How I voted on public safety at budget markup
Monday, December 7th’s markup of the 2021 budget included a series of complex votes related to the “Safety for All” plan, so I wanted to share specific details beyond the headlines, so you understand where I landed on these.
Below I share the key question(s) at play for each of the substantive motions in my own words; to see all motions in their full language and detail, click here.
I voted against a substitute amendment that would have used one-time funding rather than on-going funding for mental health response. This was due to my understanding that one-time funding would make it really hard to launch the responder program, thus harming the work. (Substitute failed 6-7)
I voted for the underlying motion to establish a mental health responder program, launch other alternative responses beyond policing, and increase funding for violence prevention. (Passed 11-2)
I voted to keep $5m in additional overtime funding for MPD in 2021, which I’ve been sufficiently convinced will be needed. This was done by backfilling the ongoing funding, originally proposed, with one-time funding. (Passed 10-3)
I moved to keep the Early Intervention System, which would have helped to identify problematic officer behavior so it could be addressed. I believed this was a higher priority than 2 additional positions in the Office of Police Conduct Review. (Failed 6-7)
I voted to move the Community Navigators in MPD to the Office of Violence Prevention. This was the overwhelming preference of community, as determined through engagement sessions. (Passed 10-3)
I voted to move Crime Prevention Specialists in MPD to the Neighborhood and Community Relations Department, where I believe their work will be better supported. (Passed 13-0)
On the motion to have the Police Chief come back to Council to seek approval for the 2nd and 3rd recruit classes in 2021, I voted for a substitute motion to strengthen reporting while also dropping the language that funds not be released without Council approval each time. I believe the substitute motion would have resulted in greater transparency, eliminated uncertainty that would impact hiring, and prevented deferral of decisions which procedurally should be made during the budget process. (Substitute failed 6-7)
On the underlying motion, my colleagues moved to cut off discussion before anyone could speak to it. This was an unprecedented suppression of debate during a Council meeting. I abstained on the motion in protest. (Passed 9-3-1)
I voted against the motion to amend the five-year financial plan to reduce officer staffing levels to 750 because the decision lacked any basis in data. I believe that over the next few years we will be able to move towards a smaller police force as we stand up alternative ways to respond and make upstream investments that help prevent crime. We also cannot say right now with any accuracy where those numbers should be given several large variables that are currently unresolved but which we expect to have clarity on mid-year 2021. Given that, I do not believe we should have touched this one way or another at this time. (Passed 7-6)
These amendments led to an additional $5 million being added to our public safety system.
My votes maximized the transformative work envisioned in the “Safety for All” plan, while also ensuring that MPD has the resources in place for 2021 as they grapple with an attrition crisis and as our city faces a significant increase in violent crime which requires a police response. I do my best to tackle these issues in a thoughtful way while listening to the many different voices in our community; to approach this work with an open-mind and an outcome-driven mentality.
To everyone who weighed-in along the way, I greatly appreciate all you have shared, which I carried with me into the decision-making process. Thank you, and I look forward to the many more conversations ahead as we continue this work.













