voteddown 18 "bad amendments," Macri noted.
(31:14):
And then Hannah writes - "Bad"is one way to put it.
I might have suggested"unhinged," "diabolical," or
"class-war inspiring" amendments.
So there's a little bit of a war overthese amendments, but I'm glad that
a lot of the bad ones are gettingdunked on, at least a little bit.
(31:35):
Yes.
So it is now heading tothe Senate Rules Committee.
If it clears that, it'llmove to the floor for a vote.
So lawmakers have until nextWednesday to get this done.
Lots of people are payingattention closely - we will
see what happens from here.
(31:56):
Also, a lot of people were surprisedto get ballots in the mail, to get
ballot alerts - alerting them tothe fact that we have a special
election coming up on April 22nd.
Ballots are due by then about fingerprintID technology from the county.
(32:17):
What is this?
What is happening with thisvote coming up on April 22nd?
Yeah, I got that ballot.
And then I looked online for informationand it was not easy to figure out
what this even was - even though itseems like an old levy that has just
been getting passed since the 1980s.
(32:38):
I couldn't find anything theday it came in, at least.
I had to look in a West Seattle Blogcomment section to try to narrow
down what my opinion was on it.
And what I've gathered so far isjust, even without going down the full
rabbit hole, the levy is to fund a lawenforcement cooperative fund for IDing
(33:05):
fingerprints, and it funds technologyfor identifying little body markers.
And it's involved in facial recognitiontechnology as well, isn't it?
Something like that.
It was written so that it couldpotentially involve that before.
And lots of people have thatquestion now, and that doesn't
(33:25):
seem to be completely clear yet.
It is the Automated FingerprintIdentification System to identify
fingerprints, handprints thatis used by law enforcement
agencies across King County.
This was last approved in 2018.
This levy is actually for a smaller amountthan the existing levy, but says that it
(33:51):
will support enhanced forensic fingerprintand palm print tools for identification.
And that it has responded tomore than 5,000 crime scenes,
processed nearly 26,000 items ofevidence in the past two years.
And the system currently holds nearly3 million identification records.
(34:13):
So we'll see what that is - but lots ofpeople have lots of questions, and it
doesn't look like it's very specific.
There is not an organized oppositionto this, like we see with some levies.
So we have the statement from proponentsof this, it is currently in effect.
I've seen people be concerned that - Hey,this is funding more law enforcement.
(34:36):
We already see, in terms of fundingallocation and scenarios, that it appears
to be unbalanced to a lot of people- so they're questioning the priority
of funding this over other things.
And just the fact that it's being donein this format as a one-issue ballot that
got sent to us in the middle of April.
(34:58):
So that alone is firing off a littlered flag of - Well, I don't think the
people doing this are really thinkingabout being financially responsible
with tax money here, because it'sexpensive to do a whole special election.
Why wasn't this on the fall ballot?
I have to think that they thoughtthere was some benefit to doing it
(35:21):
this way, but it's kind of costly.
And I don't think that was a smartthing to do considering that, when I
just do a little bit of superficialresearch on this to understand what
it is, I'm like - Why does this kindof thing need a whole separate levy?
I don't understand why thiswouldn't be part of funding at
(35:43):
the state level or a county level.
I don't understand why thiswouldn't already be part of
a law enforcement budget.
When I read about it, I didn't quite getit, but there was some vague explanation
of - Oh, well, there's smaller townsand unincorporated communities that
need funding for identification,and they can't get it another way.
(36:06):
I just don't buy this.
How is it that a county sheriff'sdepartment or our state law
enforcement doesn't have thefunds for this kind of work?
Why wouldn't that already be integratedinto a law enforcement agency's budget?
I don't get it.
(36:29):
And it does seem like it's justthis other easy way for law
enforcement to have a ton of money.
And so I rejected it because I thinka lot of departments are already
getting too much money the way it is.
Bob Ferguson - the only thing he'sadvocated for adding funding to is
law enforcement, for some reason.
So I'm not for this 'cause Iknow that these departments
(36:53):
have a law enforcement budget.
Why isn't this part of their budget?
I don't understand why there's a wholelevy for this weird, specific thing.
'Cause if you think about it, it'slike - Okay, then they could do a
levy for everything they want to fund.
We need a levy for snack room donuts.
What?
Why are you funding it that way?
This doesn't make sense.
(37:16):
I also wonder why this is notfunded out of their regular general
budget, especially going beyondthe fingerprinting and some of the
other identification technologies.
I don't know that answer.
We have made some calls, pulledtogether some preliminary information,
(37:37):
have not gotten that information yet.
And it's actually worrisome to seethis on the ballot and there being
so little information about it.
And the information that doesexist - seemingly just mirroring the
language of the levy, without muchadditional reporting surrounding
(37:57):
it yet for this existing levy.
I see that it is included in theProgressive Voters Guide without any
statement in opposition, and it largelymirrors the language of the levy.
And also says that it can be used toexonerate people also potentially.
The Progressive Voters Guide endswith saying - AFIS, A-F-I-S, the
(38:19):
Automated Fingerprint IdentificationSystem, has been an asset to victims,
defendants, and the community since 1986.
Vote Yes to renew fundingfor this important technology
that keeps our community safe.
That's what they are saying.
In a 2023 annual report of the KingCounty AFIS program, which we will
(38:40):
include in the resources on the website,it says that as far as the technology
is concerned, it stores nearly 3 millionrecords for matching to incoming and
unidentified prints, 56 live scandevices deployed throughout the region
capture prints, photos, and demographics.
The data collected is transmittedelectronically to the local, state,
(39:03):
and federal identification systems.
And 295 mobile ID devices allowofficers in the field to quickly
identify people without the need totransport them to a secondary location.
One of the questions that we have outis - Yes, this does share information.
As this says, it is able to transmitinformation to local, state, and
(39:26):
federal identification systems.
So what is that data sharing like?
Are they directly sharinginformation with the FBI?
With ICE and Customs and Border Control?
Yeah, the environment and the contextfor passing this has certainly
changed, especially in the last twoor three months - seeing what the
(39:48):
Trump administration is willing to letICE and other federal agencies do to
people, completely unconstitutionally.
So I think it was pretty - whoever'sputting this levy out there - kind
of naive about how willing peopleare to support this right now.
(40:08):
Because I don't think there's alot of trust in law enforcement,
especially with data like that.
It's a big question.
The King County Council isthe entity responsible for
putting this on the ballot.
So they approved this andthis timing for this levy.
I also find the timing to be curious,particularly when we're talking
(40:29):
about budget deficits at the countylevel - and opting into a one-issue
special election in April for allof the county is questionable.
And I wonder why that happens- sometimes when we see issues like
this, just politically, it comesfrom people being afraid of putting
(40:51):
multiple revenue initiatives or ballotmeasures on, feeling that people
get ballot fatigue or tax fatigue.
If there are multiple revenuemeasures on one ballot, it makes
them all less likely to succeed- that is not supported by data.
And so it wouldn't surprise me ifthat was part of the reasoning behind
(41:13):
this, but it would be disappointingbecause it's not supported by data.
Councilmember Rob Dembowski was theperson responsible for expanding this
levy beyond purely just fingerprints- so talking about capturing photos,
other identification technology.
According to reporting from Cascade PBSback in 2018, when the last levy was
(41:38):
put up to a vote, quotes Rob Dembowskitalking about expanding it to include
some of those identification technologies.
He said that there were privacyprotections built into this, but we
don't see any detail addressing thatin the current levy explanation.
(42:00):
And so we would be eager toreceive more information on that.
And if we receive it,we will share with you.
Yeah.
I'd also like to hear moreabout - I don't know how this system
interacts with AI - because I thinkthat's become really problematic.
But I think AI is being usedreally irresponsibly right now in
(42:22):
a lot of different environments,including law enforcement.
One other thought about this levy.
This is just a suspicion, but it seemslike this levy has just kind of been
approved casually since, like the 1980s.
It's like - Oh, just re-up thesame thing that has been funded
for like a couple decades now.
I wonder if part of the reason this endedup a levy in the 1980s at first is - in
(42:47):
the 1980s, this was really like whoa,innovative crime fighting and technology.
And maybe it just dazzled people so muchin the 1980s that it got its own levy.
But now I think we're a lot less dazzledby how our personal information is being
used by law enforcement, how technologyis being used in law enforcement.
(43:12):
Again, I question why this isfunded through a levy, period.
I don't understand why this wouldn't beintegrated into the operations of any law
enforcement agency in the first place.
I just kind of assumed it was.
Yeah, it's a good and valid questionthat we were hoping to have an answer to
by the time we recorded that we don't.
(43:33):
The other issue that I've seen discussedin a variety of places and formats is
- Okay, so if this doesn't pass, then what?
And that actually influencing thedecisions that some people make.
There are people who are sayingadditional funding for this - figure
it out within the current budget,you don't need an additional one.
(43:55):
And some people expressing concernsthat - Okay, so if we don't fund this,
it's essentially to them is going tofeel like a loss of funding or something
unfunded now that they're going to haveto find funding from an existing source.
And given all recent evidence, folks ableto fund this, whether at the county or if
(44:18):
it falls on individual municipal entities- since this is a regional shared resource
- is that they would just pull the moneyout of the general fund, they would pull
money from other things, like we've seenthe Seattle City Council and so many
other city councils do - taking fundingfrom housing or from public services.
(44:39):
And lowering the funding there, takingthat money and redirecting it to
fund public safety elements there.
And so feeling like to - a vote Noon this, if it doesn't pass, would
essentially just set people up forhaving the money taken from somewhere
else that they feel is valuable.
(44:59):
I don't know if that's what would happen.
Looks like that probably wouldhappen based on recent actions.
Is that enough of a reason for peoplewho would be inclined to vote No,
to vote Yes, or people who would beinclined to vote Yes, to vote No?
I don't know.
I very much want a reporterto do a deep dive on this.
(45:20):
I think it's worth it, evenif it seems like this random
mid-April special election thing.
I want someone to really giveme a solid report reevaluating
what this is right now.
I also would really like that.
And if we happen to get those questionsanswered before we see that, we'll
(45:41):
just put it together and report out.
So stay tuned.
But that is on your ballot.
Your ballot is in your mailbox ifyou haven't already received it.
If you haven't received your ballot,call for a new one because you
should have received it by now.
But you can send in your ballotanytime, either in a drop box or
(46:01):
mailing it - does not require a stamp.
It just must be postmarked byApril 22nd or dropped into a ballot
drop box by 8pm on April 22nd.
Also want to talk about an articlewritten by David Kroman in The
Seattle Times this week - Tensionsbetween some members of Seattle City
Council spilling into public view.
(46:22):
This is coming on the heels of apretty contentious battle leading
up to the passage of new legislationto allow new housing in the city's
industrial district - but that exposeda number of faults that weren't super
apparent to a lot of other people.
In addition to very vocal and strenuousopposition from the Port of Seattle,
(46:47):
other councilmembers found fault here.
Not just with Sara Nelson and hersupport of this legislation, but
also with some of the administrativemaneuvers used to advance and
ultimately pass this legislation - withDan Strauss, Councilmember Alexis
Mercedes Rinck, and even CouncilmemberBob Kettle voicing opposition not
(47:13):
just to the policy, but also to theprocess involved with doing this.
And highlighting that there may havebeen some missteps, and certainly
things that are not precedented inthis way with this type of legislation.
This is coming on the heels of othercontentious legislation - proposals to
(47:37):
rewrite wage laws for small businessesand app-based delivery drivers,
lower the minimum wage effectively.
A bill to talk about a local capital gainstax, which fell short by a slight vote.
So we're seeing some fragmentation,some splinters in ways that some
(47:58):
people weren't necessarily anticipating- viewing the majority as a solid block.
But the solidness of that block is inquestion, as some of these other maneuvers
have taken place and have proceeded.
What do you think about this?
It seems like, in general,especially Sara Nelson is becoming
(48:24):
increasingly unliked across the board.
I think for those of us who have notliked Sara Nelson for a while, this
is kind of funny to see - especiallythe way that she's treated my
district's councilmember, Dan Strauss.
I think earlier on in this set ofCity Council members doing their
work, it seemed like people werejust kind of aligning with Sara
(48:46):
Nelson - going along to get alongwith this more conservative agenda.
And going along with some of thatstuff is still not working out for
people like Dan Strauss, because she,I think, took him out of a committee,
replaced him with no warning.
And then it also seems like, inother contexts, Sara Nelson is just
(49:07):
blindsiding people with like the SODOor the Stadium District housing thing
that she kind of barreled through- that blindsided a lot of people.
In general, it just seems like - eventhough her apparent mission in
joining the City Council was tomake the City Council more civil, it
seems like she's anything but that.
(49:29):
She's not doing the very basicthings to move forward legislation
in a collaborative way with hercolleagues or most of Seattle voters.
I don't like her.
I really want her replacedas soon as possible.
It's interesting with this article.
(49:50):
And to me, there are a fewdifferent things happening here.
One, issues exposingfault lines in policy.
And those things happen, and there aredisagreements over policy - I've certainly
found myself on the opposite side ofa number of councilmembers where they
landed, and sometimes on the same side.
But I think one of the majorthings that we're seeing is Sara
(50:14):
Nelson is a council president whois using the power that she has.
We are seeing Donald Trump rightnow use the power that he has.
Use it in ways that people whopreceded them haven't taken advantage
of - haven't used, haven't thought wasappropriate, and then potentially pushing
(50:36):
the bounds of that power and kind ofdaring people to do something about it.
And finding that a lot of times,there's a shortage of people
willing to do something about it.
And so that just reinforces the powerthat they have and their willingness
to use that power in similar ways.
Or even go beyond, if there is no onewilling to stop it, or no way to stop
(51:01):
it for those that feel like it should.
Now, on this council, Sara Nelson isnot operating alone or in a vacuum.
The Council majority generallyagrees with Councilmember Nelson.
And so it's not a situationgenerally with Sara Nelson, where
the majority of the council isfinding fault with what she's doing.
(51:21):
She has a number of allies there.
And those who have been in the minorityhave been ignored, have been - in the case
of someone like Tammy Morales - insulted.
Many people would characterize itas bullied - having resources that
they used to have access to, takenaway, punished for disagreeing.
(51:43):
And it looks like Dan Straussperhaps has found himself on
the opposite side of that.
The interesting thing about - when youalign yourself with someone, not because
of ideology, but because they have power,that can and usually will eventually be
used in ways that you don't see fit, butthat you no longer have the ability to
(52:04):
stop or influence or do anything with.
I think we've seen that insome of those circumstances.
But kind of beyond the issues of thesefault lines, like between Councilmember
Strauss and Sara Nelson or Maritza Riveraor others, is - I think one thing that
is not covered as much as it shouldbe and sometimes gets misclassified
(52:29):
under the umbrella of an ideologicaldisagreement are issues of competence
or compliance - skill issues, right?
[laughter] You're saying itso much nicer than I want to.
[laughter] The problem with categorizingissues of competence or compliance
(52:50):
as issues of disagreement over policyis that it shortchanges everyone.
Those issues should concern you,especially if you agree with the policies
being put forward - because the issuesof competence and skill directly impact
whether the policy that you're in favor ofgets implemented successfully and provides
(53:16):
the benefits that you believe they willand that they're sold as providing.
So even with things like police hiring- now, certainly there are disagreements
over whether we should be hiring morepolice or not, whether we should instead
be using and investing some of that moneyinto community violence interruption or
(53:40):
other areas that impact public safetyand the realm of public safety that
aren't necessarily officers, that aredifferent things that work in conjunction
with police to make a safer community.
But there are certainly a number of peoplewho feel like more police are necessary.
They've made commitmentsto hire new police.
(54:01):
And we've heard for the past three years,from both Sara Nelson and Mayor Bruce
Harrell - Hey, we want to hire morepolice, we commit to hire more police.
And as has been making the rounds in anumber of different formats, satirical
and otherwise - last year, after spendingmillions upon millions of dollars,
(54:21):
all of that effort to hire resulted inone, literally one, net new officer.
Doesn't seem very efficient.
Doesn't seem like they're deliveringon their promises, or that the policies
that they passed are delivering thebenefits that they were sold as doing.
But what was frustrating for me andmany other people who were watching
(54:44):
that entire process unfold from thebeginning was that there were issues of
competence and compliance and skill thatmade it obvious that they were going to
have problems hiring people, achievingtheir stated goals, and delivering
results with what they said they weredoing - because they did not go about the
(55:07):
crafting of that legislation, investingin the types of things that have shown
to be successful in hiring officers.
Or they didn't address issuesthat have shown to be a hindrance
to hiring officers - that werepoisoning and damaging the culture.
There were several things that theyjust didn't listen to directly from
(55:32):
officers on SPD, from public safetyexperts, from people in the community.
Some of the basic stakeholderingthat councilmembers, public servants
need to do in order to craft solidlegislation, to hear from people impacted
from the police department to thecommunity, and hearing, understanding,
(55:55):
and responding to the challengesthat they are presenting you with.
So even if you wanted to see morepolice officers hired - the people
who were voting for that, the peoplewho were crafting that policy did not
craft it skillfully or compliantly.
(56:15):
And that has harmed their abilityto hire more officers - to do
what they said they would do.
And the challenge is, thenyou hear everything but
themselves get blamed for that.
When all along people were callingout - Hey, this isn't going to work.
(56:36):
But if you just say - Well, they just sayit's not going to work because they're
haters, or they just say it's not goingto work because they disagree - you're
really shooting your own self in the footif you are a proponent of that policy.
Because you're not hearing the reasonwhy - hey, even if you want that to
happen, here are the problems with it.
(56:57):
If you wanted that to happen andyou wanted to succeed, this is
what you would do differently.
This is what the law says you need to do.
This is what other people who havedone that successfully have done.
But that kind of advice, reason - we'veseen so many times where the experts
hired, subject matter experts, peoplewith lived experience, people impacted
(57:19):
by these policies are frequently not eveninvited to be part of the conversation.
But the feedback that theyprovide is not listened to - it's
disputed, it's discounted,it's just not treated as valid.
And somehow, their intuition andcircle of friends and donors - they
(57:44):
feel do have all that knowledge andexpertise, and that's all that they
need in order to pass this policy.
And it just does not turn out thatway - that's not how it works.
And so in the news this week, again,is news that the Port of Seattle is
taking the City of Seattle to court overthe recently passed legislation by the
(58:05):
Council, which will allow housing to bebuilt in the SODO area, in an industrial
area, which the Port and other industrialadvocates have vigorously opposed.
And there were some steps that werepointed out that appear to have
been - potentially look like theywere skipped, like environmental
(58:28):
reviews and other reviews.
That may come back to bite them ifthat legislation gets overturned.
So again, even if you agree withthat - the lack of compliance and
competence and the crafting of thatlegislation is what's going to torpedo it.
And I wish we would pay more attentionto that, because when we just let that
(58:50):
slide, because - Hey, we agree with it.
So whatever they can do to get it through,without paying attention to the detail
necessary to set it up for success andimplementation - we're just allowing
everyone and everything to fail up.
We're spending good money after bad.
And here we wind up, three yearslater - after all of these initiatives
(59:14):
and hundreds of millions of dollarsspent, with very little to show for it.
And so then we wind up with things likeperformative, toothless resolutions
- saying "Defund is bad." And really, ifyou look on the record, this is probably
the fourth time that Council has madea big deal in the past few years of
(59:37):
saying "Defund is bad" for the media.
And it would be nice if they actually hadmore substantive things to show, which I
think would happen if we all had more ofa focus on the competence and compliance
aspects of legislating and governing.
(59:59):
So that's me on my soapbox - andgetting off - but it's really
missing in this conversation.
And both nationally and locally, we keepwanting to do this horse race thing - and
this is how it impacts this elected, andthis is how it impacts the other elected,
and their chances for getting elected.
But the actual job ofgoverning is an important one.
(01:00:20):
It requires oversight.
There are people who are good at it.
There are laws and rules thatmust be followed when you do it.
And when you don't do it - when you don'tfollow those rules, when you don't adhere
to the law, when you don't do the basicthing that any organization needs to
(01:00:40):
do to set itself up for success, thereare bad consequences for everybody.
So, especially if you agree withthis Council, if you are a super
strong supporter of this Councilmajority, you should really be
a super strong supporter of them
making sure that the competence andcompliance issues are addressed.
(01:01:05):
Yeah.
We've got a lot of councilmembers doingbluster and not a lot of the real thing.
Absolutely.
What has also passed a lot of people'snotice is what looks to me to be
an unprecedented amount of formerSeattle City councilmembers who have
(01:01:26):
stated on the record - in public - howwhat this current Council is doing
is problematic in ways that addressthe competence and compliance.
Oftentimes, you don't see formerelecteds get super involved in
policy debates unless they'redirectly working on something.
(01:01:47):
But it certainly has been notable tome how many former Seattle City Council
electeds - from the past 30 years - havestated online how troubling they view some
of the actions of this current Councilwhen it does come to the compliance
(01:02:08):
and competence aspects of the job.
And with that, we thank you forlistening to Hacks & Wonks on
this Friday, April 11th, 2025.
The producer of Hacks & Wonksis Shannon Cheng.
Our insightful co-host today was PulitzerPrize-winning journalist and founder
and editor of The Needling, Lex Vaughn.
(01:02:28):
You can find Lex on Bluesky at@lex.vaughn.theneedling.com.
You can follow Hacks & Wonkson Bluesky at @HacksAndWonks.
You can find me on Bluesky at@finchfrii - that's F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I.
You can catch the podcast on ApplePodcasts, Spotify, or wherever you
get your podcasts - just type "Hacksand Wonks" into the search bar.
(01:02:51):
Be sure to subscribe to getthe full versions of our Friday
week-in-review and Tuesday topicalshow delivered to your podcast feed.
If you like us, please leavea review - it is very helpful.
You can also get a full transcriptof this episode and links to the
resources referenced in the showat OfficialHacksAndWonks.com.
Thanks for tuningin - talk to you next time.
Popular Podcasts
Boysober
Have you ever wondered what life might be like if you stopped worrying about being wanted, and focused on understanding what you actually want? That was the question Hope Woodard asked herself after a string of situationships inspired her to take a break from sex and dating. She went "boysober," a personal concept that sparked a global movement among women looking to prioritize themselves over men. Now, Hope is looking to expand the ways we explore our relationship to relationships. Taking a bold, unfiltered look into modern love, romance, and self-discovery, Boysober will dive into messy stories about dating, sex, love, friendship, and breaking generational patterns—all with humor, vulnerability, and a fresh perspective.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com