In siding with activists, a Travis County judge ordered the Austin Police Department and city leaders to end the use of a confidential police personnel file, which voters elected to get rid of more than a year ago.
The decision comes after lawyers for activists and the city argued before Judge Maria Cantú Hexsel in the 53rd Civil District Court in June to decide whether the city had failed to comply with its charter by continuing its use of the "G-file."
Activists hope that eliminating this file will increase transparency, as it could give the public access to officer complaints and disciplinary investigations into officers that did not result in any action. The Austin Police Association, the union that represents officers, has regularly maintained that releasing this information could harm officers.
Voters called for the Police Department to end its use of the G-file last year when they passed the Austin Police Oversight Act, previously known as Proposition A. Equity Action, the organization that got the act on the ballot, sued the city in December, claiming it had failed to implement aspects of the initiative, such as the elimination of the G-file.
Hexsel's ruling provides clarity to the city's legal team, which previously had said that to end the use of the G-file, the city would have to bargain over its demise with the police union. City lawyers said that had to be done because they feared unilaterally ending the use of the G-file would violate state law.
More:Lawsuit alleges Austin needs to do more to implement Prop A, police oversight referendum
Hexsel's ruling, which she released Friday, means this interpretation by the city was wrong. Her ruling specifically stated that the city manager and police chief "have unlawfully failed to perform their mandatory duty to end the City of Austin’s use of the 'g file’ ” despite the passage of the oversight act.
In a newsletter sent Monday, Mayor Kirk Watson said he did not see any reason to appeal the decision, as it provided the clarity about state law that the city was seeking.
The G-file comes from a part of Texas Local Government Code Chapter 143.089(g) — the "g" at the end is how the colloquial term "G-file" originated. Essentially, Texas law says that police and fire departments can have personnel files that are only for the department's use.
Even with the end of the G-file, the public's access to various personnel records will still be stipulated by the Texas Public Information Act, which offers a litany of provisions that block the public's access to information, particularly concerning law enforcement records.
The public always has had access to internal investigations that resulted in disciplinary action against an officer, as it's required under state law.
As part of ongoing bargaining over the police contract, which began nearly six months ago, the city has said it would not approve one unless it complied with the Austin Police Oversight Act, which meant that either way, there would not be a G-file.
More:Proposition A earns victory, Prop B rejected in Saturday's election
A previous proposal agreed to by the city and union stated that the use of the G-file would end the day the contract was signed. However, there was a grandfather clause that said any G-file materials from before the contract passed could not be made public.
It's unclear how Hexsel's ruling will affect what the two sides had bargained about, namely whether that grandfather clause will still be included in the contract.
During a bargaining session Monday, the city's legal team noted that it would need to reevaluate its proposition in light of Hexsel's ruling.
The city did not immediately respond to questions sent by the American-Statesman related to Hexsel's ruling, including about how this would affect the proposition agreed to previously in bargaining.
Michael Bullock, president of the Austin Police Association, did not respond to a request for an interview about Hexsel's ruling.
Kathy Mitchell, senior adviser for Equity Action, said the organization was "very happy" with the ruling, as it affirmed that the Austin Police Oversight Act is "good law." However, she added that if the city tries to have a "grandfather clause" as it had originally proposed in bargaining, then it would violate the act and the contract could not be approved by the City Council.
"The G file is (like) a state of mind," Mitchell said. "If you don't have that state of mind, you have a different state of mind. It doesn't tell us what exactly will be public or not public. That will just have to work itself out" through the Texas Public Information Act.
