On June 9, the People's Coalition for Justice hosted a community meeting to discuss strategies for dealing with police brutality, racial profiling, and the death of Aaron Roberts. The PCJ presented their demands, asked the community to comment, and asked four attending Seattle city council members if they would endorse four key demands:

1) Fire both police officers involved in the shooting of Aaron Roberts.

2) An independent civilian review board accountable to communities of color with subpoena power, disciplinary power, and paid investigators.

3) A city-wide ordinance against police brutality and racial profiling.

4) An economic plan to provide funding for community needs: more low-income and Section 8 housing, more funds for schools in the Central District and South Seattle, limits on gentrification in the CD, etc.

Demand #3 also included the following measures to end racial profiling:

--Anti-racism workshops, nonviolence training, and enhanced communication skills as required training for all staff of the Seattle Police Department.

--Documentation on every single police traffic stop, including the race, ethnic origin, and gender of all drivers stopped, as well as the reason for and result of the stop.

--Tamper-proof video cameras installed in all police cars that patrol areas with high reports of police misconduct.

--Strong and publicly disclosed disciplinary measures for police officers who are proven to have committed racial profiling or police brutality.

--An economic development program which would allow the poor to pay for broken tail lights, missing license plate bulbs, and other minor violations that are frequently the justification for race-based stops.

--A review and change of the SPD's policy on the use of deadly force with direct involvement from communities of color.

The four City Council members present were asked to stand up. The PCJ organizers asked them, one-by-one, if they would support each of the four key demands.

Richard McIver said "No" to #1, because he thinks the City Council can't legally fire the two officers. On #2 he said: "I guess I would" support outside civilians reviewing this particular case. However, he didn't say he supported a civilian review board. On #3, he gave a tentative yes. His only definite yes was for #4, an economic plan. McIver was heckled a lot during his answers; he hunched his shoulders and kept his back to the audience, as if the city council's only African-American--originally appointed to the post by fellow council members--was ashamed to face the CD.

Richard Conlin, the council's "neighborhoods" head, severely miscalculated and tried a bit of one-upsmanship. He strode up to the organizers' podium to speak, but Rev. Jeffrey intervened, pointing out that ordinary folks never get to speak at the podium during City Council meetings. Red-faced, Conlin was forced to go back down to his seat. He was also heckled, mostly for his new-age talk, including repeating paternalistically: "I feel your anger."

His responses were worse than McIver's. On #1, Conlin said he would support firing the officers only if they were guilty (someone in the crowd pointed out that men guilty of murder don't just get fired, they go to prison). On #2, he was a "No," because he supports the work of the Office of Professional Accountability. The OPA--the City Council's answer to demands for a civilian review board--is headed by Sam Pailca, a former prosecuting attorney, who has extensive experience in working with police and defending them on the stand. It has been invisible in its year of existence.

Like McIver, Conlin said "yes" for both #3 and #4. Unlike McIver, however, he would only support an economic plan if he likes it and thinks it represents everybody in the CD.

Nick Licata was applauded by the crowd even before he opened his mouth. His answers were brief: "Yes" to all four demands, without lecturing or qualifications. It was refreshing and a clear example of what the other council members could easily do if they had the guts.

Jim Compton, saved for last, was the most interesting. He chairs the council's Public Safety Committee, which bargains contracts with the SPD. Needless to say, he was severely heckled by the crowd. Regarding demand #1, he made the same answer as Conlin: he would support firing the two officers only if they're guilty.

On #2, he tried to sidestep by saying the police union would never accept a civilian review board. When asked if he would include the demand in the next round of contract negotiations, he said "No." The OPA is good enough for him.

Compton then put on his media persona and said he would support two of the lesser PCJ demands: cameras in cop cars (but he didn't say all cop cars), and recordkeeping at each traffic stop. It cost him nothing politically to say this, however. The SPD is already beginning a pilot program to put cameras in cars, and the OPA has already set up a taskforce to develop a recordkeeping system for traffic stops.

On #3, the racial profiling ordinance, Compton pointed out that racial profiling is already illegal--it's a civil rights violation. He has a point. But the question then becomes enforcement and the level of punishment for cops guilty of racial profiling. Since Compton is problematic on enforcement and doesn't support a civilian review board, the PCJ called this one a "No."

On #4 he gave an unqualified "Yes."

Unfortunately, Peter Steinbreuck, who chairs the committee on housing, human services, and civil rights, left the meeting before the questioning began. Jan Drago, who is vice chair of the Public Safety Committee, and Judy Nicastro, anti-gentrification champion, never even showed up.