Dear patrons and community,
Some of you may have read or heard about a Feb. 23 article published by the Urbanist regarding implementation of The Seattle Public Library’s Community Use Agreement under the supervision of Library Environment and Security Manager Andrea “Andee” Walton.
The Library has significant concerns about the claims made in the article and the alleged evidence used to make those claims. In the interest of transparency, clarity, and maintaining your trust, we want to provide you thorough information that addresses several factual errors made in the piece.
First, it’s important to note that neither the writer nor the Urbanist gave the Library a chance to respond to most of the claims made before publication, such as whether any Library data indicate that unhoused people are being negatively impacted by the CUA (none do) or whether Walton directed officers to sweep the Central Plaza at night (she did not).
The premise of the article instead relies on quotes from a small number of anonymous sources and an incorrect assumption that an uptick in 911 calls is leading to negative impacts for people who are unhoused. They did not request details about these 911 incidents.
The Urbanist also chose not to include any language from the CUA itself, or share background on how the CUA was developed with community members at the table, including youth and people experiencing homelessness.
While it is still early in our implementation, the Library is already seeing positive outcome from the CUA, including fewer and shorter suspensions of Library patrons. While this implementation is still a work in progress, we are proud of these initial outcomes.
Finally, the writer of the article is a founder of the volunteer police watchdog group DivestSPD, which would suggest that extra care be taken by the publication to fact-check and assess potential bias of an article that is critical of a former police officer.
Here are specific responses to unsupported claims in the article.
Is there any evidence to suggest that the Library is “excluding people more,” or that there is a “security crackdown” on unhoused people under the leadership of Ms. Walton, as the article claims?
No. In fact:
- Library data clearly show patron suspensions are going down:
They also show that patrons who exhibit disruptive but non-violent behaviors in our spaces are receiving shorter suspensions. This is one of the intended outcomes of the CUA and is a positive sign from the first seven months of its implementation.
As you can see in the data table published in the Urbanist article, the Library recorded 31 fewer suspensions in 2025 than in 2023, and the number of medium- to long-term suspensions dropped by 41, while shorter suspensions have increased by 10. This impact is by design to favor fewer and shorter suspensions for more minor infractions, ensuring we are not unnecessarily withholding access to Library services for a patron who may have simply had a bad day.
In the table showing suspension data, the Urbanist did not note the reason 2024 suspensions were lower than 2025, which was due to a ransomware attack that disrupted Library systems for several months, and led to many fewer library visits, and therefore fewer library incidents. The Urbanist has since corrected this omission by adding a note to the table showing suspension data.
- Incident and 911 call data do not support the article’s premise:
The Library’s 911 incident data does not support the Urbanist’s claim that an uptick in 911 calls from Q4 2023 to Q4 2025 is the result of an “enforcement surge” unfairly impacting unhoused people. In fact, the uptick appears to be related to the fact that the Library started collecting data about 911 calls made by patrons when a new incident report form was implemented in July 2025. Prior to this, only staff-initiated 911 calls were logged.
Patrons may call 911 from Library locations for reasons such as theft of personal property, escaping domestic abuse, or witnessing a crime in the neighborhood. This is a sign that our community views us as a safe space they can go to seek help.
After reviewing incident report narratives for 911 calls made between October to December 2025, it shows that most incidents were either medical calls and/or calls initiated by patrons. Only the most serious incidents – such as robbery, assault on staff or other patrons, threats with a weapon, indecent exposure, refusal to leave when asked due to disruption – involved staff calling police for assistance. These call types account for 28 of the 71 calls made during that period across all locations. These are the types of calls where longer Library suspensions are applied.
- The Library does not keep a record of the housing status of its patrons:
Importantly, when responding to an incident, the Library does not track the housing status of individuals involved in incidents, which would violate our confidentiality policy and create a disclosable record with sensitive information about a vulnerable group of patrons.
The Library is also unable to analyze patron records to determine housing status for several reasons, including that we don’t record housing status in patron records, also in alignment with our values and mission. We do not ask for any information from patrons to spend time in our spaces, and we ask for minimal personal data when patrons sign up for a Library card or computer guest pass because of a strong commitment to patron privacy and intellectual freedom.
Therefore, any assessment of the housing status of those involved in incidents would be speculative.
Did Ms. Walton direct officers to start sweeping around the Central Library nightly?
No. Ms. Walton never directed Security Officers to conduct nightly sweeps around the Central Library.
In response to documented incidents of damage to Library property after hours and complaints by nearby residents that there was illegal and dangerous activity occurring around the Central Library after hours, Administrative Services director Rob Gannon asked Library Security Officers to conduct emphasis patrols at night for a few weeks in September 2025 to observe and gather data. They did not observe any dangerous activities. Security Officers stopped those patrols in late September 2025.
Under Ms. Walton’s oversight, Security Officers continue to conduct morning wellness checks around the Central Library, as they did prior to her hire, to ensure that building entrances are safe and accessible at opening.
Did Ms. Walton propose adding floodlights and hostile architecture to prevent homeless people from sleeping outside the Library?
No. New exterior lighting was installed at the Central Library to improve nighttime safety at the request of downtown Seattle residents. Ms. Walton had nothing to do with this work. No floodlights have been installed, and no “hostile architecture” has been proposed or installed. At no point has Ms. Walton directed Security Officers to change their approach to serving patrons sheltering outside Library locations.
Did Ms. Walton direct security officers to document minor infractions to justify longer suspensions?
No. Ms. Walton has not directed Security Officers to document minor CUA violations to justify longer suspensions.
The Library’s incident reporting guidelines, which were used starting on August 1, 2025, three days before Ms. Walton began her job, state that minor CUA violations that result in having to ask a patron to correct their behavior or leave for the day do not generally warrant an incident report. However, minor violations that are repeated and uncorrected, or that may escalate in the future, may warrant an incident report for the awareness of Library staff. Ms. Walton has only directed Security Officers to comply with the Library’s policy and guidelines as stated.
Did Ms. Walton extend a patron’s suspension length by a month for using a fake name to use a Library computer, categorizing the minor violation as identity theft?
No. The patron in question originally received a two-year suspension for repeatedly assaulting two Security Officers, injuring one, at the Lake City Branch in March, 2025.
In late Aug. 2025, the patron returned during active suspension to the Northgate Branch and used a fake name and date of birth to obtain a guest pass to circumvent his suspension, which prohibits access to Library services. His suspension was extended by one month not because of using a fake name but because he returned during an active suspension for assault, which is a serious violation. We believe the extension was appropriate and helped protect staff and patron safety.
Did Ms. Walton impose suspensions of several months on people who act out nonviolently while in a behavioral crisis?
No. Ms. Walton has never imposed suspensions of several months in response to a patron experiencing a non-violent behavioral crisis.
Patrons experiencing non-violent behavioral crises may be asked to correct their behavior or leave the Library for the day if they are disrupting Library operations or Library use by other patrons.
Ms. Walton has been working to uphold and advance the goals of the CUA in collaboration with the Security team, Library leadership, and managers across the system. The CUA emphasizes patron success, an equitable approach to managing our spaces, harm reduction, and collaborative decision-making.
Is an automatic one-year suspension applied if Library staff call 911 about a patron, as the article claims?
No. The Library does not issue an automatic one-year suspension when 911 is called for SPD assistance to resolve an incident with a patron.
Library staff and Security Officers are required to call 911 in emergency incidents involving threats to public health or safety, significant physical injuries, major damage to Library property or facilities, or when serious illegal activities occur on or near Library property.
They may also call for an SPD response when unable to resolve an incident with a patron who is disrupting Library operations or use and refuses to correct their behavior or leave the Library for the day. These are not new practices.
When Library staff call 911 for SPD assistance to resolve an incident with a patron, SPD typically issues the patron a one-year trespass and it then becomes a crime for the patron to return to the Library during that one-year period. When SPD issues a one-year trespass, the Library issues a corresponding one-year suspension. This was a recent adjustment made to reduce confusion between trespass vs. suspension lengths, which were previously out of alignment. When SPD does not issue a trespass, any suspensions issued by the Library are based on established guidelines relating to the severity of the CUA violation at issue.
Have library staff received adequate training about the CUA and its enforcement?
Library staff received significant training before the CUA went into effect and receive ongoing support as well. Before the CUA went into effect, all Library staff were assigned a mandatory eLearn on the CUA; virtual drop-in sessions on the CUA and enforcement were made available (and were well-attended) for all staff; and Library Regional Managers and Branch managers participated in 4-hour in-person trainings so that they could then train their teams during group meetings and 1-1 coaching sessions.
A month after the CUA went into effect, all Library staff who enforce the CUA were assigned an additional training that covered basic strategies to use when approaching and engaging patrons about potential CUA violations. A CUA playbook, which includes detailed explanations and hypothetical scenarios, was provided to help managers train staff, and is available for all staff to use.
Regional and branch managers, and security officers are always available to provide guidance and answer questions; and the Library’s Security Team regularly visits different branches to provide in-person de-escalation training.
Why did the Library hire a Library Environment and Security Manager if she was on the Brady List?
The Library takes seriously any potentially concerning findings in our hiring processes. We are aware of the circumstances that led to Ms. Walton’s inclusion on the Brady List, (a record of disclosures involving law enforcement officers that includes officer misconduct, public complaints, and other disclosures relevant to due process), and we do not believe they are a serious concern. Despite being placed on this list, Ms. Walton is not prevented from being hired or promoted by law enforcement agencies, or from testifying in court. The Brady List itself states that inclusion on the list “does not equate to a finding by our office that the individual’s veracity has been called into question.