May 6, 2023 Election - Police Oversight
Apr. 22nd, 2023 05:16 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
livingdebFor Austin's May 6 election (early voting starts this week), there is one issue, represented by two propositions which are both called "Austin Police Oversight Act."
Proposition A
The first one, Proposition A, is in response to the shooting of unarmed people and other instances of excessive force by the police. Austin is not immune to this nation-wide problem. Right now, police often get away with these crimes, and the ones who do get fired often get jobs with another police force. No one wants this, so the question is what to do about it.
The group that organized the petition for Proposition A thinks that we need better systems to police the police.
In 2018, Austin created the Office of Police Oversight to try to increase police accountability. It is staffed by civilians, not police. Its job is to pass along complaints to the police and oversee the misconduct complaint investigation process.
Police oversight bodies have been created across the nation, with varying levels of power. Some can merely advise. Some can obtain records, investigate, monitor, and/or have input in discipline. Austin's both reviews complaints and monitors policies, but police conduct their own misconduct investigations and only the police chief can discipline officers. But the actual power of the office is re-negotiated every 4 years along with police contracts.
Police unions often work to dilute the power of these groups, arguing that civilians don't have the right knowledge to evaluate police actions. One could argue that oversight group members need certain qualifications.
Proposition A was developed to pull these powers of the Office of Police Oversight out of the four-year negotiations and make them permanent. Per The Austin Chronicle, 'Twenty years ago, city leaders and the APA negotiated the city's first ever police labor contract, covering oversight, pay, and benefits. Beginning with that first contract, the city has traded better pay (the first contract made Austin police officers the highest-paid in Texas, and they remain among the highest-paid to this day) for stronger civilian oversight.' And several powers granted in 2018 were lost in a 2021 arbitration ruling. It also allows the Office to do its own investigations and have unfettered access to the data it needs.
Proposition B
Proposition B was introduced later, in response to Proposition A, by a PAC funded almost entirely by the Austin Police Association, the police union. They explained "Prop A is fraught with legal issues that Equity Action, City Council and the City Manager know about. This is the sole reason Equity Action included a severability clause in their ordinance…they know parts of it are illegal for the City of Austin to act on if Prop A passes.
"Prop B gives the Citizens and the City the ability to incorporate oversight in a way that does not conflict with state law. It further solidifies certain portions of oversight into city ordinance and was written in a way to compliment the meet and confer process that must be used to resolve the legal problems that would otherwise exist."
While trying to figure out what they want, I read in the Texas Observer, 'Misconduct allegations spiked in Austin during the 2020 Black Lives Matter demonstrations against police brutality following George Floyd’s murder. In 2019, the Austin Office of Police Oversight received 1,353 complaints; in 2020, the office fielded 2,809. During the protests, officers in the department severely injured nonviolent protesters with “less-lethal” weapons.
'In the aftermath, some police officers blamed those injuries on faulty weapons. Officers also claim that they were not properly trained to use these crowd control tools.'
So it sounds like rather than better oversight, they'd want better inventory maintenance and better training. Sounds good to me!
So what exactly are the differences between the propositions?
The two propositions are quite long and almost exactly the same, and reading through both to find the differences almost makes me not want to vote.
Fortunately, at the end of Community Impact's Dueling Austin police oversight measures set to appear on May ballot, they show Proposition B in the form of a revised Proposition A, so you can easily see every change for yourself. Even reading that makes me not want to vote.
Here is a summary. Compared to Proposition A, Proposition B actually removes the goals of deterring police misconduct and brutality and encouraging accountability for brutality from the description. It disallows anonymous complaints and compliments. Members of the Office would not participate in investigations, would not be required to do even a preliminary investigation of every complaint, and would not do random audits. They would have greatly reduced access to personnel records and body camera footage.
The proposition also addresses the related Community Police Review Commission, and Proposition B makes the police chief rather than the Office in charge of creating their training requirements, it says that they can't be criminals but could be connected with police. Neither the Office nor the Commission would get unfettered access to required information but would have to request and be granted access the same way as other members of the public.
The police chief would not be required to provide written responses to all Office reports, Commission proposals, and disciplinary recommendations. Personnel records involving police misconduct would be kept classified (secret).
There is nothing about better maintenance and training on weapons for the police. There is no mention of qualifications for members the Office of Police Oversight, and for the Committee, they just say that criminals and ex-criminals are disallowed. And they actually left in the severability section saying that if one part of the ordinance is disallowed in the future, that doesn't negate the rest of it. I do see plenty about watering down the office's powers of oversight.
How I'm Voting
You aren't choosing your preferred propostion: for each one, you vote yes or no. Someone from Equity Action canvassing my house said that if both pass, there will be a lot of confusion and lawsuits. So I advise everyone to vote for only one of the propositions or neither proposition.
I'm voting Yes on proposition A and No on Proposition B. I don't really get how being able to get anonymous tips, being able to look at the actual evidence, and having stable policies for the Office of Police Oversight would be keeping police from being able to do their jobs.
Interesting Sources
* How Much Power Do Police Oversight Offices Really Have? (Texas Observer, 6/27/22). - This talks about police oversight offices and specific instances in Austin that have triggered calls for oversight.
* How Police Unions Try to Tilt the Scales on Oversight Boards (The Marshall Project, 1/21/23).
* Policing the Police: A Week of Racism, Abuse and Misconduct (The Marshall Project, 11/19/22)
* Police Brutality Statistics: What the Data Says About Police Violence in America (Police Brutality Center [pro-victim], 2022) - This is only about police killings.
* Qualified Immunity FAQ (Legal Defense Fund -- anti-Qualified Immunity)
More details
Below is a longer summary in case you want more details but don't want to dig through even Community Impact's fabulous work (and because I didn't want to delete all the work I did in making this list).
Compared to Proposition A, Proposition B:
* actually removes the goals of detering police misconduct and brutality and encouraging accountability for brutality from the description,
* removes false arrest and discrimination from the list of things that count as serious misconduct.
* they would still receive complaints and compliments, but they can't be anonymous,
* they would not participate in investigations of officer conduct and would not have the right to gather evidence or directly interview witnesses,
* they would no longer be required to conduct at least a preliminary investigation of every complaint, and when they do make recommendations, it would not have to be prior to the police chief's decision on discipline,
* they would not conduct random assessements and audits of use-of-force reviews and body camera usage, but could only analyze such data prepared and released by the police 'in accordance with state and federal law,'
* they would still get access to records on use-of-force incidents and police conduct investigations, but not direct access without hindrance, and only to records, and not personnel or databases,
* they would not publicly release general information about complaint outcomes, discipline recommendations, audit findings, policy recommendations, etc.,
* discipline recommendations would be restricted to cases of death in custody, serious bodily injury, or other serious misconduct.
The city also has a Community Police Review Commission (CPRC), made up of 10 unpaid appointees who make policy recommendations to City Council and assess the effectiveness of the Office for Police Oversight (OPO).
* the OPO would not get to determine the training requirements for members of the CPRC; that would be done by the Chief of Police,
* CPRC appointees can not have been various kinds of criminals but they can have worked with or as police officers or otherwise be associated with the police
* CPRC reviews do not have to be done before the issuance of discipline or in response to a request for a review by a complaintant
* the CPRC would have "reasonable" access to "relevant public records" rather than "direct" access to "necessary" records.
* CPRC members who knowingly release confidential information would immediately be removed from the commission, not just be susceptible to removal.
* The police chief would retain the 180-day limit after incidents beyond which the police chief cannot discipline officers for misconduct (Proposition A increases it to 365 days),
* The police chief would not required to provide written responses to all OPO reports and CPRC proposals and disciplinary recommendations,
* would let personnel records involving police misconduct be kept classified (secret), as allowed under state law,
* the Office and Commission would not get unfettered access to required information but have to request and be granted access the same way as other members of the public,
* on severability, they actually left in the section saying that if one part of the ordinance is disallowed in the future, that doesn't negate the rest of it.
Proposition A
The first one, Proposition A, is in response to the shooting of unarmed people and other instances of excessive force by the police. Austin is not immune to this nation-wide problem. Right now, police often get away with these crimes, and the ones who do get fired often get jobs with another police force. No one wants this, so the question is what to do about it.
The group that organized the petition for Proposition A thinks that we need better systems to police the police.
In 2018, Austin created the Office of Police Oversight to try to increase police accountability. It is staffed by civilians, not police. Its job is to pass along complaints to the police and oversee the misconduct complaint investigation process.
Police oversight bodies have been created across the nation, with varying levels of power. Some can merely advise. Some can obtain records, investigate, monitor, and/or have input in discipline. Austin's both reviews complaints and monitors policies, but police conduct their own misconduct investigations and only the police chief can discipline officers. But the actual power of the office is re-negotiated every 4 years along with police contracts.
Police unions often work to dilute the power of these groups, arguing that civilians don't have the right knowledge to evaluate police actions. One could argue that oversight group members need certain qualifications.
Proposition A was developed to pull these powers of the Office of Police Oversight out of the four-year negotiations and make them permanent. Per The Austin Chronicle, 'Twenty years ago, city leaders and the APA negotiated the city's first ever police labor contract, covering oversight, pay, and benefits. Beginning with that first contract, the city has traded better pay (the first contract made Austin police officers the highest-paid in Texas, and they remain among the highest-paid to this day) for stronger civilian oversight.' And several powers granted in 2018 were lost in a 2021 arbitration ruling. It also allows the Office to do its own investigations and have unfettered access to the data it needs.
Proposition B
Proposition B was introduced later, in response to Proposition A, by a PAC funded almost entirely by the Austin Police Association, the police union. They explained "Prop A is fraught with legal issues that Equity Action, City Council and the City Manager know about. This is the sole reason Equity Action included a severability clause in their ordinance…they know parts of it are illegal for the City of Austin to act on if Prop A passes.
"Prop B gives the Citizens and the City the ability to incorporate oversight in a way that does not conflict with state law. It further solidifies certain portions of oversight into city ordinance and was written in a way to compliment the meet and confer process that must be used to resolve the legal problems that would otherwise exist."
While trying to figure out what they want, I read in the Texas Observer, 'Misconduct allegations spiked in Austin during the 2020 Black Lives Matter demonstrations against police brutality following George Floyd’s murder. In 2019, the Austin Office of Police Oversight received 1,353 complaints; in 2020, the office fielded 2,809. During the protests, officers in the department severely injured nonviolent protesters with “less-lethal” weapons.
'In the aftermath, some police officers blamed those injuries on faulty weapons. Officers also claim that they were not properly trained to use these crowd control tools.'
So it sounds like rather than better oversight, they'd want better inventory maintenance and better training. Sounds good to me!
So what exactly are the differences between the propositions?
The two propositions are quite long and almost exactly the same, and reading through both to find the differences almost makes me not want to vote.
Fortunately, at the end of Community Impact's Dueling Austin police oversight measures set to appear on May ballot, they show Proposition B in the form of a revised Proposition A, so you can easily see every change for yourself. Even reading that makes me not want to vote.
Here is a summary. Compared to Proposition A, Proposition B actually removes the goals of deterring police misconduct and brutality and encouraging accountability for brutality from the description. It disallows anonymous complaints and compliments. Members of the Office would not participate in investigations, would not be required to do even a preliminary investigation of every complaint, and would not do random audits. They would have greatly reduced access to personnel records and body camera footage.
The proposition also addresses the related Community Police Review Commission, and Proposition B makes the police chief rather than the Office in charge of creating their training requirements, it says that they can't be criminals but could be connected with police. Neither the Office nor the Commission would get unfettered access to required information but would have to request and be granted access the same way as other members of the public.
The police chief would not be required to provide written responses to all Office reports, Commission proposals, and disciplinary recommendations. Personnel records involving police misconduct would be kept classified (secret).
There is nothing about better maintenance and training on weapons for the police. There is no mention of qualifications for members the Office of Police Oversight, and for the Committee, they just say that criminals and ex-criminals are disallowed. And they actually left in the severability section saying that if one part of the ordinance is disallowed in the future, that doesn't negate the rest of it. I do see plenty about watering down the office's powers of oversight.
How I'm Voting
You aren't choosing your preferred propostion: for each one, you vote yes or no. Someone from Equity Action canvassing my house said that if both pass, there will be a lot of confusion and lawsuits. So I advise everyone to vote for only one of the propositions or neither proposition.
I'm voting Yes on proposition A and No on Proposition B. I don't really get how being able to get anonymous tips, being able to look at the actual evidence, and having stable policies for the Office of Police Oversight would be keeping police from being able to do their jobs.
Interesting Sources
* How Much Power Do Police Oversight Offices Really Have? (Texas Observer, 6/27/22). - This talks about police oversight offices and specific instances in Austin that have triggered calls for oversight.
* How Police Unions Try to Tilt the Scales on Oversight Boards (The Marshall Project, 1/21/23).
* Policing the Police: A Week of Racism, Abuse and Misconduct (The Marshall Project, 11/19/22)
* Police Brutality Statistics: What the Data Says About Police Violence in America (Police Brutality Center [pro-victim], 2022) - This is only about police killings.
* Qualified Immunity FAQ (Legal Defense Fund -- anti-Qualified Immunity)
More details
Below is a longer summary in case you want more details but don't want to dig through even Community Impact's fabulous work (and because I didn't want to delete all the work I did in making this list).
Compared to Proposition A, Proposition B:
* actually removes the goals of detering police misconduct and brutality and encouraging accountability for brutality from the description,
* removes false arrest and discrimination from the list of things that count as serious misconduct.
* they would still receive complaints and compliments, but they can't be anonymous,
* they would not participate in investigations of officer conduct and would not have the right to gather evidence or directly interview witnesses,
* they would no longer be required to conduct at least a preliminary investigation of every complaint, and when they do make recommendations, it would not have to be prior to the police chief's decision on discipline,
* they would not conduct random assessements and audits of use-of-force reviews and body camera usage, but could only analyze such data prepared and released by the police 'in accordance with state and federal law,'
* they would still get access to records on use-of-force incidents and police conduct investigations, but not direct access without hindrance, and only to records, and not personnel or databases,
* they would not publicly release general information about complaint outcomes, discipline recommendations, audit findings, policy recommendations, etc.,
* discipline recommendations would be restricted to cases of death in custody, serious bodily injury, or other serious misconduct.
The city also has a Community Police Review Commission (CPRC), made up of 10 unpaid appointees who make policy recommendations to City Council and assess the effectiveness of the Office for Police Oversight (OPO).
* the OPO would not get to determine the training requirements for members of the CPRC; that would be done by the Chief of Police,
* CPRC appointees can not have been various kinds of criminals but they can have worked with or as police officers or otherwise be associated with the police
* CPRC reviews do not have to be done before the issuance of discipline or in response to a request for a review by a complaintant
* the CPRC would have "reasonable" access to "relevant public records" rather than "direct" access to "necessary" records.
* CPRC members who knowingly release confidential information would immediately be removed from the commission, not just be susceptible to removal.
* The police chief would retain the 180-day limit after incidents beyond which the police chief cannot discipline officers for misconduct (Proposition A increases it to 365 days),
* The police chief would not required to provide written responses to all OPO reports and CPRC proposals and disciplinary recommendations,
* would let personnel records involving police misconduct be kept classified (secret), as allowed under state law,
* the Office and Commission would not get unfettered access to required information but have to request and be granted access the same way as other members of the public,
* on severability, they actually left in the section saying that if one part of the ordinance is disallowed in the future, that doesn't negate the rest of it.
no subject
on 2023-04-23 01:56 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2023-04-25 01:01 am (UTC)no subject
on 2023-04-25 11:04 am (UTC)no subject
on 2023-04-25 11:33 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2023-04-29 12:10 am (UTC)