Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents flood Phoenix council with opposition to proposed police MOU changes
Summary
During public comment on proposed MOUs with Phoenix law enforcement, scores of residents and community groups urged greater transparency and opposed provisions they said would increase overtime, create city-funded union positions and reduce accountability for misconduct.
Dozens of residents and community groups addressed Phoenix City Council during a public comment period focused on proposed changes to memoranda of understanding with police labor organizations.
Assistant City Manager Lori Bayes introduced the item as part of an ongoing negotiations process that runs through spring; she said today’s hearing was the public’s opportunity to comment on proposed MOU language. Neighbors, activists and advocates used the forum to urge the council to demand greater transparency and to reject provisions they said would expand the police department’s share of the city budget and limit accountability.
Speakers raised multiple recurring concerns: many pointed to provisions they said would allow the city to pay for union studies and fund positions for the union, expand overtime without sufficient oversight, and substitute training for disciplinary measures. “This MOU is not community safety and is not police transparency,” said one speaker; others recounted personal and community experiences of police violence and urged the council not to approve parts of the draft.
Council members heard requests for a more participatory process. Some speakers urged that negotiations not happen entirely behind closed doors and asked for more open, repeated opportunities for community input as negotiations continue. Assistant City Manager Bayes and other staff clarified the timeline: the MOU negotiation process runs from December through May with final drafts and a spring vote anticipated.
Council did not act to approve or reject the MOU during the comment period; instead staff reiterated the multi-month negotiation schedule and that the public will get additional opportunities to review the final draft before a vote.
The public witnesses included organizations associated with racial‑justice advocacy and public‑safety reform; their testimony featured both policy requests (public bargaining sessions, limits on certain payment provisions) and personal accounts aimed at underscoring potential harms from the draft language.
Council members and staff said they would continue to consider public input as the formal negotiation timeline proceeds and reiterated that final approval would return to the council after the labor negotiating process concludes.
