Compared to the semi-uproar that erupted when a new draft Code of Conduct for Seattle Parks was presented to the Parks Board a month ago, there wasn’t much attention when the board voted on a revised code this past Thursday night. We couldn’t make the meeting but checked in with Alki-residing board chair Jackie Ramels on Friday to ask what happened. First, she points out, 80% of the code – “25 existing rules and regulations pertaining to parks” – is from the Seattle Municipal Code, Revised Code of Washington, or current Parks Policy and Procedures. Six new rules/regulations were added. And there were some changes from the last revision of the draft code. Ramels says:
The proposed Code of Conduct passed, with some changes; these are pertaining to new rules:
1. we re-worded and shortened the bathroom one (improper use of restrooms)
2. smoking and use of tobacco products we recommended for playgrounds, playfields and beaches within 25 ft. of another person, rather than ALL parks
3. the other new proposed rules, we passed
She adds, “We made some additional recommendations pertaining to existing rules” – including expanding the language about dog owners cleaning up after their pets, “owner carry scoop equipment AND USE IT,” and recommending that Parks “coordinate with other city departments to address homelessness — a topic that came up several times during the public hearing two weeks earlier, which also saw passionate testimony for and against a total smoking ban. Final say on the Code of Conduct rests with the City Council; it’ll show up first in the Parks Committee, which has its next meeting Thursday, 9:30 am (though its agenda for that meeting isn’t online yet). The committee’s chair, Councilmember Sally Bagshaw, was at the Thursday night Parks Board meeting. Parks Board side note from Ramels: “Last week the board had a nice breakfast with most of the living former board chairs (there are seven total). Of the five who attended, two are from West Seattle: Bruce Bentley and Margaret Ceis.”
Editor’s note postscript – As pointed out later in comments, this does NOT go to the City Council – it’s an administrative rule.