Laserfiche WebLink
• • <br />,~ <br />~~ <br />~~ ~ ~ <br />3. <br />AN AMENDMENT RE(~UIRING THAT <br />~~ HEARING EXAMINER BASE THEIR <br />DECISIONS ON A PREPONDERANCE OF <br />F THE EVIDENCE NOT ON CLEAR <br />AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE <br />current Law <br />Section 143.057(j) provides for an appeal to district court of a hearing e <br />decision only if the decision was without~urisdiction, exceeded jurisdiction <br />s order was procured by fraud, collusion, or other unlawful means. Current <br />' not provide a standard of proof that must be met by the city in an ap <br />disciplinary decision to a hearing examiner. <br />Proaosed Change <br />This amendment would specifically state that the decision of a hearing <br />must be based upon a preponderance of the evidence and that failure <br />would be grounds for appeal of that decision to district court. <br />Reasons for Proaosed Change <br />miner's <br />r if the <br />w does <br />al of a <br />miner <br />do so <br />Although the standard of proof in civil cases in Texas is a prepondera ' e of the <br />evidence, some hearing examiners have required the city to produce "dear and <br />convincing" evidence to justify the disciplinary decision. This amendm >it would <br />clarify the burden which is required and would allow an appeal in the eve ` that this <br />standard is not utilized by the hearing examiner. <br />,: <br />