Union Busting

In the Austin American Statesman editorial page, police chief Acevedo is praised for establishing a "discipline matrix" for the rank and file of the Austin Police Department. With one story to back up their arguments and a quote from Acevedo that the officers of the department, "support the direction in which we're (the department) is headed," the editorial is definately lean on facts and long on bias. With no facts to back up their claim that the departments reputation is "tainted," and ignoring the impartial judgement of the arbiter in the Griffin case, they tow the company line of city management.

On the surface, a uniform code of discipline seems like a good thing, however, the fact that the police chief uses his "discression" to enforse his own matrix shows that the system is completely scewed in city managements favor, something that the editorial board of the Statesman convienly overlooks. It also ignores years of negotiated contracts between the police union and management. The silence from the police union on the discipline matrix is deafening.

In addition, the supporting argument that the city lawyers handed out $55,000 for the alleged "suffering" of Mr Cruz implies that the city would have lost in court. It may well have been that the city simplied bowed to political pressure or made a desision not to back its own officer based on the financial cost of that option.

The history of discipline is also short of data. The Statesman cites one example: the inconsistencies of punishment for giving "false statements on official reports." No support is given, however, to prove that the false statements ever existed, let alone that they ever created a "loophole" in the appeals process. The solution supported by the Statesman editorial board certainly does not fix the "reinstatements based on favoritism." In fact, it is ensures that the Chief's descresion is the ultimate arbiter of reinstatement.

The bottom line of this edititorial is that they have, in essensce, sided with City management on the issue of police discipline. While it is an opinion, and they are entitled to it, nothing is written to make obvious this underlying theme. With thin arguments and few facts, they have written a splended piece of propaganda for the police chief. On top of all that, no arguments are given that even support their own contention, that the department's reputation is tainted.

Double Standard?

In the case of a former Georgetown police sgt, Jimmy Fennell, procecuters were accused of applying a double standard. Jim Harrington, of the Texas Civil Rights project alledged that the procecuting attorney used favoritism in dropping the most serious charges. The procecuting attorney defended his actions, stating that the Georgetown police department will have to, "answer some questions from the community."

Fennell was accused of forcing a woman in custody to dance for him and then sexually assaulting her. If convicted of the most serious crimes, he would have faced two 99 year prison terms. Instead, he will be facing 10 years and a $10,000 fine. Harrington said that the relatively light sentencing was an indication that officers accused of crimes are treated differently in Williamson county than ordinary citizens. The procecutor has tried two other officers accused of crimes; one recieved 20 years in prision, and another received 10.

This story was published in the Austin American Statesman. It can be read in its entirety at the Statesman.com