AT WILL TERMINATION OF DEPUTY CONSTABLES IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS VERSUS THE CIVIL SERVICE PROTECTIONS INTENDED BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE
DM-385(April 19, 1996). A county civil service commission in a county with a basic civil service system created under subchapter A of chapter 158 of the Local Government Code may adopt a rule defining deputy constables as "employees" covered by the system. When the county civil service commission in a basic subchapter A civil service system adopts a rule defining deputy constables as "employees," the deputy constables become subject to the coverage of the civil service system. DM385.pdf.
In may 2001, lawsuit in this matter was filed in Texas State District Court, Dallas County, as STANLEY GAINES, JIM GILLIAND, AND SONIA AVINA, Plaintiffs v. COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS. The law firm handling the matter for the deputies
is BELLINGER & DeWOLF, L.L.P, Steven K. DeWolf, and Todd R. Hixon, 750 N. St. Paul, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201, (214) 954-9540, (214) 954-9541 (Facsimile)
-S.O. Gaines FOOTNOTE
Companion Pages
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS CONSTABLES' TERMINATED WITHOUT DUE PROCESS IN ATTEMPT TO SET UP MODERN SPOILS SYSTEM
(See DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS CONSTABLES' TERMINATED WITHOUT DUE PROCESS IN ATTEMPT TO SET UP MODERN SPOILS SYSTEM)
The January 1, 2001 at will firings done by newly elected Constable Mike Dupree
were not supposed to happen according to the Texas State Legislators who revised
the Texas Local Government Code back in 1989. They openly discussed that the intended impact of their proposed revisions would be to place deputy constables
on the same civil service basis as other county employes.
The legislators added the phrase "unless the person is included by a local civil service rule adopted under the procedures outlined in Section 158.009" for the express purpose of allowing counties to include deputy constables within their civil service systems. Representative Steven Wolens explained the bill to the House County Affairs Committee:
"So simply what this bill does is it makes the deputy constables subject to the civil service act, and in doing so it takes care of two things. Number one, it protects deputy constables from being fired for political reasons, and secondly it will benefit the county as it delineates when a deputy constable can be fired and what those proper procedures are for firing a deputy constable."<1>
According to Attorney General (AG) Letter Opinion No. 97-016,
"Representative Wolens stressed that inclusion in the civil service does not prevent deputy constables from being fired. See Hearings on S.B. 1006 Before the House County Affairs Comm., 71st Leg., R.S. (May 9, 1989) (tape available from House Audio/Video Services). County civil service commissions are required to adopt rules regarding the terms of employment and grounds for dismissal of employees. See Local Gov't Code § 158.009. If a deputy constable deviates from the employment standards, he or she is subject to dismissal in accordance with the procedures established by the civil service commission. A constable's requirements for the appropriate job performance of a deputy can be incorporated into civil service commission rules, so that deputies performing unsatisfactorily and in violation of the rules can be dismissed."<1>
Thus, under the terms of the bill, which was enacted ino law in 1989, if the local
county commissioners, by a duly approved Commissioners Court Order, added deputy constables to their list of civil service covered employees, deputy constables had full civil service protection.
The Commissioners Court for Dallas County, Texas, on September 18, 1990
approved Court Order 90-1567. This Court Order incorporated several changes into the Civil Service Regulations including specifically defining deputy constables as employees covered by Dallas County Civil Service. Thus, Dallas County deputy constables had full grievance and appeal rights with regard to terminations and other disciplnary actions taken against them. This Court Order specifically tied itself into statutory definitions of employees, especially those of Local Governmet Code 158, and those of "Attorney General of Texas' opinion(s)." The Commissioners had fully embraced the changes the legislature intended insofar as deputy constables were concerned.
Over the next few years, the Attorney General of Texas issued several opinions
which implemented the legislature's intent. The three most important in this regard
are as follows:
DM-338(March 27, 1995). In sum, we conclude that sheriff's and constable's deputies are covered by an expanded civil service system created pursuant to section 158.007 of the Local Government Code in a county that has not created a subchapter B (sheriff's department) civil service system. DM338.pdf
Over the years, the Dallas County Personnel Department/Civil Service Commission has increasingly upheld the Civil Service rights of deputy constables as the legislature intended. For example, when newly elected constable Aurelio Castillo, Pct. 6, refused to swear in Deputy Armando Gonzales on January 1, 1997, Al Herrera of the Dallas County Personnel Department (an appellate step set out in the Civil Service regulations for Dallas County) overruled Mr. Castillo and caused Mr. Gonzales to be reinstated.
At the constable precinct level, the Constable's own written personnel policies for
precinct 6, issued by Constable Castillo after the above incident,
stipulate that deputies have civil service appeal rights with regard to their grievances and disciplinary actions.
Thus, what happened to the Precinct Six, Dallas County, Texas Deputies at the hands of Constable Mike Dupree was a clear denial of everything the legislature intended when it brought deputy constables under civil service protection. It was also a breach of the policies and practices of Dallas County and of Precinct six itself.
In February, 2001, three Dallas County Commissioners, John Wiley Price, Ken Mayfield, and Mike Cantrell
sat as the Civil Service Board to decide whether to hear the case. They ruled, 2 to 1, that the deputy constables were not entitled to a hearing. Voting in favor of not granting a hearing were John Wiley Price and Mike Cantrell. Ken Mayfteld abstained.
1. Attorney General Opinion No. 97-016.
FURTHER LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SB 1006 WHICH SPECIFICALLY PLACED DEPUTY CONSTABLES UNDER CIVIL SERVICE
