The TMPA-CLEAT Reunification - An Update to TMPA members
July 14, 2009
In an effort to get TMPA members up to speed on the status of the on-going discussions with CLEAT on the possible re-unification, we have compiled the most frequently asked questions about the merger and we will include a link to a working draft of the certificate of formation, which contains all the specific information on how the boards will govern the proposed organization during and after a defined transition period. We know that CLEAT leadership has posted similar information on their website, but it is important to understand their perspective on certain issues may be slightly different, so it is important for TMPA members to read the following in order to gather facts from the TMPA perspective.
Q: Why is this being called a “re-unification?”
A: The reason is simple: because at one time there was only one organization and what we are talking about is re-unifying back in to one organization. TMPA was formed in 1950 and its charter cities included, Houston, Ft. Worth, Austin, El Paso, San Antonio and several smaller cities. From 1950 to 1975 there was only one law enforcement labor group representing the interests of Texas peace officers, TMPA.
But in the early 1970s, a sentiment arose that police officers needed comprehensive legal assistance to protect officers and there were groups who wanted a stronger push for collective bargaining. The original collective bargaining bill was pushed through by TMPA in 1973 at the urging of TMPAs largest groups, but there was significant disagreement on the issue of comprehensive legal assistance. Until the late 1960s there was no concern for this issue because there was strong public support and confidence of police officers. Legal assistance was handled on a case-by-case basis. The old saying that “good cops don’t need lawyers” was a common attitude. But the images of police beating protesters at the 1968 Democratic convention, some very ugly police custody deaths in Houston and Dallas, and the general rise of suspicion of authority that came out of the 1960s changed the culture of the country and along with that came eroding public confidence in policing.
Unfortunately, the TMPA board was irreconcilable on the issue and CLEAT was ultimately formed with San Antonio, Ft. Worth, Corpus Christi and several smaller cities.
Q: How did re-unification talks begin?
A: Some of you may recall a joint communication that was published by both organizations in the middle of 2008 that was authored by Larry Watts and Kevin Lawrence. The discussions started with Kevin calling Larry after we heard that Larry and CLEAT’s long-time President/Executive Director, Ron Delord, had announced their pending retirements. Kevin has had a cordial relationship with Larry for many years and he just wanted to wish him well. They had coffee and at some point during the conversation one of them lamented that the two organizations could not ever figure out a way to get back together. That began the discussion of, well, why not start talking again? Ultimately, they did start talking again and talks began to progress to where we are today.
Q: What makes these discussions different than previous attempts at re-unification?
A: The short answer is that in the previous attempts in 1979 and 1999, both organizations were not on a level footing from a membership standpoint. The difference with these discussions is that both organizations are relatively equal in membership and budget.
Q: Where are we currently at with these talks?
A: At the annual conference, we indicated there are several stages in this process that have to be followed, one after the other before a re-unification will occur. These stages include:
- Inquiry
- Planning
- Due Diligence
- Approvals
- Moving Forward
The inquiry stage included the initial discussions by select board and staff members to determine if sufficient grounds existed to proceed. This included discussions about governance, philosophy, staffing, and other similarities and differences in how each organization conducts its business. Another important component of this stage was the discovery that both organizations recognized that a unified organization would be better for Texas law enforcement and that it was important to bury (to the degree possible) past animosity.
The Planning process began with an earnest attempt to construct a working draft document for governing a re-unified organization. Without working out governance issues, there was no sense in going in to finances, budget or anything else. Well, after many months, a working draft for governance was worked out. It is important to understand that some provisions, depending on due diligence and other factors could still change, but you may see the working draft approved by both boards at the following link on the TMPA website: TBA Certificate of Formation. Again, this is a proposed document and you will get your chance to approve or reject it. Nothing happens before you approve it.
Due diligence is the stage we are currently working on and in some respects, this is the point where the rubber hits the road. We have exchanged our financial reports and other information about our joint internal operations. TMPA is still waiting on some information from CLEAT, so we are not in a position to say that all hurdles are behind us, but we are still moving forward.
Once the due diligence period is complete, we will begin working on approvals, which begins with informing our members about all the details of the proposed agreement. We hope to finish the due diligence by the end of July 2009, but that could be delayed depending on a number of factors.
The approval process begins with our staff and board members going out to inform members at the local level, posting information on our website and newsletter and using our email list to make sure all members know exactly what is being proposed. After that is completed, members of both organizations will get a chance to vote for or against this re-unification.
Q: Is this re-unification going to change my legal coverage or access to a lawyer of my choice?
A: No! While we have not worked out the details of the legal plan, it is very obvious from the review of both organizations budgets, that revenue is sufficient to support staff attorneys and private contract attorneys. We are talking about a combined budget of $12 million just from dues revenue for 32,000 members. In larger agencies, where CLEAT bases its staff attorneys, they maintain a very good utilization of those attorneys for their needs. TMPA is much more spread out geographically and its legal plan model works very well by providing locally based, private attorneys for our members. At some point in the future, if we began to see more and more members demanding the services of private attorneys or vice versa, we would make adjustments to accommodate what members want. But we will most certainly always have a need for well-qualified attorneys in private practice and on staff to give our members the best possible service.
Q: How are the fights that TMPA and CLEAT always have at the Texas Legislature going to be handled?
A: Most fights that TMPA and CLEAT have had in the past were with each other, not specific bills. However, we will make it clear that TMPA has always tried to maintain a cooperative relationship with other police groups; this wasn’t always possible with CLEAT. In all cases where we did fight over bills, it was over perceived differences in philosophy (or in the case of our grant programs, certain operations). We are convinced such differences will be worked out by the combined boards working on the legislative agenda together long before a legislative session begins. CLEAT has always spent considerable time on labor issues, as has TMPA. TMPA also spends considerable time and effort on occupational and criminal justice issues, which CLEAT does as well, but the common perception by those in the Capitol is that TMPA has a historical focus on occupational and criminal justice issues and CLEAT is focused on labor. The end result will be a strong emphasis on all these issues and the mere fact that we are unified will create an incredibly potent voice for law enforcement that will be unrivaled in Texas history. Think about that last statement. The potential this re-unification has for changing the landscape of how Texas politics deals with law enforcement is very hard to over-estimate.
Q: What about the different “core” values of CLEAT and TMPA?
A: While the perception has been that TMPA maintains a focus on professionalism and CLEAT is a pure labor union, when our board began sitting down with their board and we explained how we apply our “core” values through our mission statement, we were left with very little difference between us. What we discovered was; there has been a big difference in tactics in the past, but the core values that drive both our organizations have always been the same. Tactics are situational and are worked out through identifying what works and what doesn’t work in a given city, county, region. CLEAT has learned a lot from the successes that TMPA has had with its tactics over the last few years and TMPA has learned much from CLEAT and what has made it successful. There is every reason to believe that the learning process will continue and the best tactics for every situation will ultimately be used.
Q: What about the difference in dues?
A: As of our most recent dues increase election, our basic dues with legal assistance will be $28 per month. CLEAT dues are $30 per month. The agreement in the proposed governance document calls for the interim board to set a single rate for all members, not to exceed $30 at the end of the two year interim period. The board may not set a rate higher than $30 without membership approval, but it may set a rate lower than $30 if that is what is deemed to be in the best interest of our members. So, it could stay at $28 for the foreseeable future, or it could go up to $29 or $30 at the end of two years.
Q: What name will be the name of the re-unified organization?
A: That has not been determined. This will be one of the last topics covered, but the consensus from both boards is that the name should not be a stumbling block after all other obstacles are overcome. In all likelihood, we will request names submitted through local associations or directly from members and some sort of vetting process or contest will be held. Our concern at this point is to get everything else done and make the naming of the organization a formality.
