10-15-81 Civil Service Commisson Meeting minutes

Browse Search

r • Civil Service Hearing 10/15/81 • Page 10 Trainer: This Commission is now back in session. On our posted Agenda; item three, which we have as a discussion item, is a discussion regarding job classifications. One point the Commission would like to discuss ah, is, ah under 1269m, Section 8, it states---that's Section 8, 1269m: The Commission shall provide for the classification of all firemen and police- men. Such classification shall be provided by Ordinance of the City Council, or legislative body. Said City Council, or legislative body, shall prescribe by ordinance the number of positions of each classification. No classification now in existence, or that may be hereafter created in such cities, shall ever be filled except by examination held in accordance with the provisions of this law. The point that we would like to discuss is the Section concerning the Commission shall provide for the classification of all Policemen and Firemen. Knox, in a letter to you dated October the 9th, we asked if you would study this point and advise us on it. Ah, basically, what we--what we're coming down to, is that, ah, as we read the law, 1269m, it appears that the way the classification of Officers should proceed is that Civil Service Commission should recommend or provide classifi- cations to the City Council and City Council, under 1269m, is required to set the salaries for those positions and also to ascertain the number of positions for each classifications. That seems like a logical check and balance system to me, of course I'm not an attorney, but what I see that as doing is that the Commission wouldn't have the authority to say that we're going to have four Captains and two Majors. • We could recommend that, but City Council, by Ordinance, could simply not form those positions nor provide a number. In other words,-they could just say, ok, we accept that classification as three Captains but we do not vote by Ordinance, any money for that position, nor do we assign a person---a number. We recommended three Captains. That seems a logical check and balance. I discussed that point with the Texas Commission on---let me get the correct title---The Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officers Standards and Education. While I received a verbal opinion from them, which would not---which I can get in writing. They felt what Section 8 did say was that Civil Service should provide the classifications and then the City would act on that. The point being here, that Ordinance 1285 has been enacted by the City. Now, as the Commission has not provided classifications to the City, and should, in your opinion, we have that authority, does that make 1285 invalid or, ah, whatever the proper term might be. Have you had enough time to investigate? Askins: I think we have two categories, two issues involved; one is the continuing operation of Civil Service and the first, of course, is institution of it, getting it operational. Then after that when you have an election and an election period says you will have Civil Service; that you must implement within the first thirty days of the City's fiscal year which began October 1st. Now, ah, --- Trainer: That's Section 6b, is it not? Askins: Right. And then also reading Section 8 in conjunction with Section 24 which essentially a 'grandfather clause', as I read it. Ah, it --reading it as a whole, it is my interpretation of Section 24, and I use the City Council's opinion, as well as mine,---that that was intended by the Legislature as a 'grandfather clause' and that it is the duty of the City Council, and I would say the Civil Service Commission • at the start of the point to sort of take a photograph or just freeze at that point in time what you had, in other words, we have twenty-seven Officers, ah, uniformed Officers