From:            Lane, Rob
To:                Commission-Public-Records
Subject:           Written Comments - Community Forum to Discuss a Port Policing Assessment
Date:              Monday, June 29, 2020 10:55:14 AM
Port of Seattle Commissioners,

Thank you for reaching out to the Port staff for comments on the Port policing assessment motion. I
am proud to work for an organization that seeks to be a model of diversity, inclusion and equity.

There are many sub-topics on which passionate and experienced employees will wish to share their
thoughts and expertise. I have thoughts on many of these topics, but I will focus my brief comments
on an area that I know fairly well. The Port Policing Assessment must look at de-militarizing the Port
of Seattle Police Department to the extent possible and providing a model to other police forces
regarding the equipment and tactics that that will be used in the course of their work.

I feel like I could speak for hours on this subject, but in an effort to keep my comments concise I will
focus on two critical areas of insight.

1. Mindset of individual officers: When individual officers are provided military grade
equipment and military style "tactics, techniques and procedures" training they are put in the
mindset of combat against an enemy. I am an Army veteran and I have been deployed to
combat operations and peace keeping operations. These situations were different because
we had different "Rule of Engagement". But these situations were similar because in both
environments I was in a military force that was deployed to fight an enemy that could be
anywhere and everywhere. Our police force must never be put in the mindset that are
seeking out an enemy. Additionally, military operations have one set of rules of engagement,
but we are asking police who switch back and fourth from assisting the public to conducting
military style operations. We are asking them to change their mindset at a moment's notice.
Providing military grade equipment and training sets a dangerous and confusing mindset.
2. Mindset of the organization: The military grade equipment and training that police forces
possess put the wrong tools in our officers hands. If those are the tools they have, then those
are the tools they are going to use. The organizational action plans are built on a mindset that
military style operations are standard operations rather than techniques that should be used
in extreme circumstances by individuals who have specialized training. It is critical that these
action plans show that the use of military grade equipment and training can not be used as
part of a normal day's work.

The Port of Seattle Police Department has the responsibility to keep the public safe. They are
required to be prepared for some situations that, while rare, do require a tactical response, such as:
responding to terrorist threats until relieved by federal partners or responding to an active shooter
event. The Port should have plans in place to address these threats, however, the organization has
an opportunity to move forward in a way that takes the wrong tools out of their hands and gives
them the right tools and training for their work to keep the public safe. As a model of diversity,
inclusion and equity, we must model a Police force where military grade equipment is not easily
accessible and military style "tactics, techniques and procedures" are not standard practice. Analysis

of this subject must be part of the Port Policing Assessment.
Respectfully,
Rob Lane
Aviation Maintenance

DATE:  June 30, 2020 
TO:     Peter Steinbrueck, Commission President 
Steve Metruck, Executive Director 
Michael Villa, Acting Chief of Police 
FROM: Jessica Sanford, Aviation Operations 
SUBJECT: Public Comment on Motion 202015 
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important motion. 
My name is Jessica Sanford and I currently work in Aviation Operations. Before moving back home to the 
Seattle area, I worked for the City of Charleston Police Department in South Carolina for 7 years. I 
managed the criminal intelligence and crime analysis units, as well as oversaw technology for the 
department. This included our dispatch software, records management system, body cameras, incar 
cameras, and the city's public safety camera system. The topic of police reform is near and dear to my 
heart as Charleston's department went through this same process following Michael Brown's death in 
Ferguson, MO, in 2014. When the DOJ report was released in March of 2015, it outlined over 50 
recommended changes to police practices within the Ferguson Police Department. The City of 
Charleston proactively took this report and did a full evaluation of its own policing practices. As manager 
of the technology systems, I oversaw the training of new reporting standards to over 400 officers. I had 
a front row seat to how this process affected everyone from Chief down to the patrol officers. 
I want to thank the Commission, Blacks in Government, Port Police, and everyone else who has 
contributed to the effort thus far. There has clearly been a lot of thought and consideration put forth 
and I am proud the Port is proactively looking inward to better our organization. 
Leadership is key. True leadership. You will not be able to change a department's culture with policy 
alone, and you will not change it quickly. The vision and the expectation of excellence and 
professionalism needs to come topdown from command staff in a consistent, clear message. Officers 
may not be receptive to these new expectations; let's be honest, no one really likes change. This is why 
consistency and clear expectations over time are critical. Many officers in Charleston did not agree with 
the changes; they resented our Chief and quite a few quit. But over two to three years of consistent 
training, support, and accountability there was a clear difference in the culture and the officers were 
proud of their department and their profession. 
Regarding the ban on dangerous restrain techniques and use of force. South Carolina does not teach 
these techniques in their state academy, and I didn't feel officers in Charleston were ever at a 
disadvantage for not knowing them. However, I would like to impress upon the future task force the 
importance of giving officers other intermediary tools and options, as you take some away. Officers can 
go through hours of deescalation training, and at the end of the day there will still be situations where 
subjects resist arrest. You are setting officers up for failure if their only options are a baton or a gun. 
Give them intermediary options, require additional training, and set high expectations for when they are 
used. 


Page 1 of 2

Regarding budget reallocation. I will caution that increased expectations of our police department will 
likely lead to increased budgetary needs. Body cameras themselves are not expensive, but the storage 
and redaction capability are costly over time. If the existing records system is not set up to capture data 
points required for metric tracking, the vendor is unlikely to add the capability out of the goodness of 
their hearts. New or increased frequency of training also comes at a cost. It needs to be acknowledged 
that to have a police department with higher standards and better community outreach will likely 
require more money, not less. 
I strongly suggest adding language that addresses the need for data collection, analysis, and 
transparency. I've heard many people say we have a great police force. What does our data show? 
Where are we starting from? What are we looking to change? The existing data may be full of holes and 
wildly misleading. That's ok. These hard questions haven't been asked before, so having missing or 
incomplete records is to be expected. We can commit to do better going forward. For instance, we 
should be looking at the demographics of noncriminal encounters. Do they differ between airport and 
seaport? Are certain officers more likely to show bias than others when all other factors are equal. What 
does the use of force data currently show, and how do we want it to change? I would hate to have so 
many people put this much effort and time into reforming a system only to make it 2 or 3 years down 
the road and not be able to quantify the progress. 
Finally, transparency both in the reform process and findings over time is a huge olive branch to the 
community. If we are proud of our police force and the changes we are making, the information needs 
to be readily available. Use of force summary statistics and demographic reports may not be something 
we're proud of at the beginning, but we need to own our story and the journey. 
I appreciate the Commission's time and look forward to the work ahead of us. Thank you. 

Jessica Sanford 









Page 2 of 2




From:            Davich, Kati
To:                Commission-Public-Records
Subject:           RE: Written comment for Jun. 30 meeting - edit
Date:              Tuesday, June 30, 2020 7:35:30 AM
Hi there!

Might I update my statement? I added one statement to the earlier draft I sent in.

Thank you!

Kati Davich
Emergency Preparedness Planning & Program Mgr   

Aviation Security (Port-wide support)
P.O. Box 68727 | Seattle, WA 98168
P: 206-787-6099
C: 206-475-1313
E: davich.k@portseattle.org


From: Davich, Kati
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 4:13 PM
To: Commission-Public-Records 
Subject: Written comment for Jun. 30 meeting

Greetings!

I would like to submit the written comment below for inclusion in the June 30 Commission meeting.

Thank you!


My name is Kati Davich. I am the Emergency Preparedness Planning & Program Manager for the Port
of Seattle. I've been in this role for a little over two years and I've been with the Port for a little over
seven years. I'm also originally from the Minneapolis area, living there nearly 30 years prior to
moving to Seattle. As I am submitting these comments via email: my perspective is that of a white
woman.

One of the topics being discussed within the Port policing conversation is changing the culture of
policing from being a warrior to being a guardian, and I wanted to add some life observations in
support of changing the culture and of temperament/intent assessments to prevent aggressive and
ill-meaning people from getting into the field in the first place. My observations are from my time in
Minneapolis  not from Washington, Seattle, or the Port  and aren't a generalization of all police
officers.

I grew-up being taught the police were here to help. When I was in my late-teens and early 20s, I
started noticing some of the most aggressive/hot-headed people with the biggest problems with


authority I knew were going into policing and becoming prison guards. I couldn't understand why
these people wanted to go into policing when my understanding was officers were there to help
people; I couldn't imagine going to someone like that if I was in trouble. If you're not going into
policing to help people, what is your intent?

If a candidate answers the question "why do you want to be a police officer" with anything other
than "to help people," there is a problem with their intent. If the candidate is aggressive, hotheaded
, or has an issue with authority, there is a problem with their temperament. Either of these
problems will create volatile situations down the line, adding to the risk Indigenous and People of
Color (IPOC) live with every day.

When I watched George Floyd being murdered and the subsequent reactions by police officers to
the peaceful protests, I couldn't help but think about the aggressive people I knew and wondered if
they ever wrongfully hurt or killed anyone or were in the lines of officers that fired non-lethals into
crowds of families peacefully protesting. Other police actions I have seen over time  toward IPOC in
everyday situations and toward protestors  further damaged my view of "police as helpers," so
much so I experienced a personal crisis over not being able to reconcile parts of my job (which I had
considered my dream job) with my support of BLM. After seeking help from some wonderful Port
staff on the subject, I am focusing on trying to create change in my spheres of influence and am
lending my voice to these larger conversations about institutional racism, hoping our leaders will
drive the change desperately needed in police departments and elsewhere.

I would also like to acknowledge my experiences pale in comparison to the trauma IPOC live every
day. I share my experiences here in support of IPOC everywhere and the truth they speak, Blacks in
Government's recommendations on policing  the Focus Group will be recommending language
about the temperament assessments I alluded to in my comments, and any efforts the Port puts
forward to address systemic racism. I am here to change and to hold-up IPOC with my support,
comfort, and acknowledgement of their authority in making demands for change. I participated in
the Working Sessions and I support the endeavors of the Focus Group and their draft motion.

Thank you.


Kati Davich
Emergency Preparedness Planning & Program Mgr   

Aviation Security (Port-wide support)
P.O. Box 68727 | Seattle, WA 98168
P: 206-787-6099
C: 206-475-1313
E: davich.k@portseattle.org






From:            Franklin, Alicia
To:                Commission-Public-Records
Subject:           Community Forum on Port Policing: Written Comment Request
Date:              Friday, June 26, 2020 12:03:59 PM
Dear Commissioners,

Thank you for creating this space for a community forum on Port policing.

As I watch and learn about numerous gut-wrenching police brutality incidents, often times the officer (s) have a
history of targeting minorities unjustly. Officers quit, then move on to a different police department like nothing
ever happened. I do agree that other officers should speak up when they witness other police officers treating
citizens unfairly; however, that is rare and when officers do speak out against brutality, they are often terminated,
blacklisted.

Is there a national database that holds all police office records and complaints? If not, that is truly unfortunate as
this information should be available. Ideally, there should be one place to resource police officers records and
complaints nationwide. Just as regular citizens have back ground checks, police officers should have an even more
rigorous back ground check, including complaints and grievances held against them for review by potential
employers.

How will the Port ensure they are hiring or have hired individuals who consistently demonstrate compassion,
understanding and patience to resolve issues within black and brown communities?

Respectfully,

Alicia M. Franklin
Senior Administrative Assistant
Aviation, Business and Properties
franklin.a@portseattle.org | www.flySEA.org
Desk: (206) 787-4984

Operated by the Port of Seattle

E-mail to or from this account is public and may be subject to disclosure









From:            JC Harris
To:                Commission-Public-Records; Steinbrueck, Peter; Cho, Sam; Felleman, Fred; Bowman, Stephanie; Calkins, Ryan
Subject:           [EXTERNAL] Public Comment For 30 June Special Meeting
Date:              Monday, June 29, 2020 3:28:58 PM
Attachments:      Public Safety Public Comments-POS.doc

WARNING: This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender
and expect the content of this email to be safe.

Commissioners,
WRT your special meeting on policing.
I applaud your efforts at self-reflection. I hope it becomes a model for
action, but also for other communities to confront this issue head-on.
Attached find my public comment which outlines a very painful and
personal experience in -my- family and a series of reforms that I would
like to see.
Most of the ideas I present will seem relatively 'minor' in comparison
to all the recent discussions of wholesale reform. My family has given
this a -lot- of thought over the years and these notions are what would
make the greatest day to day difference for us. In one sentence: The
black members of my family don't worry every day about being killed by a
police officer, but they do worry about being -stopped-. They resent
feeling like they have to be 'extra careful'. That extra bit of day to
day tension is at the heart of the problem. And it's no way to live.
Sincerely,
---JC


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

FROM:      JC Harris 
PO Box 13094 
Des Moines, WA 98198 
(206) 878-0578 
TO:          Commissioners Of The Port Of Seattle: Peter Steinbreuck, Fred Felleman, 
Stephanie Bowman, Ryan Calkins, Sam Cho 

June 29, 2020 
Commissioners, 
I am writing to you in this context as a private citizen. I applaud the Port's efforts at selfreflection
on matters of policing and specifically identifying and ending racism in policing. In
light of recent events, I have heard many platitudes from various governments (including my
own) and I am hoping to see these fine words translated into productive steps forward. 
If my tone seem a bit cynical, perhaps this background information will be helpful. I am in a
decidedly 'mixed' family. And the black people in my family have had experiences which are
unfortunately common enough (and recent enough) that I believe they warrant investigation in
today's Port Of Seattle. As one specific example, my decidedly black son and his cousin were
stopped by a member of the Port PD in 2002 for a supposedly illegal right turn on red within the
City Of Des Moines. They were not only stopped, but handcuffed. And then their car was towed,
forcing them to walk back home to Burienabout six miles. (When they asked to get back into
their now locked car to retrieve their cell phone to make an emergency call, their request was
denied.) When they demanded to know why they were being treated so roughly, the officer
explained that their car tabs had expired and this was standard procedure in such cases. (Their
car tabs were expired. By one. single. day.) 
Almost all the conversations I have heard thus far focus on preventing the most extreme cases,
such as the deaths of George Floyd and Ahmaud Arbery. Of course, I welcome any solutions that
might be put found to prevent such tragedies. However, I believe that the vast majority of
problems are actually 'minor' incidents where the police stop individuals and treat them
differently based on their race. These are the incidents we do not hear about. But in some ways
they matter more than the headline events, because these incidents scar people and create an
ongoing climate of tension, intimidation and fear. I think all of us are getting a sense of what that
might feel like now with COVID-19. The risk of infection is low, but it's always in the back of
your mind. And that constant sense of concern wears on people. 
I'm also convinced that if we had better data on these more 'minor' types of incidents, we might
prevent more serious problems by identifying the officers who show day to day biases. 
What I am dancing around, and what everyone else tends to dance around so carefully is this: we
cannot truthfully say that the problem of police racism is 'somewhere else' or 'back in the day'. It 
must be, to some extent here and now. Because we are small communities here in South King
1

County, we are reluctant to think that anyone working here might behave in this way. And the
moment that possibility is mentioned a wall of defensiveness or resentment tends to come up.
But to think that the Port's PD might be somehow 'special' or 'immune' is to ignore how baked
in racism is into the culture of policing as well as in the broader culture. And we should be able
to discuss it without pearl clutching. 
I believe that processes need to be put into place in every police department to not only
prevent the types of situations I just mentioned, but just as importantly, to reassure the
public that we take the issues seriously on a day to day basis. To build real trust, it is not
enough to say that we will not choke someone to death or shoot them in the back. That is far too
low a bar. We must also take steps to show the public that when we stop someone for any reason,
they will be treated fairly and with courtesy during any type of interaction. 
To address this I would ask you to consider the following changes to police management: 
1. The Port's web site should be updated with a prominently displayed Comment Form that
encourages the public to provide feedback on their interactions with the police. Respondents
should be followed up with by someone not connected with the police department. We need to
tell the public that was want to hear from them and that we care about their comments. I'm sure
there will be a certain amount of skepticism that this might help much. But policing seems to me
to be, to a very large degree, a customer service job. Most interactions are not about force, they
are transactional. And most people who feel mistreated in some way, think that the poor
treatment they received must be condoned by management. Most people of colour are extremely 
reluctant to complain--unless the mistreatment rises to an outrageous level. We need to convey to 
the public (and particularly people of colour) that any mistreatment is not OK. 
2. Every person who interacts with the police should be given a business card with that web
address and a phone number to call to give voice feedback. This should not just be additional 
fine print on the back of a citation, but rather an attractive business card used only for that
purpose. Again, we should reinforce that we are in the customer service business. We want
officers to do that well and we want everyone who they meet to know that there is someone in
management who wants to know how they are conducting themselves. 
3. Any significant complaint should be immediately reported to the Commissioners or another
independent body outside of the corporation. This is simply to allow the Commissioners to have
a sense of the frequency and type of complaints coming in. 
4. Summary Reporting (not detailed) of complaints should be made available to the
Commissioners on a regular basis. Commissioners should be able to have an idea of the
frequency and type of complaints that are being recorded. They should also get totals for each
member of the force. And these totals should also include any complaints the employee may
have received while working for another police department. (Eg. if an officer worked for another
PD before coming to the Port, the Commission should be apprised that their 'complaint total' of
'3' includes 2 complaints from their previous employment and 1 from working at the Port Of
Seattle. 

2



5. Racial coding of police stops--only for the purposes of complaint tracking. I have read that the
efficacy of this sort of tracking is controversial. However I am only interested in the complaints 
not the stops themselves. We should be able to get a list of complaints that is broken down by
race as well as type of incident. Again: this is not to track the incidents; only the ones where a
complaint was logged. 
6. Reports of stops should be transmitted to all State and Federal Agencies and to the Standford
Open Policing Project, which contains the most thorough database of information on police
stops. All police departments should be part of consistent national reporting so we can track
improvement. 
Part of this process is to insure fair treatment for the people that the police interact with. But part
of it is also to demonstrate to the public that the PD takes these issues seriously enough to
actually welcome more scrutiny from the outside. Currently, no one outside the government (not
even the Commission) learns about complaints unless they rise to a very serious level. That must
change. 
I recognise that the job of policing is one of the most difficult imaginable. And most people,
even in far less stressful jobs, are not inclined to having people 'look over their shoulder'. But
that's where we're at in 2020. We will never get to a place of public comfort and trust with our
policing until we can prove that our police departments invite comments and criticism; and that
complaints are subject to the same kinds of oversight we expect from every business that deals
with the public in such an intimate way. 
Thank you for your consideration, 

JC Harris 







3




From:            Jensen, Kaitlyn
To:                Commission-Public-Records
Subject:           PUBLIC COMMENT for June 30, 2020
Date:              Monday, June 29, 2020 4:42:35 PM
Dear Port Commissioners,

I am writing today as a Port employee and also as a constituent. I am writing to ask you hear, consider
and adopt Motion 2020-15.

In light of the Black Lives Matter movement occurring in this country, it is critical the commission
adopt the motion to direct a comprehensive assessment of the Port of Seattle Police Department and
create a task force to lead the assessment and develop reccomendations. It has become increasingly
clear over the past decade+, and particularly in the last few months, that police brutality is an
epidemic of its own right and that policing in this country needs to change. This is your opportunity to
ensure the Port of Seattle Police Department is not a part of the problem and is a model for
equitable, responsible policing.

Thank you for your action and Black Lives Matter!

Kaitlyn Jensen
Assistant Project Management
Seaport Project Management
Tel: 206-787-5517 | Mobile: 206-351-3044
Pronouns: She/Her

The Port of Seattle is proud to celebrate Pride.


All e-mail communications with the Port of Seattle are subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act and should be presumed to be
public.




From:            Jennifer Lee
To:                Commission-Public-Records
Subject:           [EXTERNAL] Public Comment - June 30th Commission Meeting
Date:              Tuesday, June 30, 2020 10:01:47 AM
WARNING: This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
expect the content of this email to be safe.
Hello, my name is Jennifer Lee, and I am the Technology and Liberty Manager at the ACLU
of Washington. While a comprehensive assessment of the Port of Seattle Police Department is
a step in the right direction towards police accountability, the recommendations in Motion
2020-15 should be expanded to ban the use of biometric technology by both the Port of Seattle
police department as well as any privately contracted security personnel.
Item 1f of the motion states that the Commission affirms its strong support for continuing the
Port's moratorium on police use of facial recognition technology. However, as members of the
Biometrics External Advisory Group, the ACLU and other organizations are also aware that
during this moratorium the Port is currently recommending that biometrics, including facial
recognition, be used by the Port of Seattle Police Department as well as by private security
firms contracted by Port tenants. It is disingenuous to call for the continuation of a moratorium
to further racial equity, while simultaneously recommending that the Port of Seattle and
private security firms be allowed to use facial recognition as soon as the moratorium is lifted.
Last week, lawmakers introduced a federal ban on face surveillance technology, and Boston
also became the 8th city in the U.S. to outright ban government use of face surveillance
technology. Many civil rights and civil liberties organizations have been calling to end police
use of facial recognition given that facial recognition will exacerbate racial inequity no what
the technology's accuracy rates are. MediaJustice recently made a call to ban facial
recognition as part of it's Agenda for Black Lives, noting that there is no level of regulation
that will make facial recognition technology safe for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color,
immigrants, and other communities in the margins.
If the Port of Seattle Commission is truly committed to advancing racial justice, it must
commit to banning the use of facial recognition by the Port of the Seattle Police Department
and contracted private security firms.

Jennifer Lee
Technologyand Liberty Manager
Pronouns: She, Her

American Civil Liberties Union of Washington
PO Box 2728, Seattle, WA 98111-2728

206.624.2184 x208 | jlee@aclu-wa.org
www.aclu-wa.org




From:            Mayo, Sofia
To:                commission-public-records@portseattle.org.
Cc:                Commission-Public-Records
Subject:           Sofa Mayo police motion written testimony
Date:              Tuesday, June 30, 2020 8:35:12 AM

Hello Commissioners:
I am a Port of Seattle employee for almost 10 years and a king county resident.
I'm writing in support of my black family And friends. I would have preferred to provide a verbal testimony
however I have several working Port meetings preventing me from being on standby to speak. This is why I'm
providing written testimony.
As you are considering this motion, I hope all of you recognize this is the first step of many to remove institutional
racism here in our own house: the port of Seattle walls.
I understand it's not about our port police. It is about a system created to prevent black men, women, teenagers,
young children and babies from thriving and LIVING.
All of you have your own interests and initiatives I support as a port employee. It's important however to fix "our"
house too. And the first step is this motion.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sent from my iPhone




From:            Stanley Shikuma
To:                Commission-Public-Records
Subject:           [EXTERNAL] PUBLIC COMMENT for June 30, 2020
Date:              Tuesday, June 30, 2020 10:20:30 AM
WARNING: This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
expect the content of this email to be safe.
Dear Port of Seattle Commissioners,
Good morning! My name is Stanley Shikuma, and I am the President of the Japanese American Citizens League,
Seattle Chapter. Seattle JACL is a member of the Tech Fairness Coalition, a network of over 70 grassroots
organizations representing people of color, low-income, homeless, and other marginalized communities in the
Seattle area. I have had theprivilege of testifying before you at prior Port Commission hearings in person, but today
I write to you per new COVID-19 protocols.
I write today to comment on the review of Port Police and relevant policies, including:
1A) A ban on chokeholds
2A) ensuring diversity in police hiring
1C) Not hiring racially biased people, or people with a history of excessive force use
1D) De-escalation and anti-discrimination training
1E) Reviewing "qualified immunity"
1F) Continuing the Port's moratorium on police use of facial recognition
1G) Transparency in policy
1H) Ensuring officers are visibly identifiable by name

Seattle JACL supports all of the above policies, especially in light of the murder of George Floyd and the subsequent
uprisings, including here in Seattle, in protest of discriminatory and brutal policetreatment of BIPOC and other
marginalized people. Systemic racism clearly exists within all our major institutions but nowhere more obvious or
deadly than in our police and justice system. Adoption and enactment of strong - even radical - reform measures are
both necessary and urgent. I commend you for taking up these questions and hope your actionswill be as strong
and effective as they are swift.
Inparticular, I would urge you to strengthen the call in 1F from a moratorium to an outright ban on facial
recognition. Recent stories in the news point to false arrest targeting a Black man"identified" by facialrecognition.
This is exactly the nightmare scenario we have warned of in ouropposition to use of this technology innocent
people of color targeted byartificial intelligence. We do not want white supremacyautomated and embedded at
the Port of Seattle notby Port Police, not by TSA, not by Airlines.
Thank you for your consideration. Please take the time and deliberation to do the right thing for all of us and Ban
FacialRecognition from Sea-Tac International Airport.
Sincerely,
Stan Shikuma
~power~of~words~of~power~of~words~of~power~of~words~of~power~
Stanley N. Shikuma, President
Seattle Chapter JACL
sktaiko1@mac.com
206-919-1465
he / him / his



From:            cspiess@ieee.org
To:                Commission-Public-Records
Subject:           [EXTERNAL] Public comment for June 30th meeting
Date:              Monday, June 29, 2020 12:40:54 PM
WARNING: This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
expect the content of this email to be safe.
Hi Port of Seattle Commission Clerk & Commissioners,
The following is my public comment for the meeting on June 30th, 2020, regarding agenda
item 9a:

I commend the Port of Seattle and the Commissioners on heeding the voices of protesters; and
planning critical self-reflection and change to the Port of Seattle Police Department.
Motion 2020-15 items 4g & 4h don't go far enough in two aspects.
First, the Port of Seattle Police Department is part of the Valley Civil Disturbance Unit
(VCDU); and the VCDU provided officers to the Seattle Police Department (SPD) response to
recent protests in Seattle. What if Port of Seattle police use excessive force at such protests?
For example, there is video footage of a detained protester being held down on the ground by
one officer while two other officers repeatedly punch the protester. How would bystanders or
the victim know which police department's officers were involved? If they reasonably report
the incident to SPD, would SPD themselves even be able to tell in the footage which
jurisdiction the officers belong to? How would this Task Force even be made aware of such
an incident considering the public is unlikely to figure out to report the incident to the Port of
Seattle? The Task Force should specifically look at the history of Port of Seattle deployments
via the VCDU and determine if the only functional purpose is unpaid-for-by-Seattle, backup
cops for SPD; how that at all aligns with the purposes of the police at the Port; and how is it
all possible to hold accountable any bad behavior in these mixed jurisdiction deployments.
Secondly, the Task Force's review of mutual aid should not be limited to one-way (outgoing
support); but also a review and assessment of occurrences of assistance to the Port from other
police departments, WA State Patrol, and/or federal agencies. What ensures that any outside
departments abide by Port of Seattle policies? What ensures that Port police don't use outside
agencies as a loophole around their own policy restrictions? For example, WA State Patrol
and multiple federal agencies have aircraft and drones equipped with surveillance technology
(such as Forward Looking Infrared cameras & stingray devices) that they either operate on
behalf of a local police department's request or will loan to police departments. The Task
Force should assess how outside agencies provide assistance to the Port; and consider not only
their potential use of force by officers but also the systemic surveillance technologies that
other agencies may use to assist the Port. More broadly the Task Force should assess the
degree of militarization by the Port police.
While Motion 2020-15 states that the Commission affirms the Executive Director's reforms on
continuing a moratorium on police use of facial recognition technology, the Port is
concurrently working to propose the allowed use of biometric technology (including facial
recognition software) by the Port of Seattle Police Department and private security firms

contracted by Port tenants. The Port of Seattle has not provided any evidence that any type of
biometric technology would even accomplish any supposed purposes for law enforcement and
security services. Saying you agree to a moratorium while behind the scenes working to
enable its use seems duplicitous. If the Port of Seattle and the Commission truly believe in
holding themselves to the highest nationwide standards, then you should ban the use of
Biometrics for Public-Facing Law Enforcement & Security Functions.
I encourage Commissioners to expand the areas of review by the Task Force and to ban the
use of biometric technology by both the Port of Seattle police department and any privately
contracted security personnel. Thank you.

-Cynthia Spiess
an independent security researcher and Seattle resident



From:            Brendalynn Taulelei
To:                Commission-Public-Records
Subject:           [EXTERNAL] June 30 Community Forum on Port Policing - written comments
Date:              Monday, June 29, 2020 6:51:48 PM
WARNING: This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
expect the content of this email to be safe.
Commissioners and Executive Director Metruck,

Thank you for the opportunity for us to share comments on this very important topic! It has
been a little over a month since the tragic death of George Floyd which has had an enormous
effect on our nation, the world, and most importantly the black community! The graphic
nature of the viral video of how George died and the expression on the police officer's (Derek
Chauvin) face as George was begging for his life, continues to shake me to my core as a person
of color but most importantly as a human being. The notion that law enforcement is here to
protect and serve the community is not necessarily true for black people, for brown people, or
any person of color. Protection and service are not words I would describe law enforcement
officers, which is really sad!

I can personally attest to being anxious and scared whenever a police car is behind me while
driving. Even though I've been a law abiding citizen my whole life, and worked at the Port for
close to 20 years, the fear of Police is deeply rooted in me and my family. There have been too
many incidents to count amongst my family members, and my community where someone
gets pulled over, for no apparent reason other than being racially profiled as "they look like
trouble". I have in my lifetime also experienced the unfortunate situation Breonna Taylor
found herself in; it is still to this day, THE most terrifying experience of my life! I am just so
grateful that me and my family survived that day! I can not and will never forget these
experiences, but they help explain my fear of an entity that is supposed to protect and serve
the community. My stories are just a few examples of what black and brown people are
subjected to their entire lives in encounters with the police!

Being a police officer and having a law enforcement badge, I can imagine is a great honor for
anyone that has a career in law enforcement. However, does that mean you are above
everyone else? Does that mean you can treat black people and other people of color like
secondhand citizens? Does that mean you won't be held accountable? Does that mean you
can ignore human decency? The answers to these questions should all be NO! But my reality,
my experience tells me differently. I do not doubt that there are many good police officers,
some of which work for the Port Police department. However, I can't deny that there are also
very bad police officers like Derek Chauvin and the ones that stood by while he murdered
George Floyd in the street, in broad daylight, in front of an audience of people. Unfortunately,
there are many examples of bad police officers that somehow always get away with an illegal
act, or a murderous act under the protection of the law. What about the victims? What about

their families? I say enough is enough!!

I felt compelled to respond to the call for comments on this topic, especially since it hits close
to home for me. Therefore, I wanted to state that I am in full agreement with the direction the
Port Commission and Mr. Metruck is taking to call for a comprehensive assessment of our Port
Police department policies and procedures. I would request transparency throughout this
assessment as the assigned task force evaluates current practices related the use of excessive
force, recruitment and hiring practices, social inequities in the system, racism against the black
community, investigations related to excessive use of force on a member of the public, etc.
This positive step forward aligns us with the rest of the country to ensure transparency and
accountability in law enforcement entities, including our Port Police department. Most
importantly, this will go a long way in restoring the community's (and quite frankly my own)
faith in the role that law enforcement plays in our society. 
Faafetai tele ("Thank You" in Samoan)
Brendalynn Taulelei





From:            lh00tb+4he9a6yzzg16o@guerrillamail.com
To:                Commission-Public-Records
Subject:           [EXTERNAL] Commission
Date:              Friday, June 26, 2020 12:58:36 PM

WARNING: This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender
and expect the content of this email to be safe.

Hi folks! I've been invited to leave a public comment on the topic of police practice assessment within the Port of
Seattle, ensuring alignment with the highest national standards and best practices related to policing.
As industry specialists, I trust the Port of Seattle police department to select and apply the most appropriate
standards to guide police action. As such, please ensure that the Commission and other interested parties act as
advisors on this matter and not assume a position of authority to modify police standards.
I do believe that the recent actions taken by the City of Seattle on riot response protocol were emotionally- and
politically-driven; as a result, I believe that the courses of action were improper and short-sighted.
Please take care to consider that police officers do not operate in an office environment. Police officers operate
everywhere John Q Public doesn't want to. In the event that police officers are confronted by malevolence, they
must respond with the means necessary to maintain public safety.
C


----
Sent using Guerrillamail.com
Block or report abuse: https://www.guerrillamail.com//abuse/?
a=Qk55CAQTUL0ahkOk5XwTexeKX8%2BT3cVU1IRSc83iGAE%2FTXOxxc0h8x4%3D