Cascade Party

Seattle Social Housing

Building Government

October 18, 2025 Seattle Social Housing meeting report.

By Chiara Feider-Blazer (November 6, 2025)

The regular session started with an overview of the new educational materials produced by board member Julie Howe. These materials now consist of eight informational videos that explain the different processes SSH goes through in various areas. The two newest videos provide an explanation of how SSH acquires a building, and a high-level explanation of how the board works with different advisors and planners.

Howe is also working on developing a board policy on their education, mainly on what order to watch the aforementioned videos, but also proposing the idea of a “board buddy” that would assist new board members. So far, Howe has hosted one Zoom session for the purpose of allowing people to ask questions and gather feedback on the current educational materials, but has stated a willingness to schedule another.

It is clear that the new Board Treasurer, Brian Abeel, takes his role seriously. Despite accidentally screen-sharing a document with information that was not meant to be public, which was quickly rectified, Abeel had only positive financial news to share. (It is unclear what information contained within the document was not meant to be seen by the public.)

The SSH Treasurer shared an estimate on the amount of tax revenue they would be receiving from the city in early 2026. While a range of $40-$80 million was given, it is believed the final amount will be roughly $65 million in revenue for Seattle Social Housing.

More positive news followed, as SSH is currently underspending according to the revised and approved budget by $211,000, specifically underspending on professional services and employee salaries.

The reason Abeel gave is that SSH has not utilized as many external consultants as budgeted, nor have they hired as many new employees.

However, Abeel did note that SSH was spending more than budgeted on legal fees.

Regarding the ongoing investigation of allegations made against Seattle Social Housing’s CEO, Roberto Jiménez, there was not much of an update.

SSH and its hired investigators are in the process of scheduling final interviews, but the investigator has all the necessary documents and materials. The investigator has agreed to attend the November meeting to give an oral report of their findings. It is unclear if the report will be given only to the executive committee or during the regular session, as it is the employees’ decision whether the results are made public or not.

The Communications Committee also gave a general update, having been busy during their previous meeting. The Communications Committee is working on updating the new website and does not expect to be able to get content from the previous website back.

There was no mention of the purported lawsuit involving the group’s former IT person. This individual became disgruntled and locked SSH out of their own website for a period last summer.

The committee has also been working on updates to the Communication Committee’s charter, in an effort to more accurately reflect how they now function and be more inclusive of consultant feedback.

There is a lack of alignment regarding the roles and expectations of both the CEO and the board members, which was readily apparent throughout the entire meeting. While some board members wished to conduct a one-year evaluation for the CEO, other members were vehemently opposed.

Spearheading the opposition was Board Chair Tom Barnard, who argued that the lack of a clearly defined CEO role would be harmful to the evaluation. Instead, Barnard argued that the SSH Board should wait until after working with a board development consultant and clarifying the duties and responsibilities of the CEO position to carry out a performance review. The argument devolved into whether board members should be policing the CEO prior to policing themselves, and they need to “get the board more educated before going after the CEO”.

Overall, very little of housing was discussed, and even less action was taken, throughout the two-hour board meeting.