BILL ANALYSIS |
C.S.S.B. 965 |
By: Williams |
Homeland Security & Public Safety |
Committee Report (Substituted) |
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Under current law, when a peace officer is discharged, the head of the law enforcement agency terminating the employee must submit a form to the Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education indicating whether the employee was discharged honorably, dishonorably, or generally. The employee may contest information in the report through a petition and administrative hearing. C.S.S.B. 965 revises current law relating to the correction of employment termination reports for law enforcement officers.
|
||||||||||||
RULEMAKING AUTHORITY
It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution.
|
||||||||||||
ANALYSIS
C.S.S.B. 965 amends the Occupations Code to add the specification, in the requirement that an administrative law judge order an employment termination report to be changed based on alleged misconduct that has been found in a hearing to not be supported by a preponderance of the evidence, that the judge order the Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education (TCLEOSE) to change the termination report. The bill requires TCLEOSE to send the changed report to the law enforcement agency that prepared the original termination report and requires the agency to replace the original report with the changed report.
C.S.S.B. 965 repeals Section 1701.4525(e-1), Occupations Code, that authorizes TCLEOSE to assess an administrative penalty against a law enforcement agency head who fails to make a correction to an employment termination report following an order by the State Office of Administrative Hearings after all appeals available to the agency head have been exhausted.
|
||||||||||||
EFFECTIVE DATE
September 1, 2013.
|
||||||||||||
COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL AND SUBSTITUTE
While C.S.S.B. 965 may differ from the engrossed version in minor or nonsubstantive ways, the following comparison is organized and highlighted in a manner that indicates the substantial differences between the engrossed and committee substitute versions of the bill.
|
||||||||||||
|