UPDATE Number 2: According to court documents, the city is demanding a jury trial against Leman. The documents also reveal that the receptionist he allegedly assaulted in 58 years old; that when an officer asked him whether he forcibly took the woman’s cell phone and threw it away from her, as she alleged to police, he responded, “I can understand why she would think that,” and, in perhaps the saddest detail, that police took his bike away from him for safekeeping when he was arrested.
Leman has not returned multiple calls for comment, and the alleged victim also has not returned a call.
UPDATE: Leman was just seen leaving police headquarters with a woman. He looked disheveled, his hair was standing on end, and he was carrying his possessions in a green plastic bag—”like a man who just got out of jail,” a source said.
Chris Leman, a citizen activist known around city hall for his frequent, overbroad records requests, was arrested and booked into King County Jail for allegedly assaulting a Seattle Department of Transportation receptionist last night. According to the police report, Leman showed up at SDOT after hours and began demanding “some sort of traffic plan.” (According to SDOT, he was asking for the draft pedestrian master plan, released today). When the receptionist told her she couldn’t find it, the police report continues, he “pushed [her] against her chest.”
[She] then removed her cell phone to call building security. [Leman] then grabbed [her] right wrist … and twisted it. He then grabbed the cell phone out of her hand and threw it towards the elevator. …[She] complained of chest/neck pain and a sore wrist. She was treated at the scene by Seattle Fire.”
Leman was arrested on Queen Anne later that night. He is still being held at jail pending $950 bail.
The woman is reportedly seeking a protection order against Leman.
Leman is known for showing up at city council meetings with a nearly endless list of gripes (see, for example, here, here, and here), yelling from the audience, and refusing to stop talking after his allotted time for public comment is through.
City Hall employees, especially administrative and reception staff, have been told to be extra-vigilant in case Leman shows up and looks “unwell or unsafe,” sources there say. Sources with experience dealing with Leman said variations of, “it was only a matter of time.”
A call to Leman’s house has not been returned.
Additional reporting by Jonah Spangenthal-Lee.
Ohhh, you have a sore wrist?! You poor little sack of bitch. Next time a man asks you for something, you better deliver.
Chris is just one of a number of neighborhood activists who are involved out of a mental illness rather than a belief in representing their neighborhoods. They have a captive audience in government staff who are forced to listen to their anguish. Although most of these sad, ill people would not resort to this violence, I feel sorry for the public servants who are forced to be berated and harassed by these people.
Wow, sounds like someone didn’t get enough attention from mommy and daddy as a child.
Too bad they didn’t put a cap in his ass.
sounds like a soul mate for richard lee.
I’m really getting tired of the way we just put up with crazy people until they hurt somebody. Why do we do that?
Is it because we’re too wimpy to institutionalize or supervise them? Or too cheap?
I guess when you combine the cheap ass conservatives and they wimpy ass liberals, they become an unstoppable coalition of “lets let the crazies run the bus, the park, the library and city hall.”
I disagree with a lot of what Chris Leman advocates.
But it strikes me as comical that Erica Barnett — a pen with no ink — would propose to criticize him.
And, alas, it certainly does not surprise me that she would do so in such a nasty and mean-spirited way.
Making Eastlake proud. Chris puts in a lot of time but unfortunately has to be managed more often than not.
@7: You’re right, she should thank him for his frank, unflinching assault on a poorly-paid civil servant. Go, Chris!
A PDF of the Pedestrian Master Plan was available for download yesterday. Perhaps Chris Leman needs a web tutorial.
I’ve met some crazies during my time as a city employee: People who’ve told me about the secret Jewish power lines in Seward Park, people who tell me about how their neighbors are trying to kill them with microwaves, folks who accuse City Light and SPU of compiling master databases to spy on them (If you knew what passes for technology in the city, you’d die laughing from that one)
Only once of twice have I ever felt physically threatened, or been creeped out by the circumstances I’m in. I feel bad for that receptionist.
This is really sad. While I have not always agreed with Chris or his tactics, I think that his determination to hold the City accountable for its actions has had an overall positive impact on all of our lives. I hope that someone steps in to take his place as the omni-present gadfly at City Hall, but perhaps with more tact and inter-personal abilities.
Chris is a freak show. The City has coddled him for way too long – nice someone finally called the cops on him.
The transportation manager who presided over Seattle’s botched snowstorm response was promoted into his job after the city spent $515,000 on a yearlong investigation that found serious problems with his management style.
I’m so worried about his public disclosure requests.
I receive Chris Leman’s e-mail updates, and they generally seem reasonable to me. Could one of the Leman haters quote something he’s written about City Council actions that seems unreasonable?
I don’t see anything on Slog today about the Pedestrian Master Plan. Is it newsworthy? If not, isn’t that newsworthy? What constitutes “after hours” at SDOT? What city office pays a receptionist to work after hours? What receptionist sticks around the office off the clock? Leman sent an e-mail Thursday morning inviting people to come discuss the needs of youth and teens with the City Neighborhood Council’s committee on Youth, Schools, and Education, which was to meet at the Queen Anne/Magnolia Neighborhood Service Center from 6:00 until 7:30 p.m. Given that he was later arrested in Queen Anne, I’d bet that his arrival at SDOT was well before 6:00.
Erica, you’re known to gripe a lot. It’s rather odd of you to refer to a neighborhood activist who takes the time to speak up about his concerns with our local government’s actions when our elected representatives solicit input as someone with “with a nearly endless list of gripes.” As evidence of this never-ending list, you refer to two Slog posts and a The Stranger article which describe exactly two complaints Leman has voiced.
If this recent event happened as described, then of course he was out of line. But given some of the comments in the Slog posts to which Erica linked, it wouldn’t surprise me if things aren’t as they seem. That city staff have been told to be “be extra-vigilant in case Leman shows up” suggests to me that he’s asking questions they would prefer not to answer and shedding light on issues they would prefer to keep under wraps.
Imagine this hypothetical scenario: It’s Thursday afternoon. Leman leaves work early to go pick up a draft copy of the big report that is to be released tomorrow so that he can get a jump on reporting about it, since he caught wind of the fact that that it will be another Greg Nickels theater production with anything of use to pedestrians that might affect Nickels’ campaign funders’ profit margins stripped out. He goes to the SDOT office because he was told that the draft report — public information — would not be published on the Web, so he’d have to stop by in person to get a copy. He arrives at the SDOT office at 4:45. The receptionist recognizes Leman as the guy who’s always coming in shoving his nose into City business, and after muttering, “Here we go again; would this guy get a life?” under her breath, smiles a big fake smile and says, “I’m sorry, everyone leaves at 4:30 on Thursdays.” Leman says he doesn’t need to speak to any of the engineers, he just wants a copy of the much heralded Pedestrian Master Plan that is to be released in less than 24 hours. The receptionist first feigns ignorance, then ruffles a few papers on her desk and says, “Sorry, can’t find it.” Leman, frustrated, says, “Come on. You know as well as I do that this is supposed to be available to the public, and it’s not like I showed up here late in the evening looking for it. Could you just get me a copy?” She stands up and says, “I’m afraid you’re going to have to leave.” A heated discussion ensues, and at some point, Leman points his finger, she steps in, they make contact, she says, “don’t you touch me.” He says, “Just get me the report.” She threatens to call the police and tell them he assaulted her. He says he did no such thing. She pulls out her mobile phone (because there’s no land line in the office?) he grabs it and tosses it on her desk, decides he better leave, and goes to catch a bus over to Queen Anne for his 6:00 meeting.
Who knows.
Past experience suggests he’s a thorn in the side of government secrecy and opponent of Nickels continued centralization of power, someone who won’t put up with being brushed off by civil servants — not that he goes around physically shoving people around. Or shoplifting.
@R15 – I’m wondering if you’ve ever met Chris.
He can be pretty reasonable on paper. In person he is very difficult to deal with and doesn’t seem to have the capacity to effectively manage his emotions. He doesn’t just have this reputation with the City – I know of nonprofit organizations where the bylaws were explicitly written to keep him off the board of directors.
I’m all for open government in general. But it helps if you aren’t a complete douche when you try to make your point.
For general information, city offices are closed at 5:00. Mr. Leman arrived at 5:15. The employee was not working overtime, but her regular hours.
@16: I have, but only once. He seemed very mild-mannered, made an attempt to get a neighborhood group I’m involved with connected with the City Neighborhood Council, and put me on his e-mail distribution list.
I have no other information about his conduct in person. Aside from yesterday’s incident — which again, I believe to be absolutely inappropriate as described by the police report as reported by Erica — I’m less concerned with how he says things than what he has to say. When you are ignored by those we employ to manage our shared resources for us, sometimes you have to speak more loudly.
The two examples Erica cited involved requiring private citizens, but not city employees, to register as lobbyists before lobbying City Council members, and allowing businesses in certain areas of the city to avoid State Environmental Policy Act review.
When I receive Leman’s e-mails, I almost always think, “I’m glad someone is taking the time to speak up about this.” Looking through e-mails I’ve received from him in the past six months, I see him rallying support to oppose giving businesses priority over pedestrians in the use of sidewalks, to oppose decreasing government transparency, to oppose weakening the residential parking zone program, and to oppose weakening noise ordinance restrictions.
To the best of my memory, everything about which I’ve heard that Leman speaks out involves him standing up for the general population against pressure from a few select members of the public — business owners — and standing up for open government.
Instead of calling names and making vague accusations about the difficulty of working with Mr. Leman, could someone please cite some examples of what you find to be unreasonable about his efforts? For all I know, everyone who complains about him does so because he or she works in government and would rather operate with less oversight from the people or because he or she operates a business and wants to change the laws to increase his profits even when it would happen to the detriment of the majority of people.
Concrete examples, please.
I started working for the city rather recently (last summer) and have yet to personally encounter Mr. Lehman, but he has threatened many of my coworkers. City employees typically work here because we care about Seattle and want to help make it a better place to live. Projects like the Residential Parking Program (aka RPZ) involve numerous public meetings and other opportunities for people to comment. Mr. Lehman is not the only person paying attention to these issues but his threatening behavior lowers the level of civic discourse for everyone, not just public employees.
@17: I think I agree with you, but consider which is more deserving of the label of douchebaggery: Leman, when he speaks out against Nickels’ latest plan to line the pockets of his financial supporters and put himself in the spotlight, or the douche-bag plans themselves? Why does Leman even have to go out and complain about more government secrecy? Shouldn’t it just be a given that less transparency is bad? Why do such plans get far as having Leman come speak out before someone else nixes the idea?
If Leman’s methods are flawed, please go do a better job at what he’s trying to do than he is doing. Just don’t let his message be brushed aside because it wasn’t delivered with candy and flowers.
When people who speak out against the things Leman speaks out against are accused of making trouble, I’m leery of taking the report at face value. Leman may well be a pain in the ass — I don’t know. But if he is, it seems that the assess in which is is a pain are a bit too comfortable.
Phil, I don’t know Chris, so I’m not going to say anything about him, but having worked in reception and other office jobs, I can say your characterization of “the city staff” seems a little off. The government is not a giant monolithic entity of which every part is dedicated to the same purposes, least of which the receptionist. She isn’t told to be “extra vigilant” because the City is trying to hide things from the public, but because there are a lot of unstable people out there that she has to deal with because she fields requests for the government. There is no conspiracy to keep the public in the dark about things, I promise.
@20: Northquirk, could you be more specific about the many threats to which you refer? Are we talking, “This is bad for the people you serve, and I’ll do everything I can to make sure that people find out about it.” or “I know where you live.”?
Here’s what I’ve heard, via e-mail from Leman on April 13, 2009:
Is that unreasonable?
I think the context of this post makes it pretty clear that staffers have been advised to be extra-vigilant in light of this assault.
@21: Phil, I can tell you enjoy your apologist role for Chris Leman, but have admitted several times now that you’ve had limited personal contact with him. Chris, like a lot of activists, started off as a reasonable, if strident, voice on neighborhood issues. But, over the years, he has become rude, belligerent, and pushy in his personal dealings with city employees and elected officials. Frankly, if people hate you personally, it kills your effectiveness as an activist, despite the righteousness of your cause.
Phil: if you’re going to spend the entire afternoon trying to rationalize assault and battery on a lone woman, please look to Mr. Poe @1 for pointers on how to do it with more style.
Following are those attached suggestions mentioned in the e-mail I quoted @23:
For the third time: If what happened is as it was reported by Erica, I completely agree that it was absolutely wrong.
Keshimeshi: Good point.
J.R. I’m not apologizing for his actions, just suggesting that his message seems worthy of attention. If you think he has become ineffective, please step in and take over saying the same things in a more effective manner, or convince us that those things need not be said.
Dr. Memory: You seem to have forgotten some of what I wrote here.
I recently met Chris because he is one of only a handful of people in the city who bother to show up to meetings about open government. These meetings have to my knowledge received no press attention whatsoever.
During these meetings, Chris played an important watchdog role. The Council has exempted itself from part of the state’s public disclosure laws while passing transparency guidelines that are full of loopholes. The open government committee solicited community organization input into this process, but then promptly dismissed almost all of the organizations’ suggestions. At the last meeting, after recently passing legislation that rejected the possibility of having a single web page to coordinate public disclosure requests, the open government committee had someone from the City of Bellevue give a 40 minute presentation on how they’ve successfully made this transition. Acting as if they had never considered the proposal before, the committee vowed to maybe look into it… in a year. After that, the Council spent almost 40 minutes mischaracterizing Leman’s proposals for increasing transparency so they could casually dismiss them as absurd. When he got up to complain during the “public comment” period, he was treated as a nuisance, and I could tell that the frustration he exhibited at how he was being treated was being used by Councilmembers as evidence that he is unreasonable.
None of this justifies what Leman may or may not have done at SDOT (would like to get his side first– though obviously the accusations sound bad). But I do think that a lot of people in government use character assassination as a technique to dismiss their critics, especially when their critics are everyday citizens and not people with wealth or power. Journalists should thus be cautious about adopting a similar tone and dismissing everyday people’s criticism of government because of their deportment.
Though obviously, if someone’s persistent criticism crosses over into harassment, that’s a different matter. I would be sad if that’s what’s happened here.
Leman doesn’t seem to realize how much he is hurting his (often) worthy causes. In fact, he seems to think his gadflyism is worthy of imitation, as evidenced by a class he apparently taught recently. Don’t want to scroll down to find the goods? No prob. Let me blockquote them for you:
Seattle tolerates loonies!
For those who believe Chris Leman is a valuable voice for certain issues: theoretically -yes, in reality – no. Mr. Leman’s difficult, divisive and adamant ways compel other volunteers to participate elsewhere or de-activate. More effective open government advocates will appear when Mr. Leman is required to disappear from his self-appointed perch.
@29: Trevor, I’d like to find out if video of that meeting is available. Could you provide the date on which it was held?
all council meetings are on video. seattlechannel.org
@33: 5/1/09. Warning: this meeting was VERY boring.
@32: you’re saying that the only thing stopping a flood tide of open government activists from appearing at city council meetings is Leman? I doubt it. The ACLU and other organizations with a lot of cred submitted comments to the City Council’s Open Government Committee, but to my knowledge have not shown up in person to present their recommendations, have not challenged the City Council for ignoring their recommendations, have not educated their members about what’s going on. In general everyone supports open government. In practice, the rule-making that ensures open government can be technical and dull, and I don’t think anyone’s chomping at the bit to get involved in this issue.
I’d respect this discussion and take it seriously a bit more if people didn’t hide their nastiness behind anonymity.
And if there wasn’t such a mean-spirited adolescent and obviously ignorant bullshit tone to it all.
You folks who so value politesse ought to look in the mirror sometimes.
They only value faux politesse.
Here’s a six minute clip of Mr. Leman speaking to the Seattle City Council’s Special Committee on Open Government at the May 1, 2009, meeting Trevor Griffey referenced (and a clip of Mr. Griffey speaking at the meeting). He doesn’t appear to me to be someone who is about to come unhinged.
Can someone give a specific example — other than the alleged activity of May 8 that is the topic of this post — of the inappropriate behavior that people have repeatedly, anonymously, accused Mr. Leman of exhibiting? I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, I’d just like to see for myself, and City Council meetings are archived on the Web. I don’t know who these people complaining about Mr. Leman are or what they are trying to achieve by anonymously tarnishing his reputation.
Good grief – what, if anything does Leman’s political activism and effectiveness have to do with the fact that he assaulted a woman? The way Erica reported it is exactly the way it happened – I’m a fellow city employee.
He was pist because the offices were closed and the receptionist was unable to locate the document (Ped Master Plan Draft) that Leman had “made a special trip” to pick up. He had called earlier in the day to say that he needed a printed copy. It was printed and left for him at the main reception desk on the floor – not with the receptionist who had the misfortune to try to help Mr. Leman. All areas of the floor are locked at 5:00 and this woman was kind enough to open her door enough for Leman to get his foot in it and overwhelm her.
@39: Good question (except for the “fact” part; I’d call that an allegation until Mr. Leman has his day in court). Erica brought up his activism, then a bunch of anonymous blog commenters jumped on the bandwagon.
The only connection I see is that if things are as described, Mr. Leman’s viewpoints, which seem to generally support the good of the majority to the detriment of a few, will be less well represented. That would be unfortunate for most of us. The few people who will benefit from things like weakened noise ordinances, having our residential parking program warped into something available to non-residents, the reservation of portions of sidewalks for the exclusive use of neighboring businesses, and increased governmental secrecy, would surely be happy to see him silenced.