Police union opposes charter change
Indicted city officials could receive no public funds if proposal passes
Print- •
- •
-
9 Comments
- •
Favorite- •
-
Report error
-
Thank you for your submission.Error report or correction
- Close
-
- •
A police union is challenging a proposed amendment to Victoria's city charter, saying the change would be detrimental to officers and taxpayers.
"As it reads now, we recommend they vote against the proposed amendment," said Darlene Lanham with the Texas Municipal Police Association.
The Citizens for Responsible Government has proposed that voters approve eight amendments to the city charter. One would prevent the city council from spending money on behalf of any current or former indicted city official unless approved by voters.
Russell Pruitt, with the citizens group, said a city official is an elected official or a member of management. Rank-and-file employees would not be included in that definition, he said.
The police union disagrees.
"We're reading that to mean that police officers would be counted as public officials and that they would be, at some point, terminated if they were indicted for a felony," Lanham said. "They wouldn't be able to draw their salary or get their medical benefits or retirement."
If the voters approve the amendment, it could have financial and public safety impacts, she said.
The financial impact would be from lawsuits by officers who are terminated, especially if they are found not guilty. It would impact public safety because officers may not want to work in a city with that policy, Lanham said.
The union represents about 80 of Victoria's police officers and they were so concerned about the proposed change they contacted the association, she said.
Pruitt said he thinks this is a tactic to attack his group's charter proposals.
"Of course they are taking the worst-case scenario," he said. "That's going to be their approach to try and keep the charter amendments from passing."
It is not the group's intent to keep the city council from providing funding for the legal defense of indicted rank-and-file employees, although the city has never done that anyway, Pruitt said.
"We feel like common sense should prevail," he said. "If any one of our charter amendments is going to pass, it's this one."
That's because the public was outraged when the council agreed to help fund the legal defense of the mayor, former city attorney, police chief and a police officer when they were indicted last year, he said.
Mayor Will Armstrong said he agrees with the police union's interpretation.
"Basically we're telling our police department, our fire department and our public officials that we're not going to pay them anything, including salary," he said. "I believe the police association is very concerned about the relationship that could develop between the police department and city if that charter provision proposed by the citizens group is adopted."
Lanham said the union will continue to track the proposal and actively campaign against it.
"Our concern is to promote professionalism in law enforcement through education and representation," she said. "This is just one way we look out for our members' interest."
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
All powers and authority which are expressly or impliedly granted to or possessed by the City of Victoria shall be vested in and exercised by the City Council, but the City Council shall have no power to:(d) Appropriate ...
- SHOW ALL »
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
All powers and authority which are expressly or impliedly granted to or possessed by the City of Victoria shall be vested in and exercised by the City Council, but the City Council shall have no power to:(d) Appropriate or expend any public funds for or on behalf of any current or former indicted Victoria city officials unless approved by a vote of the people.
Print- •
- •
-
9 Comments
- •
Favorite- •
-
Report error
-
Thank you for your submission.Error report or correction
- Close
-
- •


Comments
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY should not be protected by the tax payer for CITY OFFICIALS who COMMITT CRIMINAL ACTS.
January 24, 2009 at 4:23 a.m.Period.Civil matters in this suit-crazy society is another matter.
Mr. Blue apparently does not understand the difference.
This Charter Group of what appears to be just a select few disgruntled individuals and you Mr. N4 don't quite understand the moral and possibly legal obligations a city has to it's employees. I'll educate you gladly. If a city employee is indicted while conducting their job and is acting within the scope of their duties, ie. the City Attorney, Police Officer, and Police Chief then the city or anyone else for that matter, under any circumstances, couldn't possibly suggest that the city has no obligation to cover their legal expenses? Are you absolutely joking when you suggested otherwise? Just gotta be kidding. What are you thinking? Why would this even be a question? I am a tax payer, and I am not concerned one bit about a police officer who receives legal assistance for an indictment while working in the scope of his employment for said city. You have to cover him? Why wouldn't you? Any normal city of any substantial size with a Police Department wouldn't even entertain your asinine suggestion not to cover the employee? Chief or line troops.
January 23, 2009 at 11:19 p.m.You guys crack me up! Where in the heck do you pull this nonsense from? Pruitt and his bunch couldn't have possibly given this any thought. There is no way you could convince the majority of this city otherwise. Talk about small town mentality. This place absolutely makes me laugh. It is dang near better than the comedy channel every time I open the paper.
This is not a new issue for cities. "News flash" : Police get indicted more than you realize. It is not unusual. It is just the cost of doing business as a city government. Cities are generally prepared with a large legal defense fund. It kind of goes unsaid, and is a common standard with most every city. You kind of have to expect that Police Officers are going to get sued and possibly indicted. It happens. It's part of the business. Your charter proposal was ill prepared and has no validity and certainly wasn't well thought out. I don't know an attorney one who would agree with that garbage proposal. Not even really a good attempt. Bungled and just plain ridiculous.
Sorry for the misquote. However, my point was that it doesn't say "elected City Officials". Any employee, police officer could be considered a "city official".
January 22, 2009 at 6:49 p.m.The proposed amendment says "public officials." There isn't a definition of that term. If the citizens group meant only the "elected" officials, they should have said that. Mr. Pruitt can't even conceed that there might be a valid point here or that this may be something they inadvertanly overlooked. That seems kind of arrogant to me. Where were these "concerned citizen" guys when VISD hired an indicted principal? I never read of their disgust over that. Mr. Pruitt obviously has some sort of ax to grind with the city.
January 22, 2009 at 5:56 p.m.