(Un)civil Service

We haven't exhausted what should be discussed from this years city council meetings. One very contentious issue was on the agenda of both council meetings: Appointment of a new Civil Service commissioner. The Mayor nominated Stephen Mild, a member of the Tom Green County Sheriff's department, to fill the position. This was opposed strongly by the Police Chief and various members of the department and was eventually voted down 5 to 2.

There were two problems. First, the Chief and officers that spoke were concerned about apparent conflict of interest of having an active member of one public safety agency overseeing the promotion system and disciplinary inspections of another local agency.

Next, there is the problem of the DeSoto OAG opinion. Their city charter is worded similarly to ours. There is conflicting language where the Mayor is given the title of Chief Executive, but the city manager is given the job of doing all the managing of the city and appointing and removing officers and employees of the city. The language is not identical between the two charters, but close enough that it needs to be clarified so that there is no possible confusion about who should be doing the appointing. The mayor and the city manager both said that the city manager does not wish to appoint the commissioners, but that really has no affect on what the attorney generals opinion will be. It may be that this needs to be addressed when the city's charter is reviewed and the proper language put before the voters for approval.

The most important issue, though, is who should be appointed to the civil service commission. None of the parties involve had any doubts about the sincerity and integrity of Stephan Mild. The problem goes to the heart of why we have civil service at all. In the early part of our nations history, public officials were appointed and hired by what is called patronage, or more descriptively: the spoils system. There were attempts to clean up the system, especially after the scandal ridden administration of Grant. There was little real progress made until President Garfield was assassinated by a disgruntled office seeker. After that, merit systems with safeguards to prevent undue outside influence were eventually implemented across the country. San Angelo adopted its current civil service system in 1948. (Check here for more detailed history)

Texas civil service law already forbids appointing people who have been a public official within the last three years to the commission. Legally a sheriff's deputy, even a very senior one, is probably not a public official but I wouldn't want to bet on the outcome if that distinction went before a judge. The reality, though, is that it is a bad precedent to have public officers involved in the civil service. The appearance of outside influence, whether real or imagined, can only hurt. When the agencies have to work together as closely as the Sheriff and police department must, the appearance can overwhelm reality, and lead to friction where it can do significant damage.

The Mayor's objective of appointing someone with experience in both law enforcement and fire fighting is commendable. I support that objective. Still, he must find a qualified individual that will not set a bad precedent, and will not have any apparent conflicts of interest. When Stephen Mild retires from the Sheriff's department, I would support his appointment with no reservations, and I imagine the police and fire departments would do the same. Until then, we need someone else for the civil service commission.

Overdue posting on the appointed chief issues.

I was on the charter review committee in 2007 and this current committee. We covered the appointment options several times and in detail. Over at the Conchoinfo blog ( http://conchoinfo.blogspot.com/search?q=civil+service ), we have been covering the appointed chief and how state civil service law affects it since 2006. San Angelo is a Texas Civil Service city. It's been one since the voters decided on it in 1948. Local government code (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/…/htm/LG.143.htm… ) spells out both the allowed selection procedures and the minimum qualifications for an appointed chief. We did a Q&A at conchoinfo before the 2007 charter election (http://conchoinfo.blogspot.com/2007/09/chief-concerns.html ). Nothing has really changed there except in the 2007 charter election, where we clarified the city managers authority as the CEO of the city, we copied from the U.S. Constitution the process that all city manager appointments of senior officials (assistant city managers, city attorneys, department heads, fire chiefs, etc.) would be with the advice and consent of city council. How that would be formally implemented was and is up to the city council but it is in the city charter ( http://z2codes.franklinlegal.net/franklin/DocViewer.jsp…...). That was put there to make sure the city council was kept in the loop (and hopefully the citizens of San Angelo) on all senior appointment. That is where the city councils authority to be involved in the appointment process of the police chief comes from. The city council can't appoint the police chief (or the fire chief, city attorney, finance director, etc..) They can advise the city manager not to hire, and withhold their consent (approval) but the appointment is by the authority of the city manager. Any firing decisions are also only those of the city manager. The city council gets no vote or input once a chief has been hired. If they want to fire a chief or department head, they have to replace the city manager with one that will do that for them. They can't do it directly. That's also what the city charter currently says, and that won't be changed. We've covered that at many of the charter review committee meetings. It was brought out during the forums. I wasn't there to personally state that at the last few council meetings but I didn't expect the ball to get dropped like it was. Hope this clears up some of the confusion.I was on the charter review committee in 2007 and this current committee. We covered the appointment options several times and in detail. Over at the Conchoinfo blog ( http://conchoinfo.blogspot.com/search?q=civil+service ), we have been covering the appointed chief and how state civil service law affects it since 2006. San Angelo is a Texas Civil Service city. It's been one since the voters decided on it in 1948. Local government code (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/LG/htm/LG.143.htm#143.013 ) spells out both the allowed selection procedures and the minimum qualifications for an appointed chief. We did a Q&A at conchoinfo before the 2007 charter election (http://conchoinfo.blogspot.com/2007/09/chief-concerns.html ). Nothing has really changed there except in the 2007 charter election, where we clarified the city managers authority as the CEO of the city, we copied from the U.S. Constitution the process that all city manager appointments of senior officials (assistant city managers, city attorneys, department heads, fire chiefs, etc.) would be with the advice and consent of city council. How that would be formally implemented was and is up to the city council but it is in the city charter ( http://z2codes.franklinlegal.net/franklin/DocViewer.jsp?showset=sanangel...). That was put there to make sure the city council was kept in the loop (and hopefully the citizens of San Angelo) on all senior appointment. That is where the city councils authority to be involved in the appointment process of the police chief comes from. The city council can't appoint the police chief (or the fire chief, city attorney, finance director, etc..) They can advise the city manager not to hire, and withhold their consent (approval) but the appointment is by the authority of the city manager. Any firing decisions are also only those of the city manager. The city council gets no vote or input once a chief has been hired. If they want to fire a chief or department head, they have to replace the city manager with one that will do that for them. They can't do it directly. That's also what the city charter currently says, and that won't be changed. We've covered that at many of the charter review committee meetings. It was brought out during the forums. I wasn't there to personally state that at the last few council meetings but I didn't expect the ball to get dropped like it was. Hope this clears up some of the confusion.

Fire at will

The city council hoped to solve three problems with the resolution it passed in support of an appointed chief. First, it wanted to make an appointed chief more attractive. It didn't succeed.

Second, it proposed a better way of selecting appointed officials than has been used in the past. I hope that the idea behind that is refined and applied to a much greater extent in future hirings. They do need to cut down the influence of labor organizations though.

The last problem it addressed, protection of the chief, was really fire-at-will vs. terminate-for-cause. Texas is basically a "fire at will" state. There are very few restrictions on why an employer can fire an employee. Employees serve at the pleasure of their boss unless there is a contract or employment agreement that says otherwise. An employer can fire for anything or no reason at all. That can cause problems in some situations, especially in jobs related to public safety.

The local civil service was set up to protect public safety officers, ie police officer and firefighters, from arbitrary threats to their job. In the late 19th and early 20th century, police and other political jobs were given out as rewards for political favors. Texas, like most states, developed and implemented the local civil service for public safety to remove these abuses from the rank and file officers. The police chief was and is mostly outside of the civil service protections. The local community has the responsibility to protect their chiefs. We currently do that through the electoral process. If we move to an appointed chief, we have the responsibility to set up a good, solid, system to protect the chief from politics and special interests. We need to ensure that once we have a good chief, he is only removed for good cause, not at the whim of some politician or special interest group.

That is a start but there is more that needs to be done. I was discussing this issue with a city employee when they asked "Why give special protection to the chief?" I responded that the chief was an important, high visability position easily subject to abuse. On reflection, my answer was incomplete. The chiefs position does deserve protection from arbitrary firing. It is based on a special trust between the chief and the citizens of San Angelo. Truthfuly, the same can be said of any city employee. We expect the Police Chief, City Manager, Public Works Director, City Attorney, and the guys fixing the streets, reading water meters and running the waste treatment facility to do the best job they can, and do the right thing to protect the city and citizens of San Angelo. That is also a special trust. The city employees deserve protection from arbitrary termination as part of that special, mutual trust.

A high profile position such as a police chief or city manager can wait to accept a job until a contract with acceptable protections such as outside independant arbitration is agreed upon. Lower level employees don't have that luxury. They can theoreticaly be let go for matters that have nothing to do with their job or the best interests of the city and its citizens.

We need to protect our chiefs from the threat of aribitrary termination. We need to do that for all of our city employees.

Chief Comparisons

A comment was made on gosanangelo.com that deserves much further explanation: "(When it comes to appointing the police chief) "Hiring" a President to lead the military, would amount to the same thing." Sounds good, but the comparison is seriously flawed.

The Presidents powers as commander in chief are spelled out in Article II, section 2 of the Constitution. There he is given control over all military branches, including the militias when called into the actual Service of the United States. He also makes treaties and agreements, receives and appoints ambassadors, and appoints most other federal officers and judges with the advice and consent of the Congress. In Article I he is given the power and duty to approve laws, including the budget passed by congress (with the exception of those laws where his veto is overridden.) He is given the power and duty to enforce those laws.

At the city level, equivalent powers are distributed between the Mayor, City Manager, and City Council. The Mayor is in charge of all public safety services, including law enforcement, in an emergency because he is by ordinance and state law the Emergency Management Director. The City Manager, by city charter and state law, shall see that the laws and ordinances of the city are enforced. The city manager develops the budget, which is then approved by the City Council, including the Mayor. The number of city employees, including police officers, is set and approved by the City Council. All agreements with other government entities are approved by the city council and signed by the Mayor or City Manager as appropriate. All contracts are subject to council approval. The police chief can't negotiate or sign a contract without prior council approval for that specific contract.

The Police Chief is really closer to the Chief of Staff of the Army. He controls the largest, but not the only, law enforcement organization the city has. He has little say on the laws he must enforce. He has no control over how much money his department gets. He doesn't control the number of officer positions available. He doesn't set the pay rate for his officers, that is done by the city council. He doesn't set the promotion requirements, that is done by the civil service commission. The only positions he can promote to are the assistant chiefs positions. If he fires or suspends an officer, that can be overridden by the civil service commission. He is in very much the same position as an Army General who is given a command and told to go carry out the mission that the President directs him to.

With the Police Chief having only daily operational control over a part of the overall law enforcement or public safety resources of the city, it is hard to see his job as being in any way comparable to the Presidents. There have been countries that have tried electing their generals in the past, but they have all abandoned that as a bad idea. If you are looking for the local equivalent to the President, that would the Mayor.

Charter review

As welcome as was the City Council's action on eminent domain, its limited scope points up something I suggested nearly a year ago. My sense was that Council would have as gladly made the eminent domain limit a charter measure, that is, one subject to approval by the voters. I have no doubt that measure would have passed overwhelmingly and become the local equivalent of constitutional law. The ordinance just approved, and surely to be affirmed on second reading, can be overturned by a simple majority vote of some future Council. A Charter measure would require another vote of the people to be changed.

On this Council's hands were tied by a frankly dog-in-the-manger gift from departed members of the previous council who put the appointed police chief item on the ballot as a purely parliamentary manuever to block any other charter items from consideration for the next two year term. I am not speaking for or against the elected/appointed chief idea, it is a perfectly valid proposition with good points on either side. The utter lack of any public campaign to promote the issue they placed on ballot as a blocking move demonstrates the real motives of those who put it there and then left it to die a predictable death.

We will soon enough be free to consider Charter changes again. I suggested that Council appoint a committee or advisory board to look into potential charter modifications and point out conflicts either with existing city ordinance or state statute that might need to be addressed. Jim Turner's latest post revisited an obvious weak point; namely that our civil service infrastructure is, in technical terms, a mell of a hess. If we are to have a reasoned revisiting of our method of selecting a chief, we need to work out the kinks in civil service law.

Eminent domain is an item I hope will become a charter measure as soon as legally possible. Doing the homework on the details of that issue while we have the luxury of not being under an election date gun strikes me as an effort worth making.

Aside from charter proposals, I would suggest the scope of this board extend to reviewing existing ordinances for internal inconsistencies. As successive Councils approve new law, they do not necessarily stop to check for conflicts with sometimes old and forgotten actions of Councils long gone. As a minor example, in the course of convincing Council to amend animal control law to let a friend keep his pet pot-bellied pig, I tripped over one section that absolutely forbade the keeping of primates other than those in temporary shows or fair venues, while another section set out the conditions required for keeping monkeys as pets. The two sections were likely passed years apart by Councils which had forgotten the earlier, contradictory ordinance.

The problem is hardly unique to San Angelo. Newspapers everywhere delight in running stories from time to time detailing silly sounding laws, usually things that have come about by oversight. I recall when I lived in Raleigh NC, one such discovered it was still a misdemeanor violation to bathe more than once a week. That unenforced bit of nonsense had been passed as an emergency drought limit on water use in 1888, but someone forgot to limit it, and technically it was still law in 1982.

Rick Smith of the Standard-Times put in a humorous article pointing out some of the sillier bits of San Angelo law. If he cannot be convinced to be on the advisory board, the board might at least prevail upon him to share his research notes with them. Just a thought Council, but reviewing while we have no immediate deadline pressure makes sense to me.

Standard-Times; Why I am Here

In the week before and after the elections, the Standard-Times published some mind-boggling spin on them. I am not one to beef about a paper's right to offer editorial endorsements of candidates, that tradition is too well established. Ideally, it should be kept to the editorial section, but a lot in this world is less than ideal.
First, to clarify my position, I contributed to Lown's campaign before it was known he would have no opposition, and though I do not live in SMD 6, I also contributed a small sum to Farmer's race. As will become evident, I disagree with the Mayor on certain issues, and as her positions become more obvious, I will probably have my disagreements with Farmer, but I did support both this time. Also by way of clarification, this article is not commissioned by, nor has it been discussed with Lown or Farmer, or anyone from either campaign.
This was an unusual election. As far as the Standard-Times was concerned, the elephant in the living room that must be ignored at all costs was the blatantly political motivation behind Mahon's placing the appointed police chief measure on the ballot. The news article reporting that session of Council noted in passing that no further charter amendments could now be brought before the voters for the next two years, but there was no speculation, no follow-up question to Mahon as to his motive for placing this issue at the last legally permissable moment. Yes, it was the last moment, Council had to call a special one item meeting the following Monday to make the state mandated deadline for a second reading approval of adding an item to the ballot.
As the clock ticked down and Mahon did nothing whatsoever to advance the issue he placed before the voters, the Standard-Times continued to tiptoe around the elephant. If the paper ever again mentioned the two year block in a news story, I must have missed it.
During that month Jim Turner and I took such opportunity as we got to point out internal inconsistencies, and variances between city ordinance and state statute in our civil service ordinances. Seems no one had looked closely at this in a long time. Among other things by literal reading of city ordinance we had not had a legal chief election since civil service was established, since our ordinance (effectively contravened and overruled by Texas Statute) forbade any police officer engaging in political activity on behalf of himself or any other elected official!
Both of us were on record as supporting some form of appointment. We pointed out these problems by way of showing that the legal infrastucture which would become very important under an appointive system simply was not ready. To continue the analogy, we were pointing out the ever-growing piles of elephant poop which led me to publically declare before Council that the measure deserved defeat this election.
I suggested we create a charter and ordinance review committee, board, whatever we call it, and once we had all that sorted out, we could in good conscience bring forth a well designed proposal with all the details ironed out. We still had time before Vasquez's term expired to bring a good proposal to the voters and then educate and persuade the electorate, you know, like a real political campaign.
The Sunday before the election the S-T printed its usual blurb for the weekly radio show, "Voices", a local affairs show moderated by the Standard-Times' managing editor Anthony Wilson. According to the Sunday paper May 1, the day of the show, that show would feature both Monte Mahon and Charlotte Farmer discussing their upcoming SMD 6 City Council race. I had to listen to it the second time on AM to be sure I had not missed anything, since Farmer was quite conspicuous in her absence. I cannot say exactly why half the advertised debate was unavailable, but I do know the show is taped earlier in the week. Had he cared to, surely the managing editor carries enough clout at the paper to have had an explanation published on Sunday of why Mrs. Farmer's segment was unavailable.
Midweek before the election the paper ran a front page story headlined "Wrong Direction?". Seems some Council members were shocked, shocked, I say, to see Lown and Farmer running a joint campaign. In the time I have been following Council closely, I do not recall a formal joint campaign, but I have watched different Councils and Council members form into shifting factions and informal alliances over issues and sometimes personalities.
Then in the same news article, Councilman Reeves, who declined to run for reelection, was granted a parting shot worth notice. He contended that Mayor Lown was unduly guided by outside influences, some of which had previously served on Council. Then Reeves continued, "That kid [Lown] hasn't had an original thought in two years." Mind you, this is the same paper which editorially chided Lown as being out of line for stating in a candidate forum that Mahon had made "foolish decisions".
Well, let's see: first Mahon casts the deciding vote for a wildly unpopular water rate hike after blocking less expensive possibilities from consideration; then he cheerfully sacrifices an important charter amendment in a transparant and temporary tactic to embarrass and freeze out a Mayor with whom he has publically feuded for the last term. Having done that Mahon lifts not a finger to even put a little lipstick on this pig, and leaves Matt Lewis and Rudy Izzard to put forth a desperate, last minute, non-binding resolution in an attempt to give it some chance of passage.
Given the election results on both Mahon and the appointed chief measure, it seems possible the voters thought Mahon had made some "foolish decisions".
Back to Reeves' comment; if Reeves is worried that H. R. Wardlaw is tugging the Mayor's puppet strings, why doesn't he come out and say so and back it up? The fact that Wardlaw is close to the Mayor has to rate as the worst kept secret in San Angelo. If you think it is improper, say so and make your case. At least Richard Bastardo, in his editorial submission, had the nerve to come out and say what he meant. My aquaintance with Mr. Bastardo suggests he would be inclined to walk in the living room, kick the elephant in the butt, and tell it to leave and quit pooping all over the floor.
Another poorly kept secret is that Mayor Lown has in mind strengthening the Mayor's office. I have heard the term "limited veto", and some people have speculated Lown would move to make San Angelo a strong mayor city, similar to the measure defeated in Dallas. I have no personal knowledge of such, and repeat these rumors only to set a hypothetical context. If that be the case, why not let it come forth and oppose the real issue headon? The Mayor's popularity notwithstanding, I do not believe the voters would approve a radical restructuring of city government. I cannot see myself being persuaded to such a move.
Now back to the Standard-Times. The week after the election the S-T had some real reaches of editorial analysis. The best single piece has to be Wed. May 11. After avoiding the elephant during the whole campaign, the unsigned lead editorial freely acknowledges the charter amendment as a political tactic. Then, in a twist that would make a good DC spin doctor proud, the S-T states that Lown's lack of leadership on the issue helped prevent its passage! People, I was there when the vote to put appointment on the ballot was taken. Lown expressed his reservations about the timing and poor chance of success, but then, noting his past support of the issue, voted in favor of a motion expessly aimed at doing him political damage. By that act alone, Lown gave the measure as much support as Mahon ever did.
Then, in the same editorial, the S-T claims Lown "did little to boost the passage of the half-cent sales tax". This one leaves me totally baffled. As a leading spokesman against, I was invited to breakfast with the Mayor to discuss the issue. I would describe the session as cordial, but in diplomatese we had a "frank exchange of ideas" with neither being persuaded to the other's view. I know, up close and personal, Lown supported the sales tax. What exactly the paper expected in the way of support from him escapes me. By the nature of the political landscape, Jim Turner and I were set as lead spokesmen for our side, with Matt Lewis and several Chamber of Commerce folk taking the winning position.
One thing about that measure, by the time the vote was held, both sides thought a good contest had been engaged, the winners won honestly, and no hard feelings (well, very few).
Compare that to the "debate" over the appointed chief this time.
Now, back all the way to the title, "Why I am Here". As I stated in the opening, I grant a paper's right to endorse editorially. What I object to is the editorial spilling over into spinning the actual news portions. Nationwide, very few cities have more than one major daily newspaper, the economics of scale involved in putting ink on paper and then dropping that in one's front yard have mandated consolidation nearly everywhere. Before this was true, papers in America more often than openly advocated for one party or the other. It may seem counterintuitive, but that lead to a degree of honesty the press often lacks today.
As an example, I have a book "The Lincoln-Douglas Debates", compiled by Harold Holzer. It is highly regarded by historians since no one at the time thought to arrange for an official transcriptionist. Holzer crawled the stacks of the two leading papers covering the debates, one openly Republican, the other as blatantly pro-Douglas. With each knowing the other was there to keep'um honest, there are amazingly few discrepancies in substance. One paper might note parenthetically a line received "boisterous standing ovation", while the other noted "polite applause", but the words themselves seldom diverge.
With that historical anectdote in mind, in this day of consolidated news organizations, the Blog is rapidly becoming an important news alternative. We hope to put our respective skills together to provide that believable alternative source of information as regards local matters of interest. If anyone else is doing this locally, I am unaware of it. City politics is officially non-partisan, as we attempt to be. I am a Republican functionary of some tenure, while Mr. Turner is an avowed Libertarian who urges me to follow my heart and join his Party.
We both care a great deal for San Angelo. I am as imperfect as anyone, the comments reply here is in place to help you keep us honest. Show me I am wrong and I will 'fess up.
It has never been hard to determine the editorial tilt of the Standard-Times, but this last election we saw more selective reporting of hard news than I recall of late. Laying the defeat of the appointed chief at Lown's feet is analogous to blaming the condemned man for stretching a perfectly good new rope out of shape when we hung him. If you think there is truth in that, clock into us from time to time. We discourage ad hominem attacks, and we encourage citing sources of information, but tell me I'm wrong and show me your case, won't be the first time I've been wrong.

Hail to the Chief

As you probably already know, there is a charter amendment to appoint the chief on the ballot for May 7th. I have many problems with this initiative.

First, there are pro's and con's to electing or appointing a chief. My problem is the lack of planning and the likely outcome if we approve appointing the chief.

The proposal was put on the council agenda at the last possible minute. It was submitted with such a short time available that a special second council meeting had to be called. Because of some of the weaknesses noted in the proposed amendment, especially when the lack of protections for the chief were brought out, a resolution that was a sense of what the council planned to do was submitted to the council and passed the day before early voting started.

It is obvious that there was no planning or research before this was proposed. It's true that they had talked about it off and on for quite a while, but it was obvious at the council meeting where this was proposed that the council members had no idea of the depth of impact this amendment would have, and how it was affected by other laws and statutes, especially civil service. It was obvious that the councilman that proposed the amendment thought that the chief would automatically be protected just like any other civil service covered employee, which is not the case.

Then we get to the resolution. As it was proposed, the resolution creates a public safety committee with 4 out of 7 members being labor organization representatives, one member the personel director, and 2 members being retired public safety members. This does keep regular politics out of the selection and review process, but gives labor special interest groups a majority on the committee. If the purpose of the committee is to prevent undo political and special interest influence on the chief, it fails right off the bat. It is also interesting that there is no room on the committee for just a regular citizen. Might be good for a selection committe, but not a very good makeup for a committee to review terminations.

There is also the problem that what the city council can give in an ordinance, it can take away. If current city council passes a sensible set of selection and termination review criteria in an ordinance, a majority of any city council can also change or remove those criteria. It only takes about a week to pass an ordinance change. Under normal circumstances, council meetings are 2 weeks apart, and final agenda is ready the friday before the meeting. Two regular meetings and an ordinance can become law if you can keep a majority voting for it. In special circumstances, 72 hours notice, meeting, 72 hours notice, second meeting, ordinance is changed. No voter approval required.

Bottom line is that any protections and requirements not in the city charter can be changed at the whim of the majority of the city council.

These are my thoughts, what are yours?

Being Civil

During the campaign for an appointed chief, we pointed out some inconsistencies between the code of ordinances and the rules the civil service commission is using. These will be reviewed at the next council meeting.

Hopefully this is the beginning of a thorough review of the charter, ordinances and rules.

Chief Concerns

A recent comment on an earlier post brought up some questions that need answered about an elected vs. appointed chief.

Question 1: Who would appoint the police chief if we do appoint the chief?

• That is spelled out in LG 143.013. The City Manager (CEO) would appoint the chief with confirmation by the City Council (governing body).

Question 2: What are the qualifications for an appointed or elected chief?

• Appointed chiefs requirements from the above reference are "A person appointed as head of a police department must be eligible for certification by the Commission on Law Enforcement Officer standards and Education at the intermediate level or its equivalent as determined by that commission and must have served as a bona fide law enforcement officer for at least five years." The city manager, with input from the council and public could add other requirements. These requirements don't apply to an elected chief.
• The qualifications for the elected chief start with section 61 of the City charter that says "The Chief of Police shall have been a resident of the City of San Angelo for a period of at least two years immediately prior to his election and shall possess the qualifications of electors in said city." The state adds some requirements in Occupation Code 1702.302. It says in part "in an elective office must obtain a license from the commission not later than the second anniversary of the date the officer takes office." It also states that if the elected officer (police chief in this case) fails to obtain or maintain the license within the 2 years he can be removed from office.

Question 3: Who has oversight of an appointed or elected chief?

• In the case of an appointed chief, he would serve at the will of the City Manager, who would be also be his direct supervisor. As an appointed department head he would also be subject to investigation and inquiry by city council.
  
• An elected chief has no real supervisor within the city government. The council can "adjust" the chiefs pay, and the council does control the police budget, but they have no real authority to remove or discipline the police chief. The voters can remove an appointed chief at the next regular election. In theory, the voters could petition for a recall election, but that requires a large number of signatures on petitions, and a full blown election with all the time and expense involved in that process. The council can't call a recall election. That has to start with a citizens petition with sufficient signatures.
  
• Either chief can be removed for conviction of a felony or a crime of moral turpitude. Neither chief is subject to review or oversight by the civil service commission.
  

Hope that answers some of the basic questions on the mechanics of appointed and elected chiefs.

Fire at will: Sect 38 special

I need to do a follow up on a previous post. Some interesting points were brought to my attention that will affect how an elected chief, or any city employee, can be protected. First, section 38 of the city charter pretty much prohibits employment contracts and asserts the cities right to preemptory discharge of any employee. It is likely this was added to the city charter in an attempt to discourage unionizing city employees.

Civil service already trumps this section for covered employees. It also appears that this might be in conflict with the Texas labor code. Chapter 101.003 gurantees an individuals right to bargain for terms of employment. There is also a grievance procedure listed in chapter 102 that sets the rules for arbitration and arbitration boards. Chapter 102 doesn't apply automatically, but is a good starting point.

Too bad this wasn't researched before the election on an appointed police chief.

Sunday Free for All

Hi folks , it's been a while, I'm embarrassed for neglecting this site. Been keeping books for candidates. There is a reason I've never tried to make a living betting ponies at the track: I'd lose!

We had a low turnout, and I want to talk about that more than winners. I know Paul and Kendall and Chief Vasquez; they are good people doing a pretty good job, and I thank them for their service. Really.

That said, I don't love our new local election process. I have been a precinct election judge or alternate judge since '92: Judge/Alt goes by last election Gov. vote, and I've been on both sides of that in a minority/majority district. Really doesn't matter, my Democrat compatriots at Belmore Baptist were a joy to work with, all we wanted was an honest election.

When you go to vote, the people who process you do get paid; not a lot, I take a serious pay cut when I do it, but yes, we are paid. Promise you, nobody does it for the money.

That's background, now we move to nuts & bolts. City elections were limited to 8 polling places. Normal even with some cost-saving combinations, would have been 22 polling sites, 27 county-wide for Primary races May 29. Now we look at a process that for general (Nov) or Primary partisan elections we have the 22 places in the city limits. Then next year City, we are all supposed to remember the 8 places for Council or SAISD, and this I report of personal knowledge; SAISD is pissed!

Well think; I just found my way to a City polling place. NOW on Monday you expect me to find my way to the sort-of-usual, recently combined local precincts for the start of early voting on that race. As the late Mr. Rogers might have put it: "Children, can you spell Voter Suppression"

Tell you a short story, or I'll try to be short. Thursday I am going home a little early, rain-out. I cross that crater at Concho and Magdalen, decide to beef about it. For starts I call Street&Bridge, silly me, it is a street by a bridge, but Whoops! wrong Dept. I get kicked over to Inspections, I'm finally told "hey that was part of the sewer job, that goes to Water Utilities".

Pardon the language, but screw the hired help, I talk to Will Wilde. He tells me this is wrapped up in civil law trying to get the contractor to fulfill the obligation, please understand Mr. Ryan, these things take time.

OK, says I, but you stay up their ass, my concern is a drivable surface. BTW Mr. Wilde if it ain't happening soon here is my suggestion: We have signs all over the place promoting the Concho St. Historic Dist. Forget the expense of an actual repair (which my employer could do in oh, maybe three hours): No put up new signs designating that crater as the "Concho St. Historic Pothole". Wilde chuckles, I chuckle And I sign off thanking him for taking my call.

Now Saturday I stop by the Blues Festival on Oakes St and by accident run into a city staffer. I tell him this story and he says, " You haven't driven home yet today, have you" No, I reply but I'm about to".  he continues, " I wondered where that work order came from but you will find that crater has been filled in, packed and hot-patched with paving" and God is my witness, it was. A temp job, not something I'd want to hang my name on, but it's there.

Point of today's lesson: Yes you can "fight" City Hall. Trick is to work with them, come together and get something done. Somebody downtown did not want to hear me next Tuesday at Council meeting making that wise-ass crack about "Historic Potholes" for the camera; Don't know who or what shortcuts were taken, all I give a rat's about is the crater got fixed, thank you whoever. It really isn't so much "fighting" city hall as working with them. Old, old saying: squeaky wheels get the grease.