Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1986 )


Menu:
  •                                  The Attorney       General of Texas
    .ruly10, 1986
    JIM MATTOX
    Attorney General
    Supreme Court Building        Honorable George Pierce                Opinion No.   JM-515
    P. 0. BOX 12549
    Austin, TX. 79711. 2548
    Chairman
    5121475-2501                  Committee on Urban 9:Efairs            Re: Whether a city may hire
    Telex 9101974-1367            Texas Rouse of Representatives         non-civil service personnel in
    Telecopier   512i47502S6      P. 0. Box 2910                         positions which are supervised
    Austin, Texas   7876'3                 by the fire chief
    714 Jackson, Suite 700
    Dallas, TX. 752024509         Dear Representative :?ierce:
    21417428944
    You ask for zin interpretation of section 2 of article 1269m,
    V.T.C.S.. and whett.er a city may hire non-civil service personnel to
    4924 Alberta Ave., Suite WI
    El Paso, TX. 79305.2793
    perform certain activities which are supervised by the fire chief. It
    915/533-3494                  is our opinion that ,theprovisions.of article.1269m. the Firemen's and
    Policemen's Civil Service Act, do not require a city to create civil
    service positions :for all activities of a fire department that are
    ml     Texas, Suite 700        enumerated in section 2 of that act.
    ,uston, TX. 77002.3111
    713223-5896
    No inflexible rule can be announced for the construction of
    statutes. However, the dominant consideration in construing statutes
    806 Broadway, Suite 312       is the intention of ,the legislature. That intention is derived from a
    Lubbock. TX. 794013479        general review of an entire enactment. Statutory language      must be
    9061747-5238
    read in the context of the entire act. See City of Houston v. Morgan
    Guaranty Internatio@    Bank, 
    666 S.W.2d 524
    . 529 (Tex. App. - Houston
    4303 N. Tenth, Suite S        [let Dist.] 1983, weit ref'd n.r.e.); Nichols V. Aldine Independent
    McAllen. TX. 78501-1885       School District, 
    356 S.W.2d 182
    , 184 (Tex. Civ. App. - Houston 1962,
    512/SS2-4547                  no writ); Holcombe v . Levy, 
    301 S.W.2d 507
    , 518 (Tex. Civ. App. -
    Galveston 1957, writ ref d n.r.e.); Attorney General Opinion JM-504
    200 Main Plaza, Suite 400     (1986). It is the duty of the courts to harmonize and give effect to
    San Antonio, TX. 79205.2797   all provisions of statutes, if reasonably possible. -     See Attorney
    512/2254191                   General Opinion JM-505 (1986).
    An Equal Opportunity/
    The statute governing firemen's and policemen's civil service in
    Affirmative Action Employer   cities of over lC,OOO inhabitants originally was enacted by the
    Fiftieth Legislature in 1947 as chapter 325. Section 2 of that act
    initially defined “E:Lremen” as
    any membt:r of a Fire Department who draws com-
    pensation for his services as a member of said
    Department.
    The second paragraph of section 12, chapter 325, provided that
    p. 2361
    Honorable George Pierce - P,%ge2   (m-515)
    [a]11 offices and positions in the Fire Department
    or Police Department shall be established by
    ordinance of the City Council or governing body,
    provided, howeve:::,if the officer or employee
    shall have been permitted to serve the six (6)
    months probationr.ry period, the service of said
    officer or employee shall ipso facto constitute
    the creation of the said position or office under
    a civil service classification.
    Acts 1947, 50th Leg., ch. 325, at 550. In Attorney General Opinion
    JM-325 (1985), this offi:s stated that on the basis of these
    provisions it was generally held that all employees of the police
    department in cities which adopted the civil service system created by
    the act were given civil s::rvicestatus under that system.     See City
    of San Antonio v. Handle , 
    308 S.W.2d 608
    (Tex. Civ. Appy           San
    Antonio lm                  Fity of Wichita Falls v. Cox, 
    300 S.W.2d 317
    (Tex. Civ. App. - Fort 'Jorth 1957, writ ref'd n.r.e.); City of San
    Antonio v. Hahn, 274 S.W.21 162 (Tex. Civ. App. - Austin 1954, writ
    ref'd n.r.e.); City of San ,+ntoniov. Wiley. 
    252 S.W.2d 471
    (Tex. Civ.
    APP. - San Antonio 1952, writ. ref'd n.r,e.). See also City of San
    Antonio v. Wallace, 338 S.W.:Zd153 (Tex. 1960);.City of San Antonio v.
    Kneupper, 
    338 S.W.2d 121
    (Tzr. 1960); City of San Antonio v~.Carr, 
    338 S.W.2d 122
    (Tex. 1960). That interpretation was equally applicable to
    employees of fire departments.
    In 1957, section 2 cf article 1269m was amended to redefine
    "firemen" as
    [a]ny member of ,clleFire Department appointed to
    such position in substantial compliance with the
    provisions of Sections 9, 10, and 11 of this Act,
    or entitled to Civil Service Status under Section
    24 of this Act.
    Acts 1957. 55th Leg., ch. 391, 92, at 1171. That enactment also
    replaced the cited langua(:e of the second paragraph of section 12
    providing for automatic classification of employees with the following
    language:
    All offices and positions in the Fire Depart-
    ment or Police Dc:partmentshall be established by
    ordinance of the City Council or governing body,
    provided however~ that the failure of a City
    Council or governing body to establish a position
    by ordinance shall not result in the loss of Civil
    Service benefits under this Act by any person
    appointed to such position in substantial com-
    pliance with the provisions of Sections 9. 10 and
    p. 2362
    Honorable George Pierce - Eage 3   (JM-515)
    11 of this Act     or entitled to Civil Service
    Status under Section 24 of this Act.
    Texas courts have held that persons whose civil service status was
    established prior to the 1957 amendment, by virtue of being members of
    the department who drew compensation for their services as a member of
    the department, retained the protection of that statute. City of San
    Antonio v. Handley, ,&;   Cox v. Purcell, 
    306 S.W.2d 814
    (Tex. Civ.
    APP. - Fort Worth 19>7, niTwrit), per curiam. The courts also have
    held that home rule cities acting in good faith may abolish the civil
    service status of positic'ns no longer entitled to coverage under
    article 1269m as amended :Ln 1957. City of San Antonio v. Wallace,
    a;   City of San Antonio J. Eneupper, id.; Welch v. Overton, 
    416 S.W.2d 879
    (Tex. Civ. App. - Texarkanax67,        writ ref'd n.r.e.1.
    Since the governing body of a city by ordinance may abolish positions
    of civil service employment if the city acts in good faith to promote
    efficiency and the best interests of the city, presumably the
    governing body, acting in good faith. also may fail to create
    positions of civil service employment. See Attorney General Opinion
    JM-325 (1985).
    In 1979, the legislature again amended section 2 of article 1269m
    by adding, as the second sentence, the following language:
    The term --includes firemen who perform fire
    suppression, firf,prevention, fire training, fire
    safety education, fire maintenance, fire c&muni-
    cations, fire med,ical emergency technology, fire
    photography, or fire administration. (Emphasis
    added).
    Acts 1979, 66th Leg., ch. '753,82, at 1856. In 1985, the legislature
    reenacted section 2 withou,: change to the first two sentences, which
    are the provisions that re:.ateto firemen. Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch.
    958, 521, at 7040.
    It is our opinion that the language added in 1979 does not alter
    the basic definition of "firemen" in section 2 and does not add any
    individual to the class of persons defined,as "firemen." The added
    sentence does not state that the term "firemen" includes or means
    "persons" who perform the enumerated activities, but states that the
    term "firemen" includes ":i!iremen"who perform the named functions,
    some of which are not firefighting in the usual sense. The legisla-
    ture could not have intend'zdthe term to include all "personnel" who
    perform the enumerated furctions, since House Bill No. 1325 of the
    Sixty-sixth Legislature, which added the sentence in question, was
    amended on the House Floor to strike "personnel" where it initially
    appeared in the added sentence on the first page of the bill and to
    substitute "firemen" for "personnel." Floor Amendment No. 2 to House
    p. 2363
    Honorable George Pierce - Ps8e 4   UM-515)
    Bill No. 1325, adopted May :!l. 1979. A person within a fire depart-
    ment who performs an activ:ttylisted in section 2 is not a "fireman"
    under ,that section unless ,rheperson has earned civil service status
    as provided by sections 9, 1.0,and 11 or is entitled to it under the
    original grandfather clause aofsection 24. If the Sixty-sixth Legisla-
    ture intended the added sentence to change the definition, it easily
    could have stated that the term "firemen" means persons or personnel
    who perform the specified activities.
    The history of article 1269m supports this conclusion. Prior to
    the amendment of section 12 in 1957, a long line of cases had held
    that, under the statute, all employees of a fire department were
    entitled to civil service Zeus.     See, e.g., City of San Antonio v.
    Handley. J&   The amendment to section 12 was designed to provide that
    a particular position is nclt covered by civil service unless it is so
    established by ordinance. I'hetitle to that amendment reads, in part:
    by amending section 12 thereof by stopping the
    creation in the future of new classified positions,
    unless established by ordinance. . . .
    Acts 1957, 55th Leg., ch. 391, at 1171.
    The relevant portion of section 12 has not been altered since
    1957, but'was reenacted without change in 1979 and 1981. Acts 1981,
    67th Leg., ch. 215, $12, at 525; Acts 1979, 66th Leg., ch. 753, 512,'
    at 1858. To construe-the 1979 amendment to section 2 to require that
    each of the 14sted activities be filled only by employees having civil
    service status would effeci:ivelyrepeal the 1957 amendment to section
    12 and its subsequent reenactment.
    Article 1269m requires vacancies in all civil service positions
    to be filled as provided by sections 9, 10, and 11 of that act.
    Section 9 provides, in par~t.that
    tall1 eligibili:y lists for applicants for
    original positior,sin the Fire and Police Depart-
    ments shall be c;eated only as a result of such
    ~examinations. and no appointments shall ever be
    made for any position
    --    in such Departments except
    as a result of ::uch examination, which shall be
    based on the applicant's knowledge of and quali-
    fications for fire fighting and work in the Fire
    Department. . . . (Emphasis added).
    We conclude. however, that article 1269m does not mandate that all the
    activities of a'fire department enumerated in section 2 be performed
    by civil service positions, Since 1957, the governing body of a city
    p. 2364
    i
    Honorable George Pierce - P,nge5   (JM-515)
    by ordinance establishes any new civil service positions in the fire
    department.
    SUMMARY
    The Firemen's and Policemen's Civil Service
    Act, article 126%. V.T.C.S., does not require a
    city to create ciril service positions for all the
    activities of    a   fire department that are
    enumerated in sec,:ion2 of that act.
    %$;;#j&
    Attorney General of Texas
    JACK HIGHTOWER
    First Assistant Attorney Gelera
    MARY KELLER
    c.   Executive Assistant Attorne:rGeneral
    RICK GILPIN
    Chairman, Opinion Committee
    Prepared by Nancy Sutton
    Assistant Attorney General
    p. 2365