Austin’s previously secret ‘G-files’ on police misconduct are now public. Here’s what that means.

More than a year after Austin voters OK’d a measure to make them public, the so-called “G-files” of police officers accused of misconduct are now available to the public.

Disclosure of these disciplinary files was a sticking point in discussions around the voter-approved Austin Police Oversight Act and the city’s tentative labor agreement with the Austin Police Department. The police union argued disclosing them violated state law. Criminal justice advocates argued for transparency and pointed out other departments in Texas already disclose the files. A judge ruled last month the city didn’t need to keep the files secret.

What is a ‘G-file’?

Law enforcement is legally required to divulge files related to complaints against police officers if any disciplinary action is taken. That could be anything from an indefinite suspension – which is akin to firing an officer, though they can appeal the punishment – to a couple days’ suspension. G-files are records related to complaints that don’t result in discipline. APD didn’t allow those to be made public.

The APOA, which passed by a 4-to-1 margin, gave the city’s civilian-led police monitor “unfettered” access to these files and allowed them to potentially be made available to Austinites through a public records request.

Austin slow-walked implementing the provision, and Equity Action, the group that got APOA on the ballot, sued.

So what’s available now?

Files related to either complaints or incidents in which an officer was not reprimanded are now available from the citizen-led Office of Police Oversight.

The files can be on anything from an officer coming into work when he wasn’t scheduled to a fatal shooting by an off-duty officer. In that case, a memo disclosed on the Office of the Police Oversight website shows the city’s police monitor called for Gabriel Gutierrez, an officer who fatally shot Alex Gonzales Jr. in 2022, to be fired. He wasn’t.

So, the releases from the Office of Police Oversight allow for a bit more transparency into APD’s decision-making. The city is also allowing residents to submit public information requests through the Texas Public Information Act for officer-related information tied to G-files.

Looming over this is the city’s tentative labor contract with the police union. The union had been pushing back against the disclosures, but has since said it will follow the judge’s ruling. The issue had been a point of contention in the yearslong negotiations.

Council members also questioned whether previously confidential files would be released after the labor contract takes effect or if those would remain sealed. The city has said it won’t “grandfather” records in, and they can be made public.

What’s next?

The Austin City Council is voting on the police contract next week. Some city employees and criminal justice advocates say the five-year, $218-million deal would balloon the department’s already record-high budget. That’s because state law effectively bans cities from lowering police budgets. Opponents argue, if it is approved, the city’s hands would be tied if it ever wanted to revisit the incentives offered to officers.

As for the G-files, they’re online. Well, some of them are. But since the city agreed to make the files public, residents have also requested more information through public records requests.

Council members Chito Vela and Vanessa Fuentes want the city to address that glut of requests. Wednesday, they asked the city manager to dedicate more staff to address them as soon as possible.

Fuentes told KUT that these requests are arduous. They’re employment files, so they have loads of sensitive information that may need to be redacted and some of them aren’t digitized, she said.

“The city has finally acted on releasing G-file information, (but) there’s still a lot more requests that are pending,” she said. “We want to ensure that the city administrators do this as quickly as possible and have the resources needed to be able to process those requests as efficiently as possible.”

This story was produced as part of the Austin Monitor’s reporting partnership with KUT.

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.