Bargaining in Blue 

By

Ballotpedia staff

In this month’s edition of Bargaining in Blue: 

  • On the beat: Austin, Texas, implements new police CBA following oversight and accountability debates
  • Insights: Disciplinary record retention and disciplinary timeline provisions in police CBAs across the country
  • Around the table: Should there be a statute of limitations for disciplining officers for misconduct?

Following up

Voters in Lafayette approve ballot measure allowing police collective bargaining

Last month, we covered a Nov. 5 ballot measure to allow police in Lafayette, Colorado, to engage in collective bargaining. Voters approved the measure 61.9%-38.1%, according to unofficial election results. 

The city council will be directed to issue an ordinance by April 1, 2025, requiring the city and Lafayette police officers to engage in collective bargaining. 

On the beat

Austin, Texas, implements new police CBA following oversight and accountability debates

The city of Austin, Texas, and the Austin Police Association signed a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA), effective Oct. 29. The contract was signed following over a year of negotiations between the city and the union after the previous contract expired in September 2022. 

Negotiations over the new CBA largely focused on the inclusion of provisions of the Austin Police Oversight Act (APOA)—a May 2023 city ballot measure related to law enforcement accountability and records accessibility. 

The city released a statement contending the new contract “will help improve recruitment, retention, [and] strengthen police oversight.” The new CBA, in part, includes the following provisions:

  • extending the time frame in which officers can be disciplined for misconduct,
  • eliminating confidential personnel files, and
  • enhancing the promotion process by providing additional training for promotion assessors, among other provisions.   

Equity Action, the nonprofit organization behind the 2023 ballot measure, filed a lawsuit in October to block the city from voting on the proposed contract. They argued the CBA did not clearly implement certain provisions of the APOA, specifically provisions related to making confidential police files, referred to as G-files, publicly available.  

Kathy Mitchell, a representative of Equity Action, argued, “We really just want to see the city live up to the promises that it made during the process. We heard very clearly that the intent here was to fully implement the APOA. … We are still waiting for much of that implementation.” Equity Action later dropped the lawsuit after the contract was approved. 

Supporters of the contract applauded the new oversight measures it included. Austin City Manager T.C. Broadnax argued, “The agreement not only includes groundbreaking measures to enhance police oversight but also provisions for improving the Austin Police Department’s hiring and promotion process.”

The background

Voters approved the Austin Police Oversight Act in May 2023 by a vote of 79.9%-20.1%. The act made changes to the city’s civilian oversight system including requiring officer disciplinary records to be publicly available and authorizing the director of the Office of Police Oversight to access personnel records regarding misconduct investigations, use-of-force reports, and body-worn camera video records, among other provisions. 

Equity Action, the nonprofit organization behind the ballot measure, filed a lawsuit against the city and the police union in December 2023, arguing they had not followed through on implementing the required provisions of the measure, specifically provisions related to the public release of G-files. 

A Texas district court judge in an August ruling claimed the Austin Police Department and the city had “unlawfully failed to perform their mandatory duty to end the City of Austin’s use of the ‘g file.’” 

Contract negotiations resumed in September after the city and union agreed to follow the court guidance on implementing the police oversight provisions of the APOA. City administration argued the proposed contract complied with the court order, but Equity Action argued the language of the proposed CBA undermined the APOA.  

The Austin City Council voted 10-1 on Oct. 24 to approve the new five-year contract. According to reports, the vote followed more than eight hours of public comment from approximately 300 people who signed up to speak about the contract.  

A closer look at the Austin CBA

The new CBA between the city of Austin, Texas, and the Austin Police Association went into effect on Oct. 29 and is set to expire on Sept. 30, 2029. 

The CBA includes a provision eliminating confidential personnel records. Article 16 Section 4 states the following:

a) For complaints of alleged misconduct which occurred prior to the effective date of this Agreement, the department shall follow TLGC 143.089. Effective upon execution of this Agreement and for complaints for alleged misconduct which occurred after that date, the City shall not maintain a confidential police department personnel file under TLGC 143.089(g), nor shall the Department itself. The City and Department shall maintain police personnel files in accordance with 143.089(a), which shall prospectively include records that would have previously been placed in the departmental file in accordance with 143.089(g). This provision shall specifically preempt and override any inconsistent provisions in TLGC 143.089 and shall be considered prospective from the effective date of this Agreement.

b) If a request is submitted under the Texas Open Records Act, to the City or the Department for any documents relating to an Officer that are maintained in the 143.089(a) file pursuant to the exception to 143.089(g) in Section 4(a) above, the ASSOCIATION shall be notified and provided a written copy of the open records request with redactions that would otherwise be in accordance with Texas Public Information Act. Such notification shall occur in the same time frame the City or Department requests the documents from appropriate city or department personnel.

The CBA also includes a provision extending the statute of limitations for disciplining officers accused of misconduct. Article 17 Section 8 states the following:

Effective upon execution of this Agreement and for alleged misconduct which occurred after that date, the Police Chief retains the authority to discipline officers for misconduct for 365 calendar days starting from the date that a complaint is submitted to the City of Austin or the conduct in question becomes known to the Police Chief or any Assistant Police Chief, whichever is earlier, so long as such discipline occurs within three years of the date of the incident in question. […] If the Police Chief has not issued disciplinary action within 180 calendar days from the date the complaint is submitted to the City of Austin or the conduct in question becomes known to the Police Chief or any Assistant Chief, whichever is earlier, the Police Chief shall advise the subject Officer in writing as to the reason the Police Chief needs additional time beyond the 180 day period and every 90 days thereafter. 

Want to go deeper?

Insights

Ballotpedia CBA Dashboard takeaways on disciplinary record retention and disciplinary timelines 

  • Featured dashboard query
    • Scope: all states and the top 100 largest cities
    • Topic: timelines for investigations into police misconduct

CBAs and LEOBORs frequently include processes and requirements for retaining officer records. These include the types of records stored, where and how they are stored, accessibility and usage, and timelines for removing or purging records.

CBAs and LEOBORs also frequently include provisions related to the timeline for investigating alleged police misconduct. This includes provisions determining the timeline for launching investigations and concluding investigations. 

According to our Police CBA Dashboard:

  • 28 of the 100 largest cities in the U.S. have police CBAs containing provisions related to processes for retaining officer disciplinary records.
  • 14 states and the District of Columbia have police CBAs containing provisions related to processes for retaining officer disciplinary records.
  • 25 of the 100 largest cities in the U.S. have police CBAs containing provisions determining the timeline for investigations into complaints of police misconduct.
  • 12 states have police CBAs containing provisions determining the timeline for investigations into complaints of police misconduct. 
  • Click here to view the dashboard query showing details.
  • Five of the 151 states and cities we analyzed have police CBAs containing provisions determining the timeline for launching investigations into complaints of police misconduct.
    • The Michigan police CBA is the only CBA containing provisions determining the timeline for launching investigations and concluding investigations. 
  • 33 police CBAs have provisions determining the timeline for concluding investigations into complaints of police misconduct.
    • Seven police CBAs allow requests for extensions to conclude an investigation. 
    • Four police CBAs contain different timelines for concluding investigations into complaints of police misconduct based on the severity of the violation:
      • The Toledo, OH police CBA requires investigations to conclude in 45 days for minor violations and 100 days for major violations. 
      • The San Antonio, TX police CBA requires investigations to conclude in 21 days for minor misconduct and 180 days for other disciplinary proceedings.
      • The Pennsylvania police CBA requires investigations to conclude in 120 days but requires investigations for criminal charges to conclude in 90 days. 
      • The Washington police CBA requires investigations to conclude in 45 days for minor complaints, 90 days for moderate complaints, and 120 days for major complaints. 

Around the table

Should there be a statute of limitations for disciplining officers for misconduct? 

Journalist Eric Umansky published an article in September 2024 with ProPublica about the New York Police Department (NYPD) opting not to act on hundreds of misconduct complaints. Umansky argued the department saw a rise in cases being thrown out “as a way to cope with escalating caseloads that were approaching a deadline for discipline.” 

With lower-profile matters, the board investigates and makes recommendations directly to the NYPD, which then decides what to do. The department has a policy of not reviewing most cases that arrive within three months — or 60 business days — of the statute of limitations for discipline.

“This is highly problematic and deeply troubling,” said City Council member Alexa Avilés, who has sponsored police reform legislation. “What the department is saying is that there’s not enough time, so they’re not going to do anything at all. They’re using the statute of limitations to avoid accountability.”

Abramson & Denenberg, P.C., a Pennsylvania-based law firm, published an article about police misconduct statute of limitations. The firm wrote a statute of limitations for filing misconduct complaints and disciplining officers is necessary because it protects both officers and the community:

The statute of limitations is vital to society’s welfare by protecting the rights of would-be defendants and plaintiffs. The timeframe shields defendants from unfair legal action based on the considerable passage of time. It promotes justice by preventing the unexpected revival of claims long after the crime.

Defendants get reasonable repose to protect them from the need to defend stale claims. The timeline also enables plaintiffs to collect and preserve the necessary evidence to prove their case, enabling them to pursue their claims diligently.

Want to go deeper?

Snapshot of a CBA expiring soon

Wichita, Kansas, police CBA set to expire on December 20

The memorandum of agreement between the city of Wichita, Kansas, and the Wichita Fraternal Order of Police is set to expire on December 20, 2024.  

The police union requested to begin negotiating a new contract ahead of schedule in September 2023, 15 months before the current contract was scheduled to expire. The early negotiations focused on addressing officer recruitment and retention.