Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-05-03 Special Meeting CITY OF GRAPEVINE AGENDA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, MAY 3, 1976 AT 7: 30 P. M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 413 MAIN I. CALL TO ORDER II. INVOCATION: Councilman David Florence III. Consideration of the Council Committee report evaluating the Police Department. IV. Reconsideration of Council action to form a citizen' s committee relative to the City Manager' s termination of the Chief of Police. V. Consideration of the City Manager' s decision to remove the Chief of Police from office pursuant to the City Charter. IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 6252-17 V.A.T.C.S. AS AMENDED BY CHAPTER 227, ACTS OF THE 61ST LEGISLATURE, REGULAR SESSION, THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA WAS PREPARED AND POSTED ON THIS THE 30TH DAY OF APRIL, 1976 AT 10:45 A.M. City Sec t y STATE OF TEXAS X COUNTY OF TARRANT X CITY OF GRAPEVINE X The City Council of the City of Grapevine, Texas convened in special session at 7:30 P.M. on this the 3rd day of May, 1976 with the following members present to-wit: William D. Tate Mayor Doil Dalton Councilman Thelma Conine Councilwoman Larry Oliver Councilman Willis Pirkle Councilman David Florence Councilman Charles Dunn Councilman constituting a quorum with Floy T. Ezell City Manager Jim Hancock Assistant City Manager Shirley Armstrong City Secretary John Boyle City Attorney Mayor Tate called the meeting to order. The Invocation was given by Councilman David Florence. The first order of business was consideration of the Council Committee report evaluating the Police Department. Mayor Tate asked City Secretary, Shirley Armstrong, to read said report. (See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof i to the minutes of the City Council meeting of May 3, 1976. ) Councilman Dunn asked Mayor Tate if Mr. Butcher and/or Mr. Lilly had been given a copy of the report prior to it being read. Mayor Tate then asked the City Attorney if he had mailed Mr. Butcher a copy of the report. The City Attorney answered that he had not. Mayor Tate then commented that it was his under- standing that Mr. Butcher would be provided a copy of the report prior to the meeting. Councilman Dunn referred to page four, item A-3, of the report which reads as follows: "The starting pay scale of the officers may have lagged behind other departments a great deal of the time, but the merit system for raises gives an officer a greater potential and incentive to do a better job. " Councilman Dunn asked if "other departments" referred to other police departments within our area or other departments within the city. Mayor Tate answered that the referral was to area police departments, not other departments within the city. Mayor Tate then stated that it was his understanding from Mr. Lilly that the City of Grapevine had dropped to about 16th on the starting pay scales within the metroplex. Mayor Tate stated that in all due respect to Mr. Lilly, he was not, on the meetings of October 13 and November 4, enumerated all of the findings of the committee. He continued by saying that Mr. Lilly was told that there were several problems which existed. He stated that Mr. Lilly was told that the committee did not feel like, at the time, that it was in a position to outline all of the findings of that department or all of the problems of that department; but that the committee was con- cerned as to the efficiency, attitudes, and other matters of that department. The Mayor further stated that Mr. Lilly was told that as the Chief of Police he was knowlegable, or should be knowlegable, of administration in that department and that he should make an effort to identify those problems and to correct them. Mayor Tate continued by saying that the committee did not ask Mr. Lilly to dismiss any employees, but that he, as the chief, was being required to make some improvements in that department and if he did not, he would be held personally responsible. The Mayor continued by saying, that he could not say that the com- mittee outlined all of the specifics at that time. Councilman Pirkle stated that he felt the report was a very good one and that he would like to commend the committee. He continued by saying that the report bears out some of the things that he had observed in the Police Department in prior years. Councilwoman Conine made a motion to accept and approve the report of the Council Committee evaluating the Police Depart- ment. The motion was seconded by Councilman Florence and prevailed by the following vote: Ayes : Tate, Conine, Florence, Oliver, Dalton,Pirkle, & Dunn Nays : None The next order of business was reconsideration of Council action to form a citizen' s committee relative to the City Manager' s termination of the Chief of Police. Mayor Tate stated that the City Attorney received today (May 3, 1976) at 9:25 A.M. a telegram from Mr. Lilly' s attorney, Mr. Butcher, which read as follows: "As attorney for James Lilly you are hereby advised that the two selected to represent Mr. Lilly on the citizen' s committee are R. W. Shirley; 1358 Tipparary Drive; Grape- vine, Texas 76051 and Denny Preissinger; 1901 Dove Loop; No. 1001; Grapevine, Texas 76051. " Mayor Tate then asked Mr. Butcher if he or Mr. Lilly would like to make a statement into the record as to the recon- sideration of the Council' s action on the citizen' s committee. Mr. Butcher acknowledged that he had no statement to make until after the council made their statements. Mayor Tate stated that initially he voted for the citizen' s committee primarily because he felt like it could have been a proper conduit for providing factual information to the community as to the administration in the Police Department. He continued by saying that his vote was made with the feeling that the committee could, and would, act in a constructive manner and would and could provide additional information- to supplement the investigation made by the Council. He acknow- ledged that based upon what had happened within the past four P d pk k gB 4 weeks, and based upon the fact that each mamber of the Council had an opportunity to consider that, and any other alternative z solution to the problem, that the item was placed back on the agenda for reconsideration. Councilman Oliver stated that he had made the motion to form the committee and that he still did not disagree with what he had said previously. He continued by referring to page 86 of the court report of the April 6 meeting in which Mr. Butcher f had stated that; "No. 1 - This meeting be continued for 30 to 40 days depending on the time element necessary; No. 2 - That I (Mr. Butcher) and Mr. Lilly appoint two disinterested citizens of the City of Grapevine and that the City Council appoint two disinterested citizens, " etc. Councilman Oliver z then referred to page 79 of the same report at which point Mr. Shirley was quoted as saying that; "Standing outside the door listening over the speaker, frankly I was embarrassed for the Council and almost ashamed because it sounded like a kangaroo court you' re operating here. " Councilman Oliver continued by stating that his interpretation of the word "disinterested" means lack of interest and not being biased or prejudiced. He acknowledged that he did not feel Mr. Shirley was a disinterested citizen. Councilman Dunn commented that if he recalled the report correctly, the Council only allowed 30 to 40 days not only for the appointing of the committee, but for the completion of the report back to the Council. He acknowledged that notification from Mr. Butcher of the two commettee members had f only been received recently. The City Attorney stated that said telegram was received at 9:30 A.M. on Monday, May 3, 1976. He further commented that Mr. Butcher had told him Friday, (April 30) that the telegram was being sent. He stated that the notice apparently came to his office sometime late Friday afternoon. He acknowledged E that the telegram had been mailed Friday morning. Mayor Tate asked City Manager, Floy Ezell if he had talked with the Criminal Justice Council and if they were in a position to come in and help the city assess the personal physical needs of the police department. Mr. Ezell answered that he had been advised that the Criminal Justice Council would send a team up for a preliminary investigation. Mayor Tate asked what the plans were to proceed on the matter. Mr. Ezell stated that they hoped to proceed within two weeks. Councilman Oliver made a motion torecend the prior action of { the City Council concerning the formation of a citizens com- mittee. The motion was seconded by Councilman Pirkle. x Mayor Tate then stated that he would vote in favor of that motion primarily because he did not feel that a citizen' s committee would be in a position to obtain any additional in- formation under the atmosphere that now exists. He continued by saying that he had talked with several witnesses and that ` they had indicated that they are not willing to testify further before a committee. He stated that he did not think it would be fair to the Police Department in that they had already testified before the Council Committee. He continued by saying that the evaluation had been conducted over a period of several r f months and that he did not feel that it would be fair to members of that department to put them through an additional evaluation. He further stated that he felt the City was primarily talking about administrative reasons and that the Council, the City Manager and the City Staff are in a better position to observe, perceive, and understand the relationship that has existed between Mr. Lilly and the governing body and what has actually transpired. Mayor Tate further stated that he felt it would be very difficult for a citizens committee to obtain that type of perception and understanding. He continued by saying that he felt there were adequate reasons in the report to support the action of the City Manager. He stated that Mr. McLain was the acting chief and had done various things without prompting or instructions from the City Manager to help alleviate some of the problems that exist. He further stated that this has lead him to believe that Mr. McLain had the insight to observe these things himself. Mayor Tate further stated that he felt the evidence, that there was no control over the evidence that was taken from prisoners; no attempt to maintain control over stolen property that was recovered, was a serious breakdown in the procedure in the department. He continued by saying that Mr. McLain has instituted an evidence receipt program along with an evidence log, a custodian of evidence has been appointed, and a training officer has been appointed. Mayor Tate stated also that another major problem in the department was that many of the citizens complaints and many of the problems and attitudes that exist in that department have been because the department did not have an adequate training program. He continued by saying that evne with the money budgeted in that department, the city has not availed itself of various seminars. He stated that he felt any professional person had to continue to update infor- mation, to discuss proper procedures, and the way of handling various things. He continued by saying that Mr. McLain had appointed a training officer and that each officer would receive at least fifty minutes of in-service training per week. Mayor Tate further stated that a Career Development Committee has been appointed to direct the training of each officer to- ward the goal that he has set for himself in his police career. He further stated that a firearms training committee has been formulated for the purpose of formulating a firearms training program. He continued by saying that he felt that it was very important for the protection of each patrolman as well as others, that the officer be required to practice regularly with his fire- arms so that he will build confidence in himself and the weapon. Mayor Tate further stated that new policies had also been installed for preliminary investigation by the patrolman. He continued to say that he felt there had been a tremendous increase in the attitudes and the efficiency in that department. He further commented that Mr. McLain is continuing to improve the efficiency of the Police Department. He also stated that he felt the in- formation the city will receive from the Criminal Justice Council will aid Grapevine to actually determine the needs of the Police Department and to insure to the public that the City is actually providing proper and adequate police protection to the community. Councilman Dalton commented that he agreed with those remarks in as much as he could see that it would be of absolutely no service or value to the citizens of Grapevine to continue the investiga- tion after seven months and about 35 hours that the committee had put into the matter. fi i d t Mayor Tate then called for a vote stating that a motion and a second had already been made. The motion prevailed by the following vote: ; Ayes : Tate, Conine, Florence, Oliver, Dalton, Pirkle, & Dunn r } Nays : None The next order of business was consideration of the City Manager ' s decision to remove the Chief of Police from office pursuant to the City Charter. Councilman Dunn stated that he felt it would be well for the people in the audience to understand that the meeting was not a Public Hearing and that the Council would not hear any testimony. He continued to state that if Mr. Lilly or Mr. Butcher wanted to make a statement that that would be in order, but otherwise the agenda items were for the Council' s consideration. A member of the audience, Mr. Boswell asked if the meeting in progress was a continuation of the April 6th meeting. Mayor Tate answered that it was not. Councilman Dunn stated that he felt there were two basic issues involved with the decision being considered. First, he stated that the City Council was elected and is entrusted by the people to govern and to make the best decision possible with the information at hand. The second item, he stated, was, who is administratively in charge of the affairs of the city? He commented that he felt like most of the people and the Council realized that the City Manager is the administrative head of the city. He continued by saying that the City Manager has to evaluate various personnel, primarily department heads, 3 and issue orders and directives. Councilman Dunn further stated that the question is not whether or not anyone agrees with these directives, but that they are to be carried out. x He commented that he felt there are proper avenues for getting, not only decisions by the city manager, but decisions by the ' City Council changed or altered if the department head feels that it would better his department. The City Council has been made aware of the committee' s report. He commented that not all of the information gathered by the committee can or should be made available to the citizens primarily because it involves personnel and people' s civil rights. Councilman Dunn further stated that the items that were brought out during this } meeting were not intended to be specific but rather to be examples of the problems that existed. He commented that he felt it was pertinent that the chief, according to the report of the committee, was made aware of the existing problems and indicated that he ` understood and would take care of them, but he did not. He further commented that they were not at issue over whether or not Mr. Lilly was a good police officer, but rather were talk- ing about administrative issues. He stated that it was Mr. Ezell' s responsibility to weigh or evaluate the quality of a person in a department head operation. He continued by saying { that when the pluses of a person' s performance out weigh the z negatives, then everything goes well and improvements are made; but, when the problems begin to outweigh the pluses then a time § { comes when changes have to be made. He commented that it is Mr. Ezell' s responsibility to make these changes and to make recommendations to the Council. He stated that the people of S z the community have had an oppurtunity to hear what the Council Committee had to say and they are having an opportunity to hear what the Council has to say. He further stated that based on the committee report and what he had been able to observe, there are problems that exist in the Police Department, that the police chief was made aware of the problems, and that changes were not made. Councilman Dunn concluded by stating that it was his opinion that the Council has no alternative but to approve the actions of the City Manager with regard to the Police Chief. Councilman Dunn then made a motion that the Council approve the actions of Mr. Ezell in the termination of Mr. Lilly. The motion was seconded by Councilman Pirkle. Councilman Florence stated that he felt like even though he was new on the Council, that he had been able to remain impartial and as fair as possible throughout the entire matter. He commented that he felt it was in the best interest of the City to approve the action of the City Manager. Councilman Dalton commented that he would like to emphasize the fact that it is not always popular to be a member of a policy making body and that it is always easier to follow the line of least resistance. He stated that he takes his job as a City Councilman very seriously and that he feels like he was elected to help manage the office of this City and to act in a manner to protect and safeguard the rights of all citizens. He further commented that he feels that it is his responsibility as a member of the Council to be conser- vative and to spend every tax dollar or every revenue dollar as wisely as possible. He stated that to do this, we must have efficiency in every department and continued to say that he had just as much pride in one department as another. He stated that he had always felt that he was a close friend of Chief Lilly and his wife as well, and that it had hurt him to be a part of this; but continued to say that he still felt that he would not be doing his job, or what the people of the City elected him to do if he did not do what he thought was best for the Police Department as well as the other departments in the City. He concluded by saying that, therefore, he was in concurrance with the recommendation of the City Manager and would be in favor of the motion that had been made. Mayor Tate then stated that it was obvious to everyone concerned that the money being spent in the Police Department is a large portion of the City budget and the tax dollar that each indivi- dual citizen is paying. He commented that he feels there is an emphasis this day and time on effeciency in city government and that there is a requirement that city government be responsive and efficient. He stated that he feels that the City of Grape- vine has been very fortunate the last couple of years to have more money than ever before. He commented that he feels it behoves the Council to have the opportunity to evaluate, not only this department, but other departments from time to time. He stated that he thought what was at issue was whether a City Council has the right to evaluate any department, question their efficiency, and demand improvements in that department, and whether the City Manager has a right to dismiss a city employee if he is not doing the job that he was hired to do. He stated that he did not think that any member of the Council questiones that Mr. Lilly is a good man or a good police officer, but rather if he is a good administrator. The Mayor further stated that he feels if there are other people in the department who can do a better job that they should not be held back but rather have an opportunity to advance in that department. He stated that he has the interest of the people of the community and the members of the Police Department at heart and that he would continue to do whatever he could to save and spend the tax dollar efficiently and to make the members who work for this city government happy, adequately paid, and properly equiped. He further commented that he knows that being efficient and taking drastic action is not a popular move, but if he can k not do what he feels is right, and if he feels that he could be intimidated or act for other reasons, then he would not be fulfilling his job. He concluded by stating that he felt like he had no choice but to support the City Manager in his decision. s Councilman Pirkle stated that he had been associated with this city government for many years and that he had tried to do his best to see that it is run as efficiently as possible. Be- cause of this, he commented, he would have to support the City Manager in this decision. Councilman Oliver stated that he had not been associated with the City for very many years but because of the information made available to him he had no choice but to also go along with the City Manager' s recommendation. Councilwoman Conine stated that the Council was elected by the people of the City to uphold the law. She added that they in turn hired Mr. Ezell to do the job and if he didn' t, then the Council could dismiss him. Mrs. Conine then stated that she r would have to go along with Mr. Ezell in the firing of the a Police Chief. t Mayor Tate then reminded the Council that a motion had been made and seconded. He then called for a vote and the motion prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Tate, Conine, Florence, Oliver, Dalton, Pirkle, & Dunn Nays : None R Mr. Butcher, attorney for Mr. Lilly then asked to make a state- ment. He commented that to answer Mr. Dunn' s question, the handling of the committee report was the same procedure used to handle the previous meeting. He stated that to answer Mr. Oliver' s question, he (Mr. Butcher) had the right to select two citizens, and that he did not back up on it, but that he selected two citizens . He further commented that he was appalled at the City Council. He stated that the- Council members had their minds made up last month, but that they didn' t have the courage to vote. Mr. Butcher further commented that Mr. Lilly had nothing to say to the Council at this time, that he (Mr. Butcher) had only Mr. Lilly' s interest in mind. There was no further discussion. There being no further business, Councilman Pirkle made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Councilman Dalton and all present voted aye. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of � 1976 C r + I Mayor x i City Secre ary REPORT OF COUNCIL COMMITTEE EVALUATING GRAPEVINE POLICE DEPT. I . PURPOSE Last August the City Council authorized the appointment of a three-member committee to evaluate the attitudes , responsi- bilities and performance of the Grapevine Police Department based upon four general factors : A. First , approximately 52% of the Cityrs tax dollar E for the 1974-75 fiscal year was being spent for r police protection. In terms of total dollars spent the budget increased by 175%, or from $147,000 in 1970-71 to $404,823 in 1974-75 at a time when our population increased by only an estimated 1 ,387 people. It is self evident that the Council must rely and does rely a great deal on the expertise of r its department heads and their recommendations in budgeting for the physical needs of the community. In the fall of 1973 , Chief Lilly requested some 18 addi- tional employees for a total of 38, as a result of the projected increased traffic coming to and from D/FW Airport and the nearby annexed Lake area. The Council, after considering this request, authorized three additional employees , for a total of 23. In the middle of that fiscal year, Chief Lilly re- quested an additional four more employees and was given an additional two men for a total of 25 employees. It is true that a portion of the Lake was annexed and the D/FW Airport opened during this period, but we do not have primary responsibility for patroling the Air- port , in that they have their own security force, and we did not annex the Lake area to assume full responsibi- -2- lity for policing the area, but to have jurisdic- tion to assist other law enforcement agencies. Several members of the Council began to question the reliability of the recommendations of the Chief of Police and the benefits received from the in- creased spending, and felt the Council had a pro- prietary right to question the efficiency of that department. B. Secondly, the City received a grant in 1973 for a survey of the Police Department, which survey was compiled by the Field Operation Division of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. The survey pointed out many areas of strengths and weaknesses as they existed in the Police Department at that time. For example, the survey revealed that major crime in the City of Grapevine had increased at a slower rate than at the national and state levels, but at the same time revealed that the percentage of crimes cleared by arrest by our department was considerably less than the national and state levels. The survey made numerous recommendations and we were interested to know if the survey had been beneficial to the department. C. Thirdly, there were growing signs of increasing contempt by the Police Department against the City government and the refusal of the Chief to cooperate with the City Manager and other department heads in policies established by the Council or the City staff.- D. Fourthly, complaints from citizens of police abuse had greatly increased, as well as requested explana- tions for why multiple squad cars were needed to be involved in routine traffic matters and accident investigations. -3- II. MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE AND SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION The Committee was chaired by the Mayor and included Mayor Pro-Tem Dalton and Councilman Oliver. Several members of the department were interviewed during the investigation, including the Chief, Assistant Chief, Detective, Sergeants, several patrolmen, dispatchers, Public Accountants, and other department heads. The members of the Committee met for over thirty hours in joint sessions and made additional inquiries in accordance with each member's interest and personal schedule. We found most members of the department to appear uneasy by our inquiry and were reluctant to be critical of the policies and pro- cedures of the department. The department, from the start, seemed resentful of the Council's efforts to make such an evaluation. The Committee met with Chief Lilly on two different occasions. The first on October 13th and the second on November 4, 1975. During these meetings with the Chief, he seemed to be unknowledgeable of many of the problems which the Committee made him aware existed in the department and which he agreed to resolve. In addition he was unresponsive to any suggested reduction in the number of patrolmen and indicated that actually he needed more; and that he knew no way to be more efficient in his department. It was made clear to him that he would be held responsible if improvement in his department was not made. By mid-March, it became apparent to the Committee that improvements were not being made and that a further inquiry should be made. Because of Councilman Oliver's schedule, he was only able to meet with the Committee after 3:00 o 'clock in the afternoon, which had caused some difficulties in scheduling during the previous hearings . After discussion with Councilman Oliver, it was decided that he would be replaced on the Committee by Councilman Pirkle and that he would file his written report to the Committee. -4- i Upon rechecking, we found that the attitudes in the department had deteriorated rather than improved because the feeling in the department was that the committee had been unable to find anything wrong in the department. Based upon fi this information, the original Committee met and felt that it should make its report to the Council at that time, be- cause a further investigation would not serve any further purpose, since we had failed by our inquiries to gain the attention of the Chief in improving our law enforcement program. Councilman Pirkle, as a member of the Council and as former Mayor, has personal knowledge of some of the problems that exist in that department. The evaluation was ended without further investigation however, and therefore, he is not a signer to this report. mom III . FINDINGS The Committee is of the opinion that the following factors exist in the Police Department: A. Favorable Factors: 1. The crime rate has remained behind the state and national averages for many years. 2. The house check program is an excellent community service and should be continued. 3. The starting pay scale of the officers may have lagged behind other departments a great deal of the time, but the merit system for raises gives an officer a greater potential and incentive to do a better job. 4. We have many good officers who form the nucleus for an excellent department, and have received many compliments on their. courtesies in dealing with the general public. 5. The new microfilming equipment, INCOTERN System will themselves greatly increase the effectiveness of law enforcement in our community. 1 -5- B. Unfavorable Factors: 1. That there were approximately 1 ,000 citations that had not been properly prepared by the Police Department for prosecution in the Municipal Court. 2. There had not been sincere attempts made to collect outstanding warrants and the Chief had not availed himself of all available means of providing lists of outstanding warrants to other law enforcement agencies. 3. That the number of officers and personnel and the money budgeted in the department far ex- ceeded the average of cities of comparable size in our area. 4. That items of evidence and other personal property taken from suspects and recovered stolen merchandise are not properly in- ventoried or accounted for. 5. That there are basically no in-service train- ing programs within the department. 6. That there are no requirements that the officers practice regularly with their fire arms, and no records maintained of their skill of proficiency. 7. That the day shift had three supervisors on duty at the same time, including the Chief, Assistant Chief and Detective, leaving only one Sergeant on duty to supervise each addi- tional shift. 8. The percentage of personnel are not assigned in accordance with workload needs. For example, during the summer months when traffic is at its highest level, we had difficulty keeping more than 2 of our 5 patrol cars on the street, because of the scheduling of vacations and days off. 9. The Chief did not willingly seek the advise of the City Attorney. 10. There was generally no set procedure for prop- erly explaining new city ordinances and how they should be enforced, except posting a copy on the bulletin board. 11. We questioned whether the written policies of the department are updated on a regular basis. 12. Competition among Sergeants became embittered which affected the morale and effectiveness of the patrolmen. 13. There appeared to be an inconsistency in charges filed against individual defendants. 14. Officers were setting non-established fines without approval of the Municipal Judge. 9:. 3 -6- 15. The Chief failed to cooperate with Depart- ment of Revenue in setting up new procedures on tickets and warrants. For example, The City Director of Revenue spent 3 days in Dallas investigating their processing of tickets and warrants. He then developed a proposal for a new system in Grapevine. When this proposal was submitted to the Chief, he stated that he did not have time to fool with the matter. 16. The Chiefs failure to abide by the personnel policies in hiring new officers. For example, Rather than following the procedure set up by the Personnel Director and City Manager, to review all applicants, the Chief often would send an applicant to the Personnel Director with a written recommendation for hiring and the understanding on the part of the applicant that he had in fact been hired. 17. The Chief did not encourage his men to attend Municipal Court hearings in which they were involved and did not appear himself to observe their performance. 18. Too much of the investigative work was being passed on to the Detective, that could and should be done by other officers. 19. Many reports were not being properly filled out. 20. There was some information that the radio log and other records had been altered. 21. The Chief was not frank when written reports were requested by the City Manager, and it appeared that the Chief was too defensive. 22. The Chief and a majority of the men in his department feels that the City government has no proprietary interest in the department. That the City Council should run the City Hall and he should run the police station. 23. The right of arrest is an extreme power and though we did not attempt to investigate the merits of individual complaints there was a distinct impression that too many people were being arrested unnecessarily, when a ticket would have sufficed. We believe that police powers were being used excessively, such as repeated driver's license checks of youthful citizens , and out of town visitors and that some officers were too rough in their handling of prisoners. R -7- IV RECOMMENDATIONS We agree that politics should stay out of the Police Department , but by the same token that department, as well as any other, must have checks and balances from other branches of City Government. This is a basic, fundemental principal of any democratic form of government. The findings of the Committee are a direct reflection of what happens when the check and balances have been restricted. A. Under the Charter, the Mayor is the Municipal Judge in the absence of the City Judge and the Mayor Pro-Tem in the absence of both the Judge and the Mayor. Both the Mayor and Mayor Pro-Tem have been called upon many times within the last twelve months to act as Municipal Judge in the arraignment of prisoners. This procedure un- doubtedly has been confusing to some members of that department and given cause for speculation as to the interest of these public officials in various cases . The Committee questioned that practice and recommends to the Council that alternative arrangements be made to assist our Municipal Judge so that it would not be necessary for the Mayor or Mayor Pro-Tem to act in that capacity, except in extreme emergencies. B. We also recommend that the policy of the Council to allow members of the Council, as well as ministers ride with patrolmen as observers be restricted so that the policy does not interfere with the functions of the Police Department and serves as orientation only of the operation of the department for Council members. C. We recommend that the City Manager discuss with Mr. Pittman and Mr. Harris of the CPA firm of Pittman and Harris, whether they feel a need to make any further investigation in the audit of citations in the Police Department and Municipal Court and request that they file their report including the determination of whether they found any tickets dismissed by any public official or city employee other than the Municipal Judge. D. We recommend that further investigation of that department be made through the Tarrant County District Attorneys Office , or other state or federal agencies. E. We recommend that the City seek the assistance of the Criminal Justice Council in determining the physical and personnel needs of the Police Department, to ensure that the City is adequately protected with maximum efficiency. V. CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this report has been to make the members of the City Council and the City Manager aware of the areas of problems and concern which were found to be present in the Police Department. There has been no attempt to detail all of the specific information, as this would be an impossible and unreasonable task for the committee to attempt. It is important for the Council to know that a sincere effort was made to conduct the in- vestigation on as fair and impartial basis as possible. In conversation with the Chief of Police areas of concern were made known to him along with the understanding that solutions should be arrived at as quickly and efficiently a as possible. In conclusion the undersigned members of this Police Investigation concur that this report reflects the unanimous findings, recommendations and conclusions of the Committee members. EXECUTED THIS THE Z._ DAY OF , 1976. ..raw