ORDER

JAMES L. ROBART, District Judge.

This matter comes before the court on a stipulated motion by Plaintiff United States of America ("the Government") and Defendant City of Seattle ("the City") regarding creation of the Seattle Police Department's ("SPD") future accountability system. (Stip. (Dkt. # 297).)

During spring 2016, various participants engaged in a working group to discuss the optimal accountability system for the SPD. (See id. at 1-2.) At the conclusion of these meetings, the parties and amicus curie filed pleadings related to their discussions. (Dkt. ## 289-91.) Those pleadings indicate that elements of a potential future accountability system implicate provisions of the Consent Decree in this matter. (See Stip. at 3.) Accordingly, such elements require court approval. (See Consent Decree (Dkt. ## 3-1, 8, 13) ¶ 219; see also Stip. at 2-3.)

In the instant stipulated motion, the Government and the City request that the court approve "the City of Seattle's plan for its legislative authority to draft and consider legislation concerning the City's police accountability system." (Stip. at 6 (proposed order).) The parties also acknowledge that any legislative proposal may not conflict with the terms or purpose of the Consent Decree. (Id. at 2, 4.)

The parties stipulate, and the court agrees, that any legislative proposal that implicates the provisions of the Consent Decree requires court approval. (Id. at 3.) The question is when should that review take place? The parties propose that the court conduct its review only after "legislation is passed, finalized and provided to the Court." (Id. at 4.) The parties' proposal is inefficient in that it deprives the City of critical court guidance in shaping SPD accountability systems to ensure that the elements adhere to the terms and purpose of the Consent Decree. The parties' proposal also potentially places the court in the undesirable position of having to "veto" completed legislation. The court has no desire to waste the time of City Council Members who might be placed in the position of considering, debating, and passing proposed legislation that the court ultimately finds is inconsistent with the terms or purpose of the Consent Decree. The better procedure, and the one more likely to achieve adherence to the terms and purpose of the Consent Decree, is for the court to conduct its review prior to City Council and mayoral action. The court therefore GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the parties' stipulated motion (Dkt. # 297) and ENTERS the following order:

The court authorizes the City to draft legislation concerning SPD's accountability systems. Any such legislation shall not be presented to the Seattle City Council until the court has had an opportunity to review it. Within 90 calendar days of the court's receipt of the proposed legislation, the court will endeavor to review the legislation to ensure that it does not conflict with the terms or purpose of the Consent Decree. If the court finds that such a conflict exists, the court will issue an order advising the parties of (a) which aspects of the legislation, if any, the court believes conflict with the terms of the Consent Decree, and (b) which aspects of the legislation, if any, the court believes conflict with the purpose of the Consent Decree. Once the court approves the proposed legislation, it may be submitted to the City Council. If the adopted legislation contains terms previously disapproved by the court, or new terms the court has not previously reviewed, the City shall then resubmit the proposed legislation to the court for additional review and approval.