Potential police contract attacked on two fronts: Oversight advocates and city workers say it will be costly and weaken police transparency – News

The City Council could approve a new contract between the city and the Austin Police Association a week from today, but pressure against it is mounting.

Justice advocates have been sounding the alarm for days that the contract could undo reforms to the voter-approved Austin Police Oversight Act. Now AFSCME Local 1624 — the union that represents 4,500 city workers — is also raising concerns about how this could bloat the city budget.

Police oversight advocates have focused on a part of the contract that they fear would allow the city to keep the “G-File,” which keeps records of officer misconduct investigations confidential. They interpret the contract language to preserve the confidentiality of certain pre-contract misconduct records, even though a Travis County judge recently ruled that the city’s maintenance of a G-file was unlawful under the oversight law.

A memo from Interim Attorney Deborah Thomas released Tuesday, Oct. 1, makes clear the city does not believe this is the case. “All records relating to misconduct by police officers – regardless of whether the conduct occurred before or after the law came into effect [contract]is not confidential,” Thomas wrote in the memo.

“I don’t see how we can move forward.” – Councilor Chito Vela

But APA President Michael Bullock disagrees, he said statesman On Sept. 27, he opined that the contract language was “pretty straightforward” because it applied G-file protections to records of misconduct before the contract was signed. Bullock did not respond to our request for comment.

If the contract is signed, it could open the door for the APA to weaken the Oversight Act through contract arbitration. The APA could file a complaint because the city is violating the terms of the contract by disclosing misconduct records that were previously confidential because of the G-File. An independent arbitrator would then resolve the dispute.

Justice advocates warn that this is the APA’s real goal, to dismantle the Oversight Act through contract appeals – a tactic they use to undermine the oversight system set forth in the 2018 police contract. “The City cannot agree to the current agreement because it is clear that no agreement exists,” board members of Equity Action, the equity advocacy organization that drafted the Oversight Act, wrote in an Oct. 1 letter to City Manager TC Broadnax.

APA President Michael Bullock (Photo by Jana Birchum)

Council member Chito Vela shares Equity Action’s concerns. After asking the city to clarify its position on the G-file issue, he asks Bullock to do the same. “I am fully aware of what happened with the previous contract,” Vela said. “I would like the APA to make a public statement acknowledging that it agrees with the legal department’s understanding of the contract.”

If not, Vela added, “I don’t see a way for us to move forward.”

The city’s budget office estimates the five-year contract will cost $218 million, but has not yet provided a more thorough financial analysis of how the contract would affect the city’s budget. For example, the APA argues that increasing officer salaries will help the APD hire more officers, which should reduce the department’s overtime spending. But by how much?

Because state law prevents cities from cutting police spending, the contract would require the council to invest at least $40 million in APD’s budget each year indefinitely. But there are also costs outside of the contract that drive up the APD’s budget every year. Add in the $40 million per year wage obligation, and it’s possible the 10-year cost of the contract could exceed $500 million.

How is the city supposed to pay for this? Cutting services? Cut the city’s emergency reserves? Increase taxes? Budget staff may be drafting answers to all of those questions, but a city spokesman said they do not plan to release a financial study until the contract is placed on the council’s agenda, which could happen Friday, Oct. 4 – so less than a week before the vote would take place.

The contract’s potential to blow a hole in the budget led AFSCME to take the rare step of publicly criticizing another union’s collective bargaining agreement. In a news release, AFSCME officials described “serious concerns” about the contract’s impact on the city’s “ability to adequately fund other critical city services.” Union officials said their members feel “on the menu as department budgets and staff face cuts.”