Brianna Thomas, City Council Candidate

Brianna Thomas, City Council Candidate

Today we have  Brianna Thomas, candidate for Seattle City Council, Position 9  (Citywide). With Crystal, she dives into her knowledge of how Seattle does work, and vision for how Seattle could  work. They touch on the causes of and solutions to homelessness, where  public safety in Seattle goes from here, and how one takes demands from  the community and crafts them into policy.

As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at

Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today’s guest, Brianna Thomas, at @peopleforbrianna. More info is available at


Read about Seattle’s housing constraints here:

Learn more about how homelessness and trauma go hand-in-hand here:

Learn about the rise and fall of Seattle’s navigation teams here:

Read about inclusionary housing, as well as other types of housing projects Seattle has tried, here:

Find  out more about the Seattle City Council’s recent passage of a law  requiring legal representation be provided to those facing eviction:,-March%2029%2C%202021&text=The%20Seattle%20City%20Council%20on,in%20the%20city%20facing%20eviction.

Learn about Seattle’s long path with police accountability here:


Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00]  Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm your host, Crystal Fincher. On this  show, we talk to political hacks and policy wonks to gather insight into  local politics and policy through the lens of those doing the work and  provide behind the scenes perspectives on politics in our state. Full  transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at and in our episode notes.

Well  today, I am very thrilled to have with us, someone who I've known for  over a decade. We came up together, actually, managing political  campaigns in Seattle. And now she's gone off to do big things and is  doing an even bigger thing now and running for City Council in Seattle.  Please welcome Brianna Thomas. Thanks for joining us.

Brianna Thomas: [00:01:13] Pleasure to be here, especially on something called Hacks & Wonks. I identify as both of those.

Crystal Fincher: [00:01:19]  Very much us, very much us - both IDF alums, and that very much  describes us. It is why the show is named what it is. So, we go way  back. This has been a long journey for you. This is your second run for  City Council. And so, I guess what made you decide to run for Council  again right now?

Brianna Thomas: [00:01:43] My friends told me to - no. Truly, I've been serving with Council President González for the last five years.

The  last time I ran, I didn't get out the primary. And a lot of that was  about me not knowing what the job was that I was asking for, so I wasn't  able to bring that to the trail. So I spent the last five years making  an education of my job. I know how the City works, I know how the City  doesn't work, and I have a vision of how the City could work. I've  invested in making sure that I've got the hard skills that are necessary  to talk about things like homelessness, affordable housing, criminal  justice reform, equity, and recovery for COVID. What are we going to do  for the artists? And all of that came to bear in one moment in February,  and here I am now.

Crystal Fincher: [00:02:29]  So as you said, this is certainly a trying time for many people. We're  coming out of this COVID crisis - we're beginning to see some light at  the end of the tunnel just in getting back to where we can be social  again, but lots of people are struggling. What can you accomplish as a  City Council member right now? And what are your plans?

Brianna Thomas: [00:02:51]  Well, we can take a look at the way we use land. It's a area that I've  had to educate myself in, but it touches every piece of policy - where  we site childcare centers, whether or not we're building the right  systems to make sure our elders can age in place. What about density? Is  transit working for people? All of that ties back to our relationship  with the land and how we use it. So I think that's one thing I'm really  going to be interested in digging into.

One  of my campaign platforms is building a Seattle for the future that's  environmentally sustainable. We know people are coming here because we  have clean air and we have clean water. It's a beautiful place to live.  There are plenty of economic opportunities. And I think it's our job to  get ahead of that demand and start building right now for the Seattle of  the future.

Crystal Fincher: [00:03:36]  Well, that's really interesting, and as a former land use and planning  board member myself, I certainly agree that the way we use land shapes  how we build our communities, and how we're able to connect and thrive.  So I guess, are we doing a good job of that right now? What needs to  change?

Brianna Thomas: [00:03:53]  We're doing okay. Seattle's a tough town when it comes to land use.  Folks are in deep relationship with their communities and their  neighborhoods, and change isn't something that we welcome. Some of us  have heard about the Seattle process, and that's a thing. It is a real  process to make forward progress in that space.

But  I think that with some shifting demographics and the obvious need in  that space, we're ready to have a different kind of conversation. We're  ready to talk about infill. We're ready to talk about ADU/DADUs. We're  ready to talk about taking a real hard look at two thirds of the city  still being zoned for single family housing and what that means for our  families. During COVID, we saw that communities of color were able to  bond together and get through the challenges of educating our children  at home, innovating in home-based businesses, and keeping our elders in  place with us to keep those families together.

So  what I think we need to do to keep some of that momentum going is have a  conversation about where we've been and where we'd like to see  ourselves in the future. One thing that's really obvious to me is some  of the NIMBY attitude that we had about zoning and exclusionary or  inclusionary zoning has exacerbated the homelessness crisis. Had we been  more forward-thinking and more open and more progressive as we say that  we are, just a simple decade ago, then we would have been creating more  infill with affordable housing. And we would have been creating  multi-generational households that would have given folks options when  they hit a point of crisis.

So  that's what we can do better. We can look at a city and say, and demand  that it works for all income levels, all lifestyle choices in a  multi-generational city.

Crystal Fincher: [00:05:35]  Well, I think a lot of people are thinking that they'd like to see  that, but they very much aren't seeing that right now. You brought up  the way that we have created our city has exacerbated the homelessness  crisis that we see right now. Why are we in such a problem? Why does it  seem to be impossible for us to figure out how to get out of this thing  and what do we need to do?

Brianna Thomas: [00:05:58]  We need more meaningful investments, and I know that's not a popular  response because it feels like we're already throwing good money after  bad. But we need to recognize that homelessness is a form of trauma. It  is a trauma on a trauma. There are layers of trauma there. And while  rapid rehousing is a tool we must keep in our toolkit, it is not the  only solution. No one that I've ever met - that has experienced trauma  or myself - has been able to turn their entire life around, stabilize,  and thrive in 90 days.

We  need longer term solutions for housing. We need expanded hotel programs.  We need to recognize that tent encampments are not compassionate,  long-term solutions. And quite frankly, I think that the City, wherever  you are on the spectrum of your political ideology, recognizes that that  cannot continue to be our default setting on addressing homelessness.

Crystal Fincher: [00:06:54]  So when you talk about - people need services - what does that mean?  And what are we providing right now? And what more should we be  providing? Because lots of people talk about, they need services. We  heard about the Navigation Team that was established to much fanfare and  it turned out they actually weren't offering much at all. So what is  that missing link and how do we implement that?

Brianna Thomas: [00:07:19]  That's a really great question. You can only use services as a solution  if there's services available. So we can send folks out to do outreach,  but if there's not a room or a safe place for them to go to in that  moment, when they are able and willing to accept assistance, then it's a  hollow offering. We're just moving folks around because there's nowhere  to put them.

We had a  conversation about needing regional solutions - that Seattle couldn't go  it on its own. And so we worked for 18-24 months to stand up the King  County Regional Housing Authority. Now, I'm excited to see that we've  got an Executive Director on board and hopefully we can make some  progress there, but if we're going to have a real conversation about  this issue - we created that authority as a regional approach and  several of our regional partners, after agreeing to the rules of  engagement and agreeing to the rules of the game, decided to opt out.  They still want a seat at the table, they still want to vote, but they  don't want to pony up. And they're still going to shift the burden of  the solution to Seattle in its own right.

So  we have to partner with the State. We have to partner with our  regional, our local cities that aren't Seattle. Because Seattle cannot  solve this on its own. And we have to create some accountability for  what we are doing in every neighborhood in King County, Pierce County,  Snohomish County. This is a national problem with a regional impact. And  we've got to start looking at the solutions that way. If you don't have  an actual shelter for someone to go to, where's the incentive for them  to change anything about their behavior?

So  we got to step away from nice words and platitudes, and probably start  having some harder conversations with each other about where the buck  actually stops, because there's been a lot of mmmhhh. Oh, you can't see  me because this is a podcast - I'm pointing in different directions.

Crystal Fincher: [00:09:09]  Well, and that brings up a good point. You talk about - we put the  expectation on people that they do something once they're put into a  short-term shelter, that there is a clock that's ticking that they're  encouraged to get out, but they're not provided with the services or  even set up for success at all in that area. We're sweeping encampments,  which is as we've talked about before, recommended against by the CDC,  which has been affirmed by King County Public Health. Do you ever see a  justification for doing sweeps?

Brianna Thomas: [00:09:47]  Yes. Short answer, yes. Again, it goes back to my framing of not moving  people for the sake of not moving people is not a compassionate answer.  We've gotten to the point where we have accepted people using public  lands as a substitute for the gaps in the system. So I think that if we  know that there is an encampment that is struggling under the burden of  drug abuse and trafficking, and again, the mental illness and trauma  that comes from being houseless and homeless day after day after day  after day. And those folks have been offered services. Now, to be clear,  the services have to exist. This can't be services in name only, there  has to be an actual place for folks to go. If we are able to create all  of those conditions and all of those backstops and all of that  cushioning, and then folks still aren't willing or able to make that  shift for themselves, there is a role for government to intercede.

Crystal Fincher: [00:10:53]  Well, and I guess the form of that intercession is the question. So you  just mentioned - okay, justified, if there is drug abuse or  trafficking. Substance use disorder is a known contributor to people  losing housing stability and winding up in an unhoused situation. So it  seems like that wouldn't be unexpected at all to see, and that the focus  should be on services to address that.

You  brought up trafficking, which actually Councilmember Andrew Lewis  brought that up too. We weren't able to find any evidence of any  trafficking in encampments, or that happening. I don't know if that was  something talked about in a Council briefing or something, but we hadn't  seen that at all in what happened. So I guess, what would be the  situations that you - what would you do in the instance - in the  instance that someone is unhoused and they are suffering with substance  use disorder? What would you do in that situation?

Brianna Thomas: [00:12:07]  Again, this is going to be a long-term solution. We know that right now  at the State level - we're building a facility in Kent that will have a  whopping 26 beds for the entire state - for inpatient treatment for  folks that are in this condition. 26. I feel like that's not going to  cover the need, not even kind of, not even a little bit.

So  what are the conversations that we need to be having with the House and  the Senate right now about the gravity of the need. Now I understand  that the budget's looking pretty good this season and that folks are  taking advantage of the fact that we have Democratic majorities in the  House and the Senate. That's encouraging. But we all have to be real -  that with 12,000-15,000 people currently experiencing homelessness in  this county alone - if you assume, roughly, I don't have the math, but  let's assume 10% of them are dealing with substance use disorder. That's  a 1,500 bed situation. 26 isn't going to cut it.

Crystal Fincher: [00:13:03] So as a City of Seattle Councilmember, what should be done in the City to address that?

Brianna Thomas: [00:13:08]  Well, we've started the hoteling program. Hopefully that sticks and  that we find other opportunities to expand that programming.

One  thing I'd like to revisit is inclusionary zoning, I'm sorry,  inclusionary housing fees. So when developers came in and put in big  beautiful apartment buildings or condo buildings, they had an option to  either provide a certain number of units of affordable housing  in-building or write a check. Shockingly, most of them chose to write  the check. And now we are building affordable housing in communities  that are already traditionally distressed. So we are concentrating  poverty in communities that are already experiencing poverty. I'd like  to have a conversation with the folks that wrote the check and chose not  to, because there's no way their occupancy rates are anything based on  what their projections were supposed to be for a return on investment.

So  it does not behoove those developers to continue to maintain the status  quo with the vacancy rates that are at this point morally corrupt in  order to continue the segregation along economic experiences, so that  everyone can live a certain type of way. It is absolutely necessary to  take a look at where we're putting affordable housing, who's paying for  affordable housing, and what sort of come-to-Jesus moment we have to  have with ourselves in a city where we are willing to accept beautiful  homes empty night after night, while we watch our neighbors pitch tents.

Crystal Fincher: [00:14:34]  Do you think there's anything that can be done about that from a policy  perspective - in terms of utilizing vacant properties and just in terms  of affordability for people who are housed, but are struggling to pay  rent and to pay their mortgage?

Brianna Thomas: [00:14:51]  Yeah. I think that I'm really proud of the work we were able to do in  COVID around eviction moratoriums. And just on Monday, the council  passed legislation guaranteeing representation for tenants who are  facing eviction. We also created a legal defense against economic  hardship due to COVID. So if you do find yourself in a situation where  you've got a landlord that is not trying to work on a payment plan, that  is not trying to understand your humanity and the economic challenge  the planet is facing. So not a Seattle problem now, the whole planet is  going through this right now. They're not willing to come to the table  in good faith and insist on proceeding with eviction proceedings, you  now have a right to a lawyer. You have someone who can stand up for you  and say, By the way, this is the law, this is your obligation as a  landlord. And very similar to the legal defense fund that we created, we  know that 9 out of 10 times when someone has a lawyer, they come out on  top because we know that large landlords have the benefit of large law  firms and small guys don't. So we're trying to equalize the playing  field here to prevent additional homelessness in our city, while we work  desperately to recover from the crisis we're currently in.

Crystal Fincher: [00:16:04]  That makes sense. I want to talk about public safety and starting off  with a conversation about policing. Certainly there's been a lot of  conversation about how we need to change, modify, reform, fundamentally  alter the way that we view public safety, whose safety is being  prioritized, and how we keep each other safe in our neighborhoods. What  do you think has gone right and wrong so far in the existing efforts,  and where do you want to go?

Brianna Thomas: [00:16:45]  I love this question. It's very popular question this season. So I have  had the fortune and challenge of being on the frontline of police  reform since 2016. I am a Black woman. And the first time I engaged with  the police was being transported into foster care in the back of a car,  police car, like I was a criminal, like I had done something wrong.  Because the police officer that was transporting me didn't want to clear  out his front seat. This was in Georgia. This was not the SPD. But this  speaks to the culture of policing we're trying to address.

So  we wrote 107 pages of beautiful legislation in 2017 that re-imagined  civilian oversight of our police force. We were not able to bargain all  107 pages of that legislation and of those reforms. And that's where the  rubber hits the road. We're operating from a space where collective  bargaining agreements trump local laws in the State of Washington. And  until we turn that ship around, we have to go to the table and bargain.  Now we have to be able to go to a table with someone who wants to  bargain, who shares the values of accountability, who shares a vision of  culture reform and reconnecting and re-establishing trust with  community. It is incumbent upon the guild to find the political will to  find leadership that shares those values.

Until  we have someone at the table who actually wants to invest meaningfully  in reform and culture change on behalf of the guild, the Council will  continue to be trapped, the City will continue to be trapped between the  Department of Justice, a federal judge, and a collective bargaining  agreement. And somebody has got to go first. We have done the work, we  have set the policy, we have met with community, we have taken the  criticisms to enact these sorts of changes, and it's not just a single  actor issue anymore. There are multiple actors at the table. That was a  very long answer. Sorry about that. I just get very impassioned.

My  vision of public safety is a collective bargaining agreement that  actually works for the community, that creates accountability, and  allows us the budget flexibility to invest in community-based  alternative responses that are appropriate for each community. You're  not going to have the same response in Rainier Beach that you're going  to have in Wallingford, or Maple Leaf, or Northgate, or West Seattle out  here on the island where I live. Each of those communities are proud of  their individual cultures and their individual dynamics. And we thought  about going there with micro-policing plans, but it just sort of fell  short because there wasn't the institutional support to really do the  work on crafting programs that matched the culture and needs and  requirements of each of the 118 neighborhoods of the City of Seattle.

Crystal Fincher: [00:19:30]  So you brought up a variety of things, and I like the detailed answers.  Those are very good things. We don't have the kinds of time limitations  in short form interviews or that are instituted sometimes in TV  interviews or anything like that. So we can just talk. But in that, you  talked about the Seattle Police Officers Guild - obviously right now,  they have leadership that by almost everyone's account does not appear  to be operating in good faith, has been chastised and called out by  people across the political spectrum for inflammatory, false misleading  statements from everything about - from protests to the insurrection. So  that right now is not looking very promising that they don't have  that.

But I guess on the  Council end - as a Councilmember, the first question I've asked others -  would you vote to approve a contract that didn't include the 2017  ordinance provisions?

Brianna Thomas: [00:20:36]  No. I lived through that - it was painful. The Council and the City  were put in a position, at the time, where they were presented with a  false choice between standing with the rights of workers and standing  with the needs and demands of community. And we have learned from that, I  have learned from that, and I have the intestinal fortitude and  temperament to just keep saying No, until we get there. I just cannot  emphasize enough that the people taking to the streets, the activists  demanding change and accountability were right. And we made the wrong  choice. We can make the right choice this time.

Crystal Fincher: [00:21:19]  Council certainly can make the right choice this time. And I certainly  hope that the Council does. In terms of staffing, this is something that  the City can dictate and determine, and that isn't necessarily hindered  by the SPOG contract or state provisions. Would you be continuing to  look to reduce the head count within SPD moving forward?

Brianna Thomas: [00:21:49]  So the real answer to that is, I don't know. I don't know. I think that  we have to take a look at response times. I think we have to take a  look at what we are asking officers to do. Do we need a gun and badge to  respond to everything? Absolutely not. And do we have to continue to  ask police officers to be mental health service providers? Absolutely  not. So I don't know what the right number is. I don't think anybody  knows what the right number is, if there is a right number. I do know  that we are continuing to do a needs assessment and a task assessment of  what we are asking SPD to do now, and whether or not that is  appropriate.

In 2018, we  took big steps toward restoring the community service officer program.  Wildly popular. But taking certain tasks away from SPD and putting it on  the plate of community service officers does require bargaining. That  is a limitation of bargaining. So if we are reimagining the tasks that  police officers are performing, we have to recognize that each of those  changes requires a session, or two, or ten of bargaining with the guild  to get them to accept that change of work conditions.

And  there are still limitations about how far we can go from the Department  of Justice - that remains. I think it's a sticky thing to be honest  about, but last summer, community insisted in the middle of a cloud of  tear gas, rightfully so, that we stay under the consent decree. There  was a move to have it removed, and that would have given the City more  flexibility in setting policy, staffing levels, and budgets. But we  heard them and so we withdrew that request. That however has had the  result of limiting what the City can and cannot change while under  federal supervision. And that's the hard thing about governing, right?  That's the hard thing and the magical thing about governing is - you  want to give community all of the things that it wants, but your job is  to figure out how to get as much of both requests as possible, wherever  feasible. It's a little bit of an art and a little bit of a science.

Crystal Fincher: [00:23:52]  And that's an interesting conversation. And I think, one, that you are  in a very unique position to address. Maybe more than almost anyone else  who's a candidate for a variety of positions, really. It's how do you  take demands from the community and turn that into policy. And that is  not a simple thing to do.

You  come from community, you have been on the street enacting policy. You  have protested, you have certainly carried the voice of community to  those in power before. And now you have been in the halls of power,  certainly as Chief of Staff for Council President Lorena González. And  have worked on taking the desires and the demands and working within  institutions, working with the Council, working with other entities,  understanding and realizing the challenges, the limitations. Sometimes  you can move fast, sometimes you can't move fast at all.

How  do you balance that? How do you negotiate that? And what do you think  in considering that lots of people are going to be looking at you and  looking at other candidates and saying, We know we need massive radical  change in many areas - from policing, climate change, economically, you  name it. We need that change. We're counting on it, we're feeling it,  the lack of it in our daily lives. And so we're counting on you to enact  it. And sometimes we get frustrated when we hear, We just can't do it,  or we can't do it all right now, or you need to have patience or here's  what we can do in different ways. How do you think people should think  about that? And what is your experience in navigating that?

Brianna Thomas: [00:25:51]  One thing I like to remind people of is because I have a  email address, and because I am a public servant, I have not stopped  being a Black woman in America. I have not stopped being part of this  community. And quite frankly, it's a little isolating - the polarization  that happens and creates an us and them narrative between community and  "institutional actors." I need my community as much as they need me.

And  sometimes it's a lonely place to be, and I'm not trying to be a sad  sack of a bureaucrat right now, but there have been many days last  summer where I didn't feel like I had my community to hold me together  while fighting for my community. And my inability to deliver on  community demands breaks my heart as much as anybody else's, if not  more. So I get out of bed every day is to fight for my community and to  move the needle as hard and as fast as I can.

The  forces that we are fighting against, the institutions that we are  fighting inside of are designed to perpetuate their own interest. And  that's where you have to start - with the understanding. So if you're  asking me as the person who answered the phone for Council President  González, when you called in today, to undo a 2-, 3-, 4-, 500 year old  way of doing things, there has to be some recognition that I'm not going  to be able to do that in a single budget cycle. I can plant seeds. I  can make investments. I can move the needle. There are some things that  you can flip a switch on, but normally that lives in the hands of the  executive, honestly.

But  in terms of the Council, legislating is a team sport. So I might be 112%  with you, but I've got to get to five votes to do anything in my job.  That is my job - is getting to five. So it's not just one office, it's  not just one moment, it's not just one batch of emails. It is a constant  and continuous, iterative team sport. I'd be doing a lot of interviews  lately, and been getting a lot of feedback that I'm harping hard on this  team sport theory, but I think we've seen what happens when folks try  to go it alone. You can't be a single voice in the wilderness. This is  not how democracy is designed. Democracy is designed for a diversity of  ideas, diversity of tactics, diversity of perspectives, to get to a  shared goal. And quite frankly, I am tired of hearing that Seattle can't  get its act together. We introduced over 500 bills last year - from our  living rooms in a pandemic. Over 500 pieces of legislation. So it's not  that there is disharmony or discord or we don't know where we're going.  We know where we're going. We're actually pretty good at getting there.  We just are dealing with a volume of needs simultaneously and  concurrently. None of which are happening in a vacuum.

I  could sing bars about what it's like to try to schedule something in  committee - quit playing. There are nine committees that oversee all of  the departments in the City and each of them have their niche market. So  if there are 15 labor standards proposed in a single season, it turns  out there's one committee for that. And it only meets twice a month. So  I'm not going to be able to do all of them concurrently. If you've got  15 ideas for land use and code changes - still one committee, one chair  who has to manage all of that work. And so we really have to recognize  that there are limitations in the infrastructure. There are limitations  to our human capacity, and sometimes I'm being protective of Central  staff because there's one subject matter expert for every subject in the  City. And they can't do 15 projects at one time.

Crystal Fincher: [00:29:33]  Well, that makes sense. I think it's helpful for people to have a clear  understanding of what the needs and demands and kind of working  conditions and general operational structure is of the positions that  they're electing. And lots of people look at City Council members in the  same way that they look at the mayor. Those are two very different  positions. One is legislative and on a team, like you said, the other is  an executive. They have two different types of authority. And even as a  Councilmember, you are working in concert with several other  Councilmembers that all have as much power as you do. So you do have to  work together and figure that out.

So  I guess, as we wrap up today, how would you work with your  Councilmembers differently? What experience would you be bringing to the  Council to help get people to five on issues, and moving forward on  what community needs most, and what residents in the city need most? How  are you uniquely able to move your Councilmembers in a productive way?

Brianna Thomas: [00:30:44]  One of the things that government gets a real bad rap for is it has a  tendency to be very transactional. And again, that's because we're  dealing with the 500 bills that are all moving simultaneously, or not  moving at all because there's 500 of them. And that's where being  relational comes in.

Sometimes  you got to know when to be like, Listen, a topic has come up and it is  the most important topic. And I've got a topic that I want to cover too,  but I'm willing to take a beat because this supersedes what my vision  of the world for today is. Sometimes you got to know when to step up,  you got to know when to step back. And again, elected officials are  people too. There is not like a chip or an upload that turns us into  automatons. So maybe it is donuts on a Tuesday asking for a favor. Maybe  it is being willing to invest in a conversation beyond where your  natural reason wants you to go. But listening is the biggest part of  government. And listening for cues from your colleagues is paramount to  being successful in this job.

I'm  very fortunate that of the nine Councilmembers that are on the Council  currently, I have worked with all nine of them for at least four years.  We have relationships - they know what to expect from me when I call  them. They're very clear. I'm often in meetings and I can be heard to  introduce myself as "still Brianna." Yep. Just like last week, just like  last year, just like a decade ago. You know what you're getting with me  and if I disagree with you, I'm going to be straight up. I'm not going  to hide the ball. And we're just going to have to deal with that. We are  ready for tough conversations that don't have to be divisive, because  at the end of the day, I firmly believe we share the same goals. We  share different strategies and we share different tactics about how we  want to get there. But I firmly believe that we as Seattleites have a  shared set of values that we are marching toward. And we need to have a  little bit of grace with each other because talking about trauma, we  have all been through a global trauma for the last year and it will be  years before we unwind how to get back to what was "ourselves" before  the great confinement began.

So  I'm going to lead with grace. I'm going to lead with a little bit of  sass and I'm being very direct because I grew up on the East Coast. I'm  not afraid to do that and we're going to get work done. That's what I've  been doing for the last five years. You've just never heard of me  because it was my job not to be heard of.

Crystal Fincher: [00:33:02]  Well, that makes sense. And I appreciate you taking the time to talk to  us today. Certainly has been enlightening. We look forward to following  you as you proceed through the campaign trail. Thanks for joining us  today.

Brianna Thomas: [00:33:13] Thank you for having me.

Crystal Fincher: [00:33:16]  Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks. Our chief audio engineer  at KVRU is Maurice Jones Jr. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl  Stadler. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, spelled  F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I, and now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes,  Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts. Just type in "Hacks  & Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday  almost live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed.  You can also get a full text transcript of this episode and links to the  resources referenced during the show at and  in the podcast episode notes.

Thanks for tuning in! Talk to you next time.