OTOH, it also represents a common path for police-reform efforts: Indeed, I've never seen it work otherwise. Seldom does the first wave of reforms installed achieve their goals because police have been so powerful over the years, they usually can keep the most important changes from happening. So frequently a second round of reform is needed, maybe a third, once the board has been installed, operated for a few years, and its shortcomings become clear.
In H-Town, they are now clear. Houston city council members have suggested an aggressive reform package aimed at improving oversight and empowering the board. Mayor Sylvester Turner appointed a task force to propose its own reforms, which are significant but not as aggressive as the council members wanted. (That said, the mayor doesn't always back the findings of his various task forces.)
There is no short-term fix on these questions. It always takes years, potentially decades, never weeks or months. Ask Johnny Mata, who's been at this work for more than four decades, was involved in getting the board created initially, and now spends his waking hours trying to improve it.
We see this at the Legislature: They passed the initial law requiring gathering of racial-profiling data in 2001, didn't begin collecting the reports from departments statewide until 2009, and finally acknowledged the data's shortcomings and made it more robust in 2017. Even then, the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement screwed up implementation of the 2017 legislation, failing to collect racial breakdowns for most of the so-called "racial profiling" dataset. It's being fixed now and by 2021 - twenty years after Texas' racial profiling law first passed! - Texas' data will be robust enough to identify discriminatory practices.
Your correspondent spent five years involved in a campaign culminating in creation of Austin's Police Monitor and review board around the turn of the century; after the police union gutted it in closed-door negotiations, the system was a disaster, and we weren't able to fix the biggest problems until 18 years later, when the Austin Justice Coalition won changes to the police-union contract. It's still far from perfect, but it did significantly expand complaint intake, putting it in civilian hands and providing de-identified, public accounts of alleged misconduct. We now see written reprimands in addition to cases where officers are suspended, thanks to changes in APD's 2018 contract.
So, we're getting useful information out of the process and the Office of Police Oversight has become an occasional counterweight to the police union and anti-reform police administrators who'd prefer to avoid the topic.
That's far from the vision of an independent board that investigates and punishes officers outside of law enforcement's purview. But it's not clear to me anyone has completely dis-empowered the police hierarchy in departmental discipline, anywhere, nor am I certain it's a good idea. Police management may frequently disappoint when it comes to punishing misconduct, but they're 1) closest to the problem and 2) the only ones empowered under state law to do it (at least, for Ch. 143 civil service cities like Austin and Houston).
Grits has come to believe that empowering police managers to manage personnel is a necessary pre-requisite to holding them accountable, as counter-intuitive as that may seem. I may believe Austin Police Chief Brian Manley should be fired, but I generally want his position to become more empowered within the disciplinary process, at least when it comes to his ability to punish and fire wrong-doers among his officers.
Making sure that, when a bad cop is fired, they don't repeatedly get back on the force is an important aspect of cleaning up a department. For the time being, state law forbids empowering a civilian review board to take over that task in Houston or Austin, and the chance of Greg Abbott or Dan Patrick approving legislation to change that fall somewhere along the shady line between "slim" and "none."
Protesters this summer wanted things "now," but as budget battles nearly everywhere but Austin proved, police reform doesn't typically happen on a "now" timeline. And even in Austin, what really happened is a process was created that will take years to fully implement.
So yes, by all means, fight for police reform. But settle in for the long haul.
.jpg)
17 comments:
Thanks for another good article
What reformists want is another shot at removing an officer they see as somehow "bad" whether the facts support their contention or not and they are none to shy demanding that their word is final over the police chiefs, courts or arbitrators. Houston's Independent Police Oversight Board has been around in various forms long enough to note that only a couple of times has it strayed from department recommended discipline, more often suggesting less discipline than more. But the reformists have the answer to that as well, appointing heavily biased, self appointed activists to the board and then paying them substantial amounts of money to serve.
The op-ed by Grits makes it sound like the entire city council wants such reforms but the reality is that less than a third of them signed on for changes, most of those couldn't even agree on specifics that would need substantial changes in state law by the legislature that is not particularly interested. And not a single reformist has any idea where the additional money to negotiate such changes with the union would come from even if they could convince the legally established majority bargaining agent to go along with the changes. There are another 3 years before city elections so don't hold your breath waiting.
@2:16, "They who have put out the people's eyes reproach them of their blindness."
They could just abolish the union and work like the rest of us honest Texans...
I’d still content the word “union” and law enforcement in Texas is more akin to an “association” with minimal strength. Unions for LE in other states carry a bigger stick compared to unions and LE in Texas. Unions for “us honest Texans...” is different too.
A turd by any other name still smells like shit. If they have such minimal strength no one will notice when they're gone.
@11:00/12:07"Association" is a euphemism for "union," for all intents and purposes. Not sure what you mean by "minimal strength." They're as powerful in the political process here as they are anywhere in the country. (Look at them make the Governor dance!) Prison guards are not, but police are.
The ability to “strike” is what I perceive as a significant difference; not the only difference between an association and a union. The United Auto Workers and Communication Workers of America are major unions and carry a much bigger stick, which can strike. Great for them.
What’s somewhat confusing is that historically union members are more Democratic and the Democratic Party supports unions. However, unions (or associations) for law enforcement is an exception or so it appears.
From Unfiltered and Uncensored Minds of Independent Thinkers of the 3rd Grade Dropout Section:
Grits,speaking of the long-haul, would you believe that since 1985, I have been in this war for police reform. It's been my experience that in addition to police reform, what is needed is reform in the judicial system. There is a difference when the plaintiffs are Black and when they are Anglo.
Texas peace officers are not employees, they are public officers which are excluded from overtime pay and unions. they are para-military that act the part and must be treated as such.
Some call themselves "unions," 6:35, as in the Houston Police Officers Union, which is a local of the FOP. Ron DeLord of CLEAT traced the Association/Union distinction back to the 1919 Boston police strike. The AFL didn't support them because the cops had been strike breakers in prior labor actions, and cops abandoned the labor movement and its trimmings after that.
How could police unions carry a "bigger stick" than they do? They're one of the most powerful entities in the criminal justice political landscape. Power stems from other sources besides just strikes.
Mr. Gunny continues to make assertions that no one from the governor on down recognizes. While it's great to be an outlier in the belief of something, spitting in the wind doesn't change the fact that unless at least one of the branches of government agrees with you, it just isn't the case.
In terms of their political strength, even a group like the aforementioned HPOU could not stop pension reductions a few years back, those being on top of the previous reductions and potentially more cuts looming. The same for APD, Dallas, and other major departments, the belief they are all powerful political players is hogwash.
From Unfiltered and Uncensored Minds of Independent Thinkers of the 3rd Grade Dropout
Section:
Anon. @ 10/01/20 7:22 AM: Thank you for your comments and your respect, however, the term "Gunny" is as a result of my active USMC active duty military service of over 22 years. The term "Mr." is one that is not generally accepted. Regarding political power, peace officers as public servants only have those powers that they have legally obtained. As para-military organizations, they are subject to civil controls, i.e,..elected officials.
No unions anywhere in the country can stop pension reductions, 7:22. Math trumps politics. But union power is the reason unreasonable pension obligations were incurred in the first place. So there's that.
Mr. Gunny, the fact remains that you assert that cops are not employees and cannot be paid overtime or have associations/unions. Where that the case, the courts would have ruled such by now and yet they have not. As far as the name stuff, when you essentially post anonymously you get what you get, those willing to identify themselves can balance the potential retaliation vs. the world potentially giving them more credibility.
Grits, the math of pensions is simple is the players live up to their end of whatever deals are struck. The major cities of Texas, and even more so elsewhere, did not put in the requisite funds for decades while spending on frills so their pensions are not fully funded. If police groups had the power you suggest, the pensions would have been properly funded but they were not. Houston's curious changes from a few years ago may work out while markets soar under the Trump administration but lets see what happens when the next guy gets in office and the markets tank. The built in provision, as I read the legislative documents passed around in Austin during the session, still require city leaders to work something out and that tends to scare off most of them from doing the right thing. But there are no guarantees those supposedly strong unions are going to stop more cuts unless most of the legacy cops retire soon.
All the "legacy cops" who keep threatening to retire if this or that policy changes should go ahead and leave, 7:00. I've been hearing it for years and at this point I'm fine if they all go. It's time. Change is gonna come.
Glad to learn you think taxpayers should foot the bill "whatever deals are struck" behind closed doors. Not all taxpayers agree. Police unions are powerful, but not omnipotent. Thinking they were so powerful they could ignore economics/mathematics was the problem. Even the powerful can overreach.
Grits, I think the suggestion or hope was for the legacy cops to retire as those hired after their first round of cuts get far less pension benefits, at least in Dallas and Houston. Less benefits=lower cost. But I don't see where those legacy cops have been threatening to retire any time recently or using it to stave off policy changes any more than I see police departments doing anything to increase hiring to meet the hiring bubbles most large departments have gone through.
Correct me if I'm wrong but every single pension deal for the large police departments has to be voted on publicly and then go through the legislative process. That waters down the argument that they are completed in private even if that is where they are negotiated. I understand that some reformists want to use the leverage during contract talks or during pension negotiations but most cities aren't nearly as liberal as Austin so changes are not as easy to make without substantial money behind them.
It's a moot point, there shouldn't be police unions or pensions at all. It's time for government employees to work like the rest of us. That's why Texas is a Right to Work state. You want those perks? Move to Louisiana and enjoy your state income tax...
Post a Comment