AUSTIN, Texas — Three years after Austin launched a rebooted police accountability office, the watchdog agency has been weakened through a recent arbitrator's ruling that found it had overstepped its authority.
The issue focuses on a dispute between the City of Austin and the Austin police union about how much power the Office of Police Oversight wields on issues, such as whether it can conduct investigations of alleged misconduct, interview complainants and demand that questions be asked during internal affairs interviews.
"Oversight, by its very nature and plain definition, consists of observation rather than participation," wrote Houston attorney Lynne M. Gomez, who served as an outside arbitrator in the matter.
Officials with the Austin Police Association said they believe the City and oversight office sought to increase the power of the agency amid increase calls for police accountability nationally and locally following the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis.
But union president Ken Casaday said the City still had an obligation to follow its 2018 contract with the organization.
"If you have a contract, you have to follow it, and if you don't follow it, there are consequences," Casaday said. "They have trampled officers' rights, right and left."
The union has about 15 other grievances on a range of topics pending with the City concerning the oversight office.
Chris Harris, policy director for the Austin Justice Coalition, said he thinks the union's appeal represents their attempt to tame the level of oversight they receive from an outside entity.
"I think the idea is, one, to weaken the office and keep officers continuing to not face consequences for their conduct and brutality," Harris said. "I found it very unfortunate."
The Dec. 28 opinion comes as the City and union are preparing to return to negotiations later this month to draft a new employment contract.
City officials said they remain committed to civilian oversight of the Austin Police Department and will comply with the arbitrator's opinion.
"As the City analyzes the case and its next steps, the parties will continue to operate under the terms of the contract and will comply with the requirements outlined in the arbitration decision,” the City said in a statement.
The issue
Austin has had civilian oversight of police for about 20 years. It was altered in a 2018 contract between police and the City. The office, which had been known as the police monitor, was renamed.
The contract says the purpose of the oversight office is to, “assure timely, fair, impartial and objective administrative review of complaints against police officers while protecting the individual rights of officers and civilians.”
The union complained that rather than strictly allowing Austin police internal affairs to investigate a misconduct complaint, the oversight office did its own investigation, and went so far as to demand that internal affairs detectives ask certain questions when interviewing officers.
Part of the issue focused on whether the City could act beyond what is specifically outlined in the contract, including whether a city council resolution or memorandum by City Manager Spencer Cronk gave it additional authority, as the City contended.
In the arbitrator's opinion, she limited the office's authority to what is specifically spelled out in the contract.
"The City's reliance on the ordinance and memorandum as a means to circumvent (the contract) is misplaced," Gomez wrote. "Neither justifies the City's failure to comply."
According to the opinion, the office must no longer “investigate complaints, interview or contact witnesses, follow up on complaints, change, modify, edit or add suggestions to internal affair interview questions, or demand a question be asked in an interview rather than letting the internal affairs sergeant use his or her discretion as to what questions will be asked.”
What happens next?
The City said in its statement that it is still evaluating the arbitrator's opinion.
And issues of civilian oversight likely will emerge again during negotiations for a new contract, as they did during negotiations in 2017 and 2018.
Harris said he and the justice coalition are increasingly supportive of possibly removing the office from the contract, but the law is not clear as to whether officers must grant the agency certain rights, including access to confidential internal affairs records.
The City and police union said that they are not yet prepared to discuss possibilities about civilian oversight that they may introduce during negotiations.
The negotiations are expected to last for months or longer.
PEOPLE ARE ALSO READING: