Loading...
PSPHSP071822PUBLIC SAFETY, PLANNING, HUMAN SERVICES & PERSONNEL COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING July 18, 2022 Elected Officials Participating Virtually Staff Participating Virtually Councilmember Laura Johnson (Chair) Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Councilmember Susan Paine Scott Passey, City Clerk Council President Vivian Olson (ex-officio) CALL TO ORDER The Edmonds City Council virtual online PSPHSP Committee meeting was called to order at 2:30 p.m. by Councilmember L. Johnson. Councilmember L. Johnson acknowledged the passing of Councilmember K. Johnson She served the City of Edmonds with admirable passion and dedication and she will be missed by many. Councilmember Paine said she has known Councilmember K. Johnson for 15 years. She had a passion for the arts and she appreciated her love of the environment and advocating for planting native species. She loved Edmonds and loved serving Edmonds. She had a great knowledge and understanding of planning and transportation. Her passing was terribly unexpected and she will be missed. Council President Olson said she was not prepared to make a statement. 2. COMMITTEE BUSINESS 1. Repeal of Safe Gun Storage and Related Laws After Washington Supreme Court's Field Preemption Ruling Mr. Taraday explained this ordinance was the subject of litigation brought against the City on the grounds that the ordinance was preempted by state law. That lawsuit went from Superior Court to the Court of Appeals and ultimately to the Supreme Court where the lawsuit was conclusively ruled upon as preempted by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court issued a ruling and mandate, the document that states the Supreme Court is done reviewing the Superior Court's decision and the Superior Court's decision stands. The Superior Court issued an injunction (entered by the court in October 2019 and subject to review for the last couple years) stated, "Upon final mandate, if the City does not prevail or does not appeal this order, this section must be repealed." The section referenced is 5.26.020 specifically. At this point there is effectively a court order demanding that the City repeal at least 5.26.020. Mr. Taraday explained the ordinance he prepared recognizing the Supreme Court ruling repeals in their entirety Ordinances 4120, 4121 and 4131. Ordinance 4121 was not the subject of the Court's decision, so technically the City is not under a court order requiring the repeal of Ordinance 4121. However, Ordinance 4121 refers to Ordinance 4120 so retaining it would create a dead-end in the code. Questions and discussion followed regarding who initiated this action; the city attorney's opinion that this action needs to be taken; dismay Edmonds' hands are tied by a state preemption; historic levels of mass shootings; the skyrocketing health crisis of shootings; information from the Be Smart secure firearm program about the importance of secure storage to protect children, the rise in unintentional shootings, increased rate of gun suicide among children in 2020 ages 17 and under, and firearms as the leading cause of death in children in the United States; the choice to own a weapon comes with the 07/18/22 PSPHSP Committee Minutes, Page 2 responsibility to store it securely; pride in the stance the City took to raise awareness and show that Edmonds takes prevention of gun violence seriously; the executive department's response to partner with Be Smart; what the City is mandated to do or not do; Seattle's ordinance that is still in court; preference to have Edmonds take gun violence prevention seriously and determine what else can be done; support for education and increased advocacy; how the legislative branch can support the executive branch; preference to do more than repeal the ordinance; and support for this going to a work group to answer questions about what else can be done before bringing it to council. Mr. Taraday said while it is true the judge's original injunction only targeted a particular section of chapter 5.26, it is very clear from the Supreme Court's decision there is no aspect of firearm regulation that is left to the cities; the state has preempted the entire field and until the state legislature changes that law, there is nothing left for cities to regulate in the realm of firearms and therefore, there is nothing to do regulation -wise at the city level. That does not mean the City cannot spend money educating gun owners on safety or adopt resolution asking the legislature to repeal the statute that preempts the field. There is no reason for the ordinances to remain when the State Supreme Court has it make it very clear there is nothing left to regulate at the city level. Questions and discussion continued regarding forming a taskforce to develop next steps for increasing safety, raising awareness and looking at ways to create improve safety such as handing out gun locks, working with the community to create an educational campaign to provide better access to safe gun storage solutions, advocating for a safe community, focusing on things that are within the realm of the city council, the City's involvement in the Be Smart program, preference to proceed with the repeal, concern repealing the ordinances without doing anything else such as a resolution is empty handed, support for adopting a resolution outlining what the council resolves to do at the same time the ordinances are repealed, residents' disappointment with the ruling, and whether delaying the repeal to create a resolution and take steps to increase advocacy, education and awareness creates any risk. Discussion and questions continued regarding no legal requirement that the repeal occur at the same time as follow-on action to bolster gun safety; when the mandate was issued (May 13, 2022); support for a resolution with recommendations for the legislature, city council and community; supporting efforts of the Be Smart program; residents' disappointment when the city council acted contrary to state law as well as with the city council's involvement in state and national issues; preference for the city council to focus on municipal issues; scheduling an agenda item to discuss what residents want the council to spend its time on; concern with downplaying gun violence; the recent addition of an extreme risk protection order to the City's code; and addressing gaps in the code before repealing the ordinance(s). Committee recommendation: Full council on July 26th with the intent of reviewing a resolution at the same time. Council President Olson advised she will schedule repeal of the ordinances on the July 26th if time allows, but she will not schedule a resolution until the more global issue related to council resolutions is addressed. 2. Public Information Officer Job Description Revision Council President Olson advised in response to concern at last week's committee meeting whether this was in the city council's purview, she provided RCW 35a.11.020 which states the content of job descriptions is within the council's purview. The proposed changes to the job description were due to the need for guardrails on the job description and making it clear communications by the PIO were the voice of the entire City and not opinion pieces. To support the concept that this is not personal, she referred to a media release that was not a neutral voice that was not done by the current PIO. Questions and discussion followed regarding other cities' PIO job description, cities with a strong mayor versus mayor/city manager form of government, a suggestion to replace "and be accountable for the 07/18/22 PSPHSP Committee Minutes, accuracy of information released" (page 3 of job description) with "when working with an elected official(s), the elected official is accountable for the accuracy and the content of the information released," a suggestion to remove "or distribution" (page 3 of job description), support a PIO can provide electeds, only 5 press releases since 2016 that fall into the category of opinion, preference for discussion at full council, who the PIO reports to in other cities, concern none of the other job descriptions exert this amount control from the legislative branch, concern this is the third time this job description has been discussed by council in the last year, concern this is targeting information coming from the mayor's office, concern with using an employee to get at the mayor, who determines if information is opinion -based or fact -based, and concern this is overstep by the legislative branch. Questions and discussion continued regarding concern with manipulating a city employee, other cities' job descriptions that hold the PIO responsible for fact -based and mention neutrality, HR's direction to remove reference to neutrality as it is intangible, HR's approval of the proposed job description, 6 press releases since 2020 that were opinion -based, concern a release regarding the PROS Plan was no longer on the City's website, guardrails to provide clarity between electeds and PIO, other avenues to address the issue, job descriptions within the council's purview, whether the form of effects the PIO's job description, the PIO is the voice of the City as a whole not the mayor or city manager, whether this is best practice, whether there are unintended consequences, concern with council overstep into administration and the employee's ability to do their job and feel secure, and the PIO being stuck between the administration and council. Questions and discussion continued regarding working with HR to come up with best practices, intent of the administrative order on bullying to protect employees, finding other guardrails to protect staff, a suggestion to remove, "this position expressly does not provide support in preparation or distribution of opinion -based commentary of personal views" and work with HR on alternate language, putting the responsibility for accuracy on the elected who provides the information, concern with how the council may intend to use this, the council's job to set policy, concern the policy is not clear enough to prevent the mayor from putting an employee in a position of violating policy, concern with addressing a policy issue via a job description, the committee's disagreement with the proposed job description, reason the job description was rescheduled to this meeting, and best practices for a PIO. Committee recommendation: Full council. 3. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 3:27 p.m.