Item 20: Meet and Confer
We’ve talked a lot about this. Last week, Chief Standridge explained the new contract, and tonight it’s up for a vote. During Citizen Comment, a lot of people spoke in favor of police, and a lot of people spoke in favor of increased oversight and transparency.
A trend I noticed: the pro-police speakers were all happy with the contract and urged Council to approve it. The pro-oversight/transparency speakers were all unhappy with the contract and urged Council to continue negotiations. That tells you who got the better end of the negotiation.
Since this is the second reading, it went straight to discussion.
The Council Discussion
Mark Gleason: “This is fair. Thank you to everyone.”
Alyssa Garza: “Community input is not dialogue. I’ve worked with people on both sides. We’re strongest when we’re unified. Why was there no town hall? Why no community forum?”
Everyone tried to answer Alyssa’s question:
Matthew Mendoza: “I wanted to take it to the voters!”
(Note: that’s not really a response. Alyssa means, “Why didn’t we discuss the Hartman Reforms with the community, and include their input in the negotiations?” Matthew means, “I wanted to let voters decide whether we should reopen negotiations.” These are different.)
Shane Scott: Chief Standridge listens to all this community input.
City Manager Stephanie Reyes: I followed Council direction.
Jude Prather: This is measured progress. We’re moving the needle. But we still need to be able to recruit the best officers.
Alyssa: How would the Hartman Reforms be an impediment to recruiting the best officers? They only affect you if you’re a bad officer. How are we okay with barely any change before and after this community push?!
Mark: We’ve heard what the community said! It’s not one-sided! Retention is so important!
Saul: You can’t have everything, but it’s a start. Being an officer is a terrible job.
Matthew: I appreciate the signature-getters. I have faith in the chief.
Jane: This contract is better than no contract.
Alyssa: This council, in executive session, put forth which reforms we cared about. The people in charge ruled out some.
All of a sudden, it dawned on me what Alyssa saying. She’s asserting that the negotiating team did not actually take the Hartman reforms to the negotiations. That City Council had an executive session, and told the city manager to scrap most of the five reforms. Our opening bid in negotiations was the diluted peanut scraps, and the only thing uncertain was how much SMPOA would want in increased compensation.
Let’s be clear: when you start a negotiation, you should start with your ideal position. Then you bargain back and forth, and chip off parts of the fantasy to get to a realistic compromise. But you start with your full wish list.
The key moment happened at 3:10. City Manager Stephanie Reyes gave the most crucial statement on the matter:
We took the direction from council, as far as the five Hartman reforms that Chief Standridge provided information about, and we asked Council for parameters, and then that’s what we went back to negotiations with.
We did get direction to move forward with the 3rd party arbitrator, and so that’s one that we brought forward to negotiations. We wanted to keep the second 180 days, and that’s what you all asked for. You asked for letters of reprimand to be considered during the promotional process, and we even asked if they could be considered public file vs g file, and SMPOA said no. The video review was something that, because of the difference and nuance, that was one that council said “no, let’s go ahead and keep that”. The vacation – the council discussion was very split on because of the financial aspect, but it’s also the fact of coverage and the fact that discipline doesn’t happen right after an action has happened.
(That’s a transcription, lightly edited for clarity.)
OKAY WHOA. Let’s unpack here.
Here’s my best guess:
- Before negotiations start, City Council goes into executive session with Chief Standridge and Stephanie Reyes.
- Chief Standridge gives basically the same presentation we heard last time, where he explains why the Hartman Reforms are unacceptable, and offers up two lesser substitutes:
1. End the 180 Day Rule: “We’re already doing the compromise position!”
2. End Delay of Interview Rule: “No.”
3. Public Transparency: “I’m pretending my hands are tied, legally. But we will incorporate reprimands into promotions.”
4. End 3rd party arbitration: “We’ll tighten up a few situations where the 3rd party can’t overrule us.”
5. End Vacation Forfeiture: “No.” - Council – minus Alyssa – thinks this all sounds swell. They direct Stephanie Reyes to go enter negotiation, and only ask for those two things: letters of reprimands and tightening up 3rd party arbitration.
- SMPOA really does say no to one thing – making reprimands part of the public file. Everything else they agree to, in exchange for a salary bump.
The very last few sentences that Ms. Reyes says are also infuriating:
What I heard from the council discussion wasn’t “no, no, no, we don’t care what anyone says”. It was more about trying to find that give-and-take. A negotiation is a negotiation. You cannot go in and say “I need all these things or I’m not going to participate or I’m not going to be happy with this.” That’s just simply not what happens. It is a situation that is very difficult as staff that is the ones negotiating the contract. Ultimately they report to us. This is not an adversarial process. This is not a system of them calling the shots or us calling the shots. We’ve gotta work together, we’re a team. Ultimately this is about the betterment of San Marcos. We have to represent ALL interests.
This is just deliberately trying to make Mano Amiga look like jerks. “I need all these things or I’m not going to participate”? Yes, that would be terrible bargaining. But they did expect you to start with all five Hartman Reforms. You are not supposed to start by saying, “Hey guys, we preemptively threw out most of our wish list because your boss doesn’t like it.” That is sabotaging a negotiation.
Most of City Council genuinely didn’t want the Hartman Reforms, so they left them on the cutting room floor before negotiations started. We actually got almost everything we asked for. It’s just that Council decided to ask for crumbs.
Listen: if I were an A+ blogger, I would go watch the videos of the Meet and Confer negotiations. Because I’m lobbing a lot of accusations here, and I haven’t verified what actually happened during the negotiations. Sadly, you are stuck with a B- blogger who just can’t bear to go watch something so boring.
(If YOU want to go watch the negotiations, I would be delighted to hear your favorite parts.)
The Vote: Ratify the new Meet-and-Confer three year contract?
Yes: Jane Hughson, Mark Gleason, Saul Gonzalez, Matthew Mendoza, Jude Prather, Shane Scott
No: Alyssa Garza
So there you have it.
…
The San Marxist 