The Public Safety Commission chided the Office of Police Oversight for its lack of communication and progress regarding the implementation of the Austin Police Oversight Act and a related ordinance enacting some of the act’s provisions.
“It’s now December, and we are now finally starting to see some of the details of how this implementation is happening or not happening,” Chair Nelly Ramírez said at a commission meeting on Monday.
Austinites overwhelmingly voted in May to approve the Austin Police Oversight Act, which directs the city to codify expanded authority for the Office of Police Oversight in future labor contracts. The city and police union remain at odds over implementing the act’s provisions, and the bargaining teams have not returned to the table since their previous contract expired in March.
More recently, City Council approved an ordinance in September directing the city manager to implement the act’s provisions where possible without a contract in place and under state law. Specifically, the ordinance set deadlines for granting the Office of Police Oversight “certified and unfettered access to all record sets to enable” its preliminary investigations of complaints and for the office to make public certain complaint data and police disciplinary actions, among other requirements.
Gail McCant, the recently appointed director of the Office of Police Oversight, provided a brief update to the commission at the meeting. She said 14 of the Austin Police Oversight Act’s 17 provisions have been implemented, as have 19 of the September ordinance’s 20 provisions.
“Full implementation will be achieved as we work through some technology … solutions (and) some staffing needs as well as some legal concerns,” she told commissioners, citing the Texas attorney general’s office’s recent ruling against the city’s request to withhold certain officer personnel records.
Commissioner Rebecca Bernhardt raised concerns about the city’s interpretation of the ruling and about the Office of Police Oversight’s reliance on the police department to access body camera footage.
“What’s their role other than getting in the way?” she asked.
Austin Police Chief of Staff Jeff Greenwalt responded, explaining that, even with certification to access such footage, office staff must do so through the department’s databases and thus must comply with the department’s protocols.
“The hoops that she’s describing are both legally and logistically necessary,” he said.
Chris Harris, president of Equity Action, which spearheaded the Austin Police Oversight Act, also criticized the Office of Police Oversight’s implementation record.
The office “is meant to be the people’s representation with respect to incidents of alleged misconduct, not to collaborate with the police department to figure out how to address those issues,” he said.
As evidence of noncompliance, Harris pointed to the office’s last published update regarding complaint data and disciplinary action, which was in May, according to its website. McCant said earlier in the meeting that the hiatus was due to the absence of a new labor contract.
“I would really, really like to believe that that is because of (the Austin Police Oversight Act) … doing what it was meant to do, which is deter police misconduct and brutality,” Harris said. “The issue is that unfortunately we can’t trust that that’s the case because of the ongoing secrecy that the city clings to with its interpretation of (state law and the attorney general’s ruling).”
He added that, under this framework, the police department has “a perverse incentive to not discipline officers because then you get to keep the records secret.”
Harris also pointed to a letter sent earlier that day by the city and the Travis County District Attorney’s Office to the U.S. Department of Justice requesting that the federal agency investigate the Austin Police Department’s use of force against protesters in May 2020.
“The parties seek DOJ review to help provide transparent closure for the community, to ensure that justice is done, and that any response to similar protests in the future will not result in unnecessary or unlawful use of force,” Austin Mayor Kirk Watson, interim City Manager Jesús Garza and District Attorney José Garza wrote.
Harris said the letter was an “admission that (the Office of Police Oversight) isn’t equipped or culturally aligned to provide the investigatory capabilities that we as a city have demanded” via the Austin Police Oversight Act.
Ramírez closed the discussion by saying she hopes the commission continues to receive updates on the implementation process.
“At the end of the day, I think everyone at this table and a lot of people watching just want an autonomous, independent, strong Office of Police Oversight that can execute its duties without being micromanaged,” she said.
Equity Action will hold a press conference today to discuss next steps in the ongoing implementation of the Austin Police Oversight Act.
The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.
And we’re honored you look to us for serious, in-depth news. You know a strong community needs local and dedicated watchdog reporting. We’re here for you and that won’t change. Now will you take the powerful next step and support our nonprofit news organization?
Austin Police Department: the law enforcement entity for the City of Austin.
Public Safety Commission: The Public Safety Commission is a City Council advisory body charged with oversight of budgetary and policy matters concerning public safety These include matters related to the Austin Police Department, the Austin Fire Department, and the Austin/Travis County Emergency Medical Services Department."
