Opinion ID: 2441524
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Sufficient Standards

Text: Finally, contrary to the court of appeals' conclusion, we believe the eighth factor weighs in favor of the delegation. The specific statutory standard provided is that the names are to be those of qualified neutral arbitrators. § 143.057(d). While the Legislature did not set forth specific requirements or direct the delegates in how they are to determine which arbitrators are qualified and neutral, these are not necessary if those terms themselves provide sufficient guidance to the delegates in exercising the discretion conferred on them by the Legislature. See Edgewood Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Meno, 917 S.W.2d 717, 740-41 (Tex.1995). The Legislature enacted the Civil Service Act for the express purpose of secur[ing] efficient fire and police departments composed of capable personnel who are free from political influence and who have permanent employment tenure as public servants. § 143.001. To further this goal, chapter 143 provides administrative procedures and guidelines by which firemen and police officers can seek review of disciplinary actions. See §§ 143.010, 143.057. To ensure full and fair treatment, the Legislature provided that, at the option of the disciplined officer, appeal could be had to an independent third party hearing examiner, instead of to the City's appointed Civil Service Commission. See § 143.057. In using the term qualified, we perceive the Legislature intended the delegate to forward the names of individual arbitrators who are competent to understand the issues and render decisions. Likewise, the term neutral clearly refers to persons who are objective and impartial. Thus, the terms qualified and neutral have commonly understood meanings that provide the delegates with sufficient guidance in selecting arbitrators. TEX. GOV'T CODE § 312.002(a); see also Blair v. Razis, 926 S.W.2d 784, 787 (Tex. App.Tyler 1996, no writ). Requiring the legislature to include every detail ... would... defeat the purpose of delegating legislative authority. Edgewood Indep. Sch. Dist., 917 S.W.2d at 740 (citation omitted). While the Legislature must declare the policy and fix the primary standard ..., the policy and standards declared may be broad or general, so long as the idea embodied is reasonably clear and the standards are capable of reasonable application. Op. Tex. Att'y Gen. No. H-934 (1977) ( citing Jordan v. State Bd. of Ins., 160 Tex. 506, 334 S.W.2d 278 (1960); Housing Auth. of City of Dallas v. Higginbotham, 135 Tex. 158, 143 S.W.2d 79 (1940)). While we recognize that legislative action is not without bounds, Sax v. Votteler, 648 S.W.2d 661, 664 (Tex.1983), applying the Boll Weevil test to the delegation at issue leads us to conclude that section 143.057(d) is not an overly broad delegation of legislative authority. Likewise, we find the legislative limitation on the City's ability to discipline its police officers constitutionally permissible. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and reinstate the trial court's judgment.