Week in Review: May 2, 2025 - with Robert Cruickshank

Reform-Minded O'Sullivan Sets Sights on City Attorney Position from Hacks & Wonks

“A breakdown of Washington’s new $78B two-year state budget” by Laurel Demkovich from Cascade PBS

“Five tax bills lawmakers passed to underpin Washington's next state budget” by Jerry Cornfield from Washington State Standard

“Thousands of Washington state workers lose out on wage hikes” by Jerry Cornfield from Washington State Standard

“Final State Budget Puts Highway Expansion Ahead of Basic Maintenance” by Ryan Packer from The Urbanist

“WA to cut funding for Dolly Parton’s Imagination Library program” by Constanza Montemayor from The Peninsula Gateway

“Washington’s elected representatives can’t just patch our short-term revenue shortfall — they must rebuild our failing tax code” by Robert Cruickshank for The Cascadia Advocate

“WA House and Senate reach deal on unemployment benefits for striking workers” by Jacquelyn Jimenez Romero from Washington State Standard

“Rent increase cap proposal heads to Washington governor” by Jake Goldstein-Street from Washington State Standard

“Poll: Bob Ferguson grows on Republicans, sours on Democrats, amidst economic fear heightened” from MyNorthwest

DHM Panel - Washington - April 2025 Toplines

“Gov. Ferguson’s approval rating shifts among Democrats, Republicans” by Jim Brunner from The Seattle Times

“Campaign Fizz: Does Mallahan Think He Can? And: This District 2 Candidate's Net Worth Dwarfs the Entire City Council's” from PubliCola

“With time running out for Seattle mayor race challengers to jump in, Harrell touts continued turnaround in police hiring” from Capitol Hill Seattle Blog

“SPD Is Losing Women As Fast As It's Hiring Them; State Budget Defunds Successful Encampment Program” from PubliCola

“Two Black officers sue Seattle police alleging racism” by Lauren Girgis from The Seattle Times

Find stories that Crystal is reading here

Listen on your favorite podcast app to all our episodes here

[00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm your host, Crystal Fincher. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it.

If you missed our Tuesday topical show, I chatted with Seattle City Attorney candidate Rory O'Sullivan about his vision for transformative change in an office he believes has gone in the wrong direction under City Attorney Ann Davison. Today, we're continuing our Friday week-in-review shows, where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: chair of Sierra Club Seattle, longtime communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank.

[00:01:03] Robert Cruickshank: Hey, thanks for having me back on, Crystal.

[00:01:06] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Well, to start out, we just saw the end of the legislative session with a significant budget that has implications for a lot of people and areas in our state. So let's start with a breakdown of what wound up in the budget passed by our Washington Legislature.

[00:01:28] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, it is a mix of cuts and revenues that does not include, of course, the big wealth tax that had been the centerpiece of a lot of the revenue conversation - really the budget conversation ever since outgoing Governor Inslee proposed one way back in December. Bob Ferguson, in one of his first press conferences in January - even before he was sworn in - said he didn't want a wealth tax and he might veto it. And he kept issuing that threat again and again. The problem is, he never really came out to explain what he did want out of a budget. And so legislators were left to cobble together a budget that includes some increases in taxes on big businesses - big tech will pay a little bit more, Tesla's going to pay a little bit more. But you're also seeing things like a gas tax increase and other fees are going up, such as like at state parks. Along with some cuts across the board - 5% at higher education, for example. Also, some really notable cuts that are drawing a lot of attention, such as slashing in half the state's funding to support abortion services that was created a couple years ago after the Dobbs decision. I saw former state Senator Reuven Carlyle this morning on social media complaining about a cut to Treehouse, which is a program that provides services for foster care kids. There's headlines in The Seattle Times today about Dolly Parton's library, which she has helped promote - giving free books to kids around the country, set one up in Washington state a few years ago - the Legislature is defunding that. And significant concerns being voiced by education leaders, school superintendents and administrators - pointing out that the revenues and spending for public education is very minimal and may not do much at all to help school districts climb out of the budget hole that many of them are in. And so you're at this weird place - and I can't forget, sorry - a gas tax increase of about six cents per gallon, which will largely go to mega projects such as Highway 509 in SeaTac, the 167 connection between I-5 and Puyallup, and things like that.

And so, what legislators have essentially done is cobbled together a budget with some tax increases that are going to annoy voters - without the big wealth tax, that will make the system look fairer. And with spending priorities that don't really put much money into schools - which are super popular - with a lot of really unpopular cuts. And so the Legislature got this done - they got out of town on schedule on Sunday and dropped it all in Ferguson's lap, who has not really said what he's going to do with it. So the session is over, but no one really knows what happens from here. The budget is unpopular. It's going to make the Legislature unpopular. Ferguson doesn't really have many great options. He could veto the budget and call legislators back into session. But if he does that without proposing a wealth tax, what exactly are they supposed to do instead? So cobbled this thing together - live with it for a couple years while seeing what federal cuts come, while seeing what happens to the economy thanks to Trump's tariffs. And I think - just looking at this, hearing from legislators, seeing what they're saying privately and publicly, talking to anyone who advocated for a public service at all in Olympia this year - nobody's happy with it. Everyone's leaving really frustrated.

[00:04:53] Crystal Fincher: Well, leaving frustrated - you make a great point about not being sure what Governor Ferguson is going to do with this. And there's also another option beyond just vetoing the entire budget or not. Our governor has the ability to line-item veto elements of the budget that was passed and elements of legislation. How could this impact what happens? And what exactly is a line-item veto? Why do we have that?

[00:05:21] Robert Cruickshank: Sure. So many states have given their governor the ability to veto parts of a bill rather than the entire thing, particularly a budget - where a governor can say, I veto this spending item. Let's say that the Legislature says we're going to spend $10 million on a road project somewhere. The governor would have the ability to say - I veto that, but not the entire transportation budget. I veto this particular piece of spending, but not the entire budget. There was an attempt in the 1990s to give the President of the United States that power, but Supreme Court ruled that to be unconstitutional. But other states do have that, including us. And so this raises the real possibility that there may be things in the budget that were included to get enough votes so it passed - whether it's a revenue item or a spending item - with the kind of understanding that Ferguson might strip it out in a line-item veto. But this is all, again, part of the unknown - the great unknown - that is happening right now with Olympia, where Ferguson has not really communicated to the public what he wants. Hearing from legislators who are speaking - again, out to The Seattle Times this week - publicly saying they don't really know what Ferguson wants. There's just this air of uncertainty about what is going to happen with this budget, and so I don't think anyone really feels settled right now.

[00:06:41] Crystal Fincher: So stepping back a little bit and seeing what the larger conversation was when this started and kind of will continue after this session, what are the consequences of not implementing a wealth tax? How have we seen that impact these budget conversations, and who's asked to pay?

[00:07:00] Robert Cruickshank: I think it's a huge failure. Because what is happening is we're just doubling down on our regressive tax system, where most of the taxes that are going up are on working people. There are some increases on wealthy folks - this is true - but nothing substantial like a wealth tax would have brought in. And what you're seeing here, really, is a failure to grapple with the central crisis of our state's revenue system. I was doing some research on this and wrote something for Northwest Progressive Institute last week, and I didn't realize this until I looked at it. A hundred years ago, the Washington State Grange, which is an organization of farmers who were very politically active in the early 20th century, proposed what is now the wealth tax. This wealth tax we talk about is technically a financial intangibles tax on investments, stocks, bonds, and other financial vehicles. Well, the Grange was talking about this a hundred years ago - they put an initiative on the ballot in 1928 to create this tax to fund schools. It got 48% and narrowly failed. They came back - in 1932, at the depths of the Great Depression - added in an income tax that was graduated, so the rich paid more. That passed with 70%. But the next year, a right-wing state Supreme Court overturned it. And in 1933, the state cobbled together the sales tax, the property tax, the B&O tax - the business and occupations gross receipts tax.

And the only reason that worked is because that also came at the same time as Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal - the massive increase of federal spending. So the state wasn't being asked to pay for highways - for interstate highways. They weren't being asked to fund higher education. They weren't being asked to fund Social Security and Medicare. The federal government was suddenly stepping in and spending all this money. And that allowed our state's tax system to sort of stagger along - this rickety thing that looked like it might collapse at any moment, but it didn't because federal spending made it possible. That's going away. Trump and Musk, and their allies in Congress among the Republicans have made it very, very clear - that's going away. And then our prosperity from international trade is going away. So the state has a massive problem. Its revenue system doesn't work anymore. The fundamental assumption it's based on - federal spending - is going away. And so this would have been the year when Ferguson is newly elected, popular at the time he took office with big Democratic majorities - to try to do something big to fix that. Spend his political capital now. Buy himself some financial breathing room with more revenue and take what happens in the future, but he didn't do that. And I think he and the Legislature have really left themselves with a big problem because they have no wiggle room anymore. If the budget comes out of balance again, you need to turn to a wealth tax, or they're just going to have to cut everything - which would be a disaster.

[00:09:50] Crystal Fincher: It's really a challenge. And particularly, you listed all the things that seemingly were headwinds for Governor Ferguson. In addition to a statewide vote where two-thirds of the state said - You know, we have a chance to repeal this capital gains tax. We definitely do not want to do that. We support a more equitable, more just taxation system - where the people at the top pay more of their fair share. Now, that doesn't seem to be reflected in the budget that we got. Additionally, Governor Ferguson talked a lot about adequately funding education while he was running for office. How did we wind up there? And how does this reflect what the Governor has listed as his priorities - when he was running and at the beginning of his term?

[00:10:40] Robert Cruickshank: Well, I mean, this is the argument the state has been having for 100 years - even longer, really. How do you fund public education? And like I said, when the Grange - 100 years ago - was proposing a financial intangibles tax, it was to fund schools. And when Dan Evans, the Republican three-term governor from the 1960s and 70s - Bob Ferguson sees as an idol - proposed an income tax. They went to voters in 1973 and lost - that was to fund public schools. Fast forward 40 years to the McCleary decision, where the state Supreme Court ruled that the state was asking school districts to rely on their local levy. That was wrong - the state needed to fund basic education. They didn't really do that. The solution they came up with in 2017 was inadequate to actually provide the basic funding that school districts need, so now they're back to relying on their local levy again. When the state Senate proposed the wealth tax, it was going to raise $3 billion - they were giving to K-12 public education. That's exactly what needed to happen, and it's a proposal that's been on the table for literally 100 years. There is no way to actually solve the school funding crisis with the revenue system the state has - and that has been true for over 100 years. The Seattle Times did polling in October, showing 65% of voters wanted to spend $3 billion more per year on public schools, 66% said pay for it with the wealth tax. So Ferguson had the support needed to do it and chose not to for reasons known only unto himself, which I think is a mistake for our schools - and honestly, for him politically.

[00:12:16] Crystal Fincher: Now, thinking about where he is politically now - what does this look like for him with recent polling? And what are his prospects moving forward?

[00:12:25] Robert Cruickshank: He seems to be in political trouble. A poll came out last week that showed his approval rating, which was around 50% in January when he took office, has collapsed. He now has a 38% approval rating. Now, he only has a 35% disapproval rating, so he's not underwater necessarily - he doesn't have more people disapproving of him than approving. But this isn't very helpful for him. He's in a place now where his approval rating has collapsed, largely because Democrats and Independents are no longer supportive of him. 20% drop among Democrats, by the way - from 65% approval to 48% approval. The public is looking at this, and it's not what they expected. And I've heard this from a lot of just regular voters who said they remember Ferguson from Trump's first term - as a fighter, as a champion. That's what they expected. There are a lot of people also who have moved to Washington state from red states in the last eight years. And one of the reasons people do so is they see Washington as a beacon of freedom and a place of security from Trump. And they saw Ferguson - in particular - when he was Attorney General, as an example of that. They were excited for him to be governor. And he's not delivering on that. You can look at Governor Tim Walz in Minnesota, Governor JB Pritzker in Illinois - who are really championing the resistance against Trump and governing well in their own states. Ferguson is just kind of hiding behind his desk in his office, with a green visor on and a pencil in his hand, acting like he's the state's chief accountant - when what the public needs right now, more than ever, especially with the unfolding crisis from Trump, is a leader who's going to set out a vision, show us how we're getting there, and rally people behind it. I think that's what people expected from Ferguson. He isn't delivering, and I think his popularity is suffering significantly as a result of that.

[00:14:17] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and what I saw in those polling results was really a big warning for Democrats in Washington state. Kind of in a similar way as when the President is very unpopular - that drags down everyone lower on the ticket - it drags down Congressional representatives, drags down senators. Similar way - in our state, Bob Ferguson is the top of the Democratic ticket. And so you've got folks in the Legislature, you've got a lot of decently sized suburban cities with mayoral races, city council races that are Democrats versus Republicans this year and next year coming up. And when you look at the drop in support among Democrats, those people - as we recently saw in last year's election - they're not going to switch their vote to Republican, but they just may not turn out to vote - period. That's a problem. And when you look at where Bob Ferguson has blunted some of the drop in his support, it's among Republicans. And the warning there is these approval ratings, including - Oh, you know, Republicans. Hey, Republicans are warming up to Bob Ferguson. One - should make you raise your eyebrows if you're a Democrat or calling yourself a Democrat. But two - it's really fake, temporary support. Because as we see over and over and over again - in every election - those voters do not actually ultimately vote for Democrats. Given a choice between a Democrat who they think is kind of decent and not as bad as those other liberals and a Republican - they choose the Republican every time. And so it's just a real warning sign, I think, for Democrats in this state - to keep going down this path, to not fight to forge more of a direction that's consistent with what Democratic voters are expecting, or else you may find that those Democratic voters are not there when you need them come election time.

[00:16:16] Robert Cruickshank: I think that's spot on. And you saw that last year with the presidential election - Joe Biden was deeply unpopular. And that hurt Democrats running for Congress. And it hurt Kamala Harris, who very narrowly lost to Trump. Had Biden not been so unpopular and stepped aside anyway, I think Harris would have won. I think Biden was a real anchor there. And what you're seeing here in Washington state is - it's a state that wants mainstream Democrats. Inslee won three terms in a row. He grew Democratic majorities from the time he took office to the time he left office, 12 years later - Democrats had much bigger majorities in the House and Senate. That's a big accomplishment. And what that should tell every other Democrat, particularly Bob Ferguson, is that Inslee was onto something. That what Inslee was doing made sense. And since taking office, you kind of get the sense from Ferguson that he was sort of watching Inslee all along, thinking to himself - Well, I can do a better job than that. It turns out he actually couldn't. He really needs to retool. Look, this is not uncommon for chief executives filling that office for the first time - to have some bumps along the way, for that job to go not as they expected. And Ferguson, as we know, has had real bumps in his own personal office. Some of his legislative directors have had to leave. He needs to pivot. Successful chief executives are willing to be honest with themselves about what's gone wrong and what needs to happen to fix it. I don't see that so far from Ferguson. He seems inclined to just double down on things.

And this idea that Republicans are warming up to him - you are spot on about this. Washington Republican voters will never vote for a Democrat. That's not going to happen. In 2028, some Republican standard bearer will come along who says everything they want to hear, try to replay the Trump playbook, and they will vote for that person, that guy - let's be honest, it's almost likely to be a white man - against whatever Democrat we put up, no matter what they've done. Ferguson will fail to win over Republicans. He will alienate Democrats and put his own legislative majorities at risk in 2026, and put his own reelection at risk in 2028.

[00:18:25] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Was there anything that happened in this legislative session that was a bright spot?

[00:18:31] Robert Cruickshank: There are really good things that did come out of it. Again, we need Ferguson to sign these bills. Statewide rent stabilization worked out in the very, very end - with numerous curveballs and potential derailments, from bad amendments in the state Senate to all of a sudden on the Friday before the end of session, when it turned out the bill was chaptered poorly and they had to go back and rewrite the whole thing and pass it in 48 hours. But they got it done. And it's very similar to what California and Oregon have. It's a 7% cap plus inflation, max 10% annual rent growth - that's pretty similar to what California and Oregon have. It excludes new construction. So anyone saying that this particular bill will harm construction of new housing - that's not been demonstrated in any other state like California or Oregon under this particular law. There are other forms of stricter rent control where that might happen - not this. Speaking of building new homes, the transit-oriented development bill, after three sessions of wrangling between the House and Senate, finally got done. Governor Ferguson did say last week at the Housing Development Consortium Lunch that he would sign that. I think that would be a great bill for him to sign - to build more housing in transit areas. Washington will be one of the few states to allow striking workers to collect unemployment benefits. That's a great win for workers, that's a really huge bright spot. So those are some of the things that stand out to me as bright spots, but they don't have the governor's signature yet. And I think people are starting to recognize that - whereas with Inslee, you knew that if it made it out of the Legislature, it was highly likely to get signed. I don't know that we know that yet with Ferguson. We'll see what happens in a few weeks when it comes time for him to act on these bills.

[00:20:09] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Well, we will continue to stay tuned to what happens, keep you updated as these land on the governor's desk and he decides what he is going to do with them.

Now, I want to talk about Seattle a bit and the Seattle mayoral race. And some interesting news that was reported in PubliCola this week - that Joe Mallahan is considering - perhaps - talking to some people about potentially running for mayor. Now, Joe Mallahan is a name familiar to old people like us and people who've been around for a while. Who is he and why is this an interesting piece of news?

[00:20:48] Robert Cruickshank: It is. I can see you smiling and I hope our listeners can hear you smiling when we talk about this. And we'll explain why. I think of Ryan Packer, the writer at The Urbanist - posted on Bluesky about this news - the image of Obi-wan from Episode 4, saying, Oh, that's a name I've not heard in a long time. And that's how I think a lot of us who've been around Seattle politics in a while felt when we saw Erica Barnett report that Joe Mallahan is thinking about running for mayor. So Joe Mallahan was a corporate business executive who decided to run for mayor in 2009 when the incumbent mayor, Greg Nickels, was running for a third term but had grown unpopular. There are other people who saw that Nickels was unpopular, including Michael McGinn, who was a progressive activist and urbanist affiliated with the Sierra Club. But at the time, people thought that Nickels was strong enough to where he would likely win a close re-election. But as it turned out, he came in third in the top-two primary in August, behind Mike McGinn and Joe Mallahan. And so the general election that year, in November 2009, was Mallahan versus McGinn - corporate versus progressive, establishment versus populist. And Mallahan got a reputation on the campaign trail as not being very good at public speaking, kind of not really understanding the job that well. And then the firefighters union put out this wild video with firefighters singing - Mallahan can - like, you know, the Candy Man can, but Mallahan can. And it just got widely mocked. And Mallahan got widely mocked for it, even though it wasn't his ad. And so people look back on this race and think of Joe Mallahan as kind of a silly candidate, but he got 49.5% of the vote. He very nearly won that race. Mike McGinn won with 50.5% in 2009 and had to work really hard with a great grassroots field operation to pull out that victory.

And so fast forward here to 2025. I've been thinking for a while that I expect some corporate white dude to show up with a business background and run for mayor - in part because that's exactly what happened in San Francisco with Daniel Lurie, and in Portland with Keith Wilson - and they both won. So I have been assuming all spring that at some point we would see some white male corporate executive show up and say - I'm running for mayor. I did not expect it to actually be Joe Mallahan himself. And to be clear, he has not actually formally announced any campaign for mayor - it's only a rumor. But it's an interesting rumor, nonetheless.

[00:23:25] Crystal Fincher: It is an interesting rumor. And I obviously would be interested to see where he's at on issues today. Certainly, he was previously aligned with the Chamber. And I think that was part of the problem with him before, frankly. I think he wasn't a joke of a candidate, which, you know, it's easy to look back and especially see that "Joe Mallahan can" ad and think - You know, was this guy kooky? He was not. He was a serious candidate, but I think it's a challenging alliance, especially with traditionally Chamber interests. And at that time, with CASE - a PAC that was directly affiliated with the Chamber before that got too unpopular for it to continue - that essentially the Chamber was running his campaign. I think he felt like he had lost control of it and you could kind of see he was not enjoying that situation and being out on the campaign trail. So I wonder how that would inform how he would run now. But it's really interesting to see what Mallahan did nail, as did Mike McGinn - was understanding before a lot of other people did that the incumbent was vulnerable. Mallahan nailed that. And so it's interesting to see him again. And another signal beyond some of the polling, and especially the recent social housing vote that Mayor Harrell led, which did not turn out well for him - and he was the literal face of that on the campaign and in the literature. To see Mallahan calling around now with that sense of - this incumbent is vulnerable. And I wonder how that's going to play out in this race. But certainly really interesting to see.

[00:25:05] Robert Cruickshank: It is interesting. And it comes at the end of a month of April in which the mayor's race was eerily quiet. We didn't see new candidates jump in, and I would have expected that. Filing week starts next week?

[00:25:21] Crystal Fincher: Next week, next week.

[00:25:22] Robert Cruickshank: Next week. And that doesn't leave a great deal of time for people to launch a mayoral campaign. We know Harrell is vulnerable - not just because Crystal and Robert think he's vulnerable - polling shows he is vulnerable. His disapproval rating is much higher than his approval rating, and his approval rating has consistently gone down over time. So I think Katie Wilson is running a great campaign for mayor - sees that Harrell is vulnerable. But some of the groups that have been backing Harrell to date, including some big unions and the Chamber of Commerce, have stuck by Harrell. But you wonder how long that's going to last. There is this opening for someone else to jump in. I still expect someone to look at what happened in San Francisco and Portland last year - two other West Coast cities with public discontent with the incumbent regime - and think there is an opportunity there because there is. Now, would it be Joe Mallahan himself or someone else? Who knows? And they may run as Keith Wilson and Daniel Lurie did - on their own, without the initial backing of the Chamber. Someone may have to show up and convince them with the strength of their campaign - that this is doable. But while this mayoral campaign has been eerily quiet over the last four weeks, I don't know that it's going to stay quiet between now and filing deadline.

[00:26:36] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I would expect to see some activity - we'll see there. And you raise a good point that those candidates that we saw in other cities ran without the initial support of the Chamber. Joe Mallahan, in 2009, ran without the initial support of the Chamber and those business-aligned interests. They were sticking by Greg Nickels. And it was only once Greg Nickels had lost in the primary and the general election came, that the Chamber kind of swooped in and said - Oh, Mallahan's now our guy. We're going with him. We're putting together a table to run this thing. And it headed down that path. So it'll be really interesting to see here. Where do you see the opportunities in this mayor's race?

[00:27:19] Robert Cruickshank: I mean, I think there is an opportunity for someone to run as a mainstream progressive candidate. Seattle is obviously to the left of the state as a whole, but not always as far left as we sometimes think. There is a significant moderate block in the city - moderate for Seattle. And I think Katie Wilson is clearly trying to target that and recognizes that that's the reality of how to win. And I think that is correct. There is a widespread discontent with the direction of the city and a sense that Harrell is not really getting the job done very well. And that was even before some of the recent scandals that came out about how he's running his office. So I think the opportunity is very much there. This feels like 2009 to me, in which the incumbent is more vulnerable than some of his big backers realize. And those who recognize that and are willing to act on it are the ones who are going to benefit.

[00:28:09] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. This does have 2009 vibes. Now, you just alluded to scandals that the Harrell administration has been dealing with. We just got news this past week that there's another lawsuit from two Black officers suing the Seattle Police Department - alleging racism. And that one of Harrell's biggest promises to hire officers is finally accelerating a little bit - they're getting some more hiring done. But unfortunately, SPD is losing women from the department faster than they can hire to replace them. What's happening here? Why are there not many women joining the department, which is one of their stated goals? What's the challenge?

[00:28:56] Robert Cruickshank: Well, I mean, you've hit it on the head here. There is a huge problem in SPD with sexism. There's a huge problem in SPD with racism. And not just towards the public, but within the ranks. And there have been numerous lawsuits filed by women in the force about sexism within SPD, many of them women of color. And there are now more lawsuits from other Black officers. And earlier this week, Harrell had a press conference to tout new hiring numbers at SPD - we've got something like 60 new officers. And people pointed at the photo and like - they're all men. Where are all the women? And it's really clear that Harrell and SPD appear to have decided that hitting that number is more important than ensuring you're hitting it in the right way. That if hiring the number of officers they want means - Yeah, a bunch of them are going to be men and we're going to continue to tolerate sexism within the ranks, and we're not really going to do much about the allegations of racism. Gosh, we're hitting those numbers. That kind of seems to me to be what the decision has been made at the highest levels of the city. And that just reinforces the problem we have. There is widespread public support for hiring more officers. As much as I think some of the abolitionists left understandably don't want that, that is where the public is. But the public is not in a place where - hire more officers and we don't care how you do it. The public, I think, in this city, cares very much how you do it. I don't think there's public support for having a racist police force. I don't think there's public support for having a sexist police force. And yet that is what we are - have been dealing with with SPD for a very, very long time. And it is continuing to be the case, with the Harrell administration tolerating it.

[00:30:52] Crystal Fincher: It's a real challenge. And as this most recent lawsuit was reported - by The Seattle Times - they gave a little recap to say in these past just two years, "have also seen lawsuits from four female officers, a police lieutenant, a veteran detective, an assistant chief, and a former candidate for chief - all alleging some form of discrimination." And this is just within the department. Former police chief Adrian Diaz, additionally, who is also named in several of those lawsuits, filed his own tort claim against the city for $10 million, alleging he was wrongfully demoted and discriminated against. When you look at just this avalanche of lawsuits and litigation, what organization does not have people crying out for change and reform that sees a mountain of litigation over a couple years? Any organizational CEO, even in this environment that we're in - that we see bad behavior all the time - this is the kind of stuff that impacts the bottom line at any other organization. This is the stuff that completely tears through a quality workforce and forces out people doing the best work. This is not sustainable for any other kind of organization, and this is the kind of activity that demands accountability. Where does the buck stop with this? Why is this not being - not only fixed, but addressed at all by anyone in power? We have these recruiting conversations that just talk about - Well, we need some more money. We need to lower or modify our hiring standards. We need just to have some more benefits there. - when they're ignoring the gigantic elephant in the room that says there is a massive cultural problem here that needs to be addressed. And you have people shouting from high and low and potential candidates saying - Hey, I'm an officer in another jurisdiction. I'm a woman who would consider this, who wants to help my community in this way. And there's no way I would look at this organization and say - That's a place where I would feel safe, respected, like there's a real space and opportunity for me. Why are they continuing to just not address this?

[00:33:18] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, I mean, you have to keep in mind that one of the mayor's top advisors on public safety is Tim Burgess, who is a conservative white male former cop. Who I think very much aligns himself - and always has - with this approach of give the cops whatever they want, that the job of City Hall is to enable rather than oversee. And I think that's one of the reasons we're in this mess that we're in. You're going to struggle to retain good officers if the working conditions are bad. And that's what's happening here. It was easy for them to blame "Defund the Police." It was easy for them to blame progressives and the former city council. But the reality is, SPD's recruitment problem is of its own making. They've created a hostile work environment and are chasing good people away.

[00:34:10] Crystal Fincher: Well, we see this as the top line of - hey, there're finally new officers, and it's a big success. But I really worry, frankly, about what these people are walking into and what we're going to see as a public from this. But we'll continue to follow this and see what results, see if this is addressed in any way.

But we certainly thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, May 2nd, 2025. Can you believe it is May already? The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today was chair of Sierra Club Seattle, longtime communications and political strategist Robert Cruickshank. You can find Robert on Bluesky at @robertcruickshank.com. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Bluesky at @HacksAndWonks. You can find me on Bluesky at @finchfrii, with two I's at the end. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the podcast and the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, please leave us a review wherever you listen - it helps us out tremendously. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the references and resources that we talked about in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com.

Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.