Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1987 )


Menu:
  •                               May 15, 1987
    Mr. Oliver Lewis, Jr.                 Opinion No.   JM-698
    County Auditor
    Bexar County Courthouse               lze: Whether n deputy sheriff who
    'San Antonio, Texas   78205           is indicted for d feiony auto-
    matically revokes his apyoiuimr``c
    Dear Mr. Lewis:
    You are concerned about the apparent conflict between xticia
    2372h-8. V.T.C.S., which authorizes a sheriff's department civil
    service system in counties of more than 950,000, and article 6869,
    V.T.C.S., which relates to the appointment, duties, and dismissal of a
    slieriff'sdeputies. When a county establishes a civil service system
    under article 2372h-8, V.T.C.S., a sheriff's department civil service
    commission is created. The commission
    shall make, publish, and enforce rules relating
    to:
    (1)   selection and classification of employees:
    .(2) competitive examinations;
    (3) promotions, seniority, and tenure;
    ;4) iayoffs and dismissals;
    (5) disciplinary actions;
    (6) grievance procedures and other procedural
    and substantive rights of employees; and
    (7) other matters relating to the selrccioo of
    employees and their advancement, rights, benefits,
    and working conditions. (Emphasis added).
    V.T.C.S. art. 2372h-8. §6&i). Deputy sheriffs. who are ".aployaes"
    under the definition provided in section l(3) of article 2372h-8.
    V.T.C.S.. are subject to the commission's authority over selection,
    dismissal. and discipline. The sheriff may, however. designate es
    exempt from the civil service system the position of chief deputy,
    four positions of major deputy, and additional posltions es long as
    p. 3235
    Mr. Oliver Lewis, Jr. - Page 2      (JM-698)
    the total number of exempt positions does not exceed 10.      V.T.C.S.
    art. 2372h;8, 98(b), (cl.
    Article ti869,V.T.C.S.. provides in part:
    Sheriffs shall have the power, by writing, to
    appoint oEe or more deputies for their respective
    counties, to concinui in office durmg         the
    pleasure of the sheriff, who shall have power and
    authority to perform all the acts and duties   of
    their principals. . . .    An indictment for a
    felony of any aeputy sheriff appointed shall
    operate a revocation of his appointment as such
    depury sheriff. . . .
    You ask whether article 2372h-8. V.T.C.S.. supersedes and repeals
    the provision in arcicla 6869, V.T.C.S., thar: 2 deputy sheriff's
    appoincmrnt is revoked upon his indictment for c felony.
    Section 6(a) of article 2372h-8. V.T.C.S., quoted above,
    authorizes the civil service commission to regulate the selection,
    tenure, and discipline of the deputy sheriffs to whom it applies. The
    civil service statute therefore substantially changes the working
    relationship between the sheriff and his deputies which has tradi-
    tionally existed and which is partially set out in article 6869,
    V.T.C.S. Deputy sheriffs traditionally serve "during the pleasure of
    cha sheriff." V.T.C.S. art. 6869. See also Irby v. Sullivan,,737
    F.2d 1418 (5th Cir. 1984); Murray v. Harris, 112 S.W.Zd 1091 (Tex.
    Cl". 'App. - Amuillo 1938, writ dism'd). It has been held chat deputy
    sheriffs have no legal entitlement to their jobs as public employees.
    Irby v. 
    Sullivan. 737 F.2d at 1422
    . Article 2372h-8, V.T.C.S., gives
    procedural and substantive protection to the deputies to whom it
    applies. Deputies covered by article 2372h-8, V.T.C.S., do not serve
    merely at the "pleasure of the sheriff."
    We believe article 2372h-8. V.T.C.S., by authorizing the civil
    service commissioa to "make. publish, and enforce rules relating
    to . . . layoffs and dismissals," also changes the prior law providing
    that a felony indictment of a deputy sheriff revokes his appointment
    as deputy sheriff. The civil service statute vests in the civil
    service comission an extensive oversight and authority over the
    deputy's working conditions. The provisions on grievance procedures
    and appeals to the court allow for full development or'the facts which
    justify dismissing a deputy.     The summary revocation required by
    article 6869, V.T.C.S., is not consistent with the policies underlying
    the civil service act. There may be erroneous indictments, and the
    commission may decide whether dismissai is justified on the facts of a
    particular case. See generally Attorney General Opinion H-402 (1974)
    (county employee suspended when indicted; reinstated when indictments
    dismissed).
    p. 3236
    Mr. Oliver Lewis, Jr. - Page 3      (34-698)
    Moreover, section 10 of article 2372h-8. V.T.C.S., provides es
    follows:
    lf a civil service system created under this
    Act is in effect, that system applies to the
    department to the exclusion of a civil service
    system   created   under . . . (Article  2372h-6,
    Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes), or any other lew.
    (Emphasis added).
    Section 10 indicates the legislative intent that article 2372h-8,
    V.T.C.S., prevaii over other laws governing the employment rights of
    employees of the sheriff's department. We do not believe that the
    legislature intended article 237Lh-8, V.T.C.S., to prevail over all
    other Texas statutes which apply to deputy sheriffs. See Attorney
    General Opinion H-753 (1975) (civil service act did not &Tent   state
    age discrimination statute). However, we believe it does prevail over
    the revocation provision of article 6869, V.T.C.S., which covers
    essentially the same ground as section 6(a) of article 2372h-8,
    V.T.C.S.
    Finally, article 2372h-8, V.T.C.S., is the later enactment, and
    to the extent it   is inconsistent with the earlier enacted article
    6869, V.T.C.S., it will prevail over it. See Acts 1981, 67th Leg.,
    ch. 119, it 295 (enacting V.T.C.S. art.    Zmh-8);   Acts 1889, Zlst
    Leg., ch. 30. at 23 (enacting predecksor of article 6669, V.T.C.S.);
    Projocrs American Corp. v. Billiard. 711 S.W.Zd 386, 389 (Tex. App. -
    Tyler 1986, no writ).
    The provisions in article 6869. V.T.C.S., for revocation of a
    deputy's appointment upon his felony indictment do not apply to
    deputies subject to a civil service system established under article
    2372h-8, V.T.C.S. Deputies exempted from the civil service system
    pursuant to section 8(a) of article 2372h-8. V.T.C.S., remain subject
    to revocation of their appointment upon indictment in accordance with
    article 6869, V.T.C.S. See also V.T.C.S. art. 4413 (29aa). §8A (con-
    viction of a felouy causes peace officer co lose peace officer license
    issued by Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards end
    Education).
    You point out chat the Bexar County sheriff's civil service
    commission has adopted rules relating to dismiesals of employees. YOU
    inform us that the rules provide that "[ala employee may be dismissed
    from the Sheriff's Department for just cause." The rules also state
    that "cause" for a dismissal includes but is not limited to
    violation of any lawful or reasonable statute.
    regulation or order such as a felony . . . conduct
    or action char would seriously impair job effec-
    tiveqess; end conduct which has proven to be
    detrimental or has an adverse effect on the
    Department.
    p. 3237
    ?lr.Oliver Lewis, Jr.   - Page 4     (X3-698)
    This rule of the Bexar County civil service~system is similar to
    that of other civil service systems which provide for suspension or
    dismissal ot en employee upon indictment or commission or' a crime.
    See, e.g., Abrems v. U.S. Department of the Navy. 
    714 F.2d 1219
    i3d
    Cir. 1983) (violent crime off-duty); Jankowitz V. United States,   
    533 F.2d 538
    (U.S. Ct. Cl. 1976) (indefinite suspension without pey of
    federal employer following indictment); Rooks v. State Persormel
    Board, 
    168 Cal. Rptr. 822
    (Cal. App. 3d 1980) (peace officers may be
    discharged for violating laws they are employed to enforce): Chang v.
    Palo6 Verde6 Estates. 
    159 Cal. Rptr. 630
    (Cal. App. 3d 1979) (dis-
    charge of fireman for drug use); Annot., 25 A.L.R. Fed. 443, 56 (cases
    on discharge of civil service employee because of a criminal cunvic-
    tion).
    The Bexar County sheriff's department civil service commission
    therefore does deal with the problems that arise when d deputy is
    indicted or is alleged to have conmittrd a felony. Although the
    commission's approach to the problem may cost the county more money
    then the approach required by article 6869, V.T.C.S., we cannot for
    that reason alone conclude that the revocation provision of article
    6869, V.T.C.S., prevails over article 2372h-8. V.T.C.S.
    SUMMARY
    The provision of article 6869, V.T.C.S.. that
    a deputy sheriff!6 appointment will be revoked by
    his indictment for a felony does not apply to
    deputy sheriffs subject to a civil service system
    created pursuaut to article 2372h-8, V.T.C.S.
    JIM     MATTOX
    Attorney General of Texas
    JACK HlGliTOWRR
    First Assistant Attorney General
    MARY KELLER
    Executive Assistant Attorney General
    JUDGE ZOLLIE STEARLEY
    Special Assistant Attorney General
    RICK GILPIN
    Chairman. Opinion Comittre
    Prtrparedby Susan L. Garrison
    Assistant Attorney General
    p. 3238
    

Document Info

Docket Number: JM-698

Judges: Jim Mattox

Filed Date: 7/2/1987

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017