Vote Yes to Remove Chapter 174
Research provided to this article was gleaned from the police association contract. In the upcoming city elections on May 1st Proposition B will be presented to the voters which can do away with the contract provision that allows a reversal of corrective actions through an arbitration process. This arbitration process allows police officers to appeal their punishment to an outside arbitrator. This so-called neutral person is allowed to overthrow a termination or disciplinary action regardless of the facts. We know that some of these not-so-neutral arbitrators are racist. This provision leads to problems as the officers, who are usually quite guilty, are returned to duty. In one case, the arbitrator decided that the officer was “just having a bad day.” Calling someone the “N” word is not an indication of a “bad day” but an indication of a racist patrolling our streets. This is not being “anti-police” or “anti-union” but about a racist danger in our community.
A YES vote on May 1st will purge provisions that provide the accused officer access to evidence before speaking to investigators. During a 48-hour window before they speak to investigators, officers are permitted to review “every piece of evidence, including audio, video, and written testimony,” that’s been presented against them. This gives them a leg-up to work on their account and flip the script. Voting yes will eliminate time limitations on when investigators can carry out investigations into a bad cop’s behavior. Police administrators have six months to administer discipline against an accused officer. In criminal cases, the clock starts when authorities become aware of the wrongdoing. However, city administrators must act within 180 days of when the incident took place, not when the authorities find out about it. This is how the SAPD cop that tried to feed a dog poop sandwich to a homeless man got away with a crime. This officer should have been charged with a criminal offense in the first place! This is how bad police officers can get away with horrible crimes.
The problems with this contract are immense, and the police never want to negotiate in good faith. Will the talks going on remove the statute of limitations that prevents the inclusion of officer’s disciplinary records during investigations? When presenting their case to arbitrators, police administrators are not allowed to introduce any evidence that have occurred before the 180-day window. So past behavior can be ignored. If a bad cop used the “N” word or beat someone up before this cannot be used to show a consistent pattern of abuse.
There are other problems with this corrupt contract which includes restricting the personnel files and disciplinary records from being released which limits civilian oversight. Currently, the Review Board is made up of civilians and officers that supposedly oversee citizens’ complaints against police, but its disciplinary recommendations are “advisory only” and non-binding. One of the most corrupt sections of this contract is providing an escape clause whereby the accused officer can refuse to show up for a hearing.
The only way to eliminate this lopsided anti-citizen contract is to remove the whole apparatus by voting YES to remove Chapter 174 during the May city election. The police association has used its power to rehire 67% of those officers fired, the worst in the country, for misconduct. Officer Tim Garcia and a Park Policeman were accused of making racial slurs. In the case of Officer Garcia, he called a black man the “N” word multiple times and was rehired as the result of the decision of a racist arbitrator. Statistics also show that a large number of police deaths have occurred while in police custody as released by the Attorney General of Texas. Also, current research indicates that a number of people have been shot in the back or tasered to death. We never hear a lot about this because unlike other cities this police association has found a way to hide their crimes in a contract.
