i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 9- 00 30 5- CV CI TY OF SAN AN TON IO and San Antonio Fire fig hters’ a nd Police Offic ers’ Civil Service Commi ssion, Ap pe lla nts
v . Raul G. LOP EZ , Appellee Fr om the 225th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2008-CI -19034 Honora ble Ba rbar a Ha nson Nellermoe , J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: November 25, 2009 REVERSED AND RENDERED This appea l arises fr om a San Antonio firef ighte r’s successful complaint that he was improperly

ranke d on a promotional elig ibilit y list. The City of San Antonio ( “City ”) a nd the San An ton io F ir e fi g hte rs ’ an d Polic e Of fi c e rs ’ Civi l Ser

vic e Com mis sio n ( “ Com mis sio n” ) a pp e a l a summary judgme nt gr anted in fa vo r o f t h e fi ref

ighte r, Raul G. L opez. The City and the Commi ssion contend the trial c ourt erred in g rantingL opez’s motion for summary judgme nt04
- 09
- 00 30 5- CV

- 2- beca use he f ailed to bringforth any

evidenc e that the tie- brea king me thodology

utiliz ed by

the Commi ssion to plac e L opez on a promotional elig ibilit y list vi olated any

statute, contra ct, or rule or
wa s im pr op e rl y a pp lie d. Th e City

and Com mis sio n als o co nte nd the tr ia l cou rt e rr e d in de nyingthe ir mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt b e c a

us e the tie -b re akin gme th o d o l o gy t h a t w a s u til ize d c omp lie s w ith the Commiss ion’s rules. We rev er s e t h e trial court’ s judgme nt and re nder judg ment g rantingthe motion for summary

judgme nt filed by

the City and Commissi on. B ACKG ROUND L opez rec eived a score of 95 on his written promotional examination. After 10 points were added f or his seniority , L opez’s total score w as 105. Six other candidates also rec eived a total score of 10 5. Th e c and idate s wi th a tot a l sc or e of 10 5 we re the n ra nk e d o n th e pr omo tio na l e lig ibi lity lis t based on the ir score on the written e x amination. I f two ca ndidates had the same total scor e and the
same scor e on the wr itten examination, t h e candidate with seniority in rank wa s place d first. The following char

t depicts the ra

nking of the ca ndidates who ha d a total score of 105: Rank L a st N ame F ir st N ame Sc or e Se nio ri ty Poi nts Total

Score Rank

Date

9 Fr awley Andre w 98 7 105 11/20/2004 10 L eon Br andon 98 7 105 8/12/2006 11 Fr austo Valer ie 97 8 105 10/22/2005 12 Masters J eff ry 97 8 105 2/25/2006 13 L opez Raul 95 10 105 11/24/2001 14 McCrele ss Scott 95 10 105 1/19/2002 15 Hohon Geor g e 95 10 105 1/3/200304
- 09
- 00 30 5- CV

- 3- L op e z sue d th e City

and the Com mis sio n a sse rt ing tha t he sh ou ld have be e n fi rs t on the lis t among t h e candidates whose total score w as 105 bec ause se niority in rank should have been use d as the c riteria to brea

k the t ie. The parties filed competing motions for summary judgme nt, and the trial court sig ned a judg ment g rantingL opez’s motion. S TA N D A R D O F REVIEW “We re view the tria l court’s de cision to gr ant summary judgme nt de novo.” Tex. Mun. Powe r Agenc y v. Pub. Util. Comm’n of Tex ., 253 S.W .3d 184, 192 (Tex. 2007). “Althoug h the denial of
a summary judgme nt is normally not a ppeala ble, we may revie w such a denial whe n b o t h p ar t i es moved for summar

y judgme nt and the trial c ourt g rante d one and de nied the other .” Id . “We re view the summary

judgme nt evidence prese nted by eac h part y , deter

mine all questions presente d, and rende r judg ment as the trial c ourt should have r ender ed.” Id
. D I S CUS S I ON S ection 143.033 of the Texas L ocal Gove rnment Code (“ Code”) e ntitled “Promotional Ex amination Gra des” pr ovides, “the g rade that must be place d on the eligibility list for e ach police office r or f

irefig hter shall be c omputed by addingthe applica

nt’ s p o i nts for seniority

to the applicant’ s g rade on the written e x amination.” T EX . L OC . G OV ’ T C ODE ANN . § 143.033(c) (Ve rnon 2008). “I f a tie sc ore oc curs, the c ommissi on shall determine a method to break the tie.” Id
. The Commission adopted Rule XI Ientitled “Promotions.” Af t er n oting that the City

had enter ed into collective ba

rg ai n i n g agr ee m en t s wi t ht h e f i re fi gh t er s an d

p o l i ce o ff i ce rs wh i ch p ro v ided that the ag ree ments would preva il in the event of a conflict with C hapter 143 of the Code, Sec tion A of Rule XI Istated:04
- 09
- 00 30 5- CV

- 4- Wherea s the Collective B arg aining Ag ree ments include provision[s] for: ***
• Ranking of Candidates w ith I dentical Scor es *** Wherea s the Commis sion des i re s t o reduc e conf lict betwee n its rules and any applicable superse ding Collec tive Ba rg aining Ag ree ment provision; and Wherea s the Commis sion desires its rules to be c lear , concise , and brie f; The Commission shall adopt as its rule s the provisions of the most re cent Collective Ba rg aining Ag ree ment relating to the above enumerated subjects re g arding pr omo tio ns wi thi n th e Pol ic e and F ir e De pa

rtme nts . Th e fo llo wi ngpr ov isi on

in R ule XI Isp e c if

ic a lly a dd re sse d th e br e akin g of

tie s: 4. Tiebre aker

for Examination a) Detec tive I nvestig ator and Fire Appar atus Oper ator P ro m otional Ex aminations I n the event that written examination scor es for Detec tive I nvestig ator in the Police Depa

rtment or for Fire Appar atus Oper ator in the F ire De partment a re the same, the rankingof ca ndidates shall be ba sed on their position o f [ sic] the ir pr ob a tio na

ry e xami natio n e lig ibi lity

lis t. b) Other Promotional Examinations I n the eve nt t h at writ ten promotion examination scores ar e the same, the rankingof ca

ndidates shall be based on their seniority in rank a s defined by the a pp lic a ble c ur re nt C oll e c tiv e B arg a ini ngAg re e me nt. Th e c oll e c tiv e ba

rg a ini nga g re e me nt d e fi ne d “ se nio ri ty in r ank ” a s f

oll ow s: C. Seniority

in Rank 1. The employ ee w ith the most t ime in a classifie d rank sha ll be considere d the senior in ra

nk. 2. Where e mploy ees of classified r anks other tha n the ra nk of F irefig hter have been pr omoted at the same time, seniority in rank sha ll be deter

mined by the e mpl oy e e ’s pla c e me nt o n th e ir re sp e c tiv e e lig ibi lity

lis t.04
- 09
- 00 30 5- CV

1 ... D u rin g o ra l a rg u m e n t, the C ity a n d C o m m issio n c o n c e d e d tha t t h e ru le w a s n o t ar g u a b ly as c o m p le te a s it sh o u ld ha v e b e e n a n d no te d tha t t h e ru le ha s b e e n c la rified b y a n a m e n d m e n t.

- 5- 3. Whe re e mpl oy e e s o f t he ra nk of F ir e fi g hte r have the same amou nt of tim e in t h at classification, seniority in rank shall be de termined by their bad ge number. A. Posit ion of City

and Commissi on The City and the Commission contend that the ref ere nce in Ru l e XII , Section B( 4)(b) to a tie related to written promoti o n ex am i n at ion scores “ can be g iven re levanc e only if the written
e xami na tio n sc or e is us e d a s so me me a sure of ra nk ing .” Th e City and Com mis sio n a sse rt that Ru le XI I , Section B( 4)(b) “pre suppose[s] an interme diate step of ranking within a n overa ll tied score by looking f irst to the written examination score.” We ag ree with this posi tion. 1 Rul e s pr omu lg a te d by an a dmi nis tr a tiv e a g e nc y , s uc h a s th e Com mis sio n, are c on str ue d in the same mann e r a s st a tut e s. See R o d r i g u ez v. Se rviceLloyds Ins. Co. , 997 S.W .2d 248, 254 (T e x.19 99 ); F

r a n k v . Li b e r ty

I n s . Co rp. , 25 5 S .W .3 d 3 14 , 3 24 (T e x. Ap p. —Aus tin 20 08 pe t. de nie d) ; see also City of Sweetwater v. Ge ron , 380 S.W .2d 550, 553 (Tex. 1964) (noting civil service
c omm iss ion is re g a

rd e d a s an a dmi nis tr a tiv e a g e nc y ); Brooks v. Klev enhagen , 807 S.W .2d 777, 778 (T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [14 th D ist .] 19 91 , n o p e t.) (s ame ). We m us t r e a d e ve ry

wo rd and ph ra se in a statute or ru l e as i f it was deliberately chosen. See G ables Realty Ltd. P’ship v. Travis Central Ap prais al D ist
. , 8 1 S. W.3 d 8 69 , 8 73 (T e x. Ap p. —Austi n 20 02 , pe t. d e nie d) . We mus t a ssume
ever y word in a st atute or rule has meaning , and we will not read languag e in a statute or rule to be pointless if it i s rea sonably susceptible of a

nother c onstruction. City of L aPor te v . B ar fie ld , 898 S.W .2d 288, 292 (Tex. 1995); Combs v

. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. , N o . 0 3
- 0 6
- 0 0 4 4 6
- CV , 2 0 0 9 WL 3230830, at *3 (Te x . App.—Austin, Oct. 9, 2009, no pet. h.).04
- 09
- 00 30 5- CV

2 ... W e n ot e t h at t h i s i n t er pr et at i on i s a l s o a dv oca t ed by t h e I n t er n at i on al As s oci at i on of Fi r ef i g h t er s Loc al 624, w h ic h fi le d a n A m ic u s C u rie b rie f i n su p p o rt o f t h e C ity’ s p o sitio n o n a p p e a l.

- 6- Se c tio n 1 43 .0 33 of

the Cod e re qu ir e s th e sum of the wr itt e n e xami natio n s c or e and se nio ri ty points to be the initi al score place d on a promotional elig ibilit y list. T EX . L OC . G OV ’ T C ODE ANN . § 143.033(c) (Ve rnon 2008). I f seniority in rank were used t o brea

k a tie in the total score calc ulated pursuant to sec tion 143.033, the refer ence to using seniority in rank only in the event that the written promotion ex amination score s were the same would be rendere d meaning less. We must presume the entire r ule – including the introductory clause – was intende d to be effec tive. See Lexington Ins. Co.
v . S tra y ho rn , 209 S.W .3d 83, 86 (Tex. 2006) (re jectingargu m ent that would re nder introduc tory exception s u perf

luous). Acc ording ly , we inter pret the r ule to provide that the written promotion examination score is first used to break a tie in the over all total score, a nd seniority

in rank is used seconda rily in the event the written promotion examination s core s are the same. 2 B. L opez’s Posit ion 1. “Seniority

in Rank” De finition in C ollective B arg aining Ag ree ment L opez first contends that the provision in the collective ba rg ainingag ree ment definingthe term “Seniority

in Rank” g overns the tiebr eake r and r equire s the ca n d idate senior in r ank to be place d first on the promotional elig ibilit y list. L opez argues that beca use the definition is contained in Article 32 of the collective ba rg aining ag ree ment

wh ic h g o v e r n s p r o motions, t he def

inition applies to ties in score s involving promoti ons. Howeve r, not hing in the def inition of “Seniority

in Rank” ref ers to a tie in sc ores or a method of br eak i n g t i es . M oreove r, in adopting Rule XI I , the Commi ssion ga

ve ef fec t to the defini t ion by

incorpora

ting the te rm “senior ity

in rank” in the04
- 09
- 00 30 5- CV

- 7- tie br e ake r r

ule . T he re fo re , w e re

je c t L op e z’s c on te nti on

that th e de fi nit ion

of “ se nio ri ty

in r ank ” in the c oll e c tiv e ba

rg a ini nga g re e me nt e xpre ssl y pr ov ide s a

me tho d f or br e akin g tie s. 2. “ Wri tte n Pr omo tio n E xami natio n Sc or e s” L op e z ne xt co nte nd s th a t Ru le XI I ’s us e of the te rm “ wr itt e n p ro mot ion e xami natio n s c or e s” ref ers to the t otal score ; theref ore, se niority

in rank should be use d to break a tie in the total score in a c c or da

nc e wi th R

ule XI I , Se c tio n B (4 )( b) . L op e z argue s the te rm “ pr omo tio n e xami natio n” is dis tin c t f ro m “ wr itt e n e xami natio n” and po int s o ut t

hat th e te rm “ wr itt e n e xami natio n” is u se d in subsection (a ) while the term “promotion examination” is used in subsection (b) of Rule XI I , Section B( 4). L opez a lso a sserts that Chapter 143 is entitled “Promotional Ex amination Gra des” a nd ref ers to the “pr o mo ti o n a l e xami n a ti o n g r a d e ” a s th e s u m o f th e c an d id a te ’ s p o ints f o r s e n io r it

y an d the g rade on the written e x amination. Rul e XI I , h ow e ve r, re pe a te dly us e s th e te rm

“ pr omo tio na l exam inatio ns ” wh e n r e fe rr ingto the written e x amination. For example, Rule XI I contains provisions addre ssing the a nnounceme nt and posting of not ices for promotional examinations, reg istration for promotional examinations, and entra nce to pr omotional ex aminations. There fore , in the context of the rule, it is clear that the term “wr itten promotion ex amination score s” wa s intended t o ref er to the written examination score, not the total score afte r seniority points were a dded. 3. Ranking Candidates with I dentical Scor es L opez next notes that Section A to Rule XI Iexpressly states that the collec tive barg aining ag ree ment includes provision s fo r ra nking c andidates w ith identical score s. Since the tiebre aker pr ov isi on in Rule XI I is b a se d o n s e nio ri ty in r ank a s d e fi ne d in

the c oll e c tiv e ba

rg a ini nga g re e me nt, L opez argues that seniority must be the basis for br eakingthe tie.04
- 09
- 00 30 5- CV

- 8- This c ourt has previously addre ssed conf licts betwee n collective ba rg aining ag ree ments and the Civil S ervic e Ac t in which Chapter 143 is conta ined. We noted that a c ollecti v e bar g aining
a g re e me nt m ay

va ry any pr ov isi on

in t he Ac t, but the va

ri anc e mus t be s pe c if

ic a lly pr ov ide d f

or in the coll ec t i v e b arg aining ag ree ment. City of San Antonio v. Bullock , 3 4 S. W. 3 d 6 5 0 , 6 5 2 ( T e x. App.—San Antonio 2000, pet. denied). We conclude d, “Essentially , then, the collec tive barg aining ag ree ment controls t o the ex tent that it specifica lly conflicts with the Civil S ervic e Ac t.” Id . at 655. Ho we ve r, we a lso pr e vio us ly no te d th a t w he n th e Ac t add re sse s a subj e c t whic h is no t a dd re sse d in the collec tive barg aining ag ree ment, the Act pr evails. City of S an An ton io v . S

c ott , 16 S.W .3d 372, 376 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, pet. denied)
. Although Rule XI I does refer to the collective barg aining ag ree ment containinga provision for r ankin g

c a ndidates with identical scor es, the c ollective bar g aining ag ree ment at issue clea rly does not contai n s uch a pr ovision. Rul e XI Imay have be en re fer

ring to the collective ba rg aining
a g re e me nt’ s d e fi nit ion

of se nio ri ty in r ank a s app lic a

ble to r ank

c and idate s w ithide nti c a l w ri tte n te st
score s. Alternatively , Rule XI Imay have be en re fer

ring to a diff

er en t co l l ective ba

rg aining ag ree ment that did contain such a provision. I n any

event, th e co l l ec tive barg aining ag ree ment at issue contains no provision that specif ically varie s the provis ion in the Code that permits the Commi ssion to determine the method to bre ak a tie sc ore. 4
. Rodriguez L opez r elies on Firemen’ s & Policeme n’s C ivil Serv. Comm’n of the City of San Antonio v. Rodriguez , 326 S.W .2d 624 (Tex. Civ. App.—San Antonio 1959, no writ), to a ssert that using the written examination score a s the method for br eakingties would violate the statute, which r equire s both the written examination score a nd points for seniority

to be consider ed in placingcandidates04
- 09
- 00 30 5- CV

- 9- on the eligibility list. I n Rodriguez , this c ourt addre ssed a 1957 amendment to the statute g overning the scoringof ca

ndidates for

promotional purpos es. 326 S .W.2d at 626. The court noted that the 1957 amendment a dded languag e pre scribingthe qualific at i ons for the e ligibility list, t here by
re mov ingthe a

uth or ity fr om t he Com mis sio n b y

sp e lli ng ou t pr e c ise ly

wh ic h a pp lic ants sh ou ld appea r on the e ligibility

list. Id
. Be cause the 1957 amendment require d the g rade s of all ca ndidates to be listed on the elig ibilit y list, t he C o m mission’s rule requiringa g rade of at lea st 70% on the
wr itt e n e xami natio n to be pla c e d o n th e e lig ibi lity lis t w a s su

pers eded by the s tatut e and be c ame ineffe ctive. Id . Thus, the foc us of the dec ision was that the statute pre vails over the Commission’s rule whe n the two conf

lict. Se e id
. I n this case, the Comm ission complied with the statute by addingboth the written
e xami na tio n s c or e and

se nio ri ty po int s to c a lc ulate a

tot a l sc or e . B e c a

us e the statut e e xpre ssl y permits the Com m i s s i o n t o d eter mine a method to bre ak a tie, T EX . L OC . G OV ’ T C ODE ANN . § 143.033(c) (Ve rnon 2008), the Commi ssion’s de cision on the manner in which the tie wa s broken did no t c on fl ic t w iththe statut e . T akin g L op e z’s argume nt to its log ic a l con c lus ion , s e nio ri ty a lso could not be used to brea

k a ti e because seniority , like the writt en examination score, is only one of the fa ctors conside red in c alculatingthe total score
. 5. Com mis sio n Ru le Finally , L opez argues that the tie-br eakingmethodology used b y t h e C ommissi on was
re qu ir e d to be pr omu lg a te d in a ru le . L op e z as se rt s: With out a dif fe re nt t ie -b re akin g ru le the Com mis sio n h a s n o r e g ulatio ns in p la c e to authorize its actions. There must be a va lid, duly promulg ated Commission rule. To violate a rule, there must be a rule. T he Commissi on cannot make itself the author of self- made, se lf-tried a

nd self-e x ecute d law.04
- 09
- 00 30 5- CV

- 10- (citations omitted). Duringoral a rgument befor e this cour t , t h e att orney for the City

and Com mis sio n s tate d th a t se c tio n 1 43 .0 33 (c )’ s r e fe re nc e to “ me tho d” pe rm itt e d the C om mi ssion to informally

deter mine an appr oach to br eak a tie. This asser tion, however , is contrar

y to Article 32, Se c tio n 3 of

the c oll e c tiv e ba

rg a ini nga g re e me nt whic h p ro vid e s: Section 3. Promotion t o Fire Appar atus Oper ator, L ieutenant, a nd Captain. Vac ancie s in the ranks of F ire Appa ratus Ope rator, L ieutenant, and Captain shall be filled by competitive written e x amination in acc ordanc e wi t h C h apter 143 L ocal Gover nment Code and t he rule s established by the Fir e F ighte r and Police O ffice r Civil Service Commi ssion not inconsistent her ewith; howeve r, a pa ssing sc ore of 70 shall be consider ed minimum for elig ibilit y for pr omotion. Article 32, Sec tion 3 of t he collective barg aining ag ree ment can be read t o allow onl y the provisions in Chapter 143 and r

ules established by the Commiss ion to gove rn vac ancie s. Section 143.008 of the Code conta ins specific pr ovisions reg ardingthe adoption of rules by the Commiss ion and provides that a rule is not valid and binding until thos e re quirements ar e followe d. T EX . L OC . G OV ’ T C ODE ANN . § 143.008 (Ve rnon 2008). Be cause we interpret Rule XI I , Section B( 4)(b) as conta ining
a pr ov isi on

fo r b re akin g a

tie in t he tot a l sc or e , h ow e ve r, L op e z’s argume nt f a ils
. C ONCL US I ON We h ave de te rm ine d th e Com mis sio n’ s r ule fo r br e akin g a tie do e s no t vio late the a pp lic a ble
c oll e c tiv e ba

rg a ini ng a g re e me nt an d g ive s app ro pr iate c on sid e ratio n to the c and idate ’s se nio ri ty in
ra nk . We thu s c on c lud e that Rau l G. L op e z wa s rank e d p ro pe rl y on the pr omo tio na l e lig ibi lity lis t. The trial c ourt’s judg ment is rever sed and judg ment is render ed g ra n t ing the motion for summary judgme nt filed by

the City and Commissi on. Catherine Stone, Chief Justice