Well, love him, hate him, or indifferent, you have to give Kirk Watson credit for getting the police contract over the finish line. It passed on a vote of 10 to 1 (Zo Qadri voting no) after an even more raucous than usual public hearing. It wasn’t just Watson. This was also a victory for Council Member Mackenzie Kelly who has worked hard for years to get a police contract and to win more respect for the police department from her fellow Council Members. Kelly and Council Member Alison Alter were the two Council Members who supported the 2023 contract that Watson and others rejected. It was widely believed that they would be joined in supporting this year’s police contract by Mayor Pro Tem Leslie Pool (who ultimately made the motion for approval) and Council Member Paige Ellis.
That’s only five votes though and it takes six to pass anything on the 11-member Council. Here it was thought that the most likely sixth vote was Ryan Alter, who raised fiscal concerns about the contract, but has not shown quite the diehard allegiance to (or fear of) the Austin Justice Coalition and Equity Action and other far left activists that his five remaining colleagues have. In the end, however, all the Council voted yes except Zo Qadri.
That brings us to Council Member Chito Vela who, as we reported last week, questions whether there really is a crime problem downtown. Vela, however, seconded Pool’s motion to approve the contract and appears to have been involved in helping Watson deliver the votes of other Council Members.
In his speech after seconding the motion Vela explained that he was voting for the contract because it strengthens police oversight, and contains every element of Prop A, the oversight charter amendment brought forward by Equity Action and approved by voters in May 2023.
There were rumors and inside tips in the days before the hearing that votes might be there for passage. This correspondent, however, was skeptical that a majority of Council Members could withstand a lengthy, emotional public hearing on the matter and still vote yes. Any doubts about the outcome were dispelled some eight hours into the hearing when Austin Justice Coalition leader/police abolitionist Chas Moore spoke. Moore made clear his opposition to the contract, but said he knew it was going to pass, adding, “All I would like to see, at least, is when you take this vote and it passes 10 to 1, or 9-2, I’m hoping for two, that you at least tell people that you honestly did this because you’re afraid of Kirk Watson and you’re afraid of the political backlash if you tell the police no.”
“All I would like to see, at least, is . . . that you at least tell people that you honestly did this because you’re afraid of Kirk Watson and you’re afraid of the political backlash if you tell the police no.”
Chas Moore of The Austin Justice Coalition
This brings us to the biggest irony of the day’s proceedings. That is, the biggest winners were also the biggest losers. By that I mean the activists affiliated with Equity Action and the Austin Justice Coalition (AJC) won a tremendous victory, getting all elements of their oversight package into the contract, even the elimination of the G-file and making previous G-files public. They still fiercely opposed the contract though; both on financial grounds and by saying they thought there was some sort of trick to the G-file language.
To depart briefly from the flow here, I want to note something that I learned during my decades of participation in local politics. I have found that a huge percentage of activists are unable to recognize and acknowledge victory; or to support compromises. This is not something unique to Equity Action and the Austin Justice Coalition. I have found this phenomena to be something that cuts across issue, class, racial, and economic lines. There are of course exceptions, as with most anything, but I have found that the general rule holds. That is that activists of virtually all stripes tend to possess an inability to realize when they have won, or to accept major gains, forge a compromise and continue the struggle.
I could provide considerable elaboration on this phenomena, but will instead stay focused on the issue at hand, the police contract and last week’s hearing on the matter. That hearing featured another phenomena I have observed over the years; that hearings where activists believe the Council is going vote against them are even more intense than usual. That was certainly the case last Thursday (October 24). At the same time each hearing has its own unique features, which was also true last week.
An Intense Hearing, Even by Austin Standards
One approach taken by many speakers opposed to the contract was to pick out a subject or issue that they believe is underfunded by the City and then maintain that the police are the reason that particular area is not funded to the level activists believe that it should be. Subject areas getting this treatment included funding for the homeless, a myriad of social programs and climate change initiatives. The framing became that the police were against these worthy causes, or so greedy they were taking money away from them.
At this point I want to interject that I believe expressing fiscal concerns about the contract is valid. The police department does consume a large portion of the general fund, and the contract will make that percentage higher. At the same time, however, I think that having a police contract is critical given the staffing crisis that has plagued the department for several years now. Also, the funding was already in the budget approved by Council. I will take the fiscal concerns of opponents of the police contract more seriously when they show up to express spending concerns on matters other than just the police.
And, some of the claims made by speakers were just a tad over the top. For instance there was even a conspiracy theory of sorts. It went like this. Austin Energy is proposing to build a gas fired power plant. That part is true. The idea is to use natural gas as a base load fuel, while transitioning to even more renewable energy in the future. (Austin Energy has been a national leader in renewable energy use for several decades now.) Some speakers maintained that the proposed gas plant is simply a way for Austin Energy to make more money. And some of this money will end up in the City’s General Fund, through the General Fund Transfer. (A set percentage of Austin Energy revenues is transferred to the City’s General Fund. This has been the case for many years The General Fund pays for the police department and many other departments.) Thus, the proposed gas plant is just a way to funnel money into the General Fund budget to pay higher salaries to police officers; or, argued another way, the police contract will put pressure on Austin Energy to increase its revenues. As a representative of the Sierra Club described it in making the latter argument, the police contract would put “permanent pressure on Austin Energy for years into the future to maximize revenue generation with every decision at every fork in the road. . . there is a genuine risk here of throwing away our climate goals.”
There were also verbal attacks on the supporters of the contract, usually as a group, but sometimes individually. In an example of the latter, Chas Moore spent a considerable part of his speech scornfully talking about how “good” one earlier speaker looked in a suit. Usually, however, the criticism of supporters was made more broadly, framing them as police apologists or greedy capitalists (who want to protect their businesses from criminals).
Some supporters pushed back on such categorizations, particularly George Scariano, a co-owner of Royal Blue Grocery, who said late in the hearing: “We should all be able to do our jobs and live peacefully in this city. To those who assume that I represent big business because I work downtown, to clarify, my only constituents are my employees and our customers. I’m no right winger, nor will I ever be. I’m just someone who employs a lot of people who are scared to come to work. And, that’s no mirage. I hope that counts as being a regular person, not as some right wing nut job.
I’m surprised that I’m being lumped in with corporate raiders, only concerned with tourists downtown. If that makes your narrative easier than holding many complex issues in tension then so be it.”
As mentioned in a previous article, Scariano was recently assaulted by person who set up chair near the entrance to Royal Blue on Congress downtown and punched Scariano when he asked the man if he was a customer.
George Scariano of Royal Blue Grocery testifies to the City Council on October 24, 2024, screenshot
Scariano also issued a challenge to Council Member Zo Qadri, whose District includes downtown. Qadri was feeling poorly and attending remotely. Thus, he was just a name on a gray box as Scariano addressed him:
“As a shopkeeper in District 9, I feel compelled to disclose that 18 months ago my business partner and I reached out personally to Downtown rep Zo Qadri to welcome him, to discuss in detail our myriad challenges, to forge a partnership with him and, in good faith, beg him to lead this (issue) downtown or respectfully get out of the way. We told him murder weapons have been found under our decks at 6th and Congress; and that we are sitting ducks daily to the mayhem constant in his District.
He’s taken a lot of notes. He’s begrudgingly admitted to us that there is a public safety crisis downtown in his District, but publicly says that Austin is safe and that our urgent problems are, quote, ‘a bump in the road.’
Furthermore, he has moved his family out of downtown due to safety concerns, just three blocks from here in an apartment tower that houses one of our stores; one in which he has witnessed the mayhem and crimes in a building he used to call home.”
Scariano continued, “CM Qadri, to vote no or abstention from this police contract is to spit in the face of the police that protect the District you represent. Do the right thing and help us fix your district. I’m sorry you’re not here in attendance and are feeling poorly as I much rather say these things to your face. Please approve this contract.”
Qadri did not respond to Scariano. He did come on camera near the end of the meeting to explain his no vote. “At the end of the day,” said Qadri, “I don’t believe this contract reflects the values of the majority of Austinites; and agreeing to the contract is prioritizing the police department over all other City services and employees for the next five years.” As opponents of the contract applauded Qadri added, “When I swore my oath of office, I promised to myself and to my constituents, I will do the right thing, even if it’s not politically beneficial or (an) easy decision.”
Council Member Zo Qadri explains his no vote on the police contract on the split screen, screenshot
Qadri ended with what sounded like an argument for compromise: “Progress does not come easily. It often requires slowly chipping away at a system that is not set up for those who are vulnerable to succeed; those who we saw at center stage today.” Some might see that as a rational argument for accepting the oversight gains (which were more than just “chipping away”), approving the contract and pushing forward; but not Qadri.
Are Council Members Scared of Kirk Watson?
In closing let’s return to Chas Moore’s claims that some Council Members voted yes because they are “scared” of Mayor Kirk Watson.
Actually I’m not sure they’re scared of him, although some may be to some extent. What I think is absolutely certain is that Watson played the central role in winning the votes of the far left wing of the Council. I’m not certain of all the tactics he used, but it likely had more to do with supporting their initiatives and helping them in their reelections (or promising to do so when they are on the ballot); as opposed to scaring them. On the other hand, losing Watson as an ally and losing his help in their reelection efforts could be, well, scary.
Now, let’s put this through the Kirk Watson Vision Test that I wrote about in previous weeks. That’s where I perceive that Watson is engaged in an internal struggle, comparable to an eye test in which the doctor instructs the patient to say when two objects line up in a viewer. In Watson’s case the two options symbolize the best interests of the City he represents and his perception of his own political interest. I know many people will disagree with me, but I think in this case Watson got the two objects lined up; and just in time for the election.
While the debate will continue over whether a vote for the contract was in the City’s best interest, it seems almost certain that Watson has boosted his campaign with the approval of the contract. For one thing he promised to deliver a contract when he led the way in rejecting the 2023 version. He made good on that promise. That should win him the support of people who back the police department and who are concerned about the public safety situation in Austin. It should help him keep the middle, while the eight Council Members who endorsed him will help shore up his left flank.
Meanwhile, Jefferey Bowen was the only one of Watson’s opponents to support the contract. Although Bowen took a principled stand, it will likely cost him votes. That’s because at least some center right voters who might have been considering Bowen because of dissatisfaction with Watson will now return to the Watson fold. The other three challengers either opposed the contract or called for delay. They are left to continue fighting over the votes of those who opposed the contract; and trying to pull more centrist voters on other issues. The latter will be more difficult with Watson having pushed the contract over the finish line.
Of course that’s just my analysis. We will only know for sure next Tuesday.
Update: Equity Action filed for a temporary restraining order the day after the Council approved the contract. A judge denied that request, but set a hearing next month on a request for a temporary injunction. Meanwhile the Austin Police Association (APA) membership approved the contract and it has been signed by the City Manager and the head of the APA.
Purchase for Public Safety Complex Also Passes
Shortly after approving the police contract, the Council approved the purchase of three existing office buildings along South MoPac for a new public safety department complex — including police, fire and EMS. This one passed on consent, although in an unusual twist the Council did their consent agenda after the hearing on the contract; as opposed to at the beginning of the meeting.
As noted here last week, the need for new headquarters buildings for public safety departments is difficult to dispute. At the same time, there are legitimate concerns about the lack of a competitive selection process (at least publicly) in choosing this location.
Also, questions were raised about why the public safety departments would locate along a one-way freeway service road.
And, this location is in the Barton Springs Zone (very close to the springs in fact). The buildings already exist, but were not built under the rules of the Save Our Springs Ordinance. The City has not yet said whether they plan to improve the water quality controls on the property.
So there is much still to be found out about this contract as we move along.
_______________________
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