In rare move, City Councilwoman Cathy Moore withdraws memo that raised concerns about loitering prostitutes bill

In an apparent attempt to quell concerns about her loitering prostitute bill, Seattle City Councilwoman Cathy Moore on Monday requested revisions to an independent analysis of the bill by civic center staff. Moore’s move deprived the public of crucial 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 legislation. Central staff analysts prepare independent memos that outline the expected outcomes of any bill, provide budget analysis, and discuss the potential pros and cons of the legislation. Central staff posts these memos as part of the agenda packs in advance of council meetings, so the public and council members can have an informed conversation about potential bills.

On Friday, staff sent out its first draft of a memo examining Moore’s bill to reinstate the city’s loitering prostitution law, as well as create a prostitution exclusion zone (SOAP) that judges could impose on people arrested or convicted of prostitution-related crimes. The 14-page report, written by central staff analyst Ann Gorman, lays out the basic facts of the bill, a brief history of the loitering law’s repeal in 2020, and relevant research on the effectiveness and outcomes of loitering laws and SOAP zones. The council’s public safety committee has scheduled a meeting on the bill for today.

However, on Monday, Central Personnel Director Ben Noble sent an updated version of the analysis, along with a note that staff had revised the memo after “some additional input from Councilman Moore,” according to an email from Noble obtained by The stranger. The new version of the memo was missing several sections that raised concerns about Moore’s bill, and unusually, Gorman’s name was also removed and replaced with a general attribution to “core staff.” The new version appeared more favorable to Moore’s bill because it removed two major concerns. (See a full comparison of the old and new memos here.)

The original memo referenced a 2024 PubliCola article in which a local defense attorney said she “didn’t think I’d ever had a ‘white English-speaking client’ accused of patronizing a prostitute.” Gorman’s memo expressed concern that the law could lead Seattle Police Department (SPD) officers to arrest a disproportionate number of sex buyers who were people of color. The memo also included information from SPD that its human trafficking unit had in the past arrested white men as part of its anti-prostitution operations.

In the new memo, this section has been deleted.

The new memo also removed a section that examined complaints from Moore, the SPD, and the City Attorney’s Office (CAO), saying they specifically wanted to use the new prostitution laws to target people who buy sex or exploit sex workers. The original memo notes that because the bill includes provisions criminalizing sex workers, it could lead to sex workers distrusting police and the CAO. The memo speculates that “victims will generally not be more willing to cooperate as witnesses against their traffickers.”

The memo also notes that the bill does not provide additional funding for diversion services or emergency housing for people trying to leave the sex trade, and victims may be skeptical of the city council’s plans to actually fund these things, adding to the distrust in the city council. Gorman’s concern, while not linked to any specific quote, echoes a criticism expressed by many service providers who work with people exploited in the sex trade. The section encourages the city council to continue to collaborate with sex worker organizations as a way to build trust.

In the new note, this section has also been deleted.

Noble’s email also included an updated version of the central staff memo regarding the proposed Stay Out of Drug Area (SODA), and the updated version mimicked some of the changes in the other central staff memo, including removing a line about how both bills could be seen as a missed opportunity to understand the root causes of sex work and drug use. (See a full comparison of the old and new SODA memos here.)

Central staff analysts typically present potential counterarguments and contrasting viewpoints in their reports to the council, and Gorman's suggestion that arresting someone may not be the best way to encourage them to cooperate with police seems entirely consistent with a typical central staff report. The removal of this section, which undermined a key theory of Moore's bill, appears to be an attempt to make the report more sympathetic to Moore's argument for the law.

These reports are meant to be nonpartisan to help the public and the Council better understand the context of a bill. Former Councilwoman Lorena González said it was fairly common for central staff to ask council members for their opinions on a central staff memo, especially on a controversial issue, and to check for incomplete or inaccurate information. However, González said it was not common to ask for changes “for the purpose of creating a political outcome.” She added that given the removal of the analyst’s name and other information, central staff should explain why they changed their memo.

Moore did not immediately respond to questions from THE Stranger regarding whether and/or why she pressured central staff to remove sections of the memo. Gorman and Noble also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Moore’s bill has been roundly criticized by more than two dozen anti-violence, anti-trafficking, LGBTQ+ rights organizations, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Washington. In fact, Shannon Darby, who helped found the Accountable Communities Consortium, which works to combat domestic and sexual violence in communities, and who has worked to organize opposition to Moore’s bill, said that no anti-gender violence organizations currently openly support the bill.