Council Legislation

Proposed Resolution No. R2020-22

Title: A Resolution of the Pierce County Council Approving and Authorizing the Pierce County Executive to Execute an Interlocal Cooperative Agreement Between the City of Auburn, City of Bonney Lake, City of Lakewood, City of Puyallup, City of Tacoma, Pierce County Sheriff, Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney & Washington State Department of Corrections Relating to the Tahoma Narcotics Enforcement Team (“TNET”). (Interlocal Agreement - Tahoma Narcotics Enforcement Team)

Status: Passed

Sponsors: Councilmembers Douglas G. Richardson, Pam Roach

Final votes

November 24, 2020
Aye Excused Excused Aye Aye Aye Nay


Documents
Additional legislative records are available below Collapse All  Expand All
 

Public Comments

Name Date Comment
Shannon Lopez 7/16/20 3:06 PM I am contacting you to demand that you seriously consider the implications of establishing TNET. The minimum term for this agreement with the DEA is one year, and is set up to automatically renew each year. This taskforce can only be terminated by a majority vote of the Executive board or by 'action of the majority of the legislative bodies.' The Executive Board of this committee is comprised of the police chief or sheriff of each jurisdiction- how likely is it that they would ever vote to terminate such a taskforce? Given the Pierce County Sherriff's office inability to be transparent in the Manuel Ellis case (and numerous other cases), particularly in regards to I-940 laws, it would be disastrously irresponsible to allocate additional power and budgetary funds to TNET. Please, do not approve Resolution R2020-22.
Alexandra Woolery 7/16/20 7:27 PM The funds provided by the state should be focused towards the current pandemic continuing to damage our state.
Rowan Carrick 7/16/20 7:57 PM I oppose this proposition. We do NOT need more money going into law enforcement! I do not support putting more money into funding the DEA.
Collin Booker 7/16/20 10:20 PM City council letter This law is exactly what people are protesting about. This feels like it specifically targets BIPOC and other POC, and uses coded language to target them, like the term “urbanization” especially after Donald Trumps recent rambling about the death of white suburbia. Furthermore this seems incredibly reminiscent of a war against drugs campaign, which has never worked and will never work. Giving the federal government a step the door way to further oppress the people citizens of this county. As a white man, I understand this may not be my place, but as a human being I am obligated to step in when I see a large power try to stomp on my local community, and ignore our pleas for more help and compassion and less punishment. This also seems to be contradicting itself, it says in section V. Lines 8-12 that it is expensive to incarcerate drug offenses, so my question is if we were to increase drug enforcement laws, how would it be cheaper when we are now paying DEA agents to handle these enforcements? Furthermore where is the citations for the facts that are being pushed? Where’s the evidence? I see a lot of statements but not enough evidence. And if you’re not willing to give evidence of your claims in the law, why should we trust you to give evidence when you are enforcing old drug laws? We don’t want more feds running around the streets, as we see in Portland Oregon right now, they are abusing their power and abducting peaceful protestors. I highly recommend that if you want to be re-elected, that you do not pass this piece of legislation.
Clairissa Hayes 7/17/20 7:25 AM Right now the community’s interest lies with investing money into our community’s, not on more police task forces that continue to perpetuate the problems that we are currently facing.
Helen Barnett 7/17/20 11:34 AM The last thing we need is to give more power to cops to continue arresting people. We should not be expanding on law enforcement that includes the same police departments that routinely prove to be violent, unaccountable, and destructive to the communities this is supposedly aiming to protect, such as the cases of the murders of Manuel Ellis and Said Joaquin. These police forces should be defunded and abolished, not expanded upon.
Nicholas Reber 7/17/20 11:45 AM TNET would be a waste of state budget resources. The DEA has promoted the criminalization of non-violent drug offenses against people of low-income throughout the United States. Drug enforcement shroud not look like a SWAT team. Efforts to curb drug abuse in communities should not be met with physical violence, police raids and militarized agencies backed by the DEA. It should look like social work.
Kimberly Disney 7/17/20 12:39 PM Members of the council, as a Pierce county resident I urge you to reject the plan for TNET. It is far too overreacting and gives way too much power to an executive board made up of only Sheriffs and police chiefs with zero community input. Local law enforcement has already demonstrated that they are incapable of being transparent and are unable to follow regulations by their noncompliance with I-940, something voters approved. Creating more policing is not the way to solve our community’s drug problems and there is a ton of evidence to back that up.I do not want TNET in Pierce county
Ellista 7/17/20 8:52 PM We don’t need to put more money towards this, we should put money towards housing and education
Nicholas Pollock 7/21/20 10:48 AM Now is the time to redistribute funding away from policing rather than double down on drug task-forces that are notoriously corrupt and ineffectual enterprises. Especially since the plan to fund it is through civil asset forfeiture, a system by which the state steals from its citizens without oversight. Do not make this part of Tacoma.
Greg Walker 7/21/20 10:54 AM I strongly oppose, and insist that the Council disapprove the TNET Interlocal Agreement, and avoid any other programs that depend on funding from civil asset forfeiture, OR THAT PARTICIPATE WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS IN PROGRAMS THAT RECEIVE FUNDING FROM CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE! This practice, while technically legal, flies in the face of Constitutional rights and freedoms, and should be avoided at all cost. Additionally, to act in our current climate to increase policing funding while so many citizens are demanding that we examine and address issues with policing practices and funding, ignores the concerns and needs of our community. Please vote this down. It's been around since the 1980s, what compelling need is there to do this NOW? Before you vote "YES," ask yourself if you are assured of the same level of checks on government spending and power that the council has asked for in other issues, such as the 1/10 of 1% mental health sales tax issue?
Asia Peureux 7/21/20 3:01 PM Relocate funds for providing help and support for those struggling with narcotics.
Jennifer Alvisurez 7/21/20 3:22 PM Please vote no. We cannot continue to support further militarization of community instead of investing in evidence based approaches outside of law enforcement.
Ashley Villafranca 7/21/20 7:45 PM I am writing the PIerce County Council urging each councilmember to oppose this proposal. The last thing the council should be focusing on is the current war on drugs. Reallocating funds to further harm the community and continue the damaging cycle of injustice takes away from programs and services that better our communities. Incarceration for drugs is unjust and illogical. We need to be funding social services and outreach for our community and stop using funds to imprison them. Please do not vote to approve this proposal and stand up to make a change.