The attendees briefly introduced themselves and reviewed the agenda. Panel members agreed to try to end the meeting by 7:30 PM
to accommodate members' participation in caucuses. The chair proposed three additional discussion topics, public involvement,
potentially competing interests, and job assignments.
Judith Pippin, City Clerk, described the city's public disclosure requirements and how they impact panel members, who are
considered "agents of the city" while serving on this panel. She offered to prepare a set of written guidelines for inclusion
in the next meeting packet.
Panel members discussed e-mail protocols in light of the guidelines proposed by the City Clerk, and agreed to distinguish all
panel-related e-mail from their personal and/or business e-mail by putting "WTO Panel 2" in the subject line. This will facilitate
sorting panel-related e-mail into a separate folder.
Panel members held a lengthy discussion of public involvement. Concerns and suggestions aired by panel members included:
A member of the public, Joyce Glasgow, offered input on how nice it was to be able to add a comment or ask a question at other panel meetings she attended.
Some members of the panel said that they are involved in WTO follow-up as part of their jobs or other activities outside the panel. After some discussion,
panel members decided that each member will need to use their best judgement.
Staff Director Alec Fisken introduced the staff, and described the work the staff have done to date in acquiring documents and developing a filing and
cataloguing system. He requested the panel's input into what the staff workplan should be as the information-gathering process moves forward. At panel
members' request, he related several different perspectives that have been mentioned to staff:
Fisken proposed that the panel begin with the Mayor's explanation, that the number of protestors was unexpected and overwhelmed their preparations, as a
starting point, saying that staff could collect all available information supporting or contradicting that explanation.
A discussion ensued. Panel members requested that staff enumerate all the theories they have heard. Some members requested that staff indicate the source
of each theory, as they are interested to know who supports which theory. After some discussion, staff agreed to send all the theories they have heard and
identify the sources wherever possible. Panel members agreed that staff should begin with the Mayor's explanation. Other comments in the course of the
discussion included:
- One member expressed frustration that staff appeared reluctant to identify the sources of all the theories they have collected, and general frustration
at the perceived slow pace of staff's progress in cataloguing the documents.
- Information sent to the panel should be concise since their other commitments leave them little time.
- The process of cataloguing documents must be accelerated, and more staff should be hired to do this.
- The panel must have all the information they request before the next meeting.
- Panel members also requested that staff give a short briefing at the beginning of each meeting.
In response to panel members' requests, staff agreed to send the following documents to the panel:
- Copies of Mayor Schell's Schell Mail (broadcast subscription e-mail) sent immediately after the WTO events.
- Statements made by prominent local leaders following the events, including:
- SPD - Chief Stamper's comments at the press conference
- Sen. Slade Gorton's letter
- Sheriff Reichert
- Seattle Host Organization's summary
- An updated timeline of events, e-mailed every Friday starting 3/17/00.
- Copy of document index
- Copies of the SHO steering committee list provided by KCLC
- Results of research into the numbers of protestors expected and actual (Mayor's explanation)
- City Clerk's public disclosure guidelines
Councilmember Licata and Fisken invited members to stop by and visit the staff offices and/or review documents in the possession of the committee at any time.
Public Comment
Joyce Glasgow encouraged the panel to work on exploring facts, not hunting theories, and said that the panel should deduce based on the facts.
7:40 PM Meeting Adjourned
March 22, 2000
| Chaired by: |
Carl Livingston |
5:40 PM Meeting called to order
Introductions & Meeting Overview
Panelists and members of the public introduced themselves. The panel reviewed the agenda (handout #1) and agreed to hold the public comment period at the
end of the meeting.
Reports
Alec Fisken reported on the progress made by staff since the last meeting. Kirsten Evans described the 10-day intensive document cataloguing effort she is
organizing, slated to start Friday March 24. She is hiring 5 Library & Information Sciences students and graduate to spend approximately 64 hours cataloguing
documents. This should get the bulk of the estimated 4,000-5,000 documents entered into the database. One panel member pointed out for the record that frustration
with the slow pace of cataloguing documents expressed at the previous meeting was at the panel having been convened before the cataloguing was finished.
Fisken briefed the panel on the documents staff have obtained since the last meeting, focusing on the Odenthal report which was mailed to panel members. One member
commented that the report raises more questions than it answered. The panel brainstormed a number of questions:
- What version of the SPD Ops plan did the police actually use? Is this the same version that staff will mail out?
- If Odenthal saw gaps, did he tell SPD? When and by who was he contracted? When did he become an observer? What was his role [during WTO week]?
- Did Odenthal communicate with SPD before releasing his report? Why not?
- What training did King Co. police get and how did it compare to SPD?
- Would the City have had to pay for assistance from other agencies? What were the budgetary arrangements with other jurisdictions and how did they develop?
What were budgetary implications of making arrangements [for mutual aid] ahead of time?
- How did not having the budget set affect planning? (How did the lack of concrete budget arrangements affect planning?)
- Did the Seattle Host Committee have any professionals to assist in planning? (They were volunteering their time.)
- Who went to Geneva (from the SHO)? (get a list)
- Compare SPD training (esp. in crowd management) to other cities who have hosted events.
Norma Kelsey relayed comments sent by Beth Wojick encouraging the committee to design a list of common questions to ask all people interviewed.
Fisken mentioned that he will be meeting with a representative of the Secret Service Monday morning who is very wary of speaking. One panel member expressed
a desire to know about interviews in advance and to be part of directing that process. The member expressed a desire to have the Secret Service representative
come to the panel's meeting, and also to have all interviews transcribed or taped. Fisken explained that all interviews would be taped. Councilmember Licata
suggested the panel consider a system holding smaller exploratory interviews first followed by a meeting with the larger group.
Old Business
The chair, Carl Livingston, reported back to the panel on the WTO Accountability Review Committee meeting. Representatives from each panel participated.
Councilmember Licata explained that he had suggested that representatives or chairs from each panel should meet periodically to coordinate and keep abreast
of each panel's activities and how they are using staff. He suggested they use Alec's office for meetings. Livingston also reported on his meeting with Alec and
visit to the staff offices. He and Fisken both encouraged panel members to visit and make use of the office. One member asked whether the fact that the panel is
behind was raised at the ARC meeting. Fisken mentioned that he has sent a memo around to the ARC Councilmembers advising them of this.
Councilmember Licata raised some questions about the WTO ARC website. Fisken mentioned that the schedule was due to have been posted today. CM Licata asked Patricia
Lee (Council Central Staff) to focus on how to make the website useful. The committee voted 6-0 to post the meeting notes on the website.
Several members of the public wanted to make comments. Panel members encouraged the public to hold their comments until the end, and to send a written note to the
chair if the person has urgent information. Joyce Glasgow was given an opportunity to speak and expressed her concern about members of the public being able to comment
when the idea is fresh. One member recommended that staff prepare comment forms and to have a stack available at the meetings, and to also circulate a sign-in sheet. A
sheet was then circulated. Panel members and members of the panel emphasized that Alec Fisken's phone number should be posted on the web so people know who to call with
the latest, correct information. The panel then entertained various comments from the public regarding the website and difficulties caused by unannounced or poorly
publicized schedule changes. Fisken offered to mail a new meeting schedule, with the date and "DRAFT" noted upon it, and also to bring extra copies to the next meeting.
New Business
The chair facilitated a discussion of the post-WTO statements made by local officials and others (a summary of statements had been prepared by staff and included in the meeting packet).
Items recorded on the white board:
- Mayor - "(protests) overblown," "did not anticipate sheer volume vehemently committed to civil disobedience," "if blaming, blame me."
- Reichert - "argued in strategy sessions that the police needed a stronger, more visible presence."
- Odenthal - "SPD command ignored intelligence reports," the "department had essentially no riot control experience."
- Joiner - "I badly underestimated the intensity and size of the anti-WTO movement" "I was hopeful the cooperative approach [would prevent what happened]"
- Ron Judd (King Co. Labor) - "We told the City…[we warned them of violent groups]. [We told a number of mass demonstrations, we expected arrest, warned of violence.}
- Stamper - "Did not have the resources to handcuff people & drag them away" "If blaming, blame me"
- SPD officer Brent Smith - "There was no doubt in my mind that we were under-prepared" "the Mayor berated officers"
- Slade Gorton - "The City did not give [officers] the support you needed." [Too accommodating of protesters]
- FBI Thomas Pickard - "When [riots discussed], City said we'll never get to that point."
- Steve Johnson, OIR
- Raymond Waldmann
Other statements we may want:
- Ron Sims
- Direct Action Network
- National Lawyers' Guild
- People for Fair Trade
- Laurie Johnson
- Ruckus Society
- Governor's Office
- Ray Waldmann
Other comments made during this discussion included:
- One member expressed a concern about editing each other's input and encouraged members to cast their net broadly at this stage.
- We should keep an eye on the time at which comments were made.
- For all these comments, we need to outline the individuals, timing, organization or sector they represent, and evaluate whether there is consistency within the sectors.
- There was some discussion of Steve Johnson of OIR. Fisken pointed out that Johnson reported to Traisman. One member felt that if Traisman knew what Johnson wrote (in an
e-mail to Jeanne Bumpus), he had a duty to report it to the Mayor.
- We need to focus on the triumvirate of Joiner, Traisman, Daudon
- We need to create a schematic of information flows, particularly to/from the Mayor's Office and OIR.
Staff agreed to:
- Create a matrix or table of the statements. Staff will summarize the statements as long as panel members will let staff know immediately if members feel that staff is inaccurately summarizing the statements.
- Create a graphic showing flow of information to/from the Mayor's Office, OIR, SPD.
7:35 Public Comment
Each member of the public was given an opportunity to speak. Comments are summarized below (contact information available from staff):
Monica Roland/The Rockey Company - Said she spoke with Odenthal by phone. He said he never had any intention of it becoming so public, and that he is negotiating a publishing agreement.
Paul Richmond/National Lawyers' Guild - Drew panel's attention to the Nov. 9 Operations Plan, redacted version, page 10, paragraph relating to reporting to the EOC. He also pointed out portions of p. 3 relating to
responsibility for security being shared, and p. 9 regarding the FBI. He encouraged the panel to look at the FBI's role, and to interview Jim Pugel of SPD.
Robert Hill - Wants Council to de- or un-ratify the Mayor's declaration of emergency. Wants telephone, email addresses of panel members to stay in touch. Believes the bottom line is about money. Was concerned
about whether materials for today's meetings will be in Clerk's binders.
Mark Taylor-Canfield/Capitol Hill -- Thinks the Capitol Hill Council should be included. The Capitol Hill Council wants to hold a forum, has 400 members. Believes the bottom line is about planning - wants
to know who made these decisions, not just how much money was spent.
More concerns were raised about inaccurate information regarding the panel and WTO ARC meetings. The chair recommended members of the public call Alec.
Joyce Glasgow/Small business owner - Suggested possible interviewees: Mark Sidran, Charlene Barshevsky, Clinton's office, Secret Service, Mike Dolan and Ralph Nader from Public Citizen and maybe another woman -
possibly Laurie Wallach, Jerry Mander and Victor Menotti of the International Forum in San Francisco, Independent Media Center.
A panel member requested a 15-minute meeting with the Independent Media Center.
Dale Hodges/Art & Revolution - The Wheat Association holds these meetings every 2 years and there are always riots. Suggested the panel add Pat Davis, Direct Action Network to the list. Mentioned that Clinton
was due to speak at the opening ceremonies. An SPD Lieutenant, Reed?, was at all the SHO meetings.
Other members of the public who attended the meeting: Stewart Wechsler, Malcolm Taran, Michael Andrew, Susan Cook.
8:30 PM Meeting Adjourned
April 4, 2000
| Present: |
Dr. Carl Livingston, Norma Kelsey, Beth Wojick, Kay Godefroy, Angela Toussaint, Councilmember Nick Licata |
| Staff: |
Alec Fisken, Kirsten Evans, Cynthia Burress, Lisa Herbold |
5:45 PM Introductions
Staff Report
Alec Fisken described the meeting handouts, which included the Seattle Police Department's After Action Report, released earlier in the day. At the panel's request, he gave a synopsis of the report and there was a
brief discussion of the possible role of money in arranging for mutual aid.
Kirsten Evans gave a progress report on document processing. With the assistance of five additional catalogers over the last 10 days, staff have entered approximately 2,500 documents (of varying lengths) into the
database. Panelists and the public will be able to search the document database via the Web in the next week or so.
Video Presentation
Panelists watched the video of Assistant Chief Ed Joiner, made to show to SPD officers following the WTO events.
In the ensuing discussion, panel members' comments included:
- The panel should look at the intelligence ordinance.
- Organizations [planning protests] held public meetings, so it shouldn't have been a problem for SPD to gather information.
- It would be helpful to have a combined timeline of events drawing from the Odenthal report, the Seattle Times' chronology, and the SPD After Action Report.
- We need a deployment timeline - it was [one panelist's] impression that SPD deployed later than the protesters.
- We need to focus on the time leading up to the WTO week, not the week itself.
- Did the police have information on the following topics, and did they use it in planning?
- Worst case (what was it)
- # of protesters
- protesters' tactics
- We should also look at what "prepared" means/meant?
- The fact that groups were out before police shows that they didn't plan well.
- When the WTO was in Singapore & Geneva, the government paid for everything. In the US there was so much competition to host the WTO, the mindset became complete boosterism.
- We should look at the issue of the responsibility of the host city in hosting a controversial conference to have a forum for people who disagree.
- We should look at the impact of SHO using volunteers to plan this event.
Joyce Glasgow, interested citizen, presented a copy of the "Showdown in Seattle" video compilation produced by the Independent Media Center, to the panel.
Councilmember Licata drew a diagram on the board:
| |
Prepared |
Not Prepared |
| Had Information |
Best Case |
|
| Didn't Have Information |
|
|
This table can be helpful in identifying where the planners were for each aspect, e.g. security planning, # protesters.
The panel then brainstormed a list of characteristics of the 'ideal situation' on the board:
Ideal Situation
- Stores open
- Daily lives not disrupted
- Civil society functions
- Demonstrators can exercise rights
- Delegates get to conference
- All people feel safe
- Clearly defined area [for demonstrations]
- Quick detainment of unlawful rioters.
They also brainstormed the worst case scenario:
Worst-case scenario
- Terrorism threat/action
- Snipers
- Assassinations
- Biological weapons
- Nuclear attack/bomb
- Venue attacked
- Meetings shut down
- Large numbers of violent protestors
Other points made by panelists while brainstorming:
- Staff should schedule someone from the Law Department to give a briefing on the intelligence ordinance
- What happened wasn't a worst-case scenario
- Police needed to protect against major injury and major property damage.
- Look at the flow of information to/from the Mayor's Office
- One organization decided not to have peacekeepers at the demonstrations.
- When rumors of I-5 went around, that was when most people may have started paying attention, including the Mayor.
Comments made by members of the public:
- Police refused to plan for mass arrests
- Businesses on Broadway were warned to close at 6 pm. Police could have quickly detained rioters.
- What was the plan to use CS, pepper spray?
Lisa Herbold drew a matrix (table) on the flipcharts:
| Goals/Objectives |
Did they have information (about threats to each goal) to achieve the goals? |
Did they devote resources based on that information? |
| Protection against fatalities & grievous injuries for all people |
|
|
| Protection against minor injury |
|
|
| Protection against major property damage |
|
|
| "Event" runs - ministerial and protests |
|
|
| Protection against minor property damage |
|
|
Additional Comments:
- Add the quote from the SPD After Action Report to the top of the matrix.
- Try to create measurable goals
- Staff should take a crack at this and send it out to the panel for comments
There was a brief discussion of documents possibly being shredded by SPD. The panel requested:
- A list of documents destroyed
- SPD's shredding policy
- Levels of shredding activity over the last several months.
Interviews
Panel members discussed scheduling interviews. The preferred inteviewees, in order of priority, are:
- Ron Judd (KC Labor)
- Richard Odenthal (SPD consultant)
- Steve Johnson (former OIR Federal Relations coordinator)
- Laurie Brown (Mayor's Office)
- Ron Griffin (KCSO Operations Captain)
- Law Department intelligence ordinance briefing (if not for next meeting, schedule it for the following meeting)
Others:
Ray Waldmann (SHO)
Mark Sidran
Fisken mentioned that SPD so far has refused to send anyone of lower rank than Assistant Chief.
The panel requested that the first interview be scheduled during the next meeting, April 11th.
Fisken offered to prepare some draft interview questions for the panel and distribute them by e-mail ahead of time so that panel members may decide what they want to ask. One panel member requested that each
interviewee give a 5 minute statement at the outset giving their perspectives.
Another member requested that there be an easier way to respond to public disclosure requests of e-mails so as to avoid exhausting their personal printers.
Panel members requested that staff fax the PI and Seattle Times articles on the SPD After Action Report the day after the meeting.
Public Comment
Joyce Glasgow -- Recommended moving interviews. Suggested that if the panel was considering paying for Richard Odenthal to fly up to Seattle for an interview, they also remember that Mike Dolan and Ralph Nader
would need to travel from the East Coast. Charlene Barshevsky should be added to the list of potential interviews. Wants to be able to ask questions herself at the interviews.
Another individual - commented that he hasn't heard that police were prepared and are saying they weren't to justify unlawful police activity.
April 11, 2000
| Present: |
Clark Pickett, Carl Livingston, Norma Kelsey, Kay Godefroy, Beth Wojick, Angela Toussant, Councilmember Nick Licata |
| Staff: |
Kirsten Evans, Cynthia Burress, Alec Fisken |
Interview with Laurie Brown, Special Assistant to the Mayor
The panel held its first interview with Laurie Brown, Special Assistant to the Mayor for human resources, labor and administrative oversight. The interview was recorded; a summary follows.
Involvement in advance planning:
She said she was not involved in planning other than to help out by troubleshooting some situations in which her negotiating skills were helpful. Her involvement prior to WTO week included
participating in meetings in late October regarding rental agreements, and participating in discussions about how to communicate WTO-related information to City employees. Maud Daudon was
the lead for WTO preparations. Vivian Phillips was the lead for communications.
Organization of the Mayor's Office:
She described the organization of the Mayor's Office. There are two deputy mayors, Tom Byers (who handles external issues like housing, health and human services) and Maud Daudon (who handles
SPD, SFD, Utilities, internal administration). At the time of the WTO there were five special assistants:
- Arts & Culture
- Housing & Community Development
- Public Safety & Human Rights - Walt Hubbard, Jr.
- Utilities
- Transportation
In response to a question, she said that there was no particular reason why public safety & human rights were combined under one special assistant. That assistant, Walt Hubbard Jr., was not particularly involved in WTO planning.
Involvement before & during WTO Week
Before WTO week, she was involved in the planning for the People's Gala and the labor march, and the issue of whether the labor march would go right up to the Convention Center. She said that SPD and KCSO thought that would be too close.
At the end of October, she began to get concerned about some of the potential activities based on her knowledge of labor. She has had experience with labor actions. She did internet research on her own in late October/early November, and brought some of the documents she found to a meeting Mike Dolan on the
People's Gala and raised concerns about the city's possible sponsorship of any activity with which these groups might be affiliated. Dolan said that the stuff from the websites was from non-sponsors of the People's Gala. She then provided the information to Maud Daudon and Clark Kimerer, and said she believed
the documents were faxed to Ed Joiner. Maud Daudon attended all the meetings she had with labor representatives, but SPD did not.
The goal of the negotiations was to figure out how everyone could be heard and no one would get hurt. It was no secret to anyone that the goal of the groups was to shut down the WTO. She heard that the machinists were being trained as marshals for the labor march.
Lessons Learned
She believes that in the future people have to have a greater understanding of the coalitions formed. A new negotiations model is needed when you're dealing
with a coalition that makes decisions by consensus. The people she met with were trying to speak for the group but didn't have the authority of the group,
unlike the old bargaining model of having chief negotiators. The negotiations for the labor march followed the old style. A coalition without leaders is a
very different model.
Post-interview discussion
The panel held a discussion of the interview content and process. Comments made by members included:
- The interview took too long and could have been completed in 30 minutes.
- Sometimes people need to be "smoked out," and you really need to fish and look into every comma.
- We need to be able to judge whether someone is a key player and adjust accordingly. We need to be on the same page ahead of time about what our goals are.
- She wasn't the right person to ask that level of detail.
- Maybe we need to spend more time doing pre-interview preparation.
- The panel should start meeting weekly, until maybe 9 pm.
- We are falling behind and this is frustrating.
- We still need to get back to the matrix. We all have a finite amount of time for this project, so we've got to focus more.
- When we agreed to serve, it was with the understanding that we wouldn't be doing the bulk of the interviews.
Staff Report
Kirsten Evans gave an overview of the meeting handouts. Alec Fisken summarized the progress of the other panels. Panel 1 has a narrower scope and may finish by
the end of May. Panel 3 is honing in on just a few theories, but has a considerable amount of work to do.
Tim Burgess, Chair of Panel 3, added additional information on his panel's progress. They have narrowed their work to 5 umbrella issues, and plan to refer 2
additional issues they have identified to Panel 2. They are holding off on doing more interviews until the document fact-finding is complete, but have identified
other persons of interest.
Councilmember Licata proposed bringing in a facilitator to help the committee focus, and suggested Darlene Flynn and Dian Ferguson as potential facilitators.
Some panel members didn't feel a facilitator was needed, others felt it would be helpful.
One member proposed an approach: have staff create a detailed timeline on butcher paper of the events during WTO week. Analyze what worked and what didn't
during the actual week, then use that information to identify shortfalls in the planning process.
Panel members requested that staff:
- Fill out the two matrices created at the last two meetings before the next meeting
- Consider doing briefings at the start of each meeting.
- Schedule the interview with Ron Judd (next meeting) at around 6:30 so they have an opportunity to discuss the questions ahead of time.
Meeting Adjourned
May 9, 2000
| Present: |
Clark Pickett, Carl Livingston, Norma Kelsey, Kathleen Pruitt, Kay Godefroy |
| Staff: |
Lisa Herbold, Kirsten Evans, Cynthia Burress, Alec Fisken |
| Facilitator: |
Dian Ferguson |
6:00 PM Facilitator Introduction
The start of the meeting was delayed due to a previous meeting running late and terrible traffic and parking conditions.
The facilitator asked panel members, staff and the public to introduce themselves.
Staff Briefing
Alec Fisken briefed the panel on the progress of research into how the City's WTO budget was developed and modified over
time, an area of interest to Panel One. Staff have developed a fairly detailed budget chronology, but have very little
information on the earliest stages from April – May 1999. The lack of substantial budget-related documents from this time
period has been a component of an ongoing dispute with SPD over the extent of their public disclosure to date. WTO ARC staff
have made a formal complaint to SPD on this issue and expect to receive additional documents on Wednesday. Another area of
research is the requests and offers of mutual aid assistance, and what budgetary impacts this may have had. Finally, resolving
the dispute with the Washington State Patrol (WSP) over the release of their after action report may require a lawsuit. WTO ARC
staff had filed a public disclosure request to obtain the after action report, which WSP claims was written as a report to their
attorney and is thus exempt from disclosure due to attorney-client privilege. In order to forestall a lawsuit by the WTO Accountability
Review, the WSP has requested the Attorney General to issue a decision as to whether they must release the report.
Fisken also mentioned that there was a preliminary meeting with Councilmembers Compton and Pageler and staff to discuss extending the end
dates for the WTO Accountability Review. The preliminary proposal is to extend the project through the end of July, by which time staff
will have completed their research but some report drafting may remain.
Ground Rules/Process
The facilitator, Dian Ferguson, reviewed the ground rules established at the last meeting and distributed her own list of ground rules
(see handout #1). Ferguson then initiated a conversation about the task of the committee with respect to the amount of time remaining.
If the panel is to complete its work by the end of July and continues to meet every other week, then there are only six meetings left.
If, as she noted in the meeting notes, the panel plans to interview 20 individuals during the meetings, they will never complete the
task. She proposed that the panel form subcommittees to divide up some of the tasks, such as an interview subcommittee. The interview
subcommittee could develop a proposal on how to handle interviews to bring back to the group.
The panel agreed to create an interview subcommittee. Carl Livingston and Clark Pickett volunteered to participate.
A panelist suggested the group begin drafting the report as they go. Points made during the discussion included:
- Report-drafting should accompany the matrix.
- We should begin with an outline and decide what the sections should be.
- Staff should not be involved in drafting the findings.
The panel decide to create a subcommittee to take a stab at drafting an outline. Kathleen Pruitt and Kay Godefroy volunteered.
A panelist suggested having a committee look at documents with the WTO ARC staff and help plug them into the matrix, then add in information
from testimonies/interviews. Clark Pickett expressed interest in investigating the idea of funding. Other issues of interest included:
no-protest zone, coordination and the lack of inter- and intra-communication.
All subcommittees have the responsibility to report back to the group.
Public Comment
Joyce Glasgow – Commented that the panel is letting the 'feds' off the hook and should interview representatives from federal agencies.
Recommended that Panel 3 interview Ron Judd. Asked what plan Sidran had for handling arrests.
Paul Richmond – Echoed Joyce's recommendation that the panel interview the feds, especially the Secret Service and FBI. Commented that
SPD provided space for the MACC, yet all press conferences were held at the FBI's building. Referenced letters to/from local attorneys,
including Fred Diamondstone and Len Wilson, and asked when the no-protest zone was actually considered.
Malcolm Taran – Urged the panel to consider the option of an interim report and release effective information regarding intelligence that
was freely available via the web. Asked whether the authorities had the necessary training to deal with civil disobedience as it relates
to social change.
Matrix Discussion, "Conference proceeds" goal
Staff directed the panel's attention to handouts: an updated "matrix guide" which serves as a table of contents, and an updated "Planning
Goals matrix". The panel began reviewing the matrix. Lisa Herbold commented that the "delegates can exercise rights" portion should be
changed to "delegates can attend and/or leave meetings and proceed unimpeded."
The panel asked staff to provide a quick overview of the information in each column, and to describe generally what had happened related to
this goal during the week of the WTO Ministerial. Comments made in the subsequent discussion included:
- Add a column to the matrix to note the extent to which the goal was achieved or not.
- One panelist recalled references to the delegates being able to walk to meetings during that week – was this the plan?
- How appropriate or conducive was the geographical space?
- What happened to the chutes during that week?
- Did the shuttle buses work?
- Opening ceremonies didn't happen – why?
- Instructions were given to delegates to stay in the hotels – by whom?
- Pedestrians weren't escorted.
- What revisions happened to the PSC Operations Guide? To what extent was it an organic, updated document?
- There should have been a global plan too that also changed over time, and detailed how the pieces come together and respective responsibilities.
- Add a skinny column referencing key planning tools for that portion of the matrix.
- How were SPD and SHO communicating with and informing each other?
Staff suggested that the panel might want to interview Ray Waldmann, SHO's Executive Director and a loaned executive from Boeing, and Ed Parks, SHO's
Transportation Committee Chair.
Staff were asked to:
- Send out an e-mail summarizing follow-up items with a due date for responses.
- Combine goals on the matrix where possible and send out to the panel by e-mail
- E-mail to subcommittee members a schedule of times to meet and begin their work.
- Do some background interviews to address questions raised.
- Send out complete packet of interviews to date to the whole panel.
Panel members decided to extend their future meetings by an extra half hour.
Panelists decided to address the goals related to major/minor injuries at the next meeting.
8:10 PM Meeting Adjourned
May 23, 2000
| Present: |
Clark Pickett, Carl Livingston, Norma Kelsey, Kathleen Pruitt, Kay Godefroy, Councilmember Nick Licata |
| Staff: |
Lisa Herbold, Kirsten Evans, Cynthia Burress, Alec Fisken |
| Facilitator: |
Dian Ferguson |
5:30 PM Introduction & Ground Rules
The facilitator asked panel members, staff and the public to introduce themselves and mention one thing about themselves that the others do not know.
Staff Briefing
Alec Fisken briefed the panel on new research developments. As reported in the paper, the Washington State Patrol has agreed to release their After Action Report and videos. WTO ARC has not received a copy yet. As of Monday, the remaining barriers to access to SPD officers were resolved, and WTO ARC staff
are now able to interview individuals below the rank of Assistant Chief. Staff have been less fortunate in acquiring SPD documents, and there is still a striking lack of documents in many areas. Over the last week, Fisken has interviewed Chief Joiner and several other law enforcement types. Staff distributed
the transcript of the Joiner interview. Essentially, Joiner insists that the reason that not enough law enforcement officers were deployed is that Joiner felt he had things under control. Other agencies, some of whom sent representatives to warn Joiner that he was going to be understaffed, concurred with this
explanation. Joiner said that protesters had told him that "shut down the WTO" was just part of their rhetoric. Fisken noted that there were direct contradictions between statements made by Joiner in the interview and documents Joiner produced as part of the planning process. Finally, staff have been reviewing
videos of pre-WTO Council briefings.
Kirsten Evans updated the panel on the preliminary results of research into follow-up items from the "Conference Proceeds" discussion. She encouraged the panel to interview Ed Parks, SHO's transportation chair and SEATAC Manager of International Relations. SHO's transportation plan included having Heads of State
travel in big motorcades, assigning a car & driver to the head of each delegation, and for everyone else to travel in shuttle buses (or own cars), or on foot. Some of the difficulties SHO had in developing this plan included not knowing who was coming and where they were staying – some delegations showed up without
having made any hotel arrangements and were accommodated in Renton, U-District which impacted the planned shuttle bus routes. Some delegations were particularly 'fussy' about type of vehicle & demanded limousines etc. During "WTO week" delegates sometimes encountered huge delays in getting in the door b/c of
credential checking. The shuttle buses ran most of the time, except for Tuesday morning when some of them were surrounded. They couldn't get all the way to the door of the Paramount and had to drop off the delegates two blocks away. Delegates were told to arrive early for buses and limos b/c of credentialing needs.
They were encouraged to walk but not display credentials/badges. Many of them quickly learned to use back entrances.
Regarding the development of an overall or global plan, Evans described how SHO contracted Michael Pitts/The Archer Group to conduct an operational assessment in Sept. 1999. The assessment's main points included: the need to transition into operational mode, increase the operations budget, and recruit experienced
event managers. Pitts then stayed on to oversee SHO operations. In October, Pitts asked all SHO committees to draft written operations plans, with the goal of producing a single, bound operations plan. Staff plan to interview Pitts.
Points made in the subsequent discussion included:
- If the planning was focused on making sure that the event occurs and delegates get from point A to B, then planning may not have included ensuring that demonstration activities occurred.
- The Mayor may have tried to accomplish this.
- It's mainly other law enforcement agencies' opinion that this all should have never occurred.
- To what extent was the Mayor and/or his staff involved in planning?
- What was the involvement of the City Coordinating Committee? Did it have Council involvement? Who was on it and what was the role? What was Cliff Traisman's role?
Matrix Discussion – "Public Safety" Goal
The facilitator presented one way to approach this discussion. There was some discussion of the meaning of "security of delegates" and "security of demonstrators". The panel reviewed the matrix, and recommended that a 4th column be added, entitled, "evidence of plans."
Points and questions raised in the discussion included:
- Getting through with vehicles – what were the contingency plans if they couldn't get through in vehicles?
- Better coordination
- Lack of participation of battalion chiefs; not well advised.
- Resource center didn't have SPD scanning radio
- Fire Dept. went all out in their planning to deal with issues.
- The big issues were well covered. The glitch was the ability to communicate – perhaps it's fortunate that the plans for explosives and weapons of mass destruction weren't tested, if so many of the agencies couldn't communicate.
- The reality is that we had minor injuries but no big ones. Did we plan for it or were we lucky?
- 400 police officers and an estimated 50,000 protesters. How many officers were in DC?
- What was done for APEC? Goodwill? Gulf War protests on Capitol Hill?
- Planners didn't plan for the groups that were identified as coming: Ruckus Society, Direct Action Network, People's Global Action, Art & Revolution, Eugene anarchists.
- At what time on the first day was SPD fully deployed?
Non-arrest vs. gassing of protesters:
- What happened to the ability to do mass arrests? Police were willing to do arrests 3 weeks out. What documentation do we have on this issue? [Staff responded that we have very little.]
- When the event happened doing arrests was not possible owing to the lack of officers.
- The failure to do mass arrests was a lack of follow-through on promises made to protesters.
- If protesters were planning on getting arrested, did the word get out that they wouldn't be?
- Is there any documentation of plans and contingency plans?
- What information do we have about instructions to SPD officers about the use of tear gas? Were there trainings for the use of gas, chemical agents? Documentation of when gas should be used? [Staff responded that we have a series of directives outlining the guidelines.]
- If the plan was to have 400 SPD officers by day and 400 by night then that wouldn't be enough officers to cover the whole city. If that was the plan, then SPD had no choice but to use chemical agents.
- Perhaps SPD didn't realize how many people were willing to be arrested. This was naivete, not to plan for 50,000 people, for protesters, for specific groups.
- Minor medical injury was caused by SPD by using chemical agents and batons.
- Were there plans to use:
- Live bullets – no.
- Batons – not much
- Tear gas – yes – the plan was to cause minor injury instead of more major injury, and as opposed to other means of crowd control.
- Was there any plan to call for a state of emergency or no-protest zones?
Public comment
Unidentified – People had glasses broken, were beaten in jail – what is the panel's criteria for determining "injury"?
Joyce Glasgow – Was disturbed by the fact that the matrix did not include reports of 2 miscarriages she heard about. One occurred on Broadway and the other downtown. Commented that if innocent bystanders get knocked down then there wasn't much of a plan. Asked what the plan was for
Broadway. Was told that pepper spray should be used from 6 ft away and SPD clearly did not do this and must not have been properly trained.
Subcommittee reports
- Interview subcommittee – Carl and Clark have not had an opportunity to meet.
- Report-drafting subcommittee – Kay and Kathleen met and produced a draft outline, which they will email to Kirsten to email/fax to the whole committee. Generally, the report will include the following sections:
- Executive Summary
- Introduction
- Membership & Process
- Overview of documents, including development of the matrix
- Sharpening the focus
- Findings (organized by goal area)
- Recommendations
- Summary/Closing Comments
- Appendices – could include the matrix
Staff can go ahead and begin writing the introductory portions.
Preliminary conclusions from tonight's discussion
- The low ratio of officers to demonstrators was not enough to make the public feel safe.
- Adequate planning could have avoided martial law. Who made the decisions about "no protest zones"? Who made the decisions about changing plans from doing arrests to using pepper spray and not utilizing mutual aid from other jurisdictions?
- There is a glaring absence of information on how decisions were made at every level. Ultimate decisions were made by whom – Mayor? Governor? SPD?
- The low numbers of injuries were a result of luck, not planning given the inability to communicate in the field.
- There appeared to be no contingency plans to move vehicles from point A to B.
- It appears that SPD could not make arrests due to the lack of a plan and the shortage of officers.
Staff assignments
- Research the desired ratio of officers to demonstrators. Check NATO, World Bank, rock concerts, Seafair, Odenthal's recommendations.
Topic for next meeting: "Unlawful protesters are quickly detained."
Closing Comments (Panelists and Public)
- The panel must interview the federal agencies and Mark Sidran.
- There is a rumor about that the 'debacle' was police coup against Norm Stamper.
- Stamper's performance review was just before WTO.
- There's a rumor that the first people breaking windows were provocateurs trying to trigger arrests.
Parking Lot Issues
- A comprehensive plan inclusive of everything, including:
- The nature of protests
- Concentration on "Bricks and Mortar" – weapons, threats, violence
- Moving delegates along from hotel to the convention center
- To what extent was the Mayor's Office involved in planning? The Council?
8:00 PM Meeting Adjourned
June 13, 2000
| Present: |
Clark Pickett, Carl Livingston, Norma Kelsey, Councilmember Nick Licata |
| Staff: |
Cynthia Burress, Alec Fisken |
| Facilitator: |
Dian Ferguson |
5:39 PM Meeting called to order
Staff Briefing
Staff updated the panel on the results of several recent interviews, and gave their impressions of the progress made to date on researching various issues of interest to the panel.
Discussion of matrix section "Unlawful protesters are quickly detained"
The panel reviewed the meeting's designated matrix section. The following issues and questions were raised and discussed:
- There were serious limitations on the police personnel and resources available for making and processing arrests
- Were personnel taken from the arrest processing teams to be reassigned to the demonstration management platoons?
- Did City officials have enough information to properly plan for demonstrations? If so, why did police officials cut police staffing levels just prior to WTO?
- Was there enough information available before the event to alert SPD that they would need mutual aid assistance? If so, why did police officials refuse to accept mutual aid before the event? Was it due to budget constraints?
- Did the lack of pre-event training of mutual aid officers play a role in the events during the week?
- The police were unprepared for some of the tactics used by protesters, such as blocking hotels and targeting delegates instead of venues
- What was the size of the area that police cordoned off in Geneva during the WTO meeting there in 1998?
- How many officers would reasonably be required in order to clear and control an intersection?
- Was there a contingency plan to pull SPD officers from other duties to aid in WTO?
- When was a decision made to use chemical agents instead of making mass arrests? Who made the decision?
- Was there any planning specifically targeted at worse-case scenarios?
- Were there mass arrests at the WTO meeting in Geneva in 1998?
- What happened to the flying squad? Why was it redeployed, and who ordered the redeployment?
- Was there a lack of hands-on management by senior police department officials?
- Did line officers feel betrayed by senior officials?
After discussing these issues, the panel reached several conclusions:
- The police department, whether intentionally or due to budget reasons, did not allocate enough personnel and resources to arrest and prisoner processing teams to adequately handle the number of arrests that ultimately occurred.
- Although it came somewhat late in the planning process, there was adequate warning that the goal of protesters was to shut down the WTO and that mass arrests would need to be made, although the volume of these arrests may have been unexpected.
- Given this early notice, mutual aid should have been accepted as soon as it was offered, and efforts should have been made to train mutual aid officers along with SPD officers.
- The flying squad - the primary plan for arresting unlawful demonstrators - was dissolved and redeployed on Monday, November 29th. This left SPD with no officers specifically charged with pursuing and arresting those protesters engaged in illegal acts.
- Events of this size and cost require City Council approval and involvement. There should have been a resolution or ordinance passed by the Council approving Seattle's hosting of the WTO; this would have allowed planners to create a joint Executive/Council planning committee.
- There seems to have been a contingency plan to remove officers from other venues and deploy them to problem areas as the need arose.
- Much of the information surrounding this topic implies that SPD deliberately avoided calling on mutual aid resources until the last minute in order to avoid having to pay for this aid, thus leaving other law enforcement agencies with over $3 million in bills.
- Some of the most successful protest tactics, such as blockading hotels and assaulting delegates rather than venues, were not anticipated by police planners and thus no plan was created for dealing with these tactics.
- The police failed to prepare for worse-case scenarios.
Carl Livingston created a chart tracking the numbers of SPD officers assigned to various duties before and during WTO, and the panel requested that staff fill in the exact numbers.
Discussion of interviews
Alec Fisken informed the panel that he had scheduled several interviews to be held during the next two weeks. The panel approved these interviews and composed a list of possible questions to ask each interviewee. The panel then discussed whether or not to open the interviews to the public;
it was decided that, as many potential interviewees would not appear before the panel if the interviews were open, all of the panel's interviews will be closed to the public. All interviews will be tape-recorded and the tapes and transcripts made publicly available as soon as possible.
8:09 PM Meeting Adjourned
June 20, 2000
| Present: |
Clark Pickett, Norma Kelsey |
| Staff: |
Cynthia Burress, Alec Fisken, Kirsten Evans |
| Others: |
Dian Ferguson |
6:30 PM Meeting called to order
The panel members discussed highlights of the interview with Deputy Mayor Maud Daudon.
Staff Briefing
Alec Fisken briefed the panel on several background interviews conducted by staff over the last week. Staff have also been reviewing lots of videos, including some footage they have obtained from the King County Sheriff’s Office Guardian One helicopter for Tuesday morning.
Interestingly, the video shows very few people in the street downtown at 11:30 am.
Staff have also been trying to clarify some apparent disputes between SPD and the Seattle Fire Department that occurred immediately prior to and during WTO week regarding the use of fire department equipment to control protesters. One area of research is into the Mayor
apparently ordering SFD to make a fire engine available to SPD to use water hoses on demonstrators; the other is into SFD’s 11th hour refusal to make SFD personnel experienced in the use of cutting tools available to SPD personnel to assist in cutting demonstrators free
of each other.
In response to questions raised in the interview with Deputy Mayor Daudon, Kirsten Evans distributed a spring 1999 memo that named the members of the city’s Interdepartmental Team (IDT) for WTO. Panel members discussed whether the group had the correct departments and roles identified.
Discussion of matrix section 'Rights of citizens to demonstrate are protected'
The facilitator initiated the discussion by asking the panel when during WTO week were citizens able to exercise their rights to assembly & free speech?
| Yes - Able to exercise rights |
No - Unable to exercise rights |
| Monday - yes - Environmental march & Jubilee 2000 went well |
Protests that were not issued permits, i.e. People’s Assembly |
| All scheduled rallies and protests went on as planned |
At the point tear gas was used, these rights were no longer present at the targeted intersections on Tuesday morning. |
| By Tuesday, groups that were forming were allowed to practice civil obedience and disobedience strategies at 7:30 AM (at Victor Steinbrueck Park, and march downtown) |
|
| SPD’s effort to train Jubilee 2000 marshals shows concern to protect rights. |
|
Conclusions and comments made during the discussion
- The plan should have been worked out in advance as opposed to evolving.
- Once tear gas and pepper spray started the rights of citizens to peaceful protest were eroded.
- A prior agreement between protestors with issued permits and prior notification to SPD of rights to be protected as they demonstrated was violated by SPD’s inability to arrest them per prior arrangement.
- The locations of demonstration areas were not clear and the sizes appear to be inadequate.
- Civil rights were respected and protected for citizens participating in permitted protests.
- Local organizers attempted to help locate housing for anticipated protestor usage.
- Adequate warning of tear gas usage was not consistently given to protestors prior to the actual usage as dictated by police protocol and policy.
- Lack of police training and coordination as to the 'hows' of handling protestors vs. lack of information available or reviewed to date.
- Contingency plan didn’t allow for the rights of citizens to protest.
- The rights of citizens to demonstrate and protest became restricted by the volume of the crowds protesting.
- There was no fully operationalized plan detailing incremental steps to deal with the volume of protesters. The plan went from call the mutual aid assistance agencies in for assistance at the last minute to declaring a 'state of emergency.' All citizens within the emergency area lost their rights.
- According to Deputy Mayor Daudon, the structure of the planning process didn’t have executive involvement in security decisions. It appears that the security plan was to inform only. (?)
Next meeting
Evans suggested that given the questions raised about the training received by SPD, the topic of discussion should be SPD preparedness. [This was later moved to the July 17th meeting.]
8:00 PM Meeting Adjourned
July 10, 2000
| Present: |
Clark Pickett, Norma Kelsey, Angela Toussaint, Carl Livingston, Councilmember Nick Licata |
| Staff: |
Cynthia Burress, Alec Fisken, Kirsten Evans |
| Facilitator: |
Dian Ferguson |
5:50 PM Meeting called to order
Facilitator Dian Ferguson asked the participants to introduce themselves.
Staff Briefing
Announcements
Kirsten Evans distributed the proposed July meeting schedule to the panelists. She reminded the panel that the interview with Sheriff Reichert was scheduled for Wednesday and would be a 1-hour joint interview with Panel 3. The panel had two options, to develop a list of questions with Panel 3, or to divide the time equally between the two panels.
Clark proposed moving the ‘SPD preparedness’ discussion from July 24th to July 17th. The panel discussed the implications of doing so, including whether the panel could extend their work into August if necessary. Councilmember Licata confirmed that they could conceivably work into the first week or two of August, although staffing levels need to be worked out. The panel decided to move the SPD preparedness discussion to July 24th and review the draft report at the next meeting.
New Developments
Alec Fisken updated the panel on new document acquisitions. Several thousand SPD documents flooded in over the last week and include some very useful documents. He also gave a recap of the three WTO reports that were released:
- ACLU of Washington - Covers a broad range of topics, including planning and preparations.
- McCarthy & Associates (Mayor’s consultants) - Very useful for the panel despite the tone, which is clearly law enforcement, in that it provides a professional’s evaluation of preparations & preparedness.
- National Lawyers’ Guild - Particularly interesting on less-lethal weapons.
Questions raised by panel members:
- Dian asked to what extent should the panel use these reports. Fisken responded that they should be very interesting and helpful for the panel.
- How many of SPD officers are on the street at any time? How many are at their desks?
Interview subcommittee report
Angela gave a recap of the Cliff Traisman interview. Comments made in the subsequent discussion included:
- There were elements in the City that just didn’t care if the conference cost a lot of money.
- There was a lot of active denial.
- Two elements from the Traisman interview should go in the report: the lack of an MOU and the failure to challenge SHO’s whittling away at the amount to be given to the City.
- The City was essentially paying for a networking meeting.
- It’s important to remember that the $11 million in retail revenue people thought might result from the conference would only yield $47,000 to the City via sales taxes.
- Traisman was formerly Councilmember Martha Choe’s legislative assistant, and was hired by Schell when he was elected.
Norma and Carl gave a recap of the Ray Waldmann interview. Comments included:
- SHO brought in a lot of external consultants in September, October and November, and had a payroll of 30 people.
- Waldmann said he believed no structural changes were needed for the planning process.
- The firewall about security issues between SHO and public safety should be there; the Mayor’s Office’s role is oversight and ensuring that collaboration occurs.
- We should include the Ray Waldmann quote in the report, 'Everything went according to plan.'
Discussion of matrix section 'Daily lives are minimally impacted'
The facilitator started the discussion by developing five lists on the flipchart, outlining the types of disruptions:
| Traffic |
Businesses |
Protestors |
Seattle Citizenry |
SPD |
- Street Closures
- Parking garage closures
- Congestion
- Rerouting buses
- Traffic alert
- Car towings
- Media traffic alerts
- Notifications of high volumes of people
|
- Closed for 3 days
- Told to dress down
- Employer warnings about security
- Revenues, loss from closures
- Private security hired and/or beefed up
- Curfew
|
- Inability to be heard and protest
- Use of non-lethal weapons
- Curfew
|
- Employees
- Schools shut down/snow closures
- Homeless relocated
- Child
- UW extension cancelled
- Walking limitation
- Private meetings cancelled
- Use of non-lethal weapons
- Tear-gassed
- Curfew
- Couldn’t navigate downtown
|
- Delay for calls that were non-WTO
- 911 overload
|
Conclusions and statements made by the panelists during the discussion include:
- The City failed to minimize disruption.
- Schell misled business and retail owners about what the potential for generating revenue was.
- The City was not clear about the location of the designated demonstration areas. The demonstration areas were too small and people overflowed, thereby impacting everyone else.
- There were just too many people protesting for them all to stay on the sidewalks.
- As part of the planning process, SPD needed to figure out where all the people would go.
- Planning was not sufficient to deal with fringe protestors who wanted to engage in civil disobedience tactics.
- Numbers were ignored - information not taken seriously by those responsible.
- Officers were not deployed in appropriate numbers and locations where the protesters were located.
- SPD plagued by inability to respond to the volume and consequently changed their tactics to a state of emergency.
- Communications problems contributed to Tuesday’s labor march route changes.
- There was no clear plan following the state of emergency declaration as to where protestors were to go, e.g. Capitol Hill.
- Preface of the report should speak to the disingenuousness of several interviewees regarding the facts, and about time spent 'cya.'
Next Meeting
The panel will read the draft report sections. Carl expressed an interest in joining Angela and Kathleen on the report-drafting subcommittee. Their assignment is talk about the report and forward comments to the panel. Clark will send comments to staff before he leaves on vacation.
Reichert interview preparation
The panel re-opened the decision to hold interviews that are taped but closed to the public. They voted to hold closed interviews if 1) staff has verified that the interviewee will not be interviewed publicly, and 2) the interview is taped and tapes are available to the public. Carl, Clark and Angela voted yes, Norma voted no but agreed to go with the majority.
The panel then discussed possible questions to ask Reichert and how to fairly apportion the limited time with Panel 3.
Public Comment
Malcolm Taran encouraged the panel to recall the massive disruptions to daily life that were created by police behavior on Capitol Hill.
8:25 PM Meeting Adjourned
July 17, 2000
| Present: |
Norma Kelsey, Angela Toussaint, Carl Livingston, Councilmember Nick Licata |
| Staff: |
Alec Fisken, Kirsten Evans |
| Facilitator: |
Dian Ferguson |
5:45 PM Meeting called to order
Facilitator Dian Ferguson asked the participants to introduce themselves.
Staff Briefing
Alec Fisken advised the panel that he would be on vacation for the next few weeks, but would be accessible by e-mail and cell phone.
Alec updated the panel on recent research topics, including:
- The involvement of the White House in trying to help SHO obtain military (National Guard) personnel to drive the shuttle buses, an effort which eventually failed.
- Requesting the National Guard in advance: The City the Mayor’s office and SPD -- apparently never attempted to request the National Guard in advance (e.g. arranging for the National Guard to conduct exercises in/near Seattle around the time of the event). The Governor and National Guard were apparently resistant to the idea of offering the National Guard, but, according to recent interviewees, would have offered had the Mayor called.
- Budget reduction: In the summer, the Mayor’s Office asked SPD to develop two potential budgets, one high and one low. On August 3rd, Deputy Mayor Maud Daudon selected the lower budget, which was $900,000 less, due to expectations that fewer heads of state would attend. This number was forwarded to the City Council in the supplemental budget request, but appears to have had no impact on SPD planning and expenditures. It’s unclear why
as late as August she would have picked the lower number, as there was increasing media coverage of the potential for large protests.
Interview subcommittee report
The panel discussed their reactions to Sheriff Reichert and Ed Joiner (interviewed last week).
Discussion of draft report
Carl walked the panel through his revised draft of the report.
Comments made included:
- Angela will draft a paragraph about the responsibility of private parties to pay for their own security, using the analogy of the city’s requirement that high school students pay for a police presence at high school dances.
- Summaries of the matrix sections should be no more than 3 pages per section.
- Include a terminology section.
- Don’t use the categories from the matrix in the report. Include the matrix as an addendum instead.
- The report should address Maud’s role and the role of the interdepartmental team.
- Say what the overall conclusions are and work backwards
- Carl and Tim should meet to discuss how and when the reports should be released.
Report structure suggested by the panel:
I. Executive Summary
To be drafted by the panel
II. Introduction
--Includes sections previously drafted by Carl and staff.
--Could delete 'membership' section
III. Findings
--Put punchy, abbreviated 'Who knew what when' section here that debunks idea that they didn’t know how many people were coming, protester tactics, possibility of violence, etc.
--Organize by panel’s conclusion instead of using the matrix headings. Staff will do the work of documenting the basis for each conclusion.
--Should this include a brief narrative chronology of the planning process? If so, what kinds of things are important to include?
IV. Recommendations
V. Addenda
--Completed Matrix
--Lengthy 'Who knew what when'
*note - Intro, Findings and Recommendations should all be concise.
Conclusions to include in report:
- Police did plan for a worst case scenario, but not incremental scenarios leading up to the worst case. Agree with SPD After Action recommendation P-7
- Negotiating with protesters worked at cross-purposes to SPD’s goals for two reasons: 1) SPD revealed their limitations (being unable to accommodate mass arrests), and 2) believing that they were speaking with all the leaders (of the protest groups)
lulled them into a false sense of security.
- SPD ignored the threat assessment. They chose to ignore it because they didn’t understand the situation and because they didn’t have the money [to respond appropriately.]
- Instead, SPD waited until things disintegrated so they wouldn’t have to pay for it.
- Joiner feared overreacting and overspending.
- SPD knew plenty of people were coming and in plenty of time.
- The Public Safety Executive Committee bears responsibility for the plan as well because they bought off on it. [There is no documentation of other agencies having raised concerns/reservations.]
- There don’t appear to have been any plans to ensure that bystanders were not swept up.
- The problems encountered in obtaining documents from SPD and the federal agencies has hampered the work of this committee. – Norma will write a paragraph about this to include in the report.
- Bad and or messy ad-hoc contingency plans put regular citizens (commuters, shoppers, workers), peaceful marchers and line officers at risk. The officers were hung out to dry.
- We should debunk SPD’s claims that the intelligence ordinance prevented their gaining adequate information.
- Staffing plans were inadequate to meet the need.
- SPD simply didn’t have enough time to plan for an event of this size, from an event planner’s perspective.
- Everybody at every level abdicated responsibility: SHO (we’ll through the party but not pay for the security), the Mayor, SPD.
- The lack of an MOU between the City, SHO and the Feds allowed some people to escape responsibility for their party.
- Maybe the City should require a fiscal note for controversial events.
- There was a private-public partnership that threw the party. As a private-public partnership, the public still owns it AND security concerns should override.
- There is a financial incentive to the city to host conventions. In this case there was talk of the conference generating $11 million for retailers/hotels/restaurants. There were also the valuable trade and business contacts.
Recommendations suggested by panel members:
- There should be an ordinance laying out what the plan should be.
- MOU’s should be required.
- All the mutual aid agency chiefs should have to meet in the Mayor’s office 120 and 60 days out to review the plan and state whether they agree or disagree.
- There should be an independent review of the 'fiscal impact' to the City, not just police, fire hard costs but the management costs associated with it.
Next Steps
The panel decided that they don’t have time to split up the sections among themselves and asked staff to do the work of writing up the information supporting each conclusion. Kirsten offered to send out a summary of what staff heard regarding revisions to the report.
Carl offered to meet with staff regarding how the report should be approached.
After some discussion, the panel decided to still hold the discussion of the last matrix section, SPD preparedness, although most of the information has been addressed. According to staff, that matrix section will also include relevant comments and conclusions from
the McCarthy report. Staff will endeavor to redraft the report by Monday.
Public comment
Joyce Glasgow - urged the panel to interview City Attorney Mark Sidran regarding his involvement in arrest planning. She urged the panel to address the Feds’ role in addition to city stuff. She suggested the panel ask SPD about what pre-planning occurred regarding
pushing protesters up the hill into the Capitol Hill neighborhood, given that businesses received phone calls Tuesday afternoon warning them to shut down.
8:25 PM Meeting Adjourned
