2015 I won by only 38 votes in D1!

Yes, more succinct than I was, but yes that’s what he seems to have said.

The written rules you have posted are not consistent with how Wayne is quoted describing them in PubliCola. And to not be in violation under the actual rules we’d have to believe that the 4 am day-after election message to department directors wasn’t for the purpose of supporting the campaign.

PubliCola: “McIntyre’s initial request ‘doesn’t expressly mention it’s for campaign purposes, so I don’t think it’s an improper use of city resources,’ Barnett said.” This seems to say Markham had to indicate, in the message, the intent to violate the code for it to be a violation of the code.

A complaint should be heard by the SEEC on the use of city resources to assist a campaign. It should not only lie with Wayne’s interpretation IMO.

Brilliant

How can this be interpreted that to be a violation, the intent must be stated?

“may not ask a city employee to be on a mailing list, *if the mailing list will be used to solicit campaign contributions*”…

NOT “if it is disclosed that the mailing list will be used for…”

I don't think this is what people understood Harrell's reparations proposal to be. I think he suggested this was going to be new money dedicated to the descendants of Black enslaved people. Instead, it could literally be just tacking the word "reparations" onto something they're already doing.

Wtf????

www.facebook.com/share/17cgSV...

@seattletimes I predict that when the new contract is announced your edboard will praise everyone for fixing the CARE problems but you won’t ask why no one made SPD officers do what is was they were already supposed to be doing for all of 2024. You won’t ask whose lives could have been helped.

Infuriating!

As more evidence of what I promised @SeattleTimes editorial page reinforces false narrative from that of @DavidKroman’s article. @KatieWilson is calling out police for failing to fulfill current contract obligations (as reported by @DavidKroman).

“In its ruling, the appeals court described the attorney-fee calculation as ‘irregular’ and raised the ‘possibility that class counsel were accepting an excessive fee’ at the expense of pushing for a better deal for the Boeing employees.”

‘We represented people who didn’t want to see that settlement go through because it was thought the attorneys were taking far too much money,’ said Alan Epstein, a Philadelphia attorney who objected to the settlement on behalf of about 2,000 workers.”

“But that deal was overturned by an appeals court in 2002, which sided with a group of dissenting Boeing employees who described the deal as unfair, in part because of the $3.8 million in attorney’s fees it awarded to Harrell’s firm.”

He evokes the Boeing lawsuit as he did in 2021. The result was a total victory for Boeing. From the Times: “In 1999, a federal judge approved a $15 million settlement of the case, in which Boeing also agreed to change promotion policies and strengthen internal discrimination investigations.”

When the new contract comes out the fanfare will be “oh look CARE is fixed.” I’m glad that you will remember that police leveraged their intransigence in getting people the help they need for higher wages.

We know that there’s a new contract coming that may remove many of the barriers to CARE. I’m aghast that this sort of intransigence at SPD has been tolerated for the last year and a half. How many more people could have been helped?