Camille Baldwin-Bonney doesn’t buy it.
The police accountability advocate and co-chair of People Power Washington called Mayor Bruce Harrell’s new anti-ICE executive orders “performative rather than substantive”—a feel-good gesture from the same administration wiring CCTV surveillance cameras throughout the city that federal agents may be able to get their hands on, despite the council’s circuit breaker of a policy that shuts down the CCTVs if the feds subpoena.
In preparation, Mayor Bruce Harrell issued an executive order that instructed the Seattle Police Department (SPD) to write a “directive” for how officers should respond to ICE encounters, barring them from aiding federal agents.
“To then be saying, ‘Well, I’m standing up to ICE and federal agents,’—you’re handing them over tools,” Baldwin-Bonney said.
Her skepticism is grounded. ICE raids have ramped up nationwide. Agents are in Washington. In the first five months of Trump’s second term, ICE arrests surged 35 percent. More recently, ICE arrested two people in Issaquah late October, and several in Redmond earlier this month. And federal troops could occupy Seattle and Portland like they have Chicago and Washington DC.
On paper, the directive seems bold. In practice, it doesn’t ask for much. Harrell’s EO only requires SPD directive to state that officers and a supervisor respond to the scene, keep their body cameras on, try to verify that the federal agent really is a federal agent, and then write up a report. They’re essentially observers and walking cameras, acting as a tracking mechanism. They’re not required to help ICE, but they’re also unable to stop immigration arrests from happening.
The vagueness of that order is why Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck proposed a Statement of Legislative Intent (SLI) to the 2026 budget. The SLI forces SPD to involve police accountability partners when drafting the directive, and explain how officers will be trained to handle ICE-related incidents, including what they’ll do if asked to assist in an arrest or witness potential federal misconduct. Councilmembers Rob Saka, Mark Solomon, Joy Hollingsworth, Maritza Rivera, Dan Strauss and Bob Kettle cosponsored.
“This SLI is intended to really push the department to develop clarity on…how they will be engaging in these situations,” Rinck said. “If a masked individual is zip-tying Seattle residents, how is SPD directing patrol and other officers to engage with that person, identify that person? How will they do that? When do they intervene?”
But what’s challenging for Rinck’s office, she said, is working within the limited power they have.
“We’re talking about a delicate dance between federal powers—which are more than a local jurisdiction’s—and our police department’s responsibility to protect our residents,” Rinck said.
It’s a tension that Harrell’s office acknowledged too. Senior Communications Advisor Karissa Braxton-Lytle said that while the executive orders can’t change the fact that federal law enforcement trumps local law enforcement, they can make sure SPD has “clear, transparent procedures in place when federal agents are present.”
Andrew Chan, an immigration lawyer with the civil rights and immigration firm MacDonald Hoague & Bayless, explained that under federal law, local police can’t obstruct federal agents from carrying out their duties, but they’re not obligated to help, either. Washington’s Keep Washington Working (KWW) Act reinforces that stance, prohibiting police from sharing non-public data with federal agents for immigration enforcement.
But KWW is loophole-y. If ICE, in any state, has a judicial warrant or labels an operation as a “criminal” arrest, the local police can be legally compelled to assist.
But wait, you might be thinking, isn’t the federal government saying all undocumented immigrants are criminals? What can be deemed “criminal” legally is more complicated. Being undocumented and in the United States—like overstaying a visa—is not a crime, it’s a civil infraction. However, unlawful entry—entering the United States by means other than through a designated port or evading inspection by immigration officers—is a misdemeanor, which is a crime. Chan said this is rarely prosecuted by federal prosecutors who “are dealing with much more serious crimes.” But it is where the feds may be able to sidestep KWW and enlist the cops to aid in immigration enforcement.
Even so, sometimes law enforcement ignores sanctuary laws. The Washington state attorney general sued the Adams County Sheriff’s Department in March for allegedly jailing people solely based on immigration status, in violation of KWW. And a 2021 Oregon Public Broadcasting report found that Clark County Jail had continually shared information with ICE in spite of the state’s sanctuary law. In Southern California, law enforcement agencies violated state law more than 100 times by sharing Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) data with federal agents.
“We’re kind of operating under the shroud of darkness,” Chan said. “We don’t know what they’re sharing or if they’re sharing.”
That said, federal agents are (supposedly) not above the law. Chan said that if ICE oversteps—like if they break into a workplace and detain people without warrants—they could, in theory, face charges. In California, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins recently threatened to arrest federal agents breaking local or state laws. Oregon Democrats want local police to investigate federal agents who break state laws on excessive force and policing.
“If local police have probable cause that federal agents are breaking the law, then they can—and in my opinion, they should—charge those agents with breaking the law,” Chan said. “But federal agents have a lot of autonomy, and it would be a state-versus-federal battle royale.”
If the feds show up in Seattle, protests will follow. While Harrell insists SPD’s duty is to protect Seattle residents, not aid federal agents, federal and local law enforcement have worked in tandem during protest crackdowns, like during the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests. In those cases and others, SPD did not hesitate to meet demonstrators with violence.
Council’s SLI now presses SPD to clarify whether it will coordinate with the mayor’s and city attorney’s offices on legal countermeasures, fighting subpoenas, data grabs or coerced cooperation with ICE.
Newly elected City Attorney Erika Evans said defending immigrant communities from “draconian” federal overreach will be one of her foremost priorities when she takes office in January.
“As city attorney, I would work closely with city departments and SPD to ensure these protections are real and enforced,” Evans said. “If and when federal troops come to Seattle, you can be damn sure I will see them in court.”
I continue to be impressed with Rinck – the legislative branch of government is typically the appropriate venue for things like accountability (not an executive order, no matter how well meaning).
Folks are confusing federal supremacy (Article 6, Clause 2 & the 10th Amendment to the Constitution) in enforcing federal laws with federal supremacy in violating the constitution. The later is not a thing. States have every right to protect their inhabitants from constitutional violations — in these cases egregious 4th Amendment violations — by anyone, including the federal government.
The 36th LD Dems have already unanimously passed a resolution outlining how to do this: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ceepgb9yTDBR2OtqCjg4xoTQkRVmQfUzXXYL8OVdMYI/edit?tab=t.0
In short, when SPD officers see someone being detained they need to establish the identity of those doing the detaining & establish the legal basis for the detention/arrest. Since every investigation over the last 8 months has shown that the majority of folks detained/arrested by ICE/CBP/HSI have no criminal history it should be the default approach by SPD to intervene in these cases with probable cause to believe that 4th amendment violations are occurring.
These are the same actions the SPD should take when they see anyone being abducted. If feds can demonstrate they have a judicial warrant and/or reasonable individualized articulable suspicion that a particular person has violated immigration laws, then SPD would have to step back and document the incident (which will be enormously helpful in later court actions).
@2: “the majority of folks detained/arrested by ICE/CBP/HSI have no criminal history it should be the default approach by SPD to intervene in these cases with probable cause to believe that 4th amendment violations are occurring.”
Ehhh, I was with you right up until this sentence. 😄 It’s not a 4th Amendment violation to detain a person on individualized suspicion of an immigration violation, even in the absence of probable cause to suspect a criminal violation. Immigration detentions are lawful even when there has been no crime.
Therefore, even if you are correct to say, “the majority of folks detained/arrested by ICE/CBP/HSI have no criminal history,” you are wrong to conclude that “it should be the default approach by SPD to intervene in these cases with probable cause to believe that 4th amendment violations are occurring.” Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. 😄
The legal analysis in the other document you linked, the one from the 36th District Dems, was more solid. My only quibble there was with the third resolution, demanding an unmasking ordinance in Seattle aimed at federal immigration agents performing their duties. Such an ordinance is flatly prohibited by the Supremacy Clause. Local government doesn’t get to regulate how the feds do their jobs.
And that’s a good thing! 😃 Otherwise, you’d see right-wing local governments passing all sorts of crazy ordinances to cripple whatever federal enforcement which they don’t like. Imagine a timber county, for example, angry about the spotted owl, adopting an ordinance to prohibit federal wildlife agents from using motor vehicles to patrol logging roads. Or a southern town adopting an ordinance that federal civil rights investigators must pass a fluency test in Hebrew prior to investigating any university for discrimination. 😂
It may seem frustrating that Seattle can’t unilaterally unmask the immigration agents, but if you reflect on it, I think you’ll probably conclude it’s good that local government doesn’t have those kinds of powers! 😁
@3 The problem is that ICE is assuming any brown person is undocumented until they prove they are a citizen. With some of those people, that was after hours or days of detention. The fact that someone is brown, is seen speaking Spanish, and/or works certain jobs is not reasonable grounds to smash their car window and throw them to the ground. ICE lost whatever respectability they had when they started using violence just because they felt like it. Fuck ICE, and fuck any asshole who defends them!
Trump Strong !! like ManlyMans Pootin & nate&Yahoo & BoneSawz & Talibans
@4: HJGale was not right, but you are not even wrong 😌
@2 — BRAVISSIMO.
“On paper, [Lame af Mayor Harrell’s] directive seems bold:
“… try
to verify that
the federal agent
really is a federal agent… ”
HOW THE FUCK
do we even Fucking KNOW
WHO TF these Masked Thugs even ARE!?
“… try
to verify that
the federal agent
really is a federal agent… ”
Kidnappers exploiting Quiet Piggy, QUIET!’s Chaos?
or are they White Slavers, grabbing Women
and Girls* off our Streets to be
Mal-a-Lardo Sex Slaves?
“[our exceedingly Expensive police]
are essentially observers and walking
cameras, acting as a tracking mechanism.”
what a fucking Waste.
How the FUCK is Cadet Bonespurs
‘making america “great”
again,’ again?
*are they ‘president’
Piggy’s very own
Pussy Grabbers?
Stay Tuned!
“Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck proposed a Statement of Legislative Intent (SLI) to the 2026 budget. The SLI forces SPD to involve police accountability partners when drafting the directive, and explain how officers will be trained to handle ICE-related incidents . . .
Councilmembers Rob Saka, Mark Solomon, Joy Hollingsworth,
Maritza Rivera, Dan Strauss and Bob Kettle cosponsored.”
who needs a Kshama Sawant?
BRAVO, Seattle City Council!
suck it, rwnjs.
Re: #3: I deeply appreciate that you are not a troll & you provide a thoughtful response and bother to read the resolution. But you have inferred things not in my actual statement of “the majority of folks detained/arrested by ICE/CBP/HSI have no criminal history it should be the default approach by SPD to intervene in these cases with probable cause to believe that 4th amendment violations are occurring.”
You inferred I was claiming that enforcement action for a violation of immigration law would be a 4th Amendment violation. But I did not even suggest that. My statement was, in an abbreviated manner, claiming that because we have clear data showing that arrests were not for any criminal matter we know that ICE/DHS was (1) lying when they said they would focus on criminals and (2) that ICE/DHS was, in far too many if not most cases, arresting people without judicial warrants or some objective suspicion beyond racial profiling. The fact is that it IS a 4th Amendment violation to just round people up for attributes shared by broad sectors of the population, regardless of what laws (civil or criminal) are believed to be violated.
Your quibble with the issue of passing laws against masking is reasonable. I too think such a law, by itself, is unenforceable and pointless. However, it was included in the 36th LD Dems resolution because at the time it was first written masking laws were the first and only affirmative actions taken by other cities and states and because it would give the SPD an additional basis for some intervention. I know this because I wrote this resolution.
Re #6: Exactly what am I not right about?
@9: “I deeply appreciate that you are not a troll & you provide a thoughtful response and bother to read the resolution”
Thank you but beware! 😁 According to my detractors on this website, I am actually a secret agent hired by certain, um, (((international conspirators))) to foment genocide! 😂 So, you know, .your thumpus mileage may vary! 🤣🤣🤣
I appreciate your clarification that arresting non-criminal immigrants on suspicion of immigration violations does not violate the 4th Amendment. I still disagree with your argument that Seattle police have probable cause to suspect a 4th Amendment violation based on the DHS pattern of conduct you describe in @9.
First, it is irrelevant for purposes of the 4th Amendment that DHS lied when they said they would focus on criminals. The government breaks promises all the time, but the Constitution does not provide a remedy for lies. The remedy is to vote the liars out. 😁
Second, even if you are correct in your premise that “ICE/DHS was, in far too many if not most cases, arresting people without judicial warrants or some objective suspicion beyond racial profiling,” that still would not support probable cause for Seattle police to suspect that any particular ICE arrest was being made solely on the basis of racial profiling.
In the same way that ICE must have particularized reasons to suspect a particular person, so Seattle police must have particularized reasons to suspect any particular ICE detention. In the same way that ICE behaves unreasonably if it suspects all Latinos everywhere of immigration violations, so Seattle police would behave unreasonably if they suspect all ICE detentions everywhere of constitutional violations! 😃
You cannot establish a blanket rule that says, “This class of person is known to break the law pretty darn often, so arrest all members of this class on sight.” You can’t do that to target Latinos speaking Spanish, even if that is statistically a class of person who may be more likely than average to be in violation of immigration law, and you also can’t do that to target ICE agents making immigration arrests, even if that is statistically a class of person who may be more likely than average to trample the 4th Amendment! 😄
Regardless of what the statistics say, being Latino is not reasonable grounds by itself to suspect an individual of committing an immigration violation, and regardless of what the statistics say, being an ICE agent is not reasonable grounds by itself to suspect an individual of violating the 4th Amendment. It needs a particularized suspicion against each individual, not a statistical suspicion against an entire class. 😛 You’re asking Seattle police to fall into the same trap that ICE has fallen into! 😆
One final objection: even if Seattle police were able to established a particularized suspicion that a particular ICE arrest was being conducted in violation of the 4th Amendment, it’s not clear what you expect the police to do. Your @2 says the police should “intervene,” but what is the source of their authority to do so? Our police officers are not empowered to act as intervenors-at-large in the name of Blind Lady Justice 😂 They are merely empowered to enforce the criminal laws. It’s not clear to me what criminal law ICE breaks in detaining an immigration suspect on constitutionally impermissible grounds. A kidnapping? A hate crime offense? Every single unconstitutional arrest is automatically a crime?! I’d need to see some pretty beefy argument before I’d buy that! 😝
@9: “Re #6: Exactly what am I not right about”
That was in reference to the argument @2 when you said “the majority of folks detained/arrested by ICE/CBP/HSI have no criminal history [so] it should be the default approach by SPD to intervene”
I understand now you’re not suggesting that arresting non-criminal immigration violators is unlawful. 😃
Apparently I.C.E. can do what ever it wants. We can fill the streets.
@10, @11: Gale is the same legal genius who deluded the poor gullible fools at the Seattle Human Rights Commission into believing they were an independent body, empowered to conduct investigations on their own authority. (His motivation seems to have been a personal desire to intervene in matters of the SPD’s Consent Decree, which he as a private citizen had no legal standing to do.) Once the SHRC tried to act on the independent authority he’d mislead them into believing they had, the City Attorney’s Office promptly stopped them, and hard.
Results of this farce included Seattle Human Rights Commissioners engaging in some of the most entitled whining this side of Epstein & Co. complaining they couldn’t legally obtain sexual favors from jailbait, no matter how hot & luscious said jailbait was (https://southseattleemerald.org/news/2022/05/12/breaking-leaked-scao-memo-amicus-status-for-hrc-neither-fruitful-nor-efficient), and a conspiratorial narrative the Stranger wove around it, which was quickly refuted by commenters, myself included (https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2022/05/25/73950240/seattle-human-rights-commissioners-feel-gagged-by-city-attorneys-office).
@13: lol, Seattle Human Rights Commission went through a very dark period in the 2021-2022 timeframe. The thing with the amicus status was far from their biggest gaffe in those days. 😆 I haven’t seen them in the news lately so I assume they got a talking-to from Harrell about stepping on rakes. 😂
‘they’ say it’s ALL
news — til ya
Read it
“Russia used a network of 150,000 Twitter accounts to meddle in Brexit”
https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-used-twitter-accounts-to-meddle-in-brexit-investigation-shows-2017-11
tS Has no meddlers
nor influence peddlers
either foreign Or domestic
take
That to
The Bank.
@10 You have lost the plot.
My original statement about SPD taking action against ICE was that “it should be the default approach by SPD to intervene in these cases with probable cause to believe that 4th amendment violations are occurring” was partly a joke referencing the fact that ICE uses broad common factors to pretend they have probable cause.
However, that joke reveals a deeper concern which you have missed in your attempt to analogize between what is wrong with ICE making broad generalized determinations based on race and language and SPD making broad determinations based on how people might be dressed and are acting: the former case involves not just 4th Amendment violations but also civil rights violations against protected classes, whereas the later case with SPD may or may not actually involve 4th Amendment violations since SPD would be acting on now well established indications of illegal actions by ICE (actions that are particular to constitutional violations) and ICE agents are not a protected class.
Once again: all that is being asked in the 36th LD Dems resolution is that SPD intervene in actions which could be a kidnapping by non-law enforcement folks (this has happened) and then attempt to evaluate if constitutional violations are occurring. We do not expect SPD to arrest federal agents or get into a gun battle, but SPD should intervene and establish, with questions and body cameras, the basis for any ICE actions (which will be enormously helpful in court proceedings).
SPD officers take an oath to uphold the Washington State and US Constitution, so when they see what are likely 4th Amendment violations they should intervene. And constitutional violations are criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 242 and in some states (like California) under what is called “converse-1983” (see: https://statedemocracy.law.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1683/2025/08/Converse-1983-Explainer-Formatted-Final-8-1-25.pdf). I would hope the WA legislature would adopt a similar law next year.
I could go on, but what is the point. During a time when folks are being daily abducted, brutalized, and shot by the feds shouldn’t we put out energies into figuring how we can stop it versus quibbling over why we can’t?
@13 This has been litigated ad nauseam and you have been proven a fool. Go back to: https://www.thestranger.com/news/2025/05/09/80049644/the-ethics-code-showdown/comments/18
I said then & I will repeat, about your moronic claims regarding the SHRC & filing an amicus brief:
You say that I “told the members of the Seattle Human Rights Commission their commission had the powers of an independent body, and therefore could pursue litigation without the supervision of the City Attorney’s Office.” Absolutely false. The incident you are referring to regards a request I made to SHRC to file an amicus curiae brief with the Federal Court concerning the ongoing consent decree for federal oversight of the SPD. An amicus curiae brief, by definition and its very nature, is not litigation. Any entity or individual has the ability to file an amicus curiae brief, including the SHRC. Not complicated if one attends to facts.
https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I4cf8469eef2a11e28578f7ccc38dcbee/Amicus-Curiae?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)
The irony here is that you can look up my pubic statements and actions — all of which I very proudly stand by — because I use my actual name. I imagine that you, tensorna, have much to be embarrassed about, hence you predictably hide behind a phony moniker.
@16: lol, I’m glad to learn your suggestions about local police intervention against ICE were a joke! 😂 It certainly would be a joke if Seattle were ever to implement such an ill-advised policy in real life! 🤣
Even as a joke, you’re still botching the “probable cause” issue. Cops enforce criminal law, not abstract notions of justice, so if you want Seattle police to have probable cause to intervene in an ICE operation, you’ll need to establish a crime that ICE is probably committing. You’ve suggested “kidnapping,” but you haven’t provided an argument that unconstitutional immigration arrests, by themselves, constitute the crime of kidnapping (an argument id love to hear someone make). 😆 You’ve also suggested “deprivation of rights under color of law,” a federal crime which local police have no power to enforce. 😝 Contrary to many people’s intuition, not every violation of the law constitutes a crime – a fact for which we liberals feel grateful under most circumstances! 😉
Even if you could identify some crime that ICE in general regularly commits, you’d still be struck with the problem that probable cause requires particularized suspicion, not a generalized suspicion that “this is the type of person who is often commits crimes.” 😁 Probable cause must be established based on the facts of each particular incident, not legislated across an entire class of incidents. I think you’re cooked. 😂
Absent probable cause of a crime, the ability of Seattle police to “intervene” in ICE operations is no greater than your ability to intervene. You want someone to film ICE arrests and ask questions of ICE (questions which ICE would not be obligated to answer)? OK, fine, but we don’t need cops to do that work. That’s work every citizen can already do right now. 😄 So why is this a cop thing? This should be a you thing! 😆
It’s been an interesting discussion, but I think the bottom line is that local police are the wrong tool with which to fight federal immigration enforcement policy. There is a puckish appeal to your notion of pitting one group of cops against another group of cops, but it’s a notion that works better as a joke than as a policy proposal. The solution to unlawful federal policing is not unlawful local policing! 🤣
@17: Seattle Human Rights Commission often acts in a manner inconsistent with the law. Wait a minute!!! Doesn’t that mean Seattle police automatically have probable cause to intervene in Seattle Human Rights Commission operations?!! 😉 See @2 for details! 😂😂😂
@17
“During a time
when folks are being
daily abducted, brutalized,
and shot by the feds shouldn’t we
put out energies into figuring how we
can stop it versus quibbling over why we can’t?”
you don’t Understand, HJ:
thumpfnsorna T. Wormtongue
and Wormtongue thumpfnsorna*
are just here to destroy “Progressives”
“Progressivism” the Stranger and
see to it that Cadet Bonespurs
Remains in Power, well, his
FAMBLY, Anyway, for
Eternity, or until
the Death of
America
and,
Likely,
Humanity
which’s why they
Were / Are such Vocal
Supporters of Israel’s Genocide.
This is what
Fascism looks like.
brought to us
by lying scheeming
cunning propagandists
*ARE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT entities!
there is NO Sockbott/
Master-Puppeteer
type relationship!
@16
“… all that is being asked in the 36th LD Dems resolution
is that SPD intervene in actions which could be a
kidnapping by non-law enforcement folks
(this has happened)… ”
Bingo.
are they
White Slavers?
Sex Slavers
here to stock up
Mal-a-Lardo whilst
the gettin”s so Good?
or
merely
Serial Killers
running Low on Victims?
if we listen to
the thumpfnsorna
Wormtongues, they’ll
have Us sitting back terrified
whilst trumpftopian
Death Squads
roam free.
@17: As a theoretical matter, filing a brief with a court is the very definition of litigation, and you somehow forgot to quote anything from your citation at westlaw.com to show an exemption from this definition for an amicus curiae brief (or any other kind of brief).
As a practical matter, why didn’t the SHRC ever actually file an amicus curiae brief? Because, contrary to your fact-free bluster about how they had the power to do so, they actually didn’t; upon learning the SHRC intended to file a brief, the City Attorney’s Office shut them down quickly and hard — just as I wrote.
On my completely normal practice of using a pseudonym, you haven’t criticized anyone else here for so doing, so we can dispense with your lofty claim to have some principled opposition to the practice.
Finally, your comment in the previous Slog thread does not recount any court activity, so are you claiming that something was “litigated” in a Slog comment thread itself? Now that’s some more of the comedy gold we’ve learned to expect from you! For example:
@19: Nicely done! Gale’s setup of the SHRC’s members, appealing to their vanity self-images as valiant social justice warriors, then his utter abandonment of them after the very public smackdown their impertinence earned them, really makes for a hilarious story. It’s like a real-life version of a play where all of the characters are equally wrong and unsympathetic, and the story exists as an excuse for the audience to laugh at all of the characters’ self-inflicted misfortunes.
@22: Dumb ideas under the color of law were a hallmark of the Seattle Human Rights Commission in the early 2020s. They were more a source of racism than a remedy in those days. 🤣 Seems better nowadays, I think, but who knows maybe our new mayor Wilson will pack it full of horseshoe racists and turn em loose on the city once again! 😂
you’re absolutely
Correct, HJ:
“… all that is being asked in the 36th LD Dems resolution
is that SPD intervene in actions which could be a
kidnapping by non-law enforcement folks
(this has happened)… “
Bingo.
are they
White Slavers?
Sex Slavers
here to stock up
Mal-a-Lardo whilst
the gettin”s so Good?
or
merely
Serial Killers
running Low on Victims?
if we listen to
the thumpfnsorna
T. Wormtongues, they’ll
have Us sitting back, Terrified
whilst trumpftopian
Death Squads
roam free.
who’s
Side are
THEY On?
take a Wild
fucking
Guess.
Pervert-
ing the truth in-
to an attack on those cal-
ling it out is Manipulation 101.
@23: Other than their legal-brief smackdown from the (Republican-run!) City Attorneys Office, and their blessing of the Pride grift by Nikita Oliver’s campaign manager, what other nonsense did the SHRC get up to? (Link if you’ve got one.)
Mayor Wilson would face quite a challenge if she tried to find replacements as bad as the SHR Commissioners of that period, so we’ll see if she’s up for it! 😉