Opinion ID: 895199
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Act Provides Jurisdiction

Text: In City of Pasadena v. Smith, 292 S.W.3d 14 (Tex.2009), decided after the court of appeals' decision in this case, we considered jurisdictional boundaries in appeals from disciplinary suspensions under the Act. There, the hearing examiner summarily ruled against the city because the department head was not present to testify when the hearing began. Id. at 16. In analyzing the examiner's actions, we noted that the deadlines, procedures, and limitations the Act provides as to the Civil Service Commission apply equally to hearing examiners. Id. at 20. Those deadlines, procedures, and limitations necessarily provide standards by which the actions of examiners must be measured; otherwise, the Act could raise concerns that it impermissibly delegates legislative authority: But if the Act does not bind hearing examiners to definite standards for reaching decisions and instead gives them broad latitude in determining not only factual disputes but the applicable law, they become not merely independent arbiters but policy makers, which is a legislative function. This would raise nondelegation concerns, an issue noted but not addressed in Proctor [ v. Andrews, 972 S.W.2d 729 (Tex.1998)]. It is one thing for a hearing examiner to determine whether conduct for which an officer or fire fighter has been disciplined occurred as charged; it is quite another thing for a hearing examiner to decide whether conduct that did occur deserves discipline. Id. at 18-19. We held that a hearing examiner is not authorized to make rules, but must follow those prescribed by the Legislature and that the Act both confers and limits the power of a hearing examiner. Id. at 20; see TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 143.010(g). We acknowledged the difficulty of stating a test for determining when a hearing examiner exceeds his jurisdiction: The most accurate test we can state is that a hearing examiner exceeds his jurisdiction when his acts are not authorized by the Act or are contrary to it, or when they invade the policy-setting realm protected by the nondelegation doctrine. City of Pasadena, 292 S.W.3d at 21. Because the hearing examiner in City of Pasadena refused to hear evidence and did not make his decision based on evidence submitted during the hearing as the Act requires, he exceeded his jurisdiction. Id. at 20-21. Because the City of Waco does not argue that the Act impermissibly delegates legislative authority, we will focus on whether the hearing examiner exceeded his jurisdiction by ordering either relief not authorized by the Act or relief contrary to that authorized by the Act. See id. at 21. Making that determination requires us to consider what actions the Act authorized the hearing examiner to take and to measure the examiner's actions against those authorized actions. In construing the statute to determine what relief it authorizes, we keep in mind that our objective is to determine and give effect to the Legislature's intent. Leland v. Brandal, 257 S.W.3d 204, 206 (Tex.2008). If the Legislature provides definitions for words it uses in statutes, then we use those definitions in our task. See TEX. GOV'T CODE § 311.011(b). We give effect to legislative intent as it is expressed by the plain meaning of words used in the statute unless the context necessarily requires a different construction, a different construction is expressly provided by statute, or such an interpretation would lead to absurd or nonsensical results. See Hernandez v. Ebrom, 289 S.W.3d 316, 321 (Tex.2009); Fleming Foods of Tex., Inc. v. Rylander, 6 S.W.3d 278, 284 (Tex.1999). Thus, we also must examine the Legislature's words in context of the statute as a whole and not consider words or parts of the statute in isolation. Harris County Hosp. Dist. v. Tomball Reg'l Hosp., 283 S.W.3d 838, 842 (Tex.2009). Our review is de novo. See City of San Antonio v. City of Boerne, 111 S.W.3d 22, 25 (Tex.2003) (We review matters of statutory construction de novo.); see also Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211, 215 (Tex. 2003) (We review the trial court's summary judgment de novo.).