El Paso County Sheriff's Officers Association

Events!!

2012-07-25T17:47:00.000-06:00

Membership;

With summer half way done, the Association Board of directors hope you have enjoyed the social events that it sponsored this year. The Board plans these events to promote comradely amongst its members and families. It is also a time to renew old friendships and form new ones.

Members and their families enjoyed a night out at Association’s membership appreciation night at the El Paso Diablos in May, June and July. The games were a huge success as members and their families enjoyed free drinks, hamburgers, hotdogs and of course $1 beer. The games were so popular that the Board had to purchase extra tickets for the games.

This year’s Association picnic at Wet-N- Wild was not to be out done, as extra tickets had to be purchased as well for the event. On a hot and sunny day on July 15^th, over 300 members and about 900 family and friends attended the annual picnic. Members and families enjoyed free drinks, hamburgers, food and free beer all while having fun at the parks water rides.

I like to thank the Association Board for all the volunteer hours they put in to assure these events were a success. Because of type of career we have chosen, we miss out on birthdays, holidays and vacations, the Board is committed to providing Association membership with these type of social event as a way to spend some quality time with their families and friends. I like to remind everyone of our annual golf tournament which benefits our charitable organization. The tournament is scheduled for September 14 at Painted Dunes Golf Course. Keep updated by monitoring the Association’s website for more information on hole sponsorships and team entries. The Association’s Annual Awards banquet is scheduled for December 7, look for more information to be put out as the events get closer.

Jose G. Marrufo

President- El Paso County

Sheriff’s Officers Association

Chris McGill Building Ceremony!!

2012-07-06T17:42:00.000-06:00

Dear Membership,

On Friday June 29, 2012, Chris McGill was honored by having the CLEAT building, located downtown, named after him. The process of naming the building after Chris started in Austin at the Leadership Academy about 3 weeks ago. The CLEAT executive board, EPMPOA executive board and EPCSOA board unanimously voted to support the re-naming of the CLEAT building. Chris’s dedication to labor spans 3 decades. He has been President of the El Paso Municipal Police Officers Association (EPMPOA) and Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas (CLEAT). He current serves as the CLEAT field representative for Regions 4A, 4B and 5. He has long been a supporter of the EPCSOA and other CLEAT affiliated groups in the El Paso region.

The ceremony was held in the lobby of the CLEAT building. It was a small but well attended, guest included Chief of Police Gregg Allen, Sheriff Richard Wiles, Housing Director Gerald Chichon, Austin POA President Wayne Vincent, Horizon President Jesse Ortega and members of the BAR. CLEAT President Todd Harrison, Vice- President Adrian Pina, CEO John Burpo, Charley Wilkinson, Dwight Tillman and Chris Jones were also in attendance.

I like to THANK the local CLEAT staff Mayra Guerra, Miles McNeal, Jim Jopling and EPMPOA secretary Norma for their assistance in making the ceremony unforgettable. Again CONGRATULATIONS Chris on your achievement.

Jose G. Marrufo Jr.

President- El Paso County Sheriff’s Officers Association

April 2012 General Membership Meeting

2012-04-29T21:01:00.000-06:00

This months meeting had a great turnout with some great grilling from D.O. Rudy Liggins, Lt. Ryals, and Retired Deputy Ron Schweitz. We appreciate all who took time out of their busy schedules to attend and participate in the monthly meeting.

We started out the evening by presenting (5) $500.00 Arthur Redelf's Scholarships to 5 outstanding 2012 applicants.

Eulogio Munoz Jr.

Julia Gomez

Christian Haack

Allison Maysonet

Jessica L. Navarro

We then had Armando Rodriguez Candidate for "El Paso County Tax Assessor-Collector" address the membership on his concerns and plans for the office when he wins election.

Our second guest speaker was Mary Gonzalez "Candidate for State Representative District #75", and she addressed the membership about her campaign and her plans after she is elected into office.

Aprils meeting was a great success and we look forward to members contributing their time and effort to help with this years elections.

We have attached a list of the Association and the "COPS" Coalition of Public Safety endorsed candidates. Together we stand over 7,000 strong in El Paso County. Early voting starts May 14, 2012 and we will be holding a "GET OUT THE VOTE RALLY" at the CLEAT building starting at 10:00 a.m.

If you would like to volunteer for any of our endorsed candidates please contact a board member for times and locations. Its time to get involved and protect your PENSIONS and COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RIGHTS, in 2011 there were numerous bills attacking Public Safety Pensions and Collective Bargaining don't think that the fight is over, it has only begun.

7th Annual Sgt Ruben Orozco Law Enforcement Run

2012-04-16T16:56:00.002-06:00

Membership;

On a cold windy Sunday, Members of the Sheriff’s Office and the El Paso Law Enforcement Community came out to participate in the 7th Annual Sgt Ruben Orozco Law Enforcement Run. The El Paso community also came out in full force in support of this great event which brings awareness to our athletes of the Special Olympics. The event was held on April 15th. On behalf of the Association Board, I like to thank all the members who participated in the run and all the membership for their continued support of the Sgt. Orozco run. Special thanks to Sheriff Wiles for providing and coordinating the traffic control for the event. Thanks to the EPCSO Charitable Organization for being one of the title sponsors of the event.

Huge thanks to the Law Enforcement Torch Run committee, that without their support this event would not be possible:

Mary Orozco Liz Tabbut
Chris Acosta Lt. Larry Guerra
Commander G. Lopez D/O Jose Mascorro
D/O Luis Montelongo Commander K. Lanahan
D/O Alfredo Ortega D/O Roger Carreon
Deputy Federico Castillo D/O Omar Gonzalez
D/O Ernesto Martinez Detective Jorge Andrade
Eddie Sanchez

Photos of the event will be posted on the Association’s gallery. Results of the race will also be posted at a later date.

Jose Marrufo
President- El Paso County Sheriff’s Officers Association

2012 Arthur Redelf's Scholarship Winners!

2012-04-02T20:35:00.001-06:00

The El Paso County Sheriff's Officers Charitable Organization, Inc. would like to congratulate this years

Arthur Redelf's Scholarship recipients:

(In alphabetical order)

Julia Gomez (Parents: Detective Richard Gomez and Hope Gomez-Retired Detective)

Christian Haack (Parents: Detective Stephen Haack and Roberta Haack)

Allison Maysonet (Parents: Detention Officer Eugene Maysonet and Ute Maysonet)

Eulogio Munoz Jr. (Parents: Detention Officer Eulogio Munoz Sr. and Frances Munoz)

Jessica L. Navarro (Parents: Deputy Sgt. Ryan Urrutia and Laura Urrutia )

The Arthur Redelf’s Scholarship program of the El Paso County Sheriff’s Officers Charitable Organization, Inc., was developed from a strong sense of commitment to the Association’s members and their families. The scholarship program was instituted in order to fund higher education for dependents of Association Members. Thanks to this generous commitment, the El Paso County Sheriff’s Officers Charitable Organization, Inc. will award scholarships to students, every year.

Congratulations again on being selected as an Arthur Redelf’s Scholar and best of luck to you as you continue your studies.

Sincerely,

Louie Silva Jr.

President

El Paso County Sheriff’s Officers Charitable Organization, Inc.

FACEBOOK© AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF POLICE OFFICERS

2012-03-22T21:04:00.000-06:00

An area which raises a great many questions among law enforcement supervisors and administrators is how far may a department go when restricting, through policies, an officer’s use of social media, and under what circumstances can a department discipline an officer without violating the officer’s First Amendment Right of free speech.

There is a basic framework for analyzing any public employee’s claim of first amendment protection with respect to freedom of speech.

The right of public employees to engage in speech on matters of public concern without fear of retaliation is clearly established. [i] The determination as to whether speech pertains to a matter of public concern must be determined by the content, form, and context of a given statement. [ii] The “ultimate issue of whether speech is protected is a question of law, not fact.” [iii] If it is determined that the speech is “of public concern” then a second inquiry must be undertaken to determine if an employee may be sanctioned for the speech.

Once it is determined that an employee’s speech relates to a matter of public concern an inquiry is undertaken to “balance the employee’s interest in making the statement against `the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees. [iv] It should be noted that an employee’s position in a labor organization does not appear to give any heightened protection under the First Amendment but may establish some protection under state and federal labor laws designed to protect unions in labor disputes. [v] In Broderick the United States District Court of Massachusetts asserted: “While Broderick has a right to disagree with his employer, belong to a union and use the courts and other dispute resolving forums to further and safeguard his rights, the First Amendment does not afford him special protection as a public employee for these activities.” [vi]

The pertinent considerations concerning the departments’ interests are: “whether the statement impairs discipline by superiors or harmony among co-workers, has a detrimental impact on close working relationships for which personal loyalty and confidence are necessary, or impedes the performance of the speaker’s duties or interferes with the regular operation of the enterprise. [vii] The State interest element focuses on the effective functioning of the public employer’s enterprise. “Interference with work, personnel relationships, or the speaker’s job performance can detract from the public employer’s function; avoiding such interference can be a strong state interest.” [viii]

The United States Supreme Court has recognized that government entities have a “freer hand” in regulating the speech of its employees than it does in regulating the speech of citizens when acting as a sovereign. [ix] It was also asserted that the Court gives greater deference “to government predictions of harm used to justify restrictions of employee’s speech than to predictions of harm used to justify restrictions on the speech of the public at large.” [x] The Court asserted in Churchill:

But we have given substantial weight to government employer’s reasonable predictions of disruption, even when the speech involved is on a matter of public concern, and even though when the government is acting as sovereign our review of legislative predictions of harm is considerably less deferential. [xi]

The Court pointed out that the First Amendment does have a role in these employment decisions:

Government employees are often in the best position to know what ails the agencies for which they work; public debate may gain much from their INFORMED (emphasis added) opinions…Rather the extra power the government has in this area comes from the nature of the government’s mission as an employer…When someone who is paid a salary so that she will contribute to an agency’s effective operation begins to do or say things that detract from the agency’s effective operation, the government employer must have some power to restrain her.

The Court concluded:

The key to First Amendment analysis of government employment decisions, then, is this: The government’s interest in achieving its goals as effectively and efficiently as possible is elevated from a relatively subordinate interest when it acts as sovereign to a significant one when it acts as employer. The government cannot restrict the speech of the public at large in the name of efficiency. But where the government is employing someone for the very purpose of effectively achieving its goals, such restrictions may well be appropriate.

As a result of the foregoing it is clear that police officers, as government employees, can be restricted in their speech. One must examine officers’ statements on a case by case basis and determine the following:

Is the officer speaking on a matter of public concern?
If the statement is not a matter of “public concern” it is not protected by the First Amendment with respect to employment
If the statement is one of “public concern” then the department must examine the statement and make a reasonable determination if the statement may lead to “disruption” in the workplace. If the statement may lead to disruption in the workplace then the employee may be disciplined.

Social Media and First Amendment Rights

In determining whether or not it is appropriate to discipline a public employee for social media postings, law enforcement supervisors and managers must apply the framework set forth by the United States Supreme Court to determine if the social networking speech is protected by the First Amendment or some other provision of law.

First Amendment Application

A 2011 case from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia provides an example of how a court may apply First Amendment analysis to a case where an officer is disciplined based on Facebook postings. InGresham v. City of Atlanta, [xii] the federal trial court reviewed the officer’s lawsuit based on the discipline. A magistrate reviewing the case had made recommendations favorable to the officer. The trial court issued written findings rejecting these recommendations:

Plaintiff is a City of Atlanta police officer in the Atlanta Police Department ("APD"). In August of 2009, Plaintiff was on the list of officers eligible for promotion to an investigative position, where she ranked number twenty. In the spring of 2010, promotions were made to investigative positions, but Plaintiff was not promoted. It is un-disputed that Plaintiff was not promoted be-cause she had an open complaint against her with the Office of Professional Standards ("OPS") regarding an incident discussed below.

The Arrest

In December of 2009, before any promotions to investigator from the list of eligibles were made, Plaintiff arrested an individual named Jeriel Scrubb ("Scrubb"). Plaintiff was told at the time that Scrubb was a nephew of City of Atlanta police investigator Barbara Floyd ("Floyd"). In the arrest report, Plaintiff records that Floyd accompanied Scrubb alone to another room, took money and two cell phones from Scrubb's pockets, and possibly spoke to Scrubb. Plaintiff states that the "transfer of money was witnessed by other . . . investigators."

Defendants admit that Plaintiff arrested an individual named Jeriel Scrubb on December 8, 2009, but object to Plaintiff's identification of Scrubb as Floyd's nephew.

Plaintiff's Response to the Incident

On December 15, 2009, Plaintiff made a "newsfeed" post on her Facebook site, 3 which stated the following:

Who would like to hear the story of how I arrested a forgery perp at Best Buy only to find out later at the precinct that he was the nephew of an Atlanta Police Investigator who stuck her ass in my case and obstructed it?? Not to mention the fact that while he was in my custody, she took him into several other rooms alone before I knew they were related. Who thinks this is unethical?

The court began its analysis by outlining the applicable law as follows:

[In order] to state a claim for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, Plaintiff, as a government employee, must show that her speech was constitutionally protected and that the speech was a substantial or motivating factor in Defendants' decision not to select her from the list of employees eligible for promotion to an investigative position. Whether Plaintiff has made this showing is governed by the four-part Pickering analysis, under which the Court must find that (1) Plaintiff's speech involved a matter of public concern; (2) Plaintiff's interest in speaking outweighed the government's legitimate interest in efficient public service; and (3) the speech played a substantial part in the government's challenged employment decision. If the employee can make the above showing, the burden shifts to the government to show that (4) it would have made the same employment decision even in the absence of the protected speech. The first two prongs of this test are questions of law while the latter two are questions of fact. In light of the Court's conclusions presented below, only the first two prongs of this test must be considered. [cites omitted].

The court in applying the law began by reviewing whether the officer spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern. The court wrote:

The Court accepts the conclusion of the Report and Recommendation that Plaintiff's speech in this case was entitled to constitutional protection as speech of a citizen related to a matter of public concern. The government as employer has a stronger interest in regulating the speech of its employees than in regulating the speech of the citizenry in general. Nonetheless, it is well-settled that "[a] public employee does not relinquish First Amendment rights to comment on matters of public interest by virtue of government employment." Accordingly, the First Amendment protects government employee speech if the employee speaks "as a citizen upon matters of public concern." If, on the other hand, the employee speaks "as an employee upon matters only of personal interest," the speech is not entitled to constitutional protection. An employee's speech concerns a matter of public concern if it can be "fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community”… The Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff's Facebook posting addressed a matter of public concern, specifically, "the integrity of the law enforcement services" provided to the public by the Atlanta Police Department (APD). Although the Court considers this a close question, the Court accepts the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that Plaintiff's speech did pertain to an issue of public concern and thus is entitled to First Amendment protection.

The court then moved to the second issue: did the officer’s interest in speaking on this matter of public concern, outweigh the police department’s countervailing interests?

On this second prong the court wrote:

Under the second prong of the Pickering analysis, the Court must weigh Plaintiff's First Amendmentinterests against Defendant's interest "as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees." This balancing test reflects the fact that government employers must be given "wide latitude in managing their offices, without intrusive oversight by the judiciary in the name of the First Amendment," and must be permitted to "take action against employees who engage in speech that 'may unreasonably disrupt the efficient conduct of government operations,'"

The government's interest in efficient public service is particularly acute in the context of police departments, which "have more specialized concerns than a normal government office." Indeed, the Supreme Court has noted a particular "need for discipline, esprit de corps, and uniformity" within the police force. [xiii] The Eleventh Circuit has likewise recognized the unique needs of police departments, noting, "Order and morale are critical to successful police work: a police department is a 'paramilitary organization, with a need to secure discipline, mutual respect, trust and particular efficiency among the ranks due to its status as a quasi-military entity different from other public employers.'" Several factors must be considered in determining whether the government's legitimate interest in efficient public service outweighs the government employee's interest in protected freedom of speech. In particular, courts must assess "'(1) whether the speech at issue impedes the government's ability to perform its duties efficiently, (2) the manner, time and place of the speech, and (3) the context within which the speech was made.’ [cites omitted]

The Court finds that the Report and Recommendation failed to give sufficient consideration to the [Police Department’s] interests in conducting the Pickering balancing test. In its submissions to the Court, Defendant argued that Plaintiff's speech violated APD Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) Work Rule 4.1.06, Criticism, which provides:

‘Employees will not publicly criticize any employee or any order, action, or policy of the Department except as officially required. Criticism, when required, will be directed only through official Department channels, to correct any deficiency, and will not be used to the disadvantage of the reputation or operation of the Department or any employees.’

In rejecting the magistrate’s recommendations the court analyzed as follows:

First, as the Supreme Court stated in Connick: When close working relationships are essential to fulfilling public responsibilities, a wide degree of deference to the employer's judgment is appropriate. Furthermore, we do not see the necessity for an employer to allow events to unfold to the extent that the disruption of the office and the destruction of working relationships is manifest before taking action.

Thus, the fact that Defendants have not come forward with specific evidence of workplace disruption is not fatal to their argument. Defendants should not be required to allow employee speech to completely erode the loyalty and discipline of the police force before they can take action against such speech.

Consistent with prior holdings the court noted the need for even greater latitude to control speech by law enforcement agencies in citing prior cases where it was held:

In this regard, appellee's case is strengthened by the fact that the [police department] is a quasi-military organization. In quasi-military organizations such as law enforcement agencies, comments concerning coworkers' performance of their duties and superior officers' integrity can directly interfere with the confidentiality, esprit de corps and efficient operation of the police department. The court continued:

Discipline is a necessary component of a smoothly-operating police force. Although this necessity of discipline does not rise to the same level as required by the military, discipline must be maintained among police officers during periods of active duty. . . . We agree that courts should consider and give weight to the need for maintaining a close working relationship in quasi-military organizations like police departments.

In this case, Defendants have the same interest as the appellees in Busby in maintaining solidarity, order, and discipline within the police force, and in maintaining public trust and confidence in its capabilities. Plaintiff's Facebook comments threaten these interests by imputing to the police force nepotism or corruption and by, more generally, weakening the public appearance of the police force as a unified "force." Instead, Plaintiff's comments portray the police force as riddled with infighting, insubordination, and dysfunction. These are the very dangers recognized by the Eleventh Circuit in Busby that courts must guard against when considering a police department's interests in limiting employee speech critical of the department's internal affairs.

On the other side of the scale, the Court recognizes Plaintiff's First Amendment interest in speaking out against what she perceives to be unethical conduct within the police force. Indeed, the Court believes that the ability of the citizenry to expose public corruption is one of the most important interests safeguarded by the First Amendment.

As for the form of Plaintiff's speech, Plaintiff, it appears, did not present her grievances to superiors or any other persons in a position to change police department policy or sanction employees; she did not prepare any documentation, such as a formal complaint, specifically articulating the alleged misconduct; nor did she seek to expose the alleged misconduct to the public, generally, such as through radio, television, newspapers, or even a meeting at City Hall. Instead, Plaintiff chose to address the alleged misconduct through a "newsfeed" post on her personal profile of the social networking website, Facebook. While this choice of forum certainly does not exempt her speech fromFirst Amendment protection, which extends to all forms of protected speech, it does suggest that her interest in making the speech is less significant than if she had chosen a more public vehicle, calculated to lead to serious public scrutiny of the APD's internal affairs…[T]he Court is not convinced that Plaintiff was truly crying out to the public about police department misconduct, as opposed to venting frustration with a superior. Although Plaintiff's speech does allege "unethical" misconduct, it does so only loosely, in a non-specific and largely rhetorical fashion.

It should be noted that when an officer makes a statement:

[P]ursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendmentpurposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline… In the Garcetti case, the Supreme Court held that a deputy district attorney was not entitled to First Amendment protection from retaliatory discipline for views that he had expressed in work-related memoranda questioning the credibility of an officer-affiant, views that he had then repeated when called to testify at a court proceeding. The Court, in effect, carved out a First Amendment exception for work-related speech. "[W]hen public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline. [xiv]

It should also be noted that there have been decisions from the National Labor Relation Board criticizing and overturning discipline related to social networking posts. Two significant items should be recognized. First, the National Labor Relations Act specifically excludes government entities from its definition of employers due to the fact that the act was passed to assist employees of private entities in forming unions and participating in collective bargaining. The current decisions of the NLRB have no application to public entities such as police departments. While such decisions may be instructive they largely rest on discipline which would impair an employee’s ability to collectively bargain or speak to others on working conditions.

The United States Supreme Court has reviewed a law enforcement case which involved the termination of an officer for his use of the internet while off-duty. [xv] The Court described the facts in San Diego v. Roe, as follows:

Respondent John Roe, a San Diego police officer, made a video showing himself stripping off a police uniform and masturbating. He sold the video on the adults-only section of eBay, the popular online auction site. His username was "Code3stud@aol.com," a wordplay on a high priority police radio call. The uniform apparently was not the specific uniform worn by the San Diego police, but it was clearly identifiable as a police uniform. Roe also sold custom videos, as well as police equipment, including official uniforms of the San Diego Police Department (SDPD), and various other items such as men's underwear. Roe's eBay user profile identified him as employed in the field of law enforcement.

Roe's supervisor, a police sergeant, discovered Roe's activities when, while on eBay, he came across an official SDPD police uniform for sale offered by an individual with the username "Code3stud@aol.com." He searched for other items Code3stud offered and discovered listings for Roe's videos depicting the objectionable material. Recognizing Roe's picture, the sergeant printed images of certain of Roe's offerings and shared them with others in Roe's chain of command, including a police captain. The captain notified the SDPD's internal affairs department, which began an investigation. In response to a request by an undercover officer, Roe produced a custom video. It showed Roe, again in police uniform, issuing a traffic citation but revoking it after undoing the uniform and masturbating.

The investigation revealed that Roe's conduct violated specific SDPD policies, including conduct unbecoming of an officer, outside employment, and immoral conduct. When confronted, Roe admitted to selling the videos and police paraphernalia. The SDPD ordered Roe to "cease displaying, manufacturing, distributing or selling any sexually explicit materials or engaging in any similar behaviors, via the internet, U.S. Mail, commercial vendors or distributors, or any other medium available to the public. Although Roe removed some of the items he had offered for sale, he did not change his seller's profile, which described the first two videos he had produced and listed their prices as well as the prices for custom videos. After discovering Roe's failure to follow its orders, the SDPD--citing Roe for the added violation of disobedience of lawful orders--began termination proceedings. The proceedings resulted in Roe's dismissal from the police force. [cites omitted]

In analyzing the case the Court distinguished public employees from the general public as follows:

A government employee does not relinquish all First Amendment rights otherwise enjoyed by citizens just by reason of his or her employment. On the other hand, a governmental employer may impose certain restraints on the speech of its employees, restraints that would be unconstitutional if applied to the general public. The Court has recognized the right of employees to speak on matters of public concern, typically matters concerning government policies that are of interest to the public at large, a subject on which public employees are uniquely qualified to comment. Outside of this category, the Court has held that when government employees speak or write on their own time on topics unrelated to their employment, the speech can have First Amendment protection, absent some governmental justification "far stronger than mere speculation" in regulating it. We have little difficulty in concluding that the City was not barred from terminating Roe under either line of cases…

To reconcile the employee's right to engage in speech and the government employer's right to protect its own legitimate interests in performing its mission, the Pickering Court adopted a balancing test. It requires a court evaluating restraints on a public employee's speech to balance "the interests of the [employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees’…Pickering did not hold that any and all statements by a public employee are entitled to balancing. To require Pickering balancing in every case where speech by a public employee is at issue, no matter the content of the speech, could compromise the proper functioning of government offices… This concern prompted the Court in Connick to explain a threshold inquiry (implicit inPickering itself) that in order to merit Pickering balancing, a public employee's speech must touch on a matter of ‘public concern’…Connick held that a public employee's speech is entitled to Pickeringbalancing only when the employee speaks "as a citizen upon matters of public concern" rather than "as an employee upon matters only of personal interest.

The Court then outlined how a court would determine if something was a matter of public concern:

Although the boundaries of the public concern test are not well defined, Connick provides some guidance. It directs courts to examine the "content, form, and context of a given statement, as revealed by the whole record" in assessing whether an employee's speech addresses a matter of public concern. In addition, it notes that the standard for determining whether expression is of public concern is the same standard used to determine whether a common-law action for invasion of privacy is present. That standard is established by our decisions in Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 43 L. Ed. 2d 328, 95 S. Ct. 1029 (1975), and Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374, 387-388, 17 L. Ed. 2d 456, 87 S. Ct. 534 (1967). These cases make clear that public concern is something that is a subject of legitimate news interest; that is, a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public at the time of publication. The Court has also recognized that certain private remarks, such as negative comments about the President of the United States, touch on matters of public concern and should thus be subject to Pickering balancing.

The Court concluded:

Roe's activities did nothing to inform the public about any aspect of the SDPD's functioning or operation. Nor were Roe's activities anything like the private remarks at issue in Rankin, where one co-worker commented to another co-worker on an item of political news. Roe's expression was widely broadcast, linked to his official status as a police officer, and designed to exploit his employer's image.

The speech in question was detrimental to the mission and functions of the employer.

Thus, a supervisor who is faced with a decision regarding discipline for speech including social network postings must first consider whether the speech is on a matter of public concern. If the speech is not on a matter of public concern, it is not protected by the First Amendment.

If the speech is a matter of public concern, the department may still restrict the speech or bring discipline if it can be articulated that the speech, including social networking posts, impairs discipline by superiors or harmony among co-workers, has a detrimental impact on close working relationships for which personal loyalty and confidence are necessary, or impedes the performance of the speaker’s duties or interferes with the regular operation of the enterprise.

Note: Court holdings can vary significantly between jurisdictions. As such, it is advisable to seek the advice of a local prosecutor or legal adviser regarding questions on specific cases. This article is not intended to constitute legal advice on a specific case.

_____________________

CITATIONS:

[i] Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 at 383 (1987).

[ii] Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 at 147-148 (1983).

[iii] Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 at 147 n.7. (1983).

[iv] Rankin v.McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 at ___ (citing Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 ( 1968) andConnick) (1987).

[v] See e.g. Broderick v. Roache, 751 F.Supp. 290 at 293 (D. Mass. 1990).

[vi] Id.

[vii] Id. Citing Pickering.

[viii] Id.

[ix] Waters v. Churchill, 114 S.Ct. 1878 at 1886 et seq. (1994).

[x] Id.

[xi] Id.

[xii] Gresham v. City of Atlanta, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113347 (Northern Dist. GA. 2011).

[xiii] Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 246, 96 S. Ct. 1440, 47 L. Ed. 2d 708 (1976).

[xiv] See e.g. Cardarelli v. MBTA,2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34185 (Dist. Massachusetts 2010) citing Garcetti v. Ceballos,547 U.S. 410 (2006).

[xv] San Diego v. Roe, 543 U.S. 77 (2004).

February Meeting!

2012-03-01T19:55:00.000-07:00

41st District Court

Candidates

Dolores Reyes Anna Perez

February's meeting brought in a good crowd with several retiree's also in attendance. The Board invited two speakers, both candidates for the 41st District Court. Dolores Reyes spoke to members 1st and started by introducing herself and giving the membership a brief background on her personal and professional life. Mrs. Reyes thanked members for their service to the citizens of El Paso County and made herself available for questions during the remainder of the meeting. Current County Commissioner Anna Perez spoke next, and also provided the membership with a brief personal and professional background of herself. Mrs. Perez thanked the membership for their service and reminded members how she appreciated the previous two years in which the membership approved CBA concessions with the County. Mrs. Perez also stayed and spoke with members after the meeting.

During the meeting several things were discussed. The first item was the need for members who are ordered to report to Internal Affairs to call and speak with Jose Marrufo or any available CLEAT attorney prior to making a statement. Don't forget that you have 4 hours to confer with your attorney prior to being interviewed by Internal Affairs. Also, reference the polygraph test, the complaining witness (if not an employee) is required to submit and pass the polygraph test in order for you to be required to submit to a polygraph test. It is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT that you take advantage of the rights afforded to you when you are going through any disciplinary process, no matter the severity.

Another item discussed was the 3 social events planned for members in 2012. The board has agreed to bring back the Diablo Baseball Membership nights, information on game nights will be posted on the website and emailed via the EPSO email. We are also making plans for this years Association Picnic to be held sometime in July. Lastly is the Association awards banquet which is held the 1st Friday in December falling on December 7, 2012. If anything else comes up we will notify the membership as soon as possible.

The Board would also like to remind everyone that the 2012 elections are right around the corner. We need every member to make sure they are registered to vote. If you need any help, please contact a board member and they will assist you with the process. Remember, the two Commissioners elected in this cycle will be sitting Commissioners for our 2014 Contract Negotiations. It is in every members best interest to get themselves and their family members out to vote this year, we can make a difference in this election. Remember that together with the "COPS" Coalition of Public Safety we are over 7000 members strong. If you are interested in volunteering for this political season, please contact a board member and provide him your contact information so we can add you to the list. No matter the amount of time you can volunteer, the more members family we can get the better.

In closing we would like to thank those members and their dependants who submitted an application for this years "Arthur Redelf's Scholarship". The scholarship committee is going through the process of rating the applications and notifications to this years winners will be sent out in the near future. The El Paso County Sheriff''s Officers Charitable Organization, Inc. will be providing a total of 5 scholarships this year and we would like to wish all applicants the best of luck.

January Meeting!!

2012-01-28T18:52:00.003-07:00

The Board would like to thank all the members and retired members who attended the January 2012 meeting. In attendance were two guest speakers both of whom are running for a seat on Commissioners Court. From District 3 (Lower Valley and Far Eastside County), Candidate Dora Oaxaca addressed the membership and answered several questions from members and retired members in reference to her stance on employee insurance, retirees' insurance, privatization of the jails, and consolidation. From District 1 (Eastside), Candidate Carlos Leon (former Police Chief) addressed the membership and spoke of his excellent working relationship with the police union when he was Chief, and also made himself available for questions. Both District 1 and 3 are being vacated by the incumbents and together with the Coalition of Public Safety (C.O.P.S.) we will be announcing endorsments for most of the political races. We ask that each member please update their voter registration prior to this years primary elections. If you need any assistance with this ask one of your Board Members or attend the February Meeting as we will have Francis Munoz there to register or update member's voter registration cards. If you are interested in volunteering your time for this years political functions, please contact one of the P.A.C. members and provide them with your contact information. P.A.C. members to contact are Brian Houston, Mario Marquez, Jose Marrufo, or Louie Silva you can locate their email on the Board members page of the website. Don't wait for others to get things done for you, get involved and make a difference. The two Commissioners elected this term will be there for the next Contract Negotiations for 2014. The C.O.P.S (EPCSOA, EPMPOA, FireFighters Local 51, and Border Patrols Local 1929) is over 7000 members strong and together we will make a difference for our futures!!

Operation Santa!!

2011-12-27T20:47:00.007-07:00

This year the El Paso County Sheriff's Offciers Association at the direction of members request, expanded on last years Christmas toy drive. The association was able to get toys from it membership which were given out at the El Paso Transitional Living Center. On Thursday December 22, 2011 members attended the TLC's annaul Christmas Banquet accompanied by Santa Claus (Lt. Pete Frias) who gave each child a present from Santa. The Association also received numerous donated toys from generous members of our community which were delivered to the Sierra/Providence Childrens Hospital earlier that same day. While at the Hospital, we were joined by Commissioner Sergio Lewis who assisted in giving every child who had to spend the holidays in the Hospital a toy. We were even able to provide toys for any sibling who were visting while we were there. Due to inclement weather the following day we were unable to make it out to the Reynolds House for our 3rd delivery of the year. The Reynolds House will however still be getting a visit from us with a truck load of toys. We would like to thank everyone who donated a toy, volunteered their time, or helped in anyway to make this years Operation Santa such a success. We know that with the generousity and willingness to help the less fortunate of the EPCSOA membership, we can help make it a Merry Christmas for even more children next year. Please contact a Board Member if you are interested in volunteering your time at any of our Charitable events.

Sheriffs Memorial Honors Fallen

2011-12-27T20:38:00.004-07:00

Sgt. Yvonne Villarreal Vann of Bexar County traces Sgt. Kenneth Vann's name in the Sheriffs Memorial Wall

The Texas Sheriffs Officers Memorial held a ceremony honoring Sheriffs Officers across Texas who have given the ultimate sacrifice. The following were honored:

Cesar Arreola, Jailer, El Paso 01-18-2009
Henry C. Banks, Deputy, Hays 11-16-1873
Robert L. Britton, Jr., Deputy, Smith 03-28-2011
Dionicio M. Camacho, Jailer, Harris 10-23-2009
Thomas F. Douglas, Jailer, Harris 03-10-2004
Sherri Jones, Deputy, Bowie 04-18-2011
Odell McDuffie, Jr., Deputy, Liberty 10-25-2010
John Norsworthy, Deputy, Fort Bend 01-04-2011
Tim Olsovsky, Deputy, Victoria 10-07-2009
Bobby E. Pace, Jailer, Dallas 09-24-1998
Sam C. Perez, Deputy Val Verde 11-18-1969
Jacob R. Rayos Deputy, Reeves 04-11-2010
Michael R. Schaefer Deputy, Uvalde 12-25-2010
Clifton L. Taylor, Deputy Johnson 04-23-2011
Charles A. Van Meter, Deputy Brazoria 06-26-11
Kenneth G. Vann, Deputy, Bexar 05-28-2011

Voting Results!!

2011-11-28T16:37:00.000-07:00

Membership;

On November 22, 2011 a vote was held to increase Association membership dues. 72% of voting majority of the membership vote to increase Association dues by $6.15, so the change will be from $5.00 bi-weekly to $11.15 bi-weekly. The new dues will go in effect on January 1, 2012. I would like to THANK all the membership for the continue support of the Association and the preservation of its future.

JOSE G. MARRUFO
PRESIDENT-E.P.C.S.O.A

Issue 2 falls, Ohio collective bargaining law repealed

2011-11-09T10:51:00.001-07:00

Posted by Rachel Weiner -->at 09:38 PM ET, 11/08/2011

Ohioans voted Tuesday night to repeal a Republican-backed law that restricted collective bargaining for public workers, a victory for Democrats and labor organizers both nationally and in the state.
AP has declared Issue 2 (as the law was called on the ballot) dead. As of this writing, with about 75 percent of precincts in, repeal led by a whopping 62 to 38 percent margin.
Gov. John Kasich (R) took office in January vowing to curb unions’ power. But he appears to have overstepped his hand in curtailing the rights of 350,000 public workers — including firefighters and police officers — to negotiate over benefits, equipment and other issues.
The backlash against the law began as soon as Kasich signed it, in March. By August, when the governor asked for a compromise with unions, it was too late.
“It’s clear that the people have spoken and my view is, when people speak in a campaign like this you have to listen,” Kasich said in a press conference after the results came in. He said he would “take a deep breath” and think about the results. “But let me be clear, there is no bailout coming” for the state, he said, adding that he would work with local governments to curb costs.
As in other states, the law became a battleground for an ongoing fight between labor and conservative groups over collective bargaining. In Wisconsin, after Gov. Scott Walker (R) eliminated collective bargaining for many public employees, Democrats and labor failed to take back the state Senate in recall elections. Now, unions have their first bonafide win.
By including firefighters and police officers in the legislation, Republicans in Ohio set themselves up for a far more difficult fight. Wisconsin’s collective bargaining law made exceptions for both.
“This was an effort by the entire labor movement in the state,” said Lee Saunders, secretary-treasurer of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. “All labor was together.”
Labor groups, led by the National Education Association and the Ohio Education Association, through the group “We Are Ohio,” poured $30 million into the repeal effort. Opponents of repeal, under the banner “Build A Better Ohio,” raised only $7.5 million.
“This was a thrashing in Ohio — a huge overreach by extremist Republicans and an enormous victory for average working families,” said Steve Rosenthal, a longtime Democratic labor strategist. “A sleeping giant may have been awoken in the process. In Ohio nearly 30 percent of the vote in 2012 will come from union households. There is enormous energy coming off this victory.”
Democrats also claimed victory, framing the results as a rebuke to Republican lawmakers across the country after the GOP swept statehouses across the country in 2010. Ohio Democrats were brutally beaten in that election.
In addition to limiting bargaining and banning strikes, the law mandates that public workers pay 15 percent of their health-care benefits and 10 percent of wages into their pensions — something that state, but not county and local workers already do.
Republicans argued that the legislation was not only fair, but necessary to balance the budget. Democrats and unions argued that it was a senseless attack on hardworking public servants.
A separate referendum to bar all health-care mandates, Issue 3, passed by a wide margin — 66 percent to 34 percent with 74 percent reporting.
The constitutional amendment is a rebuke of the Obama administration’s health-care legislation, although even supporters acknowledge that they cannot supersede federal law. It does prevent a Massachusetts-style state health-care mandate. Critics fear the broadly-written measure could bar immunizations or regulation of health insurers.

Collective bargaining rejected for Sheriff's Office in Cameron County!

2011-11-09T10:47:00.003-07:00

November 08, 2011 10:22 PM
By EMMA PEREZ-TREVINO, The Brownsville Herald

Cameron County voters on Tuesday rejected collective bargaining rights for Cameron County deputies and detention officers by a slim margin.

By a vote of 2,321 in favor and 2,639 against, the initiative failed. Initial vote counts had indicated that it would be a tight race.

Cameron County Sheriff’s Deputies Association President Luis Mendita could not be located for comment.

But he, with the help of the Combined Law Enforcement Association of Texas (CLEAT), led the effort that would have allowed deputies and detention officers to organize and bargain with the county regarding compensation, hours, and other conditions of employment.

Polls opened at 7 a.m. and closed at 7 p.m., drawing 3,266 voters on Election Day, 1,815 votes during the early voting period, and 19 mailed-in votes.

The collective bargaining initiative drew 924 early votes for it and 830 votes against it. A total of seven mail in votes were cast for it and 12 were cast against it.

On Election Day, 1,390 votes were cast in favor and 1,797 votes were cast against. A total of 5,100 votes were cast in the election.

The voter turnout was significantly low. There are 169,950 registered voters.
The returns were not available until 9:50 p.m., because the boxes from Harlingen came in late, a couple of hours after the polls closed at 7 p.m.

This is not the first time that the Harlingen boxes come in later than what would be expected.
But County Election and Voter Registration Administrator Roger Ortiz said, “rather late than wrong.”

Proponents had argued that a collective bargaining agreement would protect deputies and detention officers, providing them adequate pay and other benefits. Opponents, on the other hand, argued that bargaining agreements would deplete funds for the operation and maintenance of the county to detriment of the county’s operation and maintenance and other employees not protected by an agreement.

Commissioners Court was forced to place collective bargaining on the ballot after the association turned in a petition for the referendum containing more than 3,400 signatures.

CLEAT Convention Held in Corpus Christi

2011-11-07T22:01:00.004-07:00

With the defense or public retirement benefits on the minds of most in attendance, members travelled to Corpus Christi for the 35th annual CLEAT convention October 20-22nd.

CLEAT pollster Todd M. Smith and political consultant Nancy Fisher addressed CLEAT leaders at a retirement seminar on Thursday in which the focus was the recent attacks on public pensions. Smith relayed that public attitudes on defined benefit retirements are not as negative as national pundits would have you believe. When those polled learn the facts, such as most public safety employees do not participate in social security and contribute 6 to 14% of their income to their own pension, then polling results were found to be favorable. For example, in the poll commissioned by CLEAT, 95% of those polled believe that police officers deserve a descent retirement and 69% believe it should be higher than those in the private sector.

Nancy Fisher was called in to help during the 2011 legislative session when local “agreed to” pension legislation for Austin Police and Fire came under attack. Opponents attacked the bills with misinformation and the key was educating legislators on the truth. She praised CLEAT for efforts made within the internal political process to overcome the opposition and move the legislation forward.

In the general session on Friday, President Todd Harrison addressed the membership on the state of CLEAT. He reminded members that CLEAT was formed by regular cops 35 years ago to bring rights like civil service, collective bargaining, and arbitration to the rank and file. They did it by organizing and meeting in hotel rooms across the state, including a hotel room in Corpus Christi not far from the current convention hotel. Since then, the membership has grown to over 18,500. Despite tough economic times, CLEAT’s growth and finances are strong, he said. He also reminded members that CLEAT’s books are “open records” to anyone interested in how CLEAT has invested or spent the members money or if you are a CLEAT member with a question, our staff is ready to assist you.

Sean Smoot, of the Illinois Police Benevolent Protective Association addressed the membership. Smoot outlined the fight to defend police pensions and benefits in Illinois. Smoot discussed the PBPA “We are One” campaign and the importance of educating both the public and legislators as to the truth. He explained that organized opposition in all of the national attacks on pension benefits is coordinated through the use of a process known as “astroturfing” which is a form political advocacy that is designed to give the appearance of a “grassroots” movement when in fact the attack is orchestrated by a political group or entity with a predetermined agenda. He pointed out that millionaires like the Koch brothers are behind a lot of these “astroturf” campaigns.

Also, on Friday, members heard from Brent Hatch from Texas’ Division on Workers Compensation. Mr. Hatch discussed the new changes to the Texas Workers Comp system for first responders. These changes were a result of legislation developed and passed by CLEAT during the last legislative session.

On Saturday, members honored those who have made great sacrifices protecting the public the past year. In an emotional presentation, members remembered 20 officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the last 12 months. Medals of Valor were also awarded to Sergeant Patricia Lenoir (Sweetwater), Officer Lee Ortiz (Snyder), and Corporal Darrell Campbell (Snyder).
Lt. Governor David Dewhurst addressed the membership and thanked CLEAT for the support shown over the years. Dewhurst outlined important legislation supported by CLEAT that he we was able to help through the legislative process as the president of the Texas Senate. Dewhurst also addressed the retirement issue and committed to ensuring that officers pensions are secure in the future.

CLEAT also honored the following award winners, Corpus Christi Police Officers Association – CLEAT Local Association of the Year, Brownsville Police Officers Assciation – CLEAT Organizing Award, Wayne Vincent (Austin) – Ludwig Bruno Award, Jose Marrufo (El Paso County) – Douglas Ward Award, Michael Helle (San Antonio) – Reuben Cisneros Award, Edward Garces (Brownsville) – Lifetime Achievement Award, Ron Martin (El Paso) – Brass Balls Award, Edward Martin (Jefferson County) – Legislative Steward Award.

CLEAT’s Regional Directors also awarded Officer of the Year awards to a members from their regions. CLEAT congratulates the following winners: Sergeant Antionio Molina, Jr. (Region 1B), Deputy Cynthia Hooper (Region 2), Detective Michael Helle (Region 3A), Deputy Loudes Najara (Region 3B), Deputy Luis Alva (Region 3C), Officer Henry Rivera (Region 4A), Detention Officer Jean-Claude Drouin (Region 4B), Officer Lee Ortiz (Region 5), Sergeant Landis Cravens (Region 6), Detective Edward Martin (Region 7), Lieutenant Gary Rosch (Region 8A), Sergeant Sam Stock (Region 8B), and Sergeant Brad Meyer (Region 9).

In new business, a number of proposed constitutional amendments were tabled. President Todd Harrison announced that a two-day constitutional convention would be called next year to develop a constitutional changes that can be supported by all groups in CLEAT. Also, an effort to expand the size and membership of the CLEAT executive board was defeated in roll call vote of the board of directors.

Pictures from the convention can be found online here:

http://cleatpomf.shutterfly.com/

Letter to CLEAT from President Marrufo!!

2011-09-14T21:04:00.003-06:00

CLEAT,

Once again you have proven why being part of this great organization pays off. On Tuesday September 6, 2011, CLEAT contract attorney Brock Benjamin, who is filling in for staff attorney Miles McNeal, arbitrated and successfully got a one day suspension overturned with no discipline.
Cpl. Joseph Medina received (1) one day suspension for leaving his post to move his POV for safety and security reasons. Although the officer was verbally counsel by his Lieutenant, as per our departmental policy, the Sheriff felt that further discipline was required. The Sheriff contended that Cpl. Medina left his post unsupervised and without permission from his Lieutenant. Mr. Benjamin present evidence, that clearly showed Cpl. Medina not only acted in a professional manner, but complied with all written and verbal orders.

A one day suspension might no seem like alot, but no officer should be subject to discipline and endure a financial hardship without just cause. CLEAT has a record here in El Paso and around the state, that we can proudly hang our hats on. If Sheriffs and Chiefs around the state are willing to spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars of tax payers’ money to fight one day suspensions, it’s comforting to know that local Associations’ along with CLEAT will fight back.

Again great job Mr. Benjamin and CLEAT!!!!!!!!!

Jose G. Marrufo Jr.

President-El Paso County Sheriff’s Officers Association

2012 Scholarship Applications!!!

2011-08-20T12:12:00.004-06:00

The El Paso County Sheriff's Officers Association would like congratulate Deputy Rudy Payan and his son Albert "Scottie" Payan on his selection as the first ever recipient of the EPCSOA Scholarship. Scottie graduated from Burges High School and plans to attend The University Of North Texas where he will Major in Theater with a Minor in Communications. Scottie was a member of the National Honor Society, chosen "Outstanding Citizen" Senior Class, Senior "Class Favorite", and "Top Ten" Senior by teachers and peers at Burges High School. Scottie also participated in athletics while at Burges where he was a member of the Football and Track teams. Scottie describes his awards in Theater as his most important awards as this is the Career he plans to persue. He received the following: Best Actor Award at the District Competition, Best Comic Actor in a play,and the All Star cast. Scottie attributes his leadership and discipline to his years in The Boy Scouts where he achieved Senior Patrol Leader and was awarded the Order of the Arrow, an Honor Group.

Don't forget if you are a current or retired member of the EPCSOA and have a dependent graduating from High school or curently attending a 4 year College or University they are eligible to submit an application for this scholarship.

Application packets must be submitted by January 31st of every year. Incomplete or late packets will not be considered. Any questions or to obtain a scholarship packet please email scholarships@epcsoa.com

Family Tradition!!

2011-08-08T14:32:00.003-06:00

Jesse G. Leyva the son of Detention officer Lucina Silva, and retired Detention Officer Gustavo Leyva, will be sworn in on 08-14-2011 as a new Detention Officer with the El Paso County Sheriff's Office. Luci is very proud of her son joining the Sheriff's Office following in both Luci's and his father footsteps. Luci herself has been in the department for over 19 years, and gets emotional when talking about her son and reflecting on the years gone by. Luci is very proud of her son Jesse and welcomes him to the Sheriff's Office family. Congratulations Luci and Gus, and good luck to Jesse G. Leyva in your career.

What to Expect if You are Involved in a Critical Incident

2011-07-26T14:38:00.003-06:00

By Fort Worth CLEAT Attorney Craig Driskell

Although most critical police incidents involve shootings, don’t forget that other incidents can generate the same level of investigation and media attention such as: in-custody deaths, fleet accidents involving serious bodily injury/death, etc.
So what do you do if you’re involved in a critical incident? This article is a very brief overview of what to expect in a Q&A format:

Q: What should I do if I’m involved in critical incident?

A: Let me answer this by saying that BEFORE you are involved in a critical incident make sure you are aware of your department’s requirements when you’re involved in an incident. For sure you are supposed to notify dispatch and your supervisor; however, don’t forget to contact your CLEAT attorney. Better yet, your fellow officer should make this call for you by calling 1-800-752-5328. After the CLEAT attorney has been notified, the next thing you should do is sit in your car, or someone’s patrol car, and limit what you say until the attorney shows up. The reason is that whatever you say to fellow officers and supervisors IS NOT privileged communication. Obviously you have to give some explanation as to what just happened – just don’t go into too much detail until your CLEAT attorney shows up and has a chance to advise you.

Q: When should I contact my CLEAT attorney?

A: Sort of answered in the first question, but I don’t mind restating it again, and again – call your CLEAT attorney as soon as you are involved in a critical incident. We have excellent response times and the quicker we get to you and get you debriefed, the faster the investigation will go. Keep in mind, Peer Support officers, CID detectives, IA detectives, Crime Scene personnel, and others are waiting patiently for the CLEAT attorney to finish up with his/her confidential interview with you before they can get started with their respective duties at the scene. It’s all about teamwork!

Q: Who all shows up to the scene?

A: Let’s face it; a critical incident is a big deal not only for you the involved officer but for the department as it quickly gets the attention of the media. Matter of fact when I am driving around looking for the critical incident scene, I look for the news helicopters - seriously. The following are a list of folks who may show up to the scene: your supervisory chain, head of your agency, your association representatives, Crime Scene, Peer Support officers, Public Affairs spokesperson, IA, CID, and of course your attorney.

Q: Who do I have to talk with at the scene?

A: After you’ve had an opportunity to consult with your CLEAT attorney, detectives will do a walk-through of the crime scene. This should be done with your attorney by your side the entire time. Detectives want to know what happened from your perspective. The better trained departments understand that some officers are a bit fuzzy on details due to the stress of the incident; however, do the best you can. In the days that follow, you may have better recall. If you remember important details, contact your attorney who will arrange for the detectives to re-interview you.

Another person who will want to talk with you either at the scene or back at the station, are Peer Support officers or counselors (sometimes referred to as Emergency Response Team Members/Providers). Peer Support officers or counselors are specially trained to provide assistance and guidance to officers involved in traumatic incidents. The good news is that your conversations with these members is confidential under §784.003 of the Texas Health and Safety Code.

Q: What’s the difference between Garrity and Miranda Warnings?

A: After leaving the critical incident scene, you will probably go back to the station to be interviewed. As a condition of being employed, you have to go through this interview. Your CLEAT attorney is not usually allowed to be present since this is an administrative interview. Since you could possibly make incriminating statements against yourself, the tradeoff is that the U.S. Supreme Court, in Garrity vs. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), prohibits your statements made during this mandatory interview, from being “used [against you] in subsequent criminal proceedings.”

On the other hand, let’s say things take a turn for the worse and criminal investigators want to talk with you about your critical incident. You still have rights! If anyone from the FBI, the Texas Rangers, or any criminal investigator wants to talk with you, don’t agree to do so without first consulting with your attorney. These folks are the ones who will start your interview off by reading you your Miranda Warnings. Keep in mind, just because you are a police officer you DO NOT have to waive your 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. While you have to cooperate with IA, you don’t have to cooperate with criminal investigators.

Q: When will I get my gun back?

A: At the critical incident scene, the firearm you used will typically be taken from you by Crime Scene. At some point you will be given a replacement weapon, sometimes at the scene and sometimes at the station. Either way, you will lose the firearm for some period of time so ballistics can be done. Just remember that before you go back to work, you will need to qualify with the replacement weapon.

Q: How long does the investigation take?

A: And the answer, to no one’s surprise, is – “It just depends.” I’ve seen investigations get wrapped up in just a few months and others a lot longer. Just depends on the complexity of the critical incident. Your incident will go through legal reviews and chain-of-command reviews.

Q: Will my incident go before a grand jury and do I have to be present?

A: Just depends on your local District Attorney. For example, while the Dallas County DA presents all officer-involved shootings to grand juries, the Tarrant County DA only presents officer-involved shootings resulting in a suspect death.
During my stint as an assistant district attorney in Harris and Tarrant Counties, I found the members of grand juries to be pro-police and often times wished they could hug or thank officers for bravery after hearing about the incident the officer was forced to deal with. So in a word, relax. You will not be called to be a witness before a grand jury. What usually happens is an Assistant DA with the assistance of a detective will present the critical incident to the grand jury, without the officer ever being present. The grand jury then votes in secrecy to either “True Bill” (indict) or “No Bill” the officer. Thankfully grand juries rarely, and I mean rarely, indictment officers for his/her actions during a critical incident.

Q: What happens if I get sued?

A: It does happen occasionally that a family of a suspect will sue a city, the police department, and every single officer who was at the scene of a critical incident involving a fatality. Just goes with the job. The good news is that most of these law suits are frivolous and are dismissed. The main thing to know is that if you do get sued, statute requires the City to provide you legal representation. In the off chance the City denies you legal support, CLEAT is there for you.

CLEAT Opposes HB 41

2011-06-28T20:41:00.002-06:00

For immediate release to all Texas news organizations
Contact: Charley Wilkison, Director of Public Affairs
Office: 512-495-9111, Mobile: 512-633-3501

June 27, 2011

AUSTIN-The Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas (CLEAT), the State’s largest law enforcement organization is strongly in support of Texas House Speaker Joe Straus’ common sense approach to law enforcement and public safety issues. CLEAT is opposed to HB 41, known as the airport pat-down bill by State Representative David Simpson R-Longview.
Representative Simpson has gone back on his word to accept carefully crafted amendments which would have clarified that the bill does not impact Texas officers and their ability to search suspects under reasonable suspicion. CLEAT believes the result would increase the legal threshold for searches to probable cause.

“International drug cartel leaders have to be laughing this morning,” said Charley Wilkison, Director of Public Affairs for CLEAT. “What they couldn’t get done through the appellate court system with their frivolous legal challenges and highly paid lawyers is being done for them in the hallowed chambers of the Capitol.”

“Whether intentional or inadvertent, the end result will be a chilling effect on Texas police officers’ ability to do their job and protect us from crime and criminals in public building and public places,” he said.

“Drug dealers, gang leaders and criminals of all stripes have longed for this law to be changed for years. If this bill passes in its current form, it will be the green light for criminal defense attorneys to mount a legal challenge to every single search for illegal weapons and drugs in public buildings and public places,” said Wilkison.

“CLEAT is proud of Speaker Joe Straus who showed Texas-sized courage by standing up for the public’s safety and the brave men and women who risk their lives every day to protect the families and communities of this state. Someone needed to bring some common sense to this discussion and slow down this bill with far reaching, and often misunderstood consequences,” he said.

Currently the courts have allowed law enforcement searches under the lower level of reasonable suspicion. Officers have to be able to articulate that they acted reasonably under the circumstances and had a suspicion that the suspect’s behavior or some circumstance gave them reason enough to search the person without consent. Officers are now allowed to follow their training, ask questions and search if they believe they have a reasonable cause to do so.

HB 41 by Rep. Simpson would raise the legal threshold so that officers could no longer question or search a suspicious person and would have to establish the higher legal threshold of probable cause.

“This proposed law would handcuff officers in the field and they would find themselves operating in a legal land of shadows where they would be unable to do their jobs and keep our communities safe,” he said.

“Some of the folks complaining about being searched in the airports were yelling the loudest when the jet flew into the Pentagon in Washington D.C. less than a decade ago,” stated Wilkison.

“I think some of these folks are confusing the inconvenience of fighting international crime and terror with their assumed constitutional rights not to be bothered by the real world,” he said.

In addition, the bill as written, does not just apply to searches at airports. It applies to Texas officers charged with protecting all other public buildings, including courthouses. We have real concerns that the bill will hamper officers’ abilities to respond to security threats, such as bomb threats or other terroristic threats. Unlike the ability of TSA to turn someone away from flying if they do not pass security screening, most people going to a courthouse have a legal obligation to be there. They are either a defendant on trial or they are a subpoenaed witness. On any given day, courts are dealing with murderers, drug dealers, rapists, and thieves. Unfortunately these people and the people they associate with are not your most model citizens.

CLEAT believes that public venues such as large concerts and entertainment events will become places where officers will also be stopped from performing searches. Law enforcement officers, court security personnel and district attorneys are concerned that rival gang members will be allowed to attend court proceedings without a thorough security screening or officers being able to search them properly. We believe this may happen if HB 41 were to become law.

State of the County: Escobar blasts state government role in local matters

2011-06-22T15:50:00.002-06:00

By Marty Schladen / El Paso Times
Posted: 06/22/2011 02:10:09 PM MDT

El Paso County Judge Veronica Escobar delivers her State of the County address Wednesday at the Greater El Paso Chamber of Commerce.

The Texas Legislature is dumping its responsibilities onto county governments and tying their hands when it comes to financing them, County Judge Veronica Escobar said Wednesday.

Escobar delivered the annual State of the County Address to a luncheon crowd at the headquarters of the Greater El Paso Chamber of Commerce, which sponsored the event.

In a sometimes feisty speech, Escobar listed some of county government's accomplishments during her first year as judge and her six previous as a county commissioner. She also made a little news, telling the audience she didn't anticipate asking for another tax increase for the budget year that starts in 2012.

But Escobar said the state government has made that task exceedingly difficult.

She said the Legislature faces "a $27 billion shortfall created to a large extent by the 2007 Legislature's enactment of tax cuts that they couldn't pay for." That means an anticipated loss of $8.2 million to the county's budget, $46 million to the county Hospital District and $10.4 million to El Paso Mental Health Mental Retardation if the Legislature enacts the budget it's working on now.

"They're basically shifting the burden of financing their constitutional mandates to you all in this room, the local taxpayers," Escobar said.

At the same time, state law constrains county goverments in terms of how much in taxes and fees they can collect. And, because most county departments are headed by elected officials, commissioners courts can have little control over how those departments are operated, Escobar said.

"Even crucial departments like the Purchasing Department don't answer to the Commissioners Court," Escobar said. "By state law, the Purchasing Department is run by a Purchasing Board made up three sitting judges and two commissioners."

Escobar in the past has expressed frustration that the Purchasing Board often is unable to muster a quorum on the rare occasions that it tries to meet.

(Mark Lambie / El Paso Times) Read full text of State of the County address.

County Judge Veronica Escobar:

Good afternoon, and thank you all for being here today to learn more about what's happening in your county. I'd like to thank the Greater El Paso Chamber of Commerce for hosting this event and for their willingness to be such great partners to me and the county.

Introduce family; introduce interns: Nicole Ruiz (Senior at UTEP, Political Science Major) and

Lorena Rodriguez (Masters in Public Administration from UTEP).

Introduce Celeste Varela and Ruben Vogt.

I know that the majority of you are familiar with what the County of El Paso does for you, the taxpayer, but I'd like to offer a quick primer for those who are not as familiar.

COUNTY GOVERNMENT

Counties in Texas are an extension of state government. Our authority is governed and our work is mandated by the constitution and the legislature, and local citizens turn to us for some of the most critical services in their lives. We handle birth, marriage, divorce and death certificates through our County Clerk, Delia Briones and court records through our District Clerk, Norma Favela. We deliver justice through our multiple Courts; we have 30 elected county and district courts, 10 appointed courts, and specialty dockets like the DWI Courts, the Veterans Court, the Mental Competence Court, Family Courts, Juvenile Courts, and for the first time, thanks to Judge Yahara Lisa Gutierrez, El Paso added a Protective Order

Court. We keep our community safe through Sheriff Richard Wiles, his Department and jail; we promote mental health care through our contributions to El Paso MHMR, and through the courts, the jail, the hospital district emergency room and; and finally, we deliver indigent health care through our world class hospital district, University Medical Center.

We fund all of that and still, El Paso County makes up only 13% of your property tax bill; 92% of our budget funds services mandated by the state of Texas and the essential departments that support delivery of those mandates. Our resources are limited: 75% of our budget is funded by local property taxes and sales taxes. We don't have the flexibility municipalities have in creating fees to help fund services, so we have to do a lot with very little. Despite that, we've kept your taxes stable - in fact, reducing them in some years - since I joined the County in 2007.

County government is also a very complicated organization. We have incredible needs - for example, tremendous poverty in unincorporated areas where we are still working to get water and sewer hookups to our colonia residents - and a state government that provides us with few resources, allows us few tools, and that increasingly is shifting to local government the responsibility of paying for its own state responsibilities.

And when you walk into the Courthouse, know that, while the constitution gives Commissioners Court the power of the purse strings, the majority of our 'department heads' are elected officials - you, the voter, are their boss. Even crucial departments like the Purchasing Department don't answer to Commissioners Court; by state law, the Purchasing Department is run by a Purchasing Board made up of three sitting judges and two commissioners. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we've never had professional management of the County through a County Administrator.

Some would call county government in Texas 'antiquated'; I call it challenging.

Add to that challenge recent events - an historic recession that resulted in a 15% drop in sales tax revenue and a significant drop in fee collections. Just as our revenue shrank, our budget grew because of added courts, the staffing required to support them, and the collective bargaining contract with Sheriff's Department uniformed employees.

That combination created a multi-million dollar problem for the County that we couldn't have navigated without the assistance of our very talented Auditor's Office, headed by Edward Dion and Wallace Hardgrove. The work we did on the budget translates into $15 million worth of cuts over three years. Those cuts came from one major place: Our workforce. We had to take drastic action, and our employees were right there with us during the most challenging times. We didn't just freeze their salaries, our employees dealt with furloughs for three years in a row. We also initiated a hiring freeze, holding vacant over 100 positions, so in addition to furloughs, we asked our employees to do more work with fewer staff. We also, unfortunately, had to initiate a reduction in force to deal with the tight budget. Even with all those cuts, the only thing that prevented us from having to issue tax anticipation notes to pay our bills this year was a modest tax increase of 2 cents/$100 valuation last year. It was unpopular, but it was the right thing to do.

And although the good news this year is that sales tax receipts have been increasing over the last several months, the County is required by the state tax code to put that added revenue toward paying off debt, not towards addressing our general fund needs. That means that while the economy is recovering, we won't enjoy the benefits in this year's budget.

In addition to the challenges I've just discussed, we will have additional challenges going forward. The state legislature, faced with a $27 billion shortfall - created to a large extent by the 2007 legislature's enactment of tax cuts that they couldn't pay for - is further burdening local governments, including County entities. Although we send hundreds of millions of local dollars to the capitol, the current "cuts only" budget the legislature is negotiating will mean cuts over the biennium of $8.2 million to El Paso County, $46 million to the Hospital District, and $10.4 million to El Paso MHMR - all governments or organizations that are historically underfunded to begin with.

To say that your County leadership is faced with tremendous challenges would be an understatement.

NEW LEADERSHIP

I'm very proud to say that your Commissioners Court and other county leaders aren't just dealing with those challenges; we are conquering them with creativity, sacrifice and, when possible, investment.

My colleagues on the court are each working on important areas of county government. Commissioners Anna Perez and Sergio Lewis, among other things, are working on quality of life investments in our two major park assets - the Sportspark and Ascarate Park. Work has already begun on improvements at the Sportspark, and in 18 months, the community will have completely renovated ball fields, batting cages, concessions and restrooms so that we can finally compete with other communities that offer great tournament venues. As we finalize those improvements, Commissioners Court will discuss the option of outsourcing the management of this asset. And at Ascarate, a significant investment in that park that began in 2008 will be complete next spring. What residents will get to enjoy is a completely refreshed quality of life asset - new ball fields, golf course clubhouse, lighting, tennis and handball courts, and a beautiful new entrance. These investments in quality of life make our community more competitive, greener and more attractive.

Commissioner Willie Gandara has taken the lead on the new Tornillo Port of Entry, 17 years in the making, which will be complete in early 2013. This port of entry is more than just a bridge; it's a transportation system that includes adding a major arterial from the border to I-10; it will be an asset that will keep us connected to our economic partners to the south and will create important economic activity and investment in the lower valley.

Commissioner Dan Haggerty has done some great work heading up the hiring freeze committee that has kept 100 positions vacant, saving us $3.7 million, creating important savings for you, the taxpayer. He was a champion of reforming our Border Children's Mental Health Collaborative, turning it from a concept to a full county department, and moving it to a new facility adjacent to our Juvenile Probation Department.

Your Commissioners Court has also demonstrated strong advocacy against ill-conceived and irresponsible legislation and damaging rhetoric. We have, for example, publicly opposed the sanctuary cities bill coming from our state capitol, a bill which threatens to make us less safe and bring significant costs to the local property taxpayer. If the bill passes, El Paso County will seek advice and evaluate all legal options available to us. We've seen bills like this challenged in the courts, and El Paso County may have to join in those challenges. There is simply too much to risk, and one thing that we can't surrender willingly is our consistent ranking as one of America's safest communities.

We've also spoken out against budget cuts at the state and federal level that harm our taxbase; and we even took a certain United States Senator and former presidential candidate from Arizona to task when he attempted to demonize safe and vibrant border communities like ours.

REFORM

Together, your Commissioners Court has also supported important reforms that are changing County government for the better.

One of my first goals, and I began working on it late last year after the general election, was to reconstitute the board of El Paso MHMR. I believed it was critical that we do more as a sponsoring entity to provide strong oversight of and effective leadership to that very important community organization. Thanks to the support of Commissioners Court and the UMC board of directors, especially Dr. Jose Luna, we have a fresh start at MHMR. We have diverse new board members like Commissioner Anna Perez, who, as an assistant county attorney, headed up the mental health unit, and Dr. Michael Escamilla, the new Psychiatric Chair at Texas Tech who brings with him great ideas on how to build a bridge among all the mental health entities in the community. There are a total of seven new board members - all talented and committed El Pasoans who will help us better navigate the challenges we face with growing needs and shrinking funds.

The Ethics Commission, the first of its kind for a county in the state of Texas, created in 2009 through legislation sponsored by Representative Marisa Marquez and Senator Eliot Shapleigh, also saw new leadership earlier this year. The commission will be unveiling a new code of ethics and its plan for training employees, elected officials, lobbyists and vendors on July 18th. This Commission is critical to building community trust and ensuring that there are consequences for both ethics violations and frivolous complaints. It will demonstrate to Texas that El Paso County is leading the way when it comes to bold and significant ethics legislation.

And it is my intention to ensure that we embark on internal reforms that are essential to the success of a modern organization. The Court needs to plan for future capital projects and begin to make meaningful, strategic investment in our aging infrastructure; those at the County in charge of our assets - your assets - need to do a better job of tracking them, and we need to be prepared to provide them with the resources to do so. We also need to be more unified as a Court when it comes to a strategic vision for the County as a whole. These things will take fortitude and commitment to implement, but we will get them done.

INITIATIVES

The Court supported important projects like the ground-breaking we had this spring for our Youth Services Center, which will help us improve the mental health services we provide to young people. We are partnering on a grant for a geothermal project on Fort Bliss that, if awarded by the federal government, will help Ft. Bliss get closer to achieving its goal of being 100% energy sustainable and that could help us with our growing energy needs and costs in the future.

El Paso County, with great support from TxDOT and the Federal Highway Administration, is also leading the way on a project that has the potential to change the way technology is used at our ports of entry to make us safer, more modern, and more efficient. The Secure Border Trade Demonstration Project, headed by Bob Geyer, will help the maquiladora industry use technology to track trucks, personnel and cargo going north across the border, undisturbed and safe, until it reaches its final destination. We anticipate starting the program September 1st.

And, of course, in 2012 we will all be there as the doors open at our community's very first separately licensed, non-profit children's hospital. El Paso Children's Hospital will create jobs and provide world class healthcare for our mamas and babies, and its presence on the UMC Campus makes El Paso County a major tenant of the Medical Center of the Americas. I was fortunate enough to sit in during the inaugural meeting of the original MCA foundation during Mayor Ray Caballero's term at City Hall. The healthcare hub being created in that area is sure to be one of this region's most lasting and significant economic development drivers, and I am proud that El Paso County is a major stakeholder.

SHARED SERVICES

But how will the County deal with financial challenges that will not disappear anytime soon?

We will do so with creativity and leadership.

The County of El Paso, with other great government partners like the City, University Medical Center and other entities, is leading the way in the most common-sense approach to dealing with growing needs in a challenging economic environment: Shared Services.

In 2008, after presenting the idea and garnering support from every elected body within the county (that's nine school districts, five municipalities, the community college and the hospital district), this community had its first Shared Services Summit. The Greater El Paso Chamber of Commerce was right there with me from the beginning, helping host and fundraise for it, as was the Texas Comptroller's Office and the Governor's Office, with planning and facilitation support. As a result of the 2008 and 2009 summits, this community's taxpayers are benefitting from significantly increased collaboration and consolidation for smarter, more efficient governments.

These collaboratives have produced projects like the City-County Data Center (a network redundancy building where the City and County are co-habitating). The Data Center is generating $2.4 million worth of immediate savings, and at a minimum, $252,000 in annual savings to the County alone. The City-County Data Center is just one facet of City-County collaboration on information technology that is meant to pave the way for a potential complete consolidation - so that as taxpayers, instead of having to fund two different IT departments at two organizations, you're funding one. This collaboration has earned the City and County the Texas Municipal League's award for collaboration. This victory couldn't have been possible without the tremendous leadership of Peter Cooper, David Garcia, and Cygne Nemir from County Attorney Joanne Bernal's office. I am also grateful to Commissioners Court for its support, as well as that of the Mayor and City Council, City Manager Joyce Wilson, the late Art Armas, and City Attorney staff. It took a village to make this happen.

The County's work on the Shared Services Summits caught the attention of the Texas Senate's Intergovernmental Relations Committee, which invited me to participate last summer in their workgroup on city-county consolidation. The legislation we crafted in that workgroup passed this session; it still has to go to the voters, but if passed by the voters, will make changes in our constitution that will provide permanence to long-term agreements like ours.

Another win for us is the recently opened health clinic in the basement of the county courthouse - a collaboration with our own University Medical Center. Over the years, we have seen a drain on the County's Risk Pool fund (the county is self-insured). In an effort to avoid burdening the taxpayer to fund any shortfalls, we knew we had to stop the problem before it began.

We looked to create a way to incentivize preventive care for our employees. We had an existing clinic, but it was small, located in a separate facility, and was essentially a conference room turned into an ad-hoc clinic. This new clinic, based on the shared services concept, will be staffed by a Nurse Practitioner, a Clinical Specialist and Medical Assistant who will work as a team to provide county employees and their dependants with a medical home. The clinic will give patients with chronic conditions such as high blood pressure, diabetes and asthma access to diagnosis, treatment and follow-up.

The clinic features three exam rooms and a laboratory draw station. Prescriptions written at the clinic will be filled at UMC's pharmacy and delivered to the County Courthouse.

This is an investment in ourselves that saves taxpayers and employees money. We're working to keep our employees healthy, out of the ER, urgent care clinics and hospitals, keep them at work, and keep everyone's costs down. We built it in-house, thanks to our talented Facilities staff led by Monique Aguilar, Manny Lucero and Jorge Reyes; and we negotiated a great collaborative, thanks to Betsy Keller who heads up our Human Resources Department and Jim Valenti and his team at UMC. The clinic opened two weeks ago. We will be closely monitoring its utilization and the savings to our fund.

There are other collaboratives, such as the Purchasing Alliance led by the City, collaboration between school districts and UMC, and ideas being fleshed out in Human Resources, all intended to save taxpayer money and deal with growing needs and a limited taxbase.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

In case you haven't noticed, collaboration is a theme for us, and something we weave into everything we do.

There are other collaborations that we've initiated that we believe will help provide positive change to El Paso. The EcoTourism project, which we initiated in 2007 when I was a County Commissioner, brought together stakeholders - nature advocates and activists, business people, preservationists and philanthropists - and our mission is to make El Paso an eco-tourism hub, a place where visitors and natives alike can take advantage of our great outdoor assets. We started with a strategic planning session, developed a gorgeous brochure, and thanks to the Convention and Visitors Bureau and a generous donation from philanthropist Dr. Richard Teschner, we now have a great website: www.outdoorelpaso.com.

The next task I intend to bring to the EcoTourism committee will be how we turn our River into the asset it deserves to be. In other communities, rivers add beauty and value. Sadly, in El Paso, we've become used to seeing our river as simply an irrigation canal, as anything but a source of pride. Some of us don't see the river at all, and that is tragic. I'd like our EcoTouristas to take up the challenge and join me in changing that - in making our river (from the county line east to west) an attractive, useable asset that we can all be proud of. We face many powerful obstacles: Different jurisdictions, international issues, a lack of resources and that awful, unsightly wall. It will be a hugely difficult and lengthy task. But anything worthwhile is, and this needs to be a priority. We will do everything we can and involve as many people as possible to make it happen.

We are also big believers in economic development collaboration to build on what is already good. At our request, and with the assistance of the Rio Grande Council of Governments, municipalities within the County of El Paso sat down with Bob Cook from REDCO to chart a course for their future economic development. That work is ongoing and will help each small community evaluate its assets and challenges so they can each come up with their own strategies to promote economic development, move away from poverty and be successful. When they win, we all win.

Believe me, there are plenty of reasons why collaboratives like this could fail; and there are people lined up to tell us about why they should fail; but there's one reason why we need to ensure they are successful: The people of this community deserve good government.

2012 FORECAST

These great successes are helping us deal with some of those fiscal challenges outlined earlier in my speech.

You should know El Paso County is also looking at ways to capture every dime of non-property-taxpayer revenue, and one of the most successful has been the Scofflaw program, led by our Domestic Relations Office, our Information Technology Department, and great work from Victor Flores' Tax Office. Residents with unpaid child support or outstanding misdemeanor court costs and fines are unable to renew their auto registration at our Tax Office until they pay their fees.

The program has been so successful that by the end of the year, after sending the state its cut, El Paso County will net $1 million. We don't anticipate sustaining this kind of fee recovery forever, but it sure is helpful now, and it is regarded as a model by TxDOT and other communities across the state. Once again, El Paso County is leading the way.

There are far too many other great programs, initiatives and outstanding County leaders and professionals to discuss here today. I'm just sorry there was not enough time to mention them all.

And about our budget, although we're not out of the woods and we still have a summer's worth of budget meetings, a state budget that will shift a greater burden to you, the local property taxpayer, and an economy that is in a fragile recovery, your Commissioners Court is working toward no tax increase this year.

And while the theme today was collaboration, the greatest collaboration your County government could participate in is ambitiously planning for a better future. We have public and private sector leaders who understand that decades of divestment, administrations with "no new taxes" at any cost attitudes, and a lack of ambition for our community have all contributed to the problems we face today: a loss of talent and competitiveness. For too long, we allowed our leadership to take us into a race to the bottom because we believed that was all we deserved or we were fooled into thinking that was good for us. Not this El Pasoan, not any of you, and not your Commissioners Court.

El Paso is an amazing community. We have the most loving families, the most gorgeous geography, and dedication and passion for our community all around us. All we have lacked is the will to invest in ourselves and to demand the best. That has changed - with great leadership at the City from courageous council members and our mayor, as well as great leadership at the County from the elected officials and professionals I've mentioned (and not mentioned), and from the private sector as well that is helping turn our economy around.

Our most significant collaboration will be what we will do together - as partners and as a family.

I hope that you're as proud of our county as I am.

It's my absolute honor to be your county judge, and I look forward to updating you again next year on what your great County is doing to build a better El Paso.

The 82nd Texas Regular Session of the Texas Legislature: We don't want a rematch!!

2011-06-01T21:21:00.003-06:00

The session has ended. CLEAT has defeated over 40 bad bills. NONE of the bad bills passed. As you all know this was the worst session that anyone has experienced. I am pleased to report that your chubby CLEAT Navy Seals team is reporting no casualties for the home team.

1. Charley’s Legislative BLOG

2. Bad bill graveyard

3. CLEAT bills on their way to the Governor

Texas law enforcement has not seen a legislative session like we’ve just finished, not ever. As I head into my 18th year at CLEAT I believe it’s in order for me to say thank goodness for an organization that has the values and core principles to stand up and fight and avoid being owned by the politicians. Since 1976 CLEAT has avoided becoming conflicted or otherwise entangled with government money and the politicians who dole it out. Being independent allows an organization to fight. And that’s what we had to do every day and every hour since the session began in January.

Every day was a pitched battle. We’ve never seen such vile attacks on working officer’s rights, authority and retirement. The Public Affairs Team spent the majority of our time on defense. The bad bills just kept coming. From new freshman, from experienced legislators and from both political parties. Some legislators had never thought of the unintended consequences to some of their ideas. But the most devastating attacks came from those who knew exactly what the impact would be and were fully intending to pass bad legislation that hurt you and your family.

The good news is that we prevailed. Some bills we were able to kill outright, turn the tide and get our supporters to vote against them. Others we had to develop a strategy of using the ticking clock and working hard to keep bills stuck somewhere. We worked hard and we were prepared and we were fortunate to have well placed relationships that served you well.

A legislator declared that CLEAT had escaped the 82nd Legislative Session “without having a glove laid on you.” He likes the boxing analogies. I explained that just because you leave the ring on your own power doesn’t mean you weren’t hurt. Thank goodness we can report that none of the bad bills passed. (see page 11). But rest assured we’ve been hurt. Wrong ideas have been planted like seeds and they are likely to spring up again. Battles that should have never been fought had to be won on your behalf this session. There is an ugly wind, aimed at the hardworking officer and it is not likely to subside.

For example, CLEAT had to rush to the aide of the Austin Pension System to help pass a local retirement bill that had support from the local mayor, council, chief, and city manager. HB 1285 was dead on so many occasions that I began to refer to it as a Lazarus bill. Even one session ago it would have passed on the local calendar. The bill just placed into statute the retirement agreement the city and the union had reached during negotiations. There was NO good reason to oppose a local bill, but they did.

CLEAT had to work and strategize behind the scenes to help pass SB 1541 that kept funding for the auto theft task forces across the state. The money was already there—it came from the $1 paid by every auto insurance policy holder in the state. It was just incredible as to the number of meetings and strategy sessions we all participated in to do our part to help keep this funding.

Of course we didn’t get to advance our very positive agenda very far. We had to fight everyday to keep the rights and benefits that you already possess. We accomplished that for you and managed to get some good things done as well. As I look back at the five months that have passed I’m very pleased with our progress on worker’s comp as well as other issues.

Knowing the process the way we do it seems semi-miraculous as to some of the problems we were able to fix. I am personally grateful to Chris Jones and Melinda Griffith of our lobby team. Melinda’s mad organizational skills and Chris’ technical expertise always portray professionalism. And thanks to our families for support for absent spouses and missing dad’s for five months.

The CLEAT board of directors and local presidents always responded when we requested backup and we are grateful for all the officers who took a few moments and contacted their legislators. The legislators have had their time and next comes the campaign cycle and it will be our turn to help educate the voters about how the politicians treated their hometown heroes. It should be fun.

Charley Wilkison

CLEAT BAD BILL GRAVEYARD – RIP –

Below are just a few of the bad bills that CLEAT actively opposed and successfully killed. Many bad bills this session attacked retirements, collective bargaining and officers’ ability to participate politically. There were also bills that proposed civilian oversight, restricted use of tasers and even eliminated TCLEOSE as a state agency. The now ‘dead’ bills listed below are just a few examples of how CLEAT is always looking out for your interests and will never stop fighting for your rights. Although these bills are dead it is likely that we will continue to see these kinds of bills filed until legislators understand there are consequences to their actions.

Unfunded mandate bills

There were several of these bills filed in both the House and Senate by Democrats and Republicans. The consequence would have been local city and county bosses claiming that civil service, collective bargaining, changes to state retirements and more would have been illegal since they would have violated the unfunded mandate law. HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 56 by Representative Burt Solomons, R-Carrollton would have prevented the legislature from requiring a local government from providing a benefit unless funded by the legislature. This bill would have destroyed rights and benefits for officers and their families.

HOUSE BILL 1974 by Representative Kenneth Sheets, R- Dallas would have destroyed all the retirement plans in the state including TMRS and TCDRS and changed them to a 401k. This bill was a direct insult to every working officer in Texas.

HOUSE BILL 2506 by Representative Chisum, R-Pampa would have transitioned the Employee Retirement System (state troopers, games wardens, TABC agents, AG peace officers) and the Teachers Retirement System (university and school district peace officers) to a defined contribution plan. This bill was aimed only at working folks like cops and teachers.

HOUSE BILL 2731 by Representative Vicki Truitt, R-Arlington

Want Washington D.C. out of your life? This bill would have tied your local retirement funds to a federal index of performance. Until your local retirement fund performed to the standards of the bureaucrats in D.C. you couldn’t be paid the retirement that you’ve paid into your entire career. This bill would have created a rule that you’re retirement compensation amount could not exceed 125 percent of the amount of the your compensation for the same period occurring five years earlier. It also required that a pension be based on a corporate bond that is a higher standard than required now and requires that a pension system be funded at 80 percent or higher. All three of the above anti-retirement bills did not seek to reform legislator’s retirements.

HOUSE BILL 2986 by Representative Tan Parker, R-Flower Mound would have prohibited a law enforcement association from spending dues money on political purposes, including lobbying or campaigns. It also prohibited automatic payroll deduction for political funds. IT DID NOT PROHIBIT CORPORATIONS OR POLITICAL SUBDVISIONS FROM SPENDING FUNDS FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES. It would have effectively silenced the voice of law enforcement if passed.

HOUSE BILL 3617 by Representative Jerry Madden R-Richardson would have abolished TCLEOSE and combined the licensing functions into a new agency that would also license and regulate Jails, and Fire Protection. The new agency would not specialize in any of the three functions and would be hard pressed to fund and provide the services to law enforcement currently provided by TCLEOSE. Professionalism and standards would have suffered.

HOUSE BILL 2451 by Representative Zedler, R-Arlington would have prevented an officer from retiring from one agency and drawing their pension and then going to work for another agency covered by a different pension system or plan.

HOUSE BILL 2158 by Representative Coleman, D-Houston would have prohibited the use of a taser by school district peace officers against public school students. ISD officers would have been greatly hampered in their ability to protect other students and teachers during acts of violence.

HOUSE BILL 1470 by Representative Miles, D-Houston would have created a statewide civilian complaint review board to investigate allegations of peace officer misconduct. There are already a system of checks and balances where all officers ultimately answer to elected officials.

HOUSE BILL 1472 by Representative Miles, D-Houston would have required complaints alleging official oppression against officers to remain on file with employing agency even if unfounded or not sustained. It also would make complaints public information even if they were found to be false.

HOUSE BILL 2348 by Representative Larson, R-San Antonio would have removed prisoners in county jails awaiting transfer to state prison from being regulated by the Commission on Jail Standards. These prisoners wouldn't be counted toward minimum staffing requirements even though they are still in the jail.

Senate Bill 642 by Senator Kel Seliger, R-Amarillo would have allowed a city to adopt or drop a COLA without penalty or catch-up in funds.

To read the list of 40-plus bad bills that CLEAT actively opposed and sought to kill during this session please go to www.cleat.org, go to the drop down menu at PUBLIC AFFAIRS and go to Legislative Agenda. CLEAT members should be proud of our defensive tactics and successful efforts in protecting our members and all law enforcement officers from these bad bills.

CLEAT Bills Head to the Governor

In a session where CLEAT Public Affairs team members spent the majority of time defending the benefits and rights enjoyed by peace officers, CLEAT enjoyed some victories on issues benefiting Texas law enforcement officers and their families.

It should not be forgotten, that pensions and pension benefits and your right to freely participate in a union or be involved in the political process were under a full blown assault this session. Though we beat back these attacks at great expense of time and energy, it should not be forgotten that we were just fortunate that we did not suffer any major defeats. Any of the bad proposals that were filed could have broken through at any time and found their way to the Governor’s desk. With that said, our successes this session are listed below.

===============================================================

Workers Compensation for First Responders

(HB 2605 by Rep. Larry Taylor, R-Galveston, and Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Houston)

Link to bill: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=HB02605

HB 2605 was the Texas Workers’ Compensation Sunset Bill. Each year, the legislature is required to review various agencies that are scheduled for “sunset”. If the legislature does not re-enact the enabling legislation for the agency, then the agency would cease to exist. The Worker’s Compensation Division of the Texas Department of Insurance oversees workers compensation in Texas. The Texas Labor Code contains the various statutes that regulate Texas workers compensation. HB 2605 amended many of these provisions in the Labor Code and reauthorized the authority of TDI to oversee workers compensation. CLEAT had legislation filed to address the problems peace officers have encountered when injured in the line of duty. This legislation stalled in the House Committee on State Affairs. The original bill was filed by Rep. Joe Deshotel, D-Beaumont, and Senator Robert Deuell, R-Greenville. However, when the sunset bill moved to the House floor, CLEAT saw an opportunity to try and address this important issue. We prepared a floor amendment and Rep. Deshotel offered it during the debate on the House floor. There were efforts to kill this amendment, which was opposed by the Texas Municipal League and their workers’ compensation insurance risk pool. A motion to table the amendment was defeated by our supporters by a vote of 78-65. The bill then moved to the Senate where Senator Eddie Lucio, D-Brownsville, and Senator Deuell worked to keep the amendment in the bill. CLEAT visited with every member of the Texas Senate and obtained a big victory when Senator Huffman, the Senate sponsor, decided not to oppose the first responder amendment. The bill passed the Senate with changes from the original House bill, so the House had to consider these changes. At first, we were led to believe that the House would concur in the Senate amendments, but without warning they did not and the bill went to a conference committee. CLEAT lobbyists had to scramble over the Memorial Day weekend to ensure that our language remained in the final version of the bill called the conference committee report. We were successful and the Legislature adopted the conference committee report on the last day they were able to do so.

HB 2605 creates Sections 504.054, 504.055, and 504.056 of the Labor Code. These sections provide that first responders, including peace officers, who are seriously injured in the line of duty are entitled to expedited consideration of workers compensation claims. The law will require an employer, the Workers Compensation Division, and workers compensation insurance companies to accelerate and give priority to an injured first responder’s claim for medical benefits, including all health care required to cure or relieve the effects from a compensable injury. The law will also provide that the Workers Compensation Division shall also accelerate contested case hearings or appeals submitted by a first responder regarding a denial of a claim for medical benefits. Because of these new provisions, we believe that much of the red tape associated with these claims will be avoided. It will force the parties to review these cases more closely and make sure officers are getting the care they need, when they need it.

===============================================================

Officer Involved Traffic Accidents

(HB 343 by Rep. Allen Fletcher, R-Tomball, and Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Houston.)

Link to bill: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=HB343

Current law provides that the drivers license record of a peace officer may not include a traffic accident involving the officer “during an emergency”. This language was problematic because “emergency” is not defined in the law. Accidents involving minor damage and no injuries are generally not reported. However, many law enforcement agencies require any accident involving an agency be investigated and that a report be filed. These minor accidents were then turning up on officers drivers license records when the same accident for any citizen would not have. This has caused many officers insurance rates to increase when they should not have. CLEAT sought legislation to fix this. Rep. Allen Fletcher, a retired Houston police officer filed HB 343. The bill passed and if signed will provide a new exemption for officers involved in a traffic accident. The law will provide that an on-duty accident may not be included on an officer’s drivers record if the accident resulted in damages to property less than $1,000, even if the officer was at fault. Also, the law would provide that an on-duty accident in which the officer is not at fault may not be included on the officers’ drivers record regardless of injury or damages.

===============================================================

Austin EMS Civil Service

(HB 554 by Rep. Donna Howard, D-Austin, and Sen. Kirk Watson, D-Austin)

Link to bill: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=HB554

Unique to Austin and Travis County, emergency medical service personnel are not part of the Austin Fire Department. These first responders are employed by the City of Austin, but provide EMS and ambulance service to a large part of Travis County. Since these employees are not part of the fire department, they are not covered by civil service and they are not members of the fire fighter union. They came to CLEAT and sought representation and were given special permission to join. CLEAT has worked with these employees to provide them with the protections and benefits enjoyed by other Austin civil service employees. CLEAT helped them pass legislation granting them meet and confer and this session a bill was filed to include them under state civil service. HB 554 passed and would allow an election to be held for the purpose of granting these employees the same civil service protection as police officers and fire fighters.

===============================================================

Probate Fee Exemption for Surivors Killed in the Line of Duty

(SB 543 by Sen. Glenn Hegar, R-Katy, and Rep. Larry Taylor, R-Galveston)

Link to bill: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=SB00543

Last year, CLEAT met with Galveston County Probate Judge Kimberly Sullivan how had a great idea. She suggested that the family of a peace officer killed in the line of duty should not have to pay the probate fees associated with probating the will and estate of the officer. Thus, SB 543 was born. CLEAT worked with Sen. Hegar and Rep. Taylor to see this bill to the Governor’s desk. Though other organizations have claimed this bill as their own, CLEAT was the only law enforcement organization to sign up and testify for SB 543 when it was considered by the Senate Committee on Jurisprudence. CLEAT also met with Judge Sullivan during the legislative session and went with her to various legislative offices to lobby for passage of this bill.

===============================================================

Escape when Lawfully Detained

(SB 844 by Sen. Dan Patrick, R-, and Rep. Todd Hunter, R-Corpus Christi)

Link to bill: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=SB844

CLEAT discovered appellate court opinion a few years ago that raised the question whether or not a person could be charged with the offense of escape if they escaped when lawfully detained. The court case referred to the “evading arrest or detention” statute and pointed out that the lawfully detained element was not included in the “escape”. For example, if a person is lawfully detained and placed in the back of a police vehicle while the officer conducts an investigation and the officer returns to find that the person has broken out and fled, could the person be charged with escape since the person was not technically “under arrest” for a specific offense at the time. SB 844 addressed this concern by including the “lawfully detained” element into the escape statute. The bill also clarified that a person could be charged with escape if the escape from a “law enforcement facility” that may or may not be a “secure correctional facility” which is currently in the law. This bill ran into numerous road blocks from defense lawyers and civil liberty organizations throughout the session, but we were able to craft a bill that addressed some concerns and this bill passed during the last week of the session.

===============================================================

Peace Officers Working Extra Jobs for Private Security Companies

(SB 1600 by Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, and Rep. Phil King, R-Weatherford)

After the start of the session, CLEAT learned of a problem in Arlington involving officers working extra employment at Dallas Cowboys and Texas Rangers games. These officers were being required to register with the Private Security Board because they were technically employed by a private security company. These employees were being paid by a subsidiary company of the Cowboys or Rangers that employed all of the event staff, including private security officers that work these events. These companies had to be licensed as security companies since they employ security staff. Current law did not include an exemption for officers employed by security companies. This same problem existed in Houston and Senator Whitmire filed SB 1600 to address it. CLEAT worked with Senator Whitmire and testified about the problem in Arlington during the committee hearing. The bill passed, and if signed will make it clear that these officers are exempt from the Private Security Act.

===============================================================

Pension Information Tracking for School District and University Peace Officers

(SB 1671 by Sen. Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock, and Rep. Vicki Truitt, R-Keller)

Link to bill: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=SB1671

CLEAT has worked for the last several session to try improve pension benefits for officers working for universities and school districts who are members of the Teachers Retirement System (TRS). They are not included in the 20-year law enforcement retirement fund currently in the Employee Retirement System of Texas. One of the road blocks associated with trying to seek change was the fact that the TRS does not keep records identifying which members of the system are peace officers. Because of this, TRS is unable to accurately determine the fiscal impact of changing these officers retirement or moving them into the ERS fund. Senator Eddie Lucio, D-Brownsville, filed SB 464 which would have required that TRS track this information. At the request of Senator Lucio, this requirement was added into an omnibus TRS bill, SB 1671. SB 1671 passed and was sent to the Governor.

===============================================================

Bill Already Signed

Survivor Health Care Clarification and Death Benefit Filings

(SB 423 by Sen. Eddie Lucio, D-Brownsville, and Rep. Jose Menendez, D-San Antonio)

Link to bill: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=SB423

Several bills have been passed in the past to provide health insurance for the families of officers killed in the line of duty. SB 872 was passed last session that clarified the families were entitled to insurance at the same premium rate paid by active employees. It provided that families could re-apply for insurance coverage, however some employers refused to allow families to re-apply if they were not on the employer’s insurance plan at the time of death. Some spouses were on their own employer’s insurance instead of the officers. SB 423 was filed to further clarify that the families could apply for coverage if they were eligible for coverage at the time of death, even if they were not on the plan at the time. The bill also provided another opportunity for survivors to re-apply for coverage, until September 1, 2012. As this bill moved the process, we discovered another problems. We were advised of a case out of Harris County where the sheriff’s department failed to file for the state death benefit for the survivors of a deputy killed in the line of duty and that the state was now denying payment. We discovered that the law did not make it clear that the employing agency was responsible for filing the death benefit. Trying to file for death benefits is the last thing a surviving spouse or family has on their mind when these tragedies occur. CLEAT prepared an amendment to SB 423 to make it clear that the department must file the claim. The amendment also allows a survivor who did not receive death benefits because the claim was not timely filed to re-apply for death benefits until September 30, 2011. This bill passed and was signed by the Governor on May 12, 2011. It took effect immediately.

===============================================================

Charley Wilkison

Director of Public Affairs

CLEAT/POMF

St Pius X Special Needs Group Donation!!

2011-05-23T18:59:00.004-06:00

On Sunday 05-22-2011 Deputy Louie Silva and Detention Officer Eulogio Munoz attended a Mass and Awards ceremony at St Pius X Catholic Church in honor of the St Pius X Special Needs Group. While at the Awards ceremony, they presented the Special Needs Group with a check for $2,500.00 donated to the athletes who were going to participate at this years Special Olympics in Arlington, Texas. Pastor Arturo Banuelos and Special Needs group Director Richard Couder were overjoyed with the donation and expressed their gratitude to the members of the El Paso County Sheriff's Officers Association. They requested the membership be thanked on behalf of the Church and the Special Needs group.

The Board would also like to thank the membership for their support with the Raffle fundraiser which provided the money to make this donation. With the memberships support, the EPCSOA will be able to make similar contributions in the future to needy organizations in our community. Congratulations to you all for your hard work and unselfish support for others. If you would like to be personally involved in future charitable functions please contact one of the board members so you can be added to a call list for future events.

DETENTION OFFICER JUAN PEREZ

2011-05-20T21:41:00.002-06:00

On March 18 2011, at about 0015 hours an exercise was conducted at the downtown jail. The exercise consisted of a simulated attack of the jail by armed assailants. The assailants were played by the Sheriff's Office Strike Team. Officer Perez, Juan was the information officer. Perez's sidearm was replaced with a blank pistol. Once Officer Perez realized that the security of the facility was in jeopardy, he took action by jumping over the counter behind the information desk, low-crawled around the info desk remaining under the cover of the info desk. Using the info desk as cover, Perez waited for the assailants to attack. The assailants came in the front door. Officer Perez discharged his firearm and shot both assailants, therefore eliminating the threat of the security of the facility. Although the exercise continued, Officer Perez was more than prepared to maintain the security of the facility. Job well done Officer Perez.

Brian Houston
Director

Govenor Perry Signs SB 423 into Law!!

2011-05-17T18:55:00.004-06:00

On January 27, 2011 Senator Eddie Lucio Jr. (D) Brownsville introduced Senate Bill 423 (Relating to health insurance coverage and financial assistance for eligible survivors of certain public servants killed in the line of duty) which he authored into the Texas Senate. This bill was Coauthored by Senator Glenn Heger Jr. (R) Katy, Senator Leticia Van De Putte (D) San Antonio, and sponsored by Representative Jose Mendez (D) San Antonio. Today we are proud to report that on May 12, 2011, Govenor Rick Perry Signed SB 423 into law effective immediately!!!

To read the Bill and view the process in which it was introduced and processed through the State Senate and House of Representatives... CLICK HERE!!!

Charities Raffle Winners

2011-05-11T20:28:00.000-06:00

The EPCSOA would like to thank everyone who supported our effort to raise money through our weapons raffle. The money raised will be given directly to various local charities throughout the year. The prize winners this year were:

1st Prize - DPMS .223 Caliber AR-15 went to Marcos Chavez

2nd Prize - Cash option $400.00 went to Cpl. Gordon Sanchez

3rd Prize - Remington 870 Tactical Shotgun went to Leticia Martinez

Once again Thank You all for your support!!!