Collective Bargaining

The Issue

Police unions have long used collective bargaining of their contracts to shield officers from accountability for serious misconduct against civilians. Without meaningful oversight, local jurisdictions and police departments cannot discipline or remove problematic officers and are left powerless to reform a broken system. Public trust in law enforcement is eroded as officers evade discipline for actions that are a violation of civilian civil liberties, assault or even death.

Importance

This bill removes police accountability from collective bargaining, eliminates private arbitration of disciplinary appeals, and requires public participation in the development and establishment of accountability systems and processes for serious police misconduct.

Unlike most public employees, law enforcement officers, in the course of duty, have the authority to interfere with the life and liberty of civilians as well as for the use of deadly force. The systems of accountability that address serious officer misconduct have mistakenly been included in collective bargaining along with pay, benefits, and working conditions. Too often, accountability measures are watered down and when the system is put to a test, the local jurisdictions or police departments are unable to impose meaningful discipline on officers who have overstepped bounds.

This inability to impose administrative accountability on law enforcement is frustrating to community members who want justice served when their rights are violated. The public’s options for recourse in engaging with a faulty system are limited and ineffective because accountability systems are weak and accessible public figures are not empowered to act. For example, with the use of private arbitration for disciplinary appeals, police chiefs do not have ultimate authority in disciplining or removing problematic officers. Without robust accountability mechanisms, reform is near impossible as remaining avenues such as training or department policy are easily and routinely ignored.

Examples in Seattle

Details and critics emerge for new Seattle police contract
In the wake of Charleena Lyles' killing by police officers, SPOG argued that body cameras would have to be negotiated as part of CBA instead of just mandated as department policy. Subsequently, it was an issue that was leveraged for pay raises in the 2018 negotiation. As stated above, constitutional policing should be a minimum requirement, not a bargaining chip.

Judge vacates arbitrator's ruling in Adley Shepherd case (UPDATED) 

The SPOG led petition for reinstatement of Adley Shepherd specifically points to CBA's as a reason why he shouldn't have been terminated. It took a Superior Court Judge to overturn the arbitration decision that would have reinstated Shepherd. The Federal Judge enforcing the 2012 Consent Decree also felt that the way SPD handled the Shepherd termination was indicative of the department no longer being compliant. This is an example of SPOG's use of CBA's as their main line of defense when evading enforcement of accountability by City, County, and Federal authority.

Examples in Spokane

Center for Justice: new contract does not include investigative powers for ombudsman
In 2013, City of Spokane voters approved embedding the independence of a civilian oversight agency (Office of Police Ombudsman) in the city charter. However, the collectively bargained contract with the Spokane Police Guild did not honor the public’s will and did not include investigative powers for the ombudsman.

The most recent Spokane Police Guild contract was rejected by Spokane City Council in June 2020 because independent oversight of the Spokane Police Department was not ensured.

Talking Points

Constitutional policing should be a minimum requirement for the job, not a bargaining chip.

Officers have the power to inflict harm on citizens, including violence or death. These serious infringements upon the safety and life of citizens should not be subject to collective bargaining. 

Transparency into the accountability process is a first step to restoring community trust.

Currently, it is difficult to understand who has authority to impose discipline or how the accountability system works. Because the development of systems that address legitimate community concerns about the power law enforcement wields and the harm that can be caused when that power is used improperly is not done openly, responsibility is often deflected onto others.

For example, a 2017 City of Seattle Ordinance established a robust accountability system that was then watered down by the 2018 Seattle Police Officers Guild contract. The City has been left with the appearance of an accountability system that in reality has no teeth and leads to public mistrust when officers act improperly with impunity.

Accountability should be made a public process so that those most impacted have a direct say in how the issue is handled.

Public participation in establishing systems for receiving and investigating misconduct complaints promotes transparency and accountability in government responses to the most serious potential violations of the rights of members of the public. Making accountability a public process provides access to those voices most affected by the issue and that need to be heard the most.

Local jurisdictions and police departments should be empowered to effect change.

Every jurisdiction is different and should be able to tailor accountability systems that fit their unique needs. Removal of barriers to police accountability from collective bargaining allows the implementation of solutions that strengthen the overall reform effort and enable change in policing culture from within departments and localities.

Accountability systems should be flexible to keep pace with evolving best practices and with the benefit of public review and comment.

Development and implementation of robust accountability systems are not simple tasks. Having those processes be subject to the cadence of bargaining and re-negotiation each time a new police contract comes due is unnecessarily inflexible and does not support building of transparent and just functioning systems that work for everyone.