Austin's Police Contract Drama: A Liberal's Sarcastic Recap

Oh, the drama! It's been nearly two weeks since Austin and the police union sealed a tentative contract with a handshake—and the public outcry has been cooking.

Initially, city negotiators hoped the Austin City Council would vote on this hot potato this week. Surprise, surprise! On Friday, the city announced it was pushing back the vote to Oct. 24. Why? To "allow more time to review and to gather additional public input." Translation: “We need a minute to feel the room."

Council members will get a briefing on the proposed contract at their work session Tuesday. Buckle up, folks!

This decision to delay a vote comes after various advocacy and local organizations, including the union representing nearly 4,500 city workers, voiced their grievances. The proposed contract, which would cost nearly $218 million over five years and give officers a 28% raise, has been met with a collective "yeah, but what about us?" from other city workers.

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

Austin and the Austin Police Association have been without a contract for about a year and a half. Some officials see this long-term deal as the best way to boost recruitment and retention, especially with about 350 vacancies in the Police Department (shocking, right?).

But the drama doesn't stop there. Disputes cropped up almost immediately after the contract was agreed upon, especially about compliance with the voter-approved Austin Police Oversight Act.

The city claims the proposed contract complies with the act. Activists, not so much. Specifically, they’ve taken issue with the G-file, a confidential personnel file that allegedly contained misconduct allegations and internal affairs investigations that never resulted in discipline.

Local activists have been fighting for years to end the use of the G-file, believing it was a "get out of jail free" card for bad behavior. The contract ultimately got rid of the G-file, but activists argue that pre-existing G-file material should be made public, in line with the oversight act.

A Travis County civil judge ruled that the city must discontinue use of the G-file per the oversight act, leading the city to revisit its language in the contract.

Initially, the American-Statesman reported that retroactive G-files would not be released, with Michael Bullock, president of the Austin Police Association, stating this was part of the contract agreement.

City Council members, led by José "Chito" Vela, started asking for clarity. Interim City Attorney Deborah Thomas sent a memo last week stating that the contract does not allow for any type of legacy G-file material, and the city would release all G-file materials, retroactively and proactively.

Bullock has since reversed his stance, telling other media outlets that the association does not believe the tentative contract allows for pre-existing G-file materials to be withheld. Bullock did not return a Statesman request for comment.

Equity Action, the organization behind last year’s oversight act ballot measure, also argues that the contract violates another aspect of the charter by allowing officers to file grievances, which they say weakened the Office of Police Oversight.

Kathy Mitchell, senior adviser for Equity Action, who attended many negotiation sessions, said allowing grievances could revert to allowing pre-existing G-file materials to be withheld. Mike Siegel, who represents Equity Action and is running for City Council, sent a letter to the city’s legal team Sept. 30 highlighting these concerns about the G-file and grievances.

Stay tuned, folks. The drama is far from over! 🍿🍿