Austin City Council members voiced concerns following the Sept. 23 announcement of a new five-year tentative police contract agreement between the city and Austin Police Association.
Council Member José “Chito” Vela asked on the city council message board for clarification of the contract’s mention of the G-file, which a recent district court ruling mandated be publically accessible. G-files are personnel files containing conduct complaints and internal investigation results kept by the Austin Police Department and the Austin Fire Department. Prior policies within the department prevented the public from accessing the files.
APD and the city have been without a contract for the last year and a half. Contract negotiations were delayed due to changes in city staff, including a change in the city manager who negotiated the contract on the city’s behalf.
“The language regarding the public availability of police personnel records appears to be satisfactory,” Vela said on the city’s message board. “But I want clarification from the City Attorney about the availability of information previously maintained in the G-file.”
Council Members Zohaib “Zo” Quadri, Vanessa Fuentes and José Velásquez agreed with Vela and asked for clarification about the G-file regulations in the contract, specifically G-files created before the contract’s approval.
Council Member Ryan Alter asked the City Attorney’s Office and the Austin Police Association to explain their interpretation of the contract language and if old files will be “grandfathered” into the new policy.
During a work session on Oct. 8, Mayor Kirk Watson called on Michael Bullock, president of the Austin Police Association to answer questions about the G-file’s inclusion in the new union contract.
Watson asked Bullock if he agreed the new contract states there “shall be no G-file during the term and timeframe of this contract.” Bullock said he agreed with that interpretation.
In response to council members’ concerns, Watson and Bullock said the contract did not specify the requirements outside the timeframe of the agreement because a district court ruled that all files must be public.
Quadri said in an email the work session “did not sufficiently address concerns regarding transparency.”
The City Council postponed the date for voting on the contract to Oct. 24.
“We’ve made progress, but I share the community’s concerns regarding how the tentative agreement’s costs affect other city services and investments in community needs,” Fuentes said in an email.
