Talking Points About the “Gutted” Oversight Proposals

in the Proposed Police Meet and Confer Contract

Here are some of the main issues that cause the ACLU and the Sunshine Project for Police Accountability to reject the current “Meet and Confer” contract, and to request that the City Council include the full, publicly negotiated Police Oversight Focus Group proposals in the final Meet and Confer contract.

Closed meetings and records don’t equal accountability

Under the negotiated compromise the oversight board’s hearings were all public, and the board got to look at investigative files. Under the secret deal, board deliberations are closed with only a police union representative present. And the board does not get full access to the investigative files; the Monitor has full discretion to withhold any files. If the Austin Police Association didn’t want public hearings for the oversight board, their President Mike Sheffield shouldn’t have signed the POFG agreement that recommended them. Public oversight boards and open records for the complainant gave a measure of accountability and credibility to the process. If the process is conducted in secret and we’re forced to “trust” the chief or the city manager, then nobody will believe that that’s enough.

Without information there’s no “sight” in oversight

Most of the provisions changed in the APA-city manager secret deal pertained to limiting who gets to see information about investigative files after the Chief has made his final decision. If boardmembers or citizen and police complainants can’t see the investigative files, there’s no way to tell whether the department covered up officer wrongdoing. In fact, there’s no way to tell whether they did a good job.

City Council should appoint oversight boardmembers

Under the publicly negotiated agreement, the city council would appoint oversight boardmembers. Under the secret deal, City Manager Jesus Garza, who is an enemy of police oversight, would appoint the boardmembers. The city managers two principle interests in this matter are limiting city liability and embarrassment. The City Manager already has the power to find out what’s going on and engage in oversight; he has not done so.

Monitor’s reports shouldn’t be restricted

Under the publicly negotiated POFG model, the Police Monitor’s reports were only limited by current law. Under the agreement, the Police Monitor is an at-will employee of the City Manager who cannot speak to the City Council about specific cases under penalty of criminal prosecution.

Officers should get to use the system

In the cities after which Austin copied its Police Monitor model, participants say that letting officers use the civilian complaint system – instead of having to go directly to the Internal Affairs Department – makes it more likely that officers will feel free to address complaints. The publicly negotiated system allows officers to file complaints with the Police Monitor, but the secret deal changed that to make officers continue to use Internal Affairs, segregating civilian and police complaints.

“Good cops” will be more likely, not less likely to complain under the POFG

Chief Knee says the publicly negotiated POFG proposals would make officers less likely to complain. That’s not true because the POFG doesn’t authorize “public release of the file” as Knee told City Council. The file is only released to the complainant. If the complainant is an officer, then that officer may receive the file. In the case of Officer Stan Farris whose silhouette recently was on an Austin Chronicle cover, for example, Farris complained to the department but could not see that it had any result. He ultimately went to federal court to unearth information. Under our system he could receive a copy of the investigative file at the end of the discipline process after the chief had formally decided to sustain or deny Officer Farris’ complaint.

Also, the POFG allowed officers who had complaints filed against them to get copies of the investigative file at the end of the process. That is a huge boon, since now those files are closed to officers. The ACLU and the Sunshine Project don’t believe the department should keep secret files on its employees.

City manager controlled process destined to fail

The police monitor’s model is based on the one in San Jose CA, with a review board crafted on to the end of the process as a kind of “appeal.” In San Jose the Monitor stressed to the POFG how important it was that both officers and civilians could use the police monitor’s process. Again, to take the case of Stan Farris from the Chronicle cover story, under the POFG proposal, Farris could see for himself whether the investigation had been thorough and competent. Under the union-city manager secret deal, he would not have access to this process.

Monitor not independent under the secret deal

The Monitor is an at will employee of the city manager. We don’t think the city manager’s inherent vested interests lie in allowing real oversight or accountability. More to the point, we think that overseeing him is PART of the oversight process. He is Stan Knee’s boss, yet APD has many problems and he’s done nothing but obstruct citizen attempts to fix the problem. The POFG compromised, making the Monitor appointed by the city manager, and the oversight board appointed by the City Council. The secret deal gives all appointment power to the city manager.

What’s worse, the Monitor’s conference under the Meet and Confer agreement is tape recorded, and recordings are sent to the city manager and the chief of police. This 1) violates the privacy rights of the complainant to at least the same extent as releasing officers’ statements, but the secret deal makes officers’ statements closed, and 2) Gives the department an opportunity to use information from the Monitor’s conference to pursue criminal charges. When the APD Internal Affairs Division interviewed the woman over whom APD Officer Samuel Ramirez lost his job after forcing her to perform oral sex, the transcript shows the detective spent more time interviewing her looking to catch her in an admission of criminal activities as he did interviewing her about what happened with Samuel Ramirez. The Monitor would be perceived as a neutral figure to the complainant, as opposed to a uniformed officer at IAD. Thus complainants could be tricked into giving up their own fifth-amendment rights, not realizing their comments are on the same basis as comments to an officer – “anything you say can be used against you in a court of law.”

Claims of privacy breaches untrue

Chief Knee has claimed that release of certain information from investigative files would invade the privacy of officers, witnesses, complainants, etc., or perhaps restrict officers’ fifth amendment rights. That couldn’t be further from the truth. Hundreds of non-civil service cities and 254 Texas Sheriffs’ departments (including the Travis County Sheriff) operate where ALL documents related to complaints and Internal Affairs investigations are completely public in EVERY case, sustained or not, no matter what, except for information excluded under standard common law personal privacy protections. Sheriff Frasier testified before the POFG that this did not cause undue management problems, and that in a couple of cases litigation may have been avoided after attorneys saw the investigative file and determined the department had done no wrong. If Sheriffs all over the state release the same information without violating anyone’s rights, why would it be different for APD? The ACLU would not support a system that violated officers’ privacy or their constitutional rights. The Police Oversight Focus Group Proposals definitively do not.