BILL ANALYSIS S.B. 1014 By: Gallegos (Turner, S.) May 17, 1995 Committee Report (Unamended) BACKGROUND Police officers are directly affected by the promotional rules and procedures the department has in place. These rules can affect everything from pay raises to personal safety of the individual officers. Currently, police departments that have not adopted the Fire and Police Employee Relations Act can only change the promotional system with the recommendation of the head of the police department and a vote of the majority of the police officers in the department. If the head of the police department refuses to call an election, an unfair and irrational system cannot be replaced. The requirement that a majority of the police officers in the department affirmatively vote for the bill is an undue burden. PURPOSE As proposed, S.B. 1014 authorizes the Police Officers' Civil Commission to adopt promotional systems in certain police departments. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, institution, or agency. SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS SECTION 1. Amends Section 143.035(b), Local Government Code, as follows: (b) Authorizes the Police Officers' Civil Commission to adopt an alternate promotional system to select persons to occupy nonentry level positions other than positions that are filled by appointment by the police department head, on receipt of a petition signed by at least 20 percent of the sworn police officers in the department which may be vetoed by the head of police, and after a simple majority vote of the police officers who vote in the election at which the issue is submitted to a vote. Requires a promotional system to be a system suggested by the head of the police department or the petitioning police officers and to comply with the requirements prescribed by this section. SECTION 2. Emergency clause. Effective date: upon passage. SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE ACTION SB 1014 was considered by the committee in a public hearing on April 24, 1995. The following people testified in favor of the bill: Rep. Turner; Carvel McNeil, representing Houston Police Patrolmen's Union; Jack Means, representing himself and Texas Conference of Police and Sheriffs; and S. David Mireles, representing Houston Police Patrolmen's Union. The following people testified against the bill: Mark Clark; representing the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas. The bill was left pending. SB 1014 was considered in a formal meeting on May 17, 1995. The bill was reported favorably without amendment, with the recommendation that it do pass and be printed, by a record vote of 5 ayes, 1 nay, 0 pnv, and 3 absent.