FURTHER LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SB 1006 WHICH SPECIFICALLY ADDED DEPUTY CONSTABLES TO THE LIST OF EMPLOYEES COVERED BY COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE (FOR CONTEXT SEE THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SB 1006 AS DISCUSSED IN ATTORNEY GENERAL LETTER OPINION 97-016)
This further legislative history supplements the information set out in AT WILL TERMINATION OF DEPUTY CONSTABLES IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS VERSUS THE CIVIL SERVICE PROTECTIONS INTENDED BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE . See https://www.angelfire.com/journal/issues/officers2.html.
I. The Texas Senate
Senate Bill 1006 was carried by Texas State Senator Eddie Bernice Johnson of Dallas. On April 4, 1989, Senator Johnson presented her bill to the Senate Intergovernmental Relations Committee. According to the tape of that meeting, Senator Johnson simply stated that her bill would place county constables under county civil service.
Senator Johnson introduced as witnesses in support of the bill: Dallas County Commissioner Jim Jackson; Dallas County Personnel Director Mario Malacara (sp?); President of the Dallas Justice of the Peace and Constable Association Gus Rose; Dallas Deputy Constable James Paschall; and Craig Perdue (sp?) of Dallas County.
There was no debate. The committee voted 6 ayes and 0 noes. The chair placed the bill on the Local and Consent Committee of the Senate.
II. The Texas House of Representatives
In the Texas House of representatives, SB 1006 was carried by Texas State Rep. Steve Wolens of Dallas. Rep. Wolens spoke on behalf of the bill before the Texas House Committee on County Affairs. He introduced as present in support of the bill the following persons: Dallas County Judge Lee Jackson; Dallas Deputy Constable James Paschall; Dallas Constable Jim Harris; Dallas County Director of Personnel Mario Malacara; and Craig Pardue, Governmental Affairs, Dallas County.
During discussion of the bill, Rep. Wolens began by stating that it grew out of what he deemed as the "shock" which arose from the very recent ruling in the Arrington case which essentially held that deputy constables were not protected from loss of their jobs by county civil service. This bill would rectify that. he stated that this bill was specifically designed to provide full civil service protection to "deputy constables."
Excerpts of discussion before the committee.
Rep. Wentworth said: "to deputize them he has to have confidence in that deputy...He ought to be able to fire any deputy on the spot."
Rep. Wolens response: "If they are fired for a whim, I don't think that's proper because the deputy constable is carrying out law on behalf of a elected constable for the certain county, they should be subject to certain restraints and guidelines and these should be spelled out in a civil service act. And if they deviate in any
one of from five to fifty broad guidelines they ought to be fired. And by setting this out by regulation in the civil service code then it's clear what that employee's function, job, and responsibility is going to be. And so, by putting them in this structure, it should be clear to the employee what they should or shouldn't
do. And this structure should be specific enough so that they know what they
have to do. And if they deviate from that conduct they can be fired....as it applies to everybody else in the civil service program."
***
Rep. Mark Stiles (The Comm. Chair): "Have you all changed sheriffs in Dallas County lately?"
Rep Wolens: "Sheriffs?"
Rep Stiles: "We have a new sheriff in Jefferson County this year and he decided there were some people that he didn't like and so they are not working there anymore. Would this Stop him from doing that? A new sheriff that's brought in that decides he doesn't want to keep a deputy there or that he wants to get rid of some people because they campaigned against him, or whatever, like they used to do."
Rep. Wolens: "Mark, it is specifically intended to take care of political firings. And there's no reason for a political firing if someone is doing a good job. And there certainly should be no political firings when it relates to law and order type issues. If it is political that's sort of the patronage system. But patronage doesn't fit into the constable framework and that is what the purpose of civil service is."
***
The chair noted there was no opposition to the bill from the Sheriffs association.
***
Rep Wolens: "The Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas President Ron DeLourde (sp?) was quoted as saying, 'in this particular instance there is a lot of political pressure on deputy constables in Texas because they are not covered under civil service' and he went on to say the deputies are really
in a bad position and he went on to talk about the political consequences"
***
The Chair invited member or any witness in opposition to the bill to speak.
No one spoke against the bill..
***
All members present voted aye to report the bill to the full House with the recommendation that it "do pass and be placed on the consent calendar."
These excerpts are taken from the taped recordings of the Texas Senate and House committee hearings of the 71st legislature (1989) which took up SB 1006 for consideration. The Senate hearing was held April 4, 1989 and the House hearing was held May 9, 1989. The tapes may be obtained as follows:
For the Senate write The Texas State Library and Archives Commission, P.O. Box 12927, Austin, TX 78711-2927.
For the Texas House write Texas House of Representatives, House Business Office, Communications Division, P.O.Box 2910, Austin, Texas 78768-2910.
Tapes reviewed and excerpted by Stanley Gaines, webmaster, (graces@angelfire.com).
COPYRIGHT 2001
