10-15-81 Civil Service Commisson Meeting minutes

Browse Search

• • Civil Service Hearing 10/15/81 Page 12 were tested, of course, it would be up to the courts to decide if it was valid or not. But the Ordinance merely tried to mirror what was the existing situation in the Depart- ment as of the effective date. Askins:(cont.) be approved, I believe it's by the 27th day of September, the exact date stipulates September, by which the entire budget must be approved by Council so Section 4 of the Ordinance also guides the budget process, in as much as that was a established pay classification, or salary schedule. Now you asked a question as to the validity, I, of course all Ordinances are presumptively valid unless they are attacked. Certainly the Ordinance was a 'good faith' attempt to comply with the Act. Now, if it Trainer: Yes sir. I appreciate that and I don't mean to imply that the Commission is saying that there was any impropriety or anything like that in what Council did, not at all. It places us in a slight position of delemma, in that, as I stated in the letter of October the 9th, that we would be instituting a study, an investigation on classifications to that end. I talked with the Texas Commission on Law Enforce- ment Standards and Education; I talked with two administrative specialists of that department that provided the City with a detailed manpower study and that study was presented to Chief Freeman in January, 1981, performed by the Management Services Section, Field Services Division, Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education and, of course the title of the Report on the Personnel Resource Needs Study of the La Porte Police Department. I don't mean to imply that the Commission is, at this point, in conflict with any classifications that have been recommended to Council nor that have been passed at this time. It's a procedural question as to should we not have had some procedural input into that decision process which, I also pointed out in the 9th of October letter, we did not have. And should we, at this time, feel that Section 8, that in one sense in Section 8, means that we should, at this time, go back and look at the classifications. Should we recommend classifications to the City that's not in Ordinance 1285? There would be the possibility, especially if we recommended a position, that was heretofor occupied by an Officer that, if 1285 is not totally invalid, or then we would have almost a conflict with 1269m that we would have to require testing for any classification, any new classification. classification; Lieutenant, Sergeant, or Patrolman, as the case may be. (TAPE MALFUNCTION) The discussion on classifications continued for a few minutes after this point. Civil Service Chairman, Keith Trainer, made the motion that Mary Davis be officially designated Director of Civil Service. Motion was seconded by Mr. Weldon Randall. THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 4:30 P.M. Askins: Another reason to do the Ordinance in September was to take advantage of the g a dfather clause' because it was, I think it was the intent of the Department and Council that those who had functioned properly in their positions for the six-month period and longer, not be required to be tested for that position--I should say CJ