Cute.

If the SPOG stands unchallenged with this win via PERC, what's to prevent them from refusing to bargain any new system into place during their next contract talks, slated for 2010?

Besides, do you really think the new council members, who got their positions almost entirely thanks to SPOG funding and efforts, will really try to enact any real meaningful changes against SPOG wishes?

I admit, it's an interesting way to look at it... but I'm afraid this ruling has some pretty scary and far-reaching implications for accountability efforts.

Otherwise, the SPOG, who is responsible for weakening the current system to the point where it could be gamed like it is today, will do the same to any other system or proposed change.

That's the sad truth of it.

This has gone far enough.

I mean, seriously, I'm down with the citizens initiative idea.

WHO on the City Council is agitating for any real police accountability in this city? Seriously. No one had Nick's back when the Chief and Mayor tag-teamed him. Joe Szwaja was the only candidate for City Council who even supported creating a police accountability system with real teeth. Where is the call for any serious restructuring going to come from?

Both Burgess and Harrell are independents.

A citizen's initiative could only require the city to negotiate oversight. You can't change working conditions without a change in contract.

The police are still negotiating their one-year-overdue contract. They fully expect to go to arbitration. An arbiter is very unlikely to implement a major restructuring of oversight.

An observation:
I couldn't possibly imagine why the police would object to someone like Packratt on an oversight committee. He's clearly unbiased and appreciates the intricacies of their jobs.

Normally, the bargaining power that a union holds is a near-monopoly on labor. If there is a dispute over their working arrangement, they have the option of refusing to work, thereby applying pressure on the employer, who needs their labor in order to operate.

But some unions, normally those that involve public safety, are barred from striking. In those cases, I'm curious what leverage they have.

For instance:

Widget builders: "We want more money per hour!"

Widgets, Inc.: "We won't pay you more. We have vacation homes to pay for, you know."

Widget builders: "Oh yeah? Build your own damned widgets, then. We're not going to be coming in to work tomorrow."

Widgets, Inc.: "Okay, look for it on your next paycheck."

But in this case:

SPD: "We demand no meaningful oversight!"

Citizens' elected officials: "No, when you fuck up, people are hurt. We're going review your work, and when you do something you are not supposed to -- like beat the shit out of some jaywalker who ran from your plainclothesed-asses after you jumped out of your unmarked drugbustforteituremobile and chased him down the street -- you're going to be looking for a new non-gun-wielding career."

SPD: "Oh yeah? Well then we're not... going to be... very happy about it."

Really -- how does this work? Jonah?

Lol, you actually believe that.

My, you're gullible.

While he doesn't have a record as a council member upon which to stand, we'll let his actions speak for themselves as his term continues.

Until we get either a mayor or a majority of the council willing to stand up to them we will have no meaningful oversight.

Organized public service employees (esp. public safety employees) can't strike. It's against the law. It may still be against the law for them to even talk about striking.

They have two concessions during difficult labor negotiations.

1. They're a closed shop. The city isn't allowed to hire scabs or non-union cops to replace them.

2. The city is required to negotiate a contract with them. If neither party comes to an agreement, they're both required to go to an arbiter.

The arbiter is supposed to listen to both sides make their cases and decide a resolution somewhere in the middle of their sticking points.

Neither side wants to go to the arbiter, but both sides threaten.

The city lately has decided to let the public safety unions work without contracts.

Traditionally, an arbiter punishes the city for this behavior. The longer the cops go without a contract, the better deal they stand if negotiations go this far.

Since the mayor's latest term, the city has demanded a token from each union.

The firefighters agreed to work a little more than a week extra each year.

The fire chiefs agreed to let the city move them to different areas within the department.

The city may think they're setting a precedent with these tokens that will carry into future contract negotiations. Once a precedent is set, an arbiter is free to fall upon it in future arbitration.

Most do great jobs. Most hate being lumped together in the public's eye with the assholes and the abusers. Fair oversight would allow them to point to their clean records when people make blanket statements about "all the cops".

I wish I knew what fair oversight looked like.

You'd think that the Alley-Barnes case, and all the media attention it received, could force either the Chief to lead, the Mayor to fire the Chief, or the Council to step up in the absence of Chief/ Mayor leadership and reform the OPA system. The fact that none of this has happened is truly discouraging, and shows the limits of what the media can accomplish when their stories of corruption aren't coupled with sustained, mobilized citizen outrage.