Court Opinion

ID: 9681474
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:51:14.249698+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:34.157556
License: Public Domain

BUTTS, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
Whether the president of the police association, after consulting with the City, could modify one-third of the second part of the two-part examination for promotion to sergeant [and lieutenant, captain, and deputy chief] without the written approval of the membership of the association is the real question.
The examination is divided into two parts: written and oral, the oral part consisting of review of responsibilities of the particular job classification (this part is not explained in detail and could consist of any number of “surprise” questions), a group discussion, and last, the portion which is under attack ... formerly a structured interview ... now changed to an extemporaneous presentation on a given subject assigned one hour before.
Thus, while presentation remained oral in the last one-third of the examination at the second phase, the manner of presentation was amended. No complaint is made of the written phase of the examination. The three-part second phase is not administered until after the first part. When a candidate passes the written test, that person may take the second test (oral). Five days after the written examination, the Assessment Center Examination date is posted. Each half is valued at fifty percent, and each year of service earns an additional one point up to ten years.
It is significant that a classroom orientation period concerning the Assessment Center process is given prior to the oral phase. All candidates are given the opportunity to attend the orientation.
It is my belief that under the circumstances as outlined above, the change in the manner of only one part of the oral examination may be termed “routine.” See Templeton v. Nocona Hills Owners Association, Inc., 555 S.W.2d 534, 538 (Tex.Civ.App.—Texarkana 1977, no writ).
The following provision appears in the examination procedures section of the collective bargaining agreement:
The City will consult with the Association on issues related to guidelines for administration of and evaluation of the Assessment Center procedure.
This is appropriate because the City has a great stake in assuring its citizens that its police officers meet certain high standards. *279I would find this provision means the president of the association, after consultation as in the present case, impliedly retains the power to modify testing procedure in a routine way.
The majority’s disposition in this case would set aside the examination for all participants. What happens to those individuals who did pass the examination and were promoted? Because this seems to me to be an act of the president which is authorized, I would affirm the judgment.