Estela Ortega, Kip Tokuda and Reverend Harriet Walden shared this letter with us.

Dear Members of the 36th District Democrats Executive Board:

We have heard that police reform has been a prominent issue in your deliberations for the endorsement in the Seattle mayor’s race. We wanted to set the record straight and describe for you Mayor Mike McGinn’s leadership in reforming the Seattle Police Department.

As community leaders, we have spent decades urging local leaders to listen to the community’s concerns regarding biased policing and excessive uses of force by our police department. Sometimes we got lip service and promises of action. But we never got meaningful change.

Mike McGinn has been different. He has taken our concerns seriously and worked hard to produce effective, lasting changes to the Seattle Police Department. While there are many strong opinions on how best to achieve reform, Mayor McGinn has always emphasized the importance of bringing together the community, the police, City Hall and the federal government to do what it takes to produce real reforms.

Here are some of the most prominent examples that have convinced us of Mayor McGinn’s sincere commitment to police reform:

• After the shooting of John T. Williams by Officer Ian Birk, the Seattle Police Department worked with his family to arrange meetings between family members, Chief John Diaz and other members of the command staff in restorative circles to address concerns and help restore a sense of trust in the police by the Williams family. The department’s own Firearms Review Board found the shooting to be unjustified and the department recommended Officer Birk be terminated. Birk resigned rather than be fired, but it was the intention of Mayor McGinn and Chief Diaz that he could never work as a police officer in this state again.

• Mayor McGinn worked with the community and SPD command staff to create and implement the 20/20 reform plan, which goes far beyond the issues raised by the DOJ in their report and in the Settlement Agreement. The mayor has brought us together with SPD to implement these 20 initiatives, including measures to improve the diversity of our police force, efforts to improve police-community relations, and new standards for training and practices that reflect our commitment to race and social justice.

• Mayor McGinn flew to Washington, D.C. to meet with Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez (recently nominated by President Obama to serve as Secretary of Labor) to jump-start negotiations toward a settlement. Even though the Seattle Police Officers Guild wanted the mayor to resist the DOJ and sue, Mayor McGinn personally negotiated a strong Settlement Agreement.

• Retained well known civil rights leader, Connie Rice, formerly of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, to advise the mayor in his efforts to lead and implement police reform. Ms. Rice is well known in her field for tackling police brutality and working with the community and the Los Angeles Police Department to build accountability and trust with the community and meaningful culture change within the department.

• We urged Mayor McGinn to include community leaders, including ourselves, in a formal capacity in the process of implementing the agreement. The mayor responded by ensuring the inclusion in the agreement of a Community Police Commission. This body, on which so many great social justice and civil rights leaders serve, advise the City and the Monitor on the implementation of the Settlement Agreement and advises the City on many other issues to support the development of reforms, the establishment of police priorities, and mechanisms to promote community confidence in SPD.

There is still much work ahead to reform the Seattle Police Department. We are confident that Mayor McGinn will continue to be a partner with us and the community, the police department, other elected officials, the Department of Justice and the Monitor, to implement these reforms and make sure they are effective and lasting. We endorse Mike McGinn for a second term as mayor because of his commitment to reform and justice. We urge you to endorse him as well.

Sincerely,

Estela Ortega, Kip Tokuda & Rev. Harriett Walden

seattleweekly.com/news/thedailyweekly/946920-129/burgess-democrats-county-king-maddux-committee
By Ellis E. Conklin Tue., May 14 2013 at 07:13AM

King County Democrats aren’t really sure whether mayoral candidate Tim Burgess is a real Democrat. In fact, the chairman of its endorsement committee, Michael J. Maddux, went so far as to tell Seattle Weekly yesterday that, “We are concerned that he doesn’t share our Democratic Party values.”

Last Friday, the committee, which represents all 17 legislative districts in the county, chose to take no position prior to the August 6 primary, but instead gave their tentative support to four candidates who they believe are either “viable” or “qualified” to lead the city of Seattle.

Those making the cut are — and they were listed, intentionally, in alphabetical order — Councilman Bruce Harrell, Mayor Mike McGinn, state Sen. Ed Murray, and former councilman Peter Steinbrueck.

Missing from the list is one Tim Burgess, an ex-Seattle cop and detective, a former radio reporter at KJR (he covered City Hall), a one-time anti-poverty worker for the Christian humanitarian organization World Concern (Burgess is a Presbyterian), a Seattle councilman since 2007 — and lifelong Democrat.

So, we wondered, what has Burgess done to have received an ice-cold shoulder from King County Democrats?

Well, it seems plenty of things bother them about Burgess.

Where to begin?

The candidate questionnaire Burgess filled out prior to his appearance before the committee in late April is as good a place as any to start.

In it, Burgess is asked, as all the other mayoral wannabes were, whether he’s ever given money to a candidate from another party.

Wrote Burgess: “I supported Mark Sidran for state Attorney General in 2004, but when he lost in the Primary I then supported Rob McKenna. I also gave a contribution to John McCain in 2000 when he was viciously attacked by the religious right with homophobic and racist slurs.”

Burgess did add, however, that “these contributions account for 5 percent of my total giving history, the other 95 percent have been to Democrats, nonpartisans and progressive causes.”

It would appear 95 percent is not good enough.

(Burgess, by the way, has given Barack Obama $10,100, according to campaign disclosure reports, since April 2007.)

Then, there was the guest column that appeared in The Seattle Times on Jan. 26, 2005. Titled “Question what you’re told about faith-driven voters,” Burgess wrote, “The wisest course for Democrats — and Republicans, too, for that matter — is to get to know and understand people who are driven in life by their faith beliefs.”

This was followed in the same column by a sure-fired deal-breaker (at least in the eyes of King County Democrats last week), when Burgess added, “We don’t like abortion. We value the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman.”

Even though Burgess put an “X” in the box that asked, “Do you support women’s absolute right to reproductive freedom?” Maddux suggested the column sewed doubts as to whether he was “100 percent” pro-choice. It also didn’t help that Burgess, during his days as owner of a communications consulting firm, had as one of his clients Concerned Women for America, a Christian activist group known for his anti-choice and anti-gay stances.

Maddux, a member of King County Democrats’ executive board the past four years, strongly suggested that Burgess’ desire to crackdown on panhandlers did not serve him well among some members of the endorsement committee.

In February 2010, Burgess announced plans for a new ordinance — his new ordinance — that would get tougher with aggressive panhandlers. His proposal called for a ban on panhandling near ATMs and parking meters, with a $50 fine meted out for the civil infraction. The measure was aimed at making people feel safer in the downtown shopping district.

“We have serious problems downtown with open-air drug trafficking. We have an extremely serious problem with robberies downtown,” said Burgess at the time. “These are not members of our homeless community that are committing these crimes … Homeless and impoverished people deserve safe streets just as anybody else does.”

Said Maddux, “I think there was a question as to his commitment to civil liberties for the homeless.”

Note: Burgess could not be reached for comment yesterday, but we will update this post with his response as soon as we hear from him.

Maddux said the committee was also non-plussed that Burgess offered a “qualified” explanation on the issue of charters schools, which King County Democrats vigorously oppose.

“When you looking at the totally of Tim’s record, we can’t be certain his shares our party values. We were burned with Rodney Tom calling himself a Democrat and then deserting. We don’t want that to happen again.”

Pressed on who he supported in the mayor’s race, Maddux hedged before finally he said, “I’m torn between McGinn, Harrell and Murray.”

Not Steinbrueck?

“No, I disagree with him on density at South Lake Union.”

Burgess, who leads the field in terms of campaign money raised through April, may be on the outs with King County Democrats at large, but last week the executive board of the 36th legislative district, which encompasses Queen Anne, Ballard and Magnolia, last week recommended two candidates — Burgess and Murray.

“I’ve heard those critiques about Tim, but I think our recommendation speaks for itself,” said district chairman Jeff Manson. The 36 district will formally endorse one of them on May 22.

seattletransitblog.com/2013/05/09/councilmember-burgess-delays-transit-infrastructure-projects-again/
May 9, 2013 at 11:30 am
by Matthew Johnson

For those who couldn’t attend last Wednesday’s Government Performance and Finance Committee meeting, you didn’t miss much. Some time between printing the official agenda and starting the meeting Councilmember Burgess pushed back the Ship Canal Crossing Study and University District to SLU Study to the May 15th meeting. In an earlier post we mentioned some reasons why these studies are important:

The Ship Canal Crossing study is key to putting solid numbers to the results of the City/Sound Transit Downtown to Ballard HCT study. Besides that, a new crossing is a needed project in its own right (see Bruce’s great outside the box proposal). The Council has previously stated its desire to start the Eastlake study this year, but recently some members have started pulling back.

Both of these projects are needed. We have the money, the Council just needs to follow through on its prior commitments and allow the Mayor to fund them. The more shovel ready projects we have, the better able we are to compete when federal dollars come available.

Unfortunately, yesterday Councilmember Burgess’ staff let us know that the initial discussion of these items will be pushed back even further, to the June 5th Government Performance and Finance Committee meeting. Apparently, they need more time “to sort through technical and policy questions related to [the] transportation items.”

Quite frankly, that is a cop out. These are studies that have been in the works for at least a year. Not only did the council unanimously vote to adopt the Transit Master Plan, but the Council has previously stated its desire to start the UW-SLU study this year. A new Ship Canal Crossing is not only called for in the Transit Master Plan, but also the Pedestrian Master Plan and the Bicycle Master Plan. The Bicycle Master Plan was completed in 2007.

There is a sense of urgency because the Bridging the Gap road levy will come up for a renewal in 2015. If the Ship Canal Crossing study finds that a new car bridge (and reconfiguration of the Fremont bridge for bike/ped/transit priority) is the best option for Fremont, we need to know before BtG is put together. UW-SLU is important for two reasons. First, it is one of the high priority corridors identified by the Transit Master Plan. Secondly, one of the worries about a Ballard streetcar line is that it could make some people feel like Ballard is “covered”. By funding UW-SLU, we show that streetcars and Link are complementary, not interchangeable, and that our city is comprised of many corridors. We don’t want the Ballard study to get too far ahead of UW-SLU.

The funding needed to get started on these projects would make up less than 5% of the supplemental budget. This money comes from project savings and so doesn’t involve cuts to other projects or new taxes. The only plausible reason to push back against starting work that the Council has already endorsed in principle is to delay the Mayor’s pro-transit agenda and then claim that he can’t get things done.

Seattle’s transit infrastructure is at least 30 years behind and we’ll never catch up as long as mayoral candidates continue to play games with these much needed projects. While a month delay may not seem like much at first, keep in mind that the UW-SLU project has already been needlessly pushed back six months. In this most recent play, at first it was a two week delay. Now it is a month. Are we have no movement forward on transit issues until after the election?

Council meddling has cost us before, particularly when delays in starting the TMP meant that Prop 1 had no specific projects, which ultimately led to its failure at the ballot. Let’s not let that happen again. The city has the money, the city has the plan, the council just needs to stop playing politics and start doing what is best for Seattle.

Big thanks to STB readers Anton, Charles, Will, and Peyton for showing up on the 1st. If you want to help support high capacity transit, please join us on June 5th, for the third try. The meeting will be in the Council Chambers (City Hall, up the stairs), Wednesday June 5th, at 9:30am. Come at least half an hour early to ensure you get a chance to testify!

seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020924147_westneat05xml.html
Police used bicycles as their secret weapon to defeat the May Day anarchists. So who’s laughing at Mayor McSchwinn now?

By Danny Westneat
Seattle Times staff columnist

For a guy who supposedly can do no right, things keep going curiously not wrong for Seattle’s unorthodox mayor.

Take last week. The campaign for Seattle mayor finally kicked into gear, with the first debates featuring a peloton of candidates pushing to brand lead rider Mike McGinn as bumbling and incompetent, especially when it comes to his police force.

So what happens? The May Day protests. At which Seattle police finally figured out how to handle the anarchists. Using as their secret weapons … wait for it … a bunch of bikes.

Police employed dozens of bicycles, helping direct the flow of the protests and then forming barriers with the bikes to block and sweep streets when some demonstrators got violent. Police experts said that while bikes for crowd control isn’t new, the stepped-up use of them this year was the key difference in limiting May Day property damage and injuries.

And they call him Mayor McSchwinn as if that’s a bad thing!

At a mayoral debate last week, the first question was about the police and the protests. The bike-in-chief beamed. The other candidates said they were pleased but didn’t look it. Then businessman candidate Charlie Staadecker piped up:
“Mayor McGinn has taken tremendous heat,” he said, turning to McGinn. “Tonight I just want to say thank you, to you and your team, for handling the scene.”

The crowd cheered. It was weird. When was the last time a Seattle mayor or our cops were applauded for a street protest? Maybe last millennium (though I don’t recall it happening then, either).

McGinn said the police were determined not to repeat mistakes made at May Day last year. Using bikes more was recommended by an outside consultant, so the department tried it.

“We studied what went wrong and made changes,” McGinn said. “We also made a conscious choice to be more assertive this year, because last year we hung back a bit too much.”

The whole campaign is going like this so far. Candidates go after McGinn for his myriad flaws and find themselves somehow blunted.
Example: State Sen. Ed Murray attacked McGinn at the debate for not working well with others. Easy shot, right? Well, it missed because Murray recently was stripped of his own title as Senate majority leader due to a coup by two members of his own party.

“I’m really glad to hear that nobody down in Olympia ever disagrees,” McGinn said to Murray, dryly.

The others seem similarly hamstrung. City Councilmember Tim Burgess is qualified and knowledgeable but at these debates has yet to show any fire.

City Councilmember Bruce Harrell is all fire — “He strokes our political erogenous zones,” quipped one onlooker — but is prone to rambling incoherence.

Former City Councilmember Peter Steinbrueck seemed irked to be there — until he was asked about affordable housing and gave a detailed, positive, passionate answer. Maybe make him director of housing?

Nobody made a clear case for why McGinn should be dismissed. More important, none gave much of a reason why Seattle, where things are going pretty well, would be better off having them at the helm instead.

Maybe they figure McGinn is toast already. It’s true, his polling has been so low that conventional wisdom says he’s got long odds to even make it through the primary Aug. 6.

But would anyone have predicted that this mayor, or this police force, would get cheers, in Seattle, for their handling of a riot?

Maybe primary day will be another of those days when something goes curiously not wrong for this mayor, whom we may have to start calling Lucky McGinn.

seattlemet.com/news-and-profiles/publicola/articles/morning-fizz-mcginn-successfully-fends-off-attacks-in-latest-candidate-forum-may-2013

Published May 3, 2013, 9:15am
By Morning Fizz

There was another mayoral debate last night—a second joint Democratic Legislative District affair, this one at Hamilton Middle School in Wallingford (co-hosted by North Seattle’s 43rd, 46th, 36th, and 32nd Districts).

There was no obvious winner last night—Ed Murray remained a bit subdued and aloof, Tim Burgess was more present than he was on Monday, and longshot Charlie Staadecker continued to charm folks with his friendly bow-tie wearing style (he called for a round of Happy Birthday for Murray).

Evidently trying to emulate Seattle City Council member Bruce Harrell’s success at Monday night’s forum (Harrell was applauded for his standout showing after taking it to the incumbnet at the South Seattle Community College forum sponsored by south end and West Seattle districts), the other candidates upped their attacks on Mayor Mike McGinn.

Some times it worked, but mostly it fell flat. And for that reason, if anyone came out slightly on top last night, it was, ironically, the mayor.

1) Tim Burgess went after McGinn on South Lake Union, pointing out that the council raised the fees on developers for height increases to fund affordable housing—the council increased the rate from McGinn’s $15.15 per square foot of additional density to $21.68.

Burgess said the mayor “did nothing more for affordable housing than maintain the status quo” while crediting the council for “increasing the fees dramatically that developers have to pay” while rejecting a “special back-room deal that the mayor made with Vulcan” (referring to the controversial “Block 59″ proposal.)

McGinn said: “Mr. Burgess is incorrect. We sent down $45 million for affordable housing because we raised the heights and they lowered the heights.” McGinn’s point: His plan didn’t maintain the status quo because there was no incentive zoning in South Lake Union to begin with, and he proposed the new $15.15 fee, which developers would pay in exchange for greater density. Additionally, by lowering the heights (on three blocks along the water to protect views and prevent shadowing), McGinn contends the council took millions out of the affordable housing piggy bank.

Of course, it wasn’t Burgess who pushed the fund higher, it was Council Member Nick Licata and Mike O’Brien, whose push to substantially increase funding for low-income housing over McGinn’s proposal resulted in the higher funding level.

After the forum, McGinn also disputed the “backroom deal” charge, noting that he convened a stakeholders group to vet the plan (which won praise from housing advocates such as Low Income Housing Institute director Sharon Lee), as opposed to what he characterized to Fizz as “the council’s nuttiness.”

2) State Sen. Ed Murray (D-43) went after the mayor for being divisive and failing to get things done. The point of Murray’s attack was to highlight his own political acumen. He pointed out that as house transportation committee chair, he was able to get a 29-member coalition (“including Republicans who voted for taxes”) to sign off on his big transportation package. He also boasted about getting Republicans to vote for his gay marriage bill.

McGinn swatted this one down: “Ed, I’m really glad to hear that nobody down in Olympia ever disagrees.” McGinn’s zinger turned Murray’s Olympia trump card into a liability by conjuring up the current budget standoff, which has Murray on the defensive against a shrewd Republican majority.

Murray even drew boos when he made a second attempt to paint McGinn as a divisive force; Murray criticized McGinn for “attacking” Gov. Christine Gregoire during the tunnel debates, totally misunderstanding McGinn’s populist appeal as a Seattle partisan.

3) Harrell himself continued to attack McGinn as well with slightly better results than Burgess and Murray, at least judging from the audience. After McGinn, trying to dispute accusations that he doesn’t play well with others, challenged his rivals to sign on to the anti-coal train coalition of mayors, legislators, and tribal leaders that he’s put together (touché), Harrell drew applause and laughter by shrugging condescendingly, “Sure, I’ll join … if it’ll help you do better in your four years” as mayor.

Harrell also drew big applause when he said of McGinn: “The city voted out [former mayor Greg] Nickels because they wanted someone who they thought could bring an outsider’s point of view, not a politician. … Well, we got what we got.”

However, Harrell’s claim that McGinn’s list of accomplishments seemed more like an inventory of council successes—he pointed to McGinn’s boast about the paid sick leave ordinance—was disingenuous itself. It was liberal council member Licata, along with Harrell’s other opponent, Tim Burgess, who were the driving forces for that legislation.

Additionally, Harrell went after McGinn for spending more money on bike lanes and sharrows than on sidewalks—”in 2012 we built 12 blocks of new sidewalks, but but we re-striped 50 miles of bike lanes and sharrows.”

It’s a nice line for Seattle Times editors, but it fell flat last night in front of the roomful of liberal Democratic activists.

We’ll have much more to report from last night’s debate—including, to our surprise, why supposed neighborhood candidate Peter Steinbrueck actually took the most urbanist position of the evening.

For now, you can click on last night’s Cola twitter feed for a blow by blow account.