City council recesses to closed session on police contract after public calls for training and pay clarity

The National City City Council recessed into closed session on a police officers’ labor negotiation after public commenters urged the council to include harassment and discrimination training in the police collective bargaining agreement and raised questions about the city’s ability to pay increases.

Louisa McCarthy, identified to the council as a public commenter, told the council that “the jury returned a $10,000,000 verdict against the city” and urged the inclusion of “a thorough harassment training” for police management in the contract so similar incidents do not recur. McCarthy also described an interaction she said involved an individual named Marcus and an officer identified as Cummings; the chair interrupted to say that those specifics were not the agenda item and that the meeting was focused on the contract.

Another commenter told the council that fair compensation for police officers was important “since their work is very dangerous,” and recommended that funding for harassment, discrimination and workplace conduct training be included in any agreement to reduce future litigation risk. A separate commenter urged the council to consider the fiscal impact of any pay increases and requested an extrapolation of the city’s unassigned fund balance prepared at the end of June (referencing a prior calculation by “Bruce”) so citizens can better understand whether raises would draw reserves or require higher taxes.

The chair then turned the meeting to the city attorney for a closed-session recess. The city attorney stated: “We will now recess into closed session under Government Code 54957.6, conference with labor negotiators,” citing the statutory authority for confidential bargaining discussions. After the closed session the city attorney reported back that the council “provided direction to the negotiator” and that there was “no reportable action.”

The public comments and closed-session direction focused on three recurring points: (1) callers asked that harassment, discrimination and nonhostile-workplace training be written into the police contract; (2) supporters argued for fair compensation for officers; and (3) at least one speaker pressed the council for clearer fiscal information showing how the city would pay for any increases. The council did not vote on the contract during the special meeting and reported no formal action from the closed session.

The chair adjourned the special meeting and briefly discussed scheduling the next regular council meeting, and invited attendees to a weekend holiday event. No further timetable for contract negotiations was announced at the meeting.