Minutes of the Meeting of the Invitation Panel of the Seattle City Council's Accountability Review Committee

5:39 PM - Called to Order

The panel briefly reviewed the minutes of the April 10th meeting, and Alec Fisken summarized the events of that meeting. Panelists made the following requests based upon that information:

• That private investigator Dick Clever's report be made available to them as soon as it is prepared
• Regarding the ministers' letter that all panels recently received, that panelists choose specific points to address as a panel and convey their responses on those points to Councilmember Jim Compton

Agenda

Rachel Ben-Shmuel suggested that the panel discuss its agenda for the meeting. Panelists decided to hear a report from staff, then discuss their interview schedule and the possible organization of their report.

Staff Report

Alec Fisken reported on the results of two interviews, one with Kathy Paxton of the Convention and Visitors' Bureau and one with Steve Johnson, formerly of the Office of Intergovernmental Relations. Staff agreed to summarize or transcribe the results of these interviews for the panel's next meeting. Documents that Kathy Paxton had provided were distributed to the panel and the public.

The panel noted a discrepancy between what Steve Johnson and Pat Davis said in their respective interviews regarding whether or not the SHO had promised to pick up all of the costs for the WTO.

Panel report Structure

Rachel Ben-Shmuel proposed that the report structure be as follows:

Section One: A narrative, chronology or timeline of the bid and budget planning process, including costs, assumptions, city and SHO budgets, and the various bid letters and who signed them. David Okimoto suggested that a "general background" section be created to begin the report, and Rachel Ben-Shmuel proposed that this section describe the panel's mission.

Panelists requested that staff create two chronologies, one of the budget process and one of the bid process, and determine whether it is possible to merge them into one coherent timeline that will work as part of a report.

Councilmember Drago told panelists that part of their mission is to examine the budget process, as neither of the other panels is investigating it. She stressed the importance of looking only at the numbers and how they were determined, and avoiding judgments about how the money was used in the planning process.

Section Two: Issues that arose from the examination of the information in Section One. David Okimoto stressed the importance of not being too negative in this section - to focus on issues raised, not on criticisms. He also suggested that the panel wait to begin this section until they had a grasp on the information presented in Section One. Kirsten Evans requested that the panel provide staff with an overview of what issues they considered to be important, as that information would help staff compose the timelines in the first section.

The following issues were proposed for possible study:

• Why was there no process, either on the part of the city or the WTO, for bidding on the conference? What should the process have been?
• Whose idea was it originally to invite the WTO to Seattle?
• Who gave Pat Davis and/or the Washington Council on International Trade the authority to issue the invitation?
• What financial commitment did the SHO and its members make, and when?

Section Three: Policy recommendations to the City Council.

As part of this section, the panelists decided to look into the issue of whether the city can recoup losses from individuals who commit to events in the city's name. Rachel Ben-Shmuel reminded that panel of the importance of not being too detailed or restrictive in the recommendations.

Interviews

The panel discussed whom they needed to interview, and decided upon the following individuals:

• Mayor Paul Schell
• Deputy Mayor Maud Daudon
• Either Governor Gary Locke or someone from his office (Alec Fisken reported that staff has been attempting to contact Locke and has been unsuccessful)
• Bill Gates or Kimberly Ellwanger, former general counsel for Microsoft (the panel did not expect either of these two individuals to be available, and asked staff to send a letter to Gates requesting that he either appear before the panel or provide the panel with information)

Alec Fisken requested that panel members, not staff, conduct the interview with Mayor Schell and Deputy Mayor Daudon. The panelists agreed and asked that Schell and Daudon be interviewed together if possible.

The panelists discussed their schedule for the next two months and decided to schedule meetings for May 22nd and June 5th, with more to be scheduled if necessary. The next meeting was scheduled for May 8th at 5:30 PM in Council Chambers and the meeting was opened up to public comments.

Public Comment

Member of the public Joyce Glasgow requested that the panel interview Bill Gates, and inquired as to why panelists seemed reluctant to do this. Rachel Ben-Shmuel replied that the logistics are difficult and the chances of Gates consenting to an interview are remote. The panel agreed to send a letter to Gates requesting any information he might have. Ms. Glasgow then asked the panelists to explain what the previously mentioned "missing SPD tapes" were. The panel did so, explaining that the item in question is a tape of the 1998 Geneva riots that was given to the police department in May 1999 and subsequently misplaced.

Ms. Glasgow also suggested that the panel interview Mayor Paul Schell, Governor Gary Locke, Boeing CEO Phil Condit, and City Attorney Mark Sidran, and that the public be notified of these interviews. She further requested that the panel look into who composed the board of the Washington Council on International Trade at the time of the WTO bid, and who had authority over Pat Davis.

Other members of the public also requested that the panel's interviews be made public, and encouraged the panel to take as much time and effort as necessary to complete their report.

7:10 PM Meeting adjourned

5:38 PM - Called to Order

Agenda

Panel members discussed the meeting agenda. It was decided that the meeting would focus on a progress report from staff, discussion of the budget timeline composed by Alec Fisken, and the logistical considerations involved in beginning to draft the panel report.

Staff Report

Private investigator Dick Clever gave the panel an update on his work, which has focused on determining what the other candidates for the WTO host city experienced during the bid process and why Seattle was selected. He agreed to provide the panelists with copies of his report as soon as it is available. The essential points of his report were as follows:

• Honolulu, not Seattle, was the unanimous choice of all members of the site selection committee, due to its island location, well-designed convention facilities, and the incentives it offered to delegates (such as free travel to the city). Seattle was ultimately chosen because of its businesslike atmosphere, proximity to Asia, Europe and the U.S. East Coast, and reputation of being a place where the "old economy" and "new economy" mix.
• Honolulu's proposed budget was $5 million, and the governor and mayor there both reviewed the bid before it was sent to the committee.
• Seattle's experience with APEC did not impress the selection committee, due to the fact that private sector funding for that event did not meet expectations.
• San Diego was never really a strong competitor.
• Dallas was not chosen because there was a great deal of construction taking place near its convention facilities.
• All of the "1st tier" cities - New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, etc. - were booked. If any of them had been available, Seattle would not have been a contender.
• Neither Honolulu nor San Diego had had any expectation of receiving federal funding or reimbursement for WTO costs.

The panel asked Mr. Clever to ask these cities whether they had any formal policies or criteria for choosing conventions.

Alec Fisken gave a report on a discrepancy that staff had discovered between Cliff Traisman's interview statements and internal police correspondence on the subject of the Seattle Police Department sharing SHO funds with allied agencies.

Panelists discussed the budget timeline developed by Alec Fisken. Panelists requested that an updated copy of the timeline be provided, and that the revised document include an itemized breakdown of costs by jurisdiction.

Panelists reviewed the panel's progress on answering the questions posed in the March 7th meeting, and requested that staff follow up on several issues:

• Interview Kathy Paxton about her knowledge of the initial bid letter
• Request State Department documents
• Determine who was a member of the Seattle Host Organization at the time of the invitation (the panel expected this information to be discovered through interviews).
• Request documents from the Port of Seattle and the Convention Center
• Research what Mayor Schell said publicly about the WTO when Seattle's selection was announced, and locate his recent statements on turning down the Asian Development Bank.

Rachel Ben-Schmuel reminded the panel of the importance of not allowing themselves to be distracted by minutiae, and keeping their eye on the usefulness of their report for crafting long-term policy.

Interviews

Panel members discussed their interview schedule. The following list of possible interviewees was proposed:

• To be interviewed by Dick Clever:
• U.S. Ambassador Rita Hayes
• To be interviewed by Alec Fisken, then by the whole panel if necessary:
• Kathy Paxton
• Governor Gary Locke
• King County Executive Ron Sims
• To be interviewed by the entire panel:
• Seattle Mayor Paul Schell
• Seattle Deputy Mayor Maud Daudon
• Steve Johnson (Office of Intergovernmental Relations)

Member of the public Joyce Glasgow suggested that the panel interview Bill Gates and Phil Condit to determine their roles in the Seattle Host Organization.

Public Comment

Member of the public Joyce Glasgow provided the panel with a video compilation, Showdown in Seattle, created by the Independent Media Center. Bob Rohan accepted the video.

Panelists decided to postpone until the next meeting any discussion of drafting their report.

Bob Rohan requested that Councilmember Jim Compton respond to a letter received by the panels from a group of local religious officials.

Alec Fisken reminded panelists of the WTO Accountability Review Committee meeting on Thursday, April 13 at 2:30 in Council Chambers. He distributed copies of current Seattle Times and Seattle Post-Intelligencer editorials to panelists and the public.

6:56 PM Meeting adjourned

5:45 PM - Called to Order

Panel Business

Members reviewed the meeting notes of the second meeting and requested that staff append copies of the information written on the white board (questions and persons to interview) and mail these out before the next meeting. The meeting notes were otherwise approved as written.

Members and staff also discussed the protocol for conducting interviews. They agreed that all interviews should be taped, and requested that staff provide summaries of the interviews.

There was some discussion of the meeting packet contents. One member commented that the panel may never be able to know for sure what people did or didn't know.

Staff Report

Alec Fisken reported on staff activities since the last meeting. He distributed handout #1, Draft Budget Timeline, which was created by staff. He cautioned panel members and the public that it is in very draft form at this point and undoubtedly includes some errors. Staff are also working on acquiring the specifications or guidelines issued by the State Department to interested cities, the proposals submitted by the 5 semi-finalist cities, and documents related to APEC and processes for other events.

Panelists brainstormed a list of research questions:

1. What did people know of WTO 1998 riots at the time of the bid?
2. If knew, should WTO have been invited?
3. What did WCIT mean by "promise to pay"?
• Who was promising?
• Was $1.5m [intended to cover] all the security costs?
• What was the total estimate? How did it change?
4. What was the understanding in the White House? [about financing]
5. How did assumptions change about who would pay what costs?
6. At what point did it become clear that there wasn't enough money?
7. Where did the WA delegation get the amount of $5 m for reimbursement?
8. What were the methodologies of budget development for both SHO and the City?
9. When did the City commit its resources?
10. What was the nature of City planning and commitments, including different levels of commitment?
11. Were there any other proposals from Seattle, preliminary or otherwise [preceding the Dec. 16 letter from Pat Davis/Kathy Paxton to John Dieffenderfer]
12. What private commitments were made? (Funding? Fundraising? Other?)
13. Who was on the "Committee" referenced in the Dec. 1998 'final proposal'?

Other comments made included:

• The timeline should include any comments about promises and commitments as a quote, and also references to promises to pay (for the event)
• To what extent was it clear that the City would provide security?
• Staff should break the questions into categories.
• Who from the City was responsible for budgeting?

In response to panelists' questions and comments, staff offered to provide the following information:

• A report for the committee, organized by the list of questions and providing the best available information and a summary of documents currently in the possession of the WTO ARC.
• Any Council resolutions that may have been passed authorizing an increase in budget authority for anticipated WTO-related expenses.

Public Comment

The panel invited members of the public to comment in the remaining time:

• Joyce Glasgow – urged the panel to investigate what promises were made.
• Mark Taylor, Capitol Hill Community Council – expressed the desire of his organization to keep in touch and for the City Council's web page to be more informative.
• Paul Richmond, National Lawyers' Guild – requested the creation of an email list so people can be informed of meeting changes. Also expressed concern about the panel possibly limiting its document search.

7:00 PM Meeting Adjourned

(ITEMS ON WHITE BOARD FROM 3/6 MEETING)

Questions/Documents

1. Was anyone from SHO/Port in Geneva in May 1998, for or during WTO [riots]?
2. Was anyone in the City, WCIT, and/or Port of Seattle aware of the events around the May 1998 Geneva WTO meeting?
3. Who was a member of WCIT at the time of the invitation? Who is WCIT?
4. Should anyone in the City have been aware? What was the print media coverage in periodicals most likely to have been read, e.g. NY Times, Time, Newsweek, Economist, Washington Post? Ask the Port what they subscribe to.
5. Obtain internal documents related to WTO/Geneva and recommendations. Any documents from the Geneva Police, particularly dating before the invitation? What is the relative size of SPD compared to the Geneva police? Get the video given to SHO and then SPD.
6. Obtain documents from all interviewees [below], including State Department.
7. Get pre- and post-WTO budget documents especially from SPU/SCL, also Police, Fire, CBO, Seatran, OIR, Mayor's Office
8. Who was in SHO at the time of the invitation and what was their role?
9. Request documents from: Port of Seattle, Convention Center, WCIT, Dept. of State, USTR, SHO.

Interviews

**Ask all for documents from time prior to invitation.

Pat Davis or full time staff person from WCIT (group interview)
Cliff Traisman/OIR, chaired city committee (group interview)
Kathy Paxton (staff interview before next meeting – tell panel members where & when)
Don Lorenz (staff interview before next meeting – tell panel members where & when)
Ambassador Rita Hayes, and submit a FOIA for her documents
Ray Waldmann
Mayor Schell, Deputy Mayor Maud Daudon
Keith Orton/OIR
Steve Johnson/OIR
Doug Carey (CBO-Public Safety)
Matt Hogan (SHO/Venues chair & Weyerhauser)

The meeting was called to order by Chair Bob Rohan at 5:40 pm. Panel members were introduced, as well as new staff members Carol Shenk and Chris Neman.

Judith Pippin, the Seattle City Clerk, addressed the panel on the subject of public disclosure. She pointed out that all documents or electronic information generated as part of the panel's work is subject to disclosure, and noted that e-mail to and from panelists is already the subject of a disclosure request.

She also said that it may be useful for panelists to save relevant e-mail in a separate folder, or print it out and save it in that form in order to be able to respond to future requests efficiently.

Alec Fisken reported that more documents had been received from various sources, including material from the Office of Intergovernmental Relations.

Kirsten Evans summarized an interview with Ray Waldmann. Waldmann, who was director of the Seattle Host Organization, is scheduled to leave on a trip to Asia shortly, but agreed to a brief interview before his departure (he'll be back in two weeks). He noted in the interview that the fundraising efforts of the Seattle Host Organization had been curtailed by restrictions imposed by the U.S. Trade Representative and the State Department. He said that some of those restrictions were subsequently lifted following intervention from the White House, but that they did cut into the total amount raised. He noted that the system of funding governmental meetings through private fundraising presents inherent conflicts and is inappropriate.

He said that his organization had not had any involvement in the security planning for the event, since that was entirely the responsibility of the city.

Panel members discussed other aspects of the budget history for the event including the federal government support that was required at the end of the planning process to fund transportation, metal detectors and part of the build-out of the convention center.

Panel members also discussed the issue of holding an event of this type during the holiday season and asked whether the disadvantages of that had been considered during the invitation period.

Several questions were referred to staff for further research, including whether anyone from the port or SHO was in Geneva during the May 1998 meetings; whether port or other officials might have read accounts of the disturbances that accompanied those meetings; and what information might be available on the size and nature of those civil disturbances.

In connection with the issues noted above, panel members requested membership and other information on the Washington Council on International Trade and the Seattle Host Organization. Additional documents were requested from the Port of Seattle, the Convention and Visitors Bureau, the Dept. of State and the United States Trade Representative.

The panel also developed a list of individuals for the staff to interview, and identified two individuals – Pat Davis and Cliff Traisman – who may be interviewed by the panel.

Additional budget documentation from all relevant city departments was also requested, as well as documentation related to the $5 million sum appropriated for the Dept. of State, part of which the City of Seattle has requested as reimbursement for costs incurred.

Introduction

The panel members briefly described their backgrounds and the staff and observers introduced themselves.

Councilmember Compton described the work the WTO Accountability Committee has done over the last six weeks to evaluate investigations in other cities (i.e., Warren Commission, APEC) and define the scope of the WTO Accountability Review. He clarified that the goal of the Review is to create a factual record from which Council will finalize the lessons learned and policy recommendations, if any. In response to panel members' questions, Councilmembers Drago and Compton explained:

• The panels may interview whomever they see fit and should not be concerned if the same individual is interviewed by more than one panel.
• Panel members may opt to personally interview whomever they want, with or without staff accompanying them. If staff attend the interview, the interview will be taped and become part of the public record. The interviewee will not be under oath.
• The information packet the panel received in anticipation of this meeting includes only documents that were voluntarily sent to the WTO Accountability Review Committee. Staff are currently tracking down and requesting additional documents.

Chair

Councilmember Drago expressed her desire to have the panel members select a chair. The chair will be responsible for facilitating meetings and checking in with Alec Fisken and her. No action was taken.

Schedule

The Panel reviewed the schedule of meetings. April 24th may need to be rescheduled as it is the day after Easter. Bob Rohan must leave by 7:15 pm on the second Monday of the month, which affects meetings scheduled for April 10th and May 8th. Rachel Ben-Shmuel will be out of the country May 9th. James Kelley will be out of town the week of May (?) 3rd.

Access to Meetings

The panel decided that the meetings will be open to the press and public but reserves the option to hold closed executive sessions.

Scope of Panel Review

The panel reviewed the item in their packet outlining the scope of the panel's work and discussed the two parts of the scope: the invitation process and the evolution of financing arrangements.

Alec Fisken distributed handout #1 – World Trade Organization – Seattle Ministerial: Timeline of Events Leading to the Conference. The information in the handout was taken from documents and news articles in the possession of the committee.

In the course of the discussion, panel members raised the following questions and areas as possible avenues of study:

• What were the funding arrangements prior to the time the City committed itself?
• Who has the legal authority to invite the WTO? What is the official process?
• At one point, the City signed on to host the WTO – when was that? What did the City do to promote this? What were the budget assumptions?
• What did City officials know about what happened at other WTO meetings? With whom did they share that information?
• Did anyone in City see a video of the WTO in Geneva before the decision was made?
• We need to figure out the relationship between people and organizations such as City, SHO, Port
• We need to develop a good factual basis of what happened through March 1999, and in particular, to flesh out what happened between May 1998 and November 1998. During the latter time period, a decision was made.
• We should focus most on police budget.

Councilmember Drago pointed out that there are some inconsistencies among the documents in the packet sent to the panel members, for example:

• The 12/8/99 memo from Keith Orton (OIR) to Gina Santo Domingo describes a meeting held "last May," which she believes occurred in May 1998. Furthermore, the document mentions local officials that met with advance teams; her name is included but she says she was not present at these meetings.
• Schell Mail #51, dated 12/12/1999 states, "In 1997, a Port of Seattle delegation attended an international tourism conference in Geneva…." Councilmember Drago believes this occurred in 1998.

Status of Document Gathering

Alec Fisken explained that the documents included in the packet are documents that were voluntarily sent to the WTO Accountability Review. Staff have requested and are requesting documents from Seattle Police Department and others. Fisken told panel members that they are welcome to call him to request any document and staff will do their best to acquire it, however if the document(s) represent a new research direction, he requests that the whole panel make a decision.

Panel members requested:

• Adding citations for each item on the timeline
• Budget documents prepared as part of the planning process.
• Any coverage of WTO in Geneva in local papers, prominent national papers (e.g. NY Times, Washington Post) and/or magazines (e.g. Economist).

Staff agreed to:

• Send existing budget documents to the committee before next week's meeting.
• Create a separate budget timeline illustrating who made what assumptions when.

Preparation for Next Meeting

Panel members should prepare to create the following lists at the next meeting:

• List of "production of documents" – what documents the panel would like to see
• List of "interrogatories" – questions to ask people and organizations
• List of any additional questions the panel should investigate (in addition to those outlined in the packet)