ON MAY 5, by 54 votes, the rank-and-file members of the Seattle Police Officers Guild rejected a contract that their representatives had spent months hammering out with the city. After the vote, guild officials told the city and the press that their members wanted more money.

Dollars are usually at the heart of any labor negotiation because raises mean respect. The bigger the raise, the more your employer respects you.

But the rank and file took a gamble by rejecting the contract for more pay. If they fight too hard to get more than the three and a half percent they were offered, they may end up losing on another big issue that also boils down to respect: officer accountability.

Guild officials have spent months fighting to prevent the city from loading up the new contract with tougher accountability guidelines. Now, thanks to the rank-and-file vote, both money and accountability are back on the table, and at least one city official is promising to combine the two issues, using the officers' money gripes as leverage to battle for increased accountability. "[The officers] said the contract's not good enough. If you want more money, what are you going to give us back?" asks Jim Compton, a city council member and the chair of the council's public safety committee.

Compton wouldn't put it this way, but in layman's terms his idea is akin to extortion. Compton essentially wants the city to bribe officers into accepting more accountability reforms, especially in the internal investigations unit.

Talks started last fall, with accountability at the heart of negotiations. Last summer, Mayor Paul Schell and then-Police Chief Norm Stamper produced a "12-Point Accountability Plan." The plan restructured the way internal investigations were carried out. It answered questions such as who investigates the police and what rights are reserved for individual officers accused of wrongdoing.

To the police guild, however, Schell's ideas about accountability (read: the 12-Point Plan) are anathema. Guild officials have been complaining bitterly, and publicly, about the city's tough stance on accountability issues for months. The Stranger checked in with guild vice president J. D. Miller every week during the course of talks, and each time his response was the same. Although he wouldn't discuss specifics, he repeatedly complained that Schell's accountability plan was posing a major stumbling block.

Reforms that made it into the tentative contract--a contract that one city council member described as a "moderate, middle-ground proposal"--certainly leaked out over the last few months. The contract would have forced officers to submit to face-to-face interviews during internal investigations of police misconduct. Previously, the officers were allowed to respond in writing. In addition, the contract accepted the idea of an Office of

Professional Accountability (OPA), a new investigative panel that the city council had legislated into existence last year. No one knows, however, whether that panel would still have the same strengths that reformers had in mind. Some fear that the office's powers were gutted during negotiations. For example, the idea of having a position for an independent citizen on the OPA may have been nixed.

Accountability reform has become a popular cause among the public, and for good reason. First there was the Earl "Sonny" Davis case. Next came the WTO conference, rife with accusations of police misconduct. More recently, the police shooting of David Walker caused a furor within the black community. Outraged minority leaders say Walker, an African American with a history of mental illness problems, should not have been shot dead by the police. In response, the public has been trying to assert its own opinion through community meetings and protest demonstrations--while city attorneys and guild officials argue over fine points behind closed doors.

Now Compton wants to see if the city can take advantage of the opportunity that the rank and file's "no" vote has created. "[The guild] didn't give us everything we wanted. All that stuff is up for grabs again," he says. "We've gotta wait to see how much more money they want. Then we can see what other things about accountability we're going to need."

If Compton pushes his ideas, he's likely to get support from his colleagues in city hall. For example, City Council Member Judy Nicastro, who is also on the public safety committee, likes Compton's ploy. "I actually think our police officers are paid pretty darn well," she says. "But if it will cost us to get accountability--if that's what's for sale--then I support that."

The guild, however, is not looking forward to going back to the table for more talks, where it might have to cede ground on accountability issues. Guild vice president Miller says, "We may have irreconcilable differences."