Honorable Sid Miller, Chair, House Committee on Homeland Security & Public Safety
FROM:
John S O'Brien, Director, Legislative Budget Board
IN RE:
HB2957 by Davis, John (Relating to due process for certain law enforcement officers.), As Introduced
No fiscal implication to the State is anticipated.
The bill would add Subchapter L to Chapter 614 of the Government Code to establish the Law Enforcement Officers' Due Process Act regarding disciplinary proceedings for officers under the rank of major who are employed by a municipal police department, sheriff's office or constable's office. Procedures required under the provisions of the bill would not supersede an existing meet and confer agreement or collective bargaining agreement of a municipality or county.
The proposed changes in law would apply only to an administrative investigation or a disciplinary hearing begun on or after the effective date of the bill, which would be September 1, 2011.
Local Government Impact
For those law enforcement agencies in which meet and confer or collective bargaining agreements are in place, there would be no fiscal impact. For agencies without those agreements, the impact would depend on current procedures and the number of sworn officers employed by an agency; therefore, the impact could be insignificant for some agencies and significant for others.
The Texas Municipal League (TML) provided fiscal impact information from the cities of Hurst, Mesquite, Nacogdoches, and Perryton indicating there would be a fiscal impact that would vary depending on current procedures.
The City of Hurst reported the city currently complies with all provisions with the exception of providing legal counsel. The city conservatively assumed three cases per year with attorneys working on the case for 120 hours at $150 per hour which would result in a negative fiscal impact of an estimated $50,000 to $60,000 per year for the city. Again, the estimate is a relatively conservative estimate.
The City of Mesquite reported that the provisions of the bill would place many limits on internal investigations and the costs involved with requiring legal counsel present to represent the city during “hearings” could prove costly. The city currently complies with most of the provisions in the bill, such as advising an officer of the rules the officer has allegedly violated, providing a copy of the complaint, conducting the interviews during reasonable hours and prohibiting political activity while on-duty and in uniform.
The City of Nacogdoches indicated the city has concerns about the recording requirement. In addition, the city stated there could be a greater impact to some smaller agencies that may not have specific officers assigned to conduct internal investigations (IA). Nacogdoches is considered to be a mid-sized agency and our IA function is part-time and even with a few complaints, it is a burden. Most of the city’s complaints are resolved at the "squad level" and never evolve into an IA complaint. Under the provisions of the bill, all complaints would have to be investigated resulting in additional time and costs (mainly personnel costs) that could be very high.
The City of Perryton indicated that the provisions of the bill would cost an estimated $2,000 per each occurrence to administer if counsel is assigned each time. Both the officer and the city would need to employ the services of separate legal counsels. The city also noted the analysis assumes no collective bargaining agreements are in place.
The Texas Association of Counties (TAC) provided fiscal impact information from Bexar and Ward counties indicating there could be a fiscal impact that would vary depending on current procedures.
Bexar County reported there would be no fiscal or procedural impact because disciplinary action is currently covered by the county’s existing collective bargaining agreement. Bexar County has a population of 1,714,773 and an overall budget of $1,339,021,665.
Ward County reported there would be a fiscal impact due to the following factors, but did not provide a cost estimate. Ward County operates as an “At Will” county and employees sign an agreement upon employment. If the county could not remove a law enforcement officer without a cause, the county’s at will status with deputy sheriffs would no longer be valid. If a deputy is under investigation and assigned to office duty or to not work, remaining officers would have to cover that deputy’s duties resulting in overtime which could cause a fiscal impact depending on how long an investigation lasts. In addition, if an officer under investigation is allowed to continue to patrol and any other incident occurred, it could result in a liability issue for the county.