One well-placed Seattle Police source tells “The Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH that it’s likely true. A second source with knowledge of the situation says he’s out as chief.

If true, the departure comes as Diaz and the department faces a number of complaints and lawsuits alleging sexism, harassment and discrimination. A 27-year-veteran of the department sued Diaz for sex and wage discrimination lawsuit. Four female officers alleged they faced bullying, sexual harassment, and gender discrimination within the department. A third lawsuit claimed retaliation for reporting racial discrimination.

More from Jason Rantz: Officer suing Seattle police for gender discrimination accused of gender bias

Is Adrian Diaz really out as Seattle Police chief?

The source said that Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell “does not like the drama around Diaz.”

“I know this mayor and the mayor’s office. I know the mayor is committed to equity and women having equal wages as men. I think they are very, very concerned about women, generally, and (dislike) the drama. I don’t want it to be the case (that Diaz is fired),” the well-placed Seattle Police Department source.

The claims of drama appear to be part of a coordinated effort by a small group of aggrieved Seattle staffers unhappy with Diaz’s staffing decisions and other policy choices.

“The Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH has not independently confirmed that Diaz will depart from the chief role.

Related: SPD’s assistant chief placed on administrative leave

Listen to “The Jason Rantz Show” on weekday afternoons from 3-6 p.m. on KTTH 770 AM (HD Radio 97.3 FM HD-Channel 3). Subscribe to the podcast here. Follow Jason on X, formerly known as Twitter, Instagram, and  Facebook.

Follow @https://twitter.com/jasonrantz

Bird was awarded a Bronze Star Medal with Valor for “exceptionally valorous conduct in the face of the enemy” on July 9, 2006. He was serving as a Special Forces Engineer during Operation Iraqi Freedom at the time. He was also awarded the Army Commendation Medal for “exceptionally meritorious service” as an Area Support Team Member. Both awards are highlighted on Bird’s campaign website and have been noted in speeches and on social media to bolster his candidacy.

However, documentation obtained exclusively by “The Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH includes a 2009 letter of reprimand against Bird. The letter, signed by then-Brigadier General Hector Pagan, details several instances of misconduct, including that Bird wore awards and badges he did not earn, falsified documents and sought career advancement by deceiving the U.S. Army.

Semi Bird – Military Documents – 0524 by scoogan on Scribd

What did Semi Bird say he did to earn commendation?

Bird was awarded the Bronze Star and a Commendation Medal for heroic work on the battlefield. A narrative accompanying the Bronze Star, obtained by “The Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH, said he helped neutralize an ambush attack “with total disregard for his personal safety.”

Additionally, two Green Beret operators who were on the ground on July 9, 2006, including one who he says was responsible for conduct which Bird (and Bird’s major) claimed credit for, spoke exclusively to “The Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH, describing Bird as a “fraud.”

Bird has responded to the allegations by asserting they are an attempt “to dishonor a veteran.” He denies any acts of stolen valor, while downplaying the significance of the reprimand.

Why did the U.S. Army reprimand Semi Bird?

As outlined in the reprimand letter, Pagan told Bird the investigation found he “wore awards and badges that you had not earned.” Additionally, Pagan said Bird knowingly “submitted false documents for the sole purpose of gaining an unfair advantage against other individuals” seeking entry into the Warrant Officer Corps. Entry into this program would have afforded Bird a significant increase in pay and responsibilities.

Pagan also discovered Bird “manipulate(d) the system for your personal gain by aiding in the drafting of NCOERs (non-commissioned officer evaluation reports) which you knew to be false” and “enlisted the help of senior NCOs and Officers to perpetuate this fraud against the government.” He said Bird was seeking “personal gain” at the expense of the “good order and discipline of the armed forces.”

“The submission of false information to gain a promotion amounts to fraud against the United States Government,” Pagan wrote.

Pagan began investigating after members of the Special Forces community raised questions about the veracity of many of Bird’s claims. Some heard him claim he was from a unit they knew he was never with. Others said he attended schools that they had been to, but Bird was never able to confirm his attendance.

“Your actions represent a serious departure from the high standards of integrity and professionalism expected of a Special Forces Solider in this Command. Your conduct in this matter causes me to seriously consider your suitability for continued service as a Solider in the United States Army,” Pagan added.

Bird responded to the reprimand within seven days as required, writing that he “first and foremost accept full responsibility for my actions.”

Bird accompanied Green Berets as part of a Tactical Psychological Operation Team on the evening of July 9, 2006. He was in the trail vehicle in the convoy alongside his major.

In the narrative, then-Staff Sergeant Bird is said to have killed an enemy combatant who threatened soldiers with rocket-propelled grenades (RPG). He then helped secure the perimeter around a disabled American military vehicle while still under heavy attack.

The narrative says that at least four enemy personnel engaged the convoy in an ambush, which included two RPGs. Bird exited and “without hesitation, dismounted the vehicle in order to effectively return fire,” according to the narrative.

After reportedly suffering a concussion from the RPG blast approximately twenty feet away, he “immediately regained his composure, got accountability of his security element, and returned fire.” A second RPG reportedly struck Bird “in the helmet with a piece of fragmentation.”

After a third RPG severely wounded an Iraqi Special Operations Force soldier embedded with the Americans, the narrative says Bird “was able to neutralize the threat.”

But, according to operators on the ground during the ambush, Bird did not engage the enemy as the narrative claimed.

Semi Bird accused of stolen valor

“The Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH spoke with two Green Berets who engaged the enemy on July 9, 2006. Both Special Forces operators, requesting anonymity to avoid personal gain from their service, provided a stark contrast to the narrative surrounding the commendation awarded to Bird.

“I shot the guy. I shot the RPG gunner. So, it was a bit of a surprise to me many, many years later to read a copy of the award where apparently that was claimed by Sergeant Bird, or whoever wrote the actual write-up for him,” the Green Beret disclosed.

Amidst the chaos of battle, where “everybody’s firing in all directions,” the Green Beret acknowledged that some details could be mistaken. However, he characterized Bird’s claim as “a stretch,” expressing doubt over whether Bird even exited his vehicle during the engagement.

“Yes, he was firing off if he was outside of his vehicle firing at all, which I have no knowledge of. He surely wasn’t doing any of that in the direction that I was engaged in. He definitely didn’t get the RPG gunner, which was one of the bits of the write-up in the actual award, which again, I didn’t see until years later,” the Green Beret said.

‘There was immediate pushback’ from stolen valor claims against Semi Bird

While recovering from an injury sustained during the battle, the Green Beret heard Bird and his major had “written each other valor awards” for their supposed conduct.

“I got a good laugh at it at the time. That’s just a s*** show. That’s never gonna go anywhere because nobody ever saw them do anything,” he explained. “And then it just kind of disappeared off into the darkness, right? Didn’t hear anything else about it. Didn’t really care. But I was never asked or interviewed about any of the stuff because I’d been medevacked.”

The Green Beret says when Bird and the major’s awards were submitted, “There was immediate pushback in-house.”

He and others didn’t make too big a deal after the initial pushback because, he said, “We were in the middle of a war.”

‘Stolen Valor isn’t just some idiot at the mall wearing a combat award that he didn’t earn’

About five months later, the Green Beret says there was an awards ceremony that honored Bird’s major. He said he remembers Birds’ narrative to closely mirror what was submitted for his major.

He called the ceremony “bittersweet” because he had been jumping through hoops to get two other Special Forces recognized for their valorous conduct. He said he had to repeatedly nominate them before they were finally awarded Bronze Star medals.

“I finally got them approved. And in the same ceremony, there is this field grade who is having a valor award read for his actions during this same deployment. It was comical because of how long it took me to get guys who actually, really deserved something recognized. Two years, submitting over and over again” he said.

The Green Beret said there were other parts of the narrative that he knew other Special Forces were responsible, yet Bird and the major were taking the credit.

“That was probably the most unique and egregious type of aspect of this,” he said. “Stolen valor isn’t just some idiot at the mall wearing a combat award that he didn’t earn or whatever. But somebody who actually took credit for stuff that other people around him did. This is the first time I’ve ever seen or heard of that.”

A second Green Beret backs ‘Stolen Valor’ claims against Semi Bird

“The Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH spoke with a second Green Beret and senior operator who took part in the firefight. He also said Bird was not responsible for what earned him the commendations.

“(The other Green Beret) killed one of the RPG firers. So that part where Misipati (Semi) Bird says that he shot and engaged and neutralized the guy that was shooting RPGs — that’s a blatant lie,” the second Green Beret told “The Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH.

He said this RPG enemy was the one directly in front of, and closest to, the truck Bird was in. He does not believe he could have been talking about another enemy fighter.

This second Green Beret also said he did not see Bird exit the disabled vehicle to help get it towed out. According to this Green Beret, who saw the operational summary report, no enemy KIA (“killed in action”) was attributed to Bird.

“(The other Green Beret) facilitated that hookup, not Misipati Bird. Bird didn’t get out of the truck and pull security, all those (are) complete lies,” he said.

He also questioned Bird’s concussion, calling it “an embellishment of bulls***.”

“What I will tell you is that Misipati Bird and this whole process, you know, he used this to gain favor and empower his career after that particular point, all the way up to now, including being the nominee for the Republican Party for the governorship of the state of Washington. And it’s all been built on a fabrication of lies,” he concluded.

‘This is personal. It’s very personal.”

When he saw that Bird and the major were up for a valor award, the second Green Beret says he remembers thinking, “This is such bulls**t.” But he also acknowledges that, at the time, the awards process for Special Forces “was absolutely broken.”

“This is personal. It’s very personal,” he explained. “And I’ll tell you, the biggest regret that I have about my time is not fighting hard enough for my teammates. Because they should have been — each one of them — should have had multiple awards recognizing, (and) acknowledging their valorous activities, the gallantry, that inconspicuous valor that they put their asses in harm’s way for, over and over.”

A fear of his is to see Bird’s stolen valor discredit the Green Berets — the “quiet professionals,” which is how Green Berets prefer to behave — and be used to advance a political career. He hoped  Bird would quietly go away after this news was revealed. He says this is an example of Green Berets trying to police themselves.

But this is not the only claim of “stolen valor” made against Bird.

The ‘scuba’ claim

The second Green Beret said Bird initially submitted a photo to the Army where he was wearing Scuba Diver Insignia on his uniform (it’s commonly referred to as a “scuba bubble”). It is earned after qualifying as a Special Forces combat diver. The Green Beret said Bird falsified this history as well.

When asked about his scuba bubble, the Green Beret said Bird could not recall basic and key facts about the scuba combat diver school in Key West, Florida. He initially told someone he thought the school was in “Key West, California,” according to a third military source.

“It is a very memorable experience. It will be one of the most physically challenging and exhausting activities you will participate in your life,” the Green Beret said.

He said that because Bird couldn’t explain his experiences particularly well, it led to the Pagan investigation. He called Bird “a snake slithering through the National Guard processing system.”

A third military source, who requested anonymity, confirmed this account.

Bird accepted the reprimand’s findings at the time

In a Dec. 9, 2010 memorandum in response to the letter of reprimand, obtained by “The Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH, Bird wrote, “I first and foremost accept full responsibility for my actions.” Bird incorrectly dated the letter 2010 instead of 2009.

“The intent of this memorandum is to acknowledge the fact that I submitted false and inaccurate information in my Warrant Officer (WO) packet to include false NCOER’s in order to compensate for unrated time and meet the requirements for the WO program. My actions constitute nothing less than a fraud against the United States Army plain and simple,” Bird wrote.

He admitted that he “took advantage of the senior NCO’s and Officers in my chain of command” by betraying their trust and offered that “this incident has served as a wakeup call for me as a senior NCO.” He said he has submitted new forms, corrected records, and offered a new official photo “to correct the wrong I have perpetrated against the United States Army.”

Prior to this reprimand, Bird had been court-martialed for assaulting a sergeant while serving in the U.S. Marine Corps. He said it was the result of the sergeant using a racial slur against him.

Bird pushes back on stolen valor concerns

Bird defended his record during a 67-minute phone interview May 24. He lamented that “it’s amazing how on Memorial Day we lost ourselves once again to try to discredit a veteran” and called the claims made against him “evil.”

The gubernatorial hopeful flatly denied taking credit for the actions of others. He pointed to documentation from the award narrative and his major’s witness account as proof.

Bird also alleged that, at the time, a senior noncommissioned officer from his unit “had a problem with me” and had been out to get him. He would not name the individual.

“This individual went so far as to a Judge Advocate General telling him, ‘If you continue to push this, we will file charges on you. I don’t know why you’re going after Bird so hard. But if you continue to do this, we will file charges on you. We verified his stuff. Why are you doing this?'” Bird recalled.

What “awards and badges” did Bird wear that he didn’t earn?

Bird also addressed the reprimand finding that he wore awards and badges that he did not earn.

Initially, Bird said he could only think of the scuba bubble badge. He denied telling anyone he said he trained in Key West and this resulted from a paperwork problem that prevented him from verifying that he attended training school.

Bird said there was an allegation made about an Aviator Badge he was wearing from his time as a flight medic. But he said that the National Guard “verified all of my awards and medals” when they “scrubbed” through his personnel form and the Aviator Badge “was verified.”

“That was it. So, when they (Pagan) say ‘awards and badges,’ that’s the terminology,” he said.

But that doesn’t appear to be the case.

Washington Republican gubernatorial candidate Semi Bird has addressed the reprimand finding that he wore awards and badges that he did not earn. (Photos obtained by “The Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH)

“The Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH obtained two official Army photos: one taken before the reprimand, and one after. According to an independent third party expert who reviewed the photos for this story, between the photos, Bird appears to have removed the German Jump Wings, an oak leaf cluster on his Army Commendation Medal, and a star device on his National Defense Service Medal, in addition to the Special Forces Combat Divers Badge.

Promises of access to files were unfulfilled

Bird explained that he had documents on his computer in a folder titled “Slander” that would dispute claims made against him. During the interview, he promised to provide them to “The Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH.

“I’m gonna give you everything, OK? I’m gonna give you so much more. Because at this point in time, I am sitting here with my wife … we signed up to try to do something good for our state … this is going to be good because I want everyone to know …,” he explained.

Hours after the call, attorney Matthew Taylor with Boise-based Taylor Law Offices emailed “The Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH. He said he would assist Bird in providing “additional answers or comments regarding your discussion about his military history” and that future requests should go through him, to be taken “under consideration.”

Initially, Taylor did not respond to multiple emails asking for the files and for clarification on what awards and badges were referenced in the reprimand to put better context to the photos. We had set a noon deadline for receiving these files. However, at 3:54 p.m. on Tuesday, May 28, Bird representatives contacted “The Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH requesting a meeting the following day, Wednesday, May 29. But he did not provide the promised documents. After careful consideration, we have decided to publish the story at 5 p.m. on May 28. Any new information or context provided by Bird’s representatives will be included in future updates.

Bird claimed confusion over the reprimand

When first asked about the reprimand, Bird went into detail about a rule violation, explaining what, why, and how everything happened. He said the reprimand was not supposed to be public, claiming it was “a reprimand that … happens all the time in the military. And my reprimand, again, was supposed to be buried.”

But he was talking about a separate incident unrelated to the Pagan reprimand.

Bird said he falsely attested on an evaluation sheet for a soldier in his unit, to help that soldier advance in his training. This incident had not been previously reported.

Bird explained that he merely confused this new incident with what Pagan found because this happened so long ago. He then said this incident didn’t lead to a reprimand. But he also claimed it was “the only reprimand I ever had” and claimed this incident “was supposed to be sealed.” This leaves an open question as to whether or not Bird actually did face a second reprimand tied to the incident he revealed.

“This is a duress moment for me. And I’m not trying to make excuses for it. I’m just being very, blatantly honest with you. There is truth in what I’m saying. But there’s a lot of confusion because I don’t recollect much of what you’re saying. I do recollect that firefight,” Bird said.

Former JAG breaks down the severity of Semi Bird stolen valor claims

“The Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH shared the DOD documents and Bird interview with attorney Jeffrey Lustick for his review and expertise.

Lustick served in the U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General Corps and was the director of Military Justice for the 1st Special Operation Wing and the U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command. He’s also a former Washington Air National Guard member and currently has a civilian legal practice with offices in Bellingham and Las Vegas.

“When you wear a badge, a ribbon, or medal on your uniform, and it’s something that you did not earn, it is potentially a criminal offense under Article 106(a) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and could result in brig (jail) time, (rank) reduction to Private, forfeitures of pay, and a bad conduct discharge,” Lustick explained to “The Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH.

It’s also a crime under the UCMJ to make a false official statement under Article 107. Lustick says it has a maximum punishment of five years in prison, a reduction to E-1, and a possible dishonorable discharge.

Lustick explained that, “this can also be termed ‘stolen valor’ under civilian law and military law, and it’s a complete slap in the face when valor is stolen by a military member.”

In 2005, Congress passed the Stolen Valor Act to prohibit falsely representing oneself as having been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces or any service medals or badges. However, in 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional. In response, Congress enacted a more limited version of the Stolen Valor Act in 2013. This revised act makes it illegal to falsely claim to have earned the top four valor awards, the Purple Heart, or combat-related qualification badges for financial gain or any tangible benefit.

Is this stolen valor under the law?

When asked if Bird’s case was one of stolen valor, Lustick said “it depends.”

“If his German Jump Wings and the ‘scuba bubble badge’ and a cluster on his ribbon rack are all fake, it’s probably a minor case, except it’s even more aggravated when done by a Special Operations soldier who tells lies like this and get others involved in telling the lies,” he said.

If Bird’s Bronze Star with Valor device wasn’t actually earned, then Lustick calls it “a clear case of stolen valor and it’s no wonder why members of Bird’s Green Beret Team are still talking about this several years later. It’s not an axe to grind. It would be about trying to get Bird to stop stretching the truth.”

“There is a professional culture within the Special Operations Community, which is made up of Army Green Berets and Rangers, Navy Seals, Marine Raiders, Air Force Pararescue and Combat Controllers, and other not so publicly well known operators,” Lustick explained. “They describe themselves as being ‘silent professionals’ who often shrug off individual accomplishments as a simple fulfillment of their difficult duties. This is their personal ethos that they live by all throughout their careers.”

Why did this only earn a reprimand?

After reading the General Officer Letter of Reprimand given to Bird for the 2009 incident, Lustick said that was “surprised that he being such a senior NCO with 17 years of experience, that it didn’t result in at least non-judicial punishment, which is when a commanding officer calls out the misconduct and the soldier agrees to accept punishment.”

Lustick speculates Bird only faced a letter of reprimand because there’s “a gray area” involving members of the Army National Guard regarding whether they serve in a federal or state status.

“But National Guardsmen also serve sometimes in positions with the Department of the Army or the Department of the Air Force, where they change status day by day. They become federalized for special duties or when receiving federal training and then revert back to state status,” Lustick noted.

The ‘gray area’ explained

When a National Guard member is not in a federal status, they do not automatically fall under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ.

“A senior NCO who is a Special Operator and who wears badges and ribbons he didn’t earn to embellish his record is not tolerated within the SOF community. Plus, as the letter of reprimand also says, this NCO got others to help him carry out the fraud submit a fraudulent special selection application. That’s almost always going to result in a court-martial if the person doing it is on active duty in a federal status.” Lustick explained.

It is unclear if Bird was on federal orders and, therefore, in a federal status when he received the Letter or Reprimand. If Bird had been in the National Guard in Washington at the time, then jurisdiction would have fallen to the Washington State Adjutant General, who at the time was Air Force Lt. General Frank Scoggins.

A group of people in attendance at the Washington State Republican Party 2024 Convention hold up signs supporting Semi Bird as the gubernatorial candidate they wish to endorse. (Photo provided by the Semi Bird for Governor campaign)

Lustick was one of a few military prosecutors for the Washington Guard until late 2008 and says, “Bird’s name never came up. When the SOCSOUTH JAGs handled this, they apparently never reported what had happened to us.”

Political implications with Semi Bird stolen valor claims and official reprimand

Bird, a former Richland School Board Director, earned the Washington State Republican endorsement after a somewhat contentious party convention in April.

Delegates endorsed Bird over his Republican opponent, former King County Sheriff and U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert. It was an early endorsement for the party, intended to help keep Republicans focused on backing the candidate with the best chance of winning in the general.

The endorsement vote was initially called off at the convention. Party leadership said Bird “was not forthcoming” during the vetting process. It was a reference to a 1993 conviction on a federal misdemeanor charge of bank larceny. The Seattle Times reported it was connected to falsifying a credit application “with intent to steal and purloin” funds from U.S. Bank. Bird used the name and social security number of his father on the application. He said he takes full responsibility for the incident.

Delegates overturned the decision to nix the endorsement and voted to back Bird.

Will a reprimand and claims of stolen valor end the Semi Bird campaign?

It’s hard to imagine that stolen valor claims, and an admission of falsifying records to defraud the Army, won’t leave even the Semi Bird campaign supporters with questions about his conduct.

For Lustick, the letter of reprimand and Bird’s response make it clear: he can’t be trusted.

“I think it calls into question a lot of claims that he’s made about his military service. I think it calls into question about his ability to be truthful and honest. And this is not the type of person that you should trust moving forward,” Lustick said. “Because if you will put yourself in front of soldiers who have died, who have been permanently injured, who have given their lives for military service, and you’re trying to claim that you did the same thing when in reality you didn’t, that is despicable, and certainly should not be something that we overlook.”

But Bird contends he will not allow this “slander” to stop him his gubernatorial campaign.

“But here’s what’s not going to happen. I’m not going to quit. I’m not getting off the ballot. They’ve already tried to character assassinate me. So now, here’s this,” Bird said to “The Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH.

Listen to “The Jason Rantz Show” on weekday afternoons from 3-6 p.m. on KTTH 770 AM (HD Radio 97.3 FM HD-Channel 3). Subscribe to the podcast here. Follow Jason on X, formerly known as Twitter, Instagram, and  Facebook.

Follow @https://twitter.com/jasonrantz

Two years ago this week, a first-of-its-kind legislation — called PayUp — guaranteed app-based delivery drivers a minimum wage while protecting employment flexibility. After PayUp was passed by the Seattle City Council, gig workers were in line to receive a minimum pay floor of at least minimum wage for every hour worked with an active job.

A gig worker is an employee who does temporary or freelance work, especially an independent contractor engaged on an informal or on-demand basis.

The Seattle City Council passed PayUp on a unanimous vote in 2022 with the law starting last January.

More on the passing of PayUp: Seattle greenlights minimum wages for app-based delivery drivers

“Large segments of our economy are becoming more and more automated with lower pay and scant benefits,” former Seattle City Council member Andrew Lewis said in 2022 during the bill’s passage. “As the economy evolves, so too must the approach of local government. This bill is the first step to protect and expand the rights of workers who use these apps.”

Seattle City Council referenced a report from Working Washington that claimed 92% of jobs from app-based companies paid Seattle workers less than the minimum wage.

But in 2022 after PayUp passed, DoorDash — one of the largest delivery companies affected by PayUp — estimated Seattle businesses could lose over $74 million collectively a year, and DoorDash workers could lose over $32 million in collective earnings due to an expected drop in orders.

With the PayUp law mandating that workers earn 44 cents a minute and 74 cents a mile traveled, or a minimum of $5 per order, to guarantee a minimum hourly wage, delivery companies added a $5 fee to every order placed through their apps, along with a notice that this fee was now a necessary cost of doing business in Seattle.

With the added fees, delivery sales were down 30% in January, the first month the law was in place, compared to the same time last year, according to Seattle Eater. DoorDash estimated there have been as many as 300,000 fewer orders since the law passed, leading to a $7 million loss in revenue for area businesses.

The ordinance being argued by the council Tuesday would lower the minimum wage from $26.40 per hour to $19.97 per hour and cut the amount of money drivers earn per mile from 74 cents to 35 cents. It reportedly would also not require companies to reverse the added fees, but according to KOMO News, DoorDash said it could lower the $5 regulatory response fee if this legislation passes.

“The regulatory response fee in Seattle helps offset the costs associated with the current law,” a DoorDash spokesperson wrote in an emailed statement to KOMO News. “If those costs can be decreased through reform legislation, we will explore all options to increase affordability for consumers, including a reduction of the fee.”

The ordinance would additionally only pay drivers that are “en route” to a delivery as opposed to under the current ordinance where paid time starts when they accept an offer. Some delivery drivers, like Alex Kim, believe this puts delivery and other gig workers back at square one.

More on food delivery in Seattle: Tony Delivers reaches 750 customers as delivery apps rage war against Seattle

“That would indicate that for every single minute I have my app on, I’m getting paid. That’s not true at all because you only get paid for active time,” Kim, who delivers for four different delivery apps, told KIRO 7. “I’m going to get paid $19.97 an hour only when I’m working and there’s going to be downtime that means I’m going to get paid less than the minimum wage in Seattle.”

The council was expected to vote on the ordinance Tuesday at 2 p.m., but according to Council President Sara Nelson, the vote has been postponed “to ensure the council has time to fully consider those changes.”

Contributing: KIRO 7

Frank Sumrall is a content editor at MyNorthwest. You can read his stories here and you can email him here.

“Confronting Hate Together,” an exhibit that explores anti-Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander hate, Black hate and anti-Jewish hate, according to the museum’s website, was supposed to run from Wednesday through June 30. (A PDF of a press release providing information about the exhibit can be found here.)

“Confronting Hate” is a collaboration between The Black Heritage Society of Washington State, The Washington State Jewish Historical Society, and the Wing Luke Museum, which focuses on the culture, art and history of Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders, its website states.

Looking at the Wing Luke employees’ demands

But, as The Seattle Times noted in its coverage, the Wing Luke staff members walked out in protest of the exhibit, saying in a social media post that a portion of the exhibit “shares perspectives from the The Washington State Jewish Historical Society that conflate anti-Zionism as antisemitism.” That same slide in the post added, “Despite making a revision after learning of the staff’s concerns (after the May 14 media preview of the exhibit), the edits made still conveyed Zionist perspectives.”

One of the post’s slides clearly outlines the staff members’ four demands:

• “Remove any language in any Wing Luke Museum publication and question any partnerships that attempt to frame Palestinian liberation and anti-Zionism as antisemitism.”
• “Acknowledge the limited perspectives presented in this exhibition. Missing perspectives include those of namely those of Palestinians, Arabs and Muslim communities …”
• Engage in a “community review” of the exhibit.
• “Center voices and perspectives that align with the museum’s mission & values by platforming community stories within an anti-colonial, anti-white supremacist framework.”

The social media posts state 26 members of the Wing Luke staff signed a letter outlining their demands to leadership. But the posts did not confirm all 26 people walked off the job, noting that “a collective” of staff walked out in protest of the exhibit’s unchanged text.

Response to the Wing Luke Museum walkout

The number of employees was still high enough to cause the closure of the museum and the website’s homepage confirms it is currently not open as a statement popups explaining its side of the situation.

“On Wednesday, May 22, members of Wing Luke Museum’s staff held a respectful walk-out in protest of content on display in a new exhibit,” the statement begins.

It goes on to say it supports the rights of its staff “to express their beliefs and personal truths” and that it sought to engage in dialogue with its staff.

As an organization rooted in dialogue, we acknowledge and support the right of our staff to express their beliefs and personal truths and to this end, we are holding space for a careful and thoughtful process of listening with intent to hear multiple perspectives in pursuit of a mutual way forward.

After closing the Museum this week to listen and earnestly engage in dialog with our staff, the Museum looks forward to opening our doors at a future date so that we can continue serving our community in other needed capacities during this time. Please look for updates from us.”

The statement was also posted on its Facebook and Instagram pages Friday. A reopening date has not yet been set.

Steve McLean, director of communications for the museum, told the Times it has been working with its staff  “to address their calls to action” and their four demands. He added that programs were and are being developed so other communities, including Arab American communities, are represented.

The press statement about the exhibit earlier this month states that this “Confronting Hate” exhibit is inspired by the 2022 exhibit Confronting Hate 1937-1952, which was curated by the New-York Historical Society. But this Pacific Northwest exhibition “portrays a searing contemporary portrayal of racism, antisemitism, hate and bigotry through a local lens,” the statement reads.

“Emphasis will be on the distinct stories, perspective and history of this region – driven by a singular objective to educate communities and empower them to combat the rising tide of hate and racial violence in our communities today,” the statement adds.

Lisa Kranseler, executive director of the Washington State Jewish Historical Society, also spoke to the Times and explained the intention of this version of the exhibit was to show how Black, Jewish and Asian American communities came together around redlining.

“It never was intended to exclude anyone,” she told the Seattle outlet. “It was always intended as a beginning conversation and to inspire all groups to put on exhibits and have dialogues and conversations.”

Steve Coogan is the lead editor of MyNorthwest. You can read more of his stories here. Follow Steve on X, or email him here.

“I’ve been living in my van, couch-surfing and showering at my gym,” he said. “None of this makes sense to me, and I ask myself every day who wins in this situation.”

Roth was informed that a backlog of unlawful detainer cases in King County is pushing his court date back by six to eight months.

More on Roth’s tenant: Seattle homeowner’s ‘nightmare’ situation resolved one year later

He’s not alone.

King County Superior Court Presiding Judge Ketu Shah reported a 24% increase in hearings for unlawful detainer cases, resulting in months-long delays before hearings are set. King County has seen cases rise from an average of 57 per month in 2021 to 622 per month in 2024. As of March 31, 2,151 cases are pending, with only about a dozen resolved per day.

King County is struggling with this workload due to a constitutional requirement that unlawful detainer cases must be heard by a constitutional commissioner. Each county is limited to three commissioners, regardless of population size.

“This is where our system is broken,” Democratic Sen. Mark Mullet, D-Issaquah, who is also running for governor, said. “We have 39 counties; some have 40,000 people, and some, like King County, have 2.3 million people — they all have a three-commissioner limit. We need to change the constitution.”

Republican King County Councilmember Reagan Dunn agreed.

“It might have made sense in 1889, but King County has a third of the state’s population,” Dunn said. “Three commissioners just aren’t going to get it done.”

A change to the constitution requires a two-thirds vote in both the state House and Senate. Dunn attributes the rise in unlawful detainer cases to the expiration of pandemic-era tenant protections.

“Most of those provisions have sunsetted, even in Seattle, and now landlords have the legal right to remove tenants from their property,” Dunn said.

Additionally, state legislators have assigned more duties to constitutional commissioners, including cases regarding guardianship, right to counsel and domestic violence protection orders.

“This is the trifecta that’s created our current headache and misery,” Mullet said.

More from Matt Markovich: Washington Republicans face internal feud over endorsements ahead of elections

Senate Bill 6210, sponsored by Mullet, proposed authorizing “statutory commissioners” to hear unlawful detainer cases and included $5.25 million to fund these positions. However, it was defeated due to additional requirements for income limits on state-funded legal representation in evictions.

Mullet believes a “clean bill” focusing solely on increasing constitutional commissioners would garner bipartisan support. Dunn is also seeking funding in the 2025 King County budget for more commissioners, pending legislative changes.

“I have a lot of anxiety if we don’t fix the system,” Mullet said. “We will end up with people not wanting to be housing providers in Washington because they feel there’s no certainty.”

Matt Markovich often covers the state legislature and public policy for KIRO Newsradio. You can read more of Matt’s stories here. Follow him on X, or email him here.

Follow @https://twitter.com/mattmarkovich

The court, in a 5-3 decision, denied Pierce County Prosecutor’s request to reinstate Carter’s original life sentence. In a dissenting opinion, three justices stated that the court’s decision means “an adult homicide offender could receive a sentence of zero months.”

More from WA Supreme Court: State commissioner to decide on high-capacity magazine ban

Carter was convicted in 1998 for the murder of Corey Pittman during a gang-related shooting. He also received four counts of first-degree assault with firearm enhancements and a charge of unlawful possession of a firearm.

In 2021, the State Supreme Court ruled that life without parole for 18- to 20-year-old offenders is unconstitutional as it does not consider the mitigating qualities of youth. Carter, who became the subject of a documentary, subsequently filed a motion for resentencing, citing his youthfulness at the time of the crime.

The Pierce County Superior Court agreed and resentenced him to 30 years in prison.

During the resentencing, Carter expressed remorse for his actions and their impact on the community and Pittman’s family. Pittman was a college student and president of the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Club at the time of his death.

The documentary “Since I Been Down” highlights Carter’s rehabilitation and his efforts to help others in the justice system. The Supreme Court upheld the Pierce County Court’s decision to resentence Carter to 30 years.

Prosecutors argued that the state legislature had not set sentencing requirements for 18- to 20-year-old offenders convicted of aggravated murder, leaving judges without discretion.

The primary issues before the Supreme Court were whether the superior court had the authority to impose determinate sentences for aggravated first-degree murder and to resentence Carter’s other convictions.

More from Matt Markovich: Washington Republicans face internal feud over endorsements ahead of elections

Justice Raquel Montoya-Lewis, writing for the majority, affirmed the superior court’s authority to resentence Carter and upheld its decision to vacate his original sentence. However, Justice Barbara Madsen, in her dissenting opinion, warned that the majority’s ruling could lead to “an adult homicide offender receiving a sentence of zero months,” conflicting with the statute’s intent to harshly punish homicide offenders.

Carter is now out of prison. House Bill 1325, introduced in January to allow early release for those who committed crimes before 25 and are serving long sentences, failed to advance in committee.

Matt Markovich often covers the state legislature and public policy for KIRO Newsradio. You can read more of Matt’s stories here. Follow him on X, or email him here.

Follow @https://twitter.com/mattmarkovich

The divide will become even more apparent as the Mainstream Republicans of Washington hold their annual Cascade Conference from May 31-June 2 in Yakima.

In four of the most prominent races in the state — U.S. Senate, governor, 4th Congressional District and state lands commissioner, there was only one overlapping endorsement between the Mainstream Republicans and the Washington State Republican Party.

Over 1,800 delegates made their endorsements in late April during the party’s annual convention in Spokane.

It featured raucous debates with many delegates sporting MAGA hats and waving Trump banners.

But before the convention, Mainstream Republicans of Washington released its endorsements of former U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert for governor, incumbent Dan Newhouse for the 4th Congressional District, and former former U.S. Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler for state lands commissioner. The current commissioner, Democrat Hilary Franz, is running for the 6th Congressional District seat.

Delegates at the convention endorsed Semi Bird instead of Reichert for governor, Jerrod Sessler instead of Newhouse in the 4th District, and Sue Kuehl Pederson instead of Herrera Beutler for state lands commissioner.

Both groups endorsed Dr. Raul Garcia as the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in the race against Democratic incumbent Sen. Maria Cantwell.

It was the first time convention goers endorsed candidates so early in the election cycle, even before the candidate filing period had ended, and delegates did not follow the Mainstream Republicans’ endorsements.

More from Matt Markovich: Signature gathering begins for initiative to keep natural gas in Washington

Reichert left the convention claiming his own party and the event were in a state of “disarray.”

“Our priority is supporting electable candidates, not necessarily the popular ones,” Mainstream Republican Chairwoman Deanna Martinez  said to KIRO Newsradio.

Panelists listed for the Cascade Conference do not include Bird, Sessler, or Pederson. Reichert will be the conference’s keynote speaker Saturday night.

‘The Republican Party is a big tent’

State Republican Party Chairman Rep. Jim Walsh says the public should not read too much into the different sets of endorsements.

“The Republican Party is a big tent, and we have all kinds of perspectives. We are at the beginning of the process,” Walsh said to KIRO Newsradio.

He presided over the Spokane convention and is listed as a moderator and speaker at the Cascade Convention.

“I represent everybody who is moderate, right-of-center politically in Washington, and there are increasingly more and more of those people,” Walsh explained.

By the nature of his job as state party chairman, Walsh sees himself as the peacemaker and coalition builder in support of all Republican candidates.

Martinez, on the other hand, sees her group as backing the candidates that are electable in a state that currently holds the longest streak of Democratic governors in the nation. The last Republican elected as governor of the state of Washington was in 1980.

Voters are not required to list a political party preference when they register to vote.

A January 2024 Crosscut/Stu Elway poll of 403 respondents statewide indicated 53% would register as a Democrat or are independent leaning Democrat. The poll also showed 34% would register  Republican or are independent leaning Republican and 13% declared to be independent. (A PDF of the poll results can be seen here.)

Republicans can ill afford to fracture their vote in what is clearly still a very blue state.

‘Discriminatory practices’: Seattle police captain sues city, Chief Adrian Diaz

When asked if she’s satisfied with the current direction of the Republican Party in the state, Martinez replied, “That’s a big question to answer.”

She added, “Am I satisfied? No, I don’t think anybody is satisfied because we really need to work together. Not that we are not, but I think certain areas of the state may not agree with some of what we stand for.”

A gamble to endorse candidates so early

State Republicans took a gamble by endorsing candidates at the April convention so early in the election cycle.

Walsh said the gamble was worth it.

“Yes, I think it was. It activated a lot of new voters. A large majority of delegates on the floor of that convention were first-time delegates. They were people new to the political process. Getting them involved and activated is critically important,” Walsh said.

Martinez believes the intention to endorse candidates early on is a good step to minimize the number of candidates in each race.

“I don’t know if it was successful,” says Martinez.

Both Martinez and Walsh agree the “disconnect” among Republicans is being made a bigger issue than it really is.

While Walsh is trying to be all things to all Republicans, Martinez stresses the party needs to focus its support on the most electable candidates.

“Beating the Democrat is all that really matters,” says Martinez said.

Matt Markovich often covers the state legislature and public policy for KIRO Newsradio. You can read more of Matt’s stories here. Follow him on X, or email him here.

Follow @https://twitter.com/mattmarkovich

Captain Eric Greening, a 30-year veteran of the department is alleging that Diaz retaliated against him for reporting “discriminatory practices within SPD to Chief Diaz and others in the Department,” the lawsuit says. (The lawsuit can be viewed as a PDF here.)

The retaliatory actions include “rejecting Mr. Greening’s applications for the positions of Deputy Chief and Assistant Chief; abolishing the Collaborative Policing Bureau, which Mr. Greening led; demoting Mr. Greening from his position as an Assistant Chief to the rank of Captain; and transferring Mr. Greening to the Force Review Unit, where he oversees a small number of staff members and has no direct contact with the public,” the lawsuit reads.

Greening is claiming the actions have resulted in financial damages in the form of “lower pay, loss of reputation, diminution of future career opportunities, and emotional distress.”

Recent coverage: Seattle mayor hires firm to probe SPD sexual harassment, discrimination claims

It’s the third lawsuit against Diaz involving racial and sex discrimination going back to when he was named interim chief in September 2020 following the resignation of Chief Carmen Best.   He was named permanent chief two years later.

Greening was serving as assistant chief of the SPD’s Special Operations Bureau, overseeing SWAT, the Hostage Negotiation Team, Harbor Patrol and other special units when Diaz became interim chief.

Less than a year into the interim role, Diaz assigned Greening to the Police Collaborative Policing Bureau and remined there until July 2023. He also served as acting chief during that time according to the lawsuit.

The complaint says Greening was the only Black sworn member of SPD’s command staff from August 2020 until July 2023.

The lawsuit says Greening brought several issues of “discrimination and disparate treatment within the SPD to the attention of Chief Diaz; Rebecca McKechnie, human resources manager for the SPD; and Dr. Amarah Khan, executive director of the Office of the Employee Ombud for Seattle.

He allegedly told Diaz about the “appearance of segregation” within SPD because the responsibility of community outreach was being “solely on female and BIPOC officers.”

‘SPD is dying’: What Seattle police officers are saying during exit interviews

Greening filed a complaint with the Lisa Judge, inspector general with the Seattle Office of Inspector General (OIG) for Public Safety in September 2023 and that investigation is still open.

The lawsuit is asking for compensatory damages including reputational harm and emotional distress.

We are have reached out to SPD for a comment and have not heard anything back at the time this story was published.

Matt Markovich often covers the state legislature and public policy for KIRO Newsradio. You can read more of Matt’s stories here. Follow him on X or email him here.

Follow @https://twitter.com/mattmarkovich

Mike Harvey posted his own footage of the incident to his X account, where two masked people are seen approaching him with their umbrellas deployed to block his camera’s lens. Harvey is heard warning them not to damage his camera, and the group continues to block the lens.

The group then talked to him about a TV show, and Harvey is heard going back and forth until they ask for whom he works. Harvey told them “FOX 13,” and when he stops responding, the two protesters with umbrellas walk away, with one saying, “We’ve done our work here. We’ve done our job.”

Less than a minute later, the two return with others, one of whom is seen shining a green laser at him. Harvey is heard claiming the laser was shone in his eyes.

“That’s assault, right there,” Harvey said, while one of the protesters mocked him and the group walked closer. It is assault to hit someone in the eye with a laser.

More from Sam Campbell: UW’s ‘W’ sign besmirched with red paint by pro-Palestinian protesters

The group again blocked Harvey’s lens with umbrellas, at times growling. One of the protesters questioned his station affiliation before challenging his filming, saying the recording of protesters’ faces exposes them to the possibility of a third party “doxing” protesters.

Mike Harvey doesn’t back down

Harvey maintained his right to record in a public space, calling it “a newsworthy event.”

“You understand you’re going to a public event, a public protest – an ongoing public protest, that you want to get your message out but then you don’t want anyone to record that. You understand how kind of absurd that is,” Harvey is heard telling the protester.

“We’re not stopping anyone from recording. We’re just asking you don’t get peoples’ faces,” the protester said, while another kept the umbrella fanned across the lens’ field of view.

The protester asked Harvey if he had talked with their “media team,” to which he replied he was not conducting interviews, but only needed footage of the scene.

The ordeal continued for several more minutes, with Harvey picking up his camera to move it repeatedly, and protesters following, repeating nonsensical phrases and ultimately walking back to a tent. One of the protesters is then seen again shining a green laser at Harvey before the recording ends.

FOX 13 told KIRO Newsradio Harvey is not injured. We have reached out to Harvey for comment.

Other incidents at the UW encampment involving journalists

It’s the latest in a series of reported incidents of harassment of journalists covering the ongoing protests at the university.

KIRO Newsradio reporter James Lynch previously covered the encampment at the university, and said upon his arrival at the Quad, he was also harassed by protesters. Lynch said he was surrounded by people with umbrellas extended toward him, telling him he would need to “check in” at the “media tent.”

On May 8, KOMO News reported protesters spray-painted over a news crew camera’s lens while the journalists attempted to cover the ongoing demonstrations.

KIRO Newsradio previously reached out to the UW to ask for a response to the continued targeting of press on its campus. After asking for details from Lynch, a spokesperson replied over email on May 9, writing, “My understanding is that they had asked media to check in if they are wanting to speak with someone on the record. To be clear, I am not saying we condone this action on their part, and we are gathering additional information.”

That email came six days before the incident with Harvey.

In Plain Sight: Criticisms, questions raised about controversial nonprofit We Heart Seattle

Group agrees to disband UW encampment

Protesters who had set up the UW encampment said Friday they’re packing up and going home.

The United Front for Palestinian Liberation, leaders of the encampment known as the Popular University for Gaza liberated zone, announced they have reached an agreement with the administration and will disband by 3 p.m. Monday.

UW President Anna Mari Cauce issued a statement through the UW Presidential Blog Friday confirming the administration and the people running the encampment came to an agreement on a resolution.

“I’m pleased to reach this resolution so that our campus can begin to heal – including by coming together for Commencement next month – and so that once again all UW community members, regardless of religion, race or national origin, can live, learn and work without fear,” Cauce said to conclude her statement.

Contributing: Steve Coogan, MyNorthwest; Charlie Harger, KIRO Newsradio

You can read more of Sam Campbell’s stories here. Follow Sam Campbell on X or email him here.

Follow @https://twitter.com/HeySamCampbell

On May 15 and 16,615 voters were asked who they would vote for in a two-way race if the gubernatorial election was being held that day, according to the NPI’s website.

NPI Executive Director Andrew Villeneuve said 48% voted for Ferguson, 42% for Reichert and 10% were not sure.

According to NPI’s website, this is the second statewide survey Ferguson had the lead.

“After narrowly trailing Reichert back in November of last year, Ferguson jumped out ahead of the former Republican congressman in February, opening up a four-point advantage. Now his lead has increased to six points. Meanwhile, Reichert is holding steady, garnering the same percentage he did back in the winter,” the NPI stated.

2023 coverage: Reichert ahead of Bob Ferguson in governor’s race, poll says

Early numbers suggest Ferguson is in line to win general election

“If he continues on this trajectory, by the summer he might be at or around 50% and that’s what we call the magic number in polling,” Villeneuve said.

Villeneuve said the commotion over the two other Bob Fergusons may have helped AG Ferguson.

“It was a lot of publicity that could have benefited him, just getting his name out there. And also he looked sympathetic, I mean there was an effort to confuse voters and mislead voters which was illegal,” he said.

However, voters had mixed views on Ferguson. Villeneuve said 38% of people surveyed had a favorable view of Ferguson and 39% had an unfavorable view. He also shared those numbers are similar to Reichert’s, as 30% had a favorable view of Reichert and 29% had an unfavorable view.

More here: Both duplicate Bob Fergusons withdraw from governors race

Villeneuve said their poll also found more voters have negative views of two other top candidates, State Sen. Mark Mullet, a Democrat, and Republican Semi Bird.

“Far more people have not heard of them but of those who have they have a negative view of both candidates,” he said.

Republican-backed initiatives polled down

Along with the governor’s race, polling results from a slate of Republican-based initiatives were released for Defend Washington. The results show Brian Heywood, a hedge fund manager who runs voter advocacy group Let’s Go Washington, and State Republican Rep. Jim Walsh’s initiatives concerning education, climate action and long-term care could be on their way to defeat.

Initiative 2109 would repeal an excise tax imposed on the sale or exchange of certain long-term capital assets by people who have annual capital gains over $250,000. However, it would decrease funding for education, early learning and childcare and school construction, as explained by NPI’s website via pollster GBAO. Out of those surveyed, 32% voted yes, 62% voted no and 6% were undecided.

Initiative 2117 would prohibit state agencies from imposing carbon tax credit trading and repeal legislation that establishes a cap and invest program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to NPI. That means funding for transportation programs, renewable energy investments and climate impact resistance projects would be decreased. In that poll, 37% voted yes, 57% said no and 6% went undecided.

From Dave Ross: Initiatives will be the stars of November ballot

Initiative 2124 would make it so employees and self-employed people must elect to keep coverage under RCW50B.04 and could opt-out at any time. It would also repeal a law governing an exemption for employees. Therefore, it would decrease funding for long-term care services. That survey showed 41% people voted yes, 49% of people voted no and 10% were undecided.

“This new round of polling confirms two previous rounds of polling from late last year that show all three of these extreme initiatives trailing badly,” strategist Kurt Fritts said in a statement to NPI on behalf of Defend Washington. “While Brian Heywood and Jim Walsh may be hankering to slash public services, large majorities of voters here value efforts to improve education and early learning, to protect and clean our air and water, and to provide long-term care benefits for millions of workers. They don’t want to see big cuts in funding for these priorities, and when they realize what will happen if these measures pass, they turn decisively against them.”

Villeneuve stated the findings match NPI and Stop Greed polling numbers. However, he also acknowledged that politics is unpredictable so it is impossible to say what will happen in the fall.

Julia Dallas is a content editor at MyNorthwest. You can read her stories here. Follow Julia on X here and email her here.

Initiative 2066, backed by the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW), aims to repeal parts of a new state law that accelerates Puget Sound Energy’s shift away from natural gas. (A PDF of Initiative 2066 can be seen here.)

Backers say it also protects natural gas and all energy choices across the state.

“It’s to protect natural gas and propane service statewide by restricting any state, county or city entity from banning, restricting or disincentivizing the use of natural gas for existing or new customers in areas where natural gas is available,” Greg Lane, executive vice president of the BIAW, said.

The BIAW, Washington Hospitality Association (WHA), Washington Realtors, and Associated General Contractors are part of the coalition supporting the initiative.

Let’s Go Washington, which is led by hedge fund executive Brian Heywood and successfully qualified three Republican-backed measures for the November ballot, will assist with the signature gathering effort, Lane said.

“We are protecting choice from everybody so everybody can choose any energy resource they think is best for their home or business,” Lane said.

More from Matt Markovich: What I learned this legislative session is citizens can break a 1-party rule

Potential impacts of a natural gas ban

WHA President Anthony Anton explained Asian restaurants have shown a particular worry of any natural gas ban.

“They are the third most common cuisine in the state and a lot of them have woks and base their cuisine or cooking background on open flame,” Anton said. “There are just not a lot of alternatives from them to lean on.”

In addition, the measure would overturn recent changes to Washington’s energy code that encourage the installation of electric heat pumps in new houses, apartments, and commercial buildings.

The initiative explicitly states that the state code “may not in any way prohibit, penalize, or discourage the use of gas for any form of heating, or for uses related to any appliance or equipment, in any building.”

“We want to give technology more time to give us some options,” Anton said.

Strippers, book bans, guns: Examples of partisan divide persist in Olympia

To qualify for the ballot, supporters must submit signatures from at least 324,516 registered voters to the office of the Washington Secretary of State by 5 p.m. on July 5.

Lane says they are targeting the collection of at least 405,000 signatures to provide a buffer for invalid signatures.

“I am very confident that we are going to hit that goal. The response from the public has been extremely visceral that natural gas is going to get shut off to their homes and businesses,” Lane said.

Matt Markovich often covers the state legislature and public policy for KIRO Newsradio. You can read more of Matt’s stories here. Follow him on X, formerly known as Twitter, or email him here.

Follow @https://twitter.com/mattmarkovich

In 2022, Ushka announced on social media that she had been diagnosed with stage three cervical cancer. However, it has not been confirmed yet if that was the cause of her death.

According to a news release from the city, Ushka was a veteran, serving in the U.S. Navy Reserve. She also served eight years, including three years as president, on the Tacoma Public Schools Board of Directors.

The city said it was profoundly saddened by the news, but offered no further details about Ushka’s passing.

“We are deeply saddened by the loss of Council member Catherine Ushka,” Mayor Victoria Woodards said via the news release. “She will be remembered by many for her works seen and unseen. Here in Tacoma, she will be especially remembered for her fierce advocacy for the Eastside and South End, her willingness to stand for those whose voices are so often left out, and putting her hands in the dirt as well as rising to the highest levels of policy to make lasting change.”

Other news: Judge tosses lawsuit aimed at removing state’s gender-affirming care for youth

In April, the Metro Parks Tacoma Board of Commissioners voted to rename Gas Station Park to Catherine Ushka’s Gas Station Park.

“I was thrilled to advocate for this space when former SENCo chair Athena Brewer reached out and became one of many who worked to improve the quality of life in this neighborhood,” Ushka said via a Metro Parks news release. “Now, watching the kids play and hearing parents and neighbors talk about how the park makes their lives better, that’s award enough for me. That’s why I serve and serving this community that I love has been the greatest honor of my life. I am humbled and grateful for this tremendous honor.”

Metro Parks stated that Ushka worked for years to secure investments for Tacoma’s Eastside and South End neighborhoods.

According to the news release, Ushka also created the award-winning McKinley Hill Neighborhood Plan, implemented Vision Zero to help eliminate traffic deaths and put together long-term planning efforts like Home in Tacoma and Picture Pac Avenue.

Ushka leaves behind a partner, daughter, son, father and brother. She was 55.

Julia Dallas is a content editor at MyNorthwest. You can read her stories here. Follow Julia on X, formerly known as Twitter, here and email her here.

U.S. District Judge Robert J. Bryan threw out the lawsuit Wednesday filed by International Partners for Ethical Care Inc. and Advocates Protecting Children. The judge ruled that their claims lacked sufficient evidence of concrete harm.

The lawsuit targeted Senate Bill (SB) 5599, which permits shelters for homeless or runaway children and offers assistance in accessing gender-affirming treatments without parental notification.

Bryan emphasized that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate how the law directly harmed them or their children, dismissing their allegations as speculative and conjectural.

The groups, along with ten unnamed parents, argued that SB 5599 violated parents’ constitutional rights to direct the care and upbringing of their children, as well as their religious freedoms, due process, free speech, and equal protection rights. They contended that the law coerced “gender-confused” youth into seeking treatment against parental objections and allowed the state to facilitate transitions without parental consent.

More news: Transgender employee suing Boeing for harassment, unsafe work environment

However, the state of Washington countered, saying the plaintiffs lacked standing, as none of them alleged that their children were seeking gender-affirming care, had run away or had been impacted by the law’s modified notification requirements. This argument ultimately swayed Bryan’s decision to dismiss the case.

SB 5599, enacted in 2022, expanded the circumstances under which shelters could refrain from notifying parents or guardians about a child’s whereabouts or activities.

In cases involving youth seeking reproductive healthcare or gender-affirming care, shelters are now permitted to delay parental notification if there is a compelling reason to do so, such as concerns about abuse or neglect if the parent is informed.

The decision underscores the ongoing legal battles surrounding transgender rights and parental authority.

Past rulings concerning gender-affirming care

In a historic move, the U.S. Supreme Court made its first foray into the contentious debate over gender-affirming care by ruling in April that Idaho can enforce its ban on providing puberty blockers or hormones to minors. The decision, which saw a 6-3 majority in favor of allowing enforcement, marks a significant milestone in the legal trajectory of transgender rights.

However, the court notably refrained from delving into the constitutionality of the ban, focusing instead on procedural matters and the scope of judicial authority.

Meanwhile, in Ohio, Franklin County Judge Michael Holbrook issued a temporary injunction, blocking the enforcement of a law set to ban gender-affirming care for minors and transgender girls’ participation in school sports. The judge’s decision cited concerns about the law’s compliance with legislative procedures and the requirement that state laws address a single issue, rather than bundling disparate measures together.

In another pivotal ruling, a federal appeals court in Virginia declared West Virginia’s ban on transgender girls participating in girls’ sports competitions to be in violation of the rights of one teen athlete. The decision allows 13-year-old Becky Pepper Jackson, who identifies as a girl, to continue competing on her school’s track and field teams.

However, the broader implications of the ruling remain uncertain, as Attorney General Patrick Morrisey affirmed that the ban remains in place for others, pending further legal proceedings.

Other politics: King County faces property tax hike to save public health clinics from closing

These legal developments come amid a broader trend of Republican-led efforts to pass state restrictions targeting transgender individuals. While the pace of legislative action has slowed compared to previous years, measures targeting transgender people continue to advance in state legislatures across the country.

In Tennessee, lawmakers recently approved a bill requiring public school employees to notify parents if their student identifies as transgender, adding to similar laws already in place in several states.

In Alabama, legislators are pushing forward with legislation to define gender based on reproductive systems rather than gender identity, reflecting ongoing efforts to codify narrow definitions of sex and gender into law.

KIRO Newsradio has asked representatives of the plaintiffs in the Washington case for comment and has not received a response.

Contributing: Geoff Mulvihill, The Associated Press

Matt Markovich is an analyst and reporter who often covers the state legislature and public policy for KIRO Newsradio. You can read more of Matt’s stories here. Follow him on X, formerly known as Twitter, or email him here.

Follow @https://twitter.com/mattmarkovich

Constantine is pushing to shift public health clinics and their services to operate under Harborview Medical Center’s supervision, which is also attempting to raise funds. His proposal, which has not been officially unveiled, according to The Seattle Times, would go up for a county council vote.

More on Public Health: Outbreak of deadly fungus C. auris hits King County

If approved, King County’s public health clinics would fall under the same funding received by Harborview Medical Clinic. Harborview is the only county-owned hospital in the state.

Approximately 70,000 people a year get health care, dental care, nutrition aid or personalized services from public health clinics in King County, according to The Seattle Times. But the clinics have been in danger of closing for almost a year because of a $35 million budget cut.

Public health clinics that could be closed are located in Auburn, Seattle, Des Moines, Bellevue, Federal Way, Kent, Burien, Lake City, Renton and Kirkland.

“This network, along with mobile vans, a street medicine team and school-based health centers, ensures healthcare is accessible to as many people as possible,” Save Public Health stated in its petition to keep the medical centers open. “Two-thirds of Public Health clients are Black, Indigenous and People of Color. These communities have historically faced health disparities and systemic barriers to healthcare. Public Health plays a crucial role in bridging these gaps and providing equitable healthcare services.”

More news from King County: Seattle requests KC Homelessness Authority to shrink budget by $21M

More than 2,000 signatures have been collected for Save Public Health’s petition.

One medical center, a dental clinic in downtown Seattle that sees approximately 50 patients a day, has a clientele made up of 85% homeless people, according to The Seattle Times. Another medical center, a primary care clinic also located in downtown Seattle, stated 30% of its patients are homeless.

Frank Sumrall is a content editor at MyNorthwest. You can read his stories here and you can email him here.

The $21 million is a 19% decrease from last year and, according to The Seattle Times, could potentially eliminate about 300 emergency shelter beds and a 125-bed shelter for Black men in the Central District among a loss of behavioral health services or beds at tiny home villages.

More on King County homelessness: Homelessness surges in King County by 23% as state releases plan to tackle housing

A spokesperson for Mayor Bruce Harrell explained to The Seattle Times the budget reduction is because temporary funding, retrieved through pandemic relief aid, has expired.

KCRHA’s point-in-time homeless count

Moments before KCRHA’s budget was slashed per the Seattle City Council’s request, the organization conducted a point-in-time (PIT) homeless count. A PIT count is an estimate of people experiencing sheltered and unsheltered homelessness on a single night in King County.

The main count of people living unsheltered is conducted by approximately 600 volunteers spread across the county between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m., assisted by paid “guides” who have experienced homelessness in the past and whose knowledge can help locate homeless people off the beaten path.

According to the PIT count conducted earlier this week, the number of people experiencing homelessness in King County, the most populated county in Washington, has gone up 23% since 2022. There were 9,810 unsheltered people (60%) and 6,575 sheltered people (40%) for a total of 16,385 in 2024. However, KCRHA said the numbers are a severe undercount.

In comparison, there were 7,685 unsheltered people (57%) and 5,683 sheltered people (43%) for a total of 13,368 in 2022.

KCRHA’s financial troubles

KCRHA laid off nearly 40 members of the team — approximately one-third of its total staff — in September 2023 after a pilot project from the organization, called Partnership for Zero, was sunsetted. The goal of the Partnership for Zero initiative was to get nearly everyone who was homeless in downtown Seattle off of the streets within a year. For the initiative’s 18-month lifespan, KCRHA claimed it has housed more than 230 people within downtown and the Chinatown International District through the program.

Last year, it was reported that 30 KCRHA employees earned six-figure salaries, with former CEO Marc Dones topping the list with a $250,000 annual salary. The deputy CEO was the only other employee to top $200,000 as an annual salary.

The roles varied among the highest paid within the Homeless Authority, ranging from communication directors, directors of policy, account managers, program managers and assistants to chief administrative officers, all making anywhere from $113,000 to $160,000.

More on KCRHA: KC Homeless Authority has salaries released after Dones departs

The average salary of all King County employees is just under $95,000 in comparison.

Under Dones leadership, the Homeless Authority requested nearly $12 billion for its budget to address local homelessness over the next five years, a dramatic increase over its initial $253 million budget for 2023.

The proposal’s budget broke down to two parts: $8.4 billion for one-time capital costs over the five-year period and an additional $3.4 billion for operating expenses. The request immediately received pushback from council members, private organizations and residents.

“If money was the solution, wouldn’t we have solved this 20 years ago?” Andrea Suarez, founder and executive director of We Heart Seattle, asked Dave Ross in response to KCRHA’s multi-billion dollar budget request. “Every major city keeps getting more millions and billions of dollars. Meanwhile, we can set up 20,000 beds in New York City for refugees that are coming in from Ukraine, with services, toilets, bathrooms, medical care, and nurses … it’s a bit different when you’re dealing with drug addiction and that is what KCRHA doesn’t address at all.”

Dones stepped down from his role as KCRHA’s CEO after two years just months after KCRHA made its $12 billion budget request. According to The Stranger, Dones had a strained relationship with city and county leadership in part due to Dones’ resistance to Seattle’s tiny home strategy — adopted in 2015. Just months into the job as CEO, Dones told PubliCola the “proliferation” of tiny houses needs to end, and that short-term approaches for housing should be replaced by new investments in housing construction and acquisition, citing King County’s Health Through Housing program.

More on KCRHA: Volunteer group lambasts King County Regional Homeless Authority’s ballooning budget

The KCRHA has projected that the number of homeless people in King County will reach 62,000 people by 2028, nearly 10,000 more compared to 2022.

Frank Sumrall is a content editor at MyNorthwest. You can read his stories here and you can email him here.

There’s no word on who is responsible for the graffiti. But UW President Anna Mari Cauce says representatives from the encampment told administrators “the graffiti is an intentional escalation to compel the university to agree to their demands.”

Cauce issued a lengthy statement through the UW Presidential Blog Wednesday addressing multiple topics, including the graffiti seen on campus and the tent encampment.

“The university’s response to students’ calls for change will not be based on an encampment — there are many ways for voices to be heard that don’t require tents, violent rhetoric and vandalism,” Cauce said in the statement.

The university president also explained in her statement that the administration has engaged in dialogue with some students.

Consistent with our long-standing commitment to dialogue with students during protest actions, we believe that engaging in dialogue is the most productive path to a resolution that can see the encampment voluntarily depart. Indeed, even before the encampment started, we were meeting with a cross section of students who are deeply moved by the humanitarian crisis.

Cauce went on to say that the students’ demands have escalated and include a series of orders that are “contrary to academic freedom and/or to state or federal law.”

We have engaged sincerely and openly. The representatives of the encampment have presented a series of changing and escalating demands, including most recently demanding the creation of a new department that would have an ‘anti-Zionist; litmus test for faculty hiring; granting a student group oversight of awarding new, religion-based University scholarships; and a blanket amnesty for all violations of the law and student code, including not solely camping, among other demands. Many of these demands, especially the most recent, are contrary to academic freedom and/or to state or federal law.

Previous coverage from James Lynch: More aggressive stance taken at UW encampment

Cauce also called on campers to dismantle the encampment and leave the Quad voluntarily.

“We again call on members to dismantle the encampment voluntarily for everyone’s safety, end the vandalism to our campus and continue constructive engagement with us on the issues of concern,” Cauce’s statement reads.

She concluded her statement explaining how change will be achieved on the UW campus.

“Change will be through constructive engagement on issues that are important and meaningful to our students and broader campus community,” Cauce said.

The University of Washington community arrived on campus in Seattle on Wednesday, May 15, 2024 and found many buildings surrounding the pro-Palestinian encampment covered with graffiti. (Photo: James Lynch, KIRO Newsradio)

Response to the UW graffiti

The graffiti, which is impossible to miss when walking through the Liberal Arts Quadrangle, more commonly known as the Quad. A lot of passers-by stopped to read the graffiti and take pictures.

Even those who support the encampment and the cause say the graffiti is a step too far.

“I’m very supportive of the encampment. The graffiti is a difficult aspect of that because there is an element of vandalism to it,” UW student Jacob Menlay said.

More graffiti issues: UW’s ‘W’ sign besmirched with red paint by pro-Palestinian protesters

Other students believe graffiti is a justifiable tactic, given what’s happening in Gaza.

“This can be easily washed off, painted over, but genocide is genocide. We’re talking about people’s lives will end… just like that,” (snapping fingers) UW graduate Nakea Ridders said.

Graffiti on the Quad @ UW. pic.twitter.com/YBA8aJ1AjG

— James L. (@James_KIRORadio) May 15, 2024

Workers spent the day power washing graffiti from buildings.

Contributing: Steve Coogan, MyNorthwest

You can read more of James Lynch’s stories here. Follow James on X, formerly known as Twitter, or email him here.

Follow @James_KIRORadio

Attorney General Bob Ferguson’s camp claimed this was merely a petty political ploy designed to confuse voters. However, Bob Ferguson from Graham sincerely believes he would have something to offer as Washington’s next governor. One of his top priorities is transparency and government waste

“My biggest questions about the state and what goes on is where does our tax dollars go? You know, I mean, why are we paying $800-$1,000 for car tabs when several times voters have said that they want that repealed? … Why are people that work in Gig Harbor and work in Tacoma still having to pay $6.50 every day to go to work?,” Ferguson told the Jason Rantz Show on AM 770 KTTH.

Ferguson also listed high gas prices and crumbling infrastructure as two of his primary concerns.

Did the attorney general have a legitimate legal case?

At a press conference with Attorney General Bob Ferguson Monday, former King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg said the other two Bob Fergusons were committing a crime by filing their candidacy for Governor. Citing section 4 of RCW 29A.84.320, Satterberg claimed that both candidates were attempting to “confuse and mislead the electors by capitalizing on the public reputation of the candidate who had previously filed.”

Bob Ferguson from Graham says legal action was not warranted because that was not his goal.

“That was not my intent at all. My intent was to win. Realistically, did I believe that my chances were great? No, but you know, you gotta shoot your shot.”

Conservative activist Glen Morgan, who has been considered the architect of this “stunt,” echoed this sentiment when he spoke with Jason Rantz earlier this week and insisted both Bob Fergusons sincerely wanted to run.

Ferguson also rejects the attorney general’s claims that he is a Republican who is attempting to meddle in Washington’s Democratic primary.

“I am nothing. I have voted Republican. I have voted Democrat. I have voted libertarian … So, I’m going to vote for whoever winds up more with me as an individual. I don’t care about parties. I think the two party system is stupid,” Ferguson from Graham said. Ferguson filed as a Democrat, but said that was merely a political calculation.

You can listen to the full interview by heading here or tapping the player below:

Listen to The Jason Rantz Show on weekday afternoons from 3-7 p.m. on KTTH 770 AM (HD Radio 97.3 FM HD-Channel 3). Subscribe to the podcast here. Follow Jason on X, formerly known as Twitter, Instagram and Facebook.

The quick agreement on the timetable to meet followed the Democrat’s announcement that he will not participate in fall presidential debates sponsored by the nonpartisan commission that has organized them for more than three decades. Biden’s campaign instead proposed that media outlets directly organize the debates with the presumptive Democratic and Republican nominees. Trump, in a post on his Truth Social site, said he was “Ready and Willing to Debate” Biden.

Hours later, Biden said he accepted an invitation from CNN, adding, “Over to you, Donald.” Trump said on Truth Social he’d be there, adding, “Let’s get ready to Rumble!!!” And soon after that, they agreed to the second debate on ABC.

More on the 2024 general election: Biden, Trump win Washington presidential primaries, clinch parties’ nominations

“Trump says he’ll arrange his own transportation,” Biden wrote on X. “I’ll bring my plane, too. I plan on keeping it for another four years.”

The swiftness with which the match-ups came together reflects how each of the two profoundly unpopular candidates thinks he can get the better of his opponent in a head-to-head showdown. The first debate will play out amid a busy and unsettled political calendar, following the expected conclusion of Trump’s hush money trial in New York, foreign trips by Biden to France and Italy, the end of the Supreme Court’s term, and the expected start of two criminal trials for the president’s son, Hunter Biden.

CNN said that its debate would be held in its Atlanta studios and that “no audience will be present.” It said moderators and other details would be announced later. Disagreements about moderators and debate rules were some of the very questions that prompted the formation of the Commission on Presidential Debates in 1987.

The two campaigns and television networks had held weeks of informal talks on ways to circumvent the commission’s grip on presidential debates, owing to years of complaints and perceived slights, according to two people familiar with the matter.

Biden’s campaign had proposed excluding third-party candidates, such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., from the debates outright. Under the debate commission’s rules, Kennedy or other third-party candidates could qualify if they secured ballot access sufficient to claim 270 Electoral Votes and polled at 15% or higher in a selection of national polls.

Kennedy accused Biden and Trump of “colluding to lock America into a head-to-head match-up that 70% say they do not want.”

“They are trying to exclude me from their debate because they are afraid I would win,” Kennedy said. “Keeping viable candidates off the debate stage undermines democracy.”

CNN held open the door to Kennedy’s participation if he or any other candidate met polling and ballot access requirements similar to the commission’s.

As recently as Wednesday morning, Trump expressed his desire for a large live audience for his debates with Biden.

“I would strongly recommend more than two debates and, for excitement purposes, a very large venue, although Biden is supposedly afraid of crowds – That’s only because he doesn’t get them,” Trump said. “Just tell me when, I’ll be there.”

Trump has been pushing for more debates and earlier debates, arguing voters should be able to see the two men face off well before early voting begins in September. He has repeatedly said he will debate Biden “anytime, anywhere, any place,” even proposing the two men face off outside the Manhattan courthouse where he is currently on criminal trial in a hush money case. He also has been taunting Biden with an empty lectern at some of his rallies.

Trump’s campaign on Wednesday challenged the Biden campaign to agree to at least two other debates between the two candidates, beside the June and September dates. The Biden campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Biden’s campaign has long held a grudge against the nonpartisan commission for failing to evenly apply its rules during the 2020 Biden-Trump matchups — most notably when it didn’t enforce its COVID-19 testing rules on Trump and his entourage.

More on local politics: ‘No doubt’ duplicate Bob Fergusons would be ‘far better’ at running state than current AG

Biden campaign chair Jen O’Malley Dillon on Wednesday sent a letter to the Commission on Presidential Debates to say that Biden’s campaign objected to the fall dates selected by the commission, which come after some Americans begin to vote, repeating a complaint also voiced by the Trump campaign. She also voiced frustrations over the rule violations and the commission’s insistence on holding the debates before a live audience.

“The debates should be conducted for the benefit of the American voters, watching on television and at home — not as entertainment for an in-person audience with raucous or disruptive partisans and donors,” she said. ”As was the case with the original televised debates in 1960, a television studio with just the candidates and moderators is a better, more cost-efficient way to proceed: focused solely on the interests of voters.”

There was little love lost for the commission as well from Trump, who objected to technical issues at his first debate with Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016 and was upset after a debate with Biden was canceled in 2020 after the Republican came down with COVID-19. The Republican National Committee had already promised not to work with commission on the 2024 contests.

The Trump campaign issued a statement on May 1 that objected to the scheduled debates by the commission, saying that the schedule “begins AFTER early voting” and that “this is unacceptable” because voters deserve to hear from the candidates before ballots are cast.

The commission said in a Wednesday statement that “the American public deserves substantive debates from the leading candidates for president and vice president,” adding that its mission is “to ensure that such debates reliably take place and reach the widest television, radio and streaming audience.”

The Biden campaign also proposed that the Biden-Trump debates this year be hosted by “any broadcast organization that hosted a Republican Primary debate in 2016 in which Donald Trump participated, and a Democratic primary debate in 2020 in which President Biden participated — so neither campaign can assert that the sponsoring organization is obviously unacceptable: if both candidates have previously debated on their airwaves, then neither could object to such venue.”

KIRO opinions on Biden: What do President Joe Biden and Sammy Sosa have in common?

Those criteria would eliminate Fox News, which did not host a Democratic primary debate in 2020, and potentially NBC News, which did not host a GOP one in 2016 — though its corporate affiliates CNBC and Telmundo were co-hosts of one debate each that year.

In teeing up the debates, both Biden and Trump traded barbs on social media — each claiming victory the last time they faced-off in 2020.

“Donald Trump lost two debates to me in 2020, since then, he hasn’t shown up for a debate,′ Biden said in a post on X, the site formerly known as Twitter. “Now he’s acting like he wants to debate me again. Well, make my day, pal.”

Trump, for his part, said Biden was the “WORST debater I have ever faced – He can’t put two sentences together!”

Ferguson immediately cried foul, claiming this was a “direct attack” on both democracy and the integrity of the Washington state election system. Both Bob Fergusons, located in Graham and Yakima, subsequently dropped out.

More on duplicate Bob Fergusons: Both duplicate Bob Fergusons withdraw from governors race

But who was behind adding multiple Bob Fergusons? Glen Morgan, a conservative activist, took to Facebook admitting he was the “volunteer campaign manager” for both duplicate Bob Fergusons.

Multiple media outlets have since crowned him the “architect” of this “political stunt.”

“I don’t think it’s fair to say anything about me being an architect as both these guys wanted to run for office,” Morgan said on “The Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH 770 AM. “They both wanted to run for governor. And in particular, the Yakima Bob Ferguson had been wanting to run for some time. His friends at work had tried to convince him to run a year-and-a-half ago before his wife died and he was pretty inspired to jump in and run. He just always seemed that it was impossible for him to get over the hurdles — all of the crossing of the t’s and dotting the i’s of actually trying to run for office.”

Ferguson claimed Morgan did this only to “confuse voters and diminish votes,” which violates state law.

News reports confirm that a right-wing conservative paid the filing fee for two other unknown “Bob Fergusons.” The intent is clear – confuse voters and diminish votes.

The stakes could not be higher. This is a direct attack on our democracy and the integrity of the Washington… pic.twitter.com/UnpN5fxYXm

— Bob Ferguson (@BobFergusonAG) May 11, 2024

“I have to tell you, this jail time threat was, I think, unprecedented in the state of Washington,” Morgan said. “We’ve never seen these guys have just as much a right to run for office as anybody else. And threatening them with jail time was an excessive response by the Attorney General.”

Rantz on Bob Ferguson: On crime, Bob Ferguson’s campaign made its first massive blunder

Despite the other Fergusons not getting a real shot at challenging the current Attorney General, Morgan stated both candidates had legitimate reasons for running and a passion for public office.

“There’s no doubt that either one of these men would be far better and superior to Bob Ferguson not just as a human being, but also in governor,” Morgan said. “They both would be better and they both had campaign platforms. And both of them would have been far better getting into office.”

You can listen to the full interview here:

The Washington primaries will be held on Aug. 6, and the general election occurs on Nov. 5.

Frank Sumrall is a content editor at MyNorthwest. You can read his stories here and you can email him here.

“The new police officer contract is a needed step forward to advance our vision for a city where everyone, in every neighborhood, is safe and feels secure,” Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell said after the contract was signed into effect. “Seattle is a world-class city, and the updated wages and terms in this agreement reflect a commitment to building, recruiting and retaining the world-class police service our community deserves.”

However, Seattle City Council member Tammy Morales advocated for her colleagues to delay the vote. Morales stated she wanted a public hearing regarding the potential contract so residents could voice their thoughts and concerns.

“We haven’t had a single public hearing on this contract and this is absolutely not something that should be rushed,” Morales said.

More on Seattle police: What Seattle police officers are saying during exit interviews

The last Seattle Police Officers Guild (SPOG) contract, approved in 2018, gave officers a 17% raise and required the city to spend $65 million in back pay, according to multiple media outlets.

PubliCola, which bills itself as “Seattle’s reader-supported source for deeply sourced in-depth coverage of local, state, and regional politics and policy,” published a PDF of the contract earlier this month before the union removed it from public view.

SPOG represents approximately 900 SPD officers. The president of SPOG, Mike Solan, expressed his elation after Seattle’s City Council voted to approve a new three-year contract agreement.

“It is emblematic of good governing. Moderate politics and common sense, finally coming back. I’m very, very appreciative of Mayor Harrell and (Council) President Nelson’s leadership in this process,” Solan stated. “We should be No. 1 (in pay) because it’s a difficult city to work in, but it’s a rewarding profession.”

“Our focus throughout negotiations has been on the ultimate goal of creating an excellent police service and a safe Seattle, rooted in a commitment to accountability, operational improvements and increasing the recruitment and retention of good officers through fair wages and working conditions,” the City of Seattle said in a statement to KIRO Newsradio.

However, critics of the contract believe the city will get no meaningful accountability requirements. Police accountability has been a focal point of contention between the guild and city officials. SPOG has faced criticism from police reform advocates, who claim the union exerts too much influence over officer accountability and discipline procedures.

Just when a tentative agreement was put in place for a new contract, the Seattle Community Police Commission demanded further transparency about negotiations and for the public to be able to see the contract and weigh in on it, a sentiment Morales agreed with.

More on Seattle Police’s pending contract: Seattle Police Officers’ Guild reaches tentative contract agreement with city

Frank Sumrall is a content editor at MyNorthwest. You can read his stories here and you can email him here.