Friday, May 14, 2010

Long-ago concessions by city contract negotiators delayed release of report on police shooting

In Austin, the report (large pdf) from an independent investigation into a controversial police shooting a year ago was finally made public yesterday. Portions of the report which had been previously released did not include allegations of "reckless" behavior. Here's a sampling of initial coverage:
KVUE explains that the City had to ask permission from the police union to release the document because of language agreed to in a 2004 labor contract (provisions that I and others spent months fighting at the time) that restricted public information about police misconduct even beyond the already-generous exceptions in state civil service law:

Austin Assistant City Manager Michael McDonald says the city's initial reluctance to release the full report was due to the wording in its 2004 contract with the Austin Police Association.

"It is pretty restrictive," said McDonald."

But at the instruction of the city manger, McDonald says he called the president of the Austin Police Association and they decided the language in the contract did allow for the release of information in certain independent investigations. As for why they didn't come to this agreement when the report was first released....

"In hindsight we would have liked for that to have occurred," said McDonald.

It's angering to me that, in so many ways, that one rotten contract in 2004 continues to haunt the City, both from an accountability perspective and because Austin's absurdly high police salaries have driven public safety costs through the roof. In the '90s I was part of a campaign called the Sunshine Project for Police Accountability that worked to establish Austin's Police Monitor office. But after losing the fight over that 2004 union contract, I took a hiatus from City politics surrounding the police department, disgusted by the players at city hall and angered that a five-year contract contained so many provisions that bloated the budget and reduced accountability and transparency. Since then I've let others slug it out case by case without me, believing that as long as the contract is in place, pushing for more accountable police in Austin is a fool's errand, literally requiring (as we see here) permission from the police union to do anything the public might recognize as oversight. Kudos to those like Jim Harrington and Debbie Russell who've carried on, but they're playing out the hand with a stacked deck. Clearly the same problems exist today that inspired creation of the Police Monitor's office in the first place - the process is just typically too opaque for the public to notice.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Does the police-city contract trump Texas Open Records law if a request for the report was made under Open Records?

My guess is no. Am I wrong?

R. Shackleford said...

The Blue Wall strikes again. So wrong on so many levels. I notice that Texas isn't even mentioned in this year's Top Cops...what a surprise.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

The City Attorney in 2004 claimed "yes," 11:51. To my knowledge, that position has never been tested in court.

Anonymous said...

Who is in charge there anyway, the police or city council?

What's even more entertaining here is your city council passed a resolution yesterday aimed at ending business and travel ties to Arizona because they say the new Arizona immigration law is discriminatory. OTH, your city council enters into a labor contract with the police that somehow gives city leaders the idea that taxpayers do not have a right to know the information in a police shooting.

That smacks of indifference.


http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/cityhall/entries/2010/05/13/council_oks_resolution_to_prot.html

Anonymous said...

I was interested to see that Austin is cutting ties with Arizona over perceived racism. When will they cut ties with their own cops?

Rage

Mr. Moderate said...

So, using the logic of the Austin City Attorney, if I am a business providing something to the City, all I have to do is get them to sign a contract that keeps everything private, and the open records laws won't apply. That's just insane. Unfortunately, I'm not independently wealthy, and can't file a suit to get a decision, or run continuous ads in the paper explaining just how stupid the City of Austin really is.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

Mr. Moderate, the meet and confer statute says the agreement overrides state law. It was intended to let them override the state civil service code, but it's written more broadly than that and the City Attorney has always interpreted it as allowing them to bypass anything. As I said, until this case I don't think it's been tested, and the City acquiesced before a ruling was made so we still don't have a judge's say so on the matter.

Anonymous said...

They can withhold parts of the report if they intend to use it as evidence in a prosecution, or other confidential matters that would harm the execution of their duties. Other than that, a 552 request has to be honored, even if it means certain parts of the report have to be disclosed. (See 552.108) I've gone a couple rounds with school districts over not honoring a 552 request. It cost me little or nothing to pursue, and the districts lost. The AG's office is the one who pursues the complaint.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

It's not an exception in 552, it's an override provision that was put in the meet and confer statute back in the '90s.