Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-15-81 Civil Service Commisson Meeting minutes• MINUTES OF • CITY OF LA PORTE CIVIL SERVICE HEARING OCTOBER 15, 1981 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY CIVIL SERVICE CHAIRMAN, KEITH TRAINER. MR. TRAINER STATED THAT THIS HEARING IS BEING HELD BY FORMAL, WRITTEN REQUEST OF OFFICERS' T.J. NEELY, E.D. BUTCHEE, AND S.M. PARKER. Trainer: Are these Officers present? Would you Officers please have a seat at this table here? Let the record show that all three known as Commission are present; Mr. Dexter Joyner on my right, Mr. Wildon Randall on my left, Vice Chair- man, and myself, Keith Trainer as Chairman of the Commission. Ms. Mary Davis, Personnel Coordinator for the City of La Porte, will receive any documents presented and will assist the Commission as directed. Let the record reflect that the City Attorney, Knox Askins, is present, and alsa Chief Herb Freeman. In all Hearings, Appeals and Reviews of every kind and character wherein the Commis- sion is performing an adjudicative function, the employees shall have the right to have attorneys present. Officers, do you all have an attorney present with you? (Officers indicate they do not - inaudible) Trainer: That's fine. Do you, any and all of you, intend to call any witnesses to testify before this Commission - - other than yourselves, as interested parties? • (Officers indicate thay do not - inaudible) Trainer: I've asked that Ms. Davis, ah, would please swear in the witnesses and int ested parties? As your name is called would you please rise? Davis: (to Chairman Trainer) May they repeat this in unison? Trainer: Yes, please, as a group. Davis: (Speaking to Officers' Neely, Butchee, Parker, Knox Askins, and Chief Freeman) Ge- n Temen, would you please rise? Raise you right hand. Do .you solemnly swear, or affirm, that the testimony you are about to give this Commission is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? (Group replies: "I do." Trainer: Thank you. For the record, I'd like to read the statement; the inter-office memo that, ah, the Commission has received. Ah, it was addressed to Asst. Chief R. Hall, to be forwarded to Chief Freeman and the Civil Service Commission. It's from the three Officers concerned and the subject is 'Current Status'. This memo is an official request b.y the undersigned Officers that they be promoted to the permanent rank of Sergeant assigned to the Criminal Investi- gation Division of the La Porte Police Department. • Civil Service Hearing 10/15/81 • Page 2 Civil Service Rules and Regulations went into effect at this Department on 10/1/81. Under the City of La Porte Police Civil Service Rules and Regulations, Rule 6, Page 7 (Status of Present employees), and Article 1269m, Section 24, Page 411, any employee already in a position and rank shall retain that position and rank with the institution of Civil Service. In October, 1977, Officer T.J. Neely was promoted to the rank of Detective of the La Porte Police Department with the duties of follow-up investigation. In January of 1979, Officer E.D. Butchee was promoted to the rank of Detec- tive with the duties of follow-up investigation. In October, 1979, Officer S.M. Parker was promoted to the rank of Detective and assigned the duties of follow-up investigation and Juvenile investigation. On 9/16/81, the La Porte City Council approved a City Ordinance authorizing Civil Service for the La Porte Police Department. In said Ordinance, it is provided that there be 8 Sergeants in the Department, three of which will be assigned to the Criminal Investigation Division. Those 3 Sergeants will be assigned the duties of follow-up investigation with one assigned primarily to Juvenile Investigation. On 9/28/81, Detectives' ~deely, Butchee, and Parker began receiving $10.04 per hour as wages. That same pa.y is the same rate of pay for a 12-month Sergeant with the La Porte Police Department. We therefore feel that the position of Investigator duties being filled by these Officers for the past 4,3, and • 2 years and the pay being in effect as of 9/28/81, is sufficient to meet the requirements for these Officers to permanently retain the positions as per the aforementioned articles. Under Article 1269m, Section 14a, it states that in order for a person to be eligible for testing, he be in the same position for 2 years prior to testing. These 3 Officers have been in a position of limbo. Are they Sergeants or are they Patrolmen? If there was a choice of being given a title either up or down, why were they given the lower title of Patrolman until the test is given? These Officers feel that they should not be required to test for a job which they have successfully and efficiently carried out for the past 4, 3 and 2 years. None of the other Sergenats are being required to test for the right to keep their jobs. Therefore, the undersigned Officers respectfully request that this matter be taken under consideration and that a meeting be arranged with the Civil Service Commission as quickly as possible. Respectfully, T.J. Neely, E.D. Butchee, S.M. Parker. Trainer: Gentlemen, that is the statement, is it not? (Detectives answer in the affirmative) Trainer: Thank you. Ah, there may be some confusion or misunderstanding as to the purpose of this Commission and for that reason I have elected to read a certain Sec- tion out of 1269m. It's Section 16a. This is the PURPOSE OF LAW AND HEARINGS. • • Civil Service Hearing 10/15/81 • Page 3 It is hereby declared that the purpose of the Firemen and Policemen's Civil Service Law is to secure to the cities affected thereby efficient Police and Fire Departments, composed of capable personnel, free from political influence, and with permanent tenure of employment as public servants. The members of the Civil Service Commissions are hereby directed to administer the civil service law in accordance with this purpose; and when sitting as a board of appeals for a suspended or aggrieved employee who has invoked any review procedures under the provisions of this Act, they are to conduct such hear- ing fairly and impartially under the provisions of this law and are to render a fair and just decision, considering only the evidence presented before them in such hearing. Trainer: And I can assure you that we're going to do our best to follow that. At this time would any of you three Officers like to present any statements, ah, any testimony, introduce any evidence to support your contentions? Neely: We're going to let our statement stand as read. Trainer: O.K. I can assure you that Commission is going to ask enough questions to, ah, fully try to ascertain the full truth of this matter for you, and I'll give you full opportunity to say anything or introduce anything you so desire. And we will conduct the Hearing in a orderly manner. I don't want any interruptions if someone's speaking and I will give ample opportunity to call on each one of you. Ah, would either of the Commissioners like to ask any questions at this time? I've got a few • that we can start with. Chief Freeman, one of the things we need to do is ascertain the facts concerning several statements contained in this memorandum which I read dated 10/1/81 on current status. Do we have, do you have Personnel Files of the three officers? Freeman: Yes sir, I do. Trainer: One of the first things I'd like to verify and introduce into evidence is the pay records. Do you have those? Freeman: Yes sir, I do. Trainer: Ms. Davis, would you get that for me? Chief, this is an awful big book. Is this the payroll? Oh, this - inaudible)- - This is the time sheet. Is that correct? Freeman: Yes sir, it is. Trainer: I'm trying to - - Mary, are you familiar with this document? Would you come ere and help me with it. I'm going to - -what I'm goint to attempt and verify is that on September 28th, their pay was changed, as a point. Where can I see the ah-- Davis: (Inaudible) Trainer: O.K. O.K., ah, here it is. The personnel status change. O.K. This is what we need, is it not? Chief Freeman, do you have the document that the City uses entitled the Personnel Status Change? Freeman: Yes sir, I do. • • Civil Service Hearing 10/15/81 Page 4 • Trainer: Do you have the document on each of those three Officers? Freeman: I have one at this time on Scott Parker. Ah, let's see if we can find the others. Trainer: This is simply the time.(refering to attendance book) Freeman: Here's Neely, Ed Butchee - - yes sir, I have all three documents. Trainer: I'd like those submitted in evidence please. Can we mark that as one exhibit for all? (To Davis) Would you mark that as exhibit #1 please? Have you Officers seen this document? (The Officers reply in the negative.) Trainer: Show it to them. Did you mark that? O.K. (inaudible discussion among members of Commission.) This form reflects for all three Officers concerned that on 9/28/81; Department: Police Department; Division: CID, they were temporarily promoted to acting Sergeant at a rate of pay of $10.05 per hour. Division approval by - - that's James La Fitte, and Chief of Police: Herb Freeman; the Personnel approval - - that's your signature Mary? That's reflected on all three items. The main point here seems to be that the temporary duties that the three Officers were assigned are, in their estimation, the same duties that they will be required to fulfill should they be named, or should they be promoted, to permanent Sergeant in the CID Division. I think that's the crux of it, I believe. O.K. In that regard, I think what I'd like to hear is some testimony from the Chief as to the duties and • responsibilities of those three positions, which were Detective positions in the CID, and what the intention was to assign three Sergeatns and what their duties and responsibilities would be and would they be permanently assigned to CID. Chief, can you enlighten us a little on that a little bit? Freeman: Yes sir, I can, ah, the---I'm looking for the job classification under the old system of the Detective. I have Detective Sergeant but I don't have the Detective. Trainer: Is this a --is this a job description? Freeman: Yes. Trainer: Do you have a job description for Detective which was the position that the Officers were in? Freeman: Yes sir, I do. Trainer: I'd like to also have that admitted as evidence. Freeman: Alright. All I've got to do is find it. There---I've got it. This is the job description, ah, prior to October 1, of '81, that these Officers worked under. Trainer: O.K. (inaudible discussion between members of Commission) Chier, we'd like you to keep this copy for right now and just kind of go through it verbally with us explaining those duties; then we will introduce it and make it a part of the permanent record. Freeman: Alright. O.K., the example of duties under the classification of Detective prior to the introduction of Civil Service states that he investigates complaints • • ~. • Civil Service Hearing 10/15/81 Page 5 concerning thefts or damage of property; investigates reports of breaking and enter- . ing in buildings and houses; interrogates suspects; interivews witnesses; searches for physical evidence; arrests suspects; investigates crimes against persons, such as murder, assault, manslaughter; visits the crime scene and interviews the victims, if possible, searches for and preserves the--encourages--I'm sorry, interrogates suspects, complaints and witnesses to obtain information; follows up on clues and so forth. Trainer: The, ah, did you have any questions on that? Those were the duties of a Detective? Freeman: Yes sir. Trainer: Officers, were those primarily the duites that you've been, ah, performing for the last two, three, and four years respectively? (Officers answer in the affirmative.) Trainer: O.K. Joyner: I have a question, ah, Chief, if you could now, ah, if you'd compare those duties with the future duties of a Sergeant that would be assigned to the same detail. Freeman: Yes sir, I can. Trainer: That's the CID Division, correct? • Freeman: This is the duties of a Police Sergeant. Trainer: O.K. Freeman: Ah, pant of it, of course, applies to Patrol Division, the Patrol Sergeant, and then it says when assigned to Criminal Investigation, investigates on a follow-up basis, crimes of burglarly, larceny, theft, criminal mischief, assault with motor vehicles and motor vehicle thefts; directs and participates in all primary investi- gations, homicides, armed robberies and any other major criminal cases; searches for, and apprehends suspects, conducts narcotics investigations, juvenile investigations and so forth. Joyner: That's good. Trainer: Weldon, did you have any questions on that? Randall: No. Trainer: Dexter? Joyner No. Trainer: I think I'd like to have that job description submitted now. Mary, would you get that for us? (discussion between Commission.) Have you Officers seen these job descriptions---position descriptions? (Officers answer in the negative) Trainer: Why don't you have a look at them to make sure they're the same ones. (Discussion between Commission) • • • Civil Service Hearing 10/15/81 O Page 6 Trainer: (to Davis) Thank you. The Ordinance that was passed by the City on 9/16/81? Does that Ordinance provide that three Sergeants would be assigned to the duties of follow-up investigation and one assigned permanently to Juvenile Investigation, or that the three Sergeants would be assigned to CID? Freeman: It does not separate them out, no, it authorizes eight Sergeants. Trainer: The Ordinance, ah, do you have a copy of the Ordinance? (to Davis) Ah, mark that as number four. Ordinance number 1285. And in terms of classifications, the Ordinance allows for sixteen Patrolmen, eight Sergeants, and three Lieutenants. Ah, Officers, you stated in your letter that, ah, three, ah, there would be eight Sergeants in the department, three of which will be assigned to the Criminal Investigation Division, ah, you were not speaking of the Ordinance in that statement, you were just ---go ahead. Neely: May I answer? Trainer: Surely. Neely: What we're going by is the organizational chart of the Police Association---- the Police Department. Trainee O.K. Neely: There is a --the Ordinance calls for eight Sergeants, but in the organizational chart, it's three Sergeants assigned to CID actively. • Trainer: O.K. Fine. Thank you. Chief, do you want to talk to us about the current organization of the Police Department in respect to three Sergeants; three of the eight Sergeants being permanently assigned to ah, the CID Division? Freeman: Yes sir. Any three of the eight can be assigned by my office to act as criminal investigators. Ah, as these three Sergeants were created in the Ordinance that was passed, Ordinance number 1285 that was passed on the 16th of September. Trainer: Am I given to understand that of the eight Sergeants, when there are eight Sergeants in the Police Department, that you intend to do some sort of cycling or ah, rotation of duties in various departments with the Sergeants' classification? Freeman: I have no plans necessarily to rotate the duties but would be possible, yes sir. Ah, I could do that. Trainer: If you did that, then the three Sergenats or Sergeants assigned in CID could be in charge of the Patrol section? Freeman: It's possible, yes sir. Trainer: O.K. What were you all's classifications each in terms of Police prior to your promotions to acting Sergeant? Butchee: Our classifications prior to the acting Sergeants were Detectives. Trainer: Detective. O.K. All three of you? Butchee: That's correct. • Civil Service Hearing 10/15/81 • Page 7 Trainer: That's correct. In the new organization there's no longer a classification of Detective? Freeman• No sir. Trainer: (to Joyner) Do you have any questions? (Joyner answers in the negative) Trainer:(to Randall) Do you have any questions? Randall: Not at this time---Oh, yes. Chief Freeman, I noticed, ah, some of the performance evaluations of your Officers here; of these three Officers here, and Neely-- I haven't checked the other two but I'd like to ask you at this time, on the performance evaluation that was made of Officer Neely in March---January of '81 through March of '81---it's satisfactory---according to the records here, it's a good, it's a real good performance evaluation. May question is this: Are these three Officers---and not knowing about the performance evaluations of the other two Officers at this time, are they at this particular time, are they, ah, performing, ah, their dities satis- factorily in the positions that they are in at this time? Freeman: Yes sir, they are. Randall: Thank you. Trainer: Chief, one point that I'd like to get clear in my own mind, ah, is the, is what is the historical method, or what was the previous historical method of filling • the position of Detective in the La Porte Police Department? Freeman: I made the appointment from the Patrol rank. Trainer: Were the three Officers concerned here today? Were they Patrolmen prior to being named Detective? Freeman: Yes sir, they were. Trainer:Ah, how long have we had a Detective class---how long have we had a Detective classification in the Department? Freeman: I'd have to go back and check the Personnel records. It's ah, whenever we hired Ben Green--is when it started. (discussion between Chief and Officers) Pardon me? 1971. Trainer: Thank you. 1971. Any questions along those lines? Randall: No sir. Trainer: O.K. Do we have anthing additional? Is there anything additional--information, Chief, that you'd like to present in line with this hearing? Freeman: No sir, the only thing I'd like to say is that I don't think the qualifications of these Officers are questioned at all. By no means. They're all three qualified people. Trainer: Thank you. I think, ah, Commissioner Randall's, ah, reason for asking that que is ion is stated in the letter these Officers were officially performing those duties and we wanted to ask someone that might not have a biased opinion as to whether • those duties were being carried out. Freeman: They definately are. • Civil Service Hearing 10/15/81 Page 8 Trainer: Thank you. (to Commission) Do you have any more questions on that? (discus- sion between Commission) Ah, Mr. Askins, ah, is--has there been any changes to Ordinance 1285? Askins: Mr. Trainer, there has been discussion in the meeting last night but the Ordinance, 1285, remains in full force and effect. It is not changed. It is antici- pated, after last night, that it will not be changed. Ah, there was a discussion at the Council Meeting last night on passage of a Resolution verifying salary after a promotion. I don't know if -(inaudible)---- This change is anticipated and I have a copy of that proposed Resolution --(inaudible)--- It's anticipated, following the discussion last night, that it will be passed next week. The Ordinance, 1285, is in full force and effect. Trainer: Thank you. (to Commission) Do you have a question on that? Officer Neely, do you have any further information on anything else at all that you'd like to tell on this subject? Any statements you'd like to make at all? Neely: I have one thing I'd like to say. Trainer: Certainly. Neely: It was our understanding that prior to the Ordinance being passed---the Ordinance being 1285; it was our understanding that it was the plan of the Police Department that we be promoted to Sergeant prior to October, 1981, and it was blocked from City Hall. So it was the intention that we be given this job as Sergeant prior • to October of '81, and that's the way we believe and I'd like to ask the Chief if that was true or not. Trainer: Your question is that the---it was the intention of the Police Department, which would be the responsibility of the Department Head, Chief Freeman, to---it was his intention to permanently appoint you three to Sergeants positions. Neel Yes sir. Trainer: We've entered into evidence here that you were temporarily appointed. Is that correct? Neely: Yes sir. Trainer: Chief, you want to respond to that please? Freeman: That statement is true, yes sir. Randall: Officer Neely, that's been since October the 19th of '77, is that right? ----you've served in this capacity? Neely: Yes sir. Trainer: It was your recommendation that these Officers be appointed to Sergeant? Freeman: It was my intention. Trainer: It was your intention. Freeman: Yes sir. Trainer: Thank you. Do you have anything further? Officer Butchee? • Butchee: The only thing I have is--when you were discussing the duties of the Sergeant it appeared that possibly we would not be able to perform this job as a Patrol Sergeant, • Civil Service Hearing 10/15/81 • Page 9 Butchee(cont.) regardless of were the Sergeant may be placed. All of us have served in a Patrol rank. And I'm sure that all of us have, as a Patrolman, served as an acting Sergeant at one time or another. I feel that, even if we were placed in Patrol, we'd still make the Division. Trainer: Is that all? Thank you very much. Randall: I'd like to ask a question. Officer Butchee, you've been in this position since January the 19th of 1979. Is that right? Butchee: Yes sir. Trainer: Officer Parker. Parker: Well, unfortunately, ah, Officers' Neely and Butchee already repeated what I was going to say. Trainer: Stole all your thunder. O.K. Randall: I'd like to ask Officer Parker--you've been in this position, Officer Parker, since October 19, 1979, is that right? Parker: Yes sir. Trainer: Chief, do you have anything further to add? Freeman: No sir. • Trainer: As members of the Civil Service Commission, ah, we are hereby directed to render a fair and just decision, considering all the evidence that has been presented in this Hearing today. The Commission shall render a decision, in writing, within the next ten days, and this decision will clearly state our findings. In the event the employees' are dissatisfied with the decision of this Commission, they may, within ten days after that decision has been made final, file a petition in the District Court, asking that the decision be set aside, in such case be tried de novo. This section of our Commissioners Hearing is hereby adjourned. I'm going to have a five-minute recess and then we'll continue on with our normal Agenda and any and all of you are very welcome to stay. At this time I'd like to tell the three Officers that I appreciate their conduct before the Commission and ah, you will hear from us shortly. Thank you. • 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 Civil Service Hearing 10/15/81 Page 11 below the rank of Chief. So we went into Civil Service in that way. In the City Council, they passed 1285 in September, on 16 of September, with an effective date of October 1. And they did this before the Civil Service Commission was actually appointed. And in so doing, the numbers that they had, there were sixteen Patrolmen on that date, if you take the three Sergeants who were temporarily --there were three Detectives who were temporarily assigned to the rank of Sergeant, that gave you eight Sergeants and three Lieutenants. So I think all that-this Ordinance did was place in writing what was existing as the City Council saw it as existing as of that date. Now, ah, I think in the, well right now, I say in the future, I mean for right now , and I think in the Spring of each year right before the City Council budget delibera- tions, well let's take right no.w first, if the Civil Service Commission feels that any of these classifications should be dropped, if any other classifications, like the classification of Captain or any others need to be added, I think it would appro- priate for the Civil Service Commission, at this point, to make a recommendation to City Council for that classification then, as you point out, then Council can put the number of authorized positions and the salary --- because that is legislative anytime you get into budget making and the power of taxation and that's legislative. Trainer: Absolutely. I think that separation is very clear. Askins: And, on the other hand, I think the intent of the Civil Service Act, which is to get, essentially to get the Police and Fire Department, however it's adopted, removed from the political process and to have an appeal process is to have the admini- • stration of it with the Civil Service Commission. I so advised Council last night, you know, on these points. I would advise the Civil Service Commission, in the Spring of each year to review all the classifications and give a recommendation, or even to just continue what's there or any, like I say, any changes for additions or deletions ah, and if you feel that anything needs to be added or deleted from what was done in September, at this time you should make a recommendation so Council can pick it up. I don't say, I don't think such recommendations on Council is binding but I think such recommendation would be highly persuasive. Trainer: I agree that those recommendations definately would not, in terms of classifi- cations, would not be binding. The Council can either fund them or not assign any money to that and in the case of the classifications not funded, for lack of a better word, or it's authorized to be filled through competitive examination, 1269m says that after three years, I believe it is, that that position will automatically be dropped. The point, as to the date that the Ordinance was passed, the 19th of September or what- ever date that was-- Freeman: The 16th. Trainer: The 16th of September, and that date being prior to the implementation of Civil Service, under Section 6b, ah, because the only reason to enact such an Ordinance is --would be to implement Civil Service and the effective date of such Ordinance would be the 1st of October. It would appear that the Ordinance would have to fully comply with 1269m because that's the only reason for the Ordinance being passed. And the effective date of such Ordinance was October 1st. Askins: That's right, because this whole procedure of Civil Service is a creature of State Law. and everything we do has to comply with 1269m. And another reason this • had to be done in September is the Department budget process for the coming fiscal year, in that a salary scale was set, and the Charter says that the entire budget must • • 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