The era of labor contracts between the City of Austin and its police officers is over. The customized 2018 labor contract expired, and Austin PD rolled back to operating under basic Chapter 143 state civil service rules. Recent statements by City Council Members saying they want to reach a labor agreement if only the Austin Police Association would return to the table fails to acknowledge or address the hurdles in the way.
Why it matters: The labor contract was Austin’s way to custom tailor labor rules governing APD to suit Austin’s needs. Without a labor contract, labor rules move out of Austin’s discretion back the State of Texas.
How did this happen? In short:
- City Council chose not to vote on the tentatively agreed-to contract to instead wait for a Proposition A vote. Prop A passed in the May 2023 election with 5% of Austinites voting for Prop A.
- Following the 2017 experience, officers knew that civil service rules under Chapter 143 (subchapter I, sections 143.301 to 143.313 are specific to Austin) are a better deal for them than Prop A (more on that below).
- Austin City Council will not vote to overturn or modify Prop A to make it acceptable to officers.
- Officers are happy to forego bargaining and stay under Chapter 143 indefinitely.
If you’re new to “meet and confer” labor contract bargaining, it’s like pre-planning a road trip with your friends. You decide whose car you’ll take, who will pay for what, what hotels you will stay at, where you go, and what you will or will not do. Each road trip is unique and depends on what your interests are at the time.
With police labor contracts, the decisions revolve around how much bureaucracy and oversight will be piled on officers, how promotions will work, guardrails to protect officers from arbitrary and unfair discipline, compensation arrangements, and other goodies for both the City and officers.
But all of these goodies can only happen in civil service if both the City and its officers reach a labor agreement to expand on or modify civil service rules. Otherwise State civil service law, in this case Chapter 143, provides the default rules.
Why won’t Austin just go back to bargaining a new labor contract?
So… what are we bargaining over?
“Prior to any City Council action to approve any proposed agreement affecting Austin Police Department personnel, the City Attorney shall certify whether or not the proposed contract is consistent with and fulfills each provision of this Chapter.” – Prop A provision.
Imagine labor contract bargaining as a dinner table, and the activist kid and the police kid at the table can bargain over what foods they want to take from the middle of the table and put on their plate. This provision of Prop A is effectively the activist kid at the table saying, “I don’t like the rules, so I went and asked mom and she said I can take 99% of everything in the middle of the table, and you can bargain over the remaining 1%.”
What is the point of the police kid bargaining over what’s left? There isn’t a point.
Especially if the police kid at the table can say, “I’m just gonna opt out of this bargaining process and go with mom and dad’s old rules that I was OK with. I’ll take my half of what’s on the table and go eat in the game room, thank you.“
Precluding cops from bargaining over what concerns them is the first poison pill to bargaining under Prop A.
Oversight by felons?
Appointing people with felony criminal records to serve on police oversight boards was an unfulfilled activist demand from the 2017-2018 labor contract cycle. Self-described gang members, including one who notably identified himself as a “five-time felon,” took turns during public commentary at City Hall ahead of the 2017 vote to argue that they should have decision-making authority over police department functions.
Unsurprisingly, allowing gang members and felons to oversee the Department was not included in the labor contract.
But Prop A’s section 2-15-4 Community Police Review Commission language regarding eligibility to serve on the commission picked up where the 2017 framework left off and allows (or attempts to allow) felons to serve. 2-15-4’s wording that, “To be eligible for appointment to the Commission … No other eligibility requirements may be instituted except by amendment to this ordinance” reflects this.
What are the requirements listed for appointment?
- Not related to any member of the police department
- Never worked for a police department
- Never been a police officer.
- …and no other eligibility requirements…
According to Prop A, what could felons on oversight boards do?
- “Review any investigation… in response to the request for a review by a complainant.” Who is a complainant? Anyone who makes a complaint.
- “Have access to all necessary records of the department…” This means what it says. Felons could comb through police databases.
Why would police officers agree to a labor contract that allows felons to dig through police databases or oversee the officers who arrested them in the first place? There is no reason.
This is the second poison pill to bargaining under Prop A.
No ability to arbitrate unfair decisions?
The point of civil service is to “secure efficient fire and police departments composed of capable personnel who are free from political influence and who have permanent employment tenure as public servants.” – Chapter 143.001 Purpose
What does Prop A do? 2-15-7 prohibits the City Council from, “approv[ing] any contract or agreement… if such contract allows police personnel to file grievances based upon actions of the City, the Office or the Commission…”
So in other words, if the City or oversight personnel cause unfair harm, subject officers to unwarranted behavior, or flat out violate their rights, officers are prohibited from filing a grievance to ask for the problem to be fixed.
The entire point of civil service and labor negotiations is fairness in the workplace.
What is the point of bargaining a labor contract that allows oversight bodies to run roughshod over employees rights? There isn’t one.
This is the third poison pill to bargaining under Prop A.
Removing security of police records?
Complaints against officers typically arise while officers work the scene of a 911 call or crime. While officers investigate the scene of a crime, their body worn cameras and reports record:
- The interior of Austinites’ private residences
- Embarrassing details of peoples’ private lives
- child custody disputes
- sex-related incidents
- business failures
- family problems
- substance addictions
- mental health
The public has an interest in ensuring their private affairs are not publicized to the world simply because a crime was committed against them and they spoke with law enforcement.
For this reason, police body cam video and reports are protected inside locked facilities with security cameras on computers protected by passwords in software protected by more passwords under threat of criminal penalty for unlawfully releasing those records.
This is why you don’t see police records, except those cases that have been adjudicated by a court, floating around on the internet.
People who investigate allegations of police misconduct would have access to those files in order to know what and why an officer did whatever they did that led to the misconduct allegation. In previous labor contract agreements, civilian oversight access to these files was only in-person and strictly controlled by Internal Affairs personnel. Random people with zero law enforcement experience appointed to oversight commissions did not have independent access to these files.
Prop A deletes the entirety of this file security arrangement by allowing “secure online access to all necessary materials for as long as they require.” Who is “they?” The Community Police Review Commission – the same Commission that allows felons and anyone with zero law enforcement experience to serve on it.
Why is this a problem?
Picture a random gang member or unscrupulous member of the Community Police Review Commission sitting in a house with friends or at Starbucks with a laptop playing any body cam video they feel like or showing any police database record for anyone around them to see and record with their cell phones.
The City brought up online access during the 2017-2018 labor contract discussion, and for obvious record security reasons the Austin Police Association rejected it.
Nevermind that the State of Texas and Federal government would immediately yank Austin PD’s access to criminal justice information system (CJIS) databases for gross security violations even if the City implemented the remote CJIS access for randos part of Prop A.
This is the fourth poison pill to bargaining under Prop A.
So… Chapter 143 rules forever, then?
Local ballot propositions don’t overrule state or federal law, so the City won’t implement much of Prop A.
However, Prop A’s provisions described above, plus many more provisions in Prop A, still remain a barrier to labor contract bargaining.
Only City Council can correct problems with ballot proposition language. Until City Council finds the courage to go against the wishes of the dozen usual activists at City Hall and fix Prop A, labor contract negotiation can’t resume.
There is no indication that City Council will do this.
Even if they did, the philosophical beliefs and expectations of the activists drifted far away from what everyday police officers are willing to accept. Not only would Council members have to overturn Prop A, but also agree to a contract against the demands of activists.
The probability of this is so low that one might reasonably conclude that the era of police labor contract bargaining in Austin is over.
I feel the decision by the APA years ago to work “under contract “ was a bad decision. In my years as an Austin Police Officer, I lobbied against it, as the people of the city we were sworn to protect deserved better. I knew, as did most officers, we would never strike, never stop doing the job we loved, never turn the city over to the lawless groups, thugs and low life that now run the city.
Progressive politics now prevails over the rule of law, creating lawlessness in the city I was born in, making it a cesspool of crime and depravity.. Whats bad has become good and what’s good is now bad.
Austin now is a place where criminals have the run of the streets. Austin has become a place that is no longer safe to raise a family, as persons that commit burglary, theft, assault and murder are arrested, but, thru the actions of its “progressive” district attorney are let out of jail on little or no bail…sometimes before the arresting officers finish their paperwork. The offenders then become even more emboldened to commit ever more crimes. As a result, crime has skyrocketed to levels never seen before. The streets are no longer safe for parents to raise their families, to flourish. In short, we have become a city akin to San Francisco, Chicago, Portland, New York, just to name a few of an ever growing list.
All of this was caused by a city council that decided to cut it’s police force by half. This was done by cutting funding and cadet classes for the training of new officers. As a result, the Austin Police Department is greatly undermanned and undermined.
These guardians of safety, the “Thin Blue Line” were called to stand in the gap between out of state rioters and anarchists who were trying to destroy all that was good in Austin. Our officers did their job as best as they could. During the riots, the council tied their hands and tried to keep them from taking action to stop the anarchists and thugs that were trying to destroy Austin. NOW, these officers who had been spat on, had rocks and bottles of frozen water, fireworks exploding around and into them for days and days, are being prosecuted by an out of control admitted communist district attorney. All of this is intended to create a diversion and disharmony in the city. He is pandering to the criminal element in Austin, plain and simple. He and the rest of the “progressives” on the council and in the city of Austin apparently want crime and evil to prevail in Austin. In short, to destroy our way of life.
Austin used to be a great city, a city that people wanted to live in, vacation in. I was born in Austin, raised my family here. I used to be proud of the city I loved. Now, I am subjected to ridicule when I tell people where I’m from.
All they know of Austin is what they see on the news and it’s not pretty. They don’t want to come here to visit my city because of what it has become. It’s was a beautiful city of rolling hills and football and music. Now it is homeless, drugs, lawlessness and filth. It has become a laughingstock, a place of ridicule.
It has become all of this because of a lack of backing of the officers of the Austin Police Department by Austin’s City Council. You start standing behind our officers and we can regain what our city was. Learn from your mistakes of defunding your security and those who would protect the city of Austin from harm. Allow the men and women of the Austin Police Department to do their jobs as they were hired to do. Support them, back them and they will return Austin to what it was.
Thank you for your time.