Austin's Latest Soap Opera: The Police Contract Saga

Buckle up, folks! It's been a hot minute since Austin city bigwigs and the police union shook hands on a tentative long-term contract, and the public pressure is cooking up like a Texas brisket.

Initially, city negotiators hoped the Austin City Council would vote on the deal during their meeting this week. But in a classic Friday news dump, the city announced they're pushing the vote back to Oct. 24. Why? To "allow more time to review and to gather additional public input." Translation: They're feeling the heat!

Council members will get a briefing on the proposed contract at their work session Tuesday. Brace yourselves for some fireworks!

This decision comes after various advocacy and local organizations, including the union representing nearly 4,500 city workers, came out swinging against the proposed contract. The deal would cost nearly $218 million over five years and give officers a 28% raise.

AFSCME 1624 dropped this truth bomb on Oct. 1: "The proposed $218 million police contract raises significant concerns regarding transparency and equity for the rest of Austin's workforce. While we support competitive wages for our police officers, we must also address the needs of essential services that keep our city running."

The city and the Austin Police Association have been contract-less for about a year and a half. Some officials see this long-term deal as the best way to boost recruitment and retention, with the Police Department currently having around 350 vacancies.

But disputes started bubbling up almost immediately after the handshake. Many involved language about compliance with the voter-approved Austin Police Oversight Act. The city says the contract complies with the act, but activists disagree.

Specifically, they've pointed to language about the G-file, a confidential personnel file held by the Police Department. Local activists have been fighting for years to end the use of the G-file, believing it discourages officer discipline. The association argues that making these files public would harm officers.

The contract ultimately got rid of the G-file, but disputes arose when the city and union agreed that pre-contract G-file material wouldn't be public. Activists said this didn't align with the oversight act. A Travis County civil judge then ruled that the city must discontinue its use of the G-file, leading the city to revisit the contract language.

When the contract was first released, the American-Statesman reported that those retroactive G-files wouldn't be released. Michael Bullock, president of the Austin Police Association, stated that was the agreement. But Bullock has since reversed his stance, telling other media outlets that the association doesn't believe the tentative contract allows for pre-existing G-file materials to be withheld.

Equity Action, the organization that got the oversight act on the ballot last year, has also said the contract violates another aspect of the charter by allowing officers to file grievances.

Kathy Mitchell, senior adviser for Equity Action, warned that allowing grievances could lead to some of the G-file provisions being reverted, based on the contract's wording.

Mike Siegel, who represents Equity Action and is running for City Council, sent a letter to the city's legal team on Sept. 30 highlighting these concerns about the G-file and grievances.

Grab your popcorn, folks! This contract saga is far from over.