Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                               ATTORNEY GENERAL                    OF   TEXAS
    GREG       ABBOTT
    September 27,2004
    Shirley J. Neeley, Ed.D.                           Opinion No. GA-025 1
    Commissioner of Education
    Texas Education Agency                             Re: Whether section 37.081(f) of the Education
    1701 North Congress Avenue                         Code, concerning school district peace officers,
    Austin, Texas 78701                                conflicts with chapter 614, subchapter B of the
    Government Code, concerning complaints against
    certain law enforcement offtcers, police officers, and
    fire fighters (RQ-0204-GA)
    Dear Commissioner      Neeley:
    On behalf of New Caney Independent School District (the “District”), you ask whether
    section 37.081(f) of the Education Code, concerning school district peace officers, conflicts with
    chapter 614, subchapter B of the Government Code, concerning complaints against certain law
    enforcement officers, police officers, and tire fighters.’
    Under the Education Code, a school district superintendent has general administrative
    responsibility for the day-to-day operations of the district.        See TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. 5
    11.201(d)(5) (Vernon Supp. 2004). The superintendent has responsibility for the assignment and
    evaluation ofall district personnel and initiates the termination or suspension of employees. See 
    id. 5 11,201(d)(2),
    (4). Specifically concerning school district law enforcement personnel, section
    37.081 of the Education Code authorizes the board of trustees of any school district to commission
    peace officers and to define the officers territorial jurisdiction and duties. See 
    id. 4 37.081(a),
    (d),
    (e) (Vernon 1996). Such peace officers must meet all minimum standards for peace officers
    established by the Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education and be
    licensed bythat commission. 
    Id. 5 37.081(f),
    (h); see also TEX. CODE GRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 2.12(8)
    (Vernon Supp. 2004) (listing persons commissioned under section 37.081 as a “peace officer”).
    With respect to officer supervision, Education Code section 37.081(f) provides:
    The chief of police of the school district police department shall be
    accountable    to the superintendent      and shall report to the
    superintendent   or the superintendent’s   designee.   School district
    ‘See Letter from Shirley J. Neeley, Ed.D., Commissioner ofEducation, Texas Education Agency, to Honorable
    Greg Abbott, Texas Attorney General (Apr. 6, 2004) (on file with Opinion Committee, also available af
    www.oag.state.tx.us) [hereinafter Request Letter].
    Shirley J. Neeley, Ed.D. - Page 2                    (GA-0251)
    police officers shall be supervised by the chief ofpolice of the school
    district or the chief of police’s designee and shall be licensed by the
    Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education.
    TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. 5 37.081(f) (Vernon             1996).
    Subchapter B of the Government Code is entitled “Complaint Against Law Enforcement
    Officer or Fire Fighter.” TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. $5 614.021-,023 (Vernon 1994). The subchapter
    applies only to a complaint against:
    (1) a law enforcement officer of the State of Texas, including an
    officer of the Department of Public Safety or of the Texas Alcoholic
    Beverage Commission;
    (2) a tire fighter who is not covered by a civil service statute; or
    (3) a police officer who is not covered by a civil service statute.
    
    Id. 5 614.021.
    Section 614.022 states that “[t]o be considered by the head of a state agency or by the
    head of a tire or police department, the complaint must be: (1) in writing; and (2) signed by
    the person making the complaint.” 
    Id. $ 614.022.
    A copy of a signed complaint against a law
    enforcement officer, tire fighter, or police officer must be given to the officer within a reasonable
    time after the complaint is tiled, without which no disciplinary action may be taken. See 
    id. 5 614.023.
    The District wants the superintendent to be able to administer appropriate discipline with or
    without a complaint in the interest of school safety.’ Specifically, the District is concerned that
    children or their parents may be unable or disinclined to tile a written, signed complaint. See New
    Caney I.S.D. Letter, supra note 2, at 2. Additionally, the District suggests that chapter 614,
    subchapter B of the Government Code conflicts with the duties of a superintendent to evaluate the
    conduct of all personnel and to initiate the termination or suspension of employees. See 
    id. As a
    preliminary matter, we note that neither section 37.081 of the Education Code nor
    chapter 614, subchapter B ofthe Government Code defines the term “police officer” or suggests that
    it has other than its ordinary meaning. Section 614.02 l’s only restriction is that it does not apply to
    police officers who are covered by a civil service statute. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. 5 614.021(3)
    (Vernon 1994). Giving the term “police officer” its ordinary meaning, we conclude that a police
    officer of a school district police department will be subject to chapter 614, subchapter B of the
    Government Code, absent conflict with some other statute. See 
    id. 5 3
    11 .Ol 1(a) (Vernon 1998)
    (words are to be construed in context and according to common usage unless they have acquired a
    2SeeLetter~omRichardCowan,SuperintendentofSchools,NewCaneyIndependent           SchoolDistrict, toshirley
    J. Neeley, Ed.D., Commissioner of Education, Texas Education Agency, at 2 (Mar. 11, 2004) (on file with Opinion
    Committee, also available of www.oag.state.tx.us) [hereinafter New Caney I.S.D. Letter].
    Shirley J. Neeley, Ed.D. - Page 3                (GA-0251)
    technical or particular meaning); seealsoL &M-SurcoMfg,, Inc. v. Winn Tile Co., 
    580 S.W.2d 920
    ,
    926 (Tex. Civ. App.-Tyler 1979, writ dism’d) (when “the same or a similar term is used in the same
    connection in different statutes, it will be given the same meaning in one that it has in another, unless
    there is something to indicate that a different meaning was intended”).
    The District has suggested that sections 614.022 and 614.023 of the Government Code
    conflict with a superintendent’s duties under section 11.201(d) and section 37.081 of the Education
    Code. See New Caney I.S.D. Letter, supra note 2, at 2. Under section 37.081, a peace officer is
    supervised by the chief of police of the school district (or a designee), and the chief of police is
    accountable to the superintendent.      See TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. 5 37.081(f), (h) (Vernon 1996).
    Thus, a superintendent does not have direct responsibility for disciplining officers ofa school district
    police department. See 
    id. A chief
    of police may supervise and discipline a school district officer
    under section 37.081(f) of the Education Code after providing the notice required by sections
    614.022 and 614.023 of the Government Code. A superintendent may exercise the duty under
    section 11.201(d) to evaluate and “initiat[e] the termination or suspension of an employee” such as
    a police officer of the school district police department, as long as the officer/employee receives a
    copy ofthe complaint prior to the imposition of such disciplinary measures. See 
    id. 5 11.201(d)(2),
    (4) (Vernon Supp. 2004); see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. 5 614.023(b) (Vernon 1994).
    Accordingly, we conclude that chapter 614, subchapter B ofthe Government Code does not conflict
    with a superintendent’s duties under sections 11.201(d) and 37.081 of the Education Code.
    We disagree with the district that a construction giving effect both to section 37.081 of the
    Education Code and to chapter 614, subchapter B of the Government Code would be unworkable
    because children or their parents may be unable or disinclined to provide a written complaint. The
    authority of a head of a police department to discipline is not limited to complaints filed by a citizen
    under section614.022 ofthe Government Code. CompareFudgev. Haggar, 621 S.W.2d 196,198
    (Tex. App.-Texarkana      1981, writ ref d n.r.e.) (a complaint si,gned by an internal affairs investigator
    satisfied the requirements ofthe predecessor statute to chapter 614, subchapter B of the Government
    Code) wifh Guthery v. Taylor, 112 S.W.3d 715,723 (Tex. App.-Houston 114th Dist.] 2003, no pet.)
    (police chiefs notice of charges, without signed written complaint from person making complaint
    or internal affairs report, did not satisfy requirements of sections 614.022 and 164.023 of the
    Government Code). As circumstances warrant, a superintendent of the school district or others may
    initiate disciplinary action by tiling a signed complaint, or complaints may prompt an internal
    investigation and report by the police department sufficient to satisfy the requirements of chapter 6 14
    of the Government Code.
    Shirley J. Neeley, Ed.D. - Page 4             (GA-025 1)
    SUMMARY
    Section 37.081(f) of the Education Code, concerning school
    district peace officers, does not conflict with chapter 614, subchapter
    B of the Government Code, concerning complaints against certain
    law enforcement officers, police officers, and fire fighters. A school
    district police department cannot take disciplinary action on a
    complaint against a police officer without giving the officer a copy of
    the complaint signed by the complainant.
    Very truly yours,
    Attorney General of Texas
    BARRY R. MCBEE
    First Assistant Attorney General
    DON R. WILLETT
    Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel
    NANCY S. FULLER
    Chair, Opinion Committee
    William A. Hill
    Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee
    

Document Info

Docket Number: GA-0251

Judges: Greg Abbott

Filed Date: 7/2/2004

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017