Say what you want about Mayor Kirk Watson, but the guy is a skilled political pro. By that I don’t mean the derisive “professional politician” label which is generally used to charge that someone has never done anything else but be a politician and earns their living as a politician. That’s not what I’m saying about Watson. He had a successful career as a trial attorney before he ever entered politics. Nor do I mean to say that being a political pro, or a professional politician, is automatically a bad thing. What I’m saying is that Watson is a skilled politician who was skillfully working to outmaneuver his opponents before they even entered the race.
Instead, my core point is that I think Watson has a struggle going on within his soul, between what he perceives as best for the City of Austin and what he perceives as best for him politically. I base that on years of observation, including having worked alongside him as a Council Member when he first served as Mayor, from 1997 to 2001. (I was a Council Member from 1996 to 2005.)
At this point I want to introduce a concept that I call the Kirk Watson Vision Test. This is based on a test that eye doctors perform. The patient looks into a viewer/machine. There are identical images on each side of the screen; often some sort of animal, say a rabbit. The Doctor moves the objects either toward or away from each other and says tell me when these two objects line up.
Kirk Watson’s approach to governing reminds me of this test. In the Watson test the first object could be titled “Watson’s perception of his own political interests.” The second is “Best Interests of the City of Austin.” When the two objects line up it can be a beautiful thing. That’s because Watson truly does know how to get things done and he knows (or knew) how to bring people together — even bitter enemies — and forge compromises. That happened at key junctures during his earlier tenure as Mayor. The most famous example is when he convinced developers and the Chamber of Commerce to support buying land to protect Barton Springs while convincing environmentalists to support expansion of the convention center; and convinced both to support an important flood control project in East Austin.
Before going any further, I want to say that it is possible that Watson has always chosen what he sees as in the City’s best interest. In my view, however, this time around Watson has repeatedly picked “Watson’s perception of his own political interests,” whether the images are lined up or not. As we work through the story, readers can play eye doctor and determine for themselves how Watson performs on the eye test.
The two primary examples we will discuss here are:
- the issue of negotiating a contract with the Austin Police Association (APA), the police union, and
- the HOME initiative, plus related changes to development and zoning rules.
This will be a series of three stories and we will work in the chronological order in which they came up during Watson’s tenure. We will start with the police contract proposed in February 2023, instead of the one that is on the table right now. We will get to the contract currently on the table in Part 3. Now, let’s begin with a short review of Watson’s path to his second tenure as Mayor.
Watson Barely Won in 2022
As already noted, Watson served as Austin Mayor from 1997 to 2001. He left to run for Texas Attorney General, but lost to Greg Abbott — who of course went on to become Governor. Watson then served as State Senator from 2007 to 2020. He left the Senate midterm to become “Founding Dean of the Hobby School of Public Affairs at the University of Houston.” He kept that job for only one year. He left at the end of May 2021, explaining that the COVID pandemic changed his perspective on life and that he wanted to spend more time with his grandchildren, who live in Austin. By early August of that same year Watson publicly floated the idea of running for Mayor. He then officially entered the race in February 2022.
It is pretty clear, at least to me, that Watson thought he was going to waltz back into the Mayor’s job based on his past glories. He was in for a rude awakening. State Representative Celia Israel entered the race and ran at him hard from the left. Watson has always been considered something of a Democratic centrist.
Israel won the backing of most left wing/“progressive” groups, including “progressive” Council Members Chito Vela and Vanessa Fuentes. She also had the support of police abolitionist Chas Moore of the Austin Justice Coalition (AJC) and a number of Moore’s allies. Both Moore and AJC are pillars of Austin’s far left.
Council Members Chito Vela and Vanessa Fuentes, who opposed Watson in 2022 but endorsed him for reelection
Israel led in the first round of voting. The race then went to a December runoff and Israel came very, very close to winning. Watson squeaked by at the very end of vote counting on election night, when boxes from Williamson County (the parts of Williamson County that are in the Austin city limits) were reported. It was initially thought, on election night, that Israel narrowly won Travis County and Watson won the election by prevailing in Williamson County. It turned out that he had actually narrowly won Travis County also.
Overall Watson won by 942 votes.
Importantly for our analysis here, Israel won almost every precinct east of MoPac, while Watson prevailed in West Austin, and Williamson County. Areas west of MoPac tend to be a bit more centrist than those on the other side of MoPac; a few even a little conservative. The same can be said, only more so, about areas of Williamson County within the Austin city limits.
Making Sure It is Never That Close Again
It’s impossible to know for certain, but I believe that when Watson almost lost to Israel, he decided that he would never get out-lefted again; that is, out flanked to the left again. He clearly hadn’t fully realized how far to the left municipal politics had shifted in Austin during his absence from City Hall
Given his election scare, I think that when Watson took office in January 2023, his top priority was to avoid having a serious opponent from the left in the next election. He didn’t pull that off, but over the last two years he has won significant left support from people who opposed him in 2022. Meanwhile all but one of Watson’s current challengers (Jefferey Bowen) are running against him from the left. If Watson can hold on to the center and center right and gain with the left, then he will roll to reelection.
Given his election scare, I think that when Watson took office in January 2023, his top priority was to avoid having a serious opponent from the left in the next election.
Watson’s leftward shift started almost immediately with his opposition to the police contract that City staff, along with an outside legal and consulting team, had been negotiating for a year with the APA. To many, including your correspondent, Watson’s stance against the police contract was stunning. He has long been known as a strong supporter of the police; and he and the APA were known as political allies. In fact during his first run for Mayor in 1997 Watson ambushed his opponent, then Council Member Ronney Reynolds, by winning an early endorsement from APA — even though Reynolds was an incumbent Council Member who had been a strong backer of the police.
The Rejection of the Police Contract Early in Watson’s Term
The police contract issue came before the Council on February 9, 2023; barely a month into Watson’s term. The whole issue was a complicated mess and I will do my best to explain it as briefly as possible, because it is important to our overall story.
Undisputed is that the negotiations between APA and the City that led to the proposed 2023 contract had been going on for almost a year. That means the negotiations began in the winter of 2022. The timing is important because later in the process there were complaints that the proposed four-year contract was an attempt to avoid the impact of a citizen initiated election on police oversight measures.
A few months after the contract discussions began, Equity Action — a coalition group allied with the Austin Justice Coalition — launched a petition drive aimed at strengthening police oversight, including some powers that had been lost in an earlier arbitrator’s ruling against the City. The contract negotiations clearly predated the petition drive because, as the Equity Action website reports, “Equity Action’s second major campaign, in 2022, started with signature collection in the midst of one of the hottest summers on record. We turned in more than 33,000 signatures and put the Austin Police Oversight Act on the ballot.” That ballot item was set for May 6, 2023 and was called Prop A.
Complicating the matter was that the City Attorney’s Office said that parts of Prop A violated state law. Although, they were somewhat vague on this, the concerns of illegality focused on the so called g-file. That is a file that includes complaints against officers on which it was found that no disciplinary action was merited. State law allows these files to be kept confidential.
Another complication was that the activist backers of Prop A did not want a police contract to be approved before the Prop A election, especially not a four-year contract. Following their wishes, Council Member Chito Vela put an item on the February 9, 2023 agenda instructing the City Manager to negotiate for a one-year contract. Co-sponsoring were Council Members Zo Qadri, José Velásquez and Vanessa Fuentes.
Council Members José Velásquez and Zo Qadri helped kill a four-year police contract in 2023. Both have endorsed Kirk Watson for reelection.
Shortly after Vela came forward with his item, City Manager Spencer Cronk announced that the APA and the City had agreed on a four-year contract. This infuriated Vela who framed the Manager’s action as an attempt to derail his item for a one-year contract.
Cronk’s days were already numbered at this point. Watson and others were angry over the City’s response to the recent ice storm. Plus, it is widely known that Watson came into office intending to fire Cronk. A Special Called Meeting to “Evaluate the terms and conditions of the City Manager’s employment” was already scheduled for February 9, 2023; the same day Vela’s aforementioned item was on the regular Council agenda.
A Special Called Meeting to “Evaluate the terms and conditions of the City Manager’s employment” was already scheduled for February 9, 2023; the same day Vela’s aforementioned item was on the regular Council agenda.
When his item came up on February 9, Vela lambasted the Manager, “I am extremely disappointed in the late night press release regarding a four year police contract and early morning press conference, which seemed clearly designed to undermine an item my colleagues and I have brought forward today. It is absolutely unacceptable for the city manager to interfere with the policy making process like this. For months Council has given the city manager direction to pursue a one year contract to allow the May ballot petitions to be considered and voted on by the public.” Later in his speech Vela added, “These actions have caused me to lose my faith in your leadership of the city. I do believe it is time for a new City Manager.”
Cronk replied, “For many weeks now we’ve had these dates lined up. We have been briefing Council both in executive session and in the public around these negotiations. These negotiations are public. The public has an opportunity to weigh in and provide feedback to both staff, to the department and to Council as they proceed. I appreciate the comments that the Council Member made but I stand by the process that we have used and where we have now got to in this agreement, and I’m very proud that we arrived here because it’s going to be in the best interests of the city.”
Cronk later added, that he and then Police Chief Joseph Chacon had “serious concerns that our staffing levels would be compromised.” He also said that the proposed four-year contract included “as much oversight as legally possible as part of these agreements.”
The core question here is whether the Council had actually directed that the contract would be for one year. That is what the controversy centered around at the February 9, 2023 Council meeting. And, it is what Vela cited as his reason for wanting to replace the City Manager.
Cronk didn’t directly speak to this in his response to Vela at the Council meeting. The Austin Independent was unable to find any public evidence of Council direction on the length of the contract. That’s not surprising because this is is the type of directive that could have been given in executive session. We contacted Vela by email and asked him to provide evidence for his claim that the Council had directed the Manager to negotiate a one-year contract. Vela did not respond.
It is difficult to believe that the APA would have negotiated for a four-year contract if they had known that a majority of the Council wanted a one-year version. That would have been a virtual guarantee that the contract would be rejected when it got to Council, meaning the union would have willingly engaged in a year-long fruitless exercise. In fact then APA President Michael Villareal told CBS Austin: “Two days ago, Austin City Council made the decision to attempt to pursue a short-term contract and take no action on the negotiated four-year contract they had in front of them. For the last year, the City of Austin Labor Relations Office and the Austin Police Association have engaged in robust and comprehensive negotiations for a long-term contract; a process that all of City Council has been aware of and a process which has been open to the public both in person and remotely. No part of this was a secret or a surprise.”
It is difficult to believe that the APA would have negotiated for a four-year contract if they had known that a majority of the Council wanted a one-year version. That would have been a virtual guarantee that the contract would be rejected when it got to Council.
Another clue as to whether Council had actually directed staff to negotiate a one-year contract came in a question and answer segment at the February 9, 2023 Council meeting between Council Member Ryan Alter and Chief Financial Officer Ed Van Eenoo. Alter was inquiring about the estimated costs of Vela’s proposal, which staff calculated to be significantly higher annually than the four-year agreement proposed by Cronk. Alter asked why the “spreadsheet” Van Eenoo was showing the Council displayed four years. Van Eeeno replied, “So, we’ve been at this for a year and all the proposals we’ve seen from the association, all the proposals that the City has (or have) put on the table, they’ve all been for four years.”
Once again this calls into doubt whether Vela was being truthful when he claimed that the Council directed the City Manager to negotiate a one-year contract, but (as Vela maintained) the Manager went rogue and
- negotiated a four-year contract; and
- sprung the four-year deal on the Council;
- just as Vela put an item on the agenda instructing the Manager to negotiate a one-year contract — which Vela claimed the Council had already instructed Cronk to do.
How Did Watson Handle This Dispute?
This might seem like a situation that the presiding officer (Watson) — also a skilled lawyer and veteran elected official — could clear up with a few savvy questions. It was also another opportunity for Watson to apply his legendary negotiating skills and try to work out a solution in the best interests of the City. Watson didn’t do any of that. Instead he came down solidly on the side of AJC, Equity Austin and the Council Members allied closely with those groups and activists.
Watson did cite the pending election on Prop A as one of his reasons for opposing the contract. That played to the activists, and the Council supermajority, but it could also be seen as an attempt to honor the petition process. This perhaps brings the two figures in the vision test a little closer together, although not precisely lined up.
At the raucous February 9, 2023 Council meeting, Vela’s motion to consider a one-year contract passed with only Council Members Alison Alter and Mackenzie Kelly voting no and Paige Ellis abstaining. The Council then discussed reconsidering and postponing instead. Ultimately the four-year contract died.
APA president Villareal made clear that the APA would not engage in negotiations for a one-year contract.
The next week the Council fired Cronk. Watson was quoted by the Texas Tribune saying that Cronk’s approach on the police contract was ‘“all-or-nothing B.S.”’
The existing contract expired at the end of March 2023 and Austin police have operated without a contract ever since.
Equity Action’s Prop A passed in May 2023 with 79% of the vote. The City, however, did not make the G-file public, saying it was unsure how to proceed legally.
As predicted by many, the staffing shortage intensified. Currently there are more than 100 less officers at APD than when the four-year contract was rejected in February 2023.
Next: How did Watson’s stance on the 2023 proposed police contract work out as far as winning him support on the left; plus Watson’s approach to the HOME initiative.
_____________________
Folks: Local, independent journalism is very poorly funded. That is definitely the case with The Austin Independent. So please consider subscribing and/or donating. Click here. Funds we receive will be used primarily to try to increase our readership base.
To receive notification when the Austin Independent posts stories, to subscribe, or to write to the editor please send us an email under Contact on the home page,or click here.
The Austin Independent, a publication of The Austin Independent, LLC
All Rights Reserved