This is the third and final installment in our series about the Kirk Watson Vision Test. For more on what I mean by the vision test see Part 1 and Part 2. Part 1 focuses on how in 2023 Watson sided with far left activists to kill a proposed four-year contract between the City and the Austin Police Association, possibly in hopes of winning the activists’ support in the next election. In Part 2 we discussed how Watson didn’t win the activists over to his side, but he picked up reelection endorsements of several Council Members who did not support him last time. Now another police contract is on the table and it is just as controversial as in 2023.
Almost immediately after playing a leading role in killing the proposed four-year police contract in 2023 Mayor Kirk Watson began calling for the Austin Police Association (APA) to return to the negotiating table. That seemed just a tad presumptuous and, not surprisingly, APA was not that interested at the time –given that Watson and his new found “progressive” allies on the Council had just rejected a contract that the association spent a year negotiating with City representatives. Watson persisted and APA finally came back to the table on March 13, 2024. Then, on September 23, the City and APA announced that they had come to an agreement on a five-year contract. It will now come to the City Council for ratification.
A public hearing and a vote were originally scheduled for October 10, but that was postponed until October 24. Council approval is far from a foregone conclusion, but there is one member of the Council who has already announced support for the contract. That is Mayor Kirk Watson.
So what happened? It might be irony. It might be foresight. It could be great planning on Watson’s part. There’s even an outside chance that there might be some sincerity mixed in there. Whatever the case there is a police contract pending before the Council just as Kirk Watson stands for reelection. And, this time he’s for it. This might even be an instance where the two objects in the Kirk Watson Vision Test have lined up; those being the best interest of the City and the political interest of Kirk Watson.
I’ll delve more into that further down, but first let’s look at the situation with the police contract and its potential fate at the Council.
The Proposed New Contract
In what should not have been much of a surprise to Watson, the same activists and groups who opposed the earlier contract are opposing this one. They’re doing so even though the contact contains all the oversight gains they won with voter approval of Prop A in May 2023. That includes a provision that the City Attorney must certify that any proposed contract meets all the elements of Prop A before it can be put on a City Council agenda for consideration.
Immediately after the contract was released, questions were raised over whether existing G-files would be made publicly available. As we discussed in Part 1 of this series, G-files are police personnel files that include complaints against officers on which it was found that no disciplinary action was merited. Activists want to be able to see the existing files. State law allows these files to be kept confidential. Due to the state law the City did not implement the G-file provision from Prop A. Equity Action, the initiators of the Prop A oversight package, sued the City.
In late August Travis County Judge Maria Cantú Hexsel ruled that the City had “unlawfully failed to perform their mandatory duty to end the City of Austin’s use of the g-file.” The City chose not to appeal, with Watson quickly making that announcement.
So there will be no G-file going forward, but there were questions over whether the contract called for the existing G-files to be made public. Council Member Chito Vela sought to clear this up with a September 26 post on the Council Message Board: “While I believe this agreement makes both new and old G-file information publicly available, I would like clarification from the City Attorney that they also interpret the agreement in this way,” wrote Vela.
Four other Council Members posted that Vela’s question was important to them as well. They were José Velásquez, Zo Qadri, Vanessa Fuentes and Ryan Alter.
Indeed Vela’s question was important and necessary for a full understanding of the proposed contract; especially since the G-file is a core point of contention.
Interim City Attorney Deborah Thomas replied quickly and unequivocally. Citing the judge’s recent ruling, Thomas wrote, “Based on the August 30 ruling, the reference to Section 143.089 in the Agreement requires the City to release information that was previously withheld from public disclosure based on its classification as g-file material. The ruling applies to all personnel records previously held by the City under Section 143.089(g). Accordingly, all documentation related to police officer conduct—whether the conduct occurred before or after the effective date of the Agreement, is not confidential and is subject to release.”
The G-file question did not derail the contract. One core reason for that appears to be that the APA is pondering further legal action on the matter. APA President Michael Bullock released a statement to KVUE which said, “All sides need to recognize that at the end of the day, a final court ruling will likely govern g file – not a contract.” In the statement Bullock also shed some additional light on why the APA is willing to move forward on a contract without final resolution of the g-file issue: “The proposed tentative agreement has removed the barriers to Prop A and has been certified by the City Attorney as being compliant with the ordinance. All sides need to recognize that at the end of the day, a final court ruling will likely govern g-file – not a contract. We are in a staffing crisis, in a public safety crisis, have bargained for 6 months, been out of contract for 2 years, and this agreement has been certified by the City Attorney. Failure to adopt this tentative agreement will be a catastrophic mistake that has the potential to destroy public safety in Austin.”
“We are in a staffing crisis, in a public safety crisis, have bargained for 6 months, been out of contract for 2 years, and this agreement has been certified by the City Attorney. Failure to adopt this tentative agreement will be a catastrophic mistake that has the potential to destroy public safety in Austin.”
Austin Police Association President Michael Bullock
Now It’s About the Money
So, Bullock says the G-file issue will ultimately be settled in court. Activists appear to either tacitly agree, or believe that they have already won on the G-file issue; although at an October 8 Council work session, longtime activist Kathy1 Mitchell did raise concerns about the wording of the G-file section of the proposed contract. Mitchell specifically worried that the wording might make the City vulnerable in arbitration hearings.
Nonetheless, I say that the issue is mainly about money now because most activists opposed to the contract are concentrating their rhetorical fire on the cost of the proposed contract. This started even before Vela’s question on September 26 and the Interim City Attorney’s reply on September 30.
For instance here’s a September 23 tweet from Chris Harris (leader of Equity Action), shortly after it was announced that the negotiators had come to an agreement: “Now City Council must not only reject this budget-busting deal, but the chorus of police violence apologists, business interests & cowardly insiders claiming it will somehow make us safer. It won’t.”
Among other things, note that in Harris’s view people who think that it makes sense to approve a police contract are one of the following: “police violence apologists, business interests” or “cowardly insiders.”
Former Congressional candidate Heidi Sloan, appearing to act as the enforcement arm for anti-contract activists, quickly reposted Harris’s tweet and issued a political threat to the Mayor and Council Members: “If you’re up for re-election and are considering voting for this deal, I’m telling you now: we’ll be talking to your voters. At their doors, on the phone, bringing them to city hall. You will hear from us.” In her X bio Sloan describes herself as a “Farmer, community organizer, and democratic socialist building the political revolution in Texas (and) Proud member of @austin_DSA (Democratic Socialists of America).”
Running for reelection this year, and thus immediately subject to Sloan’s threat, are Watson and Council Members Vela, Vanessa Fuentes and Mackenzie Kelly.
Some Council Members are now echoing those fiscal arguments, or laying the groundwork to do so. For instance, in a September 26 Council Message Board post backing Vela’s G-file question, Vanessa Fuentes wrote, “I’ve also heard several questions about the budgetary implications of this contract. As our city continues to face a growing affordability crisis, we must ensure our financial decisions prioritize the needs of our residents and reflect our values of equity and financial responsibility.” Fuentes could be laying the groundwork for a no vote based on fiscal concerns.
Ryan Alter expressed similar concerns, “as CM Fuentes has raised, this contract will have a significant impact on our budget and the City’s ability to provide other valuable public services, including other public safety functions. As stated above, I believe we should be paying our officers the amount they deserve. They work tirelessly day in and day out to keep us safe, and this work should be properly valued. This contract does that. However, we must also have clarity as to what impact this has on our 5-year budget forecast, including what portion of the general fund will be untouchable by future Councils because it is governed by a public safety contract.”
Of course it is appropriate that Council Members consider the fiscal impact of the contract. That is part of their responsibility as Council Members. Also, the Police Department does consume a very large share of the City’s General Fund budget.
In this case, however, the Council voted to approve funds for the first year of the police contract in the 2024-25 budget they approved in August. The Council Members would have, should have, known that the contract was for more than one year.
Additionally, these are the same Council Members who routinely increase property taxes to the maximum allowed under state law to fund programs they like; not to mention increasing many City fees. One could be forgiven for thinking they are only fiscally responsible when it comes to funding police, or that they only raise financial issues when prompted by activists.
The opposition got another boost when AFSCME, the union representing rank and file City employees, released an October 1 statement critical of the contract. Historically speaking, this was an unusual move because it runs afoul of organized labor’s traditional Solidarity Forever approach, in which unions always support each other. AFSCME’s statement read, in part, “AFSCME Local 1624 has serious concerns regarding the city’s proposed Tentative Agreement due to the potential significant impact it could have on future budgets and the ability to adequately fund other essential city services.”
Alluding to the tradition of labor solidarity, they continued, “We respect the rights of all our first responders, including police, EMS, and firefighters, to negotiate for fair wages and benefits. However, as the labor saying goes, ‘when you don’t have a seat at the table, you are on the menu.’”
Assessing the Vote Count
Heading into the October 24 Council vote, the question thus becomes whether enough Council Members will be willing to vote against the wishes of activists and approve the police contract.
Let’s look at the potential vote count. Watson has already stated his support. Mackenzie Kelly is also an all but certain vote in favor. Alison Alter, who, like Kelly, supported the 2023 contract is also a likely yes vote. Leslie Pool and Paige Ellis are also likely, but not certain, yes votes. If those actually all turn out to be yes votes, then that makes five. It takes six votes to approve the contract.
So, assuming that all those listed above do indeed turn out to be yes votes, at least one vote would have to come from the other five: Natasha Harper Madison; Fuentes, Vela, Jose Velasquez; or Ryan Alter. Approving the contract by only one vote would send a very weak message, but it would approve the contract.
Given the vocal opposition from those with immense influence over a majority of the Council, Watson may have a difficult time getting the six vote majority needed to pass the contract. The view here is that if Watson is unable to pull that off it will be a disaster for Austin.
In fact, APA President Bullock noted in his statement, quoted above, that the department is in a “staffing crisis” which is leading to a “public safety crisis,” and that failure to approve the contract “will be a catastrophic mistake that has the potential to destroy public safety in Austin.”
Many will see this statement as overheated rhetoric. There is no doubt though that Austin police are “in a staffing crisis.” As we have covered here numerous times the police force was already seriously depleted due to the 2020 “defund the police” vote championed by many of the same activists now opposing this contract. In that vote the Council eliminated 150 vacant positions and ended cadet classes for a year. The staffing crisis was exacerbated by the rejection of the police contract in 2023, which contributed to many officers retiring or taking jobs elsewhere.
Watson recently maintained that this will be the first year since 20019 that the Police Department finishes the year with more officers than it had at the beginning of the year. That pattern will almost certainly head back in the other direction if the contract is rejected. This is a scenario all Council Members and candidates might want to consider before choosing to oppose the contract.
Now Back to our Main Topic
But, hey, this article isn’t about the fate of Austin. It’s about Kirk Watson and the wrestling match in his soul between doing what is in the best interest of the City he represents or what is in the best interest of Kirk Watson politically.
I think the two may have finally matched up, although very belatedly. For one thing a new contract is in Watson’s political interest because he has been promising to get one ever since he participated in killing the last one, almost two years ago. Second, he has already made significant gains on the left with the endorsements of eight Council Members and the enthusiastic backing of the quasi-left YIMBYs (Yes In My BackYard). He knows by now that he is not going to get anywhere with the anti-police activists. So it might make more sense to him, at this point, to look like a centrist fighting to win Council votes to approve a police contract; to try and appeal to voters who do not favor abolition of the police and believe a stable police force with strong oversight is needed in a major American city.
Meanwhile, only one of Watson’s opponents has announced support for the contract. That is Jefferey Bowen, in my assessment the only candidate in the race not running against Watson from the Mayor’s left. Bowen told the Austin Independent that he thinks the proposed pay package is reasonable. He says the raise is slightly above raises the City usually provides to other employees, but “based on the dangers of being a police officer, it seems fair to me. The hazards of the job should be compensated.”
Jeff Bowen – from his campaign website
Bowen added, “I have concerns that there will be those that will now use old information from the G File to go after officers.”
Carmen Llanes sent us a very thoughtful, detailed statement regarding the contract. She wrote, “Austin is long overdue in establishing a new police contract, but there are many unanswered questions about the current proposal and whether it actually solves the problems faced by our police department.
Llanes added, “I have found that most Austinites want the same things when it comes to public safety, and despite some outlying individuals and groups, most people fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum: Austinites want a well-staffed, well-trained, well-compensated, and accountable police force. Most Austinites do not mind paying taxes provided those taxes are well spent on delivering the basic services we need.”
Carmen Llanes and supporters – from her campaign website
Llanes also provided a bullet list of five “key questions.” She did not take a position on the contract.
Doug Greco, who at forums takes the fight more directly to Watson than any of the other candidates, directed us to an X post in which he wrote, “I’m glad the council delayed the vote on the police contract, but my concern from watching yesterday’s work session is that the Mayor’s pressure to push through a police contract before the election is simply forcing parties to change their interpretation of the contract terms. The president of the police association two weeks ago argued that this contract grandfathered the G-File, but yesterday under questioning from the mayor he said he agreed with the mayor that it didn’t.” Greco’s statement is accurate, but, as reported above, Bullock has also said that he expects the overall G-file issue to be settled by a court.
Doug Greco – from his campaign website
Greco also expressed financial concerns, “Before voting for a contract, I think the council needs to drill down and have a much clearer picture of the implications of the costs. And should explore if it should use alternative language that leaves no doubt the G-file will not be grandfathered.”
Kathie Tovo came the closest, other than Bowen, to supporting the contract; but she did not say so directly and offered questions and suggestions for amendments. Like Greco, Tovo noted that APA President Bullock stated a different position on the contract’s treatment of the G-file than he did in the media at an earlier date. She added, “To avoid any future ambiguity, I would urge the City Council to add plain language to the contract which makes it very clear that all G-files are subject to public disclosure.”
Kathie Tovo – from her campaign website
Tovo also wrote, “I believe Austin police officers deserve to be paid fairly, and our police contract must include competitive wages along with the long-awaited oversight and accountability reforms that voters supported and the court affirmed.” Tovo concluded by noting that City staff’s estimates of future budget deficits have been lowered to a degree that “seems unprecedented.” She concluded, “I’d like to see a detailed analysis that helps the public better understand the variables which have changed.”
Those are all frank statements from the challengers and it’s not unreasonable for candidates to have questions and not take a position yet. Also, you certainly can’t blame them if they’re angling for some votes in their statements. From a political standpoint Llanes, Greco and Tovo might want to consider that it’s possible that Watson prefers them withholding their approval of the contract and, to varying degrees, fighting over the support of the activists who oppose the contract; support that will likely be split between them. On the other hand, it is possible in today’s Austin that the anti-police activists might be able to command a majority.
Meanwhile Watson can try to build a Council majority in favor of the contract and continue pursuing the votes of everyone outside that activist core. Even if he is unable to win the Council votes, a failed effort might remind voters that Watson promised to make things more sane at City Hall and that, at least in this specific case, he appears to be trying to do so.
Many believe that the odds favor Watson, but it’s way too early to tell whether his strategies will prevail. One of the four challengers could emerge from the pack and force Watson into a runoff. Or, the four could cumulatively pull enough votes to force a runoff. If there is a runoff anything could happen.
Early voting begins on October 21 and Austin voters will be able to begin determining whether Watson passed his vision test.
__________________