In an apparent attempt to stifle concerns about her proposed prostitution loitering law, Seattle City Council Member Cathy Moore asked for revisions on Monday to an independent bill analysis from City Central Staff. Moore’s move denied the public critical information about the bill and threatened to undermine the legitimacy and objectivity of the central staff.
Central staff memos like this one are a tool to help council members and the public understand proposed bills and other legislative action. Central staff analysts prepare independently researched memos that describe the expected results of any bills, provide budgetary analysis, and discuss potential upsides and downsides to legislation. Central staff publish those memos as part of agenda packets ahead of council meetings, in order for the public and council members to have an informed conversation about potential bills.
On Friday, staff sent out their initial draft of a memo that examined Moore’s bill to reinstate the City’s prostitution loitering law, as well as to create a Stay Out of Area Prostitution (SOAP) zone that judges could impose on people arrested or convicted on prostitution related crimes. The 14-page report, authored by Central Staff Analyst Ann Gorman, laid out the basic facts of the bill, a brief history of the 2020 repeal of the loitering law, and relevant research into the efficacy and result of loitering laws and SOAP zones. The council’s Public Safety Committee scheduled a meeting on the bill for today.
However on Monday, Central Staff Director Ben Noble sent out an updated version of the analysis, along with a note that staff had revised the memo after “some additional input from Councilmember Moore,” according to an email from Noble obtained by The Stranger. In the new version of the memo, multiple sections that raised concerns about Moore’s bill were missing, and, unusually, Gorman’s name had also been removed and replaced with a general attribution to “Central Staff.” The new version appeared more favorable to Moore’s bill, as it removed two major concerns. (See a full comparison of the old and new memos here.)
The original memo pointed to a 2024 article from PubliCola in which a local defense attorney said that she “did not believe that she had ever had a “white, English-speaking client” charged for patronizing a prostitute. Gorman’s memo articulated concerns that the law could result in Seattle Police Department (SPD) officers arresting a disproportionate number of sex buyers that were people of color. The memo also included information from SPD that its human trafficking unit had in the past arrested white men in its anti-prostitution stings.
In the new memo, this section was removed.
The new memo also removed a section that examined claims from Moore, SPD, and the City Attorney’s Office (CAO), stating that they specifically want to use the new prostitution laws to target the people who buy sex, or traffic and exploit sex workers. The original memo points out that, because the bill includes language criminalizing sex workers, it may cause the workers to distrust police and the CAO. The memo theorized that “victims will not generally become more willing to be cooperating witnesses against their traffickers.”
The memo also pointed out that the bill included no additional funding for diversion services or emergency housing for people trying to leave the sex trade, and victims may doubt the council’s plans to actually fund those things, adding further mistrust of the council. Gorman’s concern, while not tied to any specific citation, echoes a critique voiced by many service providers who work with people exploited in the sex trade. The section encouraged the council to continue engaging with sex worker organizations as a means of building trust.
In the new memo, this section was also removed.
Noble’s email also included an updated version of central staff’s memo regarding the proposed Stay Out of Drug Area (SODA) zone, and the updated version mimicked some of the changes in the other central staff memo, including removal of a line about how the bills could both be seen as a missed opportunity to understand the root causes behind sex work and drug use. (See a full comparison of the old and new SODA memos here.)
Central staff analysts typically offer potential counter arguments and contrasting views in their reports to council, and Gorman’s noodling with the idea that arresting a person might not be the best way to encourage them to cooperate with police appears entirely in line with a typical report from central staff. Removing this section, which undermined a key theory to Moore’s bill, appears to be an attempt to make the report more favorable to Moore’s argument for the law.
These reports are supposed to be nonpartisan to help the public and the Council better understand all the context around a proposed bill. Former City Council Member Lorena González called it fairly typical for central staff to ask council members for feedback on a central staff memo, especially regarding a controversial issue, and have members check for any incomplete or inaccurate information. However, González said it is not typical to ask for changes “for the purpose of creating a political outcome.” She added that, given the removal of the analyst’s name as well as the other information, central staff should show their reasonings for the changes.
Moore did not immediately respond to questions from The Stranger regarding whether and/or why she pressured central staff to remove the sections from the memo. Gorman and Noble also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Moore’s bill has faced significant criticism from more than two dozen organizations related to anti-violence, anti-human trafficking, LGBTQ+ advocacy, as well as from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Washington. In fact, Shannon Perez-Darby, who helped found Accountable Communities Consortium, which works to address domestic and sexual violence in communities, and has worked to organize opposition to Moore’s bill, said that no gender-based violence organizations currently openly support the bill.
Clearly CM Moore is very confident in the likely efficacy and theoretical basis for her proposed legislation. Between claiming to be afraid of public commenters and this nonsense she is the most absurd CM in recent history. Fortunately (for her) she never advocates for the working class or she’d quickly get the Sawant treatment from the local commentariat
If we were to legalize and allow licensed protitution or escort services, it would fix the entire issue. it would allow workers to utilize safer and more generally, out of public view platforms for advertizing their services instead of the 99 corridor, it would help reduce at least some of the decades of anxiety about workers contacting police in an emergency, it could even become tax revenue for the state. Additionally with legalization it would help make a legitamate class of workers and push out those who don’t keep up on their screenings, creating a safer public health situation for everyone. They could accept cashless payments with less fear of being robbed at gunpoint or legal issues from accepting digital currency for an illegal trade. it would take money off the streets which may also go to people undesirable as well, like those who extort workers for protection, etc.
I sincerely do not understand how this bill will make one thing better, or safer what so ever. The people purchasing the services are not the root of the issue. The reality of the issue is that this city’s brick and mortar foundation was built on sex work. We need to own that shit and make it safer for everyone in the community. It’s never going to stop.
Also, great work Ashley! thanks!
@2 If sex work is to be legalized as you propose, arresting illegal practitioners will be an essential component of that. If people object to the practice of making street-level arrests at the point of sale (as it were), then they will have those same objections within any conceivable legal system.
@2: “If we were to legalize and allow licensed protitution or escort services, it would fix the entire issue.”
Maybe. Maybe not. Amsterdam has had repeated problems with biker gangs and other organized crime trying to insert themselves into the (legal) business flow between the customers and the ladies sitting in the shop windows. Most are sole proprietors, renting a window and waving in the customers they want. But there have been repeated pushes to close down the windows, open brothels and put “management” into the revenue stream.
In some cases, the sex workers prefer some types of benign management. Someone to pay the rent and utilities, provide security and handle the daily drudgery that is part of every business. The problem is keeping that management benign. Perhaps instead of just legalizing and licensing the workers, pimps should be licensed as well. Much like the Nevada Gaming Commission exists in part to keep organized crime out of the business, regulated pimps could do much the same.
@2- allowing an escort to work in the White House for 4 years didn’t really help anything.
Cathy Moore did the right thing. Erica Barnett’s blog should never be cited as a source for public policy. It is not a reliable source of unbiased scholarship.
Further, the paragraph at the end was full of the analyst’s own politics that were contradicted by the facts forming the basis for the proposed ordinance. She’s entitled to her feelings but not in a standalone white paper that’s supposed to just be apolitical analysis.
All of the edits provided clarity & context. It was very well done.
@9 care to provide a “reliable source of unbiased scholarship” that supports Moore’s proposal? Take as long as you need.
The memo cited actual arrest data showing that the johns were mostly white. Erica Barnett interviewed one public defender about their individual caseload, which does not encompass the whole of all johns that were arrested. They gave their opinion, not backed up by actual stats, and it’s only a slice of the whole picture.
It was inappropriate to elevate the Barnett anecdote to the same level as data. It was rightly removed.
@11 right, sure, so please provide data to show this plan is anything other than a misguided waste. To be clear I don’t mean to disparage others’ arguments, please provide your own argument to support this proposal. If you can.
Legalization is not the answer. Abuse of brothel workers is prevalent in Nevada where it is still illegal to work independently. Sex work must be decriminalized and treated like any other self-employment to improve the situation. Then SPD can direct their efforts to arresting those who are breaking the law, not just providing a service in private.
@13: “Abuse of brothel workers is prevalent in Nevada where it is still illegal to work independently.”
True. And that’s the key: Coercing brothel workers into an unwanted relationship with a manager (read as: pimp). But back in the days of Frank Colacurcio, laws governing cabaret operations read like the list of red flags that anti-abuse NGOs had published to spot exploitation in the industry. Gee, I wonder who helped write those laws? (Wink, wink)
I don’t trust our law-makers to get it right when writing the regulations. Not because of corruption. But plain old ignorance of the business practices. We don’t vote the right people in. When was the last time a candidate for city council said, “Vote for me. I know all about drugs and prostitution.”