Early voting is upon us and Temple voters are facing an important decision regarding police department staffing levels. While usually addressed in budgeting processes, a proposed municipal charter amendment change is the vehicle currently in use by the Temple Police Association to attempt garnering a charter-mandated ratio of not less than 2.5 officers per 1,000 Temple citizens.
The Temple Police Association, an organization not affiliated with the Temple Police Department, organized a petition drive to place the amendment on the Nov. 8 ballot and appears to be its strongest proponent. Citing safety concerns over a lack of sufficient coverage, Temple Police Association President Jerry Bryan was recently quoted in the Temple Daily Telegram saying “all we’ve heard so far is supportive – down to the business owners and residents.”
The Temple Chamber of Commerce’s announcement last week to oppose the charter amendment along with a Temple Daily Telegram editorial also encouraging a “no” vote for the charter change might suggest otherwise, but voters should do their own homework regarding this issue.
Save Our Charter PAC organized in opposition of the amendment with the PAC’s Facebook page strongly articulating its support of the TPD while questioning the fiscal and governance ramifications of the specific staffing ratio as well as use of the charter amendment process to enact such a policy decision.
Numerous issues continue to generate concern with regard to the proposed amendment. The cost of fulfilling the mandate – hiring 36 new officers to supplement Temple’s current sworn 133-member force – is projected to bring a $3 million implementation expenditure with future police budgets requiring at least an additional $2 million annually. Such new costs could bring up to an 11 cents per $100 of property value tax hike to cover salaries and other costs related to the new officers. Use of state or federal staffing ratios to the exclusion of other localized factors is another issue causing concern.
This proposal, for a city whose crime rates are reportedly declining, seems an expensive solution to a non-existent problem. In times of heightened taxpayer concern over government spending, increased public pension liabilities and state/federal encroachment into traditionally local issues, public officials are right to take such issues seriously.
City staffing is addressed in the normal municipal budgetary process. The Temple Police Association attempting to circumvent this channel for special dispensation could set an unhealthy precedent and/or cause inherent discourse between city departments and with management. It also positions the city charter to become an operating manual opposed to maintaining the government framework function for which charters were created. It functionally usurps responsibilities for which city staff, the mayor and city council are currently charged. Such a change will bring major ramifications for city residents and employees. If such action is desired, it should be addressed in a context broader than one department’s staffing.
Recent media articles routinely note that the charter amendment is being promoted by the Temple Police Association, an organization not affiliated with the Temple Police Association. In an earlier op-ed , the charter amendment was described as it “appears more an action from a labor union playbook focused on increasing and protecting police officer jobs rather than ensuring public safety and protecting taxpayer interests.” In a comment on that piece, the Temple Police Association said, among other things, “What the article and the City are failing to point out is that the Temple Police Association (TPA) is not a union, Police in Texas CAN NOT UNIONIZE.”
A review of paperwork filed by the Temple Police Association (aka Temple Professional Law Enforcement Association) with both the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts and Texas Secretary of State lists its location as an Austin address belonging to the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas (CLEAT) Administrative Office.
Per its web site , CLEAT describes itself as providing “legal representation, lobbying and legislative representation, local political action, collective bargaining and negations support and a range of related field services.” It also says:
With more than 18,500 members across the state, CLEAT is the largest police officers’ union in Texas, the largest legal services provider in Texas specializing in representing law enforcement officers, and the largest alliance of local police officers’ associations in Texas. More important, we possess the world-class experience, resources and the will to bring STRENGTH, JUSTICE and UNITY to everything from local contract negotiations to critical incidents.
Regarding Texas as a right-to-work state, Attorney General Greg Abbott’s web site says :
Texas laws protect employees from threats, force, intimidation, or coercion for choosing to either participate or not participate in a union. In other words, the choice of whether to join a labor union is yours; you may not be required to join or pay dues to a union as a condition of employment, nor may you be denied employment because you have joined a union.
So despite Texas not embracing the full union experience, Texans are in no way precluded from joining a union. And the Temple Police Association uses the Austin address of an organization that calls itself a union. CLEAT’s general counsel signed initially as TPA’s “registered agent” while the group’s corporate counsel continues in that role today . So does that make the Temple Police Association a union? Does it matter? That’s a call for voters.
As one final point, voters should be aware of this proposed charter amendment’s uniqueness. Texas Municipal League provides a variety of services to cities and in doing so, collects much information regarding their operations. In response to a query on TML’s awareness of city charters and police staffing mandates, Executive Director Bennett Sandlin indicated Mesquite with a minimum staffing requirement of 1.5 officers per 1,000 residents and Balch Springs with a minimum requirement of 1 officer per 1,000 residents as the only two cities of which his group was aware that have charter-required levels. He noted, however, that while others could exist, TML doesn’t currently track this practice due to its seemingly limited use.
Police staffing ratios became an issue in Austin’s recent budget negotiations, but only as a city policy issue, not as a charter amendment. The city has had a policy of 2 officers per 1,000, but Council Member Bill Spelman claims the standard was “preventing the city from adding badly needed civilian employees such as dispatchers, 911 call center employees and crime analysts.”
Per the Austin American-Statesman, the council looked at Pflugerville and Round Rock having no officer to residents ratio policy along with San Marcos Police Chief Howard Williams citing that “his city also does not use that as a factor in hiring officers, saying a ratio does not take into account the number of calls for service that police get and what types of crimes they must take on.”
Ron York, an Oklahoma-based police pay consultant having worked with the Austin Police Association and CLEAT, was quoted saying “in the central and southern United States, the ratio of two officers per 1,000 people is fairly standard.” The Statesman’s own research found, according to 2010 census data, Austin at 2 officers per 1,000, San Marcos at 2.11, Houston at 2.57, Dallas at 2.86, Cedar Park at 1.70, Georgetown at 1.50 and Pflugerville at 1.44.
Ultimately, instead of the Austin Police Department receiving authorization for 49 new officers, the council voted to fund “a $100,000 patrol utilization study that will determine whether Austin needs two officers per 1,000 citizens, or some fluctuation of that ratio.” Spelman replied “”If [this study] is served to start a community conversation on one of our most important public concerns, I will take it as a victory and look forward to discussions in the future.”
Police staffing is indeed an important public concern for any city – as also is the structure of a city’s governance. Neither should be changed lightly. Passage of this charter amendment would likely create an impact that is wide, long-term and offering not necessarily more security than many Temple residents already have.
This is an important, but not complicated issue. Voters should be guided by reasoned and reasonable positions – not emotions or fear. Will the costs and consequences justify the benefits? That is the ultimate question on which voters will weigh in. Don’t miss your opportunity!
Early voting starts Monday, Oct. 24 with the general election scheduled Tuesday, Nov. 8. Click here for the schedule and locations.