1. Whether members of the City Council did question
African American or other people or color employed within the City of Seattle about SPD response and actions towards protesters around the East Precinct from May 25, 2020-June 25, 2020, and;
a. Whether such questioning was done to gain information to provide equally to the public, and;
i. If so, by which means the information was shared with the public, or;
b. Whether such questioning was done to assess punitive or disciplinary action against the above described employees, and;
c. Whether taking such punitive or disciplinary action is within the scope of authority of the City Council , and;
d. Whether any such employees subjected to alleged questioning by members of City Council were offered or provided union or other representation prior to questioning.
That looks like someone or someones working for the City who are in BLM were asked questions about protest related things, perhaps by members of city council, and the responses given may have gotten those employees in hot water, maybe because the responses were fucking crazy. Maybe I'm off base, but that's my guess. Note that the bring up "done to assess punitive or disciplinary action" in other whines, but I think it is the crux of the complaint in this case because the very next bullet is whether "taking such punitive or disciplinary action is within the scope of authority of the City Council". This is further reinforced in my mind by the ask regarding union or other representation.
2. Whether members of the City Council did contact individuals they believed to be associated with the Black Lives Matter movement or organization on or about June 8, 2020, and;
a. Whether Councilmember Herbold misrepresented to individuals she believed to be associated with the Black Lives Matter movement or organization, how she had come to identify them individually, on or about June 8, and;
i. Whether such a misrepresentation was done to conceal the illegal or unethical accessing of confidential information about supposed BLM organizers, and;
ii. Whether such a misrepresentation was done to conceal the illegal or unethical solicitation or securement of otherwise confidential information, and;
1. Whether such information was shared with others, including select members of the public.
iii. Whether such a misrepresentation was done in order to falsely implicate another City
employee for providing otherwise confidential information, and;
iv. Whether such a misrepresentation was done in order to take punitive, discriminatory, or retaliatory action against anyone employed by the City of Seattle, and;
v. Whether Councilmember Herbold later misrepresented her discussions with individuals she identified as supposed BLM organizers in verbal or written communications with other Councilmembers or select members of the public on or after June 8-20, 2020, and on or after July 1, 2020.
1. Whether such action is in violation of or gives the appearance of violating Section F; subsection 1 and 2 of 4.16.070.
This one has a lot more bullet points, but I think it may be a lot more simple than it appears, notice how "associated with BLM" morphs into "BLM organizers" point v. As a result I'd guess the main complaint is that Herbold contacted people she believed were BLM and then later identified them as BLM organizers while supposedly misrepresenting something about the conversation that occurred. God knows how she misrepresented the conversations, we've seen how these fuckers blow tiny shit into mountains so my guess is the misrepresentation is petty and minor at best, again I'd guess the meat of the complaint is claiming people were organizers which BLM clearly doesn't want, for some reason...
3. Whether members of the City Council did fail to properly steward City resources to the benefit of all residents, when on or about June 9, 2020 Councilmember Sawant provided access to City Hall outside of operating hours and in defiance of a public health order to reduce the spread of COVID-19, and;
a. Whether such an action violated Wash. Rev. Code § 42.30.030, and;
b. Whether or not such action was a proper or responsible use of City resources, and;
c. Whether or not such action was designed and intended to serve the best interests of the whole of the City, and;
d. Whether the involved City Councilmembers violated the rights of the public in holding a meeting where direct action was taken in attempt to remove another government official, and;
e. Whether such action was coordinated with others outside of the Office of the City Council, and;
f. Whether or not such action would be considered appropriate by a reasonable person.
I don't actually think emphasis is needed here, because I'm 100% sure nobody in BLM gives a FUCK that this happened. I'd guess this is to bring up something she did that
is against the rules to attempt to punish Sawant for something else entirely which is untouchable by these rules, so the actual issue may remain a bit of a mystery.
4. Whether any staff or elected official within the Office of Seattle City Council unlawfully or unethically
sought to limit, discredit, or discount information provided to City Council from local and/or federal law enforcement agencies
regarding out-of-state actors at Seattle protests and demonstrations, and the threat those actors posed to Seattle and the public, and;
a. Whether the council appropriately notified the public of the potential threat to their safety.
I may be off base but I interpret this as insufficient parroting of the narrative about proudboys and "right wing extremists" being the causes of violence, I am thinking of the CHAZ specifically but I'm sure there were other cases where the narrative was put forward and not parroted. The "out of state actors" framing is just the camel's nose under the tent flap to give this whine a veneer of legitimacy. If I'm off base then this is probably an example of using antifa as a scapegoat knowing full well that the results can't do any more damage to antifa at this point but could cause damage to some city council members.
